should it be held against jack johnson.........

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Jan 2006, 19:14

that he didnt fight joe jeanette, sam mcvey, sam langford when they were more mature better fighters?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 04 Jan 2006, 20:05

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:that he didnt fight joe jeanette, sam mcvey, sam langford when they were more mature better fighters?

Good question BB. I would say that since Dempsey gets faulted for avoiding Wills, it seems fair to also fault Johnson for not fighting the guys who were probably the best challengers at the time.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 04 Jan 2006, 21:24

Simply, yes. Every fighter should be faulted for not fighting top contenders during their reign.

I don't believe that many fighters can be said to have fought every credible contender, if any. Roy Jones ducked Michalczewski, most middles ducked Charley Burley, etc.

Johnson has some excuses (he was over 30 when he finally got the title, nobody wanted Johnson to defend the title against a black man, and was dealing with legal problems for much of his reign), but they are simply that, excuses. It changes from an excuse to a a viable reason depending on your stance on the issue. Either side has key points that make good arguments.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 04 Jan 2006, 21:25

I have a hunch that Jeanette is the greatest all time non HW Champion of all time. And possilby deserving of top 5 status. But there is little info out there and the truth may never be known. But what is known is compelling and seems to support that idea.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 05 Jan 2006, 01:02

Sherlock wrote:Simply, yes. Every fighter should be faulted for not fighting top contenders during their reign.

I don't believe that many fighters can be said to have fought every credible contender, if any. Roy Jones ducked Michalczewski, most middles ducked Charley Burley, etc.

Johnson has some excuses (he was over 30 when he finally got the title, nobody wanted Johnson to defend the title against a black man, and was dealing with legal problems for much of his reign), but they are simply that, excuses. It changes from an excuse to a a viable reason depending on your stance on the issue. Either side has key points that make good arguments.

because right now im studying in depth for my final top 50 HW list that i have been analysizing and reviewing for a month and jack johnson is my biggest question mark on where to place him.

now shouldnt the fact that he didnt fight these 3 later on hurt his placement all time?? sherlock???

i mean i realize johnson himself was light and green(only 185lb) when he took on those 3 early on but he was far more experienced then them and joe jeanette seemed to get closer and closer with johnson in there last fights and i wonder if he might have taken jack if they fought later on, though i doubt it.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 05 Jan 2006, 01:28

Decagon wrote:Johnson actually did fight those guys, and beat them repeatedly. Him not giving them rematches is like Ray Leonard waiting forever to give Duran a rubber match, or not giving Hagler a rematch.

yeah but he did not beat them at there best

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 05 Jan 2006, 05:20

The reigns of Johnson and Dempsey are not as impressive as their run to the title. To be fair to Johnson he did fight them BUT he never game them a shot at the title. I suppose you have to hold it against him a little but more importantly is that he did beat these great figthers in his career.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 05 Jan 2006, 07:49

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:now shouldnt the fact that he didnt fight these 3 later on hurt his placement all time?? sherlock???

Personally, I'd say no. Based on the fact he defended only against one black fighter (Battling Jim Johnson, good but nowhere near the level of Jeannette) and that in Paris, you can read between the lines that the people did not want Johnson to defend against a black man (thus the creation of the White Hopes), because they felt if Johnson lost to another black fighter, it would become a trend of black fighters holding the title, and you know the public didn't want that. Plus he was in trouble with the law and couldn't fight in the US.

Of those you listed, the only one that really deserved the shot was Jeannette, who gave Johnson a lot of trouble. McVey, from all accounts I've read was carried by Johnson, and Langford had the snot beaten out of him. He may have been 156lbs, but it wouldn't matter what he weighed, Johnson would beat him.

Basically, it's up to you if you want to count it against him. But you know I love Jack (can't put I love Johnson, some of you perverts out their might take it the wrong way

) and might be biased.

:(

But if you do, you must factor in that Tunney never fought a black man, Dempsey avoided Wills, Louis from all accounts I've read ducked Bivins and Elmer Ray, Lewis never fought Holyfield or Tyson in their primes or Bowe at all, etc. to be fair.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 05 Jan 2006, 08:07

Sherlock, can't it also be said that no one wanted to see Dempsey defend against a black fighter? Therefore, he didn't actually avoid fighting Wills, he just knew there was no money it.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 05 Jan 2006, 08:32

I know this relates to another post Sherlock, but you say that Lewis didnt fight Holyfield, Tyson or Bowe in their primes. This is true, but it should be the other way round that they didnt fight him in their primes. Bowe chucked his WBC belt away early in 1993 rather than fight Lennox, and Tyson paid Lennox several million dollars to step aside in 1996-7 rather than fight him. The only one who never ducked him was Holyfield, and they both met in unification matches.
I dont know enough about Jack Johnson's era, but I had wondered why he didnt defend against guys like Langford, Jeanette, and McVey. Politics or money would be my best guess.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 05 Jan 2006, 16:13

The Great John L wrote:Sherlock, can't it also be said that no one wanted to see Dempsey defend against a black fighter? Therefore, he didn't actually avoid fighting Wills, he just knew there was no money it.

That's absolutely true. I'm just making the point that you can't criticize Johnson but not Dempsey. I like both fighters, and hold nothing against them. I'd have liked them to defend against those guys, but I don't dock them for not doing it. Its not like either said I want nothing to do with those guys, the fights were just not made.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 05 Jan 2006, 16:21

dr_devious wrote:I know this relates to another post Sherlock, but you say that Lewis didnt fight Holyfield, Tyson or Bowe in their primes. This is true, but it should be the other way round that they didnt fight him in their primes. Bowe chucked his WBC belt away early in 1993 rather than fight Lennox, and Tyson paid Lennox several million dollars to step aside in 1996-7 rather than fight him. The only one who never ducked him was Holyfield, and they both met in unification matches.
I dont know enough about Jack Johnson's era, but I had wondered why he didnt defend against guys like Langford, Jeanette, and McVey. Politics or money would be my best guess.

Tyson in 96 was not in his prime. Bowe did duck him, but Lewis should have been more critical in the media and after fights to get the fight done. Many fighters have dumped a title to avoid a challenger and eventually meet them later on. And Holyfield at his best was in 1990-1994, when Lewis was active. When he lost his title he fought the Lionel Butlers and Justin fortunes and Ray Mercers of the world. He could and really should have gotten in with a better fighter, like Holyfield, Moorer, or even George Foreman instead of retreads and no hopes.

Just my stance, so it is nowhere near being correct.

Cap · Post by **Cap** » 05 Jan 2006, 23:10

The fights Johnson had early on with the Terrible Trio were almost akin to amateur contests. When he held the title, Johnson ducked them, even hiring McVea as a sparring partner to avoid a challenge from him. This talk about no money in Johnson defending against these guys is just plain codswallop. The National Sporting Club in London had an agreement from Johnson to defend against Sam Langford for 6,000 pounds sterling (about $30,000 US), but he ducked out. Australia would have loved to host Johnson title fights, but he wanted easier game.

Cap

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 06 Jan 2006, 06:14

Sherlock, i seem to remember that in the mid 90s Ray Mercer was a top contender in the HW division, top 5 or 10, and he was hard as hell.
Lionel Butler at the time was considered a very dangerous puncher too, although that might have been an exageration. But i remember experts in the UK trade press saying this would be a dangerous fight for Lennox. The only real bum you mention was Justin Fortune.
Lennox was a victim of boxing politics in the mid 90s. Can you imagine Michael Moorer wanting to fight him? Did he duck Holyfield in the early-mid 90s as you suggest? I cant remember that. And should he have fought a peak Tyson in 1989 when hed only just begun his pro career? And he did call Bowe out when Bowe beat Holyfield in 92, and Big Daddy chucked his WBC belt in the garbage can!

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 06 Jan 2006, 14:51

Decagon wrote:
The Great John L wrote:Sherlock, can't it also be said that no one wanted to see Dempsey defend against a black fighter? Therefore, he didn't actually avoid fighting Wills, he just knew there was no money it.
No, that can't be said. The New York State Athletic Commission ordered that fight, and because Dempsey didn't take it, he couldn't fight in boxing's biggest arena, Madison Square Garden. Harry Wills was ranked #1 by Ring magazine and there was plenty of press speculation about this fight. Anyway, the fight was supposed to take place on 9/6/24. Did Wills fight anyone instead? No. He didn't defend his title until more than TWO YEARS later.

Yes, this is true, but doesn't address the premise of this discussion. Boxing is a business and during the time following Johnson, there was little desire on the part of anyone in the boxing power structure to see the possibility of another black HW champion. People always forget that boxing is a business first and must present the possibility for profit. This is why boxing is nearly dead in the US, outside of the casino towns and a few select large cities.

If Dempsey could have made his big$ purse for fighting Wills, I think the fight would have been made.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 06 Jan 2006, 16:16

Decagon wrote:Your argument doesn't support your assertion that there was no money to be made. Dempsey made huge money every time he stepped into the ring. Why wouldn't he make money against Wills?

Because he was black. For any fight to take place there has to be someone to provide front money for the fighters and promotion, and the people with the money didn't want this fight to take place. Unfortunately, racism was near it's peak in the teens and 20's in the US, and nearly all of the $$ in the US was controlled by white Americans, and white America did not want another black HW champion. I think I explained that adequately in my post.

