Harry Greb in 1919

[billeau2]

I agree with that. I think he got off easy. Perhaps the biggest victory for the plaintiff was getting the injunction to stop Dempsey from fighting anyone except Wills, but then it couldn't be enforced in other states.

I think the reason that this case is often studied at law schools is to show that you can have one case that turns out this way for nominal damages, and another case where it seems very similar, but have a completely opposite result. What I learned in law school is that you can pretty much argue anything and you never know what you will get in the end

Sure seems that way (getting off easy)! Yes the enforcement...Still get that problem today with licensing, where one state will, another won't enforce something.

I didn't know this case was studied, it makes sense...I just knew it sounded strange.

[billeau2]

He's a certified weirdo. I've noticed that the majority of the people that he writes to don't bother responding to his cryptic messages, likely because they make no sense.

It makes sense to people who smear feces on the wall and have arguments with imaginery associates.

[Rusty Tromboni]

All you gotta do is prove me wrong, dumbo.


I have FACTS, and EVERYTHING DOCUMENTED.

Those who have disagreed with me, have opinion. And there are also those who agree with me, as Jab has stated, as well as Klompton when he was around these parts. Klompton who has actually written books on these matters.


If you want to step up and place your facts against mine, let's do it. It will be fun to stomp you out for the 50732572507th time


How about we begin with question #1.

Is it a fact that a US Court found that Dempsey signed a legal contract to fight Wills and then broke that contract?

Don't duck it

No one is dis*****g that you believe you have facts. It's your interpretation of them and the importance that you place upon them that leads you to perpetual conflict.

Willie has constantly corrected you throughout this post. Jab and Klompton have not once aided you in argument.

In a different thread your argument was built off a comment made by Dempsey regarding his sparring partner & friend when recalling their fight years before. The same article which quoted Dempsey quoted said rising partner years later who was effusive in praise of Dempsey.


Then there was the time when you tried to argue Sullivan dodged Peter Jackson. Turns out Sullivan - who was virtually retired and living it up - accepted Jackson's challenge. But Jackson got uppity about Sullivan's terms.

Do you spot a trend?

You collect a bunch of material; conflate its meaning; plead your case; fail to get the response you desire; scream ; get corrected; scream even louder; get ridiculed; tell the world they're crazy, and you're the only sane one. Rinse and Repeat.

[Willie Pep 229]

Sure seems that way (getting off easy)! Yes the enforcement...Still get that problem today with licensing, where one state will, another won't enforce something.

I didn't know this case was studied, it makes sense...I just knew it sounded strange.

This is a digression . . . I am not so sure that this is a bad thing.

Looking back to the Ali ban, it was the State of Georgia's willingness to buck the Federal government's ban (Quarry fight) by offering Ali a licence to fight while the case was still under appeal in the Supreme Court.

Whether Georgia's defiance had any real affect on the court's decision is impossible to say, but it likely weighted on the back of the Court's mind that they had to address the problem or the States would embarrass them by allowing Ali to, in the interim, fight.

Our fragmented federal system has often served as a stop-gap against governmental tyranny.

Of course if you are pro-Wills then you say that justice was thwarted, but if you are pro-Dempsey then you say it stopped the court from letting Chicago scammers use a 'restraint of trade' ruse to fleece Dempsey.

Sometimes we like States' Rights sometimes we don't.

[travestyny]

Wait a minute buddy, your post proves my point, doesn't it?

Thanks for pointing out the time frame, I stand corrected, but days or a month isn't the issue, the issue is that Dempsey IS NOT referencing the color line, he is talking about an incident he considered personal.

Uh, nope. It doesn't prove your point. You said it was a few days after an event that had him fuming and gave a spur of the moment statement. Now you're saying it proves your point...? I fail to see how that is possible.

When did I say it was about the color line. Of course it was personal. Because he was dragging him to court, having injunctions issued, and he's referring to the Tunney fight not being allowed in New York. This is ALL about Wills trying to prevent him from fighting anyone but Wills!

The (public) threat to strip him (by the NYSAC) took place back in 1922, and yes the injunctions were never ending.

But I stand on my point and both those articles show us that Dempsey was reacting to the personal insult from that night.

Uh....nope. It doesn't prove that it was about that night. I don't know how you draw that conclusion. lol. He clearly stated, "He had the fight thrown out of New York." What do you think that was about? Wills walking down to ringside had the Tunney fight thrown out of new York????? It makes absolutely no sense, bruh!

