BoxRec

barry wrote:European visitors refered to the New Zealnders of that race as Indian, Natives, Maori, Aborigine and New Zelanders. Whether he actually was part Aborigine I don't know.

But in response to Irish's comment about Sullivan claiming that he would not defend against a foreigner, well as I said he never stated that, but here is what Adam Pollack told me about it:

"No. He never drew any type of line against foreigners. In fact, at times he said that he would rather fight a foreigner than defeat one of his own countrymen. After he lost to Corbett, he did say he was glad the title remained in America."

Whatever, mate. It's common knowledge that Slade was part maori.

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/slade.htm

It's not whatever...it's fact...I would expect someone from Australia to know this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maori


In the second paragraph states just what I said:





"In the Māori language the word māori means "normal," "natural" or "ordinary." In legends and other oral traditions, the word distinguished ordinary mortal human beings from deities and spirits. Māori has cognates in other Polynesian languages such as the Hawaiian 'Maoli,' the Tahitian 'Maohi,' and the Cook Islands Māori which all share similar meanings. The contemporary English meanings are "native," "indigenous" or "aboriginal." The orthographic conventions developed by the Māori Language Commission reflect the growing preference for a macron (a line over the 'a') to denote the long 'a' sound. There is also a preference that the word 'Māori' is not pluralised with an 's', as there is no 's' sound in the Māori language.

Early European visitors to the islands of New Zealand referred to the people they found there variously as "Indians," "aborigines," "natives" or "New Zealanders." Māori remained the term used by Māori to describe themselves in a pan-tribal sense. In 1947, the Department of Native Affairs was renamed the Department of Māori Affairs to recognise this."

barry wrote:It's not whatever...it's fact...I would expect someone from Australia to know this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maori


In the second paragraph states just what I said:





"In the Māori language the word māori means "normal," "natural" or "ordinary." In legends and other oral traditions, the word distinguished ordinary mortal human beings from deities and spirits. Māori has cognates in other Polynesian languages such as the Hawaiian 'Maoli,' the Tahitian 'Maohi,' and the Cook Islands Māori which all share similar meanings. The contemporary English meanings are "native," "indigenous" or "aboriginal." The orthographic conventions developed by the Māori Language Commission reflect the growing preference for a macron (a line over the 'a') to denote the long 'a' sound. There is also a preference that the word 'Māori' is not pluralised with an 's', as there is no 's' sound in the Māori language.

Early European visitors to the islands of New Zealand referred to the people they found there variously as "Indians," "aborigines," "natives" or "New Zealanders." Māori remained the term used by Māori to describe themselves in a pan-tribal sense. In 1947, the Department of Native Affairs was renamed the Department of Māori Affairs to recognise this."

It's 2007, barry.

No one nowadays refers to maori as "aborigines" or "indians".

If the dude who wrote the recent book on Sullivan refers to him by either of those terms I will accept I am wrong.

You claim to have the book. What does it say?

>>>No one nowadays refers to maori as "aborigines" or "indians". <<<

No shit Sherlock...was you not able to distinguish that the article clearly stated "EARLY EUROPEAN VISITOR?" Early European vistors refers to the Europeans who first visited the country...it's not talking about today! Why are you even talking about today? We were talking about late 1800s boxing...LOL! The Current Scene is in the other forum!


>>>If the dude who wrote the recent book on Sullivan refers to him by either of those terms I will accept I am wrong.<<<

What are you even talking about? No one has said anything about Sullivan called Slade anything...you need to pay better attention to the topic!

I think he meant if Apollack referred to Slade as being aboriginie.

npalboxing



Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Posts: 4004

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Ali was a racist why ?
Because of his faith, and what his religion preached ?

It should be pointed out that in the Talmud and Christian bible, that the "Sons of Ham" (those of black skin) are wicked, inferior, and cursed to be the slaves for all generations.
Book of Genesis 9:20-27

Does this mean all Christans and Jews are racist ?
I think not, and neither was/is Ali

>>>I think he meant if Apollack referred to Slade as being aboriginie.<<<

No one ever said that Pollack referred to Slade as being aborigine. I was just stating what was written about Maori in Wiki...it didn't have anything to do with Sullivan, or even Slade for that matter.

barry wrote:>>>No one nowadays refers to maori as "aborigines" or "indians". <<<

No shit Sherlock...was you not able to distinguish that the article clearly stated "EARLY EUROPEAN VISITOR?" Early European vistors refers to the Europeans who first visited the country...it's not talking about today! Why are you even talking about today? We were talking about late 1800s boxing...LOL! The Current Scene is in the other forum!


