The truth: The Dempsey contract

Thats why Mullins was so intent on having all bids entered within in 30 days.
Can't you see it didnt really matter 30 or 60 or whatever nobody wanted the fight, if so they had 30-60 to make a deal, Dempsey had every right contractually to refuse any offer he didnt like and yes it was up to him, sorry if that grinds your nuts.
Really all this is moot points cos the prevailing feeling at the time was the fight couldnt be made.
So really we are wasting time arguing about a fight that that would have been extremely difficult to make at that time.

Because it would have held both promoters and Dempsey's feet to the fire.

Why are you not understanding, it doesnt matter that clause was not accepted in their negotiations. An open ended contract with no time frame would have done the same thing.


It would have essentially set up a very similar situation to a purse bid, which is held in modern times. Promoters would bid on the Dempsey-Wills contest and Dempsey and Kearns would have been forced to accept the best offer and fight Wills essentially within 90 days of the signing of this "contract". Who fought that clause? Kearns and Dempsey.

You could add Rickard as an advisor, the fact is they agreed to terms and signed a contract that, DK had every right to do that, why cant you accept that? Why did they have to bid they had an accepted time frame to do the deal. Find a promoter, is simple and clear enough, within a certain time frame. what is the problem? They werent going for a bidding war they were going for a deal.

In fact Dawson questioned Kearns specifically about the fact that the contract was open ended: "His attention was called to the fact that no time limit of any kind was placed on the bidding for the contest.

I am telling you this has to be embarrassing for someone, jeez, from what you are saying this Times reporter noticed that there was no bidding clause, who said there had to be one, what rule or regulation required a bidding clause? I will tell none.

He replied that this permitted the parties concerned to make sure they would get the best bid possible, but in other boxing circles it was pointed out that the latitude of this clause was unlimited and that it might be midwinter or even later before a bid was finally accepted and that in reality it meant that the fight would not be held until next year."

Ok, then why did Dempsey and Kearns refuse that clause in their negotiations? If what this reporter

This is important because at the same meeting Rickard announced that he had already begun work on an aborted Dempsey-Willard rematch which illustrates that Dempsey, Kearns, and Rickard had no real intention of participating in a Wills fight and this was fairly obvious to everyone covering the signing of this "contract."

Ok, for the umpteen time, why is this so important? It isnt, the terms as reported were negotiated and accepted. Crying about a missing bidding clause afterwards, that was negotiated and refused, is not how business is done, the bottomline they accepted the terms. We are not discussing what's fair or whats morally right.

When promoters started making offers Kearns started making excuses. The first promoter that approached him Kearns demanded a $500,000 guarantee, not a percentage, a guarantee.

You do remember the Shelby deal? Promoters sometimes make all kinds of offers the question becomes CAN they deliver on their promises. Kearns asking for $500k, whats wrong with that? Kearns had Dempsey he was in the power position
he could ask for a million. The promoter could have negotiated a lower purse much like Rickard appeared to do when he was asked for the same amount.

Unheard of in boxing at that point and illegal in New York.

Million dollars gates was also unheard pre-Dempsey, NY shot themselves in the foot there putting a cap on purses, that didnt work out well for NY did it?

The next promoter that approached him Kearns demanded that his only stipulation was that the arena be able to seat 100,000, thats 10,000 to 20,000 more seats than Boyles 30 Acres could hold. In short it was a ridiculous demand to make.
All part of negotiations he could have said 200k seats. Look I am not saying that it was right, a contract is a contract and a signed contract means all terms in that contract were agreed to, whether it was under duress does not matter, the contracts binds all parties to the terms in that contract.

So you see, immediately Kearns, not Wills, began putting up roadblocks. So when you pretend that Dempsey agreed to fight Wills but that nobody would sign him so he decided to fight Gibbons you are wrong and so was Dempsey for pretending that.

Kearns had every right to make the contract favoring Dempsey that was his job, ulterior motives are not relevant, and wouldnt stand in a court of law. Do you think a judge would even consider, a" it's not fair argument."

When Dempsey says that the contract was written specifically to get him out of the fight and the bind he was in with the commission Im not reading anything into it Im taking it at face value.

Well you should take the contract that you have at face value, it lays everything out cos like you said if you dont comply your feet will be in the fire.

Bottomline, the fight in 1922, I dont think could've been made and for reasons you already know

 

P, here is the quote, came from my pre-scan days had to type it in:

HARRY WILLS - AUGUST 11, 1926


Don’t blame Dempsey

Yes, I know, now, that Dempsey wanted to fight me, but the politics of the game were against it. Powerful politicians said that a black man shouldn’t fight Dempsey for the title. And that ended it.

I still think I had a great chance to beat him but I don’t’ think about that anymore.” Wills tells you.

And he can still grin, at the humorous aspects of his career.