Jack Dempsey is often accused for never having given the black heavyweight Harry Wills a shot at the heavyweight title, even though Wills was widely considered the most deserving haevyweight challenger of the late 1910s and the early 1920s. Some excuse Dempsey with the fact that it wasn't so much him who avoided Wills but his manager, but the fact remains: Dempsey never gave Wills a shot, but clobbered far inferior fighters instead like Miske, Firpo and Gibbons in his so-called defenses.
Now we have one friend here who ranks Dempsey the #4 heavyweight in spite of all that, but accuses Dempsey's conqueror Gene Tunney of not fighting black heavyweight George Godfrey in his one and only title defense in 1928. As a consequence of this (I cannot see any other point he would bring forward) he puts Tunney somewhere in the low top 20s of his all-time list.
Background: in late 1928 Tunney when had to choose an opponent for his defense, Godfrey had just lost to former Tunney-victim Johnny Risko, who in turn had just lost to Tom Heeney - the man Tunney fought instead.
No question that Godfrey was a good fighter, but is this "avoidance" anywhere close in significance for the Dempsey-Wills title bout that the world never got?
Colorline - what was worse (Dempsey Tunney)
It's hard to gauge this by todays sensibilities....the idea of racism in any form at any time is repugnant but we are a species that hopefully is evolving. Economics and Politics will always be in the mix of any popular activity and back then boxing was the premier sport.
In short I would offer this to consider....this was less a deficit of character on behalf of Dempsey or Tunney as men, but a deficit of the times and where we were as a culture. It is regrettable and in fifty years we will likely look back on these times with a critical eye as to how we are currently behaving as a culture...hopefully we will continue to live and learn and pass down a better world to our kids.
The 1959 Chevrolet was a very dangerous vehicle by todays standards...metal sharp edged dash, no seat belts, not much thought given to safety....but the people who built them were not bad, stupid, or foolish.....and we have improved cars slowly with each passing year. I think perhaps we are making some headway in our general culture as well. But we have setbacks from time to time for sure.
In short I would offer this to consider....this was less a deficit of character on behalf of Dempsey or Tunney as men, but a deficit of the times and where we were as a culture. It is regrettable and in fifty years we will likely look back on these times with a critical eye as to how we are currently behaving as a culture...hopefully we will continue to live and learn and pass down a better world to our kids.
The 1959 Chevrolet was a very dangerous vehicle by todays standards...metal sharp edged dash, no seat belts, not much thought given to safety....but the people who built them were not bad, stupid, or foolish.....and we have improved cars slowly with each passing year. I think perhaps we are making some headway in our general culture as well. But we have setbacks from time to time for sure.
-
kick asner
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 692
- Joined: 02 Oct 2005, 00:01
As a culture I think we are no more sensitive to different races today than we ever were. So I think in that regaurd we have evolved very little if at all. What has happend is white America has recognized he is better off with the black athlete than without him. Lobron James was the first selection in the NBA draft simply because of his ability and nothing to do with the teams affection toward a black man. The same thing happend in boxing with the emergence of such greats as Joe Louis and Ray Robinson. The public at large gradually began to recognize it was more entertaining to watch someone like Mohamed Ali rather than the crop of white contenders that existed. Prejudice in boxing ceased little by little because it no longer served anyones best intrest to be predjudice rather than some inherent need for mankind to evolve to a higher level.
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
-
kick asner
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 692
- Joined: 02 Oct 2005, 00:01
BoxBuzz wrote:Hey kick....recognizing value of any kind in another is a first step...albeit not a big one. Tunney's resume on this was more suspect than Jack's from all I have read. Just my two cents.
Sorry didn't mean to sound stand offish. Its just when it comes to race relations I get a bit cynical. But that would probably be a topic for a different type of forum. But I do think the way race has figured into boxing and other sports and the injustices that go along with it is an important subject.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
I look at it this way...at least Dempsey did face some black men throughout his career, and he did sign on to face Harry Wills, but I believe it was a money issue, not race so much on Dempsey's part. Gene Tunney was where the money was, and he was a blown up Light Heavyweight, he wasn't given much of a chance.
Now, as far as Tunney goes, he never fought a single black man in his entire career, and to pick Meehan over Godfrey was a full out disgrace. People could say that maybe he wanted an easy defense, but you have to figure, Dempsey was far out of condition when they first fought and despite Tunney being knocked down in their second fight, he danced rings around Dempsey---it was easy for him both times.
He still had a few fights left in him, and Godfrey deservd the chance, but Tunney retired anyways...so that's why I picked Tunney as the worser of the two.
Now, as far as Tunney goes, he never fought a single black man in his entire career, and to pick Meehan over Godfrey was a full out disgrace. People could say that maybe he wanted an easy defense, but you have to figure, Dempsey was far out of condition when they first fought and despite Tunney being knocked down in their second fight, he danced rings around Dempsey---it was easy for him both times.
He still had a few fights left in him, and Godfrey deservd the chance, but Tunney retired anyways...so that's why I picked Tunney as the worser of the two.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
Godfrey had just lost to former Tunney-victim Johnny Risko
godfrey did not lose to risko. godfrey was on the cuffs.
"His loss to Risko was a case in point as some fair eyewitness scribes have noted that Godfrey easily handled Risko for the first eight rounds at Ebbetts Field then Risko made a courageous stand in the last two rounds and they awarded him the decision.
It was widely understood in Philly that Godfrey agreed to "carry" Risko"-chuck hasson
most historians conclude that godfrey was forced to carry risko. godfrey basically did not try. he was on the cuffs.
had godfrey tried he would have most likely knocked out risko
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
Woulda coulda.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Godfrey had just lost to former Tunney-victim Johnny Risko
godfrey did not lose to risko. godfrey was on the cuffs.
"His loss to Risko was a case in point as some fair eyewitness scribes have noted that Godfrey easily handled Risko for the first eight rounds at Ebbetts Field then Risko made a courageous stand in the last two rounds and they awarded him the decision.
It was widely understood in Philly that Godfrey agreed to "carry" Risko"-chuck hasson
most historians conclude that godfrey was forced to carry risko. godfrey basically did not try. he was on the cuffs.
had godfrey tried he would have most likely knocked out risko
Ah, shoulda.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
pundit wrote:Woulda coulda.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Godfrey had just lost to former Tunney-victim Johnny Risko
godfrey did not lose to risko. godfrey was on the cuffs.
"His loss to Risko was a case in point as some fair eyewitness scribes have noted that Godfrey easily handled Risko for the first eight rounds at Ebbetts Field then Risko made a courageous stand in the last two rounds and they awarded him the decision.
It was widely understood in Philly that Godfrey agreed to "carry" Risko"-chuck hasson
most historians conclude that godfrey was forced to carry risko. godfrey basically did not try. he was on the cuffs.
had godfrey tried he would have most likely knocked out risko
Ah, shoulda.
its not a woulda coulda shoulda. godfrey did not try when he fought risko. he was forced to carry risko. he threw the fight.
its like tunney losing to dempsey cause tunney let dempsey win
"had godfrey tried he would have most likely knocked out risko"
Johhny Risko was known for his iron chin.
Tunney broke his right hand on Risko's chin.
Risko was NEVER stopped except in the very last of his 143 fights.
(His earlier "loss" to Chuck Wiggins was after Risko was hit low and his manager refused to let him contiunue after the ref gave him a lengthy rest period to recover from the foul).
By the way---IF I TRIED---I could lift up the Empire State Building with my little finger.
Johhny Risko was known for his iron chin.
Tunney broke his right hand on Risko's chin.
Risko was NEVER stopped except in the very last of his 143 fights.
(His earlier "loss" to Chuck Wiggins was after Risko was hit low and his manager refused to let him contiunue after the ref gave him a lengthy rest period to recover from the foul).
By the way---IF I TRIED---I could lift up the Empire State Building with my little finger.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Yes but....
Not many people, including Tunney, had a KO percentage as high as Godfrey's, which envied Dempsey's. Risko may have had an iron chin, but I doubt he could prolly stand up against Godfrey if he really poured on the pain---some fights that Godfrey had just failed to make sense, and like with Langford and some other fighters of the time, I think they took it easy on men they knew they could defeat easy, or would purposely let it go the distance, or lose just to be either nice or to cash in on the odds.
Some people were forced to throw fights as well...but despite Risko being a tough dude, it just don't make sense to me, that a man of Godfrey's size and power with all his credentials could "lose" to Risko.
Not many people, including Tunney, had a KO percentage as high as Godfrey's, which envied Dempsey's. Risko may have had an iron chin, but I doubt he could prolly stand up against Godfrey if he really poured on the pain---some fights that Godfrey had just failed to make sense, and like with Langford and some other fighters of the time, I think they took it easy on men they knew they could defeat easy, or would purposely let it go the distance, or lose just to be either nice or to cash in on the odds.
Some people were forced to throw fights as well...but despite Risko being a tough dude, it just don't make sense to me, that a man of Godfrey's size and power with all his credentials could "lose" to Risko.
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
I was not aware that Jack Dempsey was Tex Rickard's boss.pundit wrote:So who's fault was it - Tex Rickards. So why did Dempsey not fire Rickards, if he really wanted the fight.dmt wrote:dempsey signed to fight wills. it was not either wills's or dempsey's fault
Why doesn't a reporter at a newspaper fire the newspaper's publisher?
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
.... only to continue on his contract 'till the bitter end.Decagon wrote:He couldn't. In fact, part of the reason Dempsey was inactive for much of his championship reign was that he was waiting out the Rickard contract.pundit wrote:So who's fault was it - Tex Rickards. So why did Dempsey not fire Rickards, if he really wanted the fight.dmt wrote:dempsey signed to fight wills. it was not either wills's or dempsey's fault