Jack Dempsey vs Jack Johnson, Did it happen?

nfc90210
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 252
Joined: 08 Jul 2006, 12:02

Jack Dempsey vs Jack Johnson, Did it happen?

Post by nfc90210 »

Forgive me if this has been touched on before.

Anyway, I stumbled across this post on another forum and found it very interesting.

http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/inde ... opic=37088
Boxing, moreso than any other sport I can think of, loves to wallow in mystery and conspiracy. It's not surprising given its illegal nature in most of the country up until the early 20th century, but it does leave us with many seemingly contradictory and nebulous factoids to sort through.

One whispered rumor that stretches back to the 1920s is this:

In 1921, immediately following his record-breaking million-dollar gate fight against Georges Carpentier, heavyweight champion of the world Jack Dempsey quietly drove up to Saskatoon, Canada and, in an illegal prizefight staged by high-roller gamblers, met and knocked out Jack Johnson, the former heavyweight champion who had been released from prison in July of that year.

A tall tale perhaps, and one that begs many questions - Dempsey made $300,000 to fight Carpentier, how much could a hundred-or-so high rollers offer the champ for a private bout? The biggest elephant in the ring, of course, is the lack of confirmatory evidence in the papers of the day. Or so I thought.

Image

A seller on eBay claims to have an original copy of a 1921 newspaper, "The Brooklyn Eagle", which purportedly has a round-by-round description of the bout as relayed to them from a firsthand source in attendance.

Now this rumor of a Dempsey vs Johnson fight stretches all the way back to this period, but neither Dempsey nor Johnson ever confirmed it, or even debunked it to my knowledge. Boxing historian Monte Cox gives the following account of Dempsey's reaction to the rumor:
Lew Eskin, former Boxing Illustrated Editor, wrote an article about it in Dec 1985 Fightbeat magazine. He asked Dempsey about it who was evasive. The only thing Jack would say is he boxed a series of exhibitions during that time. He asked Dempsey if he could publish the story in B.Ill. but Dempsey said, "Not Now" which Eskin took to mean not in his lifetime. The bout with Jack Johnson was allegedly an under the table affair for rich gamblers.
One of the truly intriguing aspects of Jack Dempsey was that as a mature adult world champion, he worked tirelessly to recreate his image as that of a gentleman, and did a good job of it too. He took diction lessons, read a newspaper from front to back every single day, and made every effort to distance himself from gamblers and other shady types (Al Capone was a big Dempsey fan and actually offered to promote Dempsey after Jack split from Doc Kearns - Dempsey quickly and quietly declined). But there is no doubt that during his hardscrabble years as a young hobo and itinerant worker, Dempsey couldn't help but associate with such men - heck, he worked in brothels and speakeasies all over Colorado and Utah! Dempsey was so ashamed of this aspect of his life that he outright denied all of it after his career was over; even the 1917 Fireman Jim Flynn fight in Utah, a dive so blatant that both fighters were chased out of town and boxing banned, is stated by Dempsey himself as being completely on the level - the journeyman Flynn KO'd Dempsey with one punch within 10 seconds (for his part Dempsey took his money, rumored to be $500, and was fighting in California 3 weeks later).

So Dempsey was not above doing the bidding of gamblers during his young and hungry years out west. Could he have repaid a favor to some by fighting Jack Johnson in some remote Canadian basement only 4 years after the Flynn debacle? I don't know, but I'd sure be curious to read that article!
The link to the E-Bay seller is below...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rare-oddball-boxi ... dZViewItem
I Feel Fine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2097
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48

Post by I Feel Fine »

I don't know about any of this. The only thing I've heard about Jack Johnson and Dempsey is that Johnson wanted to fight Dempsey for the title but Dempsey wouldn't give it to him because he was black. I would assume at that point in Johnson's career Dempsey might beat him. In their primes I would lean towards Johnson.
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Post by HomicideHenry »

There was many men in different weight classes who challenged Dempsey, a few examples are: Jack Johnson, Sam Langford, Harry Wills, Harry Greb, Battling Siki, George Godfrey...

Johnson did in fact challenge Dempsey, but outside of the 'race' wild card that is usually thrown in, truth is Johnson never really did anything in that time to prove himself worthy of a title shot---he spent a year and a day in prison, lost just as many as he won and outside of having an exhibition with Firpo, where he dropped Firpo a few times---it's hardly worth him getting a title shot.

