ESPN aired a documentary about Joe Jeanette over the weekend. Interesting stuff, but not IMO quite objective or accurate. The narrative background is that Jeanette was a great fighter. However he was also a victim of racist, divisive, turbulent times. As a result he never got the recognition or the opportunities he deserved. But much of the blame for Jeanette not getting a shot at the title is laid at Jack Johnson's feet. The argument by Gerald Early, Bert Sugar and a couple other "experts" is that once Johnson won the title he decided not to give any other black man a shot. The reason? Partly ego- Johnson wanted to be the ONLY black champion, and partly selfishness- Johnson didn't care about the other struggling black fighters, he was trying to make money and that meant fighting white men.
These reasons are not what I have been led to believe all my life. My understanding of the decision not to match two black men for the title back then:
- The heavywt championship was the biggest, most prestigious prize in all of sports at the time. Two black men fighting for the title would be an affront to whites since it would mean that the white man was IRRELEVANT to the question of who was the best fighter in the world. Whites wouldn't/couldn't have that.
- Money again...But only because Johnson himself was constantly under surveillance by the federal government. He was in and out of jail (Mann act), alienated a lot of whites with his philandering with white girls and simply lacked the connections and capital to put together a promotion against guys like Jeanette, McVey, Langford et al. So even if he wanted to, he wouldn't have been able to fight those guys.
-Johnson had already beaten Jeanette twice, I believe, so maybe he didn't feel like he needed to do it again, although, back then guys did fight each other 4, 5, 6 times and more.
I see this documentary as a way to sully the image of Johnson moreso than a celebration of Jeanette's career. The speculation about Johnson's motives are decidedly unflattering, making him appear like a boorish a-hole or worse. Not that Johnson was an angel, but he obviously fought guys like Jeanette before winning the title, and he obviously believed in racial equality, all of which makes me believe that the reasons cited by Sugar and Early are totally bogus and calculated.
Any thoughts?
Joe Jeanette documentary question
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
ESPN aired a whole documentary on Jeannette? Or was it just a segment?
There were several promoters willing to front money for a Langford-Johnson fight, it would have made a lot of money and the public wanted to see it. And Johnson did indeed fight a black man in a title defense, Jim Johnson.
How did Johnson "obviously believe in racial equality?" I don't think Johnson cared much for the politics of racial equality, but he did care about his superiority among both blacks and whites. But yes, Johnson effectively ducked Jeannette and Langford. And I believe before 1913 Johnson would've beaten both regardless.
There were several promoters willing to front money for a Langford-Johnson fight, it would have made a lot of money and the public wanted to see it. And Johnson did indeed fight a black man in a title defense, Jim Johnson.
How did Johnson "obviously believe in racial equality?" I don't think Johnson cared much for the politics of racial equality, but he did care about his superiority among both blacks and whites. But yes, Johnson effectively ducked Jeannette and Langford. And I believe before 1913 Johnson would've beaten both regardless.
"What an amazing glove fighter Langford was. No more than a
light-heavyweight, and so short that he majority of his opponents towered over him by six inches or more. Yet he was
invincible.
His physique was astounding. He was so hugely proportioned
above the waist that, at first glance, he appeared almost as broad as he was long. His colossal shoulders and back, smooth and shining, suggested a wall of coal. His chest was so deep and barrel-like. And the length of his arms was something to marvel at.
His speed and punching powers were alike phenomenal, and so it was small wonder that even the great Jack Johnson, having once fought fifteen anxious rounds with the “Tar Babyâ€
light-heavyweight, and so short that he majority of his opponents towered over him by six inches or more. Yet he was
invincible.
His physique was astounding. He was so hugely proportioned
above the waist that, at first glance, he appeared almost as broad as he was long. His colossal shoulders and back, smooth and shining, suggested a wall of coal. His chest was so deep and barrel-like. And the length of his arms was something to marvel at.
His speed and punching powers were alike phenomenal, and so it was small wonder that even the great Jack Johnson, having once fought fifteen anxious rounds with the “Tar Babyâ€
Re: Joe Jeanette documentary question
I have some. From what I have read about him:Dentsun4228 wrote:ESPN aired a documentary about Joe Jeanette over the weekend. Interesting stuff, but not IMO quite objective or accurate. The narrative background is that Jeanette was a great fighter. However he was also a victim of racist, divisive, turbulent times. As a result he never got the recognition or the opportunities he deserved. But much of the blame for Jeanette not getting a shot at the title is laid at Jack Johnson's feet. The argument by Gerald Early, Bert Sugar and a couple other "experts" is that once Johnson won the title he decided not to give any other black man a shot. The reason? Partly ego- Johnson wanted to be the ONLY black champion, and partly selfishness- Johnson didn't care about the other struggling black fighters, he was trying to make money and that meant fighting white men.
These reasons are not what I have been led to believe all my life. My understanding of the decision not to match two black men for the title back then:
- The heavywt championship was the biggest, most prestigious prize in all of sports at the time. Two black men fighting for the title would be an affront to whites since it would mean that the white man was IRRELEVANT to the question of who was the best fighter in the world. Whites wouldn't/couldn't have that.
- Money again...But only because Johnson himself was constantly under surveillance by the federal government. He was in and out of jail (Mann act), alienated a lot of whites with his philandering with white girls and simply lacked the connections and capital to put together a promotion against guys like Jeanette, McVey, Langford et al. So even if he wanted to, he wouldn't have been able to fight those guys.
-Johnson had already beaten Jeanette twice, I believe, so maybe he didn't feel like he needed to do it again, although, back then guys did fight each other 4, 5, 6 times and more.
I see this documentary as a way to sully the image of Johnson moreso than a celebration of Jeanette's career. The speculation about Johnson's motives are decidedly unflattering, making him appear like a boorish a-hole or worse. Not that Johnson was an angel, but he obviously fought guys like Jeanette before winning the title, and he obviously believed in racial equality, all of which makes me believe that the reasons cited by Sugar and Early are totally bogus and calculated.
Any thoughts?
1. Jack Johnson, indeed, was a "boorish a-hole or worse."
2. Jack Johnson cared about racial equality only as long as it furthered his career.
3. Neither of these two things take away the fact that Jack Johnson was a great fighter.
The idea that Johnson declined to fight deserving black contenders because it would be a affront to whites is an interesting take. In the racially charged early 1900s, Jack Johnson's whole lifestyle was an affront to whites, and Jack Johnson knew it. Why would that prevent him from meeting a black fighter? He never seemed particuarly concerned about who he affronted.
Also, Johnson was willing to fight one undeserving black contender. Why not deserving black contenders?
I've heard others argue that a fight between African-Americans wouldn't draw. Maybe in America it wouldn't. However, Jeanette, McVey and Langford were all popular in France. A fight with any of those three in Paris during Johnson's "exile" years would have proven lucretive for all concerned.
Last edited by raylawpc on 13 May 2008, 17:10, edited 1 time in total.
Agreed. My point - not well articulated - was that Johnson spent most of his exile in Europe (so no excuse it wasn't a convenient location), and the fight would have done extremely well in Paris. The French were, at that time, absolutely nuts for boxing. Plus, that trio of McVey, Langford and Jeanette were quite popular in France. Instead, Johnson chose to fight Battling Jim Johnson.cmoyle wrote:I believe it would have drawn very well in Australia or England as well.
But I agree with you that it would have drawn well in England or Australia.