Dempsey vs Wills article

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Perry, Jul 30, 2015.


  1. Legend X

    Legend X Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,315
    664
    Mar 18, 2005
    Fair enough. The thing with those types of books is that they can't fit everyone in, especially ones who did not win the title, so I'm guessing where I read a bit about Wills the same books probably short changed someone else.
    I agree, internet age is better for information across the board. Huge differences.
     
  2. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,998
    48,085
    Mar 21, 2007
    That period makes no sense if people are still discussing the matter violently today. Sorry. That's a fact, too.

    All facts were known decades ago; agreed. I can't make this clearer - i've agreed with you once, now i am agreeing with you again. I've never stated the opposite and don't believe it. I hope this is cleared up for you now.

    Many more facts are known to many more people now. And many people have found the Dempsey legacy wanting in this area.

    But that's it exactly, it's not just a "few posters" on a given boxing board. It is an internet-wide phenomenon. It's hard (i won't say impossible, but it might be) to discuss Dempsey's legacy without discussing Wills now. That was not the truth previously. This is the change you are failing to acknowledge or understand.

    This might be true but it has since been re-awakened, with a vengeance. The very fact that you started this thread is proof of that.
     
  3. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,343
    1,536
    Apr 26, 2015
    Just spinning old information is all that is going on. All the facts are well known and the facts exonerate Dempsey. Been that way for 90 years. Revisionism and Dempsey haters keep the ball rolling. Get over it.
     
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,998
    48,085
    Mar 21, 2007
    Yes, and that difference leaks out. Say it is possible to dismiss Wills as an issue because we are geeks and weirdos. Fair enough - but it's leaked into more General forums, including this one. Dismiss those people as geeks - i bet it will creep through to the next big heavyweight televised debate thing. Still, we'll have to wait and see.
     
  5. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,343
    1,536
    Apr 26, 2015
    I started this thread to show that the Dempsey haters are revisionist and nothing more. You are one of its worst examples.
     
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,998
    48,085
    Mar 21, 2007
    Well spinning, perhaps in some cases, yes, but in others, uncovering is a better word. It will come as a shock to many, as it did to me, that Dempsey never met a #1 contender during his entire reign; that will come to a shock to a great many who didn't know that such was the case.

    It will inevitably lead to a difference in the way people see him. Surely you see that?

    Let's say we agree that Dempsey is exonerated; can you not see that the facts, were they unknown to someone, might surprise them upon fully uncovering them?

    This isn't true. In his own time, Wills was often described as the only heavyweight likely to extend Dempsey; in smatterings down the years he was described as a fighter people thought could beat Dempsey in his own time. I know that to you these people are just idiots that don't know boxing, but they were journalists and biographers and they believed this.

    So you admit now that the ball is rolling, even if you insist it is only rolling because of haters and revisionists? Because a couple of posts ago you seemed to deny even that.
     
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,998
    48,085
    Mar 21, 2007
    Well, let's say that I am a revisionist and hater - if you genuinely believe I am "one of the worst examples" you haven't been paying attention :lol:

    There are people on here who I think would literally shoot Dempsey dead given the chance. You know, if he was alive and that.
     
  8. billy smith

    billy smith Member Full Member

    273
    11
    Jul 17, 2015
    believe the following article written by Jack Dempsey appeared in a 1963 issue of Ebony. This is an excerpt of it that is included as a chapter in a 1963 book edited by two men from that magazine. The book is titled ‘White on Black’ and the title of the chapter is ‘Why Negroes Rule Boxing’:

    “From the inception of boxing in this country it has been dominated by men who developed out of struggle with life. Our first real heavyweight champion, Tom Molyneaux, was born a slave in Virginia and won his freedom with his fistic talent. Fighting as a freedman in New York he beat all challengers and earned the right to be called the first American heavyweight champion.

    All of the great old-time Negro boxers were born under poor and depressing circumstances but rose above their environments to win acclaim wherever they fought. Peter Jackson, Sam Langford, George Dixon, Joe Gans, the immortal “Old Master,” and Jack Johnson all knew what it felt like to be up against the wall and cornered. Their bitter experiences were reflected in their superb endurance and their toughness of spirit. Their early poverty showed itself in the way they handled themselves as men and boxers.

    I am personally indebted to a number of Negro boxers who worked as my sparring partners in the years when I was learning how to handle myself in a ring. When I was fighting I had many Negro sparring partners at my training camp. One of these, Bill Tate, became one of my best friends. Now living in Chicago, Illinois, he is one of the finest men I have ever known. Then there was Panama Joe Gans, a great and clever fighter, who taught me a lot. The Jamaica Kid, a very fine heavyweight, worked with me before the famous 1919 fight with Jess Willard. The Kid did a lot to get me into the superb condition that enabled me to beat Willard and win the world’s championship.

    Sam Langford, one of the greatest of all heavyweights, is another Negro fighter who showed me some tricks and gave me the benefits of his vast experience. I worked with Old Sam in Chicago when I was a youngster. I never forgot what Langford taught me. He was cool, clever, scientific and a terrific hitter besides a fine man.
    Battling Gee and Battling Jim Johnson, both Negroes were also on my payroll as sparring mates. I was a pretty rough customer in those days and my sparring partners had to be good and tough to stay with me. All of these men more than made the grade.

    Many times I’ve had the charge hurled at me that I was prejudiced against Negroes. It is time this utter fiction was laid to rest once and for all. All my life I have believed that all men are basically brothers and that differences of color and religion are superficial. I hate prejudice. I hate discrimination. I hate intolerance. Boxing has been guilty of its share of color bias but I categorically deny that I ever practiced it either as a fighter, manager or promoter. The several Negro fighters who have been under my management will testify to my long-held belief in equality of treatment for all men, regardless of color.

    Since I am on the subject of the color line in boxing, let me clear the air of the many rumors and suspicions and charges that have been moving around me as a result of my failure to fight Harry Wills. I have never run away from a fight in my life. Ever since I left public school to work in the Colorado mines, my credo has been to fight all comers and may the best man win. Harry Wills was a great fighter in his prime and I would have liked to have been matched with him. But it was not to be. The reasons had nothing to do with color prejudice on my part (which I have never held), nor fear of Wills fighting skill. I wanted to fight Wills badly, but Tex Rickard, who had the final say, never matched us.

    Rickard was a Texan. He had a rough time of it out in San Francisco, California, after the Johnson-Jeffries fight which he promoted in Reno. The repercussions of that fight swirled about Rick’s head for a long time after the fight and he was a victim of ugly charges and a wicked smear campaign. This experience soured him on mixed fights for the heavyweight crown. As a result he was never anxious to promote a match between Wills and myself.

    The facts clearly show that in 1926 I tried desperately to arrange a fight with Harry Wills but the deal collapsed when my guarantee was not forthcoming. Wills and I had signed to fight with a promoter named Floyd Fitzsimmons of Benton Harbor, Michigan. Wills, I understand, received fifty thousand dollars as his guarantee for signing the contract. I was to have received one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars in advance of the fight. As the date of the fight grew nearer and my money did not appear, I became anxious and asked Fitzsimmons what was the matter. He wired me to meet him in Dayton, Ohio, assuring me that he would have the money for me there. I met Fitzsimmons in Dayton who handed me a certified check for twenty-five thousand dollars and a promise to let me have the balance almost immediately. I balked at that, demanding the full amount right away. Fitzsimmons tried to placate me by calling the bank where he said he had deposited the money. The bank, unfortunately for Fitzsimmons, informed him that it did not have that much money on hand, that there wasn’t enough to cover the twenty-five thousand dollar check he had given me. Furious, I returned the check to Fitzsimmons and told him the fight was off. Later, the Fitzsimmons syndicate financing the fight sued me for failure to honor a contract. I won the case.

    When the Wills fight failed to materialize, Tex Rickard jumped back into the picture and matched me with Gene Tunney. The rest is history. And that is the real story behind the negotiations for the Harry Wills fight which never came off. I am sorry Wills and I never got a chance to square off in the ring. I am sure it would have been one beautiful s****.”
     
  9. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,343
    1,536
    Apr 26, 2015
    You are spinning right now. The facts are known and the history is known. Known for many decades. Dempsey was exonerated from blame because the known history exonerated him from blame. Again all this is well known for 90 years. All you are doing is spinning old information to purposely twist history. That is ALL that is going on here and other forums where the amateurs play.
     
  10. Legend X

    Legend X Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,315
    664
    Mar 18, 2005
    That's been done years ago too.

    2:06 onwards

    [yt]foVRn1PL1S8[/yt]
     
  11. Legend X

    Legend X Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,315
    664
    Mar 18, 2005
    Video's from 1996
     
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,998
    48,085
    Mar 21, 2007
    If I am spinning, you are spinning too. We are on total agreement in the above and I have expressed my agreement with you twice. The fact that you are repeating this over and over again despite the fact that I have expressed my agreement is concerning?

    Let us say you are correct and Dempsey was exonerated. Fine. I accept that completely.

    That exoneration can, and appears to have been, redacted by this newest generation. There is ample evidence for this.

    I haven't spun any information; what are you talking about? I have produced no information regarding Dempsey and Wills at all here. All I am doing is explaining a position to you, one that very clearly exists, but one that you are very clearly incapable of understanding.

    Amateurs is the right word. Previously, the full suite of facts, if they were available at all, were only available to a narrow corridor of experts. That is not longer the case. Everyone has this information at their fingertips.

    However, if you prefer professionals, there are several people paid to write about boxing history that post regularly on this forum with whom you could consult; unfortunately they are neither exclusively among the best informed and most even handed posters, or those that necessarily agree with you.
     
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,998
    48,085
    Mar 21, 2007
    I would say that is the time the Wills situation began to creep through into what passes for boxing history mainstream, personally. Though looking through books I have from previous to that era, Wills does get more than the occasional mention and I even found a picture of him with a caption beside it stating that "many thought" Wills would beat Dempsey. This was in Harry Mullan's Illustrated History of Boxing.
     
  14. Legend X

    Legend X Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,315
    664
    Mar 18, 2005
    I think it has always been there.

    In many American contexts it would not have been mentioned though because of wider issues around race segregation and injustices.
    In the newspapers and boxing magazines and books, I'd say it has been boxing history mainstream forever.
     
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,998
    48,085
    Mar 21, 2007
    I would have expected to have seen it discussed in stuff like Mike Tyson and the Heavyweights etc. in that case, but we probably disagree about what constitutes mainstream.