| Home | News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia |
| The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board |
Im sure your right . But a few here and there wouldnt hurt. Also might inspire
some to go back and read some of these guys . Its almost like being there .
Like I said its hard to argue with the people who were there . Even if they were just as divided back then . Except about Dempsey or Igoe .
pardon my glove
igoe H.O.F.
I swear, the Dempsey fans are approaching the Tyson-Roy Jones ESB crowd.
First off, on whether Fipo's shot was a push or not- read any of Dempsey's books (Kahn's is the most recent) Dempsey was badley hurt by Firpo, in fact he asked Kearns in between the first and second round "which round did I get knocked out in ?" He also admitted to being afraid of Sam Langford and it was Dempsey, not John the Barber (or whatever his manger's name was) that flat out REFUSED to fight Langford before Dempsey went on to win the title (circa-1917-1918). And he could have fought Wills without using Rickart, if he wanted to fight him, but instead chose to take the cowardly route by hiding behind the color line. The ultimate blame for Wills-Dempsey not coming off rests with Dempsey- no one else.
Any large heavyweight that Dempsey fought (Willard, Firpo, Fulton) you guys build up, because it fits into your arguemnts that Dempsey at 185 llb would destroy Foreman, Liston, Tyson, Tua, Lewis, ect had they fought. Like i said before, if they were around in the 20's Jack wouldn't have fought them anyway (they'd extend the color line to include Samoens as well). What do you guys possibly see in Jess Willard on film, that makes you guys think that he was a formidable opponent ? The guy was slow as molasses, held his hands at his waist (in a stupid lean back style of the era). To show you guys how bad boxing was during the teens, Willard never stepped into the ring until he was 29 years old, yet became heavyweight champion of the world, what does that tell you ?. He was world champion because of two things, he was white and he was 6-6, in an era when 6-6 was like being 7-6. Another thing that may have slipped some of the dempsey fans' minds, was that Willard was 37 years old when he fought Dempsey and HADN'T FOUGHT in THREE YEARS. I know that doesn't mean a thing.
Luis Firpo was another "Giant" of the era. Yes, in the 1920's being 6-3, 215 qualified you as being a Giant, and Firpo, Willard, and Fulton's size was a huge factor in their success(as was Carnera, Abe Simon,and RayImpellitiere -a guy who went 10 rounds with the lightheavyweight champ in his 5th pro fight). Am I missing something on Firpo ? Does he have this great jab - no, In fact he doesn't even throw one, he just wings punches.
Here is another question: who is the greatest fighter that Dempsey ever beat ? I would have to say either Firpo or Sharkey. We arn't talking all time greats here (well except for some of the dempsey fan's lists, they're probably top 5 all time fighters) Of coarse Jack was shot when he lost 18 out of 20 rounds to Tunney (at age 31- real geezer), just like Jack's one round KO loss to Flynn was fixed. Of coarse you guys never factor in the fact that Dempsey didn't have a clue on how to cut the ring off against Tunney (he doesn't take away any escape route, he doesn't move laterally, he just follows Gene around the ring) and didn't have a clue what to do with lateral movement. He also allowed Gibbons to tie him up repeatedly and didn't have a clue of what to do with Gibbons when Gibbon's moved.
Like I said before, Dempsey's a product of the 1920's hype. The 1920's were the first era in US history when most of the public had cash and leisure time to watch sports. When you throw in the fact that sportswriters like Runyon, Lardner, and Rice were making the sports hero's into mythical figures, I think that has a lot to do with Dempsey becoming a legend. You want to bring up old trainers and writers (as if sportswriters ever competed in ANY athletic events in their lives) saying Dempsey's the greatest. Like I said, it's human nature to view either your own era or the past differently than when you get older. The vast majority of the people around when Dempsey was fighting said that Jeffries would destroy him. Just like Louis' era they said Dempsey would beat him, and during Marciano's era they said that Louis would beat him, same with Ali and Holmes. Read back during the 1970's, most people then thought that the heavyweights were terrible then, now it's a golden era.
