BoxRec

Kalan wrote: ↑22 Apr 2018, 03:11

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑22 Apr 2018, 02:50 [It was common practice in those times for guys to "do business" especially if fight films were involved... The longer the film was, the more revenue there was to be made... So, alot of times guys held back.

It's pathetic if you have a sport where it's "common practice" for guys to not give their best efforts... I believe the fans can sense that... They yell "FAKE" and stuff and maybe decide not to waste their money... One reason Dempsey was so popular is he was lit to the gills every time he went in there.. Everybody knew "Shitt!! This guy means business."

It certainly is pathetic that fighters were often subject to such BS, but Boxing is a shady business that has always drawn shady business people and shady business dealings. That's why it was illegal up until the 1920's...not because of the violence, but because of the no goodniks that are drawn to the Fight game.

Kalan wrote: ↑22 Apr 2018, 03:11

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑22 Apr 2018, 02:50 [It was common practice in those times for guys to "do business" especially if fight films were involved... The longer the film was, the more revenue there was to be made... So, alot of times guys held back.

It's pathetic if you have a sport where it's "common practice" for guys to not give their best efforts... I believe the fans can sense that... They yell "FAKE" and stuff and maybe decide not to waste their money... One reason Dempsey was so popular is he was lit to the gills every time he went in there.. Everybody knew "Shitt!! This guy means business."

Don't assume that Dempsey wasn't above "doing business" from time to time or even flat out losing for money, because the first match with Fireman Jim Flynn (20 seconds long) was obviously a tank job. His version of events NEVER matched the newspaper accounts.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑22 Apr 2018, 02:59
Fulton fought as high as 225, and as low as 200. You got to understand men TRAINED DOWN back then a helluva lot more than today. When I use '245' it's because that was his natural walking around weight.

To say he wasn't a good puncher is living in an upside world where facts are meaningless.

You don't walk around at 245 if you're fighting weight is 208 and as low as 200... EVERYBODY trains down... But unless you're taking several months off you don't allow your weight to get out of hand... You're within 15 pounds of target.

I DIDN'T SAY Fulton couldn't punch... I said he wasn't on my list of 1000 best punchers... There over 100,000 boxers who boxed professionally in the History of the sport - and more than 1% of them could hit.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑22 Apr 2018, 03:18

Kalan wrote: ↑22 Apr 2018, 03:11

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑22 Apr 2018, 02:50 [It was common practice in those times for guys to "do business" especially if fight films were involved... The longer the film was, the more revenue there was to be made... So, alot of times guys held back.

It's pathetic if you have a sport where it's "common practice" for guys to not give their best efforts... I believe the fans can sense that... They yell "FAKE" and stuff and maybe decide not to waste their money... One reason Dempsey was so popular is he was lit to the gills every time he went in there.. Everybody knew "Shitt!! This guy means business."

Don't assume that Dempsey wasn't above "doing business" from time to time or even flat out losing for money, because the first match with Fireman Jim Flynn (20 seconds long) was obviously a tank job. His version of events NEVER matched the newspaper accounts.

True.... But it wasn't "common practice" for Dempsey to do less than he was capable of... He had murderous intent.

Kalan wrote: ↑22 Apr 2018, 03:25

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑22 Apr 2018, 02:59
Fulton fought as high as 225, and as low as 200. You got to understand men TRAINED DOWN back then a helluva lot more than today. When I use '245' it's because that was his natural walking around weight.

To say he wasn't a good puncher is living in an upside world where facts are meaningless.

You don't walk around at 245 if you're fighting weight is 208 and as low as 200... EVERYBODY trains down... But unless you're taking several months off you don't allow your weight to get out of hand... You're within 15 pounds of target.

I DIDN'T SAY Fulton couldn't punch... I said he wasn't on my list of 1000 best punchers... There over 100,000 boxers who boxed professionally in the History of the sport - and more than 1% of them could hit.

Tell that to Jim Jeffries, Jack Johnson, John L. Sullivan, etc when it comes to weight fluctuations and natural weight. Jeffries fighting (and optimum) weight was 220 but he would be as much as 280. Jack Johnson, even in his prime years, would fight 20-30 pounds more than his optimum fighting weight of 194.