[travestyny]

- -Been at this longer than your candied, lawyered up keister.

Why throw pearls to swine?

You're only here to make trouble, ie your moniker.

If sharing facts is making trouble.....lol.


Stop being a pansy. The facts won't hurt you


Still waiting for you to say anything I got wrong or provide any facts. You got anything at all? Anything?????

[travestyny]

No one is dis*****g that you believe you have facts. It's your interpretation of them and the importance that you place upon them that leads you to perpetual conflict.

Willie has constantly corrected you throughout this post. Jab and Klompton have not once aided you in argument.

Then why can't I get you to step up and show me where I've been corrected. Been waiting. Wassupppp? Waitinggggggg!!!!!!

In a different thread your argument was built off a comment made by Dempsey regarding his sparring partner & friend when recalling their fight years before. The same article which quoted Dempsey quoted said rising partner years later who was effusive in praise of Dempsey.

Then there was the time when you tried to argue Sullivan dodged Peter Jackson. Turns out Sullivan - who was virtually retired and living it up - accepted Jackson's challenge. But Jackson got uppity about Sullivan's terms.

LMAOOO. Dude, you already got destroyed over Sullivan. I made a thread and all you did was cry and claim you could no longer find your AOL source Everyone knows that Sully ducked Mr. Jackson. Cry yourself a river over it

Do you spot a trend?

I Sure do. The trend is me stomping you out.

You collect a bunch of material; conflate its meaning; plead your case; fail to get the response you desire; scream ; get corrected; scream even louder; get ridiculed; tell the world they're crazy, and you're the only sane one. Rinse and Repeat.

Uh, nope. I'm just enjoying making posters like you face the facts that you can't handle


No spin. Why don't you answer the question:

IS IT A FACT THAT DEMPSEY BROKE A VALID CONTRACT TO FACE WILLS, THE ONLY MAN HE EVER WANTED TO FACE SINCE BECOMING CHAMPION, ACCORDING TO HIM?


Waitiinggggggg...

[Willie Pep 229]

Uh, nope. It doesn't prove your point. You said it was a few days after an event that had him fuming and gave a spur of the moment statement. Now you're saying it proves your point...? I fail to see how that is possible.

When did I say it was about the color line. Of course it was personal. Because he was dragging him to court, having injunctions issued, and he's referring to the Tunney fight not being allowed in New York. This is ALL about Wills trying to prevent him from fighting anyone but Wills!




Uh....nope. It doesn't prove that it was about that night. I don't know how you draw that conclusion. lol. He clearly stated, "He had the fight thrown out of New York." What do you think that was about? Wills walking down to ringside had the Tunney fight thrown out of new York????? It makes absolutely no sense, bruh!

No that is just your take on it. They (NYSAC and Will's people) had been doing all those things to Dempsey all the way back to 1922.

This was different, this was the first time Dempsey saw it as personal. This is the first time Dempsey gets angry.

Look at the wording of those articles you posted, all personal not legal concerns. It was the MSG event that set Dempsey off. You just want to believe it was the legal issues.

You want the legal issues to be more than they actually were because you think that makes them sound profound, when in fact they were just scams.

That is why none of it made it to trial until the 1930s when it was actually no longer relevant, and why the settlement was so pathetic.

You make way too big a deal about this contract when in fact this kind of crap (breached contracts) in prize fighting, was common.

I'll show you a 1922 article where Dempsey and Kearns announce they have a Carpentier rematch signed, and would fight in Paris so long as Carpentier gets by Ted Kid Lewis. But instead they just walked away from it and left Carpentier to lose his title to Siki.

You are making too big a deal out of just another breached boxing contract. That was business as usual.

What motivated that first Dempsey rant you posted was that Dempsey was personally offended at what happened at the Garden (a month earlier, not days earlier, OK? [wink]).

[travestyny]

No that is just your take on it. They (NYSAC and Will's people) had been doing all those things to Dempsey all the way back to 1922.

This was different, this was the first time Dempsey saw it as personal. This is the first time Dempsey gets angry.

Look at the wording of those articles you posted, all personal not legal concerns. It was the MSG event that set Dempsey off. You just want to believe it was the legal issues.