Did you guys ever think that MAYBE, the more Tunney built Dempsey up, the better HE looked ? (nah) Take Jack Sharkey- he says that dempsey hit harder than Louis. Interesting, that Sharkey was taking Dempsey's shots for 7 rounds and didn't go until Dempsey hit him with a sucker punch (not Dempsey's fault). However, Louis destroyed Sharkey in 3 rounds. I am not calling Sharkey a liar, it's just that you view things differently when you are older. Larry Holmes said that Tyson didn't hit that hard, even though Tyson stopped him in 4 (Holmes said that Cooney and Shavers hit harder) I can give you other examples (Archie Moore rating Booker and Burley over Ezzard Charles, who kicked Moore's ass 3X ,including KO'ing Moore).
Lastley, I'll grant Casey and Hunnicutt this. IF Dempsey hits harder than Shavers, is faster than Ali, is impossible to hit while coming forward (Jeeze- how'd the precision-punching Firpo ever land), is physically stronger than Foreman, has a stronger chin than Tua, has faster hands than Patterson or Dokes, is more accurate than Ali, is in better physical condition than Frazier or Marciano, and does it all at 185 llbs, then yes, I'll admit that he is the greatest fighter ever. In fact, I'll put him in the super human catagory. The only problem is that if that were true, than NO ONE IS GETTING TO THE SECOND ROUND WITH THAT BEAST ! Problem is fighters like Brennan, Tunney, Gibbons and others not only lasted with Dempsey but beat and nearly beat him (Firpo also came within an eyelash of KO'ing him) Christ, a middleweight, Harry Greb, kicked Dempsey's ass in sparring and was supremely confident that he could beat Dempsey and campained for years (like Harry Wills) to get him in the ring. I didn't see Middleweights like Monzon wanting to get in the ring with Foreman, or Guaridello screaming for Liston, or Robinson screaming for Marciano(I don't think the Taylor-Wright winner is going to fight Klitschko)
Oh my, my, my, how delightful it is to have HeGranny playing with concepts foreign to him (you know, like logic and reality) again.
I'm "revising history" by saying in one post that Carpentier never hurt Dempsey and in another that he nearly killed him -- something like that, was it? How about this, provide one instance in which I EVER said that Dempsey wasn't hurt by that shot. Just one. I'll wait . . . .
Hmm? Couldn't find it? I guess the gremlins must have scurried away with it. I've said from the beginning that Dempsey was stung, did a half-step to one side, and then went right back to coolly ripping the guts out of a frenetic Georges. My lord, you're trying to revise FILMED HISTORY to make it seem like Dempsey was doing a Judah dance for two minutes or so.
What the hell has Mayorga got to do with anything? Tell me, won't you, where I said that Sharkey's win over Wills and subsequent KO by Dempsey (when both Harry and Jack D. were roughly at the same point on the "washed up" scale) automatically proved that Dempsey would have beaten Wills. I said it was "interesting" (that's the exact word, by the way), and what's even more interesting is that Dempsey bashers like you invariably refuse to even include the comparative results in your calculations when making that mythical match. Maybe it has no bearing on the outcome at all, maybe it's heavy with predictive information -- no matter, I'll still find it interesting that an old Wills got his ass kicked by a young Sharkey while an old Dempsey left the same prime Gob a writhing, crying mass of protoplasm at his feet. I'll also find it amusing just how much those results terrify you and your ilk.
While we're flitting about the topic of reality, just how in the world do you KNOW that Dempsey couldn't have made it back into the ring following Firpo's push without the assistance of one or two cursing sportswriters? (A little refresher: the 4:28 p.m. posting from 5/14, "He would not have made it if he was not pushed back in. Simple facts Pete." I notice you chose the word "facts" rather than the more accurate "speculation.") It must be reassuring to know anything and everything about an incident that took about nine seconds over eighty years ago. Too bad the people who were there and a part of the moment were so damned inattentive that they don't share your certainty about what occurred.
You're really back and in fine fettle, old boy. If you ever catch a spare moment while transcribing what REALLY happened into the inaccurate history books, how about enlightening us as to the truth behind the Mary Celeste mystery? That one's been a burr under my saddle for years now. PeteLeo.
