Harry Greb in 1919

[Willie Pep 229]

False. The money was waiting for Dempsey at a bank. A guaranteed check, and Dempsey ran for the hills.




Some of your information is spot on, but some is a bit off. The court only would award minimal damages for the breach of contract because the CAC couldn't prove how much money the fight would bring in, but there was no issue with Dempsey's guarantee.

The contract clearly stated the exact date that the first payment was to be made to Dempsey (August 5th). Dempsey broke the contract before that date arrived. The money was waiting for him in a guaranteed check at a bank on the exact date as stipulated by the contract, meaning the funds were certainly there. Here is the proof.

If that is true then then why did the appellate judge refuse to up the payout in 1932?

You remember, you were the one that gave me the appellate judge's opinion to read.

What happen at the bank was that Fitzsimmons said he had 60k for Dempsey to close the deal. When his check bounced he asked Dempsey to take the $20 as a binder and Dempsey foolishly did. (Dempsey then thought better of it and then ran home to Tex Rickard.)

And once again I remind you that you were the one that turned me on to the source regarding the bounced check and the $20 binder.

So instead of us doing this all over again why don't we just pull up our old posts. In particular see if you can find that appellate court decision. Because that was how it all ended. A big nothing!

In regards to the article you posted from August 1926, remember that was an attempt to get a judge to injunction the (Tunney) fight and they got it. But all that did was drive the fight out of Chicago and into Philadelphia. Once again you were the one who found the injunction (source). I believe it came out of Indiana.

And again regardless of what you want to believe about that article from '26 it meant nothing, that is why the law suit fell flat on its face in '32. I repeat you were the one who came up with the appellate judge's opinion from '32.

Finally you should remember that you and me agreed to 'agree' that Dempsey did in fact breach a contract with Wills, but we also agreed that the backers were never going to be able to make good on their monetary promises.

BTW how have you been? I was wondering if I would see you again. I thought maybe this post might flush you out. LOL

[travestyny]

If that is true then then why did the appellate judge refuse to up the payout in 1932?

You remember, you were the one that gave me the appellate judge's opinion to read.

What happen at the bank was that Fitzsimmons said he had 60k for Dempsey to close the deal. When his check bounced he asked Dempsey to take the $20 as a binder and Dempsey foolishly did. (Dempsey then thought better of it and then ran home to Tex Rickard.)

And once again I remind you that you were the one that turned me on to the source regarding the bounced check and the $20 binder.

So instead of us doing this all over again why don't we just pull up our old posts. In particular see if you can find that appellate court decision. Because that was how it all ended. A big nothing!

In regards to the article you posted from August 1926, remember that was an attempt to get a judge to injunction the fight and they got it. But all that did was drive the fight out of Chicago and into Philadelphia. Once again you were the one who found the injunction (source). I believe it came out of Indiana.

And again regardless of what you want to believe about that article from '26 it meant nothing, that is why the law suit fell flat on its face in '32. I repeat you were the one who came up with the appellate judge's opinion from '32.

Finally you should remember that you and me agreed to 'agree' that Dempsey did in fact breach a contract with Wills, but we also agreed that the backers were never going to be able to make good on their monetary promises.

BTW how have you been? I was wondering if I would see you again. I thought maybe this post might flush you out. LOL

I'm alright, bro. Just maintaining in these crazy times.

I'm confused. If I gave you this information before, why are you saying that the court laughed about the CAC not being able to come up with $800,000. That certainly did not happen.

The case stated the reason that only nominal damages were to be rewarded, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the guarantee. It was argued that the bout would bring in X amount of profit, and the court found that it's impossible to know how much profit would be brought in.

Plaintiff offered to prove by one Mullins that a boxing exhibition between Dempsey and Wills held in the City of Chicago on September 22, 1926, would bring a gross receipt of $3,000,000, and that the expense incurred would be $1,400,000, leaving a net profit to the promoter of $1,600,000. The court properly sustained an objection to this testimony. The character of the undertaking was such that it would be impossible to produce evidence of a probative charac- ter sufficient to establish any amount which could be reasonably ascertainable by reason of the character of the undertaking. The profits from a boxing contest of this character, open to the public, is dependent upon so many different circumstances that they are not susceptible of definite legal determination. The success or failure of such an undertaking depends largely upon the ability of the promoters, the reputation of the contestants and the conditions of the weather at and pri- or to the holding of the contest, the accessibility of the place, the extent of the publicity, the possibility of other and counter attractions and many other questions which would enter into consideration. Such an entertainment lacks utterly the element of stability which exists in regular organized business.

And no, we certainly did not agree that the CAC could not live up to their obligation. Why would I when I showed proof that they did just that?

With all due respect, it seems like you just read into the court case what you wanted to fit your agenda.


The bounced Fitzsimmons check had very little to nothing to do with this situation. Dempsey tried to use that as an excuse to say that there was no contract to transfer since Fitzsimmons bounced the check. Now if you would have said the court laughed at that, I would have agreed with you.

We are unable to conceive upon what theory the defendant could contend that there was no contract, as it appears to be admitted in the proceeding here and bears his signature and the amounts involved are suf- ficiently large to have created a rather lasting impression on the mind of anyone signing such an agreement.

The bounced check was in September 1925. The contract was transferred over and agreed to in March 1926. Dempsey wanted out so he claimed that there was no contract to transfer. The court rejected this idea, being that Dempsey not only signed, but took $10 to bind him to the contract. Dempsey tried to claim that he was owed $125,000 at the time of the contract being signed. You don't have to be a genius to know that no one would be ****** enough to accept $10 to bind you to a contract, and sign on the dotted line at the same time, on the very same day that you are expecting to receive $125,000. Dempsey wanted out by any means necessary. He's lucky that the injunction to stop him from fighting anyone but Wills only applied to Chicago, and even luckier to get away with only nominal damages, but that doesn't change that he ducked this fight and the contract was not only valid, but followed by the plaintiff precisely with guaranteed funds proven to be present.

[Willie Pep 229]

I'm alright, bro. Just maintaining in these crazy times.

I'm confused. If I gave you this information before, why are you saying that the court laughed about the CAC not being able to come up with $800,000. That certainly did not happen.

The case stated the reason that only nominal damages were to be rewarded, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the guarantee. It was argued that the bout would bring in X amount of profit, and the court found that it's impossible to know how much profit would be brought in.

And no, we certainly did not agree that the CAC could not live up to their obligation. Why would I when I showed proof that they did just that?

With all due respect, it seems like you just read into the court case what you wanted to fit your agenda.


The bounced Fitzsimmons check had very little to nothing to do with this situation. Dempsey tried to use that as an excuse to say that there was no contract to transfer since Fitzsimmons bounced the check. Now if you would have said the court laughed at that, I would have agreed with you.




The bounced check was in September 1925. The contract was transferred over and agreed to in March 1926. Dempsey wanted out so he claimed that there was no contract to transfer. The court rejected this idea, being that Dempsey not only signed, but took $10 to bind him to the contract. Dempsey tried to claim that he was owed $125,000 at the time of the contract being signed. You don't have to be a genius to know that no one would be ****** enough to accept $10 to bind you to a contract, and sign on the dotted line at the same time, on the very same day that you are expecting to receive $125,000. Dempsey wanted out by any means necessary. He's lucky that the injunction to stop him from fighting anyone but Wills only applied to Chicago, and even luckier to get away with only nominal damages, but that doesn't change that he ducked this fight and the contract was not only valid, but followed by the plaintiff precisely with guaranteed funds proven to be present.

OK I concede to your point regarding the judge's motive for refusing to increase the settlement being based on the inability to know how much the fight would have made. (Assuming that was the entire opinion you just posted, I remember it being longer.)

But lets get back to what is really the gist of our disagreement.

You want to believe that Dempsey signed that contract and then got cold feet because he was scared of Wills, not becuse the money wasn't forthcoming.

I say Dempsey breached that contract because he realized he was being scammed and that they did not have the money. They wanted to float the money and pay Dempsey after the fight was a success. (And Dempsey had gotten a hell of an education in Shelby as to why you don't do that.) Tex Rickard on the other hand could make a REAL guarantee.

Dempsey bailed on the contract because NO MONEY ever came his way, only promises of money, and I say the judge could see that.

Actually I also misspoke when I stated that it was 'the judge' When in fact it was an appellate judge's decision from when the AC appealed the settlement amount. I don't think we were ever able to find the trial judge's original decision.

If I am wrong that the judge was not concerned about the guarantee (maybe) I still stand on the argument that it was the (inability to come up with the) guarantee that made Dempsey breach the contract.

I say Dempsey was saying "show me the money" and they couldn't, not that he was scared of Wills.

P.S. You in the mood for a different argument? I say that the judges who jobbed Walcott (Louis-Walcott I) did the right thing. I am looking to pick a fight about that one, you interested? What's your opinion?

[travestyny]

OK I concede to your point regarding the judge's motive for refusing to increase the settlement being based on the inability to know how much the fight would have been made. (Assuming that was the entire opinion you just posted, I remember it being longer.)

But lets get back to what is really the gist of our disagreement.

You want to believe that Dempsey signed that contract and then got cold feet because he was scared of Wills, not becuse the money wasn't forthcoming.

I say Dempsey breached that contract because he realized he was being scammed and that they did not have the money. They wanted to float the money and pay Dempsey after the fight was a success. (And Dempsey had gotten a hell of an education in Shelby as to why you don't do that.) Tex Rickard on the other hand could make a REAL guarantee.

Dempsey bailed on the contract because NO MONEY ever came his way, only promises of money, and I say the judge could see that.

Actually I also misspoke when I stated that it was 'the judge' When in fact it was an appellate judge's decision from when the AC appealed the settlement amount. I don't think we were ever able to find the trial judge's original decision.

If I am wrong that the judge was not concerned about the guarantee (maybe) I still stand on the argument that it was the (inability to come up with the) guarantee that made Dempsey breach the contract.

I say Dempsey was saying "show me the money" and they couldn't, not that he was scared of Wills.

Bro, I just posted to you that the money was there. I don't know what else to say to you about that. I sent it to you in the first post.


Beyond that, it was stipulated in the contract that he could keep the $300,000 if for any reason the fight didn't come off.


You are making it up out of nowhere that it was a scam. A valid contract specifically said, if the fight doesn't materialize, here is a free $300,000.

So what we have is the money being there EXACTLY when the plantiff said it would be. EXACTLY when the contract stipulated, as Dempsey himself agreed to when he signed the contract. AND we have the fact that the contract said he could keep $300,000 for nothing if the fight didn't occur.


I know you don't want to believe it was a duck, but it was a duck. Do you need proof that they said he can keep the $300,000. I can pull it up for you if you want, I'm sure.


I'm not hiding anything from you. This is all documented. If you need to see the court case again, just look up Chicago Coliseum Club vs. Dempsey. It's a pretty famous case, being that it's often discussed in law schools.

[Willie Pep 229]

Bro, I just posted to you that the money was there. I don't know what else to say to you about that. I sent it to you in the first post.


Beyond that, it was stipulated in the contract that he could keep the $300,000 if for any reason the fight didn't come off.


You are making it up out of nowhere that it was a scam. A valid contract specifically said, if the fight doesn't materialize, here is a free $300,000.

So what we have is the money being there EXACTLY when the plantiff said it would be. EXACTLY when the contract stipulated, as Dempsey himself agreed to when he signed the contract. AND we have the fact that the contract said he could keep $300,000 for nothing if the fight didn't occur.


I know you don't want to believe it was a duck, but it was a duck. Do you need proof that they said he can keep the $300,000. I can pull it up for you if you want, I'm sure.

No the money wasn't there they gave him $20!

[Willie Pep 229]

Bro, I just posted to you that the money was there. I don't know what else to say to you about that. I sent it to you in the first post.


Beyond that, it was stipulated in the contract that he could keep the $300,000 if for any reason the fight didn't come off.


You are making it up out of nowhere that it was a scam. A valid contract specifically said, if the fight doesn't materialize, here is a free $300,000.

So what we have is the money being there EXACTLY when the plantiff said it would be. EXACTLY when the contract stipulated, as Dempsey himself agreed to when he signed the contract. AND we have the fact that the contract said he could keep $300,000 for nothing if the fight didn't occur.


I know you don't want to believe it was a duck, but it was a duck. Do you need proof that they said he can keep the $300,000. I can pull it up for you if you want, I'm sure.


I'm not hiding anything from you. This is all documented. If you need to see the court case again, just look up Chicago Coliseum Club vs. Dempsey. It's a pretty famous case, being that it's often discussed in law schools.

The contract is the scam! -- When it came time to give Dempsey money the 60K check bounced.

[travestyny]

No the money wasn't there they gave him $20!

OMG. Dude.


Dempsey agreed that he would be paid $300,000 on August 5th, and $500,000 10 days before the fight.

That's the contract he signed.


You did see where I posted that a guarantee check for $300,000 was posted on August 5th, right????

This isn't rocket science, bro.

[travestyny]

The contract is the scam! -- When it came time to give Dempsey money the 60K check bounced.

NO, it did not!

You are giving false information. The CAC did not bounce a check to him. Fitzsimmons bounced a check to him before the CAC had anything to do with Dempsey. It occurred in September of 1925.


You are making me repeat things I've already said.



If the contract was a scam, why the hell would the court say it was valid and binding, award damages (even nominal damages), and issue an injunction to stop Dempsey from fighting Tunney??? It would make no sense for a court to side with a scam contract.


The truth is the truth. We can't change it just because you love Dempsey, bro. Everything I've stated I can and have backed up. It's all right in front of your eyes. It need not make you feel differently about Dempsey and doesn't make him a lesser boxer, but those are the facts.

[travestyny]

Willie Pep 229 I will say this for the record.


I don't believe that Dempsey feared Wills specifically. I don't even really doubt that he believed he could beat him.

What I think he was afraid of is the possibility of losing to a black fighter and what it would do to his legacy. I don't think he wanted any part of his legacy possibly going down like Jim Jefferies, who now is mostly just a footnote to Jack Johnson's story. I believe that's why he avoided black fighters after becoming champ, and why he left the ring refusing to fight Joe Jeannette for a war charity in New York City while claiming he would fight any TWO white boxers instead.


Of course, that's only my opinion.

[crold1]

Excellent piece by boxingscenes own Cliff Rold:

https://www.boxingscene.com/boxing-w...b-1919--147680

Glad you enjoyed. Reading Compton's massive bio now. It's like a McCullough Pres bio. I'll review that as well when I'm done.