Considering Fulton knocked out men who rarely ever were stopped, and had a ridiculously high knockout percentage in a time when that didn't happen... He is deserving of being among the top power punchers of all time... But, we agree to disagree.

Kalan wrote: ↑22 Apr 2018, 03:11

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑22 Apr 2018, 02:50 [It was common practice in those times for guys to "do business" especially if fight films were involved... The longer the film was, the more revenue there was to be made... So, alot of times guys held back.

It's pathetic if you have a sport where it's "common practice" for guys to not give their best efforts... I believe the fans can sense that... They yell "FAKE" and stuff and maybe decide not to waste their money... One reason Dempsey was so popular is he was lit to the gills every time he went in there.. Everybody knew "Shitt!! This guy means business."

Things were different back then. Getting fights and getting paid were the most important thing. Looking vulnerable when you are a good/great fighter made other fighters a little more likely to fight you, also the rematches between these guys generated considerable income for them relative to the times.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑21 Apr 2018, 21:42 #1- Langford also lost to Jim Flynn; the two men would meet a total of six times, Langford winning four and losing two. The majority of those wins when both men were beyond shot.

#2- Langford went 1-1-0 against Gunboat Smith in 1913-1914; I tend to believe Smith when he says that he was sick when he lost to Langford, considering Gunboat Smith rarely ever got stopped in his prime: the majority of his stoppage losses came early on or passed his prime.

#3- Langford, in addition to losing to Fulton and Smith and Flynn, also lost to (or drew or no contested) the following white people: Willie Meehan, Dan Porky Flynn, and Colin Bell.

#4- Langford met Fulton twice between 1917-1918. He lost on a 7th round kayo in the first fight and lost a decision the second time. Langford would have 84 wins after the first loss to Fulton. Doesn't sound "shot" or "passed it" to me in that time frame. ESPECIALLY when you consider Jack Dempsey in this period of time flat out ducked Langford. It's worth noting that Langford after losing to Fulton thought that he was surely going to become Heavyweight champion.

This in no way diminishes his capabilities or worth as a fighter, in my estimation he is the greatest p4p fighter of all time, however.... Either because he was fighting similar styled opponents continuously, or because of sheer physiques working against him... He was incapable of beating the truly great Heavyweights of the era who were 195+ pounds. He failed against Harry Wills, Jack Johnson, in addition to having draws or losses to McVea, Tate, Jeanette, among others from time to time.

1. Langford and Flynn fought three times when you could consider them in their prime. Flynn won a dubious "newspaper decision". Langofrd won by a first round KO and a 8th round Ko.
2. I read Gunboat's description of the loss to Langford in "In this Corner" and there was no mention of him being sick. He was very complimentary towards Langford.
3. Yes Langford had some losses but you have to pout them in context. The guy had almost 300 fights. He was fighting on a monthly basis. Of course he is going to have losses. They should not be hiden under the rug. But it's not like he fought a few times a year and had a total of 50 fights. You don't seem to be taking into his prime either.
4. Langford was 34 and had over 200 fights when he fought Flynn. Yes he still won a lot of fights afterward but he clearly was on the long downhill slide of his career. That a young Dempsey didn't want to fight doesn't mean that Langford was still in his prime.
He beat Wills multiple times before he got old.
He beat Jeannette and McVey more often than he lost to them.
He weighed 157 and was early in his career when he lost to Johnson. And he still went 15 rounds. That is hardly embarrassing.
Langford did very well against fighters 195 and up.

He also beat O'Brien and knocked out Iron Hague.

As for the other guys, Wills kncoked out Fulton in three rounds. He dominated Firpo even though he was way past it.
Jeannette beat Carpentier.
MCvey beat George Rodel.

It's too bad there aren't a lot more examples of these guys fighting white opponents, but the white opponents usually didn't want to fight the. When they did, Langoford etc. usually won. ,

BoxRec info on the Gunboat Smith loss by Knockout says that he was sick. Whether it's true or not, context is everything, Smith seldom ever was stopped so it makes it appear to be the case.

That's why McVea, Godfrey, etc often went to Europe because the "Old World" seemed more accepting of cross-race matches. After all it was the London Sporting Club that funded Johnson's little trip to Australia based on the "good faith" that if Jack beat Burns he'd defend the title to Sam Langford, which of course he didn't. Instead Johnson went to Canada and fought an exhibition with Victor McLaglen.

However, it must be stated that in Europe at that time, the best Heavyweights the continent had to offer may as well have been sparring partners for American Heavyweights. When "Bombardier" Billy Wells is the best Britain could produce, it's easy to see why American fighters deemed them beneath their standing: though in all fairness, Wells wasn't much different than the vast majority of the "white hopes" from that time.

Of course I understand with that kind of hyperactivity that losses will happen. Archie Moore and many others with similarly enormous records from time to time had losses or draws against men who you'd never dream had a chance. When you are fighting 2 or more times a month, it'll eventually wear on you no matter how good you are.

Hell, Harry Wills who beat Langford multiple times himself lost to the likes of Battling Jim Johnson, and had a draw with 12-10-1 Jack Thompson in his prime years. It happens. Hell, I've seen stranger things (ie, Tex Cobb losing by 1st round knockout to Dee Collier) happen in boxing.

I wish I won the Powerball and turned cash into gold bullion, and went back in time and could have shamed/forced fights to have happened. That way we could have had a far more clearer picture of certain eras than we do now.

http://collections.mnhs.org/mnhistoryma ... 74-087.pdf

^Good article on Fred Fulton by the Minnesota Historical Society

The next boxer to beat Fred Fulton after Dempsey was Harry Wills... He plastered The Plasterer in 3 rounds.

Will was supposed to get a shot at Dempsey, but he never did... The color line remained intact.

Kalan wrote: ↑23 Apr 2018, 00:11 The next boxer to beat Fred Fulton after Dempsey was Harry Wills... He plastered The Plasterer in 3 rounds.

Will was supposed to get a shot at Dempsey, but he never did... The color line remained intact.

Wills was a bigger victim of injustice than virtually all the rest of the colored boxers of that time, for damn sure. But that goes to show the pedigree of wills, because Langford could do nothing with Fulton. Matter of fact, neither could John Lester Johnson. Nor could Willie Meehan, Fireman Jim Flynn, Carl Morris, Porky Dan Flynn, etc.

I mean if you look at the match up's head to head... Dempsey vs Meehan... The series went 2-1-2 in favor of Meehan. But Meehan went 0-3-0 against Fulton.

Truth of the matter is this: Fulton was supposed to fight Willard for the championship but ducked him throughout 1915-1917. Fulton's mistake was participating in an exhibition match with Willard on May 14, 1915.... He dropped the newly crowned champion.

Because of this Fulton fought everyone of note, to essentially force Willard to fight him legally. Unfortunately, the loss to Dempsey was a tremendous setback. He'd never get the shot he deserved.

A huge problem with boxing for a long, long time was the fact a ratings system simply did not exist. There was really no organizations to go to and "force the hand" to make matches happen, let alone strip champions not defending.

The National Police Gazette was the first to use the power of the press to kinda/sorta regulate what was then an illegal sport. RING MAGAZINE would become the standard barer of "reason" in such issues, too, along with BOXING NEWS but these two syndicates didn't come along until 1909 (BN) and 1922 (RM).

Even at that, though, it was considered nothing more than "opinion" rather than "authority" to the promoters, racketeers, etc. which is why such men opted to promote such individuals as Georges Carpentier and Luis Firpo as Heavyweight contenders instead of worthy adversaries. "The soft touch for a hard sell" approach.

Until the formation of commissions, and later on the formation of organizations overseeing the sport.... Nobody was forced into doing anything... Therefore countless men, were never given the chances they should have gotten.

@ Harry Wills.... Though several newspapers and syndicates shamed everyone from not giving him a shot... Again, there was no real authority to punish anyone from freezing Wills out of the title picture.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑23 Apr 2018, 00:47

Kalan wrote: ↑23 Apr 2018, 00:11 The next boxer to beat Fred Fulton after Dempsey was Harry Wills... He plastered The Plasterer in 3 rounds.

Will was supposed to get a shot at Dempsey, but he never did... The color line remained intact.

Wills was a bigger victim of injustice than virtually all the rest of the colored boxers of that time, for damn sure. But that goes to show the pedigree of wills, because Langford could do nothing with Fulton. Matter of fact, neither could John Lester Johnson. Nor could Willie Meehan, Fireman Jim Flynn, Carl Morris, Porky Dan Flynn, etc.

I mean if you look at the match up's head to head... Dempsey vs Meehan... The series went 2-1-2 in favor of Meehan. But Meehan went 0-3-0 against Fulton.

Truth of the matter is this: Fulton was supposed to fight Willard for the championship but ducked him throughout 1915-1917. Fulton's mistake was participating in an exhibition match with Willard on May 14, 1915.... He dropped the newly crowned champion.

Because of this Fulton fought everyone of note, to essentially force Willard to fight him legally. Unfortunately, the loss to Dempsey was a tremendous setback. He'd never get the shot he deserved.

Langford was just as deserving of a title shot as Wills. Langford should have got a title shot any time during Johnson's reign and early in Willard's.

Before Langford got old, he did just fine against Wills. Langford was just as deserving of a title shot as Wills. Langford should have got a title shot any time during Johnson's reign and early in Willard's.
Again the Fulton win over Langford doesn't mean much. Langford was well past it by then. He continued to fight a lot after the fight, winning often but losing much more then he did previous, which makes sense.

Langford was, yes, however the man who "drew the color line" on him was Jack Johnson (irony of ironies) because as Doc Kearns would say, "Two black Heavyweights for the title wasn't worth a bucket of piss."

It's rubbish they didn't get a shot, but I don't get why some people then assume that means they would have come out on top had they met.

People compare Peter Jackson to Sullivan, but they basically only look at when their careers overlapped which was when Sullivan was shot.

I've also heard about Jeffries ducking black fighters, and honestly I don't know of any from then that would put up a challenge

Historian Adam Pollack, who I conversed with alot on Sullivan, said that Jackson probably would have lost to Sullivan because he was a boxer-puncher type, whereas a guy like Corbett was pure boxer-mover. Jackson would have traded with Sullivan, and considering nobody from that era survived more than four or six rounds with Sullivan (even when he was hog fat) it's kind of hard to see someone lasting in a dogfight with the same Sullivan who went 75 bareknuckle rounds. Hence why Corbett ran away for 20 rounds hoping to tire the old, slow, fat champion into complete exhaustion before launching an attack worth noting.

Considering an even fatter, slower, inactive version of Sullivan legitimately kayoed a highly touted prospect (Jim McCormick) in the running for Jim Jeffries title in a fight in 1905.... Goes to show that the man hit like a ton of bricks.... Which wouldn't have been wise for Jackson to get tangled with.

BitPlayer wrote: ↑24 Apr 2018, 03:12 It's rubbish they didn't get a shot, but I don't get why some people then assume that means they would have come out on top had they met.

People compare Peter Jackson to Sullivan, but they basically only look at when their careers overlapped which was when Sullivan was shot.

I've also heard about Jeffries ducking black fighters, and honestly I don't know of any from then that would put up a challenge

Jeffries would probably have beaten any black fighter when he was the champion. Early on the best was probably Frank Childs and it's hard to imagine him beating Jeffries. By the time Jeffries retired (when he still was close to his prime), the other really good black heavyweights had not quite reached their peak.

There was a stretch after Jackson starting declining and before Johnson reached his peak where the black heavyweights were not that good.

I could see Langford, Jeannette and McVey beating Burns. All three would have been underdogs to Johnson (at least until Johnson got old) but would have been a serious threat to Johnson. They could have beaten Willard early on his reign until they got too old themselves. Wills almost for sure would have beaten Willard once he got enough experience.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑24 Apr 2018, 04:44 Historian Adam Pollack, who I conversed with alot on Sullivan, said that Jackson probably would have lost to Sullivan because he was a boxer-puncher type, whereas a guy like Corbett was pure boxer-mover. Jackson would have traded with Sullivan, and considering nobody from that era survived more than four or six rounds with Sullivan (even when he was hog fat) it's kind of hard to see someone lasting in a dogfight with the same Sullivan who went 75 bareknuckle rounds. Hence why Corbett ran away for 20 rounds hoping to tire the old, slow, fat champion into complete exhaustion before launching an attack worth noting.

Considering an even fatter, slower, inactive version of Sullivan legitimately kayoed a highly touted prospect (Jim McCormick) in the running for Jim Jeffries title in a fight in 1905.... Goes to show that the man hit like a ton of bricks.... Which wouldn't have been wise for Jackson to get tangled with.

