BoxRec

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

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.

raylawpc wrote:

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

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.

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"

scallum wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

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

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.

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"

No doubt it made many African-Americans proud. But the idea he did anything to advance the plight of African-Americans is a myth.

raylawpc wrote:

scallum wrote:

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.

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"

No doubt it made many African-Americans proud. But the idea he did anything to advance the plight of African-Americans is a myth.

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 moment

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.

And without Sullivan there may have never been a Dempsey.

scallum wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

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"

No doubt it made many African-Americans proud. But the idea he did anything to advance the plight of African-Americans is a myth.

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 moment

Jack Johnson winning the heavyweight championship gave African-Americans their proudest moment? Hmmm . . . I never knew that.

The Great John L wrote:

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.

And without Sullivan there may have never been a Dempsey.

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.

raylawpc wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

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.

And without Sullivan there may have never been a Dempsey.

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.

And unfortunately, few seem to recognize that fact anymore.

The Great John L wrote:

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.

And without Sullivan there may have never been a Dempsey.

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.

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 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.

The Great John L wrote:

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 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.

Then why did you address me? That's exactly what I was talking about. Color you confused yet again.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

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 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.

Then why did you address me? That's exactly what I was talking about. Color you confused yet again.

You stated:

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.

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.

In the future if you try not to be so condescending you might not look so foolish.

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?

The Great John L wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

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.

Then why did you address me? That's exactly what I was talking about. Color you confused yet again.

You stated:

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.

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.

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.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

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.

And without Sullivan there may have never been a Dempsey.

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 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.

You know far more about that era than I do, but nothing I have read has made their popularity comparable.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You know far more about that era than I do, but nothing I have read has made their popularity comparable.

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.

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.

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.

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?

raylawpc wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You know far more about that era than I do, but nothing I have read has made their popularity comparable.

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.

I don't recall saying that he wasn't. Calling Dempsey more popular than someone isn't exactly categorizing them as a ninja.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You know far more about that era than I do, but nothing I have read has made their popularity comparable.

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.

I don't recall saying that he wasn't. Calling Dempsey more popular than someone isn't exactly categorizing them as a ninja.

Okay.

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 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

raylawpc wrote:

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.

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?

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.

Cutman Scabbers wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

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.

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?

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.

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??