The main reason why Dempsy didn't fight for a few years was because he was a huge celebrity and he could make more and easier money by making personal appearances and bad movies. As I said before, boxing is a business and always has been. The best rise to the top because of their skills, drive and ambition, but many times the drive diminishes once they have achieved the fame and riches. Dempsey was a greate fighter and true warrior, but he made a fortune outside of the ring without getting his brains scrambled. He was a very intelligent man.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 07 Jan 2006, 08:37

Decagon wrote:In the 200 years from 1720 to 1920, which fight in the history of America made the most money? Johnson-Jeffries. A black-vs.-white angle would have MADE that fight. You look at the biggest fight from every decade in the 20th century, minus the 1920s, and a black man was fighting in it. Usually, it was a black man vs. a white man:

1900s: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries: Black vs. White

1910s: Jack Johnson vs. Jess Willard: Black vs. White

1920s: Jack Dempsey vs. Gene Tunney II: White vs. White

1930s: Joe Louis vs. Max Schmelling II: Black vs. White

1940s: Joe Louis vs. Billy Conn I & II: Black vs. White

1950s: Rocky Marciano vs. Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles or Joe Walcott: Black vs. White

1960s: Cassius Clay vs. Sonny Liston:Black vs. Black

1970s: Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier:Black vs. Black

1980s: Larry Holmes vs. George Cooney: Black vs. White

1990s: Mike Tyson vs. Evander Holyfield II:Black vs. Black

You don't seem to be able to read very well. Try re-reading what I said again and maybe it will make mare sense.

The Great John L wrote:Because he was black. For any fight to take place there has to be someone to provide front money for the fighters and promotion, and the people with the money didn't want this fight to take place. Unfortunately, racism was near it's peak in the teens and 20's in the US, and nearly all of the $$ in the US was controlled by white Americans, and white America did not want another black HW champion. I think I explained that adequately in my post.

I didn't say it wouldn't make money. Are you completely unaware of how boxing, or any business works? You need money to get something started, and no one wanted this fight to happen, so therefore no one would fund the fight. Where do you think the money comes from for a boxing promotion? Remember, there is no money generated by the fight until the fight is sold in some manner, so there has to be someone to take the risk. Remember Shelby, Montana?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 07 Jan 2006, 17:53

Decagon wrote:You still haven't proven that no one wanted this fight to happen. The New York State Athletic Commission did.

I'm sorry I can't get into the way back machine and bring you written proof of a conspiracy of wealthy white boxing promoters to keep the HW championship with a white US boxer. You are aware of the extent of the racism that existed in the US in the first half of the 20th century? Maybe you read a bit about the efforts made to get the HW title from Johnson, and the federal charges that forced him out of the US? It's too bad the NYSAC didn't also order a promoter to come up with some $$ to make the fight happen. Or maybe you expect that Dempsey should have funded the promotion simply because a state commision decided it was good idea for him to fight Wills?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 08 Jan 2006, 08:47

Decagon wrote:Aaaah, so now you're changing your story from "no one wanted to see Dempsey-Willard" to "there was no money in it," to "five or ten rich guys didn't want to see a black heavyweight champion," eh?

No one wanted to see Dempsey-Willard? Are you posting to the right thread? Maybe you should consider some counseling.

Cap · Post by **Cap** » 08 Jan 2006, 14:30

I thought this thread was about Jack Johnson and his unwillingness to face legitimate title challengers.

They had tickets printed up for Dempsey-Wills. Tex Rickard and a few pro-segregationist legislators were against a repeat of the Johnson-Jeffries race riots. They didn't seem to believe that Dempsey could beat Wills.

Cap

UpWithEvil · Post by **UpWithEvil** » 12 Jan 2006, 15:12

Jack Dempsey signed legal contracts on two seperate occasions to fight Harry Wills. Don't blame Dempsey, blame the two promoters who couldn't deliver their end - Tex Rickard and Freddy Fitzsimmons.

Jack Dempsey & Harry Wills with promoter Freddy Fitzsimmons

UpWithEvil · Post by **UpWithEvil** » 12 Jan 2006, 15:14

Geez, I broke the internet

How'd I screw up my tags here?

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 12 Jan 2006, 15:28

UpWithEvil wrote:Geez, I broke the internet

How'd I screw up my tags here?

Us the option.

UpWithEvil · Post by **UpWithEvil** » 12 Jan 2006, 15:41

Won't that just post a link? I was hoping to post an image. Is that disabled on this forum?

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 12 Jan 2006, 16:00

UpWithEvil wrote:Won't that just post a link? I was hoping to post an image. Is that disabled on this forum?

No mate it will not. You need to put URL before and after the picture 'address'.

such as

http://www.iain.hampson.btinternet.co.u ... y0914.jpeg with URL either side becomes

http://www.iain.hampson.btinternet.co.u ... y0914.jpeg

should it be held against jack johnson.........

should it be held against jack johnson.........

Re: should it be held against jack johnson.........