Dempsey must be a star!

[travestyny]

Heavyweight championship bouts between white champions and black challengers were barred. This was the reason for the color line...an official statement from the champion that he would continue the long held tradition. Dempsey did not believe in the color line and what you see is the push and pull of Dempsey wanting to fight anyone and Kearns and Rickard telling him “no way”.

Contenders could fight mixed matches although they were few and far between.

What about when Dempsey was signed to other promoters, as he was with the Chicago Coliseum Club, and then he broke the contract.

You can't possibly blame Rickard on Dempsey breaking that contract, can you?

[Willie Pep 229]

So you're telling me that Wills wasn't the logical challenger to Dempsey at the beginning of '26?

Pretty sure he was. So all of the above isn't relevant.



lol. The Chicago contract that I've been referring to was signed by Dempsey in March of 1926. Kinda throws a wrench into all of the above.




I'm glad you mention Rickard as being in the know.

Douglas Daily Dispatch April 28th, 1926

Some interesting things here.

1. Rickard claims to know that Paddy Mullins signed a contract binding Wills to a fight with Tunney through another promoter in case Dempsey evades the Chicago contract.

2. Rickard says he has a contract for Dempsey to fight Tunney or Wills in New York or New Jersey.

Notice how he always makes it a point of saying Dempsey isn't scared of Wills or Dempsey wants Wills or Dempsey thinks Wills is easier and that's why he wants him. Reeks of a childish psychological rhetoric desperately trying to throw people off the obvious that they've ducked this fight for years.

And the obvious....if he is open to Wills in New York.......why the hell did they duck Wills in New York? The proof is in the pudding.

Starting at the end: Rickard had both Wills and Tunney waiting, he knew exactually what he was doing. Come on man you know Rickard was using Wills as leverage all the way back in '22.

Why do you take fight promoters manipulations at face value?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Where is that 'word' from Wills camp you mentioned? You have not address the Tunney situation.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, by 1925-1926 Wills was no longer the top guy, Tunney had put himself in that slot and was (supposedly) ready to fight Wills. (I don't actually trust Billy Gibson.) I think neither Wills or Tunney wanted that fight.

--------------------------------------------------------------

You Said:

Notice how he always makes it a point of saying Dempsey isn't scared of Wills or Dempsey wants Wills or Dempsey thinks Wills is easier and that's why he wants him. Reeks of a childish psychological rhetoric desperately trying to throw people off the obvious that they've ducked this fight for years.

I agree, very true!

----------------------------------------------------------------

You Said:

lol. The Chicago contract that I've been referring to was signed by Dempsey in March of 1926. Kinda throws a wrench into all of the above.

I STAND CORRECTED

You are correct, but never the less it was still void.

But it does beg the question why did Wills breach the first contract from 1925?

1925 Contract Signing

----------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the skinny on why the 1926 contract was void:

----------------------------------------------------------------

Law School Case Brief

The court permitted damages only for expenses incurred during time between the signing of the contract and defendant's repudiation of the contract.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-chi-coliseum-club-v-dempsey

-------------------------------------------------------------------

CaseBriefs

The expenses incurred by the Plaintiff in procuring the decree were not recoverable, as it had already been informed that Defendant intended to proceed no further and took such steps at its own risk.

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/contracts/contracts-keyed-to-dawson/remedies-for-breach-of-contract/chicago-coliseum-club-v-dempsey/

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Quimbee

and (4) expenses incurred after the Dempsey contract was signed, but before Dempsey’s breach.

https://www.quimbee.com/cases/chicag...club-v-dempsey

-----------------------------------------------------------

Xavier University


4) Special expenses incurred between the date of the signing and the breach are recoverable.

http://www.cs.xu.edu/~osborn/main/lawSchool/contractsHtml/bottomScreens/Briefs/Chicago%20Coliseum%20Club%20v.%20Dempsey.htm

---------------------------------------------------------

Finally, since Wills chose to breach the 1925 contract by taking an interim fight, when he signed that he wouldn't, can I now claim Wills was ducking Dempsey?

Now that you corrected my (poorly researched) chronology doesn't that make Wills the first to 'duck' out of a contract, not Dempsey? After all you based your argument, that Dempsey 'ducked' Wills, on a breached contract, doesn't it work both ways?

Dare I say Harry Wills ducked Jack Dempsey first!

I'm glad you caught my mistake, this is a better argument!

---------------------------------------------------------------

[HOUDINI563]

You will find mixed race heavyweight bouts every year during that time. You will only find one white heavyweight champion fighting a black contender from let’s say 1880 to 1937. (Johnson vs Burns, a Canadian in 1908). So that’s 57 years. The reason was their was an unwritten rule to never let any black fighter have an opportunity to win a title that would make him the physical master of all white men.

[HOUDINI563]

Add to this of course the Johnson reign which included the race riots following his bout with Jeffries in 1910. Rickard, a powerful actor within boxing then into the 20’s, was blamed for that carnage. Some wanted him in jail for promoting the bout. All those around at that time remembered all of this and no one wanted it to occur again. This mindset fueled the pushback regarding any mixed race heavyweight championship bout until 1937 with Joe Louis. It took that long to put the Johnson Jeffries aftermath in the rear view mirror. The US by then was ready for a black heavyweight champion.

[travestyny]

Starting at the end: Rickard had both Wills and Tunney waiting, he knew exactually what he was doing. Come on man you know Rickard was using Wills as leverage all the way back in '22.

Why do you take fight promoters manipulations at face value?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Where is that 'word' from Wills camp you mentioned? You have not address the Tunney situation.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, by 1925-1926 Wills was no longer the top guy, Tunney had put himself in that slot and was (supposedly) ready to fight Wills. (I don't actually trust Billy Gibson.) I think neither Wills or Tunney wanted that fight.

--------------------------------------------------------------

You Said:

Notice how he always makes it a point of saying Dempsey isn't scared of Wills or Dempsey wants Wills or Dempsey thinks Wills is easier and that's why he wants him. Reeks of a childish psychological rhetoric desperately trying to throw people off the obvious that they've ducked this fight for years.

I agree, very true!

----------------------------------------------------------------

You Said:

lol. The Chicago contract that I've been referring to was signed by Dempsey in March of 1926. Kinda throws a wrench into all of the above.

I STAND CORRECTED

You are correct, but never the less it was still void.

But it does beg the question why did Wills breach the first contract from 1925?

1925 Contract Signing

----------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the skinny on why the 1926 contract was void:

----------------------------------------------------------------

Law School Case Brief

The court permitted damages only for expenses incurred during time between the signing of the contract and defendant's repudiation of the contract.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-chi-coliseum-club-v-dempsey

-------------------------------------------------------------------

CaseBriefs

The expenses incurred by the Plaintiff in procuring the decree were not recoverable, as it had already been informed that Defendant intended to proceed no further and took such steps at its own risk.

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/contracts/contracts-keyed-to-dawson/remedies-for-breach-of-contract/chicago-coliseum-club-v-dempsey/

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Quimbee

and (4) expenses incurred after the Dempsey contract was signed, but before Dempsey’s breach.

https://www.quimbee.com/cases/chicag...club-v-dempsey

-----------------------------------------------------------

Xavier University


4) Special expenses incurred between the date of the signing and the breach are recoverable.

http://www.cs.xu.edu/~osborn/main/lawSchool/contractsHtml/bottomScreens/Briefs/Chicago%20Coliseum%20Club%20v.%20Dempsey.htm

---------------------------------------------------------

Finally, since Wills chose to breach the 1925 contract by taking an interim fight, when he signed that he wouldn't, can I now claim Wills was ducking Dempsey?

Now that you corrected my (poorly researched) chronology doesn't that make Wills the first to 'duck' out of a contract, not Dempsey? After all you based your argument, that Dempsey 'ducked' Wills, on a breached contract, doesn't it work both ways?

Dare I say Harry Wills ducked Jack Dempsey first!

I'm glad you caught my mistake, this is a better argument!

---------------------------------------------------------------

I see you've reverted back to idiocy and desperation


Just stop it.

I've just showed you exactly what I said. The first contract didn't come off when Fitz couldn't produce the money. Don't you Dempsey fans remember that story. It's the one you kept trying to mix up with 1926. Suddenly have amnesia...?

The second contract, Dempsey broke. That it became void after it was broken doesn't mean anything. Obviously it becomes void BECAUSE IT WAS BROKEN. What exactly do you think this proves?

Your whole argument seems to now be saying that Dempsey didn't duck Harry Wills because after Dempsey broke the contract, they couldn't force him to fight Wills. That makes no sense



If you can find the court case of Harry Wills being sued for breach of contract, by all means. Please share it with us.

[travestyny]

Add to this of course the Johnson reign which included the race riots following his bout with Jeffries in 1910. Rickard, a powerful actor within boxing then into the 20’s, was blamed for that carnage. Some wanted him in jail for promoting the bout. All those around at that time remembered all of this and no one wanted it to occur again. This mindset fueled the pushback regarding any mixed race heavyweight championship bout until 1937 with Joe Louis. It took that long to put the Johnson Jeffries aftermath in the rear view mirror. The US by then was ready for a black heavyweight champion.

Yea, we get it about Rickard. Just use him as the excuse. Got it.

But again, I'm asking about other promoters that were willing to put on the fight. No mention of them?

[Willie Pep 229]

I see you've reverted back to idiocy and desperation


Just stop it.

I've just showed you exactly what I said. The first contract didn't come off when Fitz couldn't produce the money. Don't you Dempsey fans remember that story. It's the one you kept trying to mix up with 1926. Suddenly have amnesia...?

The second contract, Dempsey broke. That it became void after it was broken doesn't mean anything. Obviously it becomes void BECAUSE IT WAS BROKEN. What exactly do you think this proves?

Your whole argument seems to now be saying that Dempsey didn't duck Harry Wills because after Dempsey broke the contract, they couldn't force him to fight Wills. That makes no sense



If you can find the court case of Harry Wills being sued for breach of contract, by all means. Please share it with us.

I see you've reverted back to idiocy and desperation

Please don't revert to this kind of nonsense I thought you and I were above that.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I've just showed you exactly what I said. The first contract didn't come off when Fitz couldn't produce the money.

No, here's what happened with the first contract:

Dempsey calls Wills on his breach: http://www.perno.com/Boxing/fitz-dec%201925.pdf

Dempsey offers to rewrite contract:http://www.perno.com/Boxing/fitz%20c...20contract.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------

If you can find the court case of Harry Wills being sued for breach of contract, by all means. Please share it with us.

It makes no sense for Dempsey to sue Wills for breaching the September 1925 contract, he was the center of the universe, HW Champion of the World.

The appropriate question to ask, is why didn't Wills sue Dempsey? Answer: Because Wills had breached the the September 1925 contract and he had no legal ground to stand on. Thus necessitating the second March 6th contract.

----------------------------------------------------------------

So why did Wills breach the September 1925 contract by fighting Floyd Johnson, a journeyman, for cheap dollars when he had Dempsey singed for Sept. 1926?

--------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. We both (I believe) were functioning under the premise that Fitzsimmons 'sold' the March 6th contract to the Chicago AC. But I have been running into these vague statements from 1925 (the first contract 09/25) that Fitzsimmons already had 'Chicago' money behind him. They don't mention the Chicago AC by name until Dempsey repudiates the contract in July 1926, but I am now thinking that the Chicago people were in the mix right from the get go. Which begs the question, if they were why did Fitzsimmons send Dempsey home with only $10.

[Willie Pep 229]

Add to this of course the Johnson reign which included the race riots following his bout with Jeffries in 1910. Rickard, a powerful actor within boxing then into the 20’s, was blamed for that carnage. Some wanted him in jail for promoting the bout. All those around at that time remembered all of this and no one wanted it to occur again. This mindset fueled the pushback regarding any mixed race heavyweight championship bout until 1937 with Joe Louis. It took that long to put the Johnson Jeffries aftermath in the rear view mirror. The US by then was ready for a black heavyweight champion.

Agree with both your posts; some States did allow mixed fights, but the HW Championship of the World was indeed a horse of a different color.

IMO "race riots' is a BS term used to try and make it look like both sides were at fault. You know that same nonsense Trump was pushing a few years back, that there was violence on both sides.

In 1910 Blacks were only protecting themselves from attack, not looking for trouble. Just trying to enjoy themselves.

They weren't race riots, it was White on Black violence. Whites were attacking Black people as they left movie theaters, one Black kid was shot to death on a bus for verbally championing Johnson's victory. On a crowded bus there were 'no wittiness,' just a dead teenage boy.

Movie theaters were being set on fire and were forced to stop showing the fight to Black audiences for fear of being attacked.

One private showing of the Johnson-Jeffries fight at a Black 'road house' (bar) was attacked leaving multiple dead and hundreds running off into the wood for safety.

They weren't 'race rots;' Black people were being attacked for celebrating.

[travestyny]

I see you've reverted back to idiocy and desperation

Please don't revert to this kind of nonsense I thought you and I were above that.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I've just showed you exactly what I said. The first contract didn't come off when Fitz couldn't produce the money.

No, here's what happened with the first contract:

Dempsey calls Wills on his breach: http://www.perno.com/Boxing/fitz-dec%201925.pdf

Dempsey offers to rewrite contract:http://www.perno.com/Boxing/fitz%20c...20contract.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------

If you can find the court case of Harry Wills being sued for breach of contract, by all means. Please share it with us.

It makes no sense for Dempsey to sue Wills for breaching the September 1925 contract, he was the center of the universe, HW Champion of the World.

The appropriate question to ask, is why didn't Wills sue Dempsey? Answer: Because Wills had breached the the September 1925 contract and he had no legal ground to stand on. Thus necessitating the second March 6th contract.

----------------------------------------------------------------

So why did Wills breach the September 1925 contract by fighting Floyd Johnson, a journeyman, for cheap dollars when he had Dempsey singed for Sept. 1926?

--------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. We both (I believe) were functioning under the premise that Fitzsimmons 'sold' the March 6th contract to the Chicago AC. But I have been running into these vague statements from 1925 (the first contract 09/25) that Fitzsimmons already had 'Chicago' money behind him. They don't mention the Chicago AC by name until Dempsey repudiates the contract in July 1926, but I am now thinking that the Chicago people were in the mix right from the get go. Which begs the question, if they were why did Fitzsimmons send Dempsey home with only $10.

Did you actually read the two articles that you posted to me?

It's saying exactly what I've told you. In fact, I've shared at least one of them on this board myself already. So I'm not sure what the problem is?

Wills didn't breach a contract. Just stop with the desperation. He already had a plan to fight Floyd Johnson before signing the contract and Fitz knew about it before he signed. Dempsey even went to the fight. Your own posts state exactly why the first contract didn't amount to anything. So you make no sense. Good try tho. Again, you can feel free to show us Harry Wills in court for breach of contract. I'm pretty sure that didn't happen, so how was there a breach of contract when everyone was still on board after it was cleared up?

And what are you confused about? No one "sent Dempsey home with $10." What is he, a retarded child? The man signed a contract for $800,000 plus (more than the Tunney fight) and accepted $10 at the time of signing to bind the contract. I'm sure he was very cognizant of what he was doing.

In fact, let's let him clarify it for us.

LESS THAN TWO WEEKS BEFORE HE SIGNED THE CONTRACT THAT HE BROKE.

I hear a lot about promoters wanting to hold a Dempsey-Wills fight. Everybody seems to want to hold that one, but nobody as yet has shown me any real money. When the promoter with the money comes along he'll find me ready with a pen to sign on the line.

Oh is that right, Mr. Dempsey. You hear A LOT about promoters wanting to hold the fight. EVERYBODY seems to want to hold it? You don't say???? Pretty good for a bout with zero public interest, huh?

Using simple logic here. He loved what he saw in that contract. And since we already agreed that the promoter lived up to their side, that would mean Dempsey broke the contract for no good reason. We are back to the only truth that continues to stand here.

Now do we have to keep doing this? I'm bored of showing you guys the same thing over and over again just because you're too emotionally invested to face reality.

[HOUDINI563]

Absolutely. Also blacks were celebrating and whites took offense to it initiating beatings, shootings and lynching. It was a one sided “riot”.