Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills, the timeline

That makes a bit more sense.

Was a decent offer made or did Kearns act unreasonably in refusing the offers?

 

If he takes as long to do the next one, most of us will be dead before it comes out

 

LOL! No kidding. But if you want it done right it takes time. You do a disservice to yourself and the subject if you dont do your homework.

 

Yet when I mentioned the telegrams that were sent from Dempsey to Rickard in early 1926, (and were produced in court case of Mara v Tunney, I think) you called it BS or feign ignorance of the whole thing.

The telegrams may not prove much, but reports in the press thought they went some way to suggest Dempsey was interested in a Wills fight and Rickard was not.

They were in the least proof that Dempsey was telling Rickard he was considering Wills, and proof that Rickard laid out arguments to Dempsey as to why he didn't approve or believe in the fight.

Of course, I assume you know all about them because you've done your research, and yet you call it "BS".

 

But was this the same contract ?
You have claimed Fitzsimmons was involved on fraudulent grounds, just a fake 'contract', and helping out his friend Dempsey, right ?

B.C. Clements and the Chicago Coliseum seemed to have an actual binding contract, and they sued Dempsey, I think.
Which isn't very friendly.

 

klompton argues well because he sets up the strawmen that he wants to argue against.

When it comes to actual facts that he does not like he avoids the subject.

 

No one has explained yet :

1.Why Kid Norfolk was ducked by Dempsey during his title reign?
2.Whom he beat during this time to earn a title shot.?.

 

Bear in mind that I don't claim to have done exceptional extensive research, but I expect someone who does claim to have done it, and takes such a superior position for having done it, to address simple questions or at least acknowledge basic facts.

Basic facts such as the telegrams produced in court.

I wrote :

"There were telegrams sent between Rickard and Dempsey in early 1926 that suggest that Dempsey wanted Wills or was considering Wills, preferring that to Tunney, and Rickard was the obstacle.
In the end, Dempsey trusted Rickard more than anyone at that point in time.
But Rickard was wrong about Tunney, and wrong about New York."

Some of the above is debatable of course, open to interpretation.
Maybe Dempsey wasn't preferring Wills to Tunney, he certainly was bringing Wills up as an alternative to Tunney, and provoking Rickard's arguments against Wills.

I believe the facts point towards Dempsey trusting Rickard over all over promoters at that time to actual build and deliver him a big fight for a huge purse without it falling through.



Klompton's response
"Lets see these telegrams."


Me : "I don't have the telegrams.
They were produced in court in two cases, I believe, relating to other matters (Tunney's troubles perhaps?).
I expect you know all about this anyway."

^ Again, I'm sure of the basic fact of the telegrams, and Dempsey asking Rickard about Wills, or saying he was considering Wills for other promoters, and Rickard laying out his old arguments against Wills 'it would kill boxing'.

I was not 100% sure of the date and the case, but I believe it was 1928-30, and Mara's suit against Tunney (Mara sued Tunney because he believed he was owed money for services in helping set up the Dempsey fight. The telegrams, I assume, were used by Tunney's lawyers to show that Rickard had done all the work in securing Dempsey ... Mara apparently was only to be paid if he could set up the fight in NEW YORK, which he could not).

Anyway, I don't claim to have done the research klompton claims, so I assume klompton has all the details on this case and the telegrams already, since it is relevant to Dempsey-Wills saga as it was in 1926 !

But klompton's response :

"So youve seen them? Or read their contents? If so they can reproduced, if not I call bull****. "


Really ?

Is this the final word on those telegrams that were produced in court and reported about in newspapers all over the world ?
Bull**** ? because I can't reproduce or quote them fully ?

Hopefully, the telegrams will appear in the book klompton is writing, without no commentary or convoluted conspiracy, just there for the readers to make up their own minds.

:good

 

These are the details of the 1926 contract that Dempsey had with the Chicago Coliseum Club (president B.C. Clements), and the details and some rulings of the long law suit case surrounding Dempsey's breach of contract, for anyone interested :


---------------------------------------------



JOHN F. ROSEN, RALPH ROSEN, G. A. FARABAUGH and WALTER R. ARNOLD, for appellant.
DUNNE CORBOY and ARTHUR F. DRISCOLL, for appellee.
MR. JUSTICE WILSON delivered the opinion of the court.

Chicago Coliseum Club, a corporation, as plaintiff, brought its action against William Harrison Dempsey, known as Jack Dempsey, to recover damages for breach of a written contract executed March 13, 1926, but bearing date of March 6 of that year.

