Peter Jackson, Harry Wills, Joe Jeanette, Sam McVea (or McVey), George Godfrey, Denver Ed Martin, Frank Childs, and especially the great Sam Langford...
...do they get the recognition they deserve?
Black heavyweights during the colorline era
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
The color-line ended, in my opinion, when Joe Louis came around. Even though the 'Great White Hope' era came to an end when Willard stopped Johnson in the 26th round of a scheduled 45, the championship title wouldn't come near a black man's hands until Louis came back.
When Nazi Germany was on the rise, the people felt, despite great racist attitudes of the time, that they would rather have a colored champion than to have a 'Nazi' (which Schmeling wasn't) bring the title back to Germany, where it may never come back.
Only when Louis pulverised Schmeling in less than a round, did racism and bigotry in the sport came to a halt, not stop completely but slowed down. Yes since Louis there have been 'black vs white' bouts and hoopla around a 'white' hopeful, such as Bobick vs Norton or even Cooney vs Holmes in more recent years.
But nonetheless my opinion, racism may have not ever stopped in the sport BUT Joe Louis brought mutual respect between the two races inside the squared circle.
When Nazi Germany was on the rise, the people felt, despite great racist attitudes of the time, that they would rather have a colored champion than to have a 'Nazi' (which Schmeling wasn't) bring the title back to Germany, where it may never come back.
Only when Louis pulverised Schmeling in less than a round, did racism and bigotry in the sport came to a halt, not stop completely but slowed down. Yes since Louis there have been 'black vs white' bouts and hoopla around a 'white' hopeful, such as Bobick vs Norton or even Cooney vs Holmes in more recent years.
But nonetheless my opinion, racism may have not ever stopped in the sport BUT Joe Louis brought mutual respect between the two races inside the squared circle.
re
Late 40s and 50s is when colored fighters really got a fair shake. Even with the success of Louis in the 30s, there were many, many great colored fighters that were never given a second look! Holman Williams, Jack Chase, Tiger Wade, Jimmy Bivins, Jack McVey, Billy Jones, Al Gainer, Bruce Flowers, Ruby Bradley, Black Bill, Charley Burley and many, many others. Boxing was ahead of other sports in terms of equal opportunity, but it wasn't until after Jackie Robinson that colored fighters really got a fair shake in boxing, or sports in general.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
As far as the colored fighters listed above this is my take on it.
Harry Wills was during Jack Dempsey's time. Call Dempsey a racist all you want to, but Dempsey in his early career faced colored fighters, and him and Wills had signed a contract to face off, only to have fallen through as Dempsey's manager opted for a richer prize fight against the likes of Gene Tunney. It was MONEY that was the deciding factor, not racism.
George Godfrey was also in Dempsey's time. His kayo percentage was remarkable for the era as KO's were rare and NC's was rampant. Godfrey deserved a shot at the title, whatever the factors were that held him back against it, I do not know, maybe racism was a factor, but I don't believe it would have been from Dempsey himself, as I already pointed out he had fought black fighters in the past.
McVey and Martin, were very good black fighters, but from what records I have seen of them, they kept losing and winning over and over again to the same men they faced before. Martin was a big man for the era, and McVey is quite under-estimated in his over-all ability, but mind you Johnson beat these men countless times in the 'Negro Division', and if you were in Johnson's place, wouldn't you have chose big money fights over facing guys who didn't draw and you beaten before?
I don't know much at all about Frank Childs so I won't say anything about him.
As far as Sam Langford goes, this man in my opinion, was the greatest fighter to never hold a world title. He fought from Welterweight to Heavyweight, beating the best there was in all those weight classes. Contrary to myth and legend, Langford didn't give Johnson so much trouble in their early bouts that Johnson later ducked him when he became champion. I sincerly believe it was a money issue, but if anybody deserved a shot---it was Langford.
Do these men get the credit they are due? No, I don't believe so. But at the same time, I look at it this way. Most black fighters of the times fought nothing but the same men over and over again---I guess the same could be said of white fighters as they only fought people of white complextion---but look at these mens records---alot of their fights are with the same men over and over.
Were they really that good? That would be like having a Heavyweight nowadays and having him face ten different men five times a piece, ending up with fifty fights and proclaiming themselves to be the best.
Can anyone see my point?
Langford fought the best of the Welterweight to Heavyweight classes, myself over-all he is the BEST of the colored fighters who was never given a title shot, because he fought the best of both colors and best of those weight classes---he mixed it up more, had more mixture of different styles and skills of fighters.
He should be given more credit.
Jackson was during the Great John L. Sullivan's time. Outside of Sullivan, I believe there was nobody greater than "The Black Prince" at Heavyweight. Jackson asked Sullivan for a fight for the title, only for Sullivan to turn him down. I don't believe that Sullivan was racist, as racism and bigotry plagued America against most people of ethnic backgrounds, including the Irish, which Sullivan was. Some of the most popular quotes of the times were "an Irishman is a person turned inside out". I don't believe Sullivan to be racist, as he wouldn't even defend his title against British contenders---he didn't want the title to leave America, and I believe he never wanted to do anything that he felt would damage the sport, or what the public would view as being bad for the sport.Peter Jackson, Harry Wills, Joe Jeanette, Sam McVea (or McVey), George Godfrey, Denver Ed Martin, Frank Childs, and especially the great Sam Langford...
Harry Wills was during Jack Dempsey's time. Call Dempsey a racist all you want to, but Dempsey in his early career faced colored fighters, and him and Wills had signed a contract to face off, only to have fallen through as Dempsey's manager opted for a richer prize fight against the likes of Gene Tunney. It was MONEY that was the deciding factor, not racism.
George Godfrey was also in Dempsey's time. His kayo percentage was remarkable for the era as KO's were rare and NC's was rampant. Godfrey deserved a shot at the title, whatever the factors were that held him back against it, I do not know, maybe racism was a factor, but I don't believe it would have been from Dempsey himself, as I already pointed out he had fought black fighters in the past.
McVey and Martin, were very good black fighters, but from what records I have seen of them, they kept losing and winning over and over again to the same men they faced before. Martin was a big man for the era, and McVey is quite under-estimated in his over-all ability, but mind you Johnson beat these men countless times in the 'Negro Division', and if you were in Johnson's place, wouldn't you have chose big money fights over facing guys who didn't draw and you beaten before?
I don't know much at all about Frank Childs so I won't say anything about him.
As far as Sam Langford goes, this man in my opinion, was the greatest fighter to never hold a world title. He fought from Welterweight to Heavyweight, beating the best there was in all those weight classes. Contrary to myth and legend, Langford didn't give Johnson so much trouble in their early bouts that Johnson later ducked him when he became champion. I sincerly believe it was a money issue, but if anybody deserved a shot---it was Langford.
Do these men get the credit they are due? No, I don't believe so. But at the same time, I look at it this way. Most black fighters of the times fought nothing but the same men over and over again---I guess the same could be said of white fighters as they only fought people of white complextion---but look at these mens records---alot of their fights are with the same men over and over.
Were they really that good? That would be like having a Heavyweight nowadays and having him face ten different men five times a piece, ending up with fifty fights and proclaiming themselves to be the best.
Can anyone see my point?
Langford fought the best of the Welterweight to Heavyweight classes, myself over-all he is the BEST of the colored fighters who was never given a title shot, because he fought the best of both colors and best of those weight classes---he mixed it up more, had more mixture of different styles and skills of fighters.
He should be given more credit.
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
Many good points have been made so far. I tend to agree a bit more with Barry than with Rufus in that the color line was overcome for good in the in the late 1940s only, even though Joe Louis laid a lot of groundwork.
As for individual fighters, Sam Langford is a top 10 all time heavyweight in my book, and Harry Wills is close. They very much deserved a shot a the title but didn't get it. And today too many people omit them when they do all-time heavyweight ranings. Hence they don't get the recognition they deserve.
Langford's shot was denied by Johnson and Willard.
As for Wills, it may be that Dempsey may have fought him had Rickards put Wills in front of Dempsey, and that Rickards didn't do so largely due to money concerns, but all this tells us is that white America was racist, no matter whether Dempsey was or not. Wills was by far the most deserving challenger between, say, 1916 and 1925, it's him who should have gotten Dempsey's shot at Willard in the first place.
If Wills and Langgord are good Jeanette and McVea must be too, as they had many close bouts with them.
Godfrey was probably more desreving than Heeney as a challlenger for Tunney, but this is a close call.
We have no film of Jackson so we can't say much about his ability, but if historical records are to be believed he should be mentioned in one phrase with Sullivan, Corbett and Fitzsimmons as the great heavyweights of the 1890s.
As for individual fighters, Sam Langford is a top 10 all time heavyweight in my book, and Harry Wills is close. They very much deserved a shot a the title but didn't get it. And today too many people omit them when they do all-time heavyweight ranings. Hence they don't get the recognition they deserve.
Langford's shot was denied by Johnson and Willard.
As for Wills, it may be that Dempsey may have fought him had Rickards put Wills in front of Dempsey, and that Rickards didn't do so largely due to money concerns, but all this tells us is that white America was racist, no matter whether Dempsey was or not. Wills was by far the most deserving challenger between, say, 1916 and 1925, it's him who should have gotten Dempsey's shot at Willard in the first place.
If Wills and Langgord are good Jeanette and McVea must be too, as they had many close bouts with them.
Godfrey was probably more desreving than Heeney as a challlenger for Tunney, but this is a close call.
We have no film of Jackson so we can't say much about his ability, but if historical records are to be believed he should be mentioned in one phrase with Sullivan, Corbett and Fitzsimmons as the great heavyweights of the 1890s.
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
But even Johnson had to track the Canadian Tommy Burns all the way to Australia to get a shot at the title. In the US he wouldn't have gotten it.Terence wrote:Another thing leading to them being ducked could be the fact that a lot of these guys learned how to box in Battle Royales and in fights where they had the crowd and the ref against them. As a consequence they developed ways of neutralising the other guy and ensuring that they themselves did not get hit too much (in other words they could be perceived as boring), if you are going to get robbed on the road versus a white guy then why should you get robbed and beaten up? A result of this is that no one would want them because they were black and did not have the, ironically unscientific and uncivilised, free-swinging style a lot of white fighters had.
They were not box-office pure and simple. Johnson was because he was outspoken and would not play the game so the irony is he was promotable to white audiences as they wanted to see him beaten up or as London said they wanted to see the gold grin wiped off his face.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Godfrey was the reciepient of a handful of bad decisions (Risko, Sharkey) and much more deserving of a shot than Heeney, who was one of the most undeserving title challengers in history. In fact, in a non-fixed bout, I would've bet on George to pull the upset.pundit wrote:Many good points have been made so far. I tend to agree a bit more with Barry than with Rufus in that the color line was overcome for good in the in the late 1940s only, even though Joe Louis laid a lot of groundwork.
As for individual fighters, Sam Langford is a top 10 all time heavyweight in my book, and Harry Wills is close. They very much deserved a shot a the title but didn't get it. And today too many people omit them when they do all-time heavyweight ranings. Hence they don't get the recognition they deserve.
Langford's shot was denied by Johnson and Willard.
As for Wills, it may be that Dempsey may have fought him had Rickards put Wills in front of Dempsey, and that Rickards didn't do so largely due to money concerns, but all this tells us is that white America was racist, no matter whether Dempsey was or not. Wills was by far the most deserving challenger between, say, 1916 and 1925, it's him who should have gotten Dempsey's shot at Willard in the first place.
If Wills and Langgord are good Jeanette and McVea must be too, as they had many close bouts with them.
Godfrey was probably more desreving than Heeney as a challlenger for Tunney, but this is a close call.
We have no film of Jackson so we can't say much about his ability, but if historical records are to be believed he should be mentioned in one phrase with Sullivan, Corbett and Fitzsimmons as the great heavyweights of the 1890s.
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
Interesting. Can you point me to references as regards Godfrey's Risko and Sharkey bouts?dempseyfire wrote: Godfrey was the reciepient of a handful of bad decisions (Risko, Sharkey) and much more deserving of a shot than Heeney, who was one of the most undeserving title challengers in history. In fact, in a non-fixed bout, I would've bet on George to pull the upset.
Btw, Heeney came of wins over Delaney, Risko and Maloney, and draws against Sharkey and Paolino - rather harsh to say that he was entirely undeserving.
Last edited by pundit on 13 Jun 2006, 13:44, edited 1 time in total.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
I agree. Certainly not "one of the most undersing title challengers in history". Try looking at some of the HW challengers in the past 30 years or so.pundit wrote:Interesting. Can you point me to any references as regards Godfrey's Risko and Sharkey bouts?dempseyfire wrote: Godfrey was the reciepient of a handful of bad decisions (Risko, Sharkey) and much more deserving of a shot than Heeney, who was one of the most undeserving title challengers in history. In fact, in a non-fixed bout, I would've bet on George to pull the upset.
Btw, Heeney came of wins over Delaney, Risko and Maloney, and draws against Sharkey and Paolino - rather harsh to say that he was entirely undeserving.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
IrishRufusMurphy wrote:
The color-line ended, in my opinion, when Joe Louis came around. Even though the 'Great White Hope' era came to an end when Willard stopped Johnson in the 26th round of a scheduled 45, the championship title wouldn't come near a black man's hands until Louis came back.
If the color line ended during Louis's reign, how come Louis only fought two black heavyweights in all of those 25 title defenses he made?
True he defended the title only three times against two black challengers, Lewis and Walcott, and in my opinion I think there were some fighters who deserved shots more than...let's say Tami Maurellio and a few others.
Myself I believe guys like Turkey Thompson would have given Louis better fights than most the men Louis fought---but I believe maybe it was more a financial thing, as it was with Johnson facing white challengers---you can't say Louis was being racist as in his comeback he faced Charles and Bivins.
I don't believe Louis was ducking anybody, even when he defended his title against Tommy Farr, he said he didnt feel he would be champion until he beaten Schmeling---a huge gamble considering Schmeling schooled Louis easy.
That was management and promoters influence not Louis for shutting people out of shots.
-
kick asner
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 692
- Joined: 02 Oct 2005, 00:01
I think saying Joe Louis faced a huge gamble by facing Schmelling in a rematch might be over stating it just a bit. Joe knew that all he would have to do is to prepare himself this time around, correct his mistakes, and study Schmelling style somewhat and he would be fine. With his supperior fire power their was no reason to think he would not fair well in a rematch. Basically just stick to a game plan.
-
kick asner
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 692
- Joined: 02 Oct 2005, 00:01
It would be hard to assign a date or specific time period as to when the color line ended. Their were certain events and people who contributed to ending the color barrier but like any social unjustice usually they take many years to put an end to. Just like when Jackie Robinson broke into major league baseball, that just basically signified the beginning of a struggle as many barriers were yet to be overcome.
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
Fine, but I think we can say that in the early 1930s the color line was still intact, while by the early 1950s it was overcome. The decisive change occurred between 1935 and 1950, and it was a process rather than a single event.kick asner wrote:It would be hard to assign a date or specific time period as to when the color line ended. Their were certain events and people who contributed to ending the color barrier but like any social unjustice usually they take many years to put an end to. Just like when Jackie Robinson broke into major league baseball, that just basically signified the beginning of a struggle as many barriers were yet to be overcome.
-
kick asner
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 692
- Joined: 02 Oct 2005, 00:01
I know in college sports in the late sixties there was still a fair amount of predjudice. The Southeast conference didn't even have black athletes. This only changed when they started getting their head handed to them on the field of play which forced them to change their policy. To draw a parrelell to boxing if that kind of predjudice existed in one area their is a good possibility it would find it's way into all sports.
-
kick asner
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 692
- Joined: 02 Oct 2005, 00:01
Like other members of this forum it took me awhile to find but I dug out an old ring magazine which I knew I had somewhere where it talked about Archie Moore's purse for winning the Lightheavyweight championship in 1953 was only $800. Now I don't automatically believe everything I read in ring but I don't think they would get that wrong. You have to figure $800 dollars in 53 was a bit more than it would be today plus he was the challenger which would lesson his share of the purse, but that still seems like a small amount for a championship fight. I don't know for sure if that was racism, greed, or both or if that is all that the gate generated, but I have heard of fighters earning alot more money back in those days and even before.
Archie Moore made almost nothing for winning the LHW championship but it didnt have to do with racism. Doc Kearns, Maxim's manager knew Moore could beat Maxim and so in order for Moore to get a shot he had to PAY Maxim big bucks for it and make it worth his while, otherwise Kearns wouldnt have given Moore the shot. It didnt have to do with race it had to do with Moore being too damn good.