>>>If the dude who wrote the recent book on Sullivan refers to him by either of those terms I will accept I am wrong.<<<

What are you even talking about? No one has said anything about Sullivan called Slade anything...you need to pay better attention to the topic!

Oh dear, we aren't heading for another meltdown moment are we? It's been quite peaceful in here since you went on leave.

YOU referred to slade as an 'aborigine'. You are living in 2007 aren't you?

Can you not read, mate? I said the person who recently wrote the book on Sullivan.

barry wrote:>>>I think he meant if Apollack referred to Slade as being aboriginie.<<<

No one ever said that Pollack referred to Slade as being aborigine. I was just stating what was written about Maori in Wiki...it didn't have anything to do with Sullivan, or even Slade for that matter.

The article makes clear that no one uses those term today.

No one who knew what they were talking about would say, as you did,
"They were probably speaking of Slade as he was half Aborigine!"

>>>YOU referred to slade as an 'aborigine'. You are living in 2007 aren't you?<<<

Slade was from the 1800s there genius! Also, I never said that I didn't say anything, but I also stated that I was not sure what Slade's ethnicity is and as to the aborigine, well I posted the link to Maori to back my claim...something you have never learned how to do.

You started with the clueless comments that not only makes no sense whatsoever, but which has nothing to do with anything...I mean really...we are discussing 1800s boxing and you come on and start talking 2007, but then again it's no surprise at all.

As far as meltdown...I don't have meltdowns, not with you, but considering that it is you who always uses twenty different usernames to agree and talk to yourself whenever you have been made to look silly in a thread then I would guess that the only meltdown is in your mind...that and a bit of schizophrenia perhaps!

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...

Actually, Jeffries when he held the championship, did use the color line when he refused to face Johnson. He stated that he would not fight a colored man. Unlike Sullivan however, Jeffries had indeed fought black men in the past--once while champion.

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?

Hey Barry, you and I usually see eye to eye, but I must take exception to your statement here. Corbett "handled" Jackson pretty handily? I am not sure where you are coming from on that statement. Corbett hardly handled Jackson--nor did he in anyway prove to be the "superior" of Peter. If he had, I would presume that he would have give Jackson that rematch in 1894 instead of dancing around it for two plus years.

Well not handily, I got a little carried away with the comment, but Corbett did win the bout!

I didnt even think Corbett won it. Wasnt the end result a 60 round draw?

It was officially a draw, but most accounts that I have read indicate that Corbett controlled most of the fight.

The fight was officially a no contest after 61 rounds. Corbett did not win, officially or otherwise. I am not sure where you are all getting this information but it is a grave injustice to Mr. Jackson, who did 90 percent of the leading in this fight--in essence making the fight--to state that Corbett won.

He may have won a moral victory for not loosing to Jackson as many thought he would, but this nonsense about him winning is just that, nonsense.

RowanSmith wrote:The fight was officially a no contest after 61 rounds. Corbett did not win, officially or otherwise. I am not sure where you are all getting this information but it is a grave injustice to Mr. Jackson, who did 90 percent of the leading in this fight--in essence making the fight--to state that Corbett won.

He may have won a moral victory for not loosing to Jackson as many thought he would, but this nonsense about him winning is just that, nonsense.

Yes you are correct that it was not a draw. My apologies. However, I have read several accounts that stated that Corbett did well after struggling mightily in the early going, and was the fresher of the two when the fight was called. Of course, I doubt very seriously that either could have had much left after 61 rounds, nor does being fresher at the end have any bearing on who performed better during the fight.

From what I ever read after the first 30 rounds or so both men were so tired that they hardly threw any real punches from that point on. I would also have to quote Corbett who once said that Jackson could have beaten ANY fighter that Corbett saw/fought.

So to me Corbett made a confession that Jackson was on his level or above him as a fighter. As I've said before, many historians consider Jackson to be the equal of Jack Johnson or an early 20th century Muhammad Ali.

