-
-
[QUOTE=travestyny;20481253]I think a bounced check very well could have invalidated the entire thing. I don't know for sure. The problem is the bounced check took place months before this contract was even signed. It had nothing to do with what happened in this case.
The bounced check was regarding Fitz in September 1925. The contract that was reviewed in court was signed March 1926. It was just Dempsey's lawyers excuse to get him out of the fight and it failed in court.
The court even stated specifically that the past dealings with Fitz had no bearing on the case.
I bet that when the contract is written a personal check would not be acceptable. I was thinking about this... You could use a personal check as a deposit, while you procured a bank check. Thats my guess.
I was thinking of this as separate from the Dempsey situation. But it seems like it might be something a judge would consider in the following way: "If Dempsey had a transaction before the contract, involving a personal check, it does not make sense that this was considered good consideration. If they are at the bank? why not simply get a bank check?"
I still cannot see how a jury was used in this trial.Comment
-
There are in fact two things that would make the initial contract with Fitz Voidable.
1) The consideration.
2) The new contract making the old contract null and void. Now...if both contracts were written (Constructive notice) this puts them equal in terms of enforcement because a written contract takes precedence over a verbal agreement.
Furthermore, Fitz would have had to contest the new contract, Not Dempsey. Fitz would have been the aggrieved party and would have had to show that a bounced check could be considered good funds.
Am I missing something here?Comment
-
Better resume!?!?!?!?
Hahahaha!
Your comedy's better than your legendary deep-throating!
Seriously, you've got me in pain from laughter.
Funny you can't even manage to research on BoxRec (failed miserably, actually), but expect us to entrust your attempt at research on historical matters.
Maybe learn to put the horse before the cart?Comment
-
-
Sorry for the delay. I've never looked much into the Fitzsimmons dealings because it was clear to me that it was only an excuse in a last ditch effort to get out of the fight. So I wasn't sure what was consideration for it exactly and the other details. The only thing I knew is that the story going around the interwebs was that it took place September 1925.
After reading your posts, I decided to look into it using my favorite source, the NYTs. Turns out that the bounced check had even less to do with this than I thought.
Apparently, the exact date that Dempsey let everyone know the money wasn't forthcoming was November 27th, 1925.
On December 19th, Dempsey declared that the fight was off, but said that Fitz had another offer that he was considering.
On December 21st, Dempsey signed new articles. New forfeits were posted as well. It was this that was transferred to the CAC.
This should stop all of the talk of a bounced check. Here's the proof.
Dec. 19th -- Fight off for failed payment
Dec. 21st -- New Articles Signed
Dempsey really had no excuse. He signed new articles 2 days after the bounced check debacle was revealed, then signed to the contract with CAC in March. Then, he broke the contract. That's really all there is to it.
Comment
-
Good thing you don't have credibility because you would have lost it here.
Langford most certainly is NOT better than "anyone on Dempsey's resume". Your suggestion as much shows just how little you know about Boxing; so much so that it seems unlikely you even watch it.
In fact, out of respect Dempsey passed on fighting Langford.
Wills conversely didn't simply beat Langford, he struggled with him, too. Langford was advanced in age and obviously a bit smaller and fatter than Wills but have Wills all he could handle (including a KO). So while Wills finally won out thanks to the assistance of Father Time, that series speaks more to the achievement of Langford than of Wills.
Now, onto the men who were better than Langford:
Dempsey made short work of two Heavyweight champions.
One of those Champs pelted Wills.
The other was a titan of a man who'd KO'd a man who'd battered Langford.
Gibbons was a Light Heavyweight Champion.
Tunney is the best fighter we have on film below 200 pounds (besides Dempsey, himself). Wills wanted no part of Tunney. You can't blame him. If he struggled with an old Langford he had no hope against Gene Tunney.
You could easily say Firpo is inferior to Langford. I'm OK with that. But the WAY Jack annihilated him was absolutely amazing. Even in the Heavyweight division we've seen few performances like that.
