Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills, the timeline

But Johnson wasnt asking unrealistic demands to face Langford. He asked for $30,000. He made over $100,000 for Jeffries but his actual purse was only for $40,000, $30,000 for Flynn, $35,000 for Moran. That purse he asked for Langford is right in line with what he was asking for everyone else. Dempsey was asking for $550,000 up front (one year in advance of the fight) with another $500,000 delivered after the fight, plus $25,000 training expenses and that was in 1926, six years after Wills firmly established himself. Crazy. Compare that to his other purses:

Willard: $27,500
Miske: $67,452
Brennan: $100,000
Carpentier: $300,000
Gibbons: $255,000
Firpo: $468,750

Do the math on that and Dempsey was asking more as an advance than he ever made in any single fight in his life and still wanted nearly that amount again when the fight was over. He was essentially asking almost as much to fight Wills as the combined purses of all of his title fights. If that isnt pricing yourself out of a fight I dont know what is.

 

See my above post but Ive read three different figures for Tunney $700,000, $750,000, and $850,000. He got nothing like the advance he was asking for to fight Wills. He was to get a guarantee of $450,000 plus 40% of anything over $1,000,000 taken in at the gate. This is nothing like what he demanded to fight Wills. Especially when you consider that with all of the controversy sorrounding the fight and the change of venue and Tunney not being a huge draw that 40% was a gamble. If the fight wasnt a million dollar gate he would have only made $450,000 thats $575,000 less than what he wanted to be GUARANTEED to fight Wills and $75,000 less total than what he wanted UP FRONT ONE YEAR IN ADVANCE.

 

Again, the March 29, 1926 date for telegram was stated in newspapers, which I will not post a link to.
(You didn't like it when I supplied a link before, and besides you are capable of doing your own work.)

Yes, Tunney was signed to fight Dempsey on January 20.

I'm not trying to change your overall thesis.
I'm just adding some dates to the timeline.
Not everything I state is an attack or contradiction of your thesis, by the way.

I do think the fact that Tex Rickard was continuing to argue against Wills in telegrams to Jack Dempsey any time in 1926 suggests that he at least (Rickard, that is) took seriously the possibility that Dempsey was seriously considering offers to fight Wills.
If Tex Rickard, an alleged co-conspirator in the 7-year duck, thought Dempsey might actually fight Wills (at that time), then why shouldn't we take it at face value too ?
If Dempsey's statements of willingness to fight Wills were all such a sham every step of the way, why would Rickard even bother to argue against them ?

The simple explanation is to take it at face value.

Oh, if you're talking about the 'vast majority of people' and 'everyone' then Rickard's statement "and you'll have an easier time with Tunney" or whatever would have been completely redundant anyway.
It's hardly a case of Dempsey being persuaded by Rickard telling him so, is it ?

The point is Rickard was making arguments against Wills to Dempsey in 1926, in private correspondence.
Your response is (paraphrasing) "Even if that's so, look, Rickard was telling Dempsey that Wills was the softer option."

My response is : Rickard was making other arguments too, financial ones.

It's obvious to anyone that Rickard would be more persuasive using arguments on boxing financials (since he was the only man to do million dollar gates), than simply re-stating what every common fan thought about Tunney's ability as a challenger.

I've never claimed to be expert on the era. You have.
Where I'm sketchy on details, I acknowledged that off the bat, or quickly corrected myself.
You added nothing actually.

I haven't left out facts.

You haven't told me anything new. You're repeating yourself in every discussion. You consider yourself "well versed". That's no proof in itself that you are.

No, I didn't see you mention the telegrams. I mentioned them.

On the one hand, you're telling me you've read everything.
On the other hand, you're asking me to supply and cite everything.

Yet, when I post a single link, you act all superior talking about "if you think you can go on google to find a smoking gun" .... "I've been researching for several years, you just started NOW" ... as if my supplying a link was some sort of challenge to your self-bestowed status.

You may actually know more about this subject than me.
I would hope so, since you're supposedly writing the book on it.

But better than just go around telling people "I know more than all of you" you'd do well to demonstrate it.

Which, again, raises the question of why Rickard was even bothering to argue against Wills to Dempsey as late as 1926 ?

If it's SO OBVIOUS that Dempsey was never going to fight Wills, it makes no sense that Tex Rickard of all people was taking the possibility seriously.

Why did you even mention that Rickard was telling Dempsey that Tunney was the softer option then ?
I read that part. I read the part where Rickard said Dempsey-Wills would kill boxing, and the part where Rickard said those others promoters would not be able to pull it off.

Rickard delivered big paydays. Dempsey trusted him to do that, and why shouldn't he ? Rickard had a strong track record.

You can argue all you want about "ridiculous" fees and advances and expenses. That's business.

Of course, I could use your phrase "ch!cken**** racist coward" I think was what you labelled it on another thread.

YES, it is a fact that the public held Wills in high regard as the leading contender.

It is also might be a fact that Wills, like Dempsey, was coasting in that position taking on poor opposition for much of the 7 year period.

The majority of people took it as read that Dempsey was the greatest fighter on earth at that time, too. But surely we can cast doubt on that rating, no ?

 

No, it says more about you than me. Legal records and telegrams presented in court are one thing, anecdotal or incidental quotes another.

Please explain why I should 100% believe that Dempsey was quoted correctly or the conversation took place.

I say he might have said it.

You seem to believe everything and anything printed when it suits your agenda.

Quotes are often untrue. If you don't believe that then you're truly naïve.

Of course, there might be way more to it than you're letting on. So please explain.

 

If you want the rest of the readers of this thread to take you seriously, you gotta post links or quotes you are basing your argument on. It doesn't have to be intended for klompton, when you are trying to persuade (and failing miserably, IMHO) the rest of the forum that you are right and klompton is wrong.

 

I am but Im not going to do your work for you. Post it if you have it.

So, that proves nothing. Dempsey and Rickard werent symbiots. Rickard doesnt have to be privy to Dempsey's inner confidences. Dempsey, like any fighter is in for the best deal for himself. He showed this for his entire career. It works to his favor expecially if Rickard thinks the Wills offer is legit because he leverage that for more money from Rickard. You dont seem to understand business or the business of boxing very well.

Ive actually argued against the idea that it was Rickards fault exclusively. Ive been arguing against the idea that Dempsey had no fault in the matter. Why you think you are going to get me to tie those together in this is beyond me. Those two each had their own agendas, their own personal interests in not wanting that fight. Does that mean they were constantly working together? No, not at all. Dempsey showed more than once during his career that regardless of Rickards feelings on the subject he was willing to go his own way. So I dont know why you think Rickard would have been a part of every discussion Dempsey had in regards to his own business. Unlike Dempsey apologists I KNOW that Rickard didnt control Dempsey.

When did I say it was it was a case of Rickard persuading Dempsey? Your right it was redundant, and that was my point in illustrating it. Some on here have argued Wills wasnt Dempsey's #1 or the biggest threat. Thats ludicrous. We have Rickard on record several times admitting that Wills was. We also have him using that fact to influence Dempsey.

I dont understand your point with all of this Rickard line of arguing. Again, Im not interested in Rickard did or didnt do. Im interested in what Dempsey did or didnt do. Dempsey broke his contract with Wills to fight Tunney for less money, a major reason why (arguably the only reason) was because Tunney was percieved as the lesser threat. Dempsey eventually lost this case in court and it was shown that he broke that contract without cause. You say lets take it at face value then I say a guy who from 1919, the day after he won the title, says hes not going to fight Wills, then wiggles and worms every way he can not to fight Wills for 7 years, runs out of his contract to fight Wills (that was only signed immediately before the commission was going to bring the hammer down on him) to fight a lesser threat for lesser money, is ducking. Thats what face value says. No amount **** you want to throw at the wall and see what sticks is going to alter that. If 100 other fighters did that exact same scenario and their names werent Jack Dempsey youd say those 100 fighters ducked their #1.

And then constantly accused me of "feigning ignorance" because I didnt memorize each of the dozens of telegrams spanning 3 years that were read in court.

Sorry pal but if you are going to cite something specific like that Im calling you out on it. Maybe I know what you are referring to, maybe I dont, but even if I do the other people reading this dont and since you are simply looking this all up on google it shouldnt be a burden for you to cite it unless you are making it up as you go along.

Because your link has not changed the landscape of what I have been saying all along one bit and yet you act like you had this big "gotcha" moment. Is it just me is it ridiculous to pretend Dempsey didnt duck Wills by citing court cases which illustrated Dempsey ducked Wills?? I mean you do realize that both Dempsey and Tunney lost those cases ultimately and they came out looking like assholes as a result? Sorry if I seem condescending or like a know it all but you dont really seem to be familiar with those cases, the testimony, or the light it shone on the people involved and lengths they went, each individually and for their own personal reasons, to prevent Wills from getting a title shot. Yet you post snippets of the testimony and want to act like it proves Dempsey just sat back and let events swirl around him.

