Harry Greb in 1919

[QueensburyRules]

Again, did he sign a contract to fight Wills and then backed out????



Still waiting for you to answer that simple question. What's the matter? Can't bring yourself to admit it

- -Signed at least 2 if not 3 contracts to fight Wills.

Your shabby research and conclusions Infantile. When the political climate changed an the fight could be made, Rickard made an offer to Dempsey to fight the winner of his Tourney. Wills refused to fight Tunney, the incredible irony of that far beyond your grasp, so Rickard made other arrangements.

Rickard introduced the superfight/super purse concept that was a wild success starting with the Gans/Nelson little guys fight, so any time he got involved, get your minder to lookup gold strike in his dictionary.

[travestyny]

- -Signed at least 2 if not 3 contracts to fight Wills.

Your shabby research and conclusions Infantile. When the political climate changed an the fight could be made, Rickard made an offer to Dempsey to fight the winner of his Tourney. Wills refused to fight Tunney, the incredible irony of that far beyond your grasp, so Rickard made other arrangements.

Rickard introduced the superfight/super purse concept that was a wild success starting with the Gans/Nelson little guys fight, so any time he got involved, get your minder to lookup gold strike in his dictionary.

And what came of them? That's the point, dingbat. Why are you ducking when Dempsey had a perfectly good offer and a guaranteed check waiting for him and he ran for the hills.


Isn't that what happened? He had a valid contract and he ducked out.


Right? Right????? You gonna give an answer or keep ducking it



That political climate just so happened to change as soon as Dempsey bailed on that contract, huh? You dudes are sad.

[billeau2]

Yup.

That's how contracts work. (Has anyone disputed that?)

And you know who knew contracts and the lse better than any of us?
The Appelate Judge!

The jury found for the plaintiff. But the judge's award to them was nominal. It's obvious that the Judge was upholding the law, but still saw through the scam.

I'm not suggesting you insinuated as much, but because it might be inferred, let me put the words in your mouth just because it's legal doesn't mean it's just. In close days, Wills couldn't enter half the places which Dempsey could enter in this country. Legal, not just.

Once upon a time men used armed henchmen to get what they wanted, in the modern era we have contracts.

And let's look at the bigger picture: Wills was dog shyte. Sure, it would have been nice if Dempsey had kicked his ass. I'd welcome any demonstration of Jack's power. But he fought better men in Willard, Firpo and Sharkey and how did those fights play out? And those were guys who could actually punch back, and pick themselves up off the canvas. Wills was just a sloppy cur.


And again, broken contract or not, how can this hurt Jack when:

Louis never properly avenged his loss to Schmeling.

Marciano refused to return to fight Ingo, even though he was still younger than Charles, Moore, Walcott and Louis were when they fought him.

Ali was inactive during Frazier's prime. (There was a bit of overlap - Frazier won handedly).

Foreman dodged Quarry (his own admission).

Holmes padded his record with neophytes. (Barely scraping by, no less).

Lewis stayed an amateur to avoid Tyson... and then abandoned Boxing just as the Klitchkos came of age.

See how innocent Dempsey appears when we look at facts, rather than dispute court findings?

Back the truck up Rusty. In the post you quote I deliberately did not insinuate anything. Its a problem of maturity. Just admit that legally the contract was deemed enforcable. Nobody is dis*****g there were aspects to the situation. I have said on many occasions that there are two things that are strange to me about the case, one is a jury trail for what amounts to a complex Tort issue, and the other is the amount of the reward.

But legally the contract was broken. Rusty... your really something sometimes! Instead of admitting the contract was broken you go into a point about how contracts are the equivalent of henchmen! Let me ask you something...and I am ethnically one of those third generation, Ukraine, Litho, Russian with a smidgen of Polish thrown in...that you think are so naturally endowed, But my question is: Do you have Polish in you?

because you are getting a construction crew together to turn a building while you hold a lightbulb that needs changing! The whole institution of contracts is at fault...not Dempsey's people?
I am on record as having a different take on the whole events concerning Dempsey than T. But facts are facts. my position is that we do not know about a lot of things that were material to dempsey's fighting acoutements, and I see many perspectives on the Wills fight.

Also, why denegrate Wills? I happen to think he was not tough for Dempsey, but he was a great fighter in his day. Got off to a late start and still managed to do good things. One could even argue that Tunney was a lot tougher... Its not Will's fault he wanted to fight the best. He would have been a decent opponent, I would have bet on Jack for that one though!