Firpo was a finished fighter after that fight. Wills was a vulture setting in on his remains. This was no longer The Raging Bull of the Pampas. This was his butchered carcass. It was supposed to be an easy win for Wills too boost his standing and convince the world of his rightful place in the ring across from Dempsey. You'd expect a career-defining performance, right?
He fumbled through the fight miserably. Completely underwhelming. Firpo was little more than a punching bag that night, and still Wills bombed his audition.
Willard, Gibbons, Firpo, Sharkey, Tunney... all fighters better Wills. All fights, as shown on film, where Jack demonstrated more skill than Langford or Wills could ever hope to possess.Last edited by Rusty Tromboni; 03-27-2020, 01:40 AM.Comment
-
Find me a reputable list that ranks Gibbons ahead of Langford.
I'll wait
As for Tunney, Dempsey lost. Did you want to put fighters that he only lost to on his resume??? Damn...McGregor has a hell of a resume in boxing, doesn't he, dumbo?!
By the way, here's a great read for you to cry about
#12 Harry Wills (68-9-3; Newspaper Decisions 19-1-3)
One fight Jack Dempsey failed to take that could never be held against him was with Sam Langford. “He’s too good for me right now,” Dempsey is said to have protested. “I need more experience before I take on someone that good.” The year was 1916 and by BoxRec, Dempsey was 19-1-5.
Two years previously Harry Wills stepped into the ring with Sam Langford and boxed a ten-round newspaper draw. BoxRec lists him at 12-1-2 going into that fight. One source has him edging Langford in seven of ten rounds at a time when he had less experience than Dempsey felt he needed to even fight the terrifying “Black Death.” Incredibly, another ten-round draw followed against another elite veteran in Joe Jeannette (#29). Wills then dropped and dominated Willie Meehan, who was about to get into the business of beating Jack Dempsey over four rounds before Langford and Sam McVey (#30) restored the natural dominance of that era’s veterans over its prospects by stopping and outpointing him respectively. 1914 was over. In September of 1915, Wills met and outpointed Sam McVey over twelve rounds; in the following ten years, he lost one fight by disqualification, pulled out of one fight due to a broken wrist, was stopped once by Sam Langford in the nineteenth round and that was it; that was all – the only legitimate loss he suffered was at the hands of the man who Dempsey would duck that same year, of whom he admitted he was terrified. The run was 43-3-1 and only one of the losses was really legitimate. He beat:
Charley Weinert, Luis Firpo, Tut Jackson, Jeff Clark, Bill Tate, Denver Ed Martin, Gunboat Smith, Fred Fulton, Jim Johnson, Sam McVey, Joe Jeannette, Kid Norfolk and John Lester Johnson. He beat many of them on multiple occasions and he beat many of them with great ease, including Firpo who nearly stopped the Champion and John Lester Johnson who boxed a draw with him. Most importantly of all he absolutely mastered Sam Langford, going 5-1 against him for 1915 and 1916.
Many have sought to stress that Langford was getting older at this point and perhaps beginning to creak. I would agree that he was. But I would also point out that the first time Wills beat Langford, he had little more experience than Dempsey had when he ducked him; in other words, Wills, like Dempsey, was improving vastly as a fighter during the series and that this may be the more significant factor.
I do not say that Wills is locked above Dempsey; but I do say that he had greater longevity, defeated better fighters, and that in Langford he dominated a fighter that, although aging, was at least approaching the class of Dempsey, as well as being rather like him in note of danger. For his part, Dempsey never defeated a heavyweight as special as Wills, nor even one as special as Langford – and perhaps not one as special as the aging McVey, or Jeannette for that matter. For these reasons, I prefer Wills over Dempsey here, even though it was Dempsey who held the title.
The fact that they never met in the ring is perhaps boxing’s single greatest failure and had they done so, the victor likely would have ranked as high as #3 here – for the record, I would favor Dempsey.
But I believe history should favor Wills.
Last edited by travestyny; 03-27-2020, 01:54 AM.Comment
Tweet
Comment