Dempsey couldn't cut off the ring, Dempsey "almost lost" to Gibbons (sure, if something like 12-3 in rounds is an "almost loss"), being dropped by Banks and Cooper meant nothing to Ali's legacy because he was so young yet the first Flynn bout stamps Dempsey a bum and a quitter, Dempsey was "an eyelash" away from out against Firpo (wow, that's some tough eyelash, given that Luis A. couldn't finish the job, isn't it?), Greb "campaigned for a shot" (yep, in a four round fight -- after that he knew he would be toast), Dempsey should have embalmed Willard in eleven seconds since Willard hadn't fought in three years while the three years between Firpo and Tunney meant nothing to the 31 year old Dempsey "who was in his prime," guys who fought Dempsey and rated him a better fighter/harder hitter than those after him were just sentimental old fools, trainers had agendas, Dempsey didn't knock out everybody in the first round (just more opponents than any other heavyweight in history), Carnera had 1/1000th the ability of Ali (I have no idea what this has to do with Dempsey, but I couldn't leave it out, because I suppose that means that if you could fit 1000 Carneras in the ring with Muhammad, he'd lick 'em all -- I want in on that betting line!), Dempsey couldn't punch, Dempsey couldn't take a punch, Dempsey should have been confined to a wheelchair past his tenth birthday . . . . . . .
Yeah, I think we know on which side of the fence YOU'RE presently located.
Oh, and why shouldn't Roy Jones have fought V. Klitschko? I mean, Vitali used the "lean back" defense that is a total joke and hasn't been effective in boxing for ninety years. RJJ would have murderized him -- just like Sanders, Hide, Williams, Mahone, Donald, Bean, and all of those other modern kings of the ring did. PeteLeo.
Pee Wee Leo...King of Bable. (Foreman couldn't punch)...
I don't know what's more fun, calling you on your double talk or watching you spew into childish rants and insults when called on it.
Whatever, same act, still boring.
Last edited by HE Grant; 05-15-2006 at 07:14 AM.
Shoemaker: Some very valid points...while I don't agree to your degree, they bring up issues to dicuss...Dempsey did handle Gibbons well but Gibbons was a small guy...I see Dempsey having fits against a larger, faster heavyweight with movement like Ali or Holmes.
That's becoming very much like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it.Originally Posted by HE Grant
Anybody save YOU knows Dempsey did not have control early in his career. Kearns and Rickard were the architects, he was just the hired hand. He didn't even get a damn dime for beating Willard because Kearns bet his entire purse on a 1st round KO of Willard.
When Dempsey had finally made enough money to step out on his own, the first fight he tried to make was Wills. Wills benefitted greatly from Dempsey because he was paid his guarantee for the fight, 50 grand which I hear he used to by a small apartment complex which supported him in retirement.
Dempsey was shafted, didn't get a damn dime. The only promoter who offered up the Wills fight didn't have the money or political connections to pull off the fight. End of story
Johnson was self managed after the Burns fight when he famously stiffed his fly by night manager who had miraculously arranged the Burns fight. Johnson was offered the Langford fight at least 2-3 times in his career while out of country when he was desperate for money. Instead he took lesser paying fights against journeymen.
Moreover, he was good friends with the greatest black promoter of the day, Rube Foster, who used to feature black on black exhibitions as part of his barnstorming baseball teams. Johnson not only appeared in a few of those exhibitions, but played first base for at least one game and probably more.
There was no politics in that day against black on black fights save the politics that Johnson created in his own mind. Jeannette and Wills never whined about Dempsey. They said JOHNSON was the one who wouldn't give them a title shot. I'll take their word for it, because I arrived at the same conclusion independently once I started taking a good look at this era.
[QUOTE=PeteLeo]Dempsey one-punch KO'd the man who made Wills foul out to avoid being stopped. Throw in all of the age-related, inactivity-related, and whatever-related qualifications for Wills' poor performance against Sharkey that you want, but the fact remains that Jack beat the man who beat the man after said beating. If you're going to hold Wills over Dempsey's head, you have to be fair and include that result in the equation.
