Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills, the timeline

Wills was 37 when he lost to Sharkey and 38 when he lost to Uzcudan. Dempsey was 32 when he got his ass handed to him every bit as bad against Sharkey as Wills did before fouling his way to victory and 37 when Kingfish Levinsky slapped his ass all over Chicago. None of this has any baring one the fact that Dempsey ducked Wills.

 

No one said it did. BTW do you want to answer my questions about why Dempsey was afraid of Kid Norfolk and ducked him ?

 

I already have, I told you its on another thread. Im not your slave, go find it yourself.

 

Which one?

You mentioned Dempsey fouling Sharkey, but you didn't mention Sharkey deliberately hitting Dempsey after the bell ending the 6th round? Try and keep your temper, you're a famous author, you don't want to alienate your "public".:good

 

I never said I had the telegrams.
I said the newspapers reported them (in November 1930), and quoted from them, as being presented in court during the Mara v Tunney case.

Not only that, newspapers ran with it with the line that "Rickard blocked Wills fight, not Dempsey" or words to that effect.
But in my opinion that is just newspaper spin, and too generous to Dempsey.

The facts seem to be that Dempsey was at least talking about Wills in early 1926, and Rickard was arguing against it, and that Dempsey had not yet committed to Tunney.

For example,

[url]https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2211&dat=19301108&id=JComAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5_0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1369,2756555&hl=en[/url]

Well, it is quite simple.
I don't have a "case" (agenda) like you have.
I'm interested in the OBJECTIVE FACTS.
:good

Exactly. :good

It does not exonerate Dempsey at all.

It does - don't you think ? - call into question some of your more conspiratorial claims that portray Dempsey as some sort of master schemer, or your claim that Dempsey and Tunney was already a done deal in late 1925.

It certainly seems odd to me that Dempsey, the man who, you claim, personally schemed with his friend Floyd Fitzsimmons to cook up a fake unenforceable contract to duck Wills, would a few months later be stupid enough to sign an enforceable one.


To me, it more likely illustrates that Dempsey wasn't very smart at all.
His business sense was not good.
He eventually put his trust in Rickard, who manipulated his very weakness by sowing doubts in Dempsey's mind that other promoters could deliver the big purses.
Rickard, for his part, delivered.

That's my interpretation, a fairly simple one, backed up by the facts without too much opinion, conspiracy or conjecture.

Well, primarily I'm trying to contribute to the original intention of this thread.
The TIMELINE.


Less opinions, more facts.

 

I'm in no way trying to excuse Dempsey for not fighting Wills, but reading his two autobiographies you do get the sense that he was lead by the nose by first Kearns and then Rickard in many aspects of his professional life.,
Again I emphasise ,this does not give him a pass for not defending against Wills ,but it might be he took the path of least resistance?. Just a thought.

Is Klompton writing a book about the Dempsey v Wills affair?I wouldn't deny he has knowledge of the times, but I would only buy such a book if it was interpreted by an author with no axe to grind, ie an objective one and I don't see that in him.

 

It is this kind of stuff I have trouble making sense of :

I don't necessarily buy that Dempsey was afraid of "being stripped" by the NY boxing commission.
He was world's heavyweight champion, recognized as such by everyone. The commission would have lost credibility.

It also raises the question of why didn't they strip him in 1926 ?

I doubt Hollywood and Broadway whoever else was paying Dempsey (commercial endorsements, appearances etc.) were concerned with the politics of the NY boxing commission.

Sorry, I might be missing something when you make this claim.
What is the evidence that Dempsey got his friend to pretend to stage a fight ?

But, as you say, Dempsey "made agreements" that does not mean he was always going to keep them. As you say, "agreed in principle".

Since Rickard was still sending Dempsey telegrams in early 1926 urging him to commit to Tunney and Dempsey was still floating the idea of Wills, AND signing other agreements, it seems the two of them - Tex and Jack - were far less confident in the eventual outcome that you imply was already done deal the previous year.

It's easy to look back now and say "he always was going to fight Tunney, not Wills" ... but neither Jack nor Tex seemed 100% cognizant of that.

Of course, the other explanation is that Fitzsimmons could not come up with the money.

You make an awful lot out of Fitzsimmons and Dempsey being friends.
But in business, and boxing business is no exception, it's not at all unusual for friends to fall out or part ways in business, but remain friends in private.

Where's the proof that Fitzsimmons and Dempsey cooked up a fake ?

Again, what date do you have for Dempsey signing for Tunney ?

 

Then why dont you quote those telegrams with dates included. Thats what Im getting at. Lets see what they have to say. You will note in that case that it was testified that Mara and Tunney entered their agreement in early April 1926, it was also noted that by this time Tunney already had a signed contract to fight Dempsey. This just further supports my contention that at the very worst by mid/late March when Rickard publicly announced he already had both fighters signed that Dempsey was full of **** when he signed to fight Wills. Why sign a contract to fight Wills and then at worst within two weeks sign to fight Tunney the same month as the Wills fight without any violation on the part of the promoters for the Wills contract? Unless you never had any intention of facing Wills and indeed, as I said, according to Tunney those contracts were signed long before March while Tunney was still in Miami that winter.

Dempsey had been talking about Wills since 1919. Did he ever fight him? No. Furthermore, the link you posted above says Rickard was trying to pursuade Dempsey to fight Tunney over Wills because Tunney would have been the easier proposition. The fact that Dempsey ultimately took that fight (of his own free will, its not like Rickard held a gun to his head) only further illustrates that Dempsey was once again looking to take a softer touch. Furthermore, the specific telegram you refer to was dated January 7, which is before the contracts between Dempsey and Tunney were signed anyway. So again, this doesnt prove your point at all. Look, Ive been researching this subject for several years, you arent telling me anything new and you arent going to find some smoking gun on google news that I havent already read and considered.

So you arent arguing a point here? You are just going online to google news to find articles that you think support the point you are making for your own education? Lets get real. You obviously have a point. Im making my case because Ive done a lot of research into this subject and my view of the topic is formulated. Unlike you Im not coming into it NOW and just pulling articles willy nilly from google. Its a top Im already well versed in and very familiar with so of course I have an opinion on it and some faceless guy on the internet who knows how to search google isnt going to change that by posting the odd article here and there, which he doesnt even understand the context of and which Ive already read. The problem is that when I post objective facts people who clearly have an agenda here dont like it. Sorry but the facts are the facts. I posted an actual quote from Dempsey. Thats a fact. I even cited the book down to the page number. Thats not good enough for you. Ive laid out very clearly more than once on this forum, and a friend of mine did it before me, the actual events sorrounding Dempsey-Tunney-Wills-Greb and still its "well he signed, doesnt that prove he had honest intentions." No, actually going through with it would have proven that. The first time he admits was a hoax. The second time can pretty well be established was bull****, and the third time (which was only an extension of the second contract) he walked away from with no cause. Thats as cut and dry as it gets and it doesnt take some genius tactician to pull that off and in fact I think Ive illustrated clearly how ridiculous it looked at the time and now. If Dempsey was such a brilliant schemer why was he constantly getting crucified by the press over Wills?? Had his little schemes done anything other than kick the can down the road and allow him to capitalize on being champion outside of the ring the press wouldnt have been on his ass like stink on ****** so much.

I didnt say Dempsey-Tunney was a done deal in 1925. I said that deal was signed in the winter. It was. What I said was that while Dempsey was signing for Wills in September 1925 for a fight to take place in September 1926 he was actively negotiating with Rickard to fight Tunney in September 1926. Thats true and its strange that Dempsey would do that dont you think? If he had any intention of facing Wills.

And yet he did and we know beyond question that within a week or two of signing that contract he was already signed to fight Tunney (I contend he signed earlier). Then walked away from the contract with Wills without cause. So yes. Its you who keeps acting like if he did these things he was a brilliant schemer. Im saying no, he wasnt. He was trying to think on his feet and keep the money rolling in. Period.

Even if that were the case, and none of that refutes any of my earlier contentions about the contracts, who is ultimately to blame for those decisions? Rickard?? Please. If Rickard comes to Dempsey saying: "Hey, forget Wills, Ive got an easier fight for you." and Dempsey accepts it, does that mean Dempsey ISNT guilty of avoiding Wills in favor of perceived weaker challenges?? I dont understand how someone could even come close to reaching that conclusion.

Go back and read my initial post here. What got me started on this thread was a couple points: 1. The idea that Dempsey signed to fight Wills in 1922. He didnt. Period. Thats a fact. Even if you think that Dempsey had the best intentions (which he admits he didnt) I submit that signing a contract with no date, venue, purse, or any other details is no contract. Signing a piece of paper that says you will sign to fight Wills within 60 days of a bonafide offer from a promoter is not signing to fight Wills, certainly not when you ignore all offers. The other point I was addressing was McVey's ridiculous notion that Wills was Dempsey's best challenger for "maybe three years" and no more. Ridiculous. Do you buy into that? Finally I was addressing Dempsey's "retirement." Did Dempsey retire? No. Clearly not. And I illustrated using the facts and the context of the times why he was quoted as saying that. The problem is some have seized on those things and its their OPINION that these things make Dempsey look better vis-a-vis Wills. Naturally they get defensive when these things are illuminated more than just narrow scope of "Dempsey signed to fight Wills in 1922" and "Dempsey announced his retirement in 1925." But these events dont occur in a vacuum and cant be viewed with tunnel vision and thats exactly what was being done.

 

If you dont believe Dempsey was troubled by the edicts of the commission then you clearly havent looked at this era. Dempsey was constantly being called on the carpet (and responding btw) and constantly meeting with the commissioners trying to find ways to keep them off their back. If you think the commission had no power then go ask Johnny Kilbane and Johnny Wilson how the commission made their lives hell. Or how seriously Harry Greb took it when the commission briefly banned him for not fighting Dave ********* (not really his fault) or when they upheld Greb's ban after the Norfolk fight. The NYSAC was the most powerful governing body in the United States at that point and had reciprocal relationships with several of the most important boxing states in the union. They could prevent Dempsey from participating in exhibitions, on stage, guest refereeing, all in addition to preventing him from fighting (if he actually chose to fight). Nevermind that Dempsey was constantly fighting the public opinion battle and a blacklist from the NYSAC commission over refusing to fight your #1 challenger wouldnt really jive well with the heroic persona Dempsey was trying to portray in his films. Its doesnt even jive with reality to pretend that commission didnt wield an immense amount of power. It was a very big deal when Rickard was forced to take the Tunney fight Philly and it was considered a minor miracle and a herculean effort that he was able to pull that off on relative short notice. It was certainly no small headache to him.

Why would they need to. They issued a ban on him. An injunction was filed against him. You are only in violation if you actually go through with the match against Tunney and by then he lost his title. How could they strip him at that point?

You can look at the world through rose colored glasses, I dont. When Dempsey is facing being banned and stripped and signs a contract with his friend that he has no intention of keeping (and doesnt) while negotiating for a match with Tunney it looks to me like Dempsey was buying time. You still havent really explained what that looks like to you other than to say that you dont see how I reached that conclusion. What is the alternative?

Once again you are putting words in my mouth. And lets call it what it was, not "early 1926" it was the first week of 1926 and again, we know that at the very latest within two weeks of signing the contract to fight Wills Dempsey signed to fight Tunney and walked away from the Wills contract without cause. That tells me everything I need to know. You keep taking each one of these instances and placing them in a little box and acting like they were all independant little episodes that had nothing to do with each other. Put them all together over a 7 year period and you have a guy actively ducking his top challenger. There is no two ways around that. Remember, by the time you arguing here: 1926, Dempsey was already YEARS into his reign and had already pulled this **** numerous times. You want to pretend this was an isolated incident and SUDDENLY Dempsey just had this big change of heart and yet he didnt. This was all totally in keeping with his character and with everything he had done since 1919. Even before facing Tunney, after Greb lost his title to Tiger Flowers, Dempsey, not Kearns, not Rickard, but Dempsey told a reporter face to face that he could not understand why Greb had given a negro a shot at the title. This reporter was actually a Dempsey supporter and was on record as saying he didnt believe in mixed matches so he wasnt just trying to burn Dempsey.

It is easy because we have the better part of a decades worth of behavior to support this contention.

Of course he couldnt come up with the money. He never could. Why didnt Rickard ever have to come up with such large payments in advance for Dempsey's services but whenever Wills' name was mentioned he wanted a kings ransom paid to him a year before the fight is to be held? Why didnt it take Rickard or anyone else an entire year to stage a championship battle? Fitzsimmons never promoted a big fight like that in his life, there was no way he could come up with that kind of capital. Furthermore when the fight was signed to face Wills in Chicago boxing wasnt even legal in Chicago. It wouldnt be legalized there until April and the whole thing hinged on that fact but by April Dempsey was already signed to fight Tunney. Nevermind that Dempsey's own business manager admitted that the Fitzsimmons thing was a fake. But whatever. You are going to believe what you want and thats obviously that Dempsey was ready and willing to fight Wills.

 

According to newspapers :

Rickard's response to the telegram where Dempsey asked Rickard about Wills was January 14, 1926.
Rickard voiced his disapproval and scepticism.

(On January 20, Tunney signed a contract to fight Dempsey in New Jersey on September 16. Whether he had an earlier contract with Rickard, I don't know.)

Rickard's later telegram, in which he urged Dempsey to commit to the Tunney fight and made out that he could get it in New York, was dated March 29, 1926.
This is two weeks after Dempsey signed with Chicago coliseum club to fight Wills.

Perhaps.
But only if you believe Dempsey regarded Rickard as an expert on the practical aspect of boxing and looking out for easy fight for Dempsey.

More likely, he was persuaded by the financial record of Rickard, not some deference to Rickard's genius in judging opponents.

Look, you're not telling me anything new either.

But I somewhat hoped you would, with all your self-professed superior research.

I went on google news because you were feigning ignorance over the telegrams.

I provided the link because you near enough pretending you didn't know anything about what I was talking about.

Well, to me, you're just a faceless guy posting articles too, but I suggest we can get over that fact.

I posted an article because you were pretending to not know about the telegrams that I was referring to. Now you get upset because I posted an article.

You haven't shown me anything new either, so your arrogant and self-important posturing don't cut any ice with me.
It's laughable. No offense, just saying.

Actually, I haven't even argued against most of that, so you must be lumping everyone who questions or disagree with you in one camp. I take much of that as factual.

I've asked for proof in some of your claims.
I've suggested we stick to facts and don't be so elaborate in drawing conclusions.

And I said in early 1926 Rickard was still trying to secure Dempsey and arguing against Wills with him.

Well, it is stranger still that he signed once again to fight Wills, isn't it ? And without the fail-safe mechanism he'd allegedly used a few months earlier.
Whether he intended to ever fight him or not. Either way it's "strange".

Actually STUPID might be a better word.

Ok. we both agree he wasn't a brilliant schemer.
"Think on his feet and keep the money rolling in", exactly.

I don't see how any of this leads to the conclusion that he was concretely committed to either eventual opponent.

We have quite solid proof that Rickard WAS committed to Tunney, not Wills, and that ultimately Dempsey went with Rickard.

No, I dispute that Dempsey fought for Rickard because he trusted Rickard's 'infallible' sense of providing a "defeatable opponent". That's what you are suggesting.

Dempsey fought for Rickard because he trusted Rickard to deliver the big money fight.

Dempsey is guilty of passing on Wills anyway. That's not even in contention.

Well, I was hoping all along that we could add to the timeline, and stick to facts for a while, instead of arguing opinion and convoluted conjecture.

I think mcvey's point about Wills resume has some validity. Both Dempsey AND Wills were living off past glory and reputation during much of those 7 years.

 

Granted, but doesn't it then follow that PERHAPS under such pressure and controversy, Dempsey was in fact getting tired of the Wills and thing and truly considering clearing it up by getting in the ring with him ?
Doesn't it seem at all likely to you that Dempsey would have been willing to fight Wills if Rickard had agreed to promote ?

The alternative is that Dempsey knew Rickard would not promote Dempsey-Wills so he tried to get Fitzsimmons to promote it, then it fell through.

Because, actually, promoting a massive fight and relying on investors to part with binding guarantees is not as simply as it sounds.

The whole exercise of "establishing a timeline" means identifying the individual episodes and isolating them, listing them in chronoligical order.

I'm not arguing against the fact that Dempsey ducked Wills.

I'd dispute that he had to "actively" duck Wills in the manner you might be claiming. I don't, for example, believe Dempsey was inactive simply because he felt he had to be to duck Wills.
He was doing other things.
They was a lot more to being Jack Dempsey than ducking Harry Wills.

You sometimes make it sound like Dempsey would have been in the ring defending regularly if there was no Wills or Greb, when in fact he would probably have been just as inactive, doing movies, boxing exhibitions, personal appearances.

He might have said that.

1. I guess Rickard didn't need to come up with the money because he had a track record of delivering huge fights.

2. The entire year I believe was due to some legal requirement Dempsey had to wait, concerning his contract with Doc Kearns.

3. Your statement that there's no way Fitzsimmons could come up with that kind of capital only lends weight to those who argue against the idea that "any number of promoters could have made Dempsey-Wills" ... there were very few who possibly could have, and we know the biggest and most likely promoter wanted no part of it.

4. What Dempsey's business manager says when splitting with Dempsey needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, surely.

I don't have to believe anything.

I DO believe if someone put 1 million cold cash in front of Dempsey to fight Wills he would have.
If Rickard had said Wills, not Tunney, I think we would have seen the fight.

I guess I do believe in money .

 

Fine tell us where we can read this telegram dated March 29. In the same trial Mara testified that by early April the contracts were already signed. Rickard himself stated to the press in March that he already had the contracts signed. Tunney's contract for the fight was entered as evidence and it was dated January 20. Either way I dont see your point here. Whether it was two months earlier or not Dempsey ran out of a contract to fight Wills in order to face the perceived lesser threat. Period. How does that in any way shape or form change my overall thesis?

Oh please. The vast majority of people regarded Wills as the greatest threat to Dempsey. VERY FEW picked Tunney to beat Dempsey. There is no doubt that prior to September 1926 Wills would have been regarded as a bigger threat than Tunney. It doesnt take a ****ing genius to know that. If you think you are going to paint yourself as some unbiased bystander by playing a ridiculous game of devils advocate Im not biting. You either smarter than that or not worth the time Im wasting on arguing with you.

Apparently I am because your little timeline of events has left out several salient facts that you either didnt know about, or if we are to believed that you are as versed in this era as me then you are hiding them to paint altered picture of the reality of the situation. Which is it? Are you ignorant of the subject or biased?

I "pretended" really? Sorry but I dont memorize every stitch Ive read on Dempsey Wills and Tunney. You apparently saw somewhere on here where I mentioned those specific telegrams. What exactly did I say in regards to them? Because the only time I can recall mentioning those telegrams was in regards to Tunney's alleged challenge of Wills which was done through Mara and which Mara said Tunney had no intention of ever following through with. I cited those telegrams because Tunney clearly didnt given the fact that he had already signed to fight Dempsey by that point (but once again people would rather ignore those facts and pretend that Tunney went after Wills with a vengeance and Wills ducked him, LOL). I asked you to provide them for me. How am I upset? Ive provided exact page numbers for quotes for you without even asking, why should I expect less from a faceless guy on the internet.

Whose mad? Sorry "legend" but if I seem arrogant its because I might actually know more about this subject than you, thats a given based on your posts and the willful naivete you show toward the subject.

Stupid, amateurish, whatever you want to call it, thats what Dempsey did, just dont shoot the messenger. You are the one who was pretending that I painted Dempsey to be this master schemer by doing that. I submitted that by doing that he was really just a rank amateur. Im glad we now agree that in the chosen manner Dempsey ducked Wills it was obvious what his intentions were and that he wasnt very good at hiding them.

Yes, over Wills, his #1 which he had been ducking for years. Broken record much?

For the last time dont put words in my mouth. Thats not even remotely what I suggested. It was the prevailing thought at the time. Record wasnt the only man on earth. The majority of people rated Wills over Tunney, that was damn near a given.

The Wills-Dempsey bout was a big money fight. Nobody disputed that. The damn thing could have promoted itself. What wasnt a given was that any boxing promoter could come up with the ridiculous advances Dempsey was demanding for a Wills bout a full year before it taking place while also having to front the expenses. Even Rickard couldnt do that. Period. Dempsey was more than happy to fight with Rickard for several reasons and not the least of which was that Rickard didnt want his cash cow anywhere near Wills.

"Passing on." Thats sure a diplomatic way of putting it. LOL. Thats like saying Mississippi was guilty of "retaining the services of african americans" for 300 years prior to emancipation.

Good luck with that bit of revisionism. The public held Dempsey as champion for 7 years and the vast majority of the public held Wills as his greatest challenger for more than 6 years of that. Thats a indisputable fact so so much for your false attempt at taking the high road "Well, I was hoping all along that we could add to the timeline, and stick to facts for a while, instead of arguing opinion and convoluted conjecture".

 

No, others were willing. He never wanted Wills and for most of his career he was fairly open about that.

It fell through before it even got started because it was a completely unrealistic and undeliverable contract. Period. It was designed to fail the way it was written. It was a contract that even the biggest promoter of the era couldnt have fulfilled and Fitzsimmons wasnt even a pimple on his ass.

Thanks Einstein, Im not sure how I made it through college without ever knowing what a timeline was.atsch

Well, theres that...

He ducked him actively and passively. He ducked him every way he could to avoid a fight with him.

I never said Dempsey was inactive because of Wills. I do however think its pretty weak that he was inactive for one year and signs to fight a sick man within a couple of days of his top contender being established. Then has three fights against men who didnt deserve it. Then he is off two years and comes back to fight Gibbons who lost his eliminator, then fights Firpo who said he wasnt ready and that Wills was a better choice. Then takes off 3 years and comes back and fights the lesser of two evils in Tunney. Thats pretty damn weak considering ALL of that time Wills was his #1.

Once again, more evidence that you are only willing to believe what you want to.

Well thats convenient isnt it? You will only fight Wills for Rickard, or for some other promoter who can offer you $550,000 up front a year in advance and Rickard wont agree... Well, on to the next opponent...

That might make sense except for the fact that when Dempsey "agreed" to fight Wills in 1922 he had the same stipulation. It was to be held one year later. Also, why pretend to fight Greb and another bout in the interim after "signing" for Wills only to back out when Greb started that way to sign?

No because you are arguing apples and oranges. You are arguing that because no promoter could come up with a $550,000 advance one year early (in addition to $25,000 signing bonus for both fighters plus an advance for the opponent) that the fight couldnt be staged. If you stage that fight and it makes the $3,000,000 that Rickard estimated it was worth, the fighters get paid out of that pot. Thats how 99.9% of the fights in that era were staged. The fact that Dempsey was making the demand he was illustrates that he wasnt exactly eager. You can do rough numbers on attendance and average ticket prices for such a fight and its not hard to get to the numbers that would have paid Dempsey his largest purse.

Apparently anything that Dempsey did or said over 7 years that showed he might have ducked Wills needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Youve illustrated that. I have no doubt you will believe what you want.

He had offers and didnt take them.

And if a frog had wings it wouldnt bump its ass hopping...

 

Klompton,

Do you know how the Wills Contract compared to the Tunney contract, financially?