As far as Jefferies is concerned, while he did fight black men, I don't know what RowanSmith is talking about when he said Jefferies fought a black man while as champion; its true that Jefferies fought Hank Griffin and a past his prime Peter Jackson and there is reports of him fighting guys like Frank Childs and others as well---but as far as him fighting a black man while champion; then no.

Not unless you are under the logic that Jim Jefferies was still the champion when he fought Jack Johnson---considering he retired as champion and then you had Hart and Burns take his place, though the majority of Americans considered Jefferies to still be the champion.

Well, I will take Kevin's word over anyone when it comes to early colored fighters as he knows the topic better than anyone that I know.


Irish...Jeffries had an exhibition with Griffin and had several exhibitions with Bob Armstrong while he was champion, but the black man that he fought while champion was none other than Jack Johnson.

Jeffries, though coming out of retirement, was still the lineal champion then and he was still considered the true champion in a lot of people's eyes and as a result of the fight the white public could no longer say that Johnson was not the true world champion because after beating Jeffries he was then the man who beat the man!!!

Ali was a racist why ?
Because of his faith, and what his religion preached ?

Yes. If you subscribe to a racist faith and profess racist beliefs of said faith, you are a racist. I'd hate to give the Chrsitian Identity bigots a pass just because they claim Christian roots.

Ali later recanted the racist remarks/beliefs as it was later admitted by the Black Muslims that the whole 'white devil' speeches and all was just a way to give blacks 'purpose' or extra pep in the movement; especially when Ali was with Malcom X.


And at its base Christianity speaks of racism/hatred of others as a grave sin. Jesus himself talked/hung out with pagans and non-jews and talked/encouraged 'undesirables' and 'persistant sinners', to the dismay and aggitation of the Pharisees. So w/e racist attitudes Christians have are their own---not backed up by faith.


While I do consider Jefferies in ways as being the 'true' champion, it is ridiculous for someone to continue saying they are the champ when they have retired, irregardless whatever public opinion is. That would be like today if Lennox Lewis said he was still the true champion, though he's been retired since 2004.

I’ll chime in here. What the heck, since I see I’m being discussed. Yes, I’m the apollack who wrote John L. Sullivan: The Career of the First Gloved Heavyweight Champion, so I might as well go on record with what I actually said.

Sullivan certainly boxed quite a number of foreigners. He had no problem doing so, fighting many foreign born boxers along the way.

Second, Sullivan was inconsistent in his color line stance, but he did not actually fight a black fighter. No primary source proof of it anyway. In a nutshell, at first he didn’t draw the line, but for whatever reason, the fights never came off. As he got popular, he started drawing the line and did so for most of his career. He didn’t endure much criticism until the late 1880s when Peter Jackson was a standout boxer. In 1888, Sullivan sort of changed his mind and offered to spar George Godfrey in public, but Godfrey declined, and the circumstances were somewhat impromptu (details in the book). Sullivan initially drew the line against Jackson, but then when he got a lot of heat, demanded a lot of money to fight him, but then changed his mind again and said that he would never fight a black man.

Joe Goss - born in England
George Rooke – born in England
Jack Stewart – Canadian
Fred Crossley – English
Jack Burns – Canadian born Englishman

Sullivan was set to fight black fighter George Godfrey in either 1880 or 1881, but the police prevented the fight.

He was supposed to box a black fighter named Johnson in 1882, but Johnson did not appear.

Jimmy Elliott – native of Ireland
Tug Wilson – English
Charles Mitchell – English

1883 – Sullivan drew color line against black fighter named C.A.C. Smith, who soon thereafter was knocked out by Jack Stewart.

Herbert Slade was from New Zealand. He was called “The Maori” and sometimes “the half-breed Maori” owing to his mixed race parentage, as alluded to earlier in this thread. The Maori were the native people of New Zealand, believed to have migrated there from Tahiti or Polynesia. From his photo, I’d say it is accurate to say he was half white, half Maori. Sullivan fought him and toured with him.

1884 – Sullivan drew the color line against Bill Williams, but said he would fight him in private.

Sylvester La Gouriff – French

In April 1884, Sullivan again drew the color line against an unnamed black fighter, declining to meet a black man in public.

Alf Greenfield – English
Jack Burke – Born in Ireland, raised in England
Mitchell rematch – English, held in France

1888 – Sullivan willing to spar Godfrey in public.

Sullivan drew the line against Jackson, later shifted to saying he’d fight him for $20,000, then said he wouldn’t fight him at all. During 1889-1892 (post Kilrain), Sullivan didn’t fight anyone anyway, black or white, and insisted that he wanted $25,000 to fight again. When he eventually made his challenge in March 1892 to all contenders, he specifically named his first preference to fight Slavin (Australian), second - Mitchell (English), and third - Corbett (American), in that order. He specifically barred black fighters and said he never would fight a black man. Corbett, who had fought Jackson to a de facto draw, came up with the immediate backing and the fight was on. The Olympic Club met his demand for a $25,000 purse.

As to whether Sullivan was either a racist or a coward (one but not the other), or both, I think my book presents the facts, which can be used to support whatever argument you like. I try to be balanced in presenting both sides of the argument. I use both historic context as well as the specifics of the individual situations. I’m not sure I have a clear answer in my own mind, finding myself oscillating at times, just as I think Sullivan did. The fact is that even in the 1800s, some called Sullivan a coward, saying that his color line stance was an indication of fear, while others applauded him for his moral stance (or at least understood it), saying that Sullivan had no fear of Jackson whatsoever, but felt that he would be lowering himself even if he got into the ring with Jackson, regardless of whether he would win or lose. The ultimate answer isn’t entirely clear. America was extremely segregated and whites simply did not compete with blacks in any area of life. However, some felt that boxing’s historical precedence did not allow for the drawing of the color line. The most surprising feature of the debate is the mere fact that even in the highly segregated 1880s and 1890s a lot of white writers supported Jackson’s right to a title shot. Sullivan’s stance though was consistent with the time’s general social mores, but it wasn’t entirely clear whether those mores were recognized in the world of boxing. Hence, boxing was the most racially progressive sport and perhaps one of the few areas of American life where arguments for fair play were lodged. Ironically (or perhaps not), it was called the most depraved sport and was constantly under legal attack.

If you want more details, buy the book. I go into this stuff exhaustively and you won’t go away feeling that you didn’t get your money’s worth.

apollack wrote: Herbert Slade was from New Zealand. He was called “The Maori” and sometimes “the half-breed Maori” owing to his mixed race parentage, as alluded to earlier in this thread. The Maori were the native people of New Zealand, believed to have migrated there from Tahiti or Polynesia. From his photo, I’d say it is accurate to say he was half white, half Maori. Sullivan fought him and toured with him.

Thanks, apollack. Good to see a real boxing historian at last.

Adam---Thanks for coming on hear and clearing the topic up with the facts of the issue.

>>>Thanks, apollack. Good to see a real boxing historian at last.<<<

Collins---Whats sad is that you don't have enough common sense to actually learn from a good historian, hell you cannot even learn from kids as I have seen youngsters on the forum make you look silly by owning your ass on very simple 1980s boxing stuff...LOL!!!

Since I have much better things to do rather than trying to teach you about boxing I'll leave the issue for you to duscuss amongst yourself and your 10 other usernames

Thank Apollack

I think in ways what Apollack said can make the argument for both sides, but the way I see it, Sullivan was playing it smart---at least when it came to Jackson ($25,000 was heaps; would be a modern day Tyson-Lewis).

John L.'s willingness to fight black men, foreigners, and other racial groups (though so far no proof of any fight with a black has been seen) shows that, in my mind, maybe John L. wasn't as racist as originally thought seeing that he seemed equal opprotunity.

But it also seems Sullivan was making excuses; much like when Roy Jones said he was $100 million to fight Tyson but in the case of Sullivan, it was finally Jim Corbett who shoved the $25,000 in his face and said 'Let's go!' Sullivan seems like he was backed into a corner, was caught in his own game, and had to fight whether he liked it or not.

Can make the case either way...the truth may never be known; but I'm sticking with my opinions on John L. Sullivan. I think had he lived in another time when attitudes were not like this, he would have fought anyone; hell I think if it was just him and a black man in a ring in complete isolation with no one to watch or judge I think he would have fought.

John L. would have fought anyone...he was just worried/nervous what the world would think of him had he done so.