Again, Tex Rickard is a promoter. The promoter pays the fighter. Does it or does it not benefit the fighter to have promoters fighting for his services? It doesnt take a genius to understand that it wouldnt exactly be in Dempsey's best interest to give Rickard the keys to the castle and say "I will never fight for anyone else. Without question my next fight is for you. You make all of the decisions." You ever notice in his heyday that Don King made the biggest splashes in the paper in regards to what he paid fighters when there was another promoter offering for that fighters services? Its called playing both ends against the middle and even morons know how to do it. You are being very short sighted to imagine that Dempsey did not do this as well. In fact, once again, we have several instances of him doing this throughout his career and even his life. I mean if Hasim Rahman can do it, and Mike Tyson can do it, I think Dempsey can do it too and it doesnt take a genius...

No its ducking, because he never asked that for anyone else.

Its applicable. What would you call a guy who ducked his top contender for 7 years hiding behind the color line and telling people he would never fight a black man and that he couldnt understand why Greb did? I call him a chicken **** racist. He brought it on himself by his own actions. Those actions were drawn out over years, not the couple of minutes it takes you to read about. They encompass a large portion of his life and define much of his reign. You and other Dempsey nuthuggers and apologists may not like it but thats the way it is.

There is a big difference. The champions responsibility to continue to prove he is the best is defend against his #1 challengers. The #1 challenger has no responsibility other than to maintain that position until he gets a shot. Wills did his job. Dempsey didnt. You can argue about Wills competition but he was knocking over the guys who would fight him who were established as or being talked of as potential Dempsey opponents. Dempsey steadfastly refused to fight his two top potential candidates for the vast duration of his reign. So this bull**** attempt at saying "whats good for Dempsey was good for Wills" just doesnt fly.

I think Dempsey proved that he was less than the greatest fighter in the world. He certainly wasnt saying "I can lick any sonofa***** in the house..." which of course John L. didnt do either.

 

If Jack Dempsey, Jack Kearns and Tex Rickard really pushed for a world heavyweight title bout between Dempsey and Harry Wills, would it have taken place in the United States even with the full backing of the politicians and the state athletic commission in the state of New York? Considering that a black boxer didn't fight in a world heavyweight title bout for 22 years after Jack Johnson lost the title to Jess Willard in 1915, I have my doubts. It was a different racial and political climate throughout the United States at the time.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Jack Dempsey never got a million-dollar purse during his career, but did get a little over $700,000. for his unsuccessful title defense in his first bout with Gene Tunney.

When Dempsey reportedly made his demand for a million-dollar purse for fighting Harry Wills, it was out of line. In order for a promoter make such a guarantee to pay off, the gate for the bout would have had to be at least 2.5 million dollars, at least seven hundred thousand more than the then-record gate set by the fight between Dempsey and Georges Carpentier.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Chuck, this is what I have been alluding to in my posts MANY times and NEVER have I received any feedback to this question
of the legitimate fears boxing promoters across America had following the slew of race riots and deaths that followed the Johnson vs Jeffries fight in Reno ...The lack of RESPONSE tells me that we are correct...It is what it is...

 

Burt, Tex Rickard had a hellish time staging the world heavyweight bout between Jack Johnson and Jim Jeffries. He came very close to holding the bag when the governor of California made a decision out of the blue during the middle of June to prevent the bout from being staged in the state on the 4th of July. This was after Tex had expended a tremendous amount of energy and money to bring the bout into fruition for close to a year. It is very fortunate for Tex that he was able to stage the bout in the adjacent state of Nevada and in a city (although a very small one located in a sp****ly populated state) located on a major railway route leading to the San Francisco Bay Area.

I often wondered what would have happened if a bout between Sam Langford and Al Kaufman wasn't scheduled to take place in San Francisco during the middle of June in 1910. Also included in the California governor's surprising decision about the scheduled Johnson-Jeffries bout was that he was also determined to prevent the upcoming bout between Langford and Kaufman from taking place. It seemed that the decision was made public just in time to kill the scheduled Langford-Kaufman bout. If the upcoming Langford-Kaufman bout wasn't scheduled, the governor could conceivably hold off until a day or two before the 4th of July before making his decision to kill the Johnson-Jeffries bout known to the public. That could have had profound effect on Rickard and the sport of boxing in the future.

- Chuck Johnston

 

It was Gene Tunney, the reigning world heavyweight champion at the time, who received a purse of nearly one million dollars in the second bout between Tunney and Jack Dempsey. I have read that Dempsey received a purse of about four hundred thousand dollars for the bout.

- Chuck Johnston