So Dempsey and Jack Johnson are cherry pickers

[Marchegiano]

I dunno about Dempsey so much but look at who Johnson did fight and how popular they were when he fought them.

Sam Langford, Joe Jeannette, and Sam Mcvey were not well known by most of the boxing audience. It wasn't just awards and championships that was racist. Coverage was racist. Not all papers even covered black fighters which is why Richard K Fox found a niche for himself and created the colored title. He is the guy who owns the Police Gazette.

Guys like Phily, and especially Jeffries, were covered by damn near everyone. The White Hopes may not seem great, but Kaufman and Moran were actually very popular, white folks believed in them, and way more of the audience was interested in seeing them get their shot at Johnson than Mcvey even if Mcvey earned it.


Jack Johnson showed he was a selfish man early in his career when he screwed over Frank Childs. Solidarity, who earned the title shot, that **** didn't pay the bills to keep his biracial nightclubs open where he played his bass fiddle.


Duck? No, ducking implies he had a reason to fight him. He didn't. Beyond any moral or principle stance what can you tell Jack Johnson to convince him to fight a black man who can box for less money than a white man who can't? Why would Jack do that?

Jack wasn't afraid Langford would whoop his ass. He knew Langford couldn't get him paid.


Yes there were offers, I see that all the time, an offer made by Jeanette ot one of the Sams, as if that's proof of ducking. Y'all ever look at what he was actually offered by white people though?

Can a black man get Jack Johnson and his white wife through state lines? A white man can.

Too much blame on the fighter and not enough on society.

I do not think we have to belittle the lineal champions to elevate the colored champions. Sam Langford was a five time colored HW champion...imo, that's one more than Holy. Doesn't mean Jack Johnson wasn't the baddest mother ****er at being up white people and taking their money at a period when boxing was mostly about a black guy whipping white people and taking their money while they get even angrier and pay him even more.

It's as unfair to Jack to say he ducked as it is to the Sams or Joe to say the were unable to raise the funds. Society, boxing, the audience, wanted Jack to fight white guys. We fans are to blame...well...like our grands and **** from well back, but still, shouldn't belittle one to raise another, they can be greats together and the fault can be the fans.

[GhostofDempsey]

Then I should ask you for proof, because you never come with any. Maybe you'll have a better time of proving that than you had proving that Joe Jeannette's manager would benefit from Joe Jeannette NOT fighting for the title.

And you put me on ignore, buddy. I didn't put you on ignore. Every time I see you lie around here, if I can help it, I'm going to feel free to correct you so that your lies aren't spread. I think any respectable poster should do the same.



Find me something more legit than a US court saying Dempsey broke the contract



Checkmate...?


AND WHY ARE YOU STILL IGNORING THE MONEY BEING PRESENT?

Do you want to look at the check, because here it is. Just tell us you don't believe your eyes

STOP LYING IN THE HISTORY SECTION!

Each time I have out you on ignore I have given you ample opportunity to state your position in a rational manner. I’ve given you fair warnings, but you continue to badger me with the same articles that prove nothing. Then we go 50 rounds exchanging sources and trying to prove who is right. You don’t agree with my position so you get frustrated and call me a liar.

Bottom line, Dempsey never ducked Wills, in fact Wills himself acknowledged that during interviews.

[GhostofDempsey]

Johnson’s best wins were:

Fitzsimmons, smaller and washed up former champion who was 44 years old and was a blown up middleweight at best.
Flynn, considerably smaller and was clinched and fouled in both of their matches, DQ’d for retaliating in the rematch.
Burns, small HW, about the size of a MW
McVea, smaller and very green, the 3x they met Sam had less than ten fights to his name. Never got a title shot from Jack.
Jeannette, smaller and very green, the 7x they fought Joe had less than 20 fights to his name. Never got a title shot from Jack.
Langford, much smaller by 40 pounds and giving up close to 7 inches in height, still green. Never got a rematch or title shot from Jack.
Ketchel, a middleweight
Jeffries, retired and inactive for six years, had to lose 100 pounds for the fight.

During his title reign he opted for fights against the likes of Tony Ross 12-9-3, Al Kaufman 19-1, Jim Johnson 27-10-5, Frank Moran 26-9-4, Jack Murray 15-7-17. Not the more improved McVea, Jeannette or Langford.

Here is what Johnson's record looked like for his last 20 fights after getting KO’d by Willard:

Frank Crozier 3-4
Arthur Craven Debut
Blink McCloskey 40-44-31
Jim Flynn Debut
Bob Roper 4-1-1
Tom Cowler 48-21-2
Marty Cutler 0-10-4
Bob Wilson Debut
George Roberts Debut
Farmer Lodge 12-14-1
Jack Thompson 21-20-6
Pat Lester 22-5-3
Bob Lawson 28-14-4
Brad Simmons 15-4-2
Bearcat Wright 37-11-7
Bill Hartwell 14-6-4
Rough House Wilson 0-1-0
Brad Simmons 27-12-4
Brad Simmons 28-13-4

He lost five of those fights.

