Full Timeline of Dempsey-Wills - Evidence of Dempsey-Wills Contract Photo Staged?

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Legend X

Maybe Dempsey was out of their price range, and they knew it.

Of course. As is the case now, Mayweather-Pacquiao is not being pursued by London or Paris. But they want it.

This is covered in an earlier post.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by burt bienstock

Mc, so easy for you to disregard the real possibility of race riots occuring

again if a black contender {Wills} fought a white champion {Dempsey}

EIGHTY years later

This is the latest in a long line of presumtions you have made about me Burt (my favourite was that I am a rabid Ali fan) and once again you are wrong. I don't disregard the possibility. I expect something of that nature to occur. I suspect they would not have been so serious as they were for Jeffries-Johnson, even had Wills won, but I may be wrong.

My guess is they would have been worse than the trouble that would have met Burns-Johnson or Johnson-Willard but it is hard to be sure, of course.


.

..But the true scenario those days was that no promotor dared risking their money for such a proposition...If they somehow got their State Boxing commission to sanction a bout, and were able to pull it off,

AND riots and death occured, they would be ruined for life promoting such an event for greedy money...They would be villified for being responsible for innocent deaths just to make a profit...

What a lot of horse-shit.

None of this happened for any of the mixed-race HW bouts that went before it. The possibilities of its happening are, in the main, made up in your head here.


Furthermore, the argument that sports should not go ahead because of the threat of civil unrest or terrorist action is really, really shakey anyway.

The Olympics increases chances of a terrorist attack upon London, a city that saw some of the worst civil disturbances in years quite recently, vastly. And yet here we go.

[LittleRed]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I don't doubt that there was bad trouble - as there was in 1910, 1902 - and i've no doubt that it pales into insignificance compared to the "trouble" in 1860. But I can't drink the kool-aid where a mixed-race HW title fight is possible in 1915 but impossible in 1919 is concerned. I don't buy that. The fact that there were attempts to legally enforce it, that those attempts met with positivity, that the champion had the public appearance of wanting to fight it and that a contract was signed relating to it without the house coming down seem to suppor that point of view.

But i'm not an expert and could be completetly wrong.

Even so, I object to the mention of "possible race riots" acting as a curtain being drawn across the controversy for Burt and several others - to me that is not reasonable.

Quick US history lesson...

If you want to know what changed, racially in the US McGrain its two things.

1. In 1915 a film entitled Birth of a Nation came out. It was a huge blockbuster breaking redbirds left right and center, and was considered for some time the greatest movie ever made. It was also pretty damned racist. The plot depicted African Americans as brutish thus lusting after white women, and helped reinforce many black stereotypes. The fact is this had a huge impact on popular culture, especially coming as it did on the heels of Johnson's title reign. For Gods sake the heroes in the most popular and successful movie of all tine were Klansmen, more or less. Which brings me to point 2...

2. In the late 1910's to the 1920's the Klu Klux Klan entered the most successful membership drive of its career and enjoyed its highest levels of popularity. Unlike modern versions, this Klan had roots in both urban America as well as the south. They claimed membership into the millions and even if they exaggerated, in a nation much smaller than it is today, 1 million members is huge. Detroit, which is not in the Southern United States, had 40,000 members; there were only about 40,000 African Americans in Detroit at the time. They were heavily involved in politics and boasted a fairly solid voting block. The only place in the United States this bout could take place, where Dempsey could get payed Dempsey money without fear of political sanction was New York. And its obvious, reading the source material, that New York did not want the bout...

[McGrain]

Yeah, but in 1913 America was a paradigm of racial harmony that lent itself perfectly to one of the most controversial black men of his era fighting for and defending the HW title. When the band played "All Coons Look Alike To Me" as Johnson made his way to the ring for the Fight of the Century, Johnson was in on the joke and when blacks were attacked and killed in the wake of that fight, that was an aberration.


Of course America had its problems. Of course the fight was not easy to make.

Of course it could have been made.

[LittleRed]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Yeah, but in 1913 America was a paradigm of racial harmony that lent itself perfectly to one of the most controversial black men of his era fighting for and defending the HW title. When the band played "All Coons Look Alike To Me" as Johnson made his way to the ring for the Fight of the Century, Johnson was in on the joke and when blacks were attacked and killed in the wake of that fight, that was an aberration.