In fact, Johnson even tried challenging a young Joe Louis, due to Johnson's own belief (if not fear) that another black man could win the crown. He called Louis a 'greenhorn' who didn't know how to fight, etc and even tried getting into the Louis training camp but was told he wasn't wanted. Jack Blackburn, Louis' trainer, told reporters that "That cat (Johnson) never gave nobody any credit, believe me, he'd want no part of Chappie (Louis)."

Dempsey might be called a racist, but it was somewhat common knowledge Dempsey, like Fitzsimmons, used black men as his sparring partners and the Wills fight was scheduled to happen, but Tex Rickard and Doc Kearns didn't let the bout happen---opting to fight Gene Tunney, who was the more popular man, and the thought was it would create more money than a Wills fight---but yes, the general though was, if Dempsey lost, Kearns, Dempsey and Rickard would be held responsible for letting another black man become champion, for the public was afraid of having another brash, cocky, womanising champion like Johnson again.
I Feel Fine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2097
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48

Post by I Feel Fine »

That may be true, but Johnson didn't lose another fight after Willard until after Dempsey had lost the title, and former champions are usually given consideration, as Jeffries was. Race apparently had something to do with it.
Marciano Frazier
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003, 13:13

Post by Marciano Frazier »

Decagon wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote:That may be true, but Johnson didn't lose another fight after Willard until after Dempsey had lost the title, and former champions are usually given consideration, as Jeffries was. Race apparently had something to do with it.
Johnson was 41 when Dempsey won the title, and he hadn't had a meaningful win in half a decade. He was on the run or in jail until 1921
Exactly. There was absolutely no misconduct or racism on Dempsey's part in not giving Johnson a shot.

As for this rumor, I don't know for certain, but it seems very unlikely.
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Post by HomicideHenry »

didn't lose after willard? :lol:

thats the biggest crock i have eva heard. he lost as many, if not more, than he won :lol:
I Feel Fine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2097
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48

Post by I Feel Fine »

Lets slow down. I didn't say Dempsey did something wrong per se in not fighting Johnson.

Hank mentioned that Johnson didn't get a chance to fight Dempsey in part because he was losing as many as he winning, and I was pointing out that after Willard, Johnson didn't lose another fight until after Dempsey had lost the title to Tunney.

I'm not suggesting that Johnson did anything to earn a shot, either. What I'm saying is that perhaps if Johnson was white it wouldn't be surprising if the fight had been made, since Johnson was an ex-champion and there's usually an appeal to that kind of fight and ex-champions will get consideration, as Jeffries did against Johnson. Dempsey fought Tommy Gibbons who was unranked, though a good fighter, and spent three years not doing anything until he fought Tunney. Its not hard to imagine him fighting Johnson just because he's a name and there might have been some money in it. Perhaps if Dempsey didn't have a color line this fight would have been considered. Or maybe it doesn't. But from my understanding, race did play a part in Dempsey rejecting the fight.
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Post by HomicideHenry »

age plays a factor as well...Johnson was well into his 40's by the time Dempsey fought Tunney. so does an old guy who been somewhat inactive who lost as many as he won, really deserve a shot?

My senses tell me no.
I Feel Fine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2097
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48

Post by I Feel Fine »

HomicideHenry wrote:didn't lose after willard? :lol:

thats the biggest crock i have eva heard. he lost as many, if not more, than he won :lol:
Read closely:

"Johnson didn't lose another fight after Willard until after Dempsey had lost the title"

After Johnson lost to Willard, he did not lose again until 1926, which was the same year that Dempsey lost the title.

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=001187

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/jjohn.htm
I Feel Fine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2097
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48

Post by I Feel Fine »

Actually Dempsey lost to Tunney in September of 26 and Johnson lost to Lawson in May of 26, so technically I shouldn't say that Johnson lost after Dempsey lost the title, Dempsey still had four months left in his reign. But whatever, same thing. Johnson did not start consistently losing until around the time that Dempsey's reign was coming to an end.

I don't appreciate your condescending remarks, Henry, and I could just as easily have taunted you over a couple of your statements about Robinson. But I guess we're tossing out civility. And your statement isn't even true, Johnson didn't start losing until after the fact. But I won't use an emoticon to try to demean you.