For all the hype surrounding Johnson, it's hard to make an argument that he wasn't overrated. If anything Sam Langford deserved all the glory, but he was never champion so Johnson got the press.

[travestyny]

Each time I have out you on ignore I have given you ample opportunity to state your position in a rational manner. I’ve given you fair warnings, but you continue to badger me with the same articles that prove nothing. Then we go 50 rounds exchanging sources and trying to prove who is right. You don’t agree with my position so you get frustrated and call me a liar.

Bottom line, Dempsey never ducked Wills, in fact Wills himself acknowledged that during interviews.

Stop lying.

Each time you've put me on ignore because you were butthurt that I provide backup for everything I say, you can't, and you wind up embarrassing yourself until you can't take it anymore and you run away.

Bottom line. Dempsey ducked Wills and the proof of it is undeniable. Learn to face it and stop lying in the history section

By the way, at the time Wills also said that Dempsey was ducking him, and so did Wills Manager. And so did a US court

You have posted NOTHING about the contract that Dempsey broke. NOT ONE THING AND YOU KNOW IT. What you've now taking to is lying about a subsequent time that Wills' manager tried to get Dempsey to fight and claiming that was connected. You are LYING. Point blank, period. Just like you got busted lying about Johnson/Jeannette. Repeatedly!

[travestyny]

Johnson’s best wins were:

Fitzsimmons, smaller and washed up former champion who was 44 years old and was a blown up middleweight at best.
Flynn, considerably smaller and was clinched and fouled in both of their matches, DQ’d for retaliating in the rematch.
Burns, small HW, about the size of a MW
McVea, smaller and very green, the 3x they met Sam had less than ten fights to his name. Never got a title shot from Jack.
Jeannette, smaller and very green, the 7x they fought Joe had less than 20 fights to his name. Never got a title shot from Jack.
Langford, much smaller by 40 pounds and giving up close to 7 inches in height, still green. Never got a rematch or title shot from Jack.
Ketchel, a middleweight
Jeffries, retired and inactive for six years, had to lose 100 pounds for the fight.

During his title reign he opted for fights against the likes of Tony Ross 12-9-3, Al Kaufman 19-1, Jim Johnson 27-10-5, Frank Moran 26-9-4, Jack Murray 15-7-17. Not the more improved McVea, Jeannette or Langford.

Here is what Johnson's record looked like for his last 20 fights after getting KO’d by Willard:

Frank Crozier 3-4
Arthur Craven Debut
Blink McCloskey 40-44-31
Jim Flynn Debut
Bob Roper 4-1-1
Tom Cowler 48-21-2
Marty Cutler 0-10-4
Bob Wilson Debut
George Roberts Debut
Farmer Lodge 12-14-1
Jack Thompson 21-20-6
Pat Lester 22-5-3
Bob Lawson 28-14-4
Brad Simmons 15-4-2
Bearcat Wright 37-11-7
Bill Hartwell 14-6-4
Rough House Wilson 0-1-0
Brad Simmons 27-12-4
Brad Simmons 28-13-4

He lost five of those fights.

For all the hype surrounding Johnson, it's hard to make an argument that he wasn't overrated. If anything Sam Langford deserved all the glory, but he was never champion so Johnson got the press.

Dempsey's best win was......


Not Wills because he ducked him.


And STILL lying about Jeannette vs. Johnson, huh? That's not a surprise No proof from you that the proposed fight wasn't for the title. Only a conspiracy theory that Joe Jeannette's manager wanted to benefit from jeannette NOT fighting for the title

Pathetic...and no one believed you

[ron davis]

There is an old adage, 'When you're the Champ, you pick fighters you can beat.'

Joe Louis, Henry Armstrong, Lou Ambers, where not the exceptions.

Jack Dempsey, said, "Mike Jacobs is ruining boxing, they don't want Joe Louis to lose." He picks the fighter's that are set ups (bums) for a pay-day and are happy to get it.

An example, a fighter by the name of Davey Day, gave Armstrong the beating of his life, handicapped, virtually blind with one eye completely closed, and other just a squint was ahead of Hank up to the 10th Rd. Losing via tko in the 12th Rd. After the fight Days manager offered Armstrong $35,000 and passed. Amber's was also offered $35,000 for rematch in 1937 and turned it down. In 1940 he was stripped of his title by N.B.A for not meeting Mr. Day.

[GhostofDempsey]

Stop lying.

Each time you've put me on ignore because you were butthurt that I provide backup for everything I say, you can't, and you wind up embarrassing yourself until you can't take it anymore and you run away.