As for the "staggering" by Carpentier, that's mostly a load of malarky. Dempsey was carrying the guy for the crowd's entertainment and got caught by the best punch from a pretty decent righthanded hitter (check his record), but all that punch did was make him take half a sidestep, even though Georges was going nutzoid in an effort to kill him. He (Dempsey) was hurt about as badly as Foreman was by Ken Lacusta, and the nearly immediate result was just about the same, as well: Dempsey and Foreman farted, and Carpentier and Lacusta went away. Compare that performance with the hell that Carpentier gave a prime Tunney a few years later.
"Almost KO'd by Firpo"? If you mean caught a decent shot and then shoved out of the ring, only to return and be totally unaffected by the rampaging Firpo for the remaining half minute or so of the round, then that's a rather strange definition of "almost KO'd." Yep, Luis Angel was a hell of a hitter -- amateur stylist or not --, and he knocked out some damned tough men, but he couldn't take advantage of an "almost KO'd" Dempsey for what reason . . . ? Could it be because Dempsey's chin was close to granite and even when buzzed, he was more dangerous than 99% of all the other men who've ever stepped into the ring? Actually, with Jack's devil-may-care attitude towards footwork and defense (both of which he had plenty of when he chose to use them) in this instance, I think the Firpo fight argues in favor of Dempsey's solid whiskers. Notice how the "unbeatable" Wills had to go the full twelve against Firpo after he was slaughtered by Dempsey.
As Robert said before me, you can take moments from any fighter's career and build an argument that you've already chosen in your mind, but aside from the post-Willard inactivity, there's very little substance in the muck that's being tossed against Dempsey. Was he the greatest ever? Hell, I don't know. But I do know that after a couple of decades of intensive bashing (including the then well-regarded Sport Magazine calling him the "most overrated" beloved champion), I don't find it onerous in the least to allow for a bit of glorifying of the old guy, called by non-fan Flash Gordon "the most important figure in the history of boxing." PeteLeo.
Pete, Dempsey was SIX years Wills' senior. Please don't copmare the Sharkey resuts--it is not apples to apples. I could do the same thing with John lester Johnson--who Dempsey fought life and death with in 1916 and Willls completely dominated a few months before. I'm sure you woud say that that was not a fair comparison to Dempsey since he was still fairly green(despite the some 2000 fighs he had on the streets and saloons of the wild west as some of the Dempsey fans claim).
Your arguments are flawed and biased. You claim the Firpo fight proves Dempsey's whiskers, I say a great, great fighter should have never have been hit by that guy. Not one with Dempsey's supposed speed and weave. You try and spin Wills victory over Firpo but why not try and go back and read reports on the fight. Firpo couldn't even hit Harry, never mind knock him down. Harry handled him like a baby and stated afterward that it was an easy bout.
Its typical RING magazine fair what goes on in threads like this, where Dempsey the superman is praised without any kind of a reality base. The guy was good, but once again, he never fought the best comp of hs time, how do we cal him the greatest ever.
Hey, HE, just where is this "Bable" you've bequeathed to me? Sounds like a groovy place.
My "rants" are both "fun" and "boring," hmm? Tell me, do you have even a passing acquaintance with logic or what the rest of us refer to as rational thought? Or are you having "fun" when you're most "bored"? Gosh, you're a treasure.
There's such a thing a ring age in addition to chronological age, you know. Ring age encompasses things like fighting style (offensive guys generally burn out fast), genetics, and out of the ring activity. That's why the self-proclaimed "Bible of Boxing," freakishly slick Wilfred Benitez was getting knocked the fuck out by non-entities like Carlos Herrera (loser by KO in one and two rounds in his next bouts after Wilfred) when he was only 28 or so. The Dempsey who fought Sharkey was every bit as passed it in ring age as Wills (in no small part due to his own extracurricular activities). Who said Wills didn't deserve a win in the no decision with Firpo? I said Firpo went the entire twelve against Harry after lasting -- what? -- four and a half minutes with Dempsey? Yeah, Jack got hit cleanly and hard in that fight, and it was because AS I ALREADY STATED he eschewed defense and footwork in order to pull off another Willard performance. The guy loved to kick ass, unlike the cautious Wills and Tunney and their brethren. You take one to land one against a stud like Firpo, and you're going to be accomodated. Remember Hagler-Mugabi?
Trying to equate Wills' ignominious foul-out to Sharkey with tyro Dempsey's ND with J.L. Johnson is stretching the facts to the point of disintegration. What did Sharkey bring to the match that Wills hadn't already seen? Dempsey suffered broken ribs as early as the second round, yet he didn't take the foul route to avoid being stopped. In fact, he toughed it out the entire distance, and according to some accounts deserved a draw or even a win.
Spin-spin-spin, when facts get in the way of preconceptions, why, just label (or should that be "lable," HEBoy?) them irrelevant daydreams of aged, biased minds, and you're right back on top. Is that the gameplan? PeteLeo.
Last edited by PeteLeo; 05-15-2006 at 01:28 PM.
Pete, First show me a report of Dempsey getting a win versus Johnson--my guess here is that you cannot find one--typical Dempsey fan stuff, "I heard that he deserved the win"--yeah right--try and find a primary source for that claim. Secondly, I was not comparing Sharkey Wills to Dempsey Johnson--I was telling you that they are not valid to this argument--neither of them.
You are such a Dempsey fan that you cannot even see beyond your own hero worship. Wills was not the end all be all--simply the best heavyweight foil around for Dempsey to prove his greatness against--Jack didn't and that is why he cannot be considered one of the all time best--he never proved he was the best of HIS time, never mind ALL time. All your ramblings won't change that fact.
Pete, You also mentioned in an earlier post, that Wills refused to fight some guys that Dempsey fought--who might those men be?
Roberto wrote: " . . . Dempsey did not have control early in his career. Kearns and Rickard were the architects, he was just the hired hand."
Kearns and Rickard had ZERO to do with Dempsey's early career.
Early on, Dempsey was managed by long-time figure in the Colorado boxing scene Andy Malloy -- you might want to look at Dempsey's record as he and Malloy even fought a few times.
Dempsey's first trip to NY saw him associated with John "the barber" Reisler -- an association that took years for Dempsey to shake free.
Next, Dempsey was associated with Fred "Windy" Winsor. Winsor got him mixed up with the first Jim Flynn fight. (Winsor is a guy who deserves an in-depth WAIL! article.)
It was only after that, I guess in California around 1918, that Dempsey hooked up with Kearns.
"Wills was not the end all be all--simply the best heavyweight foil around for Dempsey to prove his greatness against--Jack didn't and that is why he cannot be considered one of the all time best--he never proved he was the best of HIS time, never mind ALL time. All your ramblings won't change that fact."
what kind of crazy logic is this????
The best fighter for Jim Corbett to face was Peter Jackson: they fought but neither proved who was the better fighter based on that fight. Thus neither can be considered one of the all time best because they didn't prove they were the best of their time.
The best fighter for Jeffries to face was Johnson circa 1903-1905. They did eventually fight but Jeff was past it, but because Johnson didn't face the best fighter of his era and Jeff didn't face the best fighter of his era neither can be considered one of the all timers... I can go on and on.
You can effectively throw out Corbett,Jackson,Jeffries,Johnson,Langford,Wills,Tu nney,Sharkey,Holmes,Holyfield,Bowe,Tyson,Frazier,F oreman,Lewis with backasswards logic like that. So the list of all time greats is Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Sonny Liston, and Muhammed Ali nobody else!
Pete,
It's hard to argue with people that have little or no reading comprehension skills. I never said that Dempsey "almost lost" to Gibbons, nor did I say that he couldn't take a punch, nor did I criticise him for not KO'ing everyone in the first round. It's more of a dig at the Dempsey fans who make him out to be a superhuman.
You wan't to know what my Ali and Carnera comments have to do with Dempsey ? Nothing, because they were on a DIFFEREN'T THREAD ! In your infinant wisdom, you've confused the comments I made on a fantasy fight thread concerning how ALI would do against various heavyweights, with this Dempsey thread.