Of course America had its problems. Of course the fight was not easy to make.

Of course it could have been made.

I never said it shouldn't. The real reason, gun to my head, that the fight wasn't made, was money. If Dempsey was going to fight Wills, if he was going to fight him in the United States, the fight would probably have to take place out West. And they simply weren't big enough yet to pay him that kind of money. And Europe or Australia would have payed less.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by LittleRed

I never said it shouldn't. The real reason, gun to my head, that the fight wasn't made, was money. If Dempsey was going to fight Wills, if he was going to fight him in the United States, the fight would probably have to take place out West. And they simply weren't big enough yet to pay him that kind of money. And Europe or Australia would have payed less.

This, I would agree with.

[KuRuPT]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I think 1910 was the high water-mark for sports related incidents. Nothing to my knoweldge equals the Watts riots though? Which came many years later?

I know it makes no sense McGrain.. but I like the 12 over the 18

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

I know it makes no sense McGrain.. but I like the 12 over the 18

That makes perfect sense to me

I prefer the 18 though.

[janitor]

In some ways I find it surprising that people take such a moralistic view in hindsight.

People resent that Wills was shafted, which is fair enough, but they perhaps trivialise the consequences that might have attended the bout.

Even if a race riot was unlikely, was it justifiable to risk the publics safety, for what at the end of the day was just a boxing match?

How far is it fair to expect Rickard or Dempsey to go, in order to uphold the principle of Wills being granted his deserved title shot?

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by JANITOR

In some ways I find it surprising that people take such a moralistic view in hindsight.

People resent that Wills was shafted, which is fair enough, but they perhaps trivialise the consequences that might have attended the bout.

Even if a race riot was unlikely, was it justifiable to risk the publics safety, for what at the end of the day was just a boxing match?

Is it justifiable to stage the Olympics which has heightened the security on the streets of London to such a degree that troops have been deployed there, rather like the Northern Ireland of the 80's?

I submit that the Olympics are a bigger risk to public safety in the UK than the Wills-Dempsey fight was to the public in the US.

How far is it fair to expect Rickard or Dempsey to go, in order to uphold the principle of Wills being granted his deserved title shot?

Absolutely no further than Burns, Johnson, Willard, Kauffman, Ketchel and the other boxing stars that put on mixed race bouts for titles.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by Legend X

If they were falling over themselves to promote it, wouldn't they have publicized this fact ?

Dempsey had a promoter in Rickard who could have promoted it himself at any time

Not all offers/negotiations are publicised in business, but here's one:

200k offer

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

More on the 200k offer

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

I believe this is for a bout in London, so no need to worry about race riots, yet it still didn't happen for some reason....

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Is it justifiable to stage the Olympics which has heightened the security on the streets of London to such a degree that troops have been deployed there, rather like the Northern Ireland of the 80's?

I submit that the Olympics are a bigger risk to public safety in the UK than the Wills-Dempsey fight was to the public in the US.

One crucial difference.

There is no one person or two people who carry the can if it goes arse over tits.

Absolutely no further than Burns, Johnson, Willard, Kauffman, Ketchel and the other boxing stars that put on mixed race bouts for titles.

But there clearly were significant obstacles placed in Dempsey’s path, and you have to ask how far he has to go.

Does he have to continue to try to make the fight if the State Athletic Commission vetoes it?

Does he have to take the fight for less than the going rate, in whatever venue will allow it?

Does he have to take on Rickard if necessary?

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by janitor

One crucial difference.

There is no one person or two people who carry the can if it goes arse over tits.

No, it would be far, far worse, a total shit storm, the Government itself would come under heavy fire of course, and they would wheel out some faceless spokesman who would say, over and again, that we cannot bow down to the terrorists and that sport is neutral. And do you know what? He'd be absolutely right.

But you are wrong, there are two crucial differences. The second one is that worst case scenario based upon Dempsey-Wills is perhaps 1,000 casualties of various different kinds.

The Olympics targetted by terrorists - what shall we say? One-hundred thousand? Is that conservative for an absolute worst case scenarion? Dirty bomb in a stadium or something like that?

Probably.

That's the more important crucial difference IMO.

But there clearly were significant obstacles placed in Dempsey’s path, and you have to ask how far he has to go.

Does he have to continue to try to make the fight if the State Athletic Commission vetoes it?

Does he have to take the fight for less than the going rate, in whatever venue will allow it?

Does he have to take on Rickard if necessary?

It sounds very dramatic, but all he really has to do is say to Rickard "get me Wills. I'm not fighting anyone but Wills. It's Wills or i'm retired."

IMO that would have done it.

If it doesn't he can put out feelers to Cuba, Mexico (which he talked about actually), France, Britain, Australia, Canada....

But he doesn't HAVE to do any of this. I'm not that interested in the moral dimension. I'm interested in the absolute bottom line.

The absolute bottom line is Dempsey shared his time with ONE heavyweight in his class in terms of resume and he did not meet him. This means, in my opinion, that he never proved himself the best in his era. Because I believe Wills has a better resume, this has led me to rate Wills slightly higher.

Dempsey doesn't care about these things probably, or if he does, not that much. He's interested in money, primarily. That's fine and I have no beef with it.

I also don't like to see people white-wash the scenario with "Race-riots, race-riots".

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Is it justifiable to stage the Olympics which has heightened the security on the streets of London to such a degree that troops have been deployed there, rather like the Northern Ireland of the 80's?

I submit that the Olympics are a bigger risk to public safety in the UK than the Wills-Dempsey fight was to the public in the US.




Absolutely no further than Burns, Johnson, Willard, Kauffman, Ketchel and the other boxing stars that put on mixed race bouts for titles.

Mc you darn know we are talking about a HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE bout between a black and white ...Of course there were many mixed bouts between races for titles, but you know perfectly well they were in the lower weight classes...
And the Olympic games of today means so much more to the world because it involves every nation on the planet, so a risk must be taken...Whereas a Dempsey / Wills bout for the title was not a nation sponsored event, but involved private money involved with private capital being raised...And for you to post that I am exagerating the valid fears of that era after the Jeffries/ Johnson race riots tells me you don't WANT to believe the PERILOUS HISTORY OF THAT TIME....You MC, whom I respect as a boxing guru, refuse to believe so many many accounts of newspapers, writers, historians of that era citing the FEAR of a MIXED heavyweight
Title bout , and the very possible violent aftermath...My dad for what it's worth, was a youngster during the racial riots following the Jeffries /Johnson bout,and would always mention the tension in the streets
after the riots which engulfed the nation...
I too knew what discrimination meant when as a child I used to go next door and spar with some stablemates of John Henry Lewis, the great LH champion...One fighter was a WW named Tommy Jones, who was fond of me...All of a sudden he disappeared and when I asked "where is Tommy " ?
I was told that because he was black he couldn't get money fights in the USA and had to go to Australia for bouts...He did well in Australia along with the TOUGH Jimmy Leto who went also to Australia for a different reason...So Mc I learned about discrimination at a young age...
As my idol JFK said " life is not fair ". And he was right...Cheers.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by burt bienstock

Mc you darn know we are talking about a HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE bout between a black and white

Yes, which is why most of the examples I gave were of HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE BOUTS BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE.

And the Olympic games of today means so much more to the world because it involves every nation on the planet, so a risk must be taken...

Who are you to make these moral judgments? You are prepared to risk the lives of thousands upon thousands of British citizens so people can watch the Olympics but not far fewer American lives so people can watch the boxing?

And for you to post that I am exagerating the valid fears of that era after the Jeffries/ Johnson race riots tells me you don't WANT to believe the PERILOUS HISTORY OF THAT TIME...

I don't think you are exaggerating the possibility of RIOTS at all. I thin you are exaggerating how the fall out would affect the principles involved.

You've intimated that clashes amongst Americans would END a promoters career. Many fights, including Schmeling-Louis I, Casimero-Lazarte, Burns-Johnson and Jeffries-Johnsonsaw serious, serious trouble afterwards.

In what way were these or other promoters made to suffer?