Jack Dempsey's Refusal to Fight Joe Jeanette

[QueensburyRules]

Once again, I'm not interested in your random diarrhea of the mouth.

Why don't you come back with some information about that Dempsey offer to fight Wills in 1920 that didn't exist....

or the one in 2020 that damn sure didn't exist

- -My link a long time historical group far more credentialed than U mushmouthery.

[travestyny]

- -My link a long time historical group far more credentialed than U mushmouthery.

Then show us all the sources you have for that 1920 offer.


And all the sources you have for the 2020 offer at that.


I'm guessing only one. Just give up and stop quoting me unless you have something of substance to say. You are boring me.

[QueensburyRules]

Then show us all the sources you have for that 1920 offer.


And all the sources you have for the 2020 offer at that.


I'm guessing only one. Just give up and stop quoting me unless you have something of substance to say. You are boring me.

- -Already gave U the link.

U 'toopid too?

[travestyny]

- -Already gave U the link.

U 'toopid too?

Already proven wrong by Willie Pep
Also proven wrong by Dempsey who was too busy drawing the color line and saying flat out that he wasn't going to fight Wills that year

You really aren't very bright, are you

[Marchegiano]

And NO to your ignoring the well known history in your attempt to feel superior to those who have actually done the work.

Dempsey was exonerated many decades ago. No new evidence has been magically discovered that changes this as fact. Wills himself laid no blame upon Dempsey and he agreed that Rickard could not get the bout going due to fears of the aftermath. That’s the man himself talking.

There is no attempt at that, so must be insecurity....I do not claim authority, you do.


To the rest, high horses and ivory towers, not proof, evidence, or even any usable allusion.

Like that book I pulled for you. It was damn near useless posts and your posting was only getting childish and immature while both sides refused to take ten to post the goods until I pulled the book. Clearly you talking about the book did far less than me just posting the bastard.

That's not good enough. I don't know why you think it is. I don't understand why youse get into these childish debates rather than just posting what influenced you. Maybe in your thoughts you think it should be. Look at what happens when you allude to a source vs just posting it though. Allusion is not good enough. Saying " But dem credentials doe" also not good enough. Not my opinion, look at the state of the ****ing threads. It's clearly not good enough. If you want to make your point do a spot more than run your mouth OR accept you are too lazy and are just a mouth runner at this point and leave the proving to us willing to show proof.

These historians you speak about may well have done, but, you've done nothing to share their work outside of allude to it as if it's even possible for anyone to get as far as myself or trav in research and have missed the popular and widely accepted points of view on the subjects. How is it you believe I am able to pull sources and duck Nat's legion of followers?

It's not about ignorance, it's about a lack of effort from the side that claims to have the cards. You want to push ignorance because you're lazy....don't **** with me, just be honest, I posted your work for you because you are too lazy to do it.

So, tell yourself I'm arrogant and I'm ignorant all you like, but, it's awful ****ing ironic coming from a guy who (1) Is literally backing the most famous figures in boxing history as if he's on to some unknown history no one knows to look at (2) refuses to post actual influences.

Let me be clear. It's arrogant as **** to assume we just missed Nat. It's ignorant as **** to take your word for it.

If i'm frustrated, if I'm disrespectful, it's not because I think you're wrong. It's because I think you are being a **** and can EASILY post what has influenced you in less time than the BS baby argument bull**** takes.



Look at King Varazdat. In the 70s he was more myth than man. Now he's more fact than myth. Maybe, if the historians were actually responsible with history, they wouldn't push an opinion at all? Maybe if they simply told the reader what the facts are then the King's story would be unchanged from the 70s to today, but, since academia loves hierarchy he who has the highest credential dictates the likeliness and the story changes with the students over time while the facts remain.

[Willie Pep 229]

So though the public was largely calling for this fight since 1922, the only reason that Farley wanted it was to secure the black vote.

Ok. What's the problem??? Again, this is another person that wants the fight. Why didn't Dempsey?

So he broke the contract because they told him secretly that the fight wouldn't be allowed to happen?

Then why not just keep the $300,000 as stipulated by the contract if the fight didn't come off?

Because he's lying


Maybe you want to recheck the historical record:

There was certainly contemporaneous newspaper support championing Wills' cause. Wills had many supporters, both in the press and the NYSAC, (although one should weed out the Negro Press and the Chicago newspapers, in '26).

I always questioned Tex Rickard's claim that the people weren't ready for a Wills-Dempsey fight, and while one can post many articles showing the 'white supremacist' voice trying to stop the fight, (mainly blocking venues) I believe it is obvious that Wills-Dempsey would have easily been a million dollar gate.

The one post above regarding 'the cheap seats' at the Polo Grounds has the situation confused. The advent of cheap seats didn't excite Rickard, but instead drove him away.

Dempsey-Carpentier made just shy of 1.7 million (with 75-85 thousand in attendance, depending whose numbers you want to believe), while the Chicago fight in '27 went well over 2.5 million with only 104,000.

The Firpo fight at the Polo Grounds, on the other hand, drew between 85-95 thousand (depending whose numbers you want to believe) but only produced a 1.1 million dollar gate. This was because of the 'cheap seat' regulation.

You're a New Yorker, you know how New York loves 'price ceilings' to protect the poor, e.g. rent control.

Rickard did at one point try to get New York to remove the 'ceiling' but New York wouldn't play along. But Rickard didn't like the 'cheap seat' regulation, it wasn't going to induce him to promote the fight. That particular newspaper had it backwards.

[HOUDINI563]

Again as much as you want to distort the history you are 100% wrong.

If you don’t like Fleischer, I don’t know why because his prime objective was to use his pen to integrate heavyweight boxing, look at the 2003 bio of Dempsey written by a true historian or look at the many articles and other bios written through the years the VAST majority concluding based upon the evidence that it was not a question of Dempsey ducking Wills.

The American culture via those that controlled boxing would not allow the bout to occur. Wills stated so HIMSELF. So to really understand the dynamics of that time you need to really understand American history and the history involving the color line. If you do not have this background you can be easily pulled down a rabbit hole where a broken contract equates to Dempsey was afraid to fight Wills. Remember that Dempsey won the lawsuit. It was remanded for retrial which Dempsey could just as easily won again. We will never know as their was no retrial.

So as I have stated from day 1, actually starting last year when the poster tried this game he plays with me....it does not matter whether Dempsey broke a contract in 1926 to fight a much tougher opponent in Tunney.

No black fighter fought a white heavyweight champion except Johnson (he fought Burns, a Canadian) for the title from the start of heavyweight boxing history as we know it until 1937. Their is a reason for this and it had nothing to do with Dempsey. In fact the ramifications of Johnson winning the title was one of the prime reasons Wills never got his title shot.

[travestyny]

There was certainly contemporaneous newspaper support championing Wills' cause. Wills had many supporters, both in the press and the NYSAC, (although one should weed out the Negro Press and the Chicago newspapers, in '26).

I always questioned Tex Rickard's claim that the people weren't ready for a Wills-Dempsey fight, and while one can post many articles showing the 'white supremacist' voice trying to stop the fight, (mainly blocking venues) I believe it is obvious that Wills-Dempsey would have easily been a million dollar gate.

The one post above regarding 'the cheap seats' at the Polo Grounds has the situation confused. The advent of cheap seats didn't excite Rickard, but instead drove him away.

Dempsey-Carpentier made just shy of 1.7 million (with 75-85 thousand in attendance, depending whose numbers you want to believe), while the Chicago fight in '27 went well over 2.5 million with only 104,000.

The Firpo fight at the Polo Grounds, on the other hand, drew between 85-95 thousand (depending whose numbers you want to believe) but only produced a 1.1 million dollar gate. This was because of the 'cheap seat' regulation.

