Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills, the timeline

How do you sit there and write some error filled, one sided, biased "timeline" trying to illustrate that Wills wasnt Dempsey's #1 (which he was almost universally accepted as in that time) and then tell me Im cherry picking when I offer a counterpoint? '

Im glad to know that the sum total of your research into this era is boxrec. Congrats, you are an expert :roll:

Ive illustrated on here more than once how Dempsey avoided Norfolk, if you care to look Im sure you can find it. Looking for things that DONT support your argument arent your strong suit so just enjoy your ignorance on the subject, its bliss Im sure.

 

No, no expert me, just a boxing fan.

Which years do you think Kid Norfok merited a title shot?

 

Foaming
.

I can't decide who is the more rabid Dempsey hater Suzie Q or you?
If Dempsey had defended against the 5'8" Norfolk and pulverised the living sh*t out of him you would be on your keyboard so fast condemning the defence , your little finger tips would burn off.

 

How many champions have had the unprecedented level of ducking that Dempsey did. That situation was unique in history. Its far and away worse than his runner ups: Johnson and Sullivan.

This is what I am talking about. You are totally ignoring that Dempsey ADMITTED the contract was a hoax. Period. There is no speculation on that whatsoever. His exact words: "This phrasing, which was Docs doing, allowed him to get me out of the contract." -Dempsey, by Jack Dempsey 1977 page 140. Jesus thats how ridiculous Dempsey nuthuggers are. If you quote anything the man said that was showed him in anything less than flattering light you have to quote the ****ing page number because they will claim someone either manufactured the quote or it has misattributed, thats how ridiculous his rep is.

Why does it have to choreographed and why does Dempsey have to be a good actor (and he was a full time actor when this occured BTW)? All Dempsey has to do is ring his good friend Floyd Fitzsimmons up and say "hey buddy, the commission is on my ass, can you help? The last time this happened I signed a fake contract. Lets do it again." Then all he has to do is show up, pretend like he has every intention of fighting Wills, sign a contract that allows him to back out, and leave. I dont see why that is such a big leap. In fact, again, I think it looked transparent and amateurish. Dempsey signs the contract for a fight 1 year away. Who does that? He also says he wants two fights in the meantime. Who does that for such a big payday? A lot can happen in a year and a lot can happen in two fights. He says hes going to fight Harry Greb for one of those warmups but as soon as Greb heads in that direction he says no, he isnt going to fight Greb, and isnt even going to fight at all that year... Pretty obvious by this point that Dempsey didnt need that extra year to tuneup, isnt tuning up, has no intention of fighting anyone. Looks to me like he wanted to preserve his title, which was his claim to fame (and the only reason he was getting paid to be in movies, stage, etc) without having to step into the ring. Certainly not against his biggest threat.

If Dempsey was retired why was he fighting to keep his championship? Why was he meeting with the commission to prevent being stripped? Thats what you arent getting, or are ignoring. I just told you that within days of that "announcement" Dempsey met with the commission hoping to come to terms with them. Does that sound like a guy who is retired? If Dempsey retired what are you arguing? Was he not champion when he fought Tunney? I dont understand this line of discussion because nobody, including Dempsey, considered him retired. There was speculation that he would never fight again and that he was stringing the public along but his own actions illustrated that he didnt consider himself retired.

Because they are prize fighters and you dont make money by sitting on your ass hoping to get sanctioned because Dempsey has expressed an interest in fighting you.

I guess your standards for being clever are lower than mine because with all of the facts in front of you I think what Dempsey was doing was pretty transparent. Ive illustrated above why I dont think it takes a genius to come up with the schemes he and Kearns hatched.

Sure they do. There are dozens of myths in boxing which have absolutely no basis in fact. Ive found boxing fans to be some of the most gullible people Ive ever met, willing to believe anything simply because they read it in a magazine. Most boxing books are some of the most poorly researched tripe youll ever read. You just need a magazine subscription and an internet connection to be a boxing "historian." Its not exactly an endeavor bursting with geniuses.

I think Ive illustrated that Dempsey isnt viewed as I view him but thats largely because I dont just accept the myths that most others are willing to swallow hook line and sinker.

Again, you are reading and interpreting what you want to. I stated very clearly numerous times that Dempsey could not get Madden sanctioned as a title defense. What does that tell you? Does that give you hope that Madden would have gotten a chance to cash out against Dempsey? No. Because the powers that be were smarter than that and understood that Madden was a human punching bag. When did I ever say Dempsey was bad enough to lose to Madden? The whole point in he and Kearns trying to get Madden as an opponent was because Madden wouldnt have been able to beat him. But Im wasting my time typing this because you dont want to hear anything except that Im too hard on Dempsey.

Thank you.

No I wont.

It will be neither a trial or an execution. It will be a statement of the facts and the people will be able to decide for themselves just like my book on Greb. Did I lead anyone around by the nose in my Greb book? No. I went out of my way to use as many sources as possible and present them unfiltered so that the reader could draw his own conclusions. Anyone who thinks I didnt can go straight to the sources and see for themselves if I skewed or altered anything. Not one person yet, even among the few who have tried to attack me in arguments here, has been able to show where I changed, altered, or misconstrued what was written about. Ive challenged them on the rare occasion someone has said as much and been met with deafening silence. I will do the same with this book and Im confident that those who read it with an open mind will see what is fairly transparent. Some people wont like it but they also wont be able to refute it, which I suspect will make them like it even less. Old myths die hard and a lot of people dont like it when they are sometimes faced with the truth about their old heros.

 

Hang on a minute, i think you seem to be showing a bias on this (unless i have misunderstood something).

Are you suggesting that because Dempsey said that Doc Kearns intentionally put a clause in the contract which allowed him to get out of it if the appropriate monies were not paid, it is Dempsey admitting the whole thing was a hoax?

Surely you are not serious (or perhaps there is more to what you type).

This Whole Dempsey position is an interesting one. He was so highly rated by everyone yet on reflection his record doesnt seem quite as good as his ranking (reminds me a little of Peter Jackson).

 

You seem to have already reached your conclusion before you wrote the book.

You seem to do a lot more than simply present the facts. You ignore facts that don't suit your agenda.
And you present some very strong OPINIONS and one-sided interpretations of facts.
You jump to damning conclusions.
Deep down, you must know you are doing this.
And you know that many of us here know you do it.
It's blatant.

 

Dempsey actually signed a contract with B.C. Clements and the Chicago coliseum to fight Harry Wills in 1926.
He broke the contract, if I remember rightly, signing with Rickard at the same time.
He was later sued.

 

You did miss something. This quote was in reference to the 1922/23 contract which had no money specified, or date, or location or anything else. The clause in question was "provided a promoter puts forward an acceptable offer." And then Kearns and Dempsey ignored all offers (because hey being forced to fight your most dangerous opponent is unacceptable right?) and voila they could walk away and nuthuggers would think they had actually signed to fight Wills.

 

Ive reached my conclusion after doing a ton of research on the subject. Why would a write a book if I havent even formulated the basis for it. When some of the people on here who act with the same indignation as you do can boast of the same amount of study into the subject that I can then we can have a debate. Until then some of you are arguing about a subject you only think you understand.

 

B.C. Clements was the money man behind Floyd Fitzsimmons.

 

My applauds to klompton for being so patient and providing excellent arguments as compared to what was coming from the opposite side here. Haven't visited the forum for a while, but your way of arguing has improved a lot since then in that it is based almost exclusively on the points of the argument and not on discussion of personal qualities of the opponents. Keep it up!