Why Does Jack Johnson Get a Pass on Opposition while Marciano Does Not?

[Mr.MojoRisin']

The plot thickens! Definitely enjoying the conversation.


GhostofDempsey brought up Doc Krone claiming that he had a check for Dempsey. Here is what I found:






So after the injunction, did they come through with their promise? Note that this was a guarantee check, not a personal check, which would mean that it was guaranteed to be paid by the bank.


This was reported in a few newspapers. This is getting really interesting. Happy that you guys are finally trying to back up your information with some real evidence. How do you come back from this one?

They're saying that a $300,000 guarantee check needs to be given to Dempsey not that it was already given to him.

I think this pretty much ends things then. It's settled, Dempsey was in the right and the crooked promoters couldn't afford to pay him. Goes along with Dempsey's narrative 100%.

[travestyny]

Yes, the source is lying because it has so many easily disprovable statements in it that everyone would have been in an uproar over it. It's unexplainably dumb I've never seen a source full of so many lies. The language the source claims Dempsey used does not match his other language anyway. Wasn't Dempsey. Where did you get this source anyway?




I don't. It's from the same source that said Kearns didn't want the fight. Kearns didn't want the fight because it was mixed race but he was also being urged by many to put on the fight. There was also just as many people telling him not to put him on. This entire situation isn't just black and white (no pun intended). You're looking for a straight up answer of who ducked who or trying to pin it on one specific thing as to why the fight never happened. The real answer is there are a million and one reasons why this fight never happened. Many members of the public didn't want it, the government forbid it, Harry Wills manager was a pain in the ass and difficult to deal with from what I've read, Wills was asking for a very large sum, Rickard was scared of promoting a mixed-race bout and absolutely refused to go near it as did every major promoter in the country, there were plenty of attempts at making this fight from 1922 to 1926 ALL failed for one reason or another, promoters who did attempt to put the fight on couldn't come up with the money, there were other fights that could make more money and were much easier to make like the Tunney fight for example.

Overall I feel like your being too harsh on Dempsey. What do you expect him to do? There is only so much say a fighter can have in negotiations he either agrees or doesn't. He signs the doted line or he doesn't.

Let's be on the level here with each other. Is your intention to make Dempsey look like a racist that ducked Langford, Jeanette, McVey, Johnson, and Wills? In all honesty that's 100% what you're putting forth. Don't come back with the "Oh well if that's what you conclude from the sources then that's on you". I find that your sources are unreliable too. Seems like you dug into some trash bin to find them especially the ones with no name on them for an author. The ones that are claiming that Dempsey said something are the worst too. I don't trust those for a second. Newspapermen are NOTORIOUS for misquoting people and outright lying. Their goal is to make a profit and stir up public interest. Not to report the facts necessarily.



What the court says isn't what always happened. The courts found OJ innocent but we all know he was guilty as hell.

Dempsey never took them to court over the bad check so it wouldn't have came up.



That was only 10 days before the fight was supposed to be put on right? What was going to stop the promoters from making up some excuse at the last minute for why they didn't have the money so Dempsey would go on with the fight and they could renig and not pay him. You realize that happened all the time back then right? It wasn't uncommon for promoters, managers, fighters, etc to sign contracts that they had no intention of seeing through. It wasn't always as simple as taking them to court because according to you Dempsey is to blame and he still got off pretty much scot free.

About to step out. Will answer all of these when I get back later, bro.

[travestyny]

They're saying that a $300,000 guarantee check needs to be given to Dempsey not that it was already given to him.

I think this pretty much ends things then. It's settled, Dempsey was in the right and the crooked promoters couldn't afford to pay him. Goes along with Dempsey's narrative 100%.

I think you're misunderstanding this. lol. Who is saying the guaranteed check needs to be given to Dempsey? Dempsey can't find the bank? That's laughable.

It's showing that they moved in accordance with the contract...and for that matter, were acting on the injunction that was granted.