Plaintiff was incorporated as an Illinois corporation for the promotion of general pleasure and athletic purposes and to conduct boxing, sparring and wrestling matches and exhibitions for prizes or purses. The defendant William Harrison Dempsey was well known in the pugilistic world and, at the time of the making and execution of the contract in question, held the title of world's Champion Heavy Weight Boxer.

Under the terms of the written agreement, the plaintiff was to promote a public boxing exhibition in Chicago, or some suitable place to be selected by the promoter, and had engaged the services of one Harry Wills, another well known boxer and pugilist, to engage in a boxing match with the defendant Dempsey for the championship of the world. By the terms of the agreement Dempsey was to receive $10, receipt of which was acknowledged, and the plaintiff further agreed to pay to Dempsey the sum of $300,000 on the 5th day of August 1926, — $500,000 in cash at least 10 days before the date fixed for the contest, and a sum equal to 50 per cent of the net profits over and above the sum of $2,000,000 in the event the gate receipts should exceed that amount. In addition the defendant was to receive 50 per cent of the net revenue derived from moving picture concessions or royalties received by the plaintiff, and defendant agreed to have his life and health insured in favor of the plaintiff in a manner and at a place to be designated by the plaintiff. Defendant further agreed not to engage in any boxing match after the date of the agreement and prior to the date on which the contest was to be held. Certain agreements previously entered into by the defendant with one Floyd Fitzsimmons for a Dempsey-Wills boxing match were declared to be void and of no force and effect. Certain other mutual agreements were contained in the written contract which are not necessary in a consideration of this case.

March 6, 1926, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Harry Wills, in which Wills agreed to engage in a boxing match with the Jack Dempsey named in the agreement hereinbefore referred to. Under this agreement the plaintiff, Chicago Coliseum Club was to deposit $50,000 in escrow in the National City Bank of New York City, New York, to be paid over to Wills on the 10th day prior to the date fixed for the holding of the boxing contest. Further conditions were provided in said contract with Wills, which, however, are *546546 not necessary to set out in detail. There is no evidence in the record showing that the $50,000 was deposited nor that it has ever been paid, nor is there any evidence in the record showing the financial standing of the Chicago Coliseum Club, a corporation, plaintiff in this suit. This contract between the plaintiff and Wills appears to have been entered into several days before the contract with Dempsey.

March 8, 1926, the plaintiff entered into a contract with one Andrew C. Weisberg, under which it appears that it was necessary for the plaintiff to have the services of an experienced person skilled in promoting boxing exhibitions and that the said Weisberg was possessed of such qualifications and that it was necessary for the plaintiff to procure his help in the promoting of the exhibition. It appears further from the agreement that it was necessary to incur expenditures in the way of traveling expenses, legal services and other costs in and about the promotion of the boxing match, and Weisberg agreed to investigate, canvass and organize the various hotel associations and other business organizations for the purpose of securing accommodations for spectators and to procure subscriptions and contributions from such hotels and associations and others for the erection of an arena and other necessary expense in order to carry out the enterprise and to promote the boxing match in question. Under these agreements Weisberg was to furnish the funds for such purposes and was to be reimbursed out of the receipts from the sale of tickets for the expenses incurred by him, together with a certain amount for his services.

Both the Wills contract and the Weisberg contract are referred to at some length, inasmuch as claims for damages by plaintiff are predicated upon these two agreements. Under the terms of the contract between the plaintiff and Dempsey and the plaintiff and Wills, the contest was to be held during the month of September, 1926.

July 10, 1926, plaintiff wired Dempsey at Colorado Springs, Colorado, stating that representatives of life and accident insurance companies would call on him for the purpose of examining him for insurance in favor of the Chicago Coliseum Club, in accordance with the terms of his contract, and also requesting the defendant to begin training for the contest not later than August 1, 1926. In answer to this communication plaintiff received a telegram from Dempsey, as follows:

"BM Colorado Springs Colo July 10th 1926
B. E. Clements
President Chicago Coliseum Club Chgo Entirely too busy training for my coming Tunney match to waste time on insurance representatives stop as you have no contract suggest you stop kidding yourself and me also Jack Dempsey."

