BoxRec

You sir have the boorish mannierisms of an Italian.

dr_devious wrote:Sullivan was a child of his times, and most people from his background and community held views which we today see as racist and abhorrent. Then again, that is the view of our times, its called progress

Corbett and Jeffries were of the same era as Sullivan but neither were as racist as Sullivan and they didnt use colour as an excuse not to fight a man either. Fitzsimmons too was not racist and even employed coloured sparring partners... Sullivan was a bigot and a racist and his stand against fighting Peter Jackson was down either to his overt racism and antipathy to the coloured race (of which he wrote himself) or else he just used Jacksons colour as an excuse because he felt that Jackson would beat him... so Sullivan was either an out and out racist or a coward...

In our own way all of have the views of Sullivan to an extent.....we stick with our own. Whether it is a boxing ring, a war, country, or just who you hang out with in the neighborhood....it is human nature to fear differences and stick with what is familar.

As far as progress....well that is debatable on many levels.

silkov wrote:

dr_devious wrote:Sullivan was a child of his times, and most people from his background and community held views which we today see as racist and abhorrent. Then again, that is the view of our times, its called progress

Corbett and Jeffries were of the same era as Sullivan but neither were as racist as Sullivan and they didnt use colour as an excuse not to fight a man either. Fitzsimmons too was not racist and even employed coloured sparring partners... Sullivan was a bigot and a racist and his stand against fighting Peter Jackson was down either to his overt racism and antipathy to the coloured race (of which he wrote himself) or else he just used Jacksons colour as an excuse because he felt that Jackson would beat him... so Sullivan was either an out and out racist or a coward...

Them’s fightin’ words, son.

Of course John L was a racist, but to simply state that Fitz and Jeff (you could add many more as well) were not as racist is really not relevant. In fact there should be no argument because it’s quite apparent to anyone – well anyone besides Irish – that John L was a racist, but so were probably 99% of the white US males during the late 1800’s, and a pretty hefty percentage of people even today. The depth of someone’s racial and ethnic intolerance is usually due to where and how they were raised, and most likely just about every poster on here who has commented would have had the same basic prejudices as John L had they been raised the same way at the same time, etc. General peer pressure also contributes greatly to someone’s prejudices.

It’s highly doubtful that John L feared any man during his fighting days, but it’s well known that once he met with success his interest in training and fighting waned significantly, and it is very likely that had he fought the Black Prince late in his career he would have met with nothing but a severe and prolonged beating. People often talk of Tyson’s short prime, but there are few fighters who declined physically the way that Sullivan did after reaching success. The only thing that kept him on top were his natural physical abilities and his strong desire to win. That plus a very sparse number of defenses the last 5+ years of his reign.

He had many well documented, and career and life shortening faults, but there are very few who would have referred to him as a coward.

John L. Sullivan, London, April 22, 1910:

“I am not biased, but I do believe that the negroes should fight in a class by themselves. Many times during my career I was urged by outsiders to throw reason to the winds and fight a black man. But I always refused.”

John L. covered the Jeffries-Johnson fight for the NYT. In his report he said:

“I have never witnessed a fight where I was in such a peculiar position. I all along refused to announce my choice as to the winner. I refused on Jeff’s account, because he was sensitive and I wanted to be with him some time during his training. I refused on Johnson’s account, because of my well-known antipathy to his race, and I didn’t want him to think that I was favoring him from any other motive than a purely sporting one.”

Quote:
Charles Hadley- February 22nd, 1883 ['KO' 6th round win for Godfrey]

Joe Lannon- February 4th, 1889 [12 round pre-arranged draw]

Sullivan was the referee in both fights; Sullivan, as mentioned before, almost had fights/offers with George Godfrey---the first was to be a fight to the finish but police intervened, the second time Godfrey challenged Sullivan but Sullivan refused, the third time Sullivan challenged Godfrey and Godfrey refused.


Thank you, but Joe Lannon was a white Canadian so it was not a 'coloured' title fight.

Yes, the Lannon fight wasn't, but Godfrey was apart of the fights and then throw in all the negotiations of a Sullivan-Godfrey bout, it leads one to think that George Godfrey was probably the closest black man Sullivan had a relationship of any sort with---whether it was a friendship or just boxing is irrelevant, as I see it, because if Sullivan was so racist as many say I would think he wouldn't have had anything at all to do with Godfrey to begin with, he would have flat out refused him from the get go.

And thanks El for the quotes. But I must say at that time there were many articles written (believe it or not) by scientists of the time who said it would have been unfair for blacks to compete against whites because they had an 'edge' in terms of their skulls being thicker, joints being more supple etc.

I'll try and find some of these articles for the non-believers, it may very well have been just an excuse for people to keep blacks out of competitive sports, but that was one of the reasons (of the day) to keep blacks out of boxing against white men---hence the black titles and divisions; though I must say there were blacks who won titles in lower divisions without much fuss---but when it came to the HW title, everybody went ino hysterics that a black man could be the 'king' of the sport, as the HW title was considered the greatest crown jewel in sports.

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:

dr_devious wrote:Sullivan was a child of his times, and most people from his background and community held views which we today see as racist and abhorrent. Then again, that is the view of our times, its called progress

Corbett and Jeffries were of the same era as Sullivan but neither were as racist as Sullivan and they didnt use colour as an excuse not to fight a man either. Fitzsimmons too was not racist and even employed coloured sparring partners... Sullivan was a bigot and a racist and his stand against fighting Peter Jackson was down either to his overt racism and antipathy to the coloured race (of which he wrote himself) or else he just used Jacksons colour as an excuse because he felt that Jackson would beat him... so Sullivan was either an out and out racist or a coward...

Them’s fightin’ words, son.

Of course John L was a racist, but to simply state that Fitz and Jeff (you could add many more as well) were not as racist is really not relevant. In fact there should be no argument because it’s quite apparent to anyone – well anyone besides Irish – that John L was a racist, but so were probably 99% of the white US males during the late 1800’s, and a pretty hefty percentage of people even today. The depth of someone’s racial and ethnic intolerance is usually due to where and how they were raised, and most likely just about every poster on here who has commented would have had the same basic prejudices as John L had they been raised the same way at the same time, etc. General peer pressure also contributes greatly to someone’s prejudices.

It’s highly doubtful that John L feared any man during his fighting days, but it’s well known that once he met with success his interest in training and fighting waned significantly, and it is very likely that had he fought the Black Prince late in his career he would have met with nothing but a severe and prolonged beating. People often talk of Tyson’s short prime, but there are few fighters who declined physically the way that Sullivan did after reaching success. The only thing that kept him on top were his natural physical abilities and his strong desire to win. That plus a very sparse number of defenses the last 5+ years of his reign.

He had many well documented, and career and life shortening faults, but there are very few who would have referred to him as a coward.

Well its relevant because people are saying that Sullivan was a product of his time and the fact is that the other fighters I mentioned were of the same time (ok they were a few years younger) but were undoubtedly more open minded towards coloured fighters. The thing with Jackson is that we either accept that Sullivan wouldnt fight Jackson merely because of his colour or else he used the colour story as an excuse and he simply didnt want to fight him because he feared Jackson would beat him... so you either have Sullivan being a very bigoted man or a bit of a coward.
Personally I think the reason was a bit of both, he knew how good Jackson was and his pride and predudice wouldnt allow him to take the risk of being beaten by a blackman (remember his speech after losing to Corbett and saying that he was just thankful to have been beaten by 'an American!) ...I still admire him for being such a 'character' and undoubtedly a great fighter but the race thing is a blot and not something you can avoid if you read up on him and I do feel extremely sorry for Peter Jackson who most likely would have been one of the first modern all time greats of the division had he got a shot at Sullivan as he was undoubtedly a better fighter than even a peak Sullivan...

Irish, it does not matter what others wrote at the time – your topic is specifically about Sullivan. These are Sullivan’s own words; are you trying to argue with the man himself?