Bottom line. Dempsey ducked Wills and the proof of it is undeniable. Learn to face it and stop lying in the history section

By the way, at the time Wills also said that Dempsey was ducking him, and so did Wills Manager. And so did a US court

There are plenty of people on this site who I disagree with but never put on ignore. That’s because we are respectful of one another’s differences and can agree to disagree at some point. You are incapable of that, you don’t get put on ignore over hurt feelings or because you proved me wrong, you get put there for being a jackass. Accusing people of lying or running away, that is part of your attrition tactics to keep people arguing with you. That’s how females argue.

Dempsey agreed and signed for two fights and agreed to a third until Wills people bluffed again. You will find conflicting sources that say one thing or the other. Anyone can be taken to court, and Dempsey himself was never found guilty of anything.

On August 6, 1926, the Evening Independent reported that a Chicago matchmaker, Doc Krone, announced that a $300,000 check was waiting for Dempsey in a Chicago bank. On August 22, the Telegraph Herald reported that Wills’ manager Paddy Mullins tried to bluff Dempsey once more into a contract, and then reportedly “failed to come forward with $150,000” saying, “We’ll post the money immediately if Dempsey will sign to fight Wills before September 23.” That was the third and final attempt that Wills people failed to come up with the money.

Since you put so much faith in newspapers, the sportswriter James P. Dawson, who wrote for The New York Times, testified after Wills’ loss to Sharkey, “None who saw last night’s battle can doubt that Dempsey would have annihilated Wills four years ago, three years ago, or a year ago.” highly respected trainers like Ray Arcel offered the same observation.

[GhostofDempsey]

Dempsey's best win was......


Not Wills because he ducked him.


And STILL lying about Jeannette vs. Johnson, huh? That's not a surprise No proof from you that the proposed fight wasn't for the title. Only a conspiracy theory that Joe Jeannette's manager wanted to benefit from jeannette NOT fighting for the title

Pathetic...and no one believed you

Still preaching nonsense you cannot prove with irrefutable evidence. You can’t re-write history. No one believes me? Odd, because I sourced about a dozen historians and scholars who I collected this historical data from, and millions of people believe them. That’s gotta hurt, LOL.

[travestyny]

There are plenty of people on this site who I disagree with but never put on ignore. That’s because we are respectful of one another’s differences and can agree to disagree at some point. You are incapable of that, you don’t get put on ignore over hurt feelings or because you proved me wrong, you get put there for being a jackass. Accusing people of lying or running away, that is part of your attrition tactics to keep people arguing with you. That’s how females argue.

That's because they don't hurt your feelings the way the evidence I have does to you You make that abundantly clear. We both know why you put me on ignore.

"Wahhhhh wahhh. You called me a liar."


Well then stop lying!!!!!

You're by far the most feminine poster I ever met here. Lies OVER AND OVER because you can't handle the truth.

Dempsey agreed and signed for two fights and agreed to a third until Wills people bluffed again. You will find conflicting sources that say one thing or the other. Anyone can be taken to court, and Dempsey himself was never found guilty of anything.

Oh really? Then why was there an injunction against the Tunney fight?????


Did that happen, or is it a lie. Let's see if you can answer

Let me guess. They issued an injunction because Dempsey was NOT ducking Wills. LMAO.

On August 6, 1926, the Evening Independent reported that a Chicago matchmaker, Doc Krone, announced that a $300,000 check was waiting for Dempsey in a Chicago bank.

On August 22, the Telegraph Herald reported that Wills’ manager Paddy Mullins tried to bluff Dempsey once more into a contract, and then reportedly “failed to come forward with $150,000” saying, “We’ll post the money immediately if Dempsey will sign to fight Wills before September 23.” That was the third and final attempt that Wills people failed to come up with the money.

That's two different instances of trying to get this dude to fight, buddy. But of course you are trying to say it's the same thing Dempsey already broke the contract in June!!!!

STOP LYING!

Since you put so much faith in newspapers, the sportswriter James P. Dawson, who wrote for The New York Times, testified after Wills’ loss to Sharkey, “None who saw last night’s battle can doubt that Dempsey would have annihilated Wills four years ago, three years ago, or a year ago.” highly respected trainers like Ray Arcel offered the same observation.

Who cares about an opinion on who would have won. That's your deflection. He ducked the fight so we never found out who would have won!!! That's the whole point!


If he didn't duck Wills, we wouldn't have to guess who would have won, now would we??????

[travestyny]

Still preaching nonsense you cannot prove with irrefutable evidence. You can’t re-write history. No one believes me? Odd, because I sourced about a dozen historians and scholars who I collected this historical data from, and millions of people believe them. That’s gotta hurt, LOL.

If that's true, then why when I ask you for proof that the Joe Jeannette fight wasn't for the title, you come back with a conspiracy theory pulled from your ass.

You know, one in which you basically admit that you lied about Jeannette's manager getting to the press first. And also lied about forfeits not being posted.


Why did you lie

Irrefutable evidence is the promoters, who set up the fight, stating it was for the title. Irrefutable evidence is a US court saying Dempsey broke that contract.

Aint that right . Nothing here hurts me, but we both know that it hurts you. Immensely