Harry Greb in 1919

[JAB5239]

Compton (Klompton) is probably the worlds biggest expert on Greb. I think he used to post here in an earlier Greb-thread.

He's posts here on occasion. He used to be at ESB regularly, but I haven't been on that site in quite some time. McGrain was another excellent poster with tons of knowledge of Greb, Dempsey and the era in general.

[Willie Pep 229]

He's posts here on occasion. He used to be at ESB regularly, but I haven't been on that site in quite some time. McGrain was another excellent poster with tons of knowledge of Greb, Dempsey and the era in general.

DYK if Compton (Klompton) is the guy over on BoxRec who collects and sells fight films?

Not important but there is a similar name used over there. That guy has a hell of a collection.

[QueensburyRules]

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

- -I know in the courtroom lawyers for the prosecution and defense ain't given an oath and can thus lie thru their teeth with impunity much like politicians if they're clever enough which undoubtedly they are with U their posterboy.

Yeah, U skulked off here like a carrion eating varmint and skulked back on the same way.

End of the day Wills turned down Rickard's tourney offer that Tunney took up and Jack ended up fighting the guy who owned Greb and the guy who beat Wills.

Any honest judge dismisses U case outright save U have no case to begin with. Al U do is in U Moniker

[travestyny]

- -I know in the courtroom lawyers for the prosecution and defense ain't given an oath and can thus lie thru their teeth with impunity much like politicians if they're clever enough which undoubtedly they are with U their posterboy.

Yeah, U skulked off here like a carrion eating varmint and skulked back on the same way.

So the way to fight back against facts is to say people lie?

Like Dempsey lied when he said the only person he ever wanted to fight since he became champion was Wills, right? Obviously that wasn't the truth

End of the day Wills turned down Rickard's tourney offer that Tunney took up and Jack ended up fighting the guy who owned Greb and the guy who beat Wills.

Was that before or after waiting an eon being the most recognized contender being told the same story over and over. Before or after Dempsey broke a valid contract to fight Wills, hmmm? And before or after Dempsey said he will never fight him, hmmm?

Poor Dempsey tired of being dragged to court over not fighting Wills....so as a result of Wills trying to force him to fight, he will never fight Wills. He will never fight the only man he ever wanted to fight since becoming champion because said opponent tried toooooo hard to make the fight. lol. Got it. Perfect logic there.

Any honest judge dismisses U case outright save U have no case to begin with. Al U do is in U Moniker

Any honest judge dismisses the chance that your brain hasn't completely rotted from senility.


But yea, let's just go with judges are liars for 1000, Alex

[Willie Pep 229]

So the way to fight back against facts is to say people lie?

Like Dempsey lied when he said the only person he ever wanted to fight since he became champion was Wills, right? Obviously that wasn't the truth



Was that before or after waiting an eon being the most recognized contender being told the same story over and over. Before or after Dempsey broke a valid contract to fight Wills, hmmm? And before or after Dempsey said he will never fight him, hmmm?

Poor Dempsey tired of being dragged to court over not fighting Wills....so as a result of Wills trying to force him to fight, he will never fight Wills. He will never fight the only man he ever wanted to fight since becoming champion because said opponent tried toooooo hard to make the fight. lol. Got it. Perfect logic there.



Any honest judge dismisses the chance that your brain hasn't completely rotted from senility.


But yea, let's just go with judges are liars for 1000, Alex

Travesty I have to call you on that New York Times post.

That was a (hurt) Dempsey reacting to an event that took place a few days earlier at MSG.

(Before I explain, I believe Harry Wills acted in innocence.)

It was a benefit fight (Milk Fund or something like that). Dempsey was at ringside lending his name to the event but as usual, was at war with the NYSAC (over a Wills fight). The bastards (NYSAC) started off the evening by introducing several star fighters and deliberately refused to acknowledge Dempsey; refused to call the HW Champion into the ring for introduction. It was a petty thing to do.

Later in the evening between fights , Wills, who was sitting in cheaper seats, started to make his way down towards Dempsey at ringside. Everyone watched and applauded/cheered Wills as he descended. (New Yorkers LOVED Harry Wills; he was in NY the uncrowned champion.)

When Wills got down to Dempsey and extended his hand, Dempsey stood up to shake Will's hand and the crowd began to 'boo' Dempsey.

That article you posted was Dempsey in a rage a few days after the indecent. He later rescinded his remarks (after calming down).

But it seems Dempsey believed Wills did it purposely to humiliate him. That's why Dempsey says "after the way he has acted." --- "he tried to have lots of fun at my expense."

I repeat, I have to challenge your use of that article in this discussion.

[travestyny]

Travesty I have to call you on that New York Times post.

That was a (hurt) Dempsey reacting to an event that took place a few days earlier at MSG.

(Before I explain, I believe Harry Wills acted in innocence.)

It was a benefit fight (Milk Fund or something like that). Dempsey was at ringside lending his name to the event but as usual, was at war with the NYSAC (over a Wills fight). The bastards (NYSAC) started off the evening by introducing several star fighters and deliberately refused to acknowledge Dempsey; refused to call the HW Champion into the ring for introduction. It was a petty thing to do.

Later in the evening between fights , Wills, who was sitting in cheaper seats, started to make his way down towards Dempsey at ringside. Everyone watched and applauded/cheered Wills as he descended. (New Yorkers LOVED Harry Wills; he was in NY the uncrowned champion.)

When Wills got down to Dempsey and extended his hand, Dempsey stood up to shake Will's hand and the crowd began to 'boo' Dempsey.

That article you posted was Dempsey in a rage a few days after the indecent. He later rescinded his remarks (after calming down).

But it seems Dempsey believed Wills did it purposely to humiliate him.

I repeat, I have to challenge your use of that article in this discussion.

Your challenge is accepted.


What you are talking about didn't happen a few days before September 12th. It happened an entire month before sometime shortly before August 11th.

And it was Lew Raymond whom Dempsey was mad with over it, since he believes he set him up to have him booed and Wills applauded....by having walked the black guy to the front of the place before going to his seat in the back. Here's the proof.

Though it could have factored into "the way Wills has been acting," there is no indication he is talking about one specific event. Obviously Dempsey was not happy about injunctions, being dragged into court, and having commissions try to strip him for ducking Mr. Wills. What's clear is that this is certainly not a gut reaction to having Wills walked up to the front of a stadium, as you are trying to paint it as.

[QueensburyRules]

So the way to fight back against facts is to say people lie?
:

- -Nah, YOU lie, but nice try ignoring this was one of the most impossible fights to ever be proposed all because Jack ditched Kearns and Rickard to strike out on his own where he finally made some $.

That led to impossible legal entanglements that lawyers on the take excel at, the whole basis of the current injustice of justice system in practice today, ie U!

[travestyny]

- -Nah, YOU lie, but nice try ignoring this was one of the most impossible fights to ever be proposed all because Jack ditched Kearns and Rickard to strike out on his own where he finally made some $.

That led to impossible legal entanglements that lawyers on the take excel at, the whole basis of the current injustice of justice system in practice today, ie U!

Then point out the lie I made. I'm still waiting for that.


The only reason it was impossible is because Dempsey broke the contract and wouldn't fight.

Stop with your slanted opinions. Come at me with some facts, son.

[Willie Pep 229]

Your challenge is accepted.


What you are talking about didn't happen a few days before September 12th. It happened an entire month before sometime shortly before August 11th.

And it was Lew Raymond whom Dempsey was mad with over it, since he believes he set him up to have him booed and Wills applauded....by having walked the black guy to the front of the place before going to his seat in the back. Here's the proof.

Though it could have factored into "the way Wills has been acting," there is no indication he is talking about one specific event. Obviously Dempsey was not happy about injunctions, being dragged into court, and having commissions try to strip him for ducking Mr. Wills. What's clear is that this is certainly not a gut reaction to having Wills walked up to the front of a stadium, as you are trying to paint it as.

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.

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.

[QueensburyRules]

Then point out the lie I made. I'm still waiting for that.


The only reason it was impossible is because Dempsey broke the contract and wouldn't fight.

Stop with your slanted opinions. Come at me with some facts, son.

- -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.