I'm not even talking about whether or not Johnson deserved a title shot. I'm only saying that race is known to have played a part in Dempsey's decision, and that I can see how Johnson might have gotten a shot, considering that you can sell a fight against an ex-champion.

I also think that Dempsey would probably stop Johnson in 2-3 rounds at that point.
BoxBuzz
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 29847
Joined: 07 Jun 2005, 16:37

Post by BoxBuzz »

Based on the history, there is no reason to believe that Johnson was a leading candidate for a shot at the title at that time. These days because of the marketablity, such a fight might happen. For example Holyfield who should probably not be in the running may get a shot not because he is a legitimate contender but because at this point in history it would be a money maker.
I Feel Fine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2097
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48

Post by I Feel Fine »

That's exactly where I disagree. Dempsey could fight pretty much whoever he wanted. If he wanted the Light Heavyweight champion, an unranked fighter for 300 grand, or a three year layoff, or a fight with Tunney over Mills, there wasn't anything to stop him. In terms of "deserving opponents" he fought Miske who was 1-2-2 in his last five fights in his very first title defense. And I'm not saying that to knock Dempsey in any way, his title reign consisted of better opposition than Johnson's did. I'm not saying he should have fought Johnson, either, or that he needed Johnson, or even that it would have been a good fight... I'm just saying its known that Dempsey didn't fight Johnson in part because of race. Dempsey had a color line, and when Johnson started talking about a possible fight Dempsey rejected it.

Anyway, this conversation is probably irrelevant, its less than a minor detail in Dempsey's career, and not much more in Johnson's career.
Last edited by I Feel Fine on 09 Jun 2007, 21:39, edited 2 times in total.
I Feel Fine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2097
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48

Post by I Feel Fine »

I've heard the opposite. That he wanted Tunney, but New York wouldn't allow the fight because they wanted him to fight Wills, so it had to be moved to Philadelphia. I think I heard that in a documentary about Dempsey. I could be wrong, but that was my understanding of that issue.

The point I wanted to make is that the fact that this was in the 20's and not today isn't the issue. I think this is the kind of fight that has been made in most eras of boxing history. Jeffries-Johnson, Louis-Charles, Ali-Holmes, Tyson-Holmes, Leonard-Hagler, Lewis-Tyson... Dempsey-Jeffries would be basically the same thing. And with the exception of Leonard-Hagler, those were all pretty bad fights, and I think this would be no different. But I think it could have conceivably happened, if race hadn't been in issue. It's probably better for Johnson that it didn't happen, he could have been hurt badly, and would probably be out within three.
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Post by HomicideHenry »

Jack Johnson: Willard Onward

Compiled a record of: 22-7-1, with 1 NC


1916:

Frank Cozeir (2-3-0); W10
Arthur Gruhan (0-0-0); W10
Arthur Cravan (0-0-0); KO6th

1918:

Blink McCloskey (37-46-30); W4

1919:

Bill Flint (0-0-0); KO 2nd
Tom Cowler (46-17-2); fought him twice, first a draw the second KO12th
Paul Samson Koerner (3-3-0); KO6th
Marty Cutler (0-8-2); KO4th
Bob Roper (6-2-0); W10

1920:

Bob Wilson (0-0-0); KO3rd
George Roberts (0-0-0); KO3rd
Topeka Jack Johnson (0-2-0); W4
Frank Owens (0-0-0); KO6th

1921:

Jack Townsend (0-0-0); KO6th
Joe Boykin (0-0-0); KO5th

1923:

Francis Lodge (4-7-2); KO4th
Jack Thompson (18-14-6); W12

1924:

Homer Smith (46-17-3); W10
Brad Simmons (11-7-1); NC

1926:

Pat Lester (20-5-3); W15
Bob Lawson (17-10-1); Lost by KO 8th
Battling Norfolk (5-1-2); Lost by 10 round decision
Brad Simmons (20-8-2); Lost by 10 round decision

1928:

Bearcat Wright (31-11-6); Lost by KO 5th
Bill Hartwell (14-7-4); Lost by KO 7th

1931:

Brad Simmons (32-16-4); fought twice, losing 10 round decision and won by KO 2nd

1932:

Dick Anderson (0-0-0); KO 3rd

1938:

Walter Price (2-1-0); Lost by KO 7th


******************************************************

In 1920 and 1926 Johnson challenges Dempsey for the HW title, at the age of 42 and 48. He is denied; in 1926 he spars with Luis Angel Firpo, whom he was to fight with officially, but supposedly beat Firpo so badly that his management decided against an actual match.

The Homer Smith bout (1924) was enough, least in Johnson's mind, to earn him a shot at Jack Dempsey, though the fight it's self was called:

"A colossal burlesque, was the general opinion of the 5,000 assembled with Smith taking the count of nine on several occassions without apparently being hit hard...Johnson didn't take the fight seriously, other than from the box office end, and his much touted effort to stage a comeback fell by the wayside."

What I am trying to say here is, the majority of Johnson's opponents after Willard were pretty much perrenial losers or guys just making their debut, so it is no real wonder that he would have went 'undefeated' for so long after losing to Willard---it's pretty much a given that a former champion will beat someone with little experience.

Combine that with him being inactive in 1922, 1925, 1917, 1927, 1930 and his advancing age---Johnson in no way shape or form deserved a shot at Jack Dempsey---yes he may have been a former champion, but then again, George Foreman wasn't given another shot at Ali and he was inactive for all of 1975 and then lost to Young in 1977.

If anyone deserved a shot at Dempsey it was Wills or Godfrey.
I Feel Fine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2097
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48

Post by I Feel Fine »

I knew you were going to try to cover for yourself with that, but no, that's not what you said and that's not what I was addressing. I said myself that Johnson did not earn a title shot, I don't need you to tell me that. What I was addressing was your statement that Johnson "lost just as many as he won." That's simply not true up until the very end of Dempsey's reign, four months before he lost his title. I know Johnson was fighting bums, which I already said, my point in this question is that Johnson could have conceivably gotten the same consideration that other former champions did, but Dempsey's reasons seem to be in part due to race.

The least you could do is take back your comments, notably the condescending and rather insulting remarks you made, decorated with your little emoticons.
I Feel Fine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2097
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48

Post by I Feel Fine »

Decagon wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote:I've heard the opposite. That he wanted Tunney, but New York wouldn't allow the fight because they wanted him to fight Wills, so it had to be moved to Philadelphia. I think I heard that in a documentary about Dempsey. I could be wrong, but that was my understanding of that issue.

The point I wanted to make is that the fact that this was in the 20's and not today isn't the issue. I think this is the kind of fight that has been made in most eras of boxing history. Jeffries-Johnson, Louis-Charles, Ali-Holmes, Tyson-Holmes, Leonard-Hagler, Lewis-Tyson... Dempsey-Jeffries would be basically the same thing. And with the exception of Leonard-Hagler, those were all pretty bad fights, and I think this would be no different. But I think it could have conceivably happened, if race hadn't been in issue. It's probably better for Johnson that it didn't happen, he could have been hurt badly, and would probably be out within three.
Well, New York wouldn't allow Dempsey-Tunney, but NO ONE would promote Dempsey-Wills.
Ok, I'm sure thats true. My point was just that Dempsey didn't always have to fight #1 contenders, and he didn't even have to fight all the time, he could go years without defending; he had some breathing room. If he takes a Johnson tune up, makes some money, knocks him out in a couple of rounds and then fights a ranked guy two or three months later I don't think that would be too unusual, if Johnson had been a white former champion. Jeffries, Burns and Johnson fought some guys who were not ranked, deserving or even particularly good fighters... Dempsey could have gotten away with one or two to make some money.

I'm not attacking Dempsey for not taking the fight, I'm just arguing that its not inconceivable that this fight could have happened.
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Post by HomicideHenry »

I wasnt coverin my ass. I was clearly trying to show Johnson didnt deserve nothing. And while the majority of his losses were when he was older, let's face it, Johnson only beat on some zero talented men to get those 'wins' after Willard. He didnt deserve shit.
I Feel Fine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2097
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48

Post by I Feel Fine »

HomicideHenry wrote:I wasnt coverin my ass. I was clearly trying to show Johnson didnt deserve nothing. And while the majority of his losses were when he was older, let's face it, Johnson only beat on some zero talented men to get those 'wins' after Willard. He didnt deserve shit.
We're having a red herring festival here, I guess.

I didn't say shit about Johnson deserving the fight, I said the opposite. Show me where I said Johnson deserved the fight.

