Harry Greb in 1919

[travestyny]

Willie Pep 229


This will put an end to your latest spin. Sorry buddy.


The incident with Wills being "paraded" ringside was shortly before August 11th.

You claimed that Dempsey, reacting to that, decided to never give Wills a shot.


Yet here Dempsey is on August 18th.....about a week later, saying he will demand the fight after Tunney....but of course, only for a winner take all bout, which Wills manager called out as being bullshlt since it was well know that such a fight would be illegal. Not only that, but the dude Dempsey claimed to have given money to for the winner takes all fight claims he was never given any money at all. But check it out:

And if you are doubting the date, here is the full article with date.

So I guess now you're going to say that he was enraged with Wills when it happened, he got over it a week later, and then 3 weeks later he was enraged by it again, right?


Just admit you are wrong. It would be a classy and upstanding thing to do.


So yea um....your timetable is a bit off, don't you think?

[billeau2]

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



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



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



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...

I think some of the problem is what it means to "break a contract." People are arguing that the terms of the contract were illegitimized because of the party to the contract. It does not work that way though...

Contracts have elements that are there, or not... Its kind of like being "almost pregnant." There is no issue that a contract was broken by Dempsey folks. regardless of what one thinks of one poster, or another.

Heres what people should realize:

1) Was the contract voidable? Dempsey is not a minor, emancipated or not... and presumably (Dempsey never argued to the contrary) it was not signed under duress. At the time of the signing a prize fight was legal, so the contract was not for an illegal act which would have made it voidable. So the contract was enforcable.

2) Dempsey gave consideration.

One can argue that maybe it was ****** to sign, maybe Dempsey saw the contract as an option... he could get out of and get paid because of other events that affected his self interest. But again, this does not make it unenforcable. Options are contracts, often used as insurance.

3) Bad contracts are written everyday and upheld when they are legal.

Dempsey may have been manipulated by others in his camp, happens all the time in boxing... But a contract is either legal, enforcable, or not.

If I got T to sign a contract where I would pay him Rusty's Trombone, if he would clean off the queenb's flying pigs off my roof... its not en enforcable contract. If Dempsey gives a mere 10 dollars of consideration, it may seem like flying pigs, but as long as the other party, at arm's length accepts it, its legit.

What many of you are arguing are details about the contract that have nothing to do with its legal standing. Maybe the contract was fronted by a criminal gang, maybe Dempsey was tricked about the details of the contract... It does not really matter.

The one strange thing about the contract is the reward given... But as T said, that instance goes to show how arbitrary these awards can be.

[travestyny]

I think some of the problem is what it means to "break a contract." People are arguing that the terms of the contract were illegitimized because of the party to the contract. It does not work that way though...

Contracts have elements that are there, or not... Its kind of like being "almost pregnant." There is no issue that a contract was broken by Dempsey folks. regardless of what one thinks of one poster, or another.

Heres what people should realize:

1) Was the contract voidable? Dempsey is not a minor, emancipated or not... and presumably (Dempsey never argued to the contrary) it was not signed under duress. At the time of the signing a prize fight was legal, so the contract was not for an illegal act which would have made it voidable. So the contract was enforcable.

2) Dempsey gave consideration.

One can argue that maybe it was ****** to sign, maybe Dempsey saw the contract as an option... he could get out of and get paid because of other events that affected his self interest. But again, this does not make it unenforcable. Options are contracts, often used as insurance.

3) Bad contracts are written everyday and upheld when they are legal.

Dempsey may have been manipulated by others in his camp, happens all the time in boxing... But a contract is either legal, enforcable, or not.

If I got T to sign a contract where I would pay him Rusty's Trombone, if he would clean off the queenb's flying pigs off my roof... its not en enforcable contract. If Dempsey gives a mere 10 dollars of consideration, it may seem like flying pigs, but as long as the other party, at arm's length accepts it, its legit.

What many of you are arguing are details about the contract that have nothing to do with its legal standing. Maybe the contract was fronted by a criminal gang, maybe Dempsey was tricked about the details of the contract... It does not really matter.

The one strange thing about the contract is the reward given... But as T said, that instance goes to show how arbitrary these awards can be.

And that's the simple matter of it and really my only point.

There was a contract with all of the details set out in stone.

Dempsey looked it over with his team and signed the contract.

The contract was followed exactly by the plaintiff. Exactly!

Dempsey backed out of the legally binding agreement.


When you add in that Dempsey claims he wanted to fight Wills since becoming champion, that Wills was the only man he wanted, that the purse for the fight was higher than the Tunney purse.....I really don't know what anyone wants me to tell them.


History doesn't deserve spin, no matter how much you love a fighter.

[QueensburyRules]

And that's the simple matter of it and really my only point.

There was a contract with all of the details set out in stone.

Dempsey looked it over with his team and signed the contract.

The contract was followed exactly by the plaintiff. Exactly!

Dempsey backed out of the legally binding agreement.


When you add in that Dempsey claims he wanted to fight Wills since becoming champion, that Wills was the only man he wanted, that the purse for the fight was higher than the Tunney purse.....I really don't know what anyone wants me to tell them.


History doesn't deserve spin.

- -History got your carrion scavenging doggerel instead.

The mere fact that Dempsey was dogged by shysters abusing him with a corrupt legal system before ever becoming a legend thru his days indicts YOU, not him.

You gonna go lecture the Plains Indians next on breaking contract law?

His record will show that he didn't fight ANYONE while trying to make the Wills fight and your asinine mania over illicit contracts and failed guarantees proves his intent.

And when he did fight again, he fought the most recent victors of Greb and Wills.

Some blithering idiot claiming law credentials with a demonstrable Junior High infantilism would be comedy if you weren't such a tu rd in the punch bowl.

Why don't you do something constructive like a top ten list and then defend that or is that beyond your creative ability.

[Rusty Tromboni]

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



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



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



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...

The point was to make you aware of your behavior, not an invitation to repeat it.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I think some of the problem is what it means to "break a contract." People are arguing that the terms of the contract were illegitimized because of the party to the contract. It does not work that way though...

Contracts have elements that are there, or not... Its kind of like being "almost pregnant." There is no issue that a contract was broken by Dempsey folks. regardless of what one thinks of one poster, or another.

Heres what people should realize:

1) Was the contract voidable? Dempsey is not a minor, emancipated or not... and presumably (Dempsey never argued to the contrary) it was not signed under duress. At the time of the signing a prize fight was legal, so the contract was not for an illegal act which would have made it voidable. So the contract was enforcable.

2) Dempsey gave consideration.

One can argue that maybe it was ****** to sign, maybe Dempsey saw the contract as an option... he could get out of and get paid because of other events that affected his self interest. But again, this does not make it unenforcable. Options are contracts, often used as insurance.

3) Bad contracts are written everyday and upheld when they are legal.

Dempsey may have been manipulated by others in his camp, happens all the time in boxing... But a contract is either legal, enforcable, or not.

If I got T to sign a contract where I would pay him Rusty's Trombone, if he would clean off the queenb's flying pigs off my roof... its not en enforcable contract. If Dempsey gives a mere 10 dollars of consideration, it may seem like flying pigs, but as long as the other party, at arm's length accepts it, its legit.

What many of you are arguing are details about the contract that have nothing to do with its legal standing. Maybe the contract was fronted by a criminal gang, maybe Dempsey was tricked about the details of the contract... It does not really matter.

The one strange thing about the contract is the reward given... But as T said, that instance goes to show how arbitrary these awards can be.

Yup.

That's how contracts work. (Has anyone disputed that?)

And you know who knew contracts and the lse better than any of us?
The Appelate Judge!

The jury found for the plaintiff. But the judge's award to them was nominal. It's obvious that the Judge was upholding the law, but still saw through the scam.

I'm not suggesting you insinuated as much, but because it might be inferred, let me put the words in your mouth just because it's legal doesn't mean it's just. In close days, Wills couldn't enter half the places which Dempsey could enter in this country. Legal, not just.

Once upon a time men used armed henchmen to get what they wanted, in the modern era we have contracts.

And let's look at the bigger picture: Wills was dog shyte. Sure, it would have been nice if Dempsey had kicked his ass. I'd welcome any demonstration of Jack's power. But he fought better men in Willard, Firpo and Sharkey and how did those fights play out? And those were guys who could actually punch back, and pick themselves up off the canvas. Wills was just a sloppy cur.


And again, broken contract or not, how can this hurt Jack when:

Louis never properly avenged his loss to Schmeling.

Marciano refused to return to fight Ingo, even though he was still younger than Charles, Moore, Walcott and Louis were when they fought him.

Ali was inactive during Frazier's prime. (There was a bit of overlap - Frazier won handedly).

Foreman dodged Quarry (his own admission).

Holmes padded his record with neophytes. (Barely scraping by, no less).

Lewis stayed an amateur to avoid Tyson... and then abandoned Boxing just as the Klitchkos came of age.

See how innocent Dempsey appears when we look at facts, rather than dispute court findings?

[Willie Pep 229]

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 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.




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

No I didn't right from the start I said Wills acted innocently that Dempsey misinterpreted Wills intent.

Your point about them being angry at Reynolds is irrelevant, both Dempsey and Rickard are blaming Reynolds for Will's actions.

Besides Rickard is confirming for us that it was the MSG incident with the opening sentence of the article you posted. Once again your article confirms my argument, not yours.

You look to twist things hoping you can distract the jury from the big picture you are trying to deny.

I noticed earlier in a post you said you are a lawyer; lawyers have a cheeky platitude they like to share:

When the facts are with you **** on the facts. When the law is with you **** on the law, When neither is with you **** on the table.

You buddy, are ****ing on the table!

[Willie Pep 229]

I think some of the problem is what it means to "break a contract." People are arguing that the terms of the contract were illegitimized because of the party to the contract. It does not work that way though...

Contracts have elements that are there, or not... Its kind of like being "almost pregnant." There is no issue that a contract was broken by Dempsey folks. regardless of what one thinks of one poster, or another.

Heres what people should realize:

1) Was the contract voidable? Dempsey is not a minor, emancipated or not... and presumably (Dempsey never argued to the contrary) it was not signed under duress. At the time of the signing a prize fight was legal, so the contract was not for an illegal act which would have made it voidable. So the contract was enforcable.

2) Dempsey gave consideration.

One can argue that maybe it was ****** to sign, maybe Dempsey saw the contract as an option... he could get out of and get paid because of other events that affected his self interest. But again, this does not make it unenforcable. Options are contracts, often used as insurance.

3) Bad contracts are written everyday and upheld when they are legal.

Dempsey may have been manipulated by others in his camp, happens all the time in boxing... But a contract is either legal, enforcable, or not.

If I got T to sign a contract where I would pay him Rusty's Trombone, if he would clean off the queenb's flying pigs off my roof... its not en enforcable contract. If Dempsey gives a mere 10 dollars of consideration, it may seem like flying pigs, but as long as the other party, at arm's length accepts it, its legit.

What many of you are arguing are details about the contract that have nothing to do with its legal standing. Maybe the contract was fronted by a criminal gang, maybe Dempsey was tricked about the details of the contract... It does not really matter.

The one strange thing about the contract is the reward given... But as T said, that instance goes to show how arbitrary these awards can be.

Rusty already offered the argument of law vs. justice, but I want to ask you another question. You seem to have a handle on contract law so . . .

You point out that the amount of money Dempsey accepted as 'consideration' is irrelevant it still represents consideration. OK lets go from there . . .

What if the Dempsey signs that contract under the impression, created by Floyd Fitzsimmons, that he would receive 60K as consideration (training expenses) and then is taken to a bank by Fitzsimmons and the teller tells Dempsey (and Fitzsimmons) that their are inefficient funds available to cash the check, and then informs the two men that the best they can write a check for is $10.

Would you argue that contract was still legal; that Fitzsimmons actions did not amount to fraud?

The difference between 60K and $10 is obviously not an accounting mistake, Fitzsimmons had to know he was deceiving Dempsey, and that he did it deliberately. Does that not make all of the negotiation by Fitzsimmons a fraud?

Part of any contract is to act in 'good faith' Fitzsimmons certainly didn't.

P.S. I noticed you said Dempsey's people. Dempsey's people was made up from Rickard and Kerans and neither of them were a party to the event/contract. It looks as though Dempsey screwed this pooch all by himself.

[travestyny]

No I didn't right from the start I said Wills acted innocently that Dempsey misinterpreted Wills intent.

Your point about them being angry at Reynolds is irrelevant, both Dempsey and Rickard are blaming Reynolds for Will's actions.

No they are not. It clearly says that Rickard blames Reynolds entirely

Why do you do this? What you are doing is not cool. You are blatantly lying.

How does, "I attribute the whole thing to Reynolds" means they are blaming Reynolds for Will's actions?

Besides Rickard is confirming for us that it was the MSG incident with the opening sentence of the article you posted. Once again your article confirms my argument, not yours.

You look to twist things hoping you can distract the jury from the big picture you are trying to deny.

I noticed earlier in a post you said you are a lawyer; lawyers have a cheeky platitude they like to share:

When the facts are with you **** on the facts. When the law is with you **** on the law, When neither is with you **** on the table.

You buddy, are ****ing on the table!

I have never said I was a lawyer. See how easy it is for you to twist things? I don't know what's wrong with you so I'm just going to do it like this.


1. FIND ME PROOF THAT DEMPSEY BLAMED WILLS FOR WHAT HAPPENED.

2. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW DEMPSEY'S STATEMENT ABOUT NEVER GIVING WILLS A SHOT WAS ABOUT WILLS BEING PARADED AROUND MSG WHEN A WEEK AFTER THE INCIDENT HE SAID HE WILL DEMAND TO FIGHT HIM.


I'll wait. Let's see your facts.


Oh yea, let me add #3 to this since you said it.

3. Show me proof that Dempsey immediately changed his mind about fighting Wills, which I find hard to believe since the statement was about a week or so from the Tunney match, and both Wills and Dempsey lost their next fight. So why, according to you, did Dempsey change his mind about a fight that everyone now knew was dead. Where is his statement saying that it was about the MSG incident and that he changed his mind.


Show it to me.



By the way, you completely ducked post #81 that proves definitively that you are wrong.

[travestyny]

- -History got your carrion scavenging doggerel instead.

The mere fact that Dempsey was dogged by shysters abusing him with a corrupt legal system before ever becoming a legend thru his days indicts YOU, not him.

You gonna go lecture the Plains Indians next on breaking contract law?

His record will show that he didn't fight ANYONE while trying to make the Wills fight and your asinine mania over illicit contracts and failed guarantees proves his intent.

And when he did fight again, he fought the most recent victors of Greb and Wills.

Some blithering idiot claiming law credentials with a demonstrable Junior High infantilism would be comedy if you weren't such a tu rd in the punch bowl.

Why don't you do something constructive like a top ten list and then defend that or is that beyond your creative ability.

Again, did he sign a contract to fight Wills and then backed out????



Still waiting for you to answer that simple question. What's the matter? Can't bring yourself to admit it