Jack Dempsey's Refusal to Fight Joe Jeanette

[travestyny]

I guess I have to say it one more time . . . James Farley was a Tammany Hall ******** who was catering to his Harlem constituency and was assisting Tammany's effort to bring a big money fight to New York. Dempsey fighting anyone except their guy, Harry Wills, was not on the NYSAC agenda.

I will also mention, again, that James Farley reinstated a suspended Primo Carnera three days before his first Sharkey fight (a New York fight at Ebbetts Field) and then attempted to shamelessly make the fight it a title fight, resulting in newspaper writers calling for an unbiased national governing body to be created.

Why do you keep bringing this one source up, it is so obvious that he is Tammany, doing Tammany's bidding.

T

I just ran across a source from 1914 (singular) where Packey McFarland's former manager, Harry Gilmore, while under oath no less, claims he falsified McFarland' Knockout record.

Of course not mentioned is that McFarland had sacked the guy back in 1909; should I now conclude that McFarland's record is bogus, or should I now looked deeper into Harry Gilmore and try to evaluate him as a source?

P.S. Do you want to see the Harry Gilmore remark? It is interesting, but comes with a big qualification.

Dude.

1. Not to be rude, but the question isn't for you.
2. I've already asked you 2, 3, maybe 4 times what you think this guy is lying about and why, but you refuse to answer. So why do you keep saying the same thing to me, and when I respond, you go quiet....only to say the same thing to me again later.
3. I don't see any "corruption" in what you've posted about him. Nor do I think what you posted has anything to do with the situation I'm referring to.


I don't know what else to tell you. If you want to discuss further, then maybe you can stop ignoring my question and answer so we can stop going around in circles. Mainly, I'd love to know what you are accusing him of.

I mean I just asked you this same question the other day and you refused to answer. So what do you want? The only thing you've said over and over is that he wanted this fight, perhaps for reasons that weren't on the up and up. Ok. He wanted the fight. Now what is the problem?

And please tell me that if you don't buy anything this guy says, why would you ever buy anything Dempsey says with the lies and "corruption" he has been involved in? Hopefully you answer questions this time around so we can actually get somewhere.

Also... why the hell would the International Boxing Hall of Fame name an award for honesty and integrity after a man who is as corrupt as you are claiming him to be?

[QueensburyRules]

Dude.

1. Not to be rude...

Also... why the hell would the International Boxing Hall of Fame name an award for honesty and integrity after a man who is as corrupt as you are claiming him to be?

- -Birds of a feather.

When U getting U HOF?

[travestyny]

- -Birds of a feather.

When U getting U HOF?

When you learn how to spell, read, and write.

[Willie Pep 229]

Dude.

1. Not to be rude, but the question isn't for you.
2. I've already asked you 2, 3, maybe 4 times what you think this guy is lying about and why, but you refuse to answer. So why do you keep saying the same thing to me, and when I respond, you go quiet....only to say the same thing to me again later.
3. I don't see any "corruption" in what you've posted about him. Nor do I think what you posted has anything to do with the situation I'm referring to.


I don't know what else to tell you. If you want to discuss further, then maybe you can stop ignoring my question and answer so we can stop going around in circles. Mainly, I'd love to know what you are accusing him of.

I mean I just asked you this same question the other day and you refused to answer. So what do you want? The only thing you've said over and over is that he wanted this fight, perhaps for reasons that weren't on the up and up. Ok. He wanted the fight. Now what is the problem?

And please tell me that if you don't buy anything this guy says, why would you ever buy anything Dempsey says with the lies and "corruption" he has been involved in? Hopefully you answer questions this time around so we can actually get somewhere.

Also... why the hell would the International Boxing Hall of Fame name an award for honesty and integrity after a man who is as corrupt as you are claiming him to be?

You don't want to be rude, I appreciate that thank you . . . I don't want to be condescending . . . I have answered this several times . . . you are using the rhetoric of a corrupt sanctioning body as a statement of justice when it is obvious that it comes with a very biased agenda. You are being disingenuous.

You did this same thing in the Dan McKetrick/Jean Jeannette/Jack Johnson debate with with Ghost. You took an obvious piece of PR by McKetrick and kept forcing it into the conversation as though it was an end-all of indisputable truth.

Now you doing the same thing with this James Farley piece.

In regards to the boldface above. Are you joking me, do you even read my posts? I don't buy anything anyone says at face value and I try very hard to avoid using appeals to at authority. And on the occasions where I do, I try hard to identify, and then point out, the likely motivations of the speaker. Direct answer, I don't believe anything Dempsey says at face value; and to complete the list for this particular topic, I also don't believe anything Kearns, Rickard, Muldoon, Phelan, Gibbson, Fitzsimmons, Tunney, Hoffman, Wills, or Mullins, say either. (Did I leave anyone out?)

In regard to my rudeness, if you prefer I will stop engaging you. I don't want to, I enjoy our arguments.

But you can't selectively silence me when I am an inconvenience, and then engage me when it is to your liking. It is either all of me, or none of me.

[QueensburyRules]

When you learn how to spell, read, and write.

- -I l'arned to tailor my response to the IQ of the recipient...Duh!

U keep a tally of all the dead horses U like to beat?

[travestyny]

You don't want to be rude, I appreciate that thank you . . . I don't want to be condescending . . . I have answered this several times . . . you are using the rhetoric of a corrupt sanctioning body as a statement of justice when it is obvious that it comes with a very biased agenda. You are being disingenuous.

You did this same thing in the Dan McKetrick/Jean Jeannette/Jack Johnson debate with with Ghost. You took an obvious piece of PR by McKetrick and kept forcing it into the conversation as though it was an end-all of indisputable truth.

Now you doing the same thing with this James Farley piece.

In regards to the boldface above. Are you joking me, do you even read my posts? I don't buy anything anyone says at face value and I try very hard to avoid using appeals to at authority. And on the occasions where I do, I try hard to identify, and then point out, the likely motivations of the speaker. Direct answer, I don't believe anything Dempsey says at face value; and to complete the list for this particular topic, I also don't believe anything Kearns, Rickard, Muldoon, Phelan, Gibbson, Fitzsimmons, Tunney, Hoffman, Wills, or Mullins, say either. (Did I leave anyone out?)

In regard to my rudeness, if you prefer I will stop engaging you. I don't want to, I enjoy our arguments.

But you can't selectively silence me when I am an inconvenience, and then engage me when it is to your liking. It is either all of me, or none of me.

What are you even talking about?

You are accusing him of lying about what exactly? That Dempsey isn't the one who avoided the fight, right?


Simple. Why would he lie about that? What proof do you have that he is lying.


You dare bring up GhostofForgery saying that Jeannettes' manager wanted Jeanette NOT to fight for the championship You guys must be sharing a brain.

I better not ever catch you quoting Dempsey since you now admit that everything he says should be ignored, right? Right?. You're claiming we should disregard everything this guy said because of your made up corruption charges, then we damn sure shouldn't believe a word Dempsey says.


If your point is don't trust anyone when it comes to this, then that's fine. We can just as easily go by the simple facts.

1. Did Dempsey break that contract?

2. Did the promoter follow the contract?

More questions you will surely duck and pretend that you have answered, right?

[travestyny]

- -I l'arned to tailor my response to the IQ of the recipient...Duh!

U keep a tally of all the dead horses U like to beat?

You aren't capable of posting at my IQ level. You fought tooth and nail to say Dempsey offered to fight Wills at a time when he still was drawing the color line.

Did you ever admit you were wrong? Come on, little guy. Let's hear it

[Willie Pep 229]

What are you even talking about?

You are accusing him of lying about what exactly? That Dempsey isn't the one who avoided the fight, right?


Simple. Why would he lie about that? What proof do you have that he is lying.


You dare bring up GhostofForgery saying that Jeannettes' manager wanted Jeanette NOT to fight for the championship You guys must be sharing a brain.

I better not ever catch you quoting Dempsey since you now admit that everything he says should be ignored, right? Right?. You're claiming we should disregard everything this guy said because of your made up corruption charges, then we damn sure shouldn't believe a word Dempsey says.


If your point is don't trust anyone when it comes to this, then that's fine. We can just as easily go by the simple facts.

1. Did Dempsey break that contract?

2. Did the promoter follow the contract?

More questions you will surely duck and pretend that you have answered, right?

I quote everyone including Dempsey, I never take any statement as gospel; expect me to quote everyone, I will never ask you to accept any testimony, including Dempsey's as fact, only as food for thought.

1. Yes, as far as I am aware he broke two, one with some English promoters for a rematch with Carpentier in 1921 and a second time with the contract Fitzsimmons sold to the Chicago AC in 1926. Wouldn't surprise me if there are more.

2. What I remember is Dempsey went home with $10 in his pocket and lost interest; Fitzsimmons then sold the contract to a Chicago AC, who foolishly thought they were going to force Dempsey's hand but couldn't. I think at this point it no longer mattered to Dempsey if the "new owners" of the contract were able to pay or not; he had already 'gone home' to Rickard; Dempsey had lost interest in Fitzsimmons and Chicago. They should have never bought that contract, Fitzsimmons conned them in buying crap.

[travestyny]

I quote everyone including Dempsey, I never take any statement as gospel; expect me to quote everyone, I will never ask you to accept any testimony, including Dempsey's as fact, only as food for thought.

1. Yes, as far as I am aware he broke two, one with some English promoters for a rematch with Carpentier in 1921 and a second time with the contract Fitzsimmons sold to the Chicago AC in 1926. Wouldn't surprise me if there are more.

2. What I remember is Dempsey went home with $10 in his pocket and lost interest; Fitzsimmons then sold the contract to a Chicago AC, who foolishly thought they were going to force Dempsey's hand but couldn't. I think at this point it no longer mattered to Dempsey if the "new owners" of the contract were able to pay or not; he had already 'gone home' to Rickard; Dempsey had lost interest in Fitzsimmons and Chicago. They should have never bought that contract, Fitzsimmons conned them in buying crap.

So let me get this straight. They forced his hand....by making him sign a contract.

Is that now your official stance?

Did Dempsey sign this contract after Fitz bounced that check, Willy?

And did the contract clearly state the parameters for the money being paid?

Let me know, bro.


Fitzsimmons conned them you say. Who signed the contract? Did Dempsey sign it or not? And was it worth more money than the Tunney contract? And did it state he can keep a whopping $300,000 if the fight didn't come off for whatever reason?

Did the promoter follow the contract? You dodged that one.
It's a simple question with a factual answer.

[HOUDINI563]

NY Post 1953:
Jack Johnson held the title from 1910 to 1915 and the big man's easy victories over a string of white contenders in that period had been unpopular--among whites, that is. Moreover, come the Twenties, the kkk was riding high, bed sheets flapping in the wind, and lynching fever was strong in the South. The bigger brains in Washington quite likely did fear that a mixed heavyweight fight would fan the flames. The New York Boxing Commission, well this side of the Mason-Dixon line and with the eloquent James A. Farley to carry the gloves, seemed to work hard for the fight to happen. Dempsey always believed this stemmed more from a large respect for the black vote in New York than anything else. "The thing became a political issue, the public was being told by the commission I had to fight Wills and those same people would tell me in private they knew the fight would never be allowed to happen."