The thing I addressed-the only thing I addressed- was YOUR statement that Johnson was losing fights during Dempsey's title reign. I didn't even think it was a major point, I was just pointing out that Johnson didn't start losing until around the time that Dempsey's reign was over. You made a smart ass response. And now that I showed you you were wrong, you're going in circles here. Just admit that you were wrong, Johnson didn't start losing until Dempsey's reign was over... it's here for everyone to see. There's no shame in making a small error, I had to check myself to see what Johnson was doing during those years, since they aren't an important part of his career. What I don't like is your respsonse.
I Feel Fine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2097
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48

Post by I Feel Fine »

Decagon wrote:Shut the fuck up, both of you.
Back at'cha.

Anyway, this conversation is trivial, and I'm done with it. We're disputing a "what if" tune up fight that probably would have lasted 50 seconds into the first round.
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Post by HomicideHenry »

Jack Dempsey's reign was over in 1926...

Johnson by that time lost three out of four matches in 1926...before that, no he didnt lose, except for one NC and a draw.

so no i do not take my comments back.

as for the article its self, i believe it. america was extremely segregated, while a mixed raced bout would probably have went along better in Canada. and even though Dempsey hadn't fought in three years, he still had yet to knock out Sharkey and go the distance twice with a prime Gene Tunney---and being in ur early 30's is much different than a 43 year old man...Dempsey might have been knocked down, he would have been rusty, but I can see Johnson losing by KO at this stage in his career to Dempsey in that amount of time (seven rounds).
I Feel Fine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2097
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48

Post by I Feel Fine »

Nice dodge. He lost three times in Dempsey's last four months as champion, and that constitutes him "losing as much as he won" during the whole six years that Dempsey was champion. Bullshit.
HomicideHenry wrote:didn't lose after willard? :lol:

thats the biggest crock i have eva heard. he lost as many, if not more, than he won :lol:
:roll:
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Post by HomicideHenry »

Yes, I do take back the comment that he 'lost as much as he won', cus it isn't true I spoke too soon, though it's clearly evident Johnson was no where near his best, but nonetheless those wins were against men making their debut or were perpetual losers. Had Johnson fought anybody of any real ability, he would have lost.

But you're response was that Johnson NEVER lost until AFTER Dempsey lost the championship, so I am not wrong in that and you are.

Let's call it even. I was wrong, u were right. I was right, u was wrong. Both us cleared both points.
I Feel Fine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2097
Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48

Post by I Feel Fine »

HomicideHenry wrote:Yes, I do take back the comment that he 'lost as much as he won', cus it isn't true I spoke too soon, though it's clearly evident Johnson was no where near his best, but nonetheless those wins were against men making their debut or were perpetual losers. Had Johnson fought anybody of any real ability, he would have lost.

But you're response was that Johnson NEVER lost until AFTER Dempsey lost the championship, so I am not wrong in that and you are.

Let's call it even. I was wrong, u were right. I was right, u was wrong. Both us cleared both points.
That's all you had to say in the first place. I came out right away and said I was wrong... but I was only off by a few months.

And again, I didn't say anything about the quality of his opposition. They were obviously tomato cans.

But anyway, yes, we'll call it even.
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Post by HomicideHenry »

Okies :TU: now lets have a pint :lol:
Cap
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1513
Joined: 07 Aug 2004, 11:44

Post by Cap »

I can see that fight happening if the money was right for Dempsey. He wouldn't have been afraid of an old Johnson who was starting to look pretty bad. As for Johnson's opposition, I doubt many of those guys were really having their first pro bout against Jack Johnson, unless Jack agreed to go easy. Boxrec just doesn't have their earlier bouts....yet. As for Wills, he didn't have the greatest chin in the world. His defence covered that for the most part. Dempsey likely would've beaten him. You can never say 100 percent, because that's boxing, but Dempsey would've been the odds-on favourite.

A Little History

In September 1926, Jack Dempsey fought Gene Tunney instead of Harry Wills and lost.

Exactly one month later, Harry Wills took a beating from Jack Sharkey, losing on a deliberate foul. In a previous bout, just the month before, Sharkey had beaten George Godfrey(who had not had a really significant win since a decision over Jack Renault in '25).

Almost exactly nine months later, Wills was demolished by Paolino Uzcudun in 4 rounds. Two months later, Dempsey came within a hair's breath of stopping Gene Tunney and regaining the heavyweight championship.

Cap


Cap's Journal
Last edited by Cap on 11 Jun 2007, 21:14, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply