should it be held against jack johnson.........
Posted: 04 Jan 2006, 19:14
that he didnt fight joe jeanette, sam mcvey, sam langford when they were more mature better fighters?
Good question BB. I would say that since Dempsey gets faulted for avoiding Wills, it seems fair to also fault Johnson for not fighting the guys who were probably the best challengers at the time.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:that he didnt fight joe jeanette, sam mcvey, sam langford when they were more mature better fighters?
Sherlock wrote:Simply, yes. Every fighter should be faulted for not fighting top contenders during their reign.
I don't believe that many fighters can be said to have fought every credible contender, if any. Roy Jones ducked Michalczewski, most middles ducked Charley Burley, etc.
Johnson has some excuses (he was over 30 when he finally got the title, nobody wanted Johnson to defend the title against a black man, and was dealing with legal problems for much of his reign), but they are simply that, excuses. It changes from an excuse to a a viable reason depending on your stance on the issue. Either side has key points that make good arguments.
Decagon wrote:Johnson actually did fight those guys, and beat them repeatedly. Him not giving them rematches is like Ray Leonard waiting forever to give Duran a rubber match, or not giving Hagler a rematch.
Personally, I'd say no. Based on the fact he defended only against one black fighter (Battling Jim Johnson, good but nowhere near the level of Jeannette) and that in Paris, you can read between the lines that the people did not want Johnson to defend against a black man (thus the creation of the White Hopes), because they felt if Johnson lost to another black fighter, it would become a trend of black fighters holding the title, and you know the public didn't want that. Plus he was in trouble with the law and couldn't fight in the US.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:now shouldnt the fact that he didnt fight these 3 later on hurt his placement all time?? sherlock???
That's absolutely true. I'm just making the point that you can't criticize Johnson but not Dempsey. I like both fighters, and hold nothing against them. I'd have liked them to defend against those guys, but I don't dock them for not doing it. Its not like either said I want nothing to do with those guys, the fights were just not made.The Great John L wrote:Sherlock, can't it also be said that no one wanted to see Dempsey defend against a black fighter? Therefore, he didn't actually avoid fighting Wills, he just knew there was no money it.
Tyson in 96 was not in his prime. Bowe did duck him, but Lewis should have been more critical in the media and after fights to get the fight done. Many fighters have dumped a title to avoid a challenger and eventually meet them later on. And Holyfield at his best was in 1990-1994, when Lewis was active. When he lost his title he fought the Lionel Butlers and Justin fortunes and Ray Mercers of the world. He could and really should have gotten in with a better fighter, like Holyfield, Moorer, or even George Foreman instead of retreads and no hopes.dr_devious wrote:I know this relates to another post Sherlock, but you say that Lewis didnt fight Holyfield, Tyson or Bowe in their primes. This is true, but it should be the other way round that they didnt fight him in their primes. Bowe chucked his WBC belt away early in 1993 rather than fight Lennox, and Tyson paid Lennox several million dollars to step aside in 1996-7 rather than fight him. The only one who never ducked him was Holyfield, and they both met in unification matches.
I dont know enough about Jack Johnson's era, but I had wondered why he didnt defend against guys like Langford, Jeanette, and McVey. Politics or money would be my best guess.
Yes, this is true, but doesn't address the premise of this discussion. Boxing is a business and during the time following Johnson, there was little desire on the part of anyone in the boxing power structure to see the possibility of another black HW champion. People always forget that boxing is a business first and must present the possibility for profit. This is why boxing is nearly dead in the US, outside of the casino towns and a few select large cities.Decagon wrote:No, that can't be said. The New York State Athletic Commission ordered that fight, and because Dempsey didn't take it, he couldn't fight in boxing's biggest arena, Madison Square Garden. Harry Wills was ranked #1 by Ring magazine and there was plenty of press speculation about this fight. Anyway, the fight was supposed to take place on 9/6/24. Did Wills fight anyone instead? No. He didn't defend his title until more than TWO YEARS later.The Great John L wrote:Sherlock, can't it also be said that no one wanted to see Dempsey defend against a black fighter? Therefore, he didn't actually avoid fighting Wills, he just knew there was no money it.
Because he was black. For any fight to take place there has to be someone to provide front money for the fighters and promotion, and the people with the money didn't want this fight to take place. Unfortunately, racism was near it's peak in the teens and 20's in the US, and nearly all of the $$ in the US was controlled by white Americans, and white America did not want another black HW champion. I think I explained that adequately in my post.Decagon wrote:Your argument doesn't support your assertion that there was no money to be made. Dempsey made huge money every time he stepped into the ring. Why wouldn't he make money against Wills?
You don't seem to be able to read very well. Try re-reading what I said again and maybe it will make mare sense.Decagon wrote:In the 200 years from 1720 to 1920, which fight in the history of America made the most money? Johnson-Jeffries. A black-vs.-white angle would have MADE that fight. You look at the biggest fight from every decade in the 20th century, minus the 1920s, and a black man was fighting in it. Usually, it was a black man vs. a white man:
- 1900s: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries: Black vs. White
- 1910s: Jack Johnson vs. Jess Willard: Black vs. White
- 1920s: Jack Dempsey vs. Gene Tunney II: White vs. White
- 1930s: Joe Louis vs. Max Schmelling II: Black vs. White
- 1940s: Joe Louis vs. Billy Conn I & II: Black vs. White
- 1950s: Rocky Marciano vs. Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles or Joe Walcott: Black vs. White
- 1960s: Cassius Clay vs. Sonny Liston:Black vs. Black
- 1970s: Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier:Black vs. Black
- 1980s: Larry Holmes vs. George Cooney: Black vs. White
- 1990s: Mike Tyson vs. Evander Holyfield II:Black vs. Black
I didn't say it wouldn't make money. Are you completely unaware of how boxing, or any business works? You need money to get something started, and no one wanted this fight to happen, so therefore no one would fund the fight. Where do you think the money comes from for a boxing promotion? Remember, there is no money generated by the fight until the fight is sold in some manner, so there has to be someone to take the risk. Remember Shelby, Montana?The Great John L wrote:Because he was black. For any fight to take place there has to be someone to provide front money for the fighters and promotion, and the people with the money didn't want this fight to take place. Unfortunately, racism was near it's peak in the teens and 20's in the US, and nearly all of the $$ in the US was controlled by white Americans, and white America did not want another black HW champion. I think I explained that adequately in my post.
I'm sorry I can't get into the way back machine and bring you written proof of a conspiracy of wealthy white boxing promoters to keep the HW championship with a white US boxer. You are aware of the extent of the racism that existed in the US in the first half of the 20th century? Maybe you read a bit about the efforts made to get the HW title from Johnson, and the federal charges that forced him out of the US? It's too bad the NYSAC didn't also order a promoter to come up with some $$ to make the fight happen. Or maybe you expect that Dempsey should have funded the promotion simply because a state commision decided it was good idea for him to fight Wills?Decagon wrote:You still haven't proven that no one wanted this fight to happen. The New York State Athletic Commission did.
Decagon wrote:Aaaah, so now you're changing your story from "no one wanted to see Dempsey-Willard" to "there was no money in it," to "five or ten rich guys didn't want to see a black heavyweight champion," eh?

Us the option.UpWithEvil wrote:Geez, I broke the internet
How'd I screw up my tags here?
No mate it will not. You need to put URL before and after the picture 'address'.UpWithEvil wrote:Won't that just post a link? I was hoping to post an image. Is that disabled on this forum?