I don't think so.... Jackson drew with Corbett in a 60-round affair... He had all the endurance and skill he needed and physically he stayed in much better condition than Sullivan without getting fat and soused out of his gourd.

Jeffries admitted... "I never could have beaten Jack Johnson at my best... I never would have reached him in 100 years." Probably since Jim Corbett was outboxing Jeffries for 23 rounds before he got nailed with a pulverizing left hook.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑24 Apr 2018, 04:44 Historian Adam Pollack, who I conversed with alot on Sullivan, said that Jackson probably would have lost to Sullivan because he was a boxer-puncher type, whereas a guy like Corbett was pure boxer-mover. Jackson would have traded with Sullivan, and considering nobody from that era survived more than four or six rounds with Sullivan (even when he was hog fat) it's kind of hard to see someone lasting in a dogfight with the same Sullivan who went 75 bareknuckle rounds. Hence why Corbett ran away for 20 rounds hoping to tire the old, slow, fat champion into complete exhaustion before launching an attack worth noting.

Considering an even fatter, slower, inactive version of Sullivan legitimately kayoed a highly touted prospect (Jim McCormick) in the running for Jim Jeffries title in a fight in 1905.... Goes to show that the man hit like a ton of bricks.... Which wouldn't have been wise for Jackson to get tangled with.

I don't think it's accurate to say that Corbett ran from Sullivan for 20 rounds. He broke Sullivan's nose early in the fight. Sullivan knocked Corbett down in the 17th round. Corbett certainly didn't stand toe to toe with him for 20 rounds. But he didn't run for him the while time either.

You might be right that Sullivan would have beaten Jackson; I am on the fence on that one. My best guess is that early in Sullivan's title reign, Sullivan would have won. From 1888 on I would go with Jackson. Prime for prime it is probably a tossup.

Kalan wrote: ↑24 Apr 2018, 14:28
I don't think so.... Jackson drew with Corbett in a 60-round affair... He had all the endurance and skill he needed and physically he stayed in much better condition than Sullivan without getting fat and soused out of his gourd.

Jeffries admitted... "I never could have beaten Jack Johnson at my best... I never would have reached him in 100 years." Probably since Jim Corbett was outboxing Jeffries for 23 rounds before he got nailed with a pulverizing left hook.

Jack Johnson would say many years later in an interview with RING MAGAZINE that James J. Jeffries was the greatest Heavyweight of all time, and that his win over him was essentially meaningless because of the inactivity and age.

Have you ever considered that the fight with Jackson, essentially, went 61 rounds basically because Corbett ran around the majority of the time? Hell, records indicate that from round 25 onwards it became the absolute biggest bore. The two men were both shamed by the National Police Gazette and the California Athletic Club that put on the contest. Hence why it was made a "no contest".

CONTEXT AND SUBTEXT friend is everything.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑24 Apr 2018, 15:37

I don't think it's accurate to say that Corbett ran from Sullivan for 20 rounds. He broke Sullivan's nose early in the fight. Sullivan knocked Corbett down in the 17th round. Corbett certainly didn't stand toe to toe with him for 20 rounds. But he didn't run for him the while time either.

You might be right that Sullivan would have beaten Jackson; I am on the fence on that one. My best guess is that early in Sullivan's title reign, Sullivan would have won. From 1888 on I would go with Jackson. Prime for prime it is probably a tossup.

It only takes nine pounds of pressure to break a nose. One stiff jab. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the broken nose Sully received early on. Sullivan, clearly, tried to make a fight of it (the knockdown attests to that) but virtually all accounts of the contest say that even Corbett's cornermen were screaming at him to quit running and turn it into a fight. He didn't do that until the 20th round when Sully was so tired he was literally charging at Corbett with his arms down and chin up in the air daring Corbett to knock him out.

9 pounds of pressure??? .... Depends on the nose... I doubt if a 500lbs psi could break some noses...

Depends on the bone and angle of the punch/strike. It takes about 875+ pounds of pressure (4000 Newton's) to break a femur. However, it only takes about 10 pounds of pressure to break a collar bone.

Again... depends on the clavicle... Ike IBeabuchi's clavicle was stronger than Jin Soo Kim's.