Oh boy, oh boy, what fun this is going to be! I only have a few minutes before I have to finish mowing to beat the rain, so let's go with the most egregious fuck-up in the above post (unless my "reading comprehension" fails me again, of course): "I never said that Dempsey 'almost lost' to Gibbons . . . ." (From immediately above.)
Now, let's climb into the 'wayback machine and zip to the old Shoemakers's posting of 1:07 in the a.m. of this very day where we read the words, "Problem is fighters like Brennan, Tunney, Gibbons and others not only lasted with Dempsey but beat and nearly beat him . . ."
Zingo-zango-zongo! Point, set, and match! Right there in the black and white (or black and off-tan?). Could it BE any clearer? That's what you call getting hoist on your own petard, my man.
And that's just the beginning -- if only I had the time. But I'll be back later in the evening, if the lightning don't cook me.
Another funny point about your and KSmith's caterwauling is that I didn't specifically address a post to either of you. My, we certainly think highly of ourselves, don't we?
One last point to the Smith Man, Herb Goldman has documented that both Gibbons and Tunney attempted to make matches with Wills (especially the latter) while Dempsey was champ, but Harry -- who'd been virtually retired from worldclass competition from around '22-'23 -- chose not to accept and sat on his "Dempsey's avoiding me" platform. If memory serves, Jack fought both Tommy and Gene. Ciao for now! PeteLeo.
Last edited by PeteLeo; 05-15-2006 at 11:01 PM.
KSmith: Pee Wee's a last work freak that goes on and on and on...there is no way to nail a precise point because everything is spun, respun and denied.
My entire entry here was not to knock Dempsey as clearly stated but he continues to refer to me as a Dempsey hater. One of his many points that have no basis in reality.
Colin: Who was the best fighter for Dempsey to define himself against if not Wills? You mention Corbett and that is a great example.
As much as I dislike how Corbett conducted himself during the Jack Johnson / Jeffries fight, he did fight Jackson in his prime and for that he will forever be commended in my book. Dempsey did not fight Wills and despite what Pee Wee says, he could have forced the fight the same way Patterson forced the Liston fight.
I think there needs to be an "official time out on the board" to measure whose panties are in the tightest bunch.................
"Pee Wee's a last WORK freak . . . ."
Does that mean I'm the last fella to hang up his tool belt when the new church building needs a'fixin'?
PSYCH!!!
Got ya again. Sometimes it's so easy I'm almost ashamed of myself. PeteLeo.
Your bucket does have a hole in it.
There were no state prohibitions against boxing or black on black boxing in Patterson's era. There were much more stringent prohibitions on boxing and black on white heavyweight championship boxing in Dempsey's era, also known as the NC era. Dempsey had a 2 yr window to to make this fight before he lost his title to Tunney.
I understand that. My reference was intended to be the start of Jack's rapid rise contender status which was orchestrated by Kearns who enlisted Rickard's help. Jack had little control over fights then, penniless he was when Kearns first found him. Prior, Jack had management that kept him flatlined in poverty. Malloy was outhustled and sent packing by Reisler in Dempsey's ill fated NYC trip for example.
Roberto you can twist the facts all you like but there is no getting around the truth...Dempsey did not fight his outstanding #1 challanger for his entire seven year reign. He fought two light heavyweights, one top ten heavyweight and one wildman but avoided his highly skilled natural opponent, a man larger, likely stronger, far more active and one who had fought and defeated a much higher level of competition.
Dempsey could have made the fight the same way he managed to leave Kearns. He could have done it if he really felt like it. Instead, he chose to fight five times in seven years, make movies, travel Europe, screw hundreds of hot women and have a great time.
For you to even try and defend the fact that he did not fight Wills by claiming he could not is a weak and faulty argument that you know in your heart is bullshit.
What is a poor boy supposed to do. He tried but the politics and money failed him. So he took his game to Hollywood where he made millions more than he was being offered to fight.
You want to blame EVERYTHING on Jack. That's ridiculous. Maybe he could have done more, but couldn't we all? He certainly did more than Johnson and Willard to fight top contenders.
Hey, relax, Dempsey will stick in your craw for the remainder of your tortured life. Enjoy!
