Jack Dempsey's Refusal to Fight Joe Jeanette

[HOUDINI563]

That’s the point a broken contract is meaningless. What the poster needs is Dempseys sworn testimony to determine motivation. The history is clear that Dempsey was running out of money so does he go with a fight that probably won’t come off (it failed prior) or a fight he knew would come off via a promoter who more than likely would not fail him in Rickard.

The Dempsey testimony during the trial would what’s needed. Otherwise the poster is guessing and coming to false conclusions based upon 100 years of known history.

Note that the best most highly praised bio of Dempseys lays no blame upon Dempsey for the bout not coming off. The bio written closest to that time period (1929) by Fleischer who was intimate with every detail also lays no blame upon Dempsey.

[Willie Pep 229]

That’s the point a broken contract is meaningless. What the poster needs is Dempseys sworn testimony to determine motivation. The history is clear that Dempsey was running out of money so does he go with a fight that probably won’t come off (it failed prior) or a fight he knew would come off via a promoter who more than likely would not fail him in Rickard.

The Dempsey testimony during the trial would what’s needed. Otherwise the poster is guessing and coming to false conclusions based upon 100 years of known history.

Note that the best most highly praised bio of Dempseys lays no blame upon Dempsey for the bout not coming off. The bio written closest to that time period (1929) by Fleischer who was intimate with every detail also lays no blame upon Dempsey.

I am not sure the testimony would mean much, everyone would be speaking in their own best interest.

One news article made the court proceedings sound frivolous; at one point Dempsey stood up, much to the delight of the jury, and challenged Wills to step outside and settle the issue here and now.

I doubt we learn much from what Dempsey said that day.

But we agree on what is happening here; we have here an accusation against Dempsey's manly prowess with the accuser trying to shift the burden of proof.

Anyone who follows this game knows that a broken contract doesn't necessarily mean a cowardly duck.

[HOUDINI563]

The point is that the testimony is provided under oath. Having been in that position I can tell you their is a strong inclination to provide truthful answers to the questions being asked. This is a civil suit mind you so only monetary damages are in play. Untruthful testimony is a prison sentence.

[HOUDINI563]

Anyone who concludes Dempsey was in any way afraid of fighting Wills is very far off the known history. History well written about for nearly 100 years.

[travestyny]

. . . and the Chicago AC got $1,200 compensation in accordance with the contract's worth, almost nothing. It's a simple fact.

Even on appeal the court still said, it held no greater worth, and was still worth almost nothing. That is a simple fact too.

You want us to believe that every broken contract is an act is motivated by cowardice.

If you want to convince people Dempsey was scared of Wills you need to show more than a broken contact.

It's not important to me to show Dempsey was scared of Wills. I never even claimed that he was afraid of Wills.

Also, it's irrelevant how much the contract was worth after broken. What's important was that it was broken. You can't bring up irrelevant things and pretend it makes a difference when clearly it doesn't, bro.

[travestyny]

That’s the point a broken contract is meaningless. What the poster needs is Dempseys sworn testimony to determine motivation. The history is clear that Dempsey was running out of money so does he go with a fight that probably won’t come off (it failed prior) or a fight he knew would come off via a promoter who more than likely would not fail him in Rickard.

The Dempsey testimony during the trial would what’s needed. Otherwise the poster is guessing and coming to false conclusions based upon 100 years of known history.

Note that the best most highly praised bio of Dempseys lays no blame upon Dempsey for the bout not coming off. The bio written closest to that time period (1929) by Fleischer who was intimate with every detail also lays no blame upon Dempsey.

We already know from the court case what Dempsey's assertion was. He claimed that there was no contract. The court laughed at that notion.

He also claimed he was due more money on the very date that he signed the contract. You don't have to be a genius to know that if you claim you are due $150,000 on the day you sign a contract and accept $10 to legally bind you to it, that makes no sense.

So yes, we do know what he claimed. Also, the contract stipulated that if for any reason the fight doesn't come off, he could keep the initial $300,000.

That pretty much takes care of all of your concerns.


And what of Farley who was Dempsey's friend. Any idea who he placed the blame on?

[travestyny]

Anyone who concludes Dempsey was in any way afraid of fighting Wills is very far off the known history. History well written about for nearly 100 years.

Yes, it was. What did Farley say. Remember you bought him up as Dempsey's friend and someone who praised him. A commissioner who tried to get this fight done. A man who has an award for honesty and integrity named after him.

Any idea why his historical account of the matter is Dempsey was ducking Wills?

[travestyny]

The point is that the testimony is provided under oath. Having been in that position I can tell you their is a strong inclination to provide truthful answers to the questions being asked. This is a civil suit mind you so only monetary damages are in play. Untruthful testimony is a prison sentence.

Doesn't this speak to my point?


Testimony was in court, and the court found that Dempsey broke the contract.

Not only that, an injunction was ordered to stop Dempsey from fighting anyone but Wills. Dempsey's team was able to get around it by fighting Tunney in Philly. They couldn't do Dempsey/Tunney in Chicago because of the injunction, which they tried. Couldn't do Dempsey/Tunney in NY because they wanted him to fight Wills.

That's 2 places that rejected Dempsey because he wouldn't fight Wills. Again, facts.

[QueensburyRules]

I'd love to read your opinions. I gotta admit though.... I cant really understand half of what your post is about. If you want my response, you'll have to elaborate.

English isn't my first language, but I suspect that even some native english speakers have difficulty getting your points.

- -Good News Nelson!

Your English is plenty adequate that also may explain the origins of your moniker.

And while making no sillyboy grand pronouncement of any expertise, I do happen to be quite a bit more studied in life's many mysteries than most.

If I were to compress my previous grand sweep of the history of civilazation into a boxing format, I'd say modern boxing fans are a dying breed by the current demographics still unable to grasp how they are being manipulated by the system whilst yelping over minor transgressions.

[Marchegiano]

That’s the point a broken contract is meaningless. What the poster needs is Dempseys sworn testimony to determine motivation. The history is clear that Dempsey was running out of money so does he go with a fight that probably won’t come off (it failed prior) or a fight he knew would come off via a promoter who more than likely would not fail him in Rickard.

The Dempsey testimony during the trial would what’s needed. Otherwise the poster is guessing and coming to false conclusions based upon 100 years of known history.

Note that the best most highly praised bio of Dempseys lays no blame upon Dempsey for the bout not coming off. The bio written closest to that time period (1929) by Fleischer who was intimate with every detail also lays no blame upon Dempsey.

Not trying to be a jerk but I can't think of a way to ask this and it not seem at least a bit jerky.

Is there a good reason to give any ****s about what Nat Fleischer has to say about anything?

He makes **** and plagiarizes. I don't go to any lying-stealing friends for truth, why would I a historian?

On top of that, Bio book all kiss the ass of the subject, hard. I've not read a single bio that wasn't dead-set on putting over the subject.

So, Nat's bio of Dempsey really doesn't mean anything to me, but, I am willing to admit you're more knowledgeable of the period and would appreciate a good reason to give a damn about Nat.

Why wouldn't I just read Richard K Foxx's or Egan's or Miller's or whoever's original rather than Nat's mythological version of their originals?