You me assumptions sometimes when it is just easier to admit that something is true without denegrating everybody and everything associated with it Rusty.

[JAB5239]

- -Signed at least 2 if not 3 contracts to fight Wills.

Your shabby research and conclusions Infantile. When the political climate changed an the fight could be made, Rickard made an offer to Dempsey to fight the winner of his Tourney. Wills refused to fight Tunney, the incredible irony of that far beyond your grasp, so Rickard made other arrangements.

Rickard introduced the superfight/super purse concept that was a wild success starting with the Gans/Nelson little guys fight, so any time he got involved, get your minder to lookup gold strike in his dictionary.

So the political climate was right years before for Gans-Nelson, but not for Dempsey-Wills?

[billeau2]

Rusty already offered the argument of law vs. justice, but I want to ask you another question. You seem to have a handle on contract law so . . .

You point out that the amount of money Dempsey accepted as 'consideration' is irrelevant it still represents consideration. OK lets go from there . . .

What if the Dempsey signs that contract under the impression, created by Floyd Fitzsimmons, that he would receive 60K as consideration (training expenses) and then is taken to a bank by Fitzsimmons and the teller tells Dempsey (and Fitzsimmons) that their are inefficient funds available to cash the check, and then informs the two men that the best they can write a check for is $10.

Would you argue that contract was still legal; that Fitzsimmons actions did not amount to fraud?

The difference between 60K and $10 is obviously not an accounting mistake, Fitzsimmons had to know he was deceiving Dempsey, and that he did it deliberately. Does that not make all of the negotiation by Fitzsimmons a fraud?

Part of any contract is to act in 'good faith' Fitzsimmons certainly didn't.

P.S. I noticed you said Dempsey's people. Dempsey's people was made up from Rickard and Kerans and neither of them were a party to the event/contract. It looks as though Dempsey screwed this pooch all by himself.

Ok first a disclaimer: I deal with real estate contracts because I am a developer, Broker, property owner... But legally don't take this as legal advice!

Ok. So we are talking about "good funds" here. A term used to describe when a check, a wire, a gold piece, etc is what it is supposed to be... Your asking if the consideration was compromised because of a check...and because Dempsey accepted something else other than an original amount for consideration.

When I answer this keep in mind something: I am not justifying anything. I am not saying there was not a shady doing...I am merely stating a legal interpretation and one which a lawyer might well say is wrong. But here is what I would say:

1) On all wires, checks, etc there is usually a normative amount of time for transfer. You see this in escrow all the time. A check is deposited and HELD by a professional holding company. This holding guarantees that the funds will be good, OR the other party will not deliver.

Dempsey might have been told that the 60k was not in yet. This is more plausible than Dempsey being told: "would you accept 10 bucks instead?" So Lets go on this assumption because the contract would have to be rewritten, changed, if this was accepted in lieu of training expenses. And this does not make sense.

So there are two ideas at work here:

1) I don't know how escrow worked back then. Lawyers and maybe banks were trustees who could hold securities and cash to be delivered at a later date, or insurance companies could guarantee an impartial transfer of materials for parties to a contract.

In a more crude level contract, like I am assuming this was, it is usually understood that there is a waiting period for funds to transfer. NOW and this is important! If the waiting period had passed, and Dempsey was asked to take that ten dollars as payment while the funds cleared...

a) This acceptance by Dempsey becomes an option: "if the money arrives the contract goes through, if it does not, Dempsey keeps the 10 spot either way."


This is not smart to do...But Marciano who hated checks, was once given a check for 160,000 to do an event, and refused the check and wound up accepting less than half that amount! He did so because he wanted cash and was happy to accept such an amount.

Lets look at that scenario. this is an unwritten contract as soon as Marciano accepts the cash right? So, Dempsey may have been told, here is ten bucks if you will wait for funds, and when he accepted, a contract was made.

b) So: Options are usually contracts themselves but some agreements do not need constructive notice, vis a vis to be written and it may be that when Dempsey accepted this money an unwritten contract was made.

2) We don't know what the contract stated as far as When funds were to be delivered. It may have been that for Dempsey he had an option where he could take the money and if the fight did not materialize, he could keep the money.

a) Was this money an option? An amount to be accepted as backers tried to arrainge the fight? In this case, a legal decision may consider that Dempsey was getting good consideration and was selling an option to the group...which could exerscize it when he fought Wills, or, Dempsey just got to keep the money.

But why the ten bucks then? and why not a provision for Dempsey to by out his performance (fight Wills) with a financial sum to be given back IF he did not fight Wills? So to me this does not make much sense.

Dempsey like a lot of fighters had people advise him. As a matter of fact, he was,along with Ruth, the first megastar athlete to reflect that status financially. So you can bet that Dempsey was either being very rash acting alone, or acting according to people advising him.

So that is the best I can make of this. Another Black Eye for boxing!

Its hard for me to think that Dempsey had a fear of Wills. But that is an opinion.

[Willie Pep 229]

Ok first a disclaimer: I deal with real estate contracts because I am a developer, Broker, property owner... But legally don't take this as legal advice!

Ok. So we are talking about "good funds" here. A term used to describe when a check, a wire, a gold piece, etc is what it is supposed to be... Your asking if the consideration was compromised because of a check...and because Dempsey accepted something else other than an original amount for consideration.

When I answer this keep in mind something: I am not justifying anything. I am not saying there was not a shady doing...I am merely stating a legal interpretation and one which a lawyer might well say is wrong. But here is what I would say:

1) On all wires, checks, etc there is usually a normative amount of time for transfer. You see this in escrow all the time. A check is deposited and HELD by a professional holding company. This holding guarantees that the funds will be good, OR the other party will not deliver.

Dempsey might have been told that the 60k was not in yet. This is more plausible than Dempsey being told: "would you accept 10 bucks instead?" So Lets go on this assumption because the contract would have to be rewritten, changed, if this was accepted in lieu of training expenses. And this does not make sense.

So there are two ideas at work here:

1) I don't know how escrow worked back then. Lawyers and maybe banks were trustees who could hold securities and cash to be delivered at a later date, or insurance companies could guarantee an impartial transfer of materials for parties to a contract.

In a more crude level contract, like I am assuming this was, it is usually understood that there is a waiting period for funds to transfer. NOW and this is important! If the waiting period had passed, and Dempsey was asked to take that ten dollars as payment while the funds cleared...

a) This acceptance by Dempsey becomes an option: "if the money arrives the contract goes through, if it does not, Dempsey keeps the 10 spot either way."


This is not smart to do...But Marciano who hated checks, was once given a check for 160,000 to do an event, and refused the check and wound up accepting less than half that amount! He did so because he wanted cash and was happy to accept such an amount.

Lets look at that scenario. this is an unwritten contract as soon as Marciano accepts the cash right? So, Dempsey may have been told, here is ten bucks if you will wait for funds, and when he accepted, a contract was made.

b) So: Options are usually contracts themselves but some agreements do not need constructive notice, vis a vis to be written and it may be that when Dempsey accepted this money an unwritten contract was made.

2) We don't know what the contract stated as far as When funds were to be delivered. It may have been that for Dempsey he had an option where he could take the money and if the fight did not materialize, he could keep the money.

a) Was this money an option? An amount to be accepted as backers tried to arrainge the fight? In this case, a legal decision may consider that Dempsey was getting good consideration and was selling an option to the group...which could exerscize it when he fought Wills, or, Dempsey just got to keep the money.

But why the ten bucks then? and why not a provision for Dempsey to by out his performance (fight Wills) with a financial sum to be given back IF he did not fight Wills? So to me this does not make much sense.

Dempsey like a lot of fighters had people advise him. As a matter of fact, he was,along with Ruth, the first megastar athlete to reflect that status financially. So you can bet that Dempsey was either being very rash acting alone, or acting according to people advising him.

So that is the best I can make of this. Another Black Eye for boxing!

Its hard for me to think that Dempsey had a fear of Wills. But that is an opinion.

Thanks for replying, it was an interesting insight.

I guess without actually reading the entire contract and seeing what was promised regarding the 'consideration' we really can't judge the legal end properly.

In one sense, the fact that the jury found in favor of the AC suggests that the contract was binding.

In another sense, the fact that the settlement was so meager (and then confirmed on appeal) suggests that the judges (and maybe the trial jury) were not comfortable with the contract as written.

You may not be a lawyer but boy you sure can equivocate like one [wink]

Thanks again for replying.

[Willie Pep 229]

So the political climate was right years before for Gans-Nelson, but not for Dempsey-Wills?

There was some difference regarding the lightweights and the HW Championship.

Some were racist across the board, other played a duplicitous game with it.

In 1892, The Carnival of Champions (Sullivan-Corbett), George Dixon (black) defeated Jack Skelly (white) for the FW title.

The pro mixed-fight crowd carried the victor (Dixon) around the ring on their shoulders; the anti mixed-fight newspapers claimed that there were race riots outside the venue after the fight. Who really knows?

As far as the climate of the day, for Willis-Dempsey I think it is quite complicated.

In 1922 there were two times Kearns dangled the fight in front of Will's people only to not show for the scheduled meetings.

The first time he did this, and it hit the newspapers, both the State of New Jersey and the owner of Fenway Park in Boston announced they would never allow a 'mixed fight' to occur in their venues.

My point being NO ONE ever suggested that their venues would be involved, yet they still took it on their own to bar a fight that wasn't even signed, nor were they ever mentioned to be on anyone's short list to begin with.

Their refusal almost seems pure political (and racist).

Tex Rickard wasn't totally full of crap when he argued that the public wasn't ready for the fight.

But on the other hand I have no problem believing that the fight would have packed the Polo Grounds with 80,000 plus the way the Firpo fight did.

I think the atmosphere surrounding the fight was a real case of 'half the people' . . .

[billeau2]

Thanks for replying, it was an interesting insight.

I guess without actually reading the entire contract and seeing what was promised regarding the 'consideration' we really can't judge the legal end properly.

In one sense, the fact that the jury found in favor of the AC suggests that the contract was binding.

In another sense, the fact that the settlement was so meager (and then confirmed on appeal) suggests that the judges (and maybe the trial jury) were not comfortable with the contract as written.

You may not be a lawyer but boy you sure can equivocate like one [wink]

Thanks again for replying.

Lol Thanks.

One thing to be aware of here: Its kind of an absolute regarding the legality of the contract. It really either is/is not enforcable. The award bothers me as well...

Heres one possibility. If you treat the compensation like you would an Option...like a securities option, here is what it looks like:

Performance (Dempsey showing up to fight Wills) has a value at signing, a value based on future performance. So maybe it can be determined that a certain amount of seats will sell, and if that contract is broken right on the spot... a judge will look at the future value of performance, contrasted with any remedies available to Wills. So if it is determined that the fight (Dempsey's performance) is worth 600k, and another fight is worth 300K...So for example, Dempsey breaks the contract right away and Wills can fight another man for 300k. The breach would cost Dempsey 600k-300k for a total of 300k. This is for Future performance.

Now, lets say Dempsey breaks the contract the day of the fight: Wills cannot get another fight, so Dempsey would be on the hook for 600k.

Now. If we are considering the value of Dempsey's performance as the fight gets closer and closer, and eventually both parties know the fight is off, other fights have been taken, etc... the value of Dempsey's performance diminishes. Especially after the fight date, when considering what Will's, as a reasonable party in the contract should have done to see to his self interest. Did Wills have another fight that was a success? Did he do what a reasonable person would do knowing Dempsey would not perform?

Before we get to the judge it is an interesting fact that what I described above is exactly how financial options work. Options, and futures are essentially contracts that trigger different compensation based on performance of the underlying asset: So when we first buy an option on KO (COke a cola), the less time passes the less valuable the option is. When the option moves, and goes towards its maximum value, the strike price, it becomes more valuable... after the time expires the option becomes worthless.

This is the same trajectory: Dempsey signs and if he breaks the cntract right away, not much harm is done, as the fight gets closer, the more harm Dempsey will do if he breaks the contract, until eventually the fight does not happen, and the contract has lost all value.

If the judge looked at the fight this way...But damn he let a jury decide this!? anyway... if the judge had in his mind that given when Dempsey broke the contract, and what Wills could do, as a reasonable man, to get another fight, there was not much that was lost by Wills, then his decision would reflect this with a low award...

make sense? If I am going to do your wedding, and 5 days later I break the contract, I will owe you something. The time it takes you to get another planner, etc. If I break the contract five days before the wedding, i will owe you a lot more! If I broke the contract and it is after the wedding, and we can see what you cold do to remedy the situation, I might owe you very very little, if anything (usually deposits are used for these situations).

[Rusty Tromboni]

And my point is I'm still waiting for you to come with some facts.


The truth is on my side. You got nothing and that's why none of your posts here amount to squat

Can't you do any better?

What facts?

I've stuffed you with facts, like I stuffed your mouth with my co.ck

[Rusty Tromboni]

And my point is I'm still waiting for you to come with some facts.


The truth is on my side. You got nothing and that's why none of your posts here amount to squat

Can't you do any better?

What facts?

I've stuffed you with facts, like I have so often stuffed your mouth with my co.ck

I guess it's my fault I've always left you begging for more Ms. Walters