Based on what? It NEVER mentions ANYTHING about what happened OVER A MONTH AGO.

Not only that, HE MENTIONS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT BOTHERED HIM. He talked about the fight being not allowed in New York. So how is that about Wills walking around a boxing ring?????

You want the legal issues to be more than they actually were because you think that makes them sound profound, when in fact they were just scams.

That is why none of it made it to trial until the 1930s when it was actually no longer relevant, and why the settlement was so pathetic.

You mean that's why the court found that Dempsey broke the contract and issued an injunction that wouldn't allow the Tunney fight to take place in Chicago?

Again, you make no sense. You brought up an event from a month earlier and speculated about it, and you can't even be man enough to admit you were wrong.

You make way too big a deal about this contract when in fact this kind of crap (breached contracts) in prize fighting, was common.

I'll show you a 1922 article where Dempsey and Kearns announce they have a Carpentier rematch signed, and would fight in Paris so long as Carpentier gets by Ted Kid Lewis. But instead they just walked away from it and left Carpentier to lose his title to Siki.

You are making too big a deal out of just another breached boxing contract. That was business as usual.

What motivated that first Dempsey rant you posted was that Dempsey was personally offended at what happened at the Garden (a month earlier, not days earlier, OK? [wink]).

WRONG.

Give me the proof that they blamed Wills for it. I already showed you that Dempsey blamed Raymond. Do you actually need more proof? Have at it.

Here is Tex Richard also blaming Raymond for the event, IN IT'S ENTIRETY.

And here is what was going on 4 days before Dempsey's statement.

So they were in court trying to block Dempsey from fighting anyone but Wills on September 8th. On September 12th Dempsey says Wills will never get a shot after how he's been acting and mentions the Tunney fight not being allowed in New York....

And you think this is about Wills being walked ringside????

Come on. It's time for you to give up


The fact that you blamed the entire thing on Wills and didn't mention Lew Reynolds at all shows that you weren't as informed as you thought, buddy.


Yet again, that's me backing up everything I say with solid information and nothing coming back except your own opinions. You claimed it was a gut reaction, and when I proved that wrong, now you say it proves your point because it was a whole month before. That doesn't even follow logic

[billeau2]

This is a digression . . . I am not so sure that this is a bad thing.

Looking back to the Ali ban, it was the State of Georgia's willingness to buck the Federal government's ban (Quarry fight) by offering Ali a licence to fight while the case was still under appeal in the Supreme Court.

Whether Georgia's defiance had any real affect on the court's decision is impossible to say, but it likely weighted on the back of the Court's mind that they had to address the problem or the States would embarrass them by allowing Ali to, in the interim, fight.

Our fragmented federal system has often served as a stop-gap against governmental tyranny.

Of course if you are pro-Wills then you say that justice was thwarted, but if you are pro-Dempsey then you say it stopped the court from letting Chicago scammers use a 'restraint of trade' ruse to fleece Dempsey.

Sometimes we like States' Rights sometimes we don't.

My own belief is that the very tension between those elements of the state versus the federal Gov is what makes a healthy system. We need elements of both and challenges to the authority of each to be healthy. If either one dominates, it creates problems.

For example, when the feds went after the ranchers in Nevada it was an interesting situation. The government had originally given the older generations of ranchers grazing rights that came from Spanish land grants. It is also common practice in rural areas where grazing animals are kept, to let ranchers graze their animals to keep the land healthy and fertile.

The governments position was that grazing fees were necessary so that federal money could go to the entire country... So in effect a rancher was supposed to pay for land grazing that he had been promised, so addiction centers in Philadelphia (for example) could share in the bounty of that resource. I will not even give my rather strong opinion regarding this incident so much as say, it is a classic example of a situation where the state could decide to defend the ranchers, or not... The state has an interest in cowboys and grazing, because that is what a lot of Nevada is about. The government has no such interest, and there you have it, the rest is history.

I think that during times of crisis like with the virus, that is when I want to see the government that has taxed me, demanded that I educate my kids according to their institutions, go into operation and protect people. I will give a government intent on doing right more sway under those conditions. on the other hand, when deciding where to live, raise a family, I like the idea that different states offer different alternatives. So can buy a mansion and pay no tax in Nevada, and look at cow patties, or buy a closet near Central Park NYC and look at the city lights, and pay a fortune for the privalege and it is up to me!