You said, "It's bad form to make sweeping conclusions about a fighter on his last leg . . ." On that point we agree, and I wish you'd stop doing it.BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:- 1889 was a bareknuckle championship bout. Jackson was not relevant to JL's obvious goal of being the red meat bareknuckle champ.raylawpc wrote: Don't know of any direct quotes? Try this in March 1892, when Sullivan offered his famous challenge to fight any white fighter - preference Slavin, Mitchell, or Corbett - for a $25,000 purse and $10,000 side bet. "But in this challenge I include all fighters - first come, first serve - who are white. I will not fight a negro. I never have and I never will." That direct enough for you? Is the context okay?
I never said that there was a line of black fighters waiting to challenge Sully. But you said there was only one challenger - Godfrey - and intimated that Jackson came on the scene too late. Ridiculous. Jackson arrived on American shores and established himself as a top heavyweight in 1888 - one year before Sully whipped Kilrain in arguably Sully's best fight and greatest effort.
Jackson arrived too late save for the single and last bout JL fought. The implication has always been that JL ducked black contenders and drew the colour line. I've never cast doubt on what he may have said, but mentioned that quotes of the subject would be likely restricted to Jackson as is the case in your example.
It's bad form to make sweeping conclusions about a fighter on his last leg, especially a fighter like Sullivan who was greatly diminished and afflicted with problems by then.
Jack Dempsey regurgitated similar stock in trade answers to queries about fighting Wills, and then left the care of Kearns and Rickard who wouldn't entertain the fight and signed to fight Wills. His actions did not match his rhetoric as is often the case with people. Context lads, context. Any one can be lifted out of context, and you lifted me out of context.
I happen to admire Peter Jackson on many fronts, so I thank you for the tidbit about forgoing a Corbett challenge because of terms and conditions, however, CONTEXT! I would need to know the terms to evaluate if Corbett made a reasonable offer. Boxrec says the Corbett/Mitchell winner was paid $20,000, and it's difficult to entertain that Jackson would turn down an offer like that for example.
If you would happen to do a tiny bit of research on John L. Sullivan, you'd discover that Sullivan actually preferred bouts with gloves under the the MQ rules.
For most folks on this board, I'd be happy - when time permitted - to pull my Peter Jackson file and provide everything the newspapers said about the negotiations between Jackson and Corbett. But I'm convinced that, regardless of what the accounts said, you'd put your own spin on it - regardless of the reported facts.
On this point I agree with Collins: "You are casting pearls before swine, Ray."