Herb Goldman? What does you stating that he documented anything prove? Pete, please provide primary references for your claims.
Oh, now I remember you! You're the guy who never, ever, in no case whatsoever accepts anything anyone else ever says about anything, isn't that right? It's no secret, K-Man, the efforts to drag Wills into the ring were recounted in the pages of "Boxing Illustrated" years ago, never refuted, topics of threads on this very board, discussed, disected, fantasized over, and debated , but you'll only accept the reality of the situation if I swing a shovel over my shoulder, dig up the moldering remains of Gibbons and Tunney, bring them back to life in some sparking Kenneth Strickfadden laboratory, and force them with their own rotten lips to tell you they tried to get Harry "Pity Me Because Dempsey Ducked Me" Wills to fight them. Is that it?
I'll admit, I'm something of a wonder, and I've done things that made grown men gasp and wide-eyed women weep (or was it the other way around?), but ressurecting the dead remains just a leeetle bit beyond even my amazing powers.
Herb Goldman isn't good enough for you? Too bad, so sad. PeteLeo.
Just what I thought you'd say Pete-----nothing.
"Boxing Illustrated," Herb Goldman, discussed right here plenty of times . . . climb down off of your own ego once in awhile, why don't you?
The "great historian" who always wants everybody else to do his research for him.
Okay, go to http://www.genetunney.org/lifetime.html and read to your heart's content. But certainly don't take any of what's written there as gospel -- the guy was only present in the flesh when it happened, after all. PeteLeo.
Last edited by PeteLeo; 05-16-2006 at 02:09 AM.
yawn
"Yawn"? "YAWN"?
What the hell kind of "historian" are you, anyway? It's an account written by a guy who was there when it happened of how Tunney tried to get Harry "the Reluctant" Wills into the ring with him. Isn't that what you wanted? Do I really have to dig up Gene and Tommy?
I'm sorry I'm not about a hundred and twelve years old and a living eyewitness to the events myself, but -- oh, hell, why should I be sorry about anything? That brilliant mind of yours would only refuse to accept any evidence that didn't fall lockstep with your set in stone ideas, anyway, so from now on why don't you just butch up a little and drop all pretense to objectivity or actual interest in non KSmith history?
"yawn." What a maroon. PeteLeo.
I have a primary source that claims that Tunney refused to fight Wills. Page 370 of Roger Kahn's book on Dempsey. Kahn's source was a letter from Tunney to Tim Mara, who was also the owner of the NY Football Giants at the time. In the letter to Mara Tunney claimed that Wills' popularity was based on reverse-racism (paraphraising) claiming that "I myself am not colored like the Senegambian (racial slur of the era)" and he called Wills "James Farlley's pampered panther" (Farley was the NY State Boxing comisssioner who was trying to force Dempsey into fighting Wills in NY).
Kahn also claimed that Grantland Rice proposed a tournement to fight Dempsey matching up the winners of Wills-Weinert and Tunney-Gibbons matches as an eliminater. Tunney refused, using the "logic" that he KO'ed Gibbons and Dempsey didn't so he should be entitled to a title shot without fighting Wills. I can't picture a pompus ass like Tunney fighting a black fighter, especially since, as far as I know, he never fought one (I am sure he thought it would be beneath him). I also can't see Wills turning down money to fight Tunney (it wasn't like he was making any money fighting black fighters). He took risks by fighting Firpo and Sharkey, why would he be afraid of a light heavy like Tunney, who was not a murderous puncher ?
From Tunney's own lips: He did not want to fight Wills when first offered. Later he realized he was not going to get a straight up title shot from Dempsey, and proposed meeting Wills in a elimination tourney. Wills at that point refused to be a part of it.
I really don't understand why you chaps can't keep your stories straight. All I see is things deliberately or ignorantly taken out of context.
Wills deserved a title shot. Did he do EVERYTHING possible to get one. No, no more than Dempsey completely turned his own life upside down to make a match with Wills which is what his critics wanted him to do.
It just didn't work out. It was close, but fell apart because of the politics and the money of the day. No shame on Wills, Dempsey, or Tunney.
Posting Permissions
| News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia | Links | Home |
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks