Ethnic and racial pride is an interesting phenomena. I'm Swedish-American; I'm proud of my Swedish heritage, and I'm proud that Ingemar Johansson was the first Swedish heavyweight champion. But I've also read enough to know that he wasn't a great heavyweight champion. And I've also read enough to know that Jack Johnson did very little to advance the cause of African-Americans. Jack Johnson was only interested in the advancement of Jack Johnson.scallum wrote:There was so much prestige attached to the Hwy Title back in the day it was ridiculous. If it was not so important there would not have been the search for a great white hope after the sucess of Johnson.There would not have been scores of blacks murdered across the usa just because of the sucess of Johnson. I am proud of him today and im not oppressed so I cn imagine how folks felt back in early 1900s
Boxing Was Once Huge
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
I am aware that Mr. Johnson did little to advance the cause of his peoples but him winning the most prestigious title in the universe was extremely uplifting to an oppressed race of humans. A poet of the times remarked about the probably of racial killings after the fight if Johnson won or lost "It is better that a few blacks get killed than the spirit of all blacks"raylawpc wrote:Ethnic and racial pride is an interesting phenomena. I'm Swedish-American; I'm proud of my Swedish heritage, and I'm proud that Ingemar Johansson was the first Swedish heavyweight champion. But I've also read enough to know that he wasn't a great heavyweight champion. And I've also read enough to know that Jack Johnson did very little to advance the cause of African-Americans. Jack Johnson was only interested in the advancement of Jack Johnson.scallum wrote:There was so much prestige attached to the Hwy Title back in the day it was ridiculous. If it was not so important there would not have been the search for a great white hope after the sucess of Johnson.There would not have been scores of blacks murdered across the usa just because of the sucess of Johnson. I am proud of him today and im not oppressed so I cn imagine how folks felt back in early 1900s
Last edited by scallum on 05 Jan 2012, 11:47, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
No doubt it made many African-Americans proud. But the idea he did anything to advance the plight of African-Americans is a myth.scallum wrote:I am aware that Mr. Johnson did little to advance the cause of his peoples but him winning the most prestigious title in the universe was extremely uplifting to an oppressed race of humans. A poet of the times remarked about the racial killings after the fight "It is better that a few blacks get killed than the spirit of all blacks"raylawpc wrote:Ethnic and racial pride is an interesting phenomena. I'm Swedish-American; I'm proud of my Swedish heritage, and I'm proud that Ingemar Johansson was the first Swedish heavyweight champion. But I've also read enough to know that he wasn't a great heavyweight champion. And I've also read enough to know that Jack Johnson did very little to advance the cause of African-Americans. Jack Johnson was only interested in the advancement of Jack Johnson.scallum wrote:There was so much prestige attached to the Hwy Title back in the day it was ridiculous. If it was not so important there would not have been the search for a great white hope after the sucess of Johnson.There would not have been scores of blacks murdered across the usa just because of the sucess of Johnson. I am proud of him today and im not oppressed so I cn imagine how folks felt back in early 1900s
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
I do not know if he personally did anything to advance the cause but his actions of winning the Hwy title gave a oppressed peoples it proudest momentraylawpc wrote:No doubt it made many African-Americans proud. But the idea he did anything to advance the plight of African-Americans is a myth.scallum wrote:I am aware that Mr. Johnson did little to advance the cause of his peoples but him winning the most prestigious title in the universe was extremely uplifting to an oppressed race of humans. A poet of the times remarked about the racial killings after the fight "It is better that a few blacks get killed than the spirit of all blacks"raylawpc wrote: Ethnic and racial pride is an interesting phenomena. I'm Swedish-American; I'm proud of my Swedish heritage, and I'm proud that Ingemar Johansson was the first Swedish heavyweight champion. But I've also read enough to know that he wasn't a great heavyweight champion. And I've also read enough to know that Jack Johnson did very little to advance the cause of African-Americans. Jack Johnson was only interested in the advancement of Jack Johnson.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
And without Sullivan there may have never been a Dempsey.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Dempsey introduced Boxing to technology. I know you love Ali too much for any sort of history lesson, but without Dempsey there may not have been a platform for Ali.
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
Jack Johnson winning the heavyweight championship gave African-Americans their proudest moment? Hmmm . . . I never knew that.scallum wrote:I do not know if he personally did anything to advance the cause but his actions of winning the Hwy title gave a oppressed peoples it proudest momentraylawpc wrote:No doubt it made many African-Americans proud. But the idea he did anything to advance the plight of African-Americans is a myth.scallum wrote: I am aware that Mr. Johnson did little to advance the cause of his peoples but him winning the most prestigious title in the universe was extremely uplifting to an oppressed race of humans. A poet of the times remarked about the racial killings after the fight "It is better that a few blacks get killed than the spirit of all blacks"
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
I recall an interesting quote about John L: "John L. Sullivan lifted boxing from the back alleys to the front pages." I can't remember who said it, but it's true.The Great John L wrote:And without Sullivan there may have never been a Dempsey.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Dempsey introduced Boxing to technology. I know you love Ali too much for any sort of history lesson, but without Dempsey there may not have been a platform for Ali.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
And unfortunately, few seem to recognize that fact anymore.raylawpc wrote:I recall an interesting quote about John L: "John L. Sullivan lifted boxing from the back alleys to the front pages." I can't remember who said it, but it's true.The Great John L wrote:And without Sullivan there may have never been a Dempsey.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Dempsey introduced Boxing to technology. I know you love Ali too much for any sort of history lesson, but without Dempsey there may not have been a platform for Ali.
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
And without God there might not be any of us. John didn't approach Dempsey's levels of popularity. Though he was the main focus when it transformed from what was pretty much MMA to Boxing.The Great John L wrote:And without Sullivan there may have never been a Dempsey.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Dempsey introduced Boxing to technology. I know you love Ali too much for any sort of history lesson, but without Dempsey there may not have been a platform for Ali.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
I wasn't referring in any way to the number of people who watched or read about their fights.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:And without God there might not be any of us. John didn't approach Dempsey's levels of popularity. Though he was the main focus when it transformed from what was pretty much MMA to Boxing.
I didn't expect that you would understand his significance.
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
Then why did you address me? That's exactly what I was talking about. Color you confused yet again.The Great John L wrote:I wasn't referring in any way to the number of people who watched or read about their fights.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:And without God there might not be any of us. John didn't approach Dempsey's levels of popularity. Though he was the main focus when it transformed from what was pretty much MMA to Boxing.
I didn't expect that you would understand his significance.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
You stated:SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Then why did you address me? That's exactly what I was talking about. Color you confused yet again.The Great John L wrote:I wasn't referring in any way to the number of people who watched or read about their fights.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:And without God there might not be any of us. John didn't approach Dempsey's levels of popularity. Though he was the main focus when it transformed from what was pretty much MMA to Boxing.
I didn't expect that you would understand his significance.
My comment was an extension on yours, because Sullivan established the "platform" for all subsequent boxers. I'm sorry if you found this difficult to follow. Obviously Ray did not.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Dempsey introduced Boxing to technology. I know you love Ali too much for any sort of history lesson, but without Dempsey there may not have been a platform for Ali.
In the future if you try not to be so condescending you might not look so foolish.
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
Query:
Is man's inhumanity to man demonstrated more clearly by:
A: Within the squared circle by those participating in the "Sweet Science of Pugilism"?
OR
B: By the Monday Morning "cornermen" who discuss said science far from the apron of the ring?
Is man's inhumanity to man demonstrated more clearly by:
A: Within the squared circle by those participating in the "Sweet Science of Pugilism"?
OR
B: By the Monday Morning "cornermen" who discuss said science far from the apron of the ring?
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
The Great John L wrote:You stated:SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Then why did you address me? That's exactly what I was talking about. Color you confused yet again.The Great John L wrote: I wasn't referring in any way to the number of people who watched or read about their fights.
I didn't expect that you would understand his significance.
My comment was an extension on yours, because Sullivan established the "platform" for all subsequent boxers. I'm sorry if you found this difficult to follow. Obviously Ray did not.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Dempsey introduced Boxing to technology. I know you love Ali too much for any sort of history lesson, but without Dempsey there may not have been a platform for Ali.
In the future if you try not to be so condescending you might not look so foolish.
I addressed that in my reply to you. You're the one who made the condescending post. But I'm not surprised you couldn't even grasp that you were being an asshole. At least I can admit it when I'm the culprit. Nothing you say is difficult to follow Great one, don't flatter yourself.
But feel free to quote where I told you that you were wrong for mentioning Sullivan.
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
I don't know about that. Certainly, he didn't in terms of dollars (but I will cut him some slack in terms on gate receipts since John L. fought in an era when prizefighting was, for the most part, illegal). Dempsey and Sullivan, however, were legends in their own time. John L. Sullivan was a household name in his own time, and used up a lot of printer's ink in the newspapers of his day. I think their popularity was probably comparable.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:And without God there might not be any of us. John didn't approach Dempsey's levels of popularity. Though he was the main focus when it transformed from what was pretty much MMA to Boxing.The Great John L wrote:And without Sullivan there may have never been a Dempsey.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Dempsey introduced Boxing to technology. I know you love Ali too much for any sort of history lesson, but without Dempsey there may not have been a platform for Ali.
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
You know far more about that era than I do, but nothing I have read has made their popularity comparable.
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
I think if you read the contemporary newspapers from the time you will come to the same conclusion. "John L. Sullivan" was a household name in the 1880s and 1890s.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You know far more about that era than I do, but nothing I have read has made their popularity comparable.
-
Cutman Scabbers
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2313
- Joined: 05 Jun 2008, 18:15
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
Ambling Alp wrote:It did help the sport that Ali (and a few others) fought in other countries, giving the sport more exposure in those places. However, in the last 20-30 years, King has been a major factor in the demise of the sport.
Take a look at that crowd in the picture. There was probably at least 50,000 people there. This was a fight between two fighters who were not in the top 10. You just don't see that kind of thing anymore (between 2 non-premier fighters) and haven't for a long time.
Yes, but we must remember: there was no TV then.
Put all the people who watch boxing on TV now in an arena, and it will look even more impressive.
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
Yeah, but in 2012 I can watch a fight at Madison Square Garden on my TV. In 1922, I would have had to to endure a two-day train ride to NYC, the expense of a hotel room and meals, and a two day train ride back. That people were willing to do that tell you how popular boxing was in those days. Do you think people today would be willing to do that?Cutman Scabbers wrote:Ambling Alp wrote:It did help the sport that Ali (and a few others) fought in other countries, giving the sport more exposure in those places. However, in the last 20-30 years, King has been a major factor in the demise of the sport.
Take a look at that crowd in the picture. There was probably at least 50,000 people there. This was a fight between two fighters who were not in the top 10. You just don't see that kind of thing anymore (between 2 non-premier fighters) and haven't for a long time.
Yes, but we must remember: there was no TV then.
Put all the people who watch boxing on TV now in an arena, and it will look even more impressive.
Last edited by raylawpc on 06 Jan 2012, 00:45, edited 1 time in total.
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
I don't recall saying that he wasn't. Calling Dempsey more popular than someone isn't exactly categorizing them as a ninja.raylawpc wrote:I think if you read the contemporary newspapers from the time you will come to the same conclusion. "John L. Sullivan" was a household name in the 1880s and 1890s.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You know far more about that era than I do, but nothing I have read has made their popularity comparable.
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
Okay.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I don't recall saying that he wasn't. Calling Dempsey more popular than someone isn't exactly categorizing them as a ninja.raylawpc wrote:I think if you read the contemporary newspapers from the time you will come to the same conclusion. "John L. Sullivan" was a household name in the 1880s and 1890s.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You know far more about that era than I do, but nothing I have read has made their popularity comparable.
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
Boxing is still popular (some call it a resurgence) in Europe, particularly the UK, Germany, Russia and some of the Baltic countries (that's Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania for you dumb Yanks).
The sport is nearly dead in American because there's no good fighters coming through and all the decent American fighters are either old or ageing.
The sport is nearly dead in American because there's no good fighters coming through and all the decent American fighters are either old or ageing.
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
The end of an era.
This was the last heavyweight championship fight held at Yankee Stadium
(which is in Bronx,a borough of New York City )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wn0YclbKR0
PS then would you believe it was the next to last heavyweight championship
fight held at (the old)Yankee Stadium.
The last heavyweight championship fight at the former Yankee Stadium was in 1976
Muhammad Ali vs Ken Norton III,but Yankee Stadium
had had a 100 million dollar renovation by that time in 1975-1975.
No more wooden seats,you sat in a platic seat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AAuGMMuDQU
This was the last heavyweight championship fight held at Yankee Stadium
(which is in Bronx,a borough of New York City )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wn0YclbKR0
PS then would you believe it was the next to last heavyweight championship
fight held at (the old)Yankee Stadium.
The last heavyweight championship fight at the former Yankee Stadium was in 1976
Muhammad Ali vs Ken Norton III,but Yankee Stadium
had had a 100 million dollar renovation by that time in 1975-1975.
No more wooden seats,you sat in a platic seat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AAuGMMuDQU
-
Cutman Scabbers
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2313
- Joined: 05 Jun 2008, 18:15
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
raylawpc wrote:Yeah, but in 2012 I can watch a fight at Madison Square Garden on my TV. In 1922, I would have had to to endure a two-day train ride to NYC, the expense of a hotel room and meals, and a two day train ride back. That people were willing to do that tell you how popular boxing was in those days. Do you think people today would be willing to do that?Cutman Scabbers wrote:Ambling Alp wrote:It did help the sport that Ali (and a few others) fought in other countries, giving the sport more exposure in those places. However, in the last 20-30 years, King has been a major factor in the demise of the sport.
Take a look at that crowd in the picture. There was probably at least 50,000 people there. This was a fight between two fighters who were not in the top 10. You just don't see that kind of thing anymore (between 2 non-premier fighters) and haven't for a long time.
Yes, but we must remember: there was no TV then.
Put all the people who watch boxing on TV now in an arena, and it will look even more impressive.
If there were no TV, yes. While there was radio coverage, the only way to see the fights was to be there. And if that were the case now, I think people would go to great lengths to see them.
Re: Boxing Was Once Huge
You really think that today . . . without television . . . 50,000 people would pack Yankee Stadium to see a fight between a not particularly popular ex-champion and a fringe heavyweight contender??Cutman Scabbers wrote:If there were no TV, yes. While there was radio coverage, the only way to see the fights was to be there. And if that were the case now, I think people would go to great lengths to see them.raylawpc wrote:Yeah, but in 2012 I can watch a fight at Madison Square Garden on my TV. In 1922, I would have had to to endure a two-day train ride to NYC, the expense of a hotel room and meals, and a two day train ride back. That people were willing to do that tell you how popular boxing was in those days. Do you think people today would be willing to do that?Cutman Scabbers wrote:
Yes, but we must remember: there was no TV then.
Put all the people who watch boxing on TV now in an arena, and it will look even more impressive.