You're a New Yorker, you know how New York loves 'price ceilings' to protect the poor, e.g. rent control.

Rickard did at one point try to get New York to remove the 'ceiling' but New York wouldn't play along. But Rickard didn't like the 'cheap seat' regulation, it wasn't going to induce him to promote the fight. That particular newspaper had it backwards.

Perhaps. My purpose wasn't to get into the finer details of every one of those articles. They clearly show that there was a large amount of folks that believe Dempsey was avoiding the fight. I think that's pretty obvious.

[travestyny]

Again as much as you want to distort the history you are 100% wrong.

If you don’t like Fleischer, I don’t know why because his prime objective was to use his pen to integrate heavyweight boxing, look at the 2003 bio of Dempsey written by a true historian or look at the many articles and other bios written through the years the VAST majority concluding based upon the evidence that it was not a question of Dempsey ducking Wills.

The American culture via those that controlled boxing would not allow the bout to occur. Wills stated so HIMSELF. So to really understand the dynamics of that time you need to really understand American history and the history involving the color line. If you do not have this background you can be easily pulled down a rabbit hole where a broken contract equates to Dempsey was afraid to fight Wills. Remember that Dempsey won the lawsuit. It was remanded for retrial which Dempsey could just as easily won again. We will never know as their was no retrial.

So as I have stated from day 1, actually starting last year when the poster tried this game he plays with me....it does not matter whether Dempsey broke a contract in 1926 to fight a much tougher opponent in Tunney.

No black fighter fought a white heavyweight champion except Johnson (he fought Burns, a Canadian) for the title from the start of heavyweight boxing history as we know it until 1937. Their is a reason for this and it had nothing to do with Dempsey. In fact the ramifications of Johnson winning the title was one of the prime reasons Wills never got his title shot.

This is very simple, though you want to make it complicated.


If a boxer signs a contract to have a fight, and the contract is followed perfectly by the promoter, but the figher pulls out....

who ducked the match?


We both know you don't answer questions, so why do you keep trying. There is a reason you avoid my question like the plague. If you refuse to answer, fine. But stop pretending that what you say means anything when you are ducking the questions that prove you are wrong.


Once again. The promoter was ready, Wills was ready, Dempsey pulled out. The times did NOT cause Dempsey to pull out. Rickard and Kearns were not involved, and even if they were, they work for Dempsey. Can you prove it wrong? If you don't want to step up to the challenge and prove it wrong, I'd suggest it's time for you to be quiet. It's cowardly what you're doing by making up a make believe bogey monster who stopped the fight. DEMPSEY STOPPED THE FIGHT BY BREAKING THE CONTRACT. POINT BLANK PERIOD.

STOP BEING A COWARD AND ANSWER SOME FVVCKING QUESTIONS. If you won't, we both know why


In NY they damn near begged this guy to fight Wills and even suspended him because he wouldn't. He then breaks a contract to fight the dude. He was known to, of his own accord, draw the color line just as he did with Jeanette.

Put it together. It shouldn't be rocket science to anyone except those who can't handle the truth that this mean didn't want this fight. Look how many people during that time accepted this. And look how you accept Fleischer but give an excuse about Farley. You think that's honest?

You keep talking about the historical record. Well Farley and the rest of the clips I posted are part of it. I guess we have a dilemma regarding who to believe. Well, I think that contract he broke can settle it. When you are ready to discuss it, I'll be waiting. If you duck.....again, I'll know why.

[HOUDINI563]

As just a couple of examples of the dynamics of the period:

The summer of 1919 was horrendous for race riots. Widespread race riots.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Summer_of_1919[/ame]

The Tulsa incident of 1921 was horrific too.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot[/ame]

Racial tensions were boiling over in the 20’s and THIS was the environment where a mixed race heavyweight championship bout could be held with impunity? Rickard was attacked viciously for being the CAUSE of the race riots post Johnson Jeffries that left hundreds dead. All this very fresh on the minds of those who controlled the sport some 10-15 years later.