Here is another quote for you, from a 1912 newspaper. “John L. Sullivan once said, when asked why he refused to fight a negro: ‘If the good Lord ever intended a negro to be as good as a white man He would never have painted him black.’ ”

>>>I'll tell you wat, if you all have the links to each article that has him being racist, I'd be glad to read them.<<<

Well, you will need to spend some time looking through microfilm at your local library as there is not much that you will find online. Or you can go through the Brooklyn Eagle archives which are online, but the Boston Times and the Boston Globe, as well as the Police Gazette and Spirit of the Times are the best papers for Sullivan. Then there are the books about Sullivan.

silkov wrote:Well its relevant because people are saying that Sullivan was a product of his time and the fact is that the other fighters I mentioned were of the same time (ok they were a few years younger) but were undoubtedly more open minded towards coloured fighters. The thing with Jackson is that we either accept that Sullivan wouldnt fight Jackson merely because of his colour or else he used the colour story as an excuse and he simply didnt want to fight him because he feared Jackson would beat him... so you either have Sullivan being a very bigoted man or a bit of a coward.
Personally I think the reason was a bit of both, he knew how good Jackson was and his pride and predudice wouldnt allow him to take the risk of being beaten by a blackman (remember his speech after losing to Corbett and saying that he was just thankful to have been beaten by 'an American!) ...I still admire him for being such a 'character' and undoubtedly a great fighter but the race thing is a blot and not something you can avoid if you read up on him and I do feel extremely sorry for Peter Jackson who most likely would have been one of the first modern all time greats of the division had he got a shot at Sullivan as he was undoubtedly a better fighter than even a peak Sullivan...

Well, you certainly are an expert on early gloved fighters, aren’t you? Basically, you’re saying that Sullivan was a racist and a coward, which shows either that you have insights not available to anyone else, or you simply type before you think.

I’ve already admitted that he was a racist, as just about everyone knows, so I’m not sure why you felt compelled to comment further on that subject, except perhaps you have some need to add words where they are not needed. And please explain where your insights on Jackson and Sullivan came from to make a statement like “…he was undoubtedly a better fighter than even a peak Sullivan”? While it’s possible that Jackson was better, it is not possible to say that there was no doubt about it. Unless of course you have insights not available to anyone else.

silkov wrote:Well its relevant because people are saying that Sullivan was a product of his time and the fact is that the other fighters I mentioned were of the same time (ok they were a few years younger) but were undoubtedly more open minded towards coloured fighters.

Perhaps you didn’t read my earlier post entirely. Fitz and Jeff both grew up in entirely different settings than Sullivan, so of course their racial and ethnic tolerance was different. Had they been raised in an urban Irish neighborhood during and shortly after the US Civil War, they would have most likely also been as prejudiced as John L. Or are you saying that the only thing that matters in understanding how people interact with other races is WHEN they are born?

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:

dr_devious wrote:Sullivan was a child of his times, and most people from his background and community held views which we today see as racist and abhorrent. Then again, that is the view of our times, its called progress

Corbett and Jeffries were of the same era as Sullivan but neither were as racist as Sullivan and they didnt use colour as an excuse not to fight a man either. Fitzsimmons too was not racist and even employed coloured sparring partners... Sullivan was a bigot and a racist and his stand against fighting Peter Jackson was down either to his overt racism and antipathy to the coloured race (of which he wrote himself) or else he just used Jacksons colour as an excuse because he felt that Jackson would beat him... so Sullivan was either an out and out racist or a coward...

Them’s fightin’ words, son.

Of course John L was a racist, but to simply state that Fitz and Jeff (you could add many more as well) were not as racist is really not relevant. In fact there should be no argument because it’s quite apparent to anyone – well anyone besides Irish – that John L was a racist, but so were probably 99% of the white US males during the late 1800’s, and a pretty hefty percentage of people even today. The depth of someone’s racial and ethnic intolerance is usually due to where and how they were raised, and most likely just about every poster on here who has commented would have had the same basic prejudices as John L had they been raised the same way at the same time, etc. General peer pressure also contributes greatly to someone’s prejudices.

It’s highly doubtful that John L feared any man during his fighting days, but it’s well known that once he met with success his interest in training and fighting waned significantly, and it is very likely that had he fought the Black Prince late in his career he would have met with nothing but a severe and prolonged beating. People often talk of Tyson’s short prime, but there are few fighters who declined physically the way that Sullivan did after reaching success. The only thing that kept him on top were his natural physical abilities and his strong desire to win. That plus a very sparse number of defenses the last 5+ years of his reign.

He had many well documented, and career and life shortening faults, but there are very few who would have referred to him as a coward.

Of course he was racist, and as you point out so were the overwhelming majority of white people in those times. For christs sake up until Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, the whole of the US was institutionally racist. Anyway I digress.

In his original post rufus says Lennox ducked Bowe. How was he supposed to fight someone that dumped his belt in the trash, rather than face him exactly? He had already stopped him at the olympics, though maybe that had nothing to do with it eh? Much!!!!!

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:Well its relevant because people are saying that Sullivan was a product of his time and the fact is that the other fighters I mentioned were of the same time (ok they were a few years younger) but were undoubtedly more open minded towards coloured fighters. The thing with Jackson is that we either accept that Sullivan wouldnt fight Jackson merely because of his colour or else he used the colour story as an excuse and he simply didnt want to fight him because he feared Jackson would beat him... so you either have Sullivan being a very bigoted man or a bit of a coward.
Personally I think the reason was a bit of both, he knew how good Jackson was and his pride and predudice wouldnt allow him to take the risk of being beaten by a blackman (remember his speech after losing to Corbett and saying that he was just thankful to have been beaten by 'an American!) ...I still admire him for being such a 'character' and undoubtedly a great fighter but the race thing is a blot and not something you can avoid if you read up on him and I do feel extremely sorry for Peter Jackson who most likely would have been one of the first modern all time greats of the division had he got a shot at Sullivan as he was undoubtedly a better fighter than even a peak Sullivan...

Well, you certainly are an expert on early gloved fighters, aren’t you? Basically, you’re saying that Sullivan was a racist and a coward, which shows either that you have insights not available to anyone else, or you simply type before you think.

I’ve already admitted that he was a racist, as just about everyone knows, so I’m not sure why you felt compelled to comment further on that subject, except perhaps you have some need to add words where they are not needed. And please explain where your insights on Jackson and Sullivan came from to make a statement like “…he was undoubtedly a better fighter than even a peak Sullivan”? While it’s possible that Jackson was better, it is not possible to say that there was no doubt about it. Unless of course you have insights not available to anyone else.

I simply have spent 20+ years reading about Sullivan, which you obviously havent... I still like him but accept that he had some huge flaws.... he certainly had a strain of cowardice in him as he was afraid to lose to a black man, simple as that... Sullivan was a bully in many ways... thats not to say he was an out and out coward, I wouldnt call any fighter a total coward, but he was certainly afraid of fighting Peter Jackson... that is a documented fact...
My feeling is that had Jackson been white Sullivan would have fought him, even if he knew (as he most likely would have) that he was going to lose, But Sullivan just couldnt face being beaten by a blackman... which is why he would never agree to face Jackson...

Sullivan was a racist, but he sure as hell was not a coward...not in the least!!!!

>>>Well its relevant because people are saying that Sullivan was a product of his time and the fact is that the other fighters I mentioned were of the same time (ok they were a few years younger) but were undoubtedly more open minded towards coloured fighters<<<

Not true!!! Bob Fitzsimmons used the N-word just as much, or even more so than any other fighter that I can recall...even Sullivan!

barry wrote:>>>Well its relevant because people are saying that Sullivan was a product of his time and the fact is that the other fighters I mentioned were of the same time (ok they were a few years younger) but were undoubtedly more open minded towards coloured fighters<<<

Not true!!! Bob Fitzsimmons used the N-word just as much, or even more so than any other fighter that I can recall...even Sullivan!

He wasnt afraid of sharing a ring with them though like Sullivan was which was my point!... he regularly employed Bob Armstrong as his sparring partner too at a time when many coloured fighters struggled to find work even in sparring... the fact that he may have called them the N word isnt the point, he still treated them better than Sullivan did...
Sullivan may not have been an out and out coward but he was certainly afraid of fighting Peter Jackson... otherwise why didnt he fight him??....
Fitz fought Jack Johnson when he was in his late 40s!...

He wasn't afraid of fighting anyone...including Jackson!!!

If he was afraid of fighting Jackson then he would have never gotten near a ring with Corbett...after all, Corbett handled Jackson pretty handily, so why would he refuse to fight a lesser fighter than Corbett? Certainly not because of fear! Sullivan clearly stated that he would fight no black man, regardless of who it was Jackson, Godfrey, Frank Craig, Frank Childs or whoever!

When Sullivan fought John Flood on the barge...the only people in Sullivan's corner were his seconds...the rest of Sullivan's fans were driven off the boat by all the roughs in Flood's gang. Now these were not your typical fight fans...no these guys were known to not only interupt a bout where their man was losing, but they were known to beat the opposing fighter to within an inch of their life. Now any man who would go into a wolf's den like that, knowing very well what would probably happen if he won, well, there is no fear in that kind of man and as to the bout...well...Sullivan beat Flood as bad as a fighter could be beat...made Flood look like a child. In the end...Flood's gang did not attack Sullivan, as they had done so many times before against other fighters...no they applauded Sullivan...which if you will remember...at that time in New York...the Irish were absolutely despised and hated and for Sullivan to go into a situation like that...well I think it clearly proved that there is no cowardice in the man!

barry wrote:Bob Fitzsimmons used the N-word just as much, or even more so than any other fighter that I can recall...even Sullivan!

I can imagine the N-word back then wasn't implied as derogatory as it is today. I've come across comic books from as late as the 50's which use it (the Dutch equivalent that is, which is the same word only with k's for g's) to describe Africans without implying anything bad about them.

silkov wrote:I simply have spent 20+ years reading about Sullivan, which you obviously havent...

Yes, you’re correct, I’ve spent almost 40 years.

silkov wrote:…but he was certainly afraid of fighting Peter Jackson... that is a documented fact...

Again, I had no idea that you are the top expert on Sullivan and Jackson. Perhaps you can share these “documented facts” that PROVE he was afraid of Jackson?

No offense, but you’re really looking rather foolish here by making it sound like you know all of this as if it could possibly be fact, which it can’t. You’re simply stating opinions, and those opinions just don’t make any sense, most especially because of the rather arrogant and unbending manner in which you present them.

When you become a bit more open minded and less biased, then we could attempt to engage in a discussion, but you simply have too much bias and hatred.

barry wrote:He wasn't afraid of fighting anyone...including Jackson!!!

If he was afraid of fighting Jackson then he would have never gotten near a ring with Corbett...after all, Corbett handled Jackson pretty handily, so why would he refuse to fight a lesser fighter than Corbett? Certainly not because of fear! Sullivan clearly stated that he would fight no black man, regardless of who it was Jackson, Godfrey, Frank Craig, Frank Childs or whoever!

When Sullivan fought John Flood on the barge...the only people in Sullivan's corner were his seconds...the rest of Sullivan's fans were driven off the boat by all the roughs in Flood's gang. Now these were not your typical fight fans...no these guys were known to not only interupt a bout where their man was losing, but they were known to beat the opposing fighter to within an inch of their life. Now any man who would go into a wolf's den like that, knowing very well what would probably happen if he won, well, there is no fear in that kind of man and as to the bout...well...Sullivan beat Flood as bad as a fighter could be beat...made Flood look like a child. In the end...Flood's gang did not attack Sullivan, as they had done so many times before against other fighters...no they applauded Sullivan...which if you will remember...at that time in New York...the Irish were absolutely despised and hated and for Sullivan to go into a situation like that...well I think it clearly proved that there is no cowardice in the man!

If he wasnt afraid then why didnt he fight Jackson then??... I dont care about what else he did in his career I know all that but he avoided Jackson like the plague and everyone knew that Jackson was a worthy opponent for him, ...it certainly would have taken more courage to face Jackson rather than avoid him like he did... anyone can see that surely!...
I've already said that I dont consider Sullivan an out and out coward, no fighter is, ...but when it came to Jackson John L was afraid of fighting him simple as that... he didnt want to risk losing to a black man.... thats not courage is it???

silkov wrote: Sullivan may not have been an out and out coward but he was certainly afraid of fighting Peter Jackson... otherwise why didnt he fight him??....

If you knew anything at all about Sullivan, then you wouldn’t even ask such a simple question. It looks like you’ve wasted those 20 years and learned absolutely nothing.

Sullivan and Ali were both racists. Anybody who can't see behind the glamourous ESPN Classic shows that have Ali as a great humanitarian is delusional and living in a world of fairies. I challenge you to show me one sport that existed before the 70's that didn't have a racial undertone to it.

npalboxing wrote:Sullivan and Ali were both racists. Anybody who can't see behind the glamourous ESPN Classic shows that have Ali as a great humanitarian is delusional and living in a world of fairies. I challenge you to show me one sport that existed before the 70's that didn't have a racial undertone to it.

Npal I would agree in the most strict use of the Language. But perhaps not charged with the undue baggage of out and out hatred that often is assumed when it comes with that word. Factoring or "sorting" race when assessing things in life makes you by definition some degree of a "racist".

EVen today Few of us can be totaly blind and "non evaluative" when it comes to this matter, though I think we all agree that this is the world we would most like to live in and most of us attempt to strive for and we hope each generation gets better at it.

You can't judge a Sullivan by Today's standards. Though much of the "norm" back then is unacceptable today, it does not mean that the times were "hateful" IMHO. Hopefully generations from now we will look pretty neanderthal as times get better, people become more accepting and educated. That does not mean I'm going to turn in my "Don't Tread on me" mentality. Acceptance, coexistence and tolerance does not mean surrender. It means mutual respect and genuine cordiality even when there is nothing to fear and no one imposing on another.

Sullivan drew the colour bar before anyone had heard of Peter Jackson in America, so he had already set the precedent. This of course doesnt make it right. He didnt make an exception in not fighting Jackson, so he wasnt purely afraid of him. Also, Sullivan was already in a state of semi-retirement in the late 1880s when Jackson was the top contender. I wouldnt call Sullivan a coward for not fighting Jackson, he simply did what many champions have done and seek easier paydays elsewhere. In fact no way is Sullivan a coward, he wasnt a consummate boxer but is one of the most formidable all-in fighters of all time, and one of the toughest for sure.
And his comment about losing the title to "an American" were more likely to be a dig at his hated rival and Englishman Charlie Mitchell than they were about Jackson or any other black fighter.

I'm not sure how much, if any, of that is directed at me. I'm just relaying what I've seen and read about both men. Umm... I never used the word hateful in regards to anyone including Ali though I'm sure that's what racist would imply. Ali did carry a hatred for the white man and, well, understandably so. However, his approach to achieving equality was somewhat hypocritical as he was preaching hatred himself. I've got this discussion going on in another thread but Ali was also very abusive to African-American men himself most inparticular one Joe Frazier who's own children suffered as a result of it. Pretty much Ali stepped on his own to advance himself. That's not much of a humanitarian as he seemed to preach that anyone who didn't side with himself and the Black Muslim/Malcolm X train of thought was an Uncle Tom. Yes, I understand he suffered his own criticism when he chose to change his name and all the other things that came with his being an African-American alive before and during the civil rights movement. My issue with Ali is that he is praised for humanitarian work but underneath the Cinderella stories exist a very hateful man with a lot of rage that was channeled not just to the white man but also to the African-Americans who didn't exactly walk his line.

Sorry, I didn't mean to turn this around on Ali. I just saw his name earlier in the thread.