Buy or Sell: Drawing the Color Line

[Ivich]

No I didn't say suddenly - I said four years later in 1926.

No I am not saying Rickard was the only one against the fight in 1922 - I always said Kearns was as well because it would involve Rickard. I always felt Rickard was the only one who could make the fight.

That line in bold is clueless - how in God's good nane did you decipher that from my post?

I'll try once again but you really didn't try to understand the above post you probably won't try to understand this one.

In short: The fight back in '20 - '22 would have been pure racial - in 192o Wills' claim to fame was he was a great Negro boxer.

By 1926 Farley, New York, and the NYSAC had developed Wills into more than just a Negro fighter.

He had become the uncrowded champion in New York's eyes, he was a celebrity referee, he helped promote charity (milk fund) fights. He was his own man, he was a personality.

Back in '20-'22 when Wills was chasing Dempsey it was all about white vs colored. By 1926 Wills has become more than that.

In regards to the bold for Rickard it was 'no' in 1922 and 'yes' for summer 1927. And no I am not saying Rickard said that Wills had to beat Tunney first. I have never read that, I have never said that!

Now let me address your inability to parse the politics of the day. The idea that you think 'Wills had jumped through enough hoops already' is utterly absurd!

He was a negro in the 1920s trying to get a shot at the HW title. If he needed to beat Tunney to get that shot (which obviously he did) then he needed to go after Tunney and clear the field. He really had no choice.

To think that you believe a Negro fighter back then could 'stand on principle' is comical.

You know who would roll his eyes and laugh if he heard you say that ridiculous statement, Jack Johnson!

Roger Kahn in his Dempsey book speculates that Farley had a piece of Wills.

[travestyny]

No I didn't say suddenly - I said four years later in 1926.

No I am not saying Rickard was the only one against the fight in 1922 - I always said Kearns was as well because it would involve Rickard. I always felt Rickard was the only one who could make the fight.

That line in bold is clueless - how in God's good nane did you decipher that from my post?

I'll try once again but you really didn't try to understand the above post you probably won't try to understand this one.

In short: The fight back in '20 - '22 would have been pure racial - in 192o Wills' claim to fame was he was a great Negro boxer.

By 1926 Farley, New York, and the NYSAC had developed Wills into more than just a Negro fighter.

He had become the uncrowded champion in New York's eyes, he was a celebrity referee, he helped promote charity (milk fund) fights. He was his own man, he was a personality.

Back in '20-'22 when Wills was chasing Dempsey it was all about white vs colored. By 1926 Wills has become more than that.

I'm going to push back on your premise here, because that's not what the press was saying about Wills at this time. I don't even think that's what Dempsey himself was saying about Wills at this time.

Yes, there was a racial element. No doubt. But the press was praising Wills because he was an excellent fighter and was certainly being put up as the best man for the title. So I have no idea what your argument here is. It seems you are trying to say that at first there was a racial element, and later that wasn't as prevalent and so it would have more likely been made.

I'm calling bs on that. Again, the public stated at least by 1922 that they wanted this fight. Whether there was a racial element or not, they wanted the fight. So I'm not sure what your argument here is. Even if they wanted it only because it was racial.....they still wanted the fight.

You stated that Farley only wanted this fight because of his politics and such. Even if that is true.....SO WHAT????? Everyone wanted this fight except for Dempsey and his team.

In regards to the bold for Rickard it was 'no' in 1922 and 'yes' for summer 1927. And no I am not saying Rickard said that Wills had to beat Tunney first. I have never read that, I have never said that!

Now let me address your inability to parse the politics of the day. The idea that you think 'Wills had jumped through enough hoops already' is utterly absurd!

He was a negro in the 1920s trying to get a shot at the HW title. If he needed to beat Tunney to get that shot (which obviously he did) then he needed to go after Tunney and clear the field. He really had no choice.

To think that you believe a Negro fighter back then could 'stand on principle' is comical.

You know who would roll his eyes and laugh if he heard you say that ridiculous statement, Jack Johnson!

I have no idea what you are even talking about here. Rickard and his team wanted the Toronto fight in the early going but Dempsey walked, making Rickard's match maker very upset allegedly. That blows up your whole argument.

And you trying to dismiss Wills as just a negro is laughable. Here is a clipping rating Harry Wills above his white counterparts in 1921. It concludes by saying there isn't a great demand for Dempsey to face him because he is colored. But I just looked and the poll with the public choosing Wills for the shot came just a year later in 1922.

Pretty sure that shows your premise is off and the public wanting the fight says you are flat out wrong.

1921
Pa0Jt5.png


1922 7jfA2e.png

[QueensburyRules]

When did that happen? Show the proof.


Wills never walked away from the Dempsey fight. Never. You are a liar.

- - Rickard created a pathway with Tunney. Wills walked. Settled history and U panties on fire again.

And for the umpteenth time, I don't class that as a duck. Boxing was worn out with Dempsey in Hollywood getting sued by Kearns while working in a medium that adores him for the first time in his life that makes him more than he was taking home with Kearns.

[travestyny]

- - Rickard created a pathway with Tunney. Wills walked. Settled history and U panties on fire again.

And for the umpteenth time, I don't class that as a duck. Boxing was worn out with Dempsey in Hollywood getting sued by Kearns while working in a medium that adores him for the first time in his life that makes him more than he was taking home with Kearns.

No he didn't.

Show the proof of the offer. And explain why when other "pathways" were given, Dempsey's side didn't live up to the agreement.

[Dr. Z]

No, I view the band as questionable. The photo seems sick, and is within your political activity.

To answer your question, THE CRT race theory is flawed. Too many black student underachieve due to their culture. Kids grew up without fathers, and skip or drop out of school in the average back neighborhood, far more often the average white neighborhood. This is fact and has nothing to so with the quality of the school. Therefore the schools testing scores, which is a way of measuring school success, as is graduation rate, the amount who attend college, and other ways to measure which students are doing well, are poor in Black neighborhoods.

CRT is nothing but noise designed to funnel money for a cause. Public money, state money, and federal money. Got it now? I'll act like you for a moment, Prove what I said is wrong or shut up. Your a joke[/QUOTE]


No reply from Travestyny? You can't prove what I said is wrong! Stick to the subject. You act like I'm ducking you, yet when I reply you go silent? I didn't attack your personally, and expect the same.

[travestyny]

No, I view the band as questionable. The photo seems sick, and is within your political activity.

To answer your question, THE CRT race theory is flawed. Too many black student underachieve due to their culture. Kids grew up without fathers, and skip or drop out of school in the average back neighborhood, far more often the average white neighborhood. This is fact and has nothing to so with the quality of the school. Therefore the schools testing scores, which is a way of measuring school success, as is graduation rate, the amount who attend college, and other ways to measure which students are doing well, are poor in Black neighborhoods.

CRT is nothing but noise designed to funnel money for a cause. Public money, state money, and federal money. Got it now? I'll act like you for a moment, Prove what I said is wrong or shut up. Your a joke

No reply from Travestyny? You can't prove what I said is wrong! Stick to the subject. You act like I'm ducking you, yet when I reply you go silent? I didn't attack your personally, and expect the same.

Reply to what exactly. You keep ducking the question. Why won't you answer.


I'll try for an 81st time. Are the schools in average Black neighborhoods the same quality as schools in average White neighborhoods.

You are talking about the students. That's not what I'm asking and you know it.


You going to keep ducking? Try being a man for once in your life.



And again, you've said nothing about the merits of CRT. You obviously don't even know what it is. You can't prove something is flawed without even addressing the merits, dumbo. What you would have to prove is that there is no systemic racism. And you know I already have tons of proof that there is, including by the United States Sentencing Commission itself. You're going to lose this argument as soon as you grow a pair and try to answer questions. Stop ducking.

[travestyny]

This is fact and has nothing to so with the quality of the school.

Here is the simple proof that you are ducking.


I ask you about the quality of the schools. You say it has nothing to do with that.


If my question is about the quality of the schools, then clearly it has something to do with....wait for it....the quality of the schools.


And I'm talking about schools from the ground up. Kindergarten and elementary schools. You seem to be talking about high schools and universities. I'm talking about what happens to CHILDREN when they first attend school. Are they being started off on an even playing field? Are they given the same quality education from the ground up. But you won't answer.


Thanks for admitting you won't even answer the question. Duck duck duck

[Willie Pep 229]

Roger Kahn in his Dempsey book speculates that Farley had a piece of Wills.

Yes Farley was a Tammany politician and later a King maker. He made the first Tammanny (********ic) moves into ********** dominated Uptown (via Harlem's negro vote) and the Bronx (which at the time was a middle-class [not working class] suburb.)

Later he became one of FDR's cief political advisers. He was responsible for getting Garner (TX) to put aside his hate for the NY elitist FDR and take on the VP position, ensuring the South and TX for FDR in 1932.

Farley had much clot with Tammanny and Jimmy Walker. He was the one who pushed Chairman Muldoon to the back burner on the NYSAC.

Supposedly several Tammany politicians had bought into Wills contract.

It was one of the lesser reasons, they didn't want Wills fighting Dempsey out of the New York area. No sense in having a Montreal Dempsey fight if the local (city) doesn't cash in on the payday.

[travestyny]

Yes Farley was a Tammany politician and later a King maker. He made the first Tammanny (********ic) moves into ********** dominated Uptown (via Harlem's negro vote) and the Bronx (which at the time was a middle-class [not working class] suburb.)

Later he became one of FDR's cief political advisers. He was responsible for getting Garner (TX) to put aside his hate for the NY elitist FDR and take on the VP position, ensuring the South and TX for FDR in 1932.

Farley had much clot with Tammanny and Jimminy Walker. He was the one who pushed Cairman Muldoon to the back burner on the NYSAC.

Supposedly several Tammany politicians had bought into Wills contract.

It was one of the lesser reasons, they didn't want Wills fighting Dempsey out of the New York area. No sense in having a Montreal Dempsey fight if the local (city) doesn't cash in on the payday.

I still am unable to understand your argument regarding Farley.


It seems to me that what you've proven is that he was absolutely no obstruction to the Wills Dempsey fight taking place. In fact, according to your speculation, he may have wanted it to happen very badly, albeit for selfish reasons.

So what exactly is the issue?

[Willie Pep 229]

I still am unable to understand your argument regarding Farley.


It seems to me that what you've proven is that he was absolutely no obstruction to the Wills Dempsey fight taking place. In fact, according to your speculation, he may have wanted it to happen very badly, albeit for selfish reasons.

So what exactly is the issue?

Rickard was scared to make the fight in 1922 - Kearns didn't Rickard's fingers in anymore Dempsry fights, and the best way to that end was to keep the fight out of NY (the northeast,) thus the Shelby disaster.

Farley's involvment was trying to bar Dempsey from fighting anyone in the New York area that wasn't Wills. As you know at one point in 1922 they tried to strip Dempsey's title from him but ended up with egg on their face when they realized the public wasn't buying into their claimed authority.

My personal conjecture regarging Farley is that Wills was more valuable to him as the 'wronged' challenger (wronged because of the color line) which he played well politically, as he consolidated the Uptown Black vote (Harlem) moving them away from the Party of Lincoln over to supporting the ********s (in NY that was Tammanny).

I suspect if Farley could have gotten a Dempsey-Wills fight in the Polo Grounds he would have supported it, but Wills fighting outside of NY (e.g. Montreal) was not on his agenda.

In short Wills was more politically valuable as a wronged Negro then he was as a defeated challenger. I question Farley's motives, not 100% sure he was really acting on Wills behave, but instead his own.