We are unable to conceive upon what theory the defendant could contend that there was no contract, as it appears to be admitted in the proceeding here and bears his signature and the amounts involved are sufficiently large to have created a rather lasting impression on the mind of anyone signing such an agreement. It amounts, however, to a repudiation of the agreement and from that time on Dempsey refused to take any steps to carry out his undertaking. It appears that Dempsey at this time was engaged in preparing himself for a contest with Tunney to be held at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, sometime in September, and on August 3, 1926, plaintiff, as complainant, filed a bill in the superior court of Marion county, Indiana, asking to have Dempsey restrained and enjoined from engaging in the contest with Tunney, which complainant was informed and believed was to be held on the 16th day of September, and which contest would be in violation of the terms of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant at Los Angeles, March 13, 1926.

 

The full case rulings can be found here :

[url]https://casetext.com/case/chicago-coliseum-club-v-dempsey[/url]

Interesting case. Basically, Dempsey was found in breach of contract, he had signed to fight Wills in September 1926 for the Chicago Coliseum Club. The contract was signed March 13, 1926.

But the plaintiff was not due much damages, according to the ruling, since any expenses incurred before the signing of the contract could not be counted, nor could anything incurred after July when it was clear that Dempsey was breaching the contract.

_________________________________________

For purpose of our discussion, the TIMELINE of Dempsey-Wills saga.

1. It is clear that Dempsey signed a LEGIT CONTRACT to fight Harry Wills, and he signed it in March 1926.
(He later broke that contract)


Also, as I stated earlier, in another law suit, (Mara v Tunney), telegrams between Rickard and Dempsey (dated January 1926) were produced in which Rickard was arguing against the Wills match, and others where he was still arguing for Tunney match (late March 1926).



For me, it doesn't look like Dempsey had much of a plan either way. My guess is that he wanted a big purse, and he ultimately went along with Rickard, a man he knew would deliver.

But, unlike others, I haven't made up my mind on this yet.
Let's stick to the facts, as the stated intention of the thread on page 1.

 

What date do you have for Dempsey signing for Tunney then ?

Why did he bother to sign another contract in March 1926 to fight Wills ?

Why was Rickard still sending telegrams in 1926 trying to get him to commit for Tunney ?

 

Since Wills got the **** kicked out of him by Sharkey in1926 and by Uzcudun in1927 it's perhaps fortunate he didn't fight even a ring rusty Dempsey in that time line?:think

 

Yes, Harry Wills unfortunately was way way past his prime at that juncture, and had been for some time.
In the ring he was resorting almost entirely to mauling and holding and hitting tactics, which would have been an agreeable style for a past-it Dempsey to face. Instead he faced Gene Tunney ! atsch

 

You keep mentioning these telegrams and acting like you have specific knowledge of them but then cant produce them and act like I have specific knowledge of them. Im asking you to produce them and you refuse.

Do you know why that contract was never followed through with? You are aware that it was Dempsey who refused to honor the contract right? You are also aware that it was announced publicly, within a couple of weeks of this, that Rickard had signed both Dempsey and Tunney to his own contract for a fight to be held the same month as this supposed Wills fight? You are also aware that this case states clearly that no money in the form of guarantees ever exchanged hands including not to Wills? So I fail to see how Dempsey signing a contract that he clearly had no intention of going through with, which he violated and not the promoters, helps your case not mine. Can you explain that to me? Ive never denied Dempsey signed agreements. I denied that he ever intended to honor them and the proof is in the pudding. He didnt. In fact you can check the press and see that while Dempsey was pretending to sign to fight Wills nobody took it seriously and Rickard was already telling everyone that he had the Tunney and Dempsey signed. Who ended up fighting that September? Dempsey-Wills or Dempsey-Tunney? Then in 1932 Dempsey lost this appeal you posted which further illustrated that it was he who backed out of this agreement. If you go back and research it Dempsey simply walked away from it and pretended it never existed. Id say thats all pretty damning and certainly doesnt exonerate him.

The problem is that you and people like you who think that this is somehow proof of Dempsey's good intentions are the same rubes that Dempsey was catering to back then. Signing a contract to fight Wills and then breaking it does not prove that he ever had any intention of fighting Wills. LOL.

If I spend 6+ years alternating between refusing to face Wills and saying Im ready to face Wills, all the while facing easier opposition, and finally years later I sign a contract with one of my close friends to stage that fight just as the commission is about to strip me of my title and bar me and then dont go through with the contract do you really believe I ever had any intention of fighting Wills?

All that being said it does nothing to refute the long held contention that Wills was Dempsey's top challenger for the vast majority of his career which was the point McVey was originally arguing with this thread and the point I was contending all along.