Again, will write more. About to step out.

[travestyny]

I just noticed the title. Did you really just write "Wills ducks Dempsey in 1931"????

lol. Bro. Really?


He claimed he wanted him since 1919. He finally was getting around to it in 1931? Their children could have probably put on a better match then they could have by this time! Wills was 38!!!

[travestyny]

Yes, the source is lying because it has so many easily disprovable statements in it that everyone would have been in an uproar over it. It's unexplainably dumb I've never seen a source full of so many lies. The language the source claims Dempsey used does not match his other language anyway. Wasn't Dempsey. Where did you get this source anyway?

OK. Well I know you keep thinking I'm forging this information or finding it "in a trash bin" or whatever you keep saying. Actually the court case that I posted seems to be a case that is used in law schools often, and I found out about it in a book about contracts. It also posted that quotation with a footnote that it was from a New York Times article in 1926. So I did some searching and...low and behold....look what we have:

DEMPSEY PUBLICLY CHALLENGES WILLS; Declares He Has Posted $150,000 for Battle and Demands Negro Cover It.
Special to The New York Times.AUG. 19, 1926

SARATOGA SPRINGS, Aug. 18. -- Jack Dempsey issued a public challenge tonight to Harry Wills for a battle any time before Jan. 1, 1927, if the champion retains his title against Gene Tunney, and posted a forfeit of $150,000, which he demands that Wills or his manager, Paddy Mullins, cover, the winner to take all.

https://www.nytimes.com/1926/08/19/a...50000-for.html

Not only that, but there were two follow up articles that I found:

DEMPSEY BLUFFING, MULLINS DECLARES; $150,000 Challenge Unnecessary to Get Bout With Wills, Manager Asserts.
AUG. 20, 1926

Paddy Mullins's reply yesterday to the statement of Jack Dempsey, offering to post $150,000 to bind a meeting between the heavyweight champion and his negro challenger, Harry Wills, after Dempsey's fight on Sept. 23 with Gene Tunney in Philadelphia was that Dempsey is bluffing and seeking only to add to the ballyhoo for the Dempsey -Tunney bout.

https://www.nytimes.com/1926/08/20/a...essary-to.html

And Dempsey's response:

Dempsey Denies Bluffing.

https://www.nytimes.com/1926/08/20/a...-bluffing.html

That would make it three articles from 1926 regarding this. Do you still think it is fake? It's not. I've told you over and over. I'm not just pulling information out of my ass.

I don't. It's from the same source that said Kearns didn't want the fight. Kearns didn't want the fight because it was mixed race but he was also being urged by many to put on the fight. There was also just as many people telling him not to put him on. This entire situation isn't just black and white (no pun intended). You're looking for a straight up answer of who ducked who or trying to pin it on one specific thing as to why the fight never happened. The real answer is there are a million and one reasons why this fight never happened. Many members of the public didn't want it, the government forbid it, Harry Wills manager was a pain in the ass and difficult to deal with from what I've read, Wills was asking for a very large sum, Rickard was scared of promoting a mixed-race bout and absolutely refused to go near it as did every major promoter in the country, there were plenty of attempts at making this fight from 1922 to 1926 ALL failed for one reason or another, promoters who did attempt to put the fight on couldn't come up with the money, there were other fights that could make more money and were much easier to make like the Tunney fight for example.

I never attempted to give a definitive reason that this happened. All I'm saying is you have Dempsey claiming that he wanted Wills since 1919. You have him claiming he is the ONLY man he wanted. You have him claiming he would fight him for $0 in the least and $300,000 in the most. You have him saying he never drew the color line. You have a promoter that got him to sign a contract and he breached it. You have that promoter showing proof that they had a guarantee check in his name waiting for him. He didn't take it.

Now. I don't know what that looks like to you. To me that looks like a duck, for whatever reason. It at least seems like he didn't want him as much as he tried to say he did.

Overall I feel like your being too harsh on Dempsey. What do you expect him to do? There is only so much say a fighter can have in negotiations he either agrees or doesn't. He signs the doted line or he doesn't.

But that's the thing. He signed on the dotted line. Then he pretended that he didn't. He didn't even wait for the money to come in.

Let's be on the level here with each other. Is your intention to make Dempsey look like a racist that ducked Langford, Jeanette, McVey, Johnson, and Wills? In all honesty that's 100% what you're putting forth. Don't come back with the "Oh well if that's what you conclude from the sources then that's on you". I find that your sources are unreliable too. Seems like you dug into some trash bin to find them especially the ones with no name on them for an author. The ones that are claiming that Dempsey said something are the worst too. I don't trust those for a second. Newspapermen are NOTORIOUS for misquoting people and outright lying. Their goal is to make a profit and stir up public interest. Not to report the facts necessarily.

I don't know why you keep going on and on with trying to say I'm accusing Dempsey of being a racist. 1. I never, ever said that. 2. Don't even know what that would have to do with this.

I'm pretty sure I told you straight up that even if he did use the word "negro" a bunch of times, I don't think that means he is a racist. Would you think the "United Negro College Fund" is a racist organization? Even posters that agree with you about Dempsey have tried to tell you that you're wrong about this, but you kept going. If anything, I would moreso believe that his quotation referring to White men as Men and Black men as Boys would be considered racist, but even in light of that I told you that I don't wish to get into that, so why would you believe that I'm pushing to say he's a racist? If I thought so, I would have jumped all over that!

Langford--He said he was scared. I believe him.

Jeannette-- He didn't fight him because he's black. At least that's what his quotation seems to say. Does that mean he's racist? I don't think so. He was afraid of losing to a black boxer for whatever reason. Seems clear to me when he says he would fight any white man but didn't agree to fight a black "boy."

McVey -- Told you I've heard nothing about a potential match between the two. I only know he didn't fight him.

Wills-- Told you I wasn't even interested in looking into this until you guys kept pushing it, probably to get away from what seemed crystal clear regarding the Joe Jeannette scenario. And then when I looked into it, what I found made me move from pretty much thinking it was not a duck with some slight suspicions, to being extremely suspicious that it was a duck. The info. that I found certainly shifts my opinion a great deal.

What the court says isn't what always happened. The courts found OJ innocent but we all know he was guilty as hell.

Apples and oranges. I'm pretty sure a court can easily look at a written document, and a signature, and discern if the contract is real and the signature is legit, and then realize the contents of the contract. That's certainly different from deciding if a man killed someone when no one else was around.

Dempsey never took them to court over the bad check so it wouldn't have came up.

I've never read anything about a contract for this. What I'm referring to is the contract situation that I linked you to, and the money wasn't supposed to be there until August 5th. He was taken to court August 3rd. So I think that clearly shows he didn't wait for that money, which he agreed to do.

That was only 10 days before the fight was supposed to be put on right? What was going to stop the promoters from making up some excuse at the last minute for why they didn't have the money so Dempsey would go on with the fight and they could renig and not pay him. You realize that happened all the time back then right? It wasn't uncommon for promoters, managers, fighters, etc to sign contracts that they had no intention of seeing through. It wasn't always as simple as taking them to court because according to you Dempsey is to blame and he still got off pretty much scot free.

No. The fight was to be in September. If I remember correctly, it was stated in the contract that if for some reason the fight didn't come off, Dempsey would be allowed to keep the $300,000. He was supposed to get another sum of money (I think $500,000) 10 days before the fight. of course they could have balked on that amount, but then Dempsey would have $300,000 for nothing and a fight with Tunney waiting. Remember, according to him, he really wanted Wills.

But most importantly, who am I, or you for that matter, to criticize that they would give money 10 days before the fight. DEMPSEY SIGNED THE CONTRACT. HE AGREED TO IT HIMSELF. I doubt they had a gun to his head. Plus, being that it was part of the contract, I'm sure he would have a great chance of winning in court. What you seem to not be understanding is that technically, though Dempsey "lost" in court, he didn't have to pay much only because proving the fight would have been a draw (gain money) was IMPOSSIBLE according to the court. On the other hand, proving that they promised to give him $500,000 10 days before the fight would have been easy. It was right there in writing.

Finally, it seems there is proof that around August 5th, they had the $300,000 waiting in a guaranteed check for Dempsey, just like the contract stipulated.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

I think you're misunderstanding this. lol. Who is saying the guaranteed check needs to be given to Dempsey? Dempsey can't find the bank? That's laughable.

It's showing that they moved in accordance with the contract...and for that matter, were acting on the injunction that was granted.

Again, will write more. About to step out.

Ohhh I see. Okay yeah they put up the money. At this time Dempsey had the Tunney fight signed and ready and he had been in training camp for a while preparing for Tunney. Sounds like they took too damn long in putting up the money because the court said they couldn't produce financial proof that they could pay Dempsey.

Honestly like I said before, there are a million and one reasons that this fight didn't get put on. Dempsey and Wills themselves had little to do with the problems occuring. Since 1922 there had been numerous attempts to get the fight on the road and Dempsey hadn't fought since 1923 probably because of a lot of the Wills stuff in part. He was itching to defend his title, can you blame him for saying "**** this pain in the ass I'm going to go fight Tunney"? Also, he had a contract with Tunney so he couldn't break that either. Really it was either break the contract with Wills or Tunney.

[travestyny]

No, they're saying that Dempsey can't fight Tunney until he fights Wills but that they have to pay him a $300,000 guarantee check as apart of that.

That is not what that says at all. lol. You seem to purposely be twisting it to say "We have to pay him" when in fact the entire point of it is "See, the money is right here for you Dempsey. Just like we said in the contract. Where you at?"

[Mr.MojoRisin']

OK. Well I know you keep thinking I'm forging this information or finding it "in a trash bin" or whatever you keep saying. Actually the court case that I posted seems to be a case that is used in law schools often, and I found out about it in a book about contracts. It also posted that quotation with a footnote that it was from a New York Times article in 1926. So I did some searching and...low and behold....look what we have:



Not only that, but there were two follow up articles that I found:



And Dempsey's response:




That would make it three articles from 1926 regarding this. Do you still think it is fake? It's not. I've told you over and over. I'm not just pulling information out of my ass.



I never attempted to give a definitive reason that this happened. All I'm saying is you have Dempsey claiming that he wanted Wills since 1919. You have him claiming he is the ONLY man he wanted. You have him claiming he would fight him for $0 in the least and $300,000 in the most. You have him saying he never drew the color line. You have a promoter that got him to sign a contract and he breached it. You have that promoter showing proof that they had a guarantee check in his name waiting for him. He didn't take it.

Now. I don't know what that looks like to you. To me that looks like a duck, for whatever reason. It at least seems like he didn't want him as much as he tried to say he did.




But that's the thing. He signed on the dotted line. Then he pretended that he didn't. He didn't even wait for the money to come in.



I don't know why you keep going on and on with trying to say I'm accusing Dempsey of being a racist. 1. I never, ever said that. 2. Don't even know what that would have to do with this.

I'm pretty sure I told you straight up that even if he did use the word "negro" a bunch of times, I don't think that means he is a racist. Would you think the "United Negro College Fund" is a racist organization? Even posters that agree with you about Dempsey have tried to tell you that you're wrong about this, but you kept going. If anything, I would moreso believe that his quotation referring to White men as Men and Black men as Boys would be considered racist, but even in light of that I told you that I don't wish to get into that, so why would you believe that I'm pushing to say he's a racist? If I thought so, I would have jumped all over that!

Langford--He said he was scared. I believe him.

Jeannette-- He didn't fight him because he's black. At least that's what his quotation seems to say. Does that mean he's racist? I don't think so. He was afraid of losing to a black boxer for whatever reason. Seems clear to me when he says he would fight any white man but didn't agree to fight a black "boy."

McVey -- Told you I've heard nothing about a potential match between the two. I only know he didn't fight him.

Wills-- Told you I wasn't even interested in looking into this until you guys kept pushing it, probably to get away from what seemed crystal clear regarding the Joe Jeannette scenario. And then when I looked into it, what I found made me move from pretty much thinking it was not a duck with some slight suspicions, to being extremely suspicious that it was a duck. The info. that I found certainly shifts my opinion a great deal.



Apples and oranges. I'm pretty sure a court can easily look at a written document, and a signature, and discern if the contract is real and the signature is legit, and then realize the contents of the contract. That's certainly different from deciding if a man killed someone when no one else was around.



I've never read anything about a contract for this. What I'm referring to is the contract situation that I linked you to, and the money wasn't supposed to be there until August 5th. He was taken to court August 3rd. So I think that clearly shows he didn't wait for that money, which he agreed to do.



No. The fight was to be in September. If I remember correctly, it was stated in the contract that if for some reason the fight didn't come off, Dempsey would be allowed to keep the $300,000. He was supposed to get another sum of money (I think $500,000) 10 days before the fight. of course they could have balked on that amount, but then Dempsey would have $300,000 for nothing and a fight with Tunney waiting. Remember, according to him, he really wanted Wills.

But most importantly, who am I, or you for that matter, to criticize that they would give money 10 days before the fight. DEMPSEY SIGNED THE CONTRACT. HE AGREED TO IT HIMSELF. I doubt they had a gun to his head. Plus, being that it was part of the contract, I'm sure he would have a great chance of winning in court. What you seem to not be understanding is that technically, though Dempsey "lost" in court, he didn't have to pay much only because proving the fight would have been a draw (gain money) was IMPOSSIBLE according to the court. On the other hand, proving that they promised to give him $500,000 10 days before the fight would have been easy. It was right there in writing.

Finally, it seems there is proof that around August 5th, they had the $300,000 waiting in a guaranteed check for Dempsey, just like the contract stipulated.

That paints it differently. I thought what you were saying was Dempsey publicly challenged Wills sometime long before the Tunney bout. I'm sure he would have fought Wills after Tunney because he fought Sharkey because Sharkey had just beat Wills. Honestly, Sharkey was a faaaar more dangerous opponent than Wills would have been. Wills was 34 and past prime whereas Sharkey was a much better fighter and prime.

[travestyny]

That paints it differently. I thought what you were saying was Dempsey publicly challenged Wills sometime long before the Tunney bout. I'm sure he would have fought Wills after Tunney because he fought Sharkey because Sharkey had just beat Wills. Honestly, Sharkey was a faaaar more dangerous opponent than Wills would have been. Wills was 34 and past prime whereas Sharkey was a much better fighter and prime.

No no. The quotation clearly says that he would fight Wills AFTER the Tunney bout.

Still doesn't change all of the lies and ridiculousness that you said was in it, does it? Would be kinda hard for you to go back on that now. lol. Just admit it!

[Mr.MojoRisin']

No no. The quotation clearly says that he would fight Wills AFTER the Tunney bout.

No. I get what the quotation says, I'm talking about the impression I got from what you said about it. Either way it doesn't matter anymore, I understand that it was right before the Tunney fight that Dempsey said he would fight Wills after he fought Tunney.

Still doesn't change all of the lies and ridiculousness that you said was in it, does it? Would be kinda hard for you to go back on that now. lol. Just admit it!

It could all still be a lie but I'm not going to debate that because it doesn't mean Dempsey was ducking, it means he was willing to fight Wills but Wills lost to Sharkey very badly.

If Dempsey ducked then you have to say Wills ducked because there were numerous negotiations between 1922 and 1926 with some falling through because Wills was asking for an unreasonable amount of money.