Jack Dempsey's Refusal to Fight Joe Jeanette

[HOUDINI563]

Is Nelson a 15 year old child? The level of knowledge in this forum is incredibly low.

The Manassa Mauler, Page 48, last paragraph. Also note the final sentence that the chairman of the milk fund publicly apologized to Dempsey for this incident.

[travestyny]

Is Nelson a 15 year old child? The level of knowledge in this forum is incredibly low.

The Manassa Mauler, Page 48, last paragraph. Also note the final sentence that the chairman of the milk fund publicly apologized to Dempsey for this incident.

Well what does it say?


Why do you feel a need to insult or claim you've been "beating up" on people? My first message to you was civil and you immediately went into this offensive bs, and I certainly (right or wrong) dish it back, but I think we can all do without it, right?

The only thing we have been asking is what does it say? That he believes he was set up? What was the apology for? Did they say it was a set up or what did they say about it?

[BattlingNelson]

Is Nelson a 15 year old child? The level of knowledge in this forum is incredibly low.

The Manassa Mauler, Page 48, last paragraph. Also note the final sentence that the chairman of the milk fund publicly apologized to Dempsey for this incident.

So sad that you spew insults continously.

[billeau2]

It never hurts to look at the facts of history and interpret them. The interpretation of history may look different today than how it looked 50+ years ago. To me there’s no question that America was highly racist in dempseys time and as the legislation slowly created more equality and less apartheid, the mindset of the white population also changed but that change was probably way slower (I’m stereotyping I know, but I reckon it’s fairly true).

What I want to point out here is that the history you you refer to is written by white people who may not be racist per se, but my gut feeling is that they tend to (maybe unknowingly) have a white bias. That’s what to me makes travesty’s always well founded points highly interesting and some people should really try to address his points instead of going towards the man.

From what travesty is putting forth here, he exposes the hypocrisy of Dempsey and those who disagree with that view hasn’t really presented their case particularly well so far imo.

Great post as usual bats. I would argue something slightly different imo. I understand Houdini's contention, I don't understand why he has to threaten the basis for the posts, an ad hominem attack on Travisty.

I think these issues are debatable but there is a lot of boxing history that supports many contentions put forth by the likes of Houdini and his simple minstrel Queenie. there are experts who disagree. People like clompton are boxing history experts and go so far as to call Dempsey a fraud

I think travesties critique is hard to prove beyond a certain point. But there is a case to be made when we look at the facts and I think travesties correct in that assertion. Ultimately I have to determined that some things are just impossible to prove. I don't know if it's knowable to say whether Dempsey wanted to make these fights happen or not.

It should be noted that others have debated these issues in boxing history and that travesty has every right to assert them. From my vantage point I tend to favor the narrative that fighters ceded control over many aspects to their management. I would find it hard to believe any fighter was legitimately scared to fight another fighter.

[billeau2]

Is Nelson a 15 year old child? The level of knowledge in this forum is incredibly low.

The Manassa Mauler, Page 48, last paragraph. Also note the final sentence that the chairman of the milk fund publicly apologized to Dempsey for this incident.

It's deceptive for you 2 make a case that there is undisputed information on Dempsey and his motivations. I actually agree with you, but you know as well as I do that they are experts out there like Clompton... Who also resorts 2 an appeal to authority and has a very different view on Dempsey and these fights as a whole

It's wrong Spirited of you 2 make an appeal to authority to insult bats, and to threaten to censor travesty all the while knowing other boxing historians who views who at least in general tone are sympathetic just some of these criticisms of Dempsey.

[HOUDINI563]

I’ve debated Compton and he is no authority on Dempsey. He is just as biased as the poster in question.

Cherry picking data and presenting it as the entire truth is wrong.

All the information regarding Dempsey Wills has been known and understood for 100 years. Dempsey was exonerated long ago. That’s the historical truth.

[travestyny]

I’ve debated Compton and he is no authority on Dempsey. He is just as biased as the poster in question.

Cherry picking data and presenting it as the entire truth is wrong.

All the information regarding Dempsey Wills has been known and understood for 100 years. Dempsey was exonerated long ago. That’s the historical truth.

No it's not. You are just too biased to handle the truth. You know it and I know it. It's plain to see he could have had the fight if he didn't break that contract in '26.

You won't even comment on it. Ask yourself why.



An exoneration happens in court. The only court involved here is the one that found Dempsey broke a legit contract for no apparent reason. That's a FACT.

[HOUDINI563]

Suggest reading, as a start, some of the very fine well researched bios written by historians. The Manassa Mauler was written by a history professor as a great example. This author just like the vast majority do not conclude Dempsey was afraid in any way to fight Wills nor that he himself ducked him. To conclude otherwise means one is ignoring the written record. Many decades of the written record. Cherry picking snippets is one way of forming false conclusions.

[travestyny]

Suggest reading, as a start, some of the very fine well researched bios written by historians. The Manassa Mauler was written by a history professor as a great example. This author just like the vast majority do not conclude Dempsey was afraid in any way to fight Wills nor that he himself ducked him. To conclude otherwise means one is ignoring the written record. Many decades of the written record. Cherry picking snippets is one way of forming false conclusions.

So commissioner Farley was ignoring written record when he said Dempsey was ducking?

There are various newspaper articles that I've seen with people straight up saying Dempsey will go nowhere near Wills. It was no secret.

It's the very reason that Dempsey himself had to defend himself against this accusation a number of times.

And we have the written record in the form of that court case which no one wants to discuss.


Let me ask you a question. If you sign a contract for a fight, and the promoter honors it perfectly, and the opponent honors it perfectly, and you back out for no apparent reason. Is that a duck or nah?

That's the question I've been trying to get an answer to, but you guys keep "ducking" it.


Great example: Your buddy, GhostofForgery says Jack Johnson ducked Langford because he backed out of a contract for $5000.

There is no damn way in hell that's a duck and this Wills/Dempsey scenario was NOT a duck. I wonder why the inconsistency, hmmm?

[Marchegiano]

Sounds like to me you have never read a book about Dempsey. And your a moderator?

Again the article is quoted in several Dempsey bios perhaps others. Grab a copy of “The Manassa Mauler”. Page 48.

I do not own the book, currently, but I believe I've sourced the page all the same. It reads about right, but the internet does do a good job at mislabeling and without the book I can't confirm this is what it says it is.

Anyway, here she is boys

Page 48 Manassa Mauler by Randy Roberts:



I'll OCR it like I did the Greb-Gans transcription if it helps, but, looks readable to me....I mean I read it.

I wonder what Joe said?