Originally posted by Willie Pep 229
View Post
This is under the Walker law, which ended the period of no decision fights in New York. It also clearly states the rules in the part of the article that you didn't post.

It says clearly that the bout must be a match to a decision. So what this shows you is that they were declining to let Dempsey fight Wills if he wouldn't put up the title.
So what [MENTION]GhostofDempse[/MENTION] was accusing Jack Johnson of trying to do (which was false and can be proven by one of Willards matches under the Frawley Act being for the title and everyone and their momma saying the fight would be for the title), we actually have Jack Dempsey being busted for: trying to have a non-title fight with Wills.
And the New York Commission says nope...not having it.
So you're saying New York was against Dempsey because they wouldn't allow him to NOT fight for the title? Does that make sense?
By the way, here's Commissioner Farley saying unequivocally that politics were NOT the reason that this fight wasn't to be, and saying he doesn't believe Dempsey would ever fight.

I have heard it said that politics is responsible for the failure to bring Dempsey and Wills together. To those who have mentioned this to me I have replied that such a thought is ridiculous. I know of no political or official opposition to such a bout and I have talked with many prominent and powerful men on the subject. On the contrary, I find that there exists a general demand for the bout.

Comment