Marciano unbeatable?

[QueensburyRules]

--- My dearest Tyny one, YOU blocked me from YOUR OWN thread.

Biggest sissy around these parts, but great comedy!

[QueensburyRules]

BBC's story never changed.

From the New York Times: June 19th, 1963.

The glove wasn't changed.

--- Nobody here ever claimed the glove was changed, but angelo claimed he tore open the glove to delay the fight.

Thick as a brick are you now?

You never told us what grade you're in, 3rd maybe?

[HOUDINI563]

Dundee could do whatever he wanted but it does not change the fact that nothing he did gave Ali an extended rest in between rounds. Period.

[travestyny]

--- Nobody here ever claimed the glove was changed, but angelo claimed he tore open the glove to delay the fight.

Thick as a brick are you now?

You never told us what grade you're in, 3rd maybe?

Explain to us where the video was spliced at. We're still waiting.


You've embarrassed yourself again, Queenie. Just like when you ran from me about Dempsey breaking that contract. Aint that right

[travestyny]

--- My dearest Tyny one, YOU blocked me from YOUR OWN thread.

Biggest sissy around these parts, but great comedy!

I blocked you after I asked you the same question about 8 times and you couldn't answer, h@mo. You came back with only elementary school insults! And this was after I asked everyone to keep it civil. Even those who didn't agree who got a bit heated kept it civil. You were the only pvssy who ducked and dodged every single question because the truth hurts.

But hey, if you want to try and answer the question again, I'm all ears.

Did Dempsey break that contract vs. Wills? Don't bltch out like you did about 8 times now, Queenie.

[QueensburyRules]

I blocked you after I asked you the same question about 8 times and you couldn't answer, h@mo. You came back with only elementary school insults! And this was after I asked everyone to keep it civil. Even those who didn't agree who got a bit heated kept it civil. You were the only pvssy who ducked and dodged every single question because the truth hurts.

But hey, if you want to try and answer the question again, I'm all ears.

Did Dempsey break that contract vs. Wills? Don't bltch out like you did about 8 times now, Queenie.

--- Sweetiepie, did Wills break the contract?

He got his money and Dempsey got none cause Wills broke the Bank. How's your busted up little pinkie toe coming along?

What grade are you in? We'd like to tailor our responses more appropriately to your maturity level, and so far the 3rd grades have it.

[Dempsey-Louis]

Did Dempsey break that contract vs. Wills? Don't bltch out like you did about 8 times now, Queenie.

No, Dempsey did not break the contract vs. Wills.

All contracts have a 'good faith clause' even if they don't have a good faith clause. Once the promoter(s) bounced the check, the contract was void.

You and I contract for home repair . . . I go out and buy the materials . . . you give me a deposit check, (for far less than you promised in the contract) . . . it bounces . . . you admit to me that you don't actually have the deposit money right now and ask me to wait . . . but not to do any other work until you get back to me . . .

and when I walk away from this supposed contract we signed, would you really BS yourself into believing I broke the contract?

You don't not get multiple tries to show good faith, that's what the deposit check is for: 'to show good faith.'

The minute you bounced that check your contract with me was void, and no court in America would force me to honor it.

The promoter broke the contract with Dempsey!

[travestyny]

--- Sweetiepie, did Wills break the contract?

He got his money and Dempsey got none cause Wills broke the Bank. How's your busted up little pinkie toe coming along?

What grade are you in? We'd like to tailor our responses more appropriately to your maturity level, and so far the 3rd grades have it.

LMAO. Was that your answer to the question????? Or is that more deflecting from you


To answer your question, because I don't have to duck like a bltch called Queenie, Wills did NOT break the contract.

Now let's try this for the 9th time. Did Dempsey break that contract? Why can't you answer, Queenie? Does it hurt your feelings?


As for your question about my education, you won't win that battle either. I'm Ivy League educated, son. You're still working on your GED, obviously

[travestyny]

No, Dempsey did not break the contract vs. Wills.

All contracts have a 'good faith clause' even if they don't have a good faith clause. Once the promoter(s) bounced the check, the contract was void.

You and I contract for home repair . . . I go out and buy the materials . . . you give me a deposit check, (for far less than you promised in the contract) . . . it bounces . . . you admit to me that you don't actually have the deposit money right now and ask me to wait . . . but not to do any other work until you get back to me . . .

and when I walk away from this supposed contract we signed, would you really BS yourself into believing I broke the contract?

You don't not get multiple tries to show good faith, that's what the deposit check is for: 'to show good faith.'

The minute you bounced that check your contract with me was void, and no court in America would force me to honor it.

The promoter broke the contract with Dempsey!

FALSE.

The promoter (Fitzsimmons) broke his original fight contract with Dempsey in September of the previous year. Dempsey then signed a new fight contract in March, to be handled by a DIFFERENT PROMOTER (Chicago Coliseum Club). The court found that Dempsey broke this contract, and thus issued an injunction for Dempsey to not fight any other fighter. The Chicago Coliseum Club never broke this contract and in fact, carried out all promises with respect to the contract. If Dempsey was found to have not broke the contract, an injunction would have never been issued, don't you think?

The court puts an end to all of this noise in its own words:

Under the evidence in the record in this proceeding there appears to have been a valid subsisting agreement between the plaintiff and Dempsey, in which Dempsey was to perform according to the terms of the agreement and which he refused to do, and the plaintiff, as a matter of law, was entitled at least to nominal damages. For this reason, if for no other, judgment should have been for the plaintiff.

After the clear breach of contract by the defendant, the plaintiff proceeded with this character of litigation at its own risk.
https://casetext.com/case/chicago-co...club-v-dempsey

[Dempsey-Louis]

FALSE.

The promoter (Fitzsimmons) broke his original fight contract with Dempsey in September of the previous year. Dempsey then signed a new fight contract in March, to be handled by a DIFFERENT PROMOTER (Chicago Coliseum Club). The court found that Dempsey broke this contract, and thus issued an injunction for Dempsey to not fight any other fighter. The Chicago Coliseum Club never broke this contract and in fact, carried out all promises with respect to the contract. If Dempsey was found to have not broke the contract, an injunction would have never been issued, don't you think?

The court puts an end to all of this noise in its own words:

Why then did the bounced check become a court issue if it was a new contract? (1933); I thought Fitzsimmons tried to sell the original contract to the Chicago Club because he couldn't raise the money; which again free's Dempsey from any obligation, his contract was with Fitzsimmons.

I am beginning to believe that these guys were gangsters and Dempsey realized he was being played.

As far as an injunction goes: the Court issued the injunction exactly for the reason that nothing yet had been found. - There has to be a trial before the Court can 'find' anything. Besides like I have said before, it was a Chicago judge (at the height of Chicago's corruption,) a bought judge trying to protect Chicago's gangster interests, and no surprise it went no where because it had no legal standing.

If they really had a case they would have brought it to federal court and then the injunction would have been able to stop the fight in Phily; but they didn't, because outside of Chicago's corrupt courts they couldn't get a hearing. (Later I believe Dempsey used 'diversity jurisdiction' to get the case moved into federal court (1933), where, without the support of a corrupt Chicago judge, it was dismissed as frivolous, right?)

You want to believe this was Dempsey ducking Wills, but it is obvious that Dempsey didn't (couldn't) trust Fitzsimmons or Chicago (the whole damn city); for pete's sake it was Chicago in 1926 one year before the Saint Valentine Massacre (the real one) went un-investigated.

This just wasn't about Dempsey ducking Wills; you want to believe that, then look at 1922, it's a better argument.

I can even make the argument: if Dempsey really wanted to duck Wills, why sign anything at all?