Heavyweight Boxing History With No Color Line

[djanders]

Inspired by Janitor's question in another thread: Who would have been linear champ who wasn't? If the color line had never been, is it possible there still would have been no increase in the numbers of black linear heavyweight title holders?

[Jorodz]

doubt it. jackson or willis would have taken the title IMO

[Boilermaker]

Inspired by Janitor's question in another thread: Who would have been linear champ who wasn't? If the color line had never been, is it possible there still would have been no increase in the numbers of black linear heavyweight title holders?


Actually, it is very possible.

Peter Jackson is the first with a case. But, he drew (not beat) with Corbett. Even if he were white, he may not have got the shot at Sullivan first, in fact he probably wouldnt have. And against Corbett, he nearly got a rematch anyway but negotiations fell through. This may have happened anyway. Realistically though, i think Peter would have got a chance at Corbett. How he went, there are no guarantees and he easily may have lost.

Next hard done by person is Jack Johnson. Ironically, Jack won the world championship. Without the colour line, he may have fought Jeffries earlier and lost (though he may not have). Alternatively, he may have beat burns still, but not had the victory over Jeffries. Ironically, it was the colour line that actually hurt him the second time round, i think he was a certainty to get a rematch at either Willard or Dempsey, if it wasnt for the colour line.

This leaves McVey and Langford. Having already been beaten by Johnson, they may not have got a second chance. Plus, htey wouldnt have had as many wins against each other which means they also may not have developed into the great fighters that they became. Plus, i think it very believable that Johnson would continue dominance if they met for the title, so you would think that both would be unlikely to get the win.

This leaves Harry wills as the best chance to step up and win the title, but i am not convinced. Old Jack Johnson probably ties up the world title with a Willard rematch and/or a Dempsey Rematch for some time. By the time Wills negotiates, he has the same difficulties that he had regardless of the colour line. There is every chance that he still misses out on that deserved shot. Although more than likely, he probably does get to meet Dempsey at some stage. Does he win? Well it is definitely no better than 50-50.

So, in hindsight, I think that at best Jackson, Langford, McVey and Wills are the only realistic chances of getting a title shot. All 4 are at best 50-50 chances and three of them will have to win title matches against fighters that they have already been defeated by. Even Wills, probably wont have had the millions of chances to beat Sam Langford that he got, so he will not be necessarilly the standout top contender that he seems to be nowadays.

[bodhi]

I don't think Corbett, Willard or Tunney would be champs. Jeffries would reign longer and never have the comeback against Johnson. Johnson's reign would be shorter but better. Langford, McVey, Jeanette and Wills would be all champ at one point. I could see Gunboat Smith beeing champ at a point. Godfrey probably would hold the title in the mid/late 20s.

[Jorodz]

I don't think Corbett, Willard or Tunney would be champs. Jeffries would reign longer and never have the comeback against Johnson. Johnson's reign would be shorter but better. Langford, McVey, Jeanette and Wills would be all champ at one point. I could see Gunboat Smith beeing champ at a point. Godfrey probably would hold the title in the mid/late 20s.

Godfrey i'm not sold on. His power yes but i'm not sure he could've beaten dempsey or tunney

[bodhi]

Godfrey i'm not sold on. His power yes but i'm not sure he could've beaten dempsey or tunney

It may be that he wouldn' have to beat Tunney. Tunney never fought a black fighter in his career. He may not have moved to hw if Godfrey was champ.

I see it like the 1890s beeing ruled by Jackson. The turn of he century by Fitz. The 00s by Jeffries. The late 00s/early 10s by Johnson and then the situation beeing similar like in the early/mid 30s. The title switching hands often between Langford, McVey, Wills and Jeanette and Smith holding it also for a time. Then Dempsey comes around and rules he very late 10s and early/mid 20s. Dempsey would fight more often and this leads to him beeing more faded in the mid 20s when he loses the title to Godfrey who stays champ until he loses it to either Sharkey or Schmeling.

[Jorodz]

It may be that he wouldn' have to beat Tunney. Tunney never fought a black fighter in his career. He may not have moved to hw if Godfrey was champ.

I see it like the 1890s beeing ruled by Jackson. The turn of he century by Fitz. The 00s by Jeffries. The late 00s/early 10s by Johnson and then the situation beeing similar like in the early/mid 30s. The title switching hands often between Langford, McVey, Wills and Jeanette and Smith holding it also for a time. Then Dempsey comes around and rules he very late 10s and early/mid 20s. Dempsey would fight more often and this leads to him beeing more faded in the mid 20s when he loses the title to Godfrey who stays champ until he loses it to either Sharkey or Schmeling.

fair analysis:good i wonder if dempsey's reign would have even lasted that long had he truly fought the best. course if langford, sam mcvey, wills, jeanette and smith would have been worn out from fighting each other than dempsey could have had a relatively smooth reign. Godfrey could take a faded dempsey for sure and any of the previous 5 could have potentially beat dempsey if fighting near their peaks

[Bummy Davis]

If the promoters took the cuffs of Jack Dempsey and let him fight I think he had the style to beat Harry Wills.

As far as Tunney he held his own against some of the better White fighter who competed well against the black fighters of the day. Greb for one.

Sam Langford would have held a title somewhere between 168 and 175lbs

Pre Dempsey Peter jackson would be at the top of the heap somewhere

Dempsey would fair well vs Wills and the lot but would have his share of lumps

[Dempsey1238]

I think Jess Willard would still be champ had he had the fight with Johnson in 1915.

Now I dont think he hold it for 4 years, but I think Johnson would have still fought Jess Willard for easy pickings(As was his intended choice was)

[bodhi]

I think Jess Willard would still be champ had he had the fight with Johnson in 1915.

Now I dont think he hold it for 4 years, but I think Johnson would have still fought Jess Willard for easy pickings(As was his intended choice was)

I don' think Johnson would still be champ in 1915. He would lose his title between 1912-1914to either Langford, McVey or Smith.

[Mendoza]

I don' think Johnson would still be champ in 1915. He would lose his title between 1912-1914to either Langford, McVey or Smith.

Agreed. Johnson would not beat all those guys. Its a shame he locked out the best black heavyweights in Langford, McVey and Jeanette from title fights.

Johnson did fight Gunboat Smith. Smith was too good to be considered a white hope, which is why he never got a title shot despite the fact he defeated Willard and Moran before they got title shots form Johnson.

Johnson meet Smith in a 4 round affair. Smith floored Johnson, and TKO'd him as Johnson manager had to stop the match in the 4th round.

It is likely that Jackson would have been Champion, In fact he was the Birrish Emprie champ, which was no small title.

Thankfully the color line is gone today, and boxing is an international sport. It would be tough to call any of the current non Eastern Euro heavies champion. Without them, Chambers, Haye, Peter, or Arreloa would be the top man.

[TheGreatA]

Peter Jackson beats Sullivan.

Corbett may beat an aging Jackson in the mid 1890's.

Fitzsimmons beats Corbett or Jackson. Jeffries beats Fitzsimmons. Jeffries beats Jack Johnson? Jack Johnson wins the title after Jeffries retires. He fights Langford, McVea, Jeannette. Langford wins title from Johnson? Title changes hands between Langford, McVea, Jeannette, Wills. Langford KO's Wills. Holds title until Fred Fulton beats him decisively. Fulton KO'd in 20 seconds by Dempsey. Dempsey has rivalry with Wills?

It's possible. I don't think Godfrey would have his hands on the title, I believe Sharkey, Tunney and Schmeling were better than him. Tunney was willing to fight Wills but Wills didn't want to fight him.

[janitor]

[quote=Boilermaker;6139793]Actually, it is very possible.


It is theoreticaly possible, but I would suggest highly unlikley.


Peter Jackson is the first with a case. But, he drew (not beat) with Corbett. Even if he were white, he may not have got the shot at Sullivan first, in fact he probably wouldnt have. And against Corbett, he nearly got a rematch anyway but negotiations fell through. This may have happened anyway. Realistically though, i think Peter would have got a chance at Corbett. How he went, there are no guarantees and he easily may have lost.


Jackson hit his prime significantly before Corbett and was touted as the top contender significantly before Corbett.

Sullivan haqd been a shadow of his former self since his fight with Patsy Cardiff where he shattered his arm and later had it re-broken.

Given the timeline here, I have to assume that Jackson was the best fighter on the planet for a few years.

Next hard done by person is Jack Johnson.

Not quite.

I think that Denver Ed Martin deserved a title shot even if it would have been a falorn hope.

Ironically, Jack won the world championship. Without the colour line, he may have fought Jeffries earlier and lost (though he may not have). Alternatively, he may have beat burns still, but not had the victory over Jeffries.

Regardless of how a Jeffries Johnson fight would have turned out, the black dynamite crew were always going to outlast Jeffries, and more than one of them might have been champion.

I cannot se anybody between Jeffries and Willard fighting them all off.


Ironically, it was the colour line that actually hurt him the second time round, i think he was a certainty to get a rematch at either Willard or Dempsey, if it wasnt for the colour line.



I would have to regard him as a serious threat to Willard in a rematch, but I don't know if Willard would even have been champion wif Johnson had fought the black dynamite crew.


This leaves McVey and Langford. Having already been beaten by Johnson, they may not have got a second chance. Plus, htey wouldnt have had as many wins against each other which means they also may not have developed into the great fighters that they became. Plus, i think it very believable that Johnson would continue dominance if they met for the title, so you would think that both would be unlikely to get the win.


Johnson declined significantly after the Jeffries fight, and he was always going to be forced into a rematch with the black dynamite crew in a meritocratic division.

Also bear in mind that Harry Wills was a challenger inside his canonological title reign.

This leaves Harry wills as the best chance to step up and win the title, but i am not convinced. Old Jack Johnson probably ties up the world title with a Willard rematch and/or a Dempsey Rematch for some time.

Johnsons post Willard title aspirations largley depended on him fighgting Wills. Even if we assume that Willard had taken the title from him (highly unlikley), Johnson would have had to beat Wills to get a rematch.

Perhaps a much more likley scenario is that Wills would have got to Johnson before Willard.

Why would you even give Willard a title shot if you were not specificaly looking for a white challenger?


By the time Wills negotiates, he has the same difficulties that he had regardless of the colour line. There is every chance that he still misses out on that deserved shot. Although more than likely, he probably does get to meet Dempsey at some stage. Does he win? Well it is definitely no better than 50-50.


I think that a much more likley scenario than Wills challenging Dempsey, is Wills being the incumbant who Dempsey had to challenge for the title.

It would be interesting to see how eager Wills would have been to defend his title against Dempsey if the boot was on the other foot.

So, in hindsight, I think that at best Jackson, Langford, McVey and Wills are the only realistic chances of getting a title shot.

Not necesarily.

If the black dynamite crew started swaping the title between them then Jeanette, and even sombody like Big Bill Tate or Battling Jim Johnson could have ended up in the mix at some point.

I could also see a situation where George Godfrey stepped into the post Dempsey void.


All 4 are at best 50-50 chances and three of them will have to win title matches against fighters that they have already been defeated by. Even Wills, probably wont have had the millions of chances to beat Sam Langford that he got, so he will not be necessarilly the standout top contender that he seems to be nowadays.


I don't think you are alowing for quite how completely the timeline is going to break down here.

[bodhi]

Agreed. Johnson would not beat all those guys. Its a shame he locked out the best black heavyweights in Langford, McVey and Jeanette from title fights.

Johnson did fight Gunboat Smith. Smith was too good to be considered a white hope, which is why he never got a title shot despite the fact he defeated Willard and Moran before they got title shots form Johnson.

Johnson meet Smith in a 4 round affair. Smith floored Johnson, and TKO'd him as Johnson manager had to stop the match in the 4th round.

It is likely that Jackson would have been Champion, In fact he was the Birrish Emprie champ, which was no small title.

Thankfully the color line is gone today, and boxing is an international sport. It would be tough to call any of the current non Eastern Euro heavies champion. Without them, Chambers, Haye, Peter, or Arreloa would be the top man.

I think Smith was about as good as Jeanette and nearly on the level McVey, Langford and Wills had. He is ofen overlooked due to him beeing a white man who never got a title shot and not a black one who didn't get one due to the colour line.

[flamengo]

Perhaps change the thread name to "Heavyweight Boxing History with No Lame American Title Control"

[Mendoza]

I think Smith was about as good as Jeanette and nearly on the level Covey, Langford and Wills had. He is of en overlooked due to him being a white man who never got a title shot and not a black one who didn't get one due to the color line.


Correct. Smith no a white Hope. He was a top #1 or #2 contender while Johnson was champion. Supposedly Luther McCarthy had very good ability, but died in the ring. Not sure if Johnson would have picked McCarthy for a title shot if he was that much better than say Fireman Flynn, Frank Moran, or Jess Willard.

[anarci]

I don't think Corbett, Willard or Tunney would be champs. Jeffries would reign longer and never have the comeback against Johnson. Johnson's reign would be shorter but better. Langford, McVey, Jeanette and Wills would be all champ at one point. I could see Gunboat Smith beeing champ at a point. Godfrey probably would hold the title in the mid/late 20s.
Why Gunboat Smith:huh:huh He wouldnt have beat Johnson no way.

[bodhi]

Why Gunboat Smith:huh:huh He wouldnt have beat Johnson no way.

Because he was on the same level as Jeanette. He got he beter of Johnson in a four round bout. Beat Langford, Moran, Willard. He is up there with Langford, McVey, Jeanette, Wills. At his best he would be good enough to beat any of them and win the title. Even so he would lose it the next fight or the fight after the next.

[mcvey]

Agreed. Johnson would not beat all those guys. Its a shame he locked out the best black heavyweights in Langford, McVey and Jeanette from title fights.

Johnson did fight Gunboat Smith. tSmith was too good to be considered a white hope, which is why he never got a title shot despite the fact he defeated Willard and Moran before they got title shots form Johnson.

Johnson meet Smith in a 4 round affair. Smith floored Johnson, and TKO'd him as Johnson manager had to stop the match in the 4th round.

It is likely that Jackson would have been Champion, In fact he was the Birrish Emprie champ, which was no small title.

Thankfully the color line is gone today, and boxing is an international sport. It would be tough to call any of the current non Eastern Euro heavies champion. Without them, Chambers, Haye, Peter, or Arreloa would be the top man.


This was an exhibition during Johnson's training to fight Ketchel NOT A FIGHT .AD NAUSEUM.

Smith was indeed a White Hope ,and was briefly considered the best of them from the end of 1912 to1914 he had a good run ,which came to an end when he fouled out to Carpentier ,he then lost to Levinsky and was kod by Langford .Smith himself said after the ko loss to Langford, he went down hill fast.
Smiths peak coincided with Johnson's exile to Europe.
Anyone on here think Smith beats Johnson?

[bodhi]

This was an exhibition during Johnson's training to fight Ketchel NOT A FIGHT .AD NAUSEUM.

Smith was indeed a White Hope ,and was briefly considered teh ebst of them from the end of 1912 to1914 he had a good run ,which came to an end when he fouled out to Carpentier ,he then lost to Levinsky and was kod by Langford .Smith himself said after the ko loss to Langford, he went down hill fast.
Smiths peak coincided with Johnson's exile to Europe.
Anyone on here think Smith beats Johnson?

No but I never said Smith would win the title of Johnson. ;)

[mcvey]

Because he was on the same level as Jeanette. He got he beter of Johnson in a four round bout. Beat Langford, Moran, Willard. He is up there with Langford, McVey, Jeanette, Wills. At his best he would be good enough to beat any of them and win the title. Even so he would lose it the next fight or the fight after the next.

I dont think Smith was as good as Jeanette,and dont think he would beat any of the black guys mentioned,His win over Langford was VERY debatable ,Langford kod him in 3rds a while later.
Smith could not beat 172 lbs Levinsky, or 170lbs Carpentier.and was shellacked by Jack Dillon.
Smith sparred with Johnson for Johnson's fight with Ketchel it was NOT a fight
Toxie Hall dropped Marciano.Greg Page dropped Tyson , would they be considered competitive with them in a real fight.?

[mcvey]

No but I never said Smith would win the title of Johnson. ;)
My reply to you is lower down.

[flamengo]

Global Transport Challenge??

[anarci]

Because he was on the same level as Jeanette. He got he beter of Johnson in a four round bout. Beat Langford, Moran, Willard. He is up there with Langford, McVey, Jeanette, Wills. At his best he would be good enough to beat any of them and win the title. Even so he would lose it the next fight or the fight after the next. The win he did get over Langford was controversial and he was kod in the rematch, he did have some good wins though but he also lost to alot of the good fighters too. His one fight with Willis he was blown out, He never fought Jack johnson i think you are cofusing him with Dempsey and he was kod fast in the rematch.

A good win was over Godfrey, but i also know that many of Godfreys losses were under suspicious circumstances.

[bodhi]

My reply to you is lower down.

We have to differ there than. I think Smith was on that level.

[bodhi]

The win he did get over Langford was controversial and he was kod in the rematch, he did have some good wins though but he also lost to alot of the good fighters too. His one fight with Willis he was blown out, He never fought Jack johnson i think you are cofusing him with Dempsey and he was kod fast in the rematch.

A good win was over Godfrey, but i also know that many of Godfreys losses were under suspicious circumstances.

True he lost some fights to good fighters but so did Jeanette, McVey, Langford and Wills.

[Unforgiven]

Dempsey would fight more often and this leads to him beeing more faded in the mid 20s when he loses the title to Godfrey who stays champ until he loses it to either Sharkey or Schmeling.

I dont necessarily agree with this.
I think Dempsey's inactivity was arguably the cause of his decline. If Dempsey had fought more often and trained accordingly he might well have lasted a few years longer.

[he grant]

Jackson should have had a shot in the late 1880's v.s. Sullivan and would likely have beaten John L. at that point, depending on the rules. He did not get to fight Corbett until he was already thirty. If Jackson won the title he would have dictated terms and not allowed a finish fight with the safety first Corbett. He also cold have delayed the bout when he fell from his horse and injured his leg, insuring he took the bout at 100 % .... I believe under these circumstances neither Corbett or Fitz beccome champ and an older , far more active Jackson loses eventually to a Jefferies in a much more brutal fight.

Johnson takes the title in an upset over Jeffries by decision in 06 and this eliminates Hart and Burns. Johnson fights Hart in a rematch and cuts him to ribbons and wins in a lopsied fashion.

Everyone talks about Dempsey ducking Wills but Willard did as well, in Wills prime. Wills would have succeed Johnson setting up a superfight with Dempsey while both were in their primes. Who wins that one I have no idea. Either way a prime Tunney comes in in 1926 and wins the title by decision over either man ....

[flamengo]

Jackson should have had a shot in the late 1880's v.s. Sullivan and would likely have beaten John L. at that point, depending on the rules. He did not get to fight Corbett until he was already thirty. If Jackson won the title he would have dictated terms and not allowed a finish fight with the safety first Corbett. He also cold have delayed the bout when he fell from his horse and injured his leg, insuring he took the bout at 100 % .... I believe under these circumstances neither Corbett or Fitz beccome champ and Jackson loses eventually to Jefferies in a much more brutal fight.

Johnson takes the title after Jeffris retirement and this eliminates Hart and Burns. Johnson fights Hart in a rematch and cuts him to ribbons and wins in a lopsied fashion.

Everyone talks about Dempsey ducking Wills but Willard did as well, in Wills prime. Wills would have succeed Johnson setting up a superfight with Dempsey while both were in their primes. Who wins that one I have no idea. Either way a prime Tunney comes in in 26 and wins the title by decision ....

Mate... I love your work. I see one problem, Jackson would have returned to Oz. His respects to Larry Foley would have seen a deserved Aussie fighter get a shot. After that, the Americans would make up another H/W title.. The Great American Hope.

[bodhi]

I dont necessarily agree with this.
I think Dempsey's inactivity was arguably the cause of his decline. If Dempsey had fought more often and trained accordingly he might well have lasted a few years longer.

Could very well be the case :good

[Unforgiven]

Something we should consider about this alternative history scenario is that some of those awesome black heavyweight contenders who were denied their chances at the championship may not have remained as awesome (ie. hungry) for as long had they won the big prize !

Peter Jackson might have beaten John L. but who's to say he wouldn't have eaten and drank himself fat and out of shape with the title just as John L. did ? Then enter a hungry young Corbett.

Harry Wills had great longevity and good activity when he was fighting with that hope of landing the title shot for close to 10 years, but had he won the title before Dempsey he might have lasted only a fight or two longer as the force we think of him as now. And an out-of-shape or contented Wills may not have possessed enough "eye of the tiger" to block a hungry Dempsey's drive to the title any more than Willard did in 1919 reality.

[flamengo]

Something we should consider about this alternative history scenario is that some of those awesome black heavyweight contenders who were denied their chances at the championship may not have remained as awesome (ie. hungry) for as long had they won the big prize !

Peter Jackson might have beaten John L. but who's to say he wouldn't have eaten and drank himself fat and out of shape with the title just as John L. did ? Then enter a hungry young Corbett.

Harry Wills had great longevity and good activity when he was fighting with that hope of landing the title shot for close to 10 years, but had he won the title before Dempsey he might have lasted only a fight or two longer as the force we think of him as now. And an out-of-shape or contented Wills may not have possessed enough "eye of the tiger" to block a hungry Dempsey's drive to the title any more than Willard did in 1919 reality.

One big difference mate.. Jackson was NOT egosentric, full of bullshit and bravado, surrounded by money hungry monopolising wankers, acknowledged by pro-self newspapers as being a Champ or unwilling to fight legitimate fighters. Nor was he a fkn piss pot.

[Unforgiven]

One big difference mate.. Jackson was NOT egosentric, full of bullshit and bravado, surrounded by money hungry monopolising wankers, acknowledged by pro-self newspapers as being a Champ or unwilling to fight legitimate fighters. Nor was he a fkn piss pot.

I dont know enough about Jackson to comment.

But I dont think any of us are completely immune from the danger of falling to the vices and pitfalls that would accompany success. I think the greek word for it is Hubris.

[flamengo]

I dont know enough about Jackson to comment.

But I dont think any of us are completely immune from the danger of falling to the vices and pitfalls that would accompany success. I think the greek word for it is Hubris.



I think the standard word is HUMAN. :good

[Boilermaker]

It is theoreticaly possible, but I would suggest highly unlikley.



Jackson hit his prime significantly before Corbett and was touted as the top contender significantly before Corbett.



Sullivan haqd been a shadow of his former self since his fight with Patsy Cardiff where he shattered his arm and later had it re-broken.

Given the timeline here, I have to assume that Jackson was the best fighter on the planet for a few years.



I dont think it is quite as certain as you suggest. I can accept that Sullivan declined after the Cardiff fight, but regardless of the colour line, he is still fighting Mitchell and Kilrain, so Jackson doesnt get his shot here. Ironically, the original George Godfrey who was the best coloured fighter in the world (probably) at the time almost did! And would have if it wasnt for the police!

This means that Jackson does not get a shot before 1889, when Sullivan pretty much is semi retired, concentrating on his plays and is ripe for the picking. I dont know how early you say that Jackson peaked, but i cant see any reasonable time frame for him to challenge prior to him winning the Australian title in 1886 from Tom Lees (who had just beaten the man that knocked Jackson out twice!). It wasnt really until 87-88 that he would have started to become thought of as a John L opponent, and I dont see him getting a shot befor Mitchell or kilrain, so it leaves us with him hoping to catch John L during John Ls virtual retirement years or at least out manoevring Corbett for the shot. All this is unlikely.

At this time, Corbett stakes a claim as leading challenger over Jackson, by beating Kilrain in a 6 round fight. and followed it up with a win over Dominic McCaffrey.

Jackson, though, himself was starting to hit top form and erase his KO by Bill Farnan. He defeated former Sullivan challenger Patsy Cardiff. A huge win, but Patsy himself was getting on a bit and had lost his previous fight. His win over Godfrey, definitely had him ranked right up there. The problem is that in 1890, Jackson drew with Goddard after being knocked down early on. A great fight, but it must have dropped him down the pecking order.

AT this point in time, all things being equal, Goddard probably had as good a claim as either of them to meet Sullivan. Especially when both fighters fought the draw with each other. We easily could have seen Sullivan select Goddard as challenger because his record was as good as both Jackson and Corbett's. IN fact, he was probably (on paper) the best fighter in the world until he was stopped by Smith.

No matter which way you look at it, Peter Jackso's failure to reach John L first had very little to do with the colour line.

I will say though, that when Corbett did beat Sullivan, without the colour line, Jackson would have got his chance against Corbett. I am not sure if he is the sure fire bet. He did start to decline, and it is often forgotten that he didnt beat Corbett first time up.



Not quite.

I think that Denver Ed Martin deserved a title shot even if it would have been a falorn hope.


Fair point, but i think it is unlikely. Denver was kod by Jeffries victims and also by Johnson. There are also unconfirmed rumours taht he fought and lost to Jeffries also. I think that Childs or Armstrong might be better chances.



Regardless of how a Jeffries Johnson fight would have turned out, the black dynamite crew were always going to outlast Jeffries, and more than one of them might have been champion.


That is true, but Johnson was the best of them, and once he gets the title, they are in trouble because he has already beaten all of them! It is likely that they may not have met as early and thus they would have been more marketable having not lost to Johnson, but Johnson did it once, i think it likely that he beats them all again. I think he was the best of the black dynamite crew and he doesnt lose until a huge oaf comes along. Sure, it could have been Harry wills instead of Willard, But i doubt it. And without the colour line controversy, does Willard defend against Wills or does he rematch Johnson. Actually, is it even guaranteed (like most on here assume) that Wills would have beaten Willard. I get the feeling that Willard might just outlast him.


I cannot se anybody between Jeffries and Willard fighting them all off.

But Johnson already did it once, why couldnt he do it again?




I would have to regard him as a serious threat to Willard in a rematch, but I don't know if Willard would even have been champion wif Johnson had fought the black dynamite crew.



Johnson declined significantly after the Jeffries fight, and he was always going to be forced into a rematch with the black dynamite crew in a meritocratic division.

Also bear in mind that Harry Wills was a challenger inside his canonological title reign.



Well i guess the main difference is how we view Johnson. I believe a champion is a champion, and he without the colour line, he would have missed his Jeffries definer but would have compensated by asserting himself as the No 1 in the world and this would have been done the same way he asserted himself as the coloured champion, but spaced out over a much longer time frame to keep him sharp and focussed.

I acknowledge that Age does catch him some time, and Harry is the most likely benefactor here, but it is far from certain. If Old Langford KOs Harry, why wouldnt old Johnson?


Johnsons post Willard title aspirations largley depended on him fighgting Wills. Even if we assume that Willard had taken the title from him (highly unlikley), Johnson would have had to beat Wills to get a rematch.

Why?

A long reigning champion rarely needs to beat someone to get a title shot rematch, particularly if the lost title is a close fight.



Perhaps a much more likley scenario is that Wills would have got to Johnson before Willard.

Possible, but definitely not guaranteed.



Why would you even give Willard a title shot if you were not specificaly looking for a white challenger?



I can see why. The guy was huge and very marketable. statistically (height weight and strength) he is far more impressive than Wills and arguably more marketable. If you run out of challengers (black or white) Willard is always going to be a good sell, because of his sheer size.

I think that a much more likley scenario than Wills challenging Dempsey, is Wills being the incumbant who Dempsey had to challenge for the title.

It would be interesting to see how eager Wills would have been to defend his title against Dempsey if the boot was on the other foot.


To be honest, i dont think he would have been too worried, he was bigger, and i think that it was the Willard win (despite his good record) that really gave Dempsey the killer image. I wonder how highly Dempsey would have rated without the Willard fight and if he had won the title from Wills on points instead.


Not necesarily.

If the black dynamite crew started swaping the title between them then Jeanette, and even sombody like Big Bill Tate or Battling Jim Johnson could have ended up in the mix at some point.


Without the colour line, the incumbent champion still makes more money from appearances than fighting. Neither Langford, Wills or Mc vey will defend much more than what Johnson, Jeffries and everyone else defended. There will be no musical chairs (too much) with the world title. An upset like you mentioned is possible but not likely.


I could also see a situation where George Godfrey stepped into the post Dempsey void.



Possible, but wasnt Godfrey's problems morel like mob connections than with his colour.


I don't think you are alowing for quite how completely the timeline is going to break down here.

I think that you are assuming that the black dynamite fight each other over and over without the colour line. i dont think it happens. I also think you underate just how good Johnson was even when he got older.

[Unforgiven]

I think the standard word is HUMAN. :good

Good call. :lol:

[mcvey]

The win he did get over Langford was controversial and he was kod in the rematch, he did have some good wins though but he also lost to alot of the good fighters too. His one fight with Willis he was blown out, He never fought Jack johnson i think you are cofusing him with Dempsey and he was kod fast in the rematch.

A good win was over Godfrey, but i also know that many of Godfreys losses were under suspicious circumstances.

That is not THE GEORGE GODFREY, just a 2 fight guy.

[mcvey]

True he lost some fights to good fighters but so did Jeanette, McVey, Langford and Wills.

None of those had records consisting of 92 fights, 53 wins, and 28 losses ,being kod 12 times.

[janitor]

[quote=Boilermaker;6142881]
I dont think it is quite as certain as you suggest. I can accept that Sullivan declined after the Cardiff fight, but regardless of the colour line, he is still fighting Mitchell and Kilrain, so Jackson doesnt get his shot here. Ironically, the original George Godfrey who was the best coloured fighter in the world (probably) at the time almost did! And would have if it wasnt for the police!



I would submit that Jackson had a stronger claim for a title fight than Charlie Mitchell in 1888, and at least an equal claim to Jake Killrain in 1889.

This means that Jackson does not get a shot before 1889, when Sullivan pretty much is semi retired, concentrating on his plays and is ripe for the picking.

Inactivity is not an excuse, and frankly the presence of a key challenger like Jackson would probably of itself have been enough to bring Sullivan out of retirment, as the Corbett fight did.

Sullivan was basicaly waiting for a big money challenger and his preffered option was Frank Slavin.

At this time, Corbett stakes a claim as leading challenger over Jackson, by beating Kilrain in a 6 round fight. and followed it up with a win over Dominic McCaffrey.

Jackson, though, himself was starting to hit top form and erase his KO by Bill Farnan. He defeated former Sullivan challenger Patsy Cardiff. A huge win, but Patsy himself was getting on a bit and had lost his previous fight. His win over Godfrey, definitely had him ranked right up there. The problem is that in 1890, Jackson drew with Goddard after being knocked down early on. A great fight, but it must have dropped him down the pecking order.


Jackson came back from the Corbett draw with a win over Frank Slavin, who many had thought to be the best of the three fighters and who had been Sullivans first choice of the three for a title opponent.

I say no colour bar and Jackson gets the title shot over Corbett here.


AT this point in time, all things being equal, Goddard probably had as good a claim as either of them to meet Sullivan. Especially when both fighters fought the draw with each other. We easily could have seen Sullivan select Goddard as challenger because his record was as good as both Jackson and Corbett's. IN fact, he was probably (on paper) the best fighter in the world until he was stopped by Smith.


Goddard was seen as a top challenger but not quite one of the top three.

Jackson, Corbett and Slavin were seen as being on a more or less equal footing before Jackson beat Slavin.

After that Jackson was the boy, if by a narrow margin.


No matter which way you look at it, Peter Jackso's failure to reach John L first had very little to do with the colour line.


I had everything to do with the colour line and Sullivan publicaly said so.


I will say though, that when Corbett did beat Sullivan, without the colour line, Jackson would have got his chance against Corbett. I am not sure if he is the sure fire bet. He did start to decline, and it is often forgotten that he didnt beat Corbett first time up.


I think that Corbett was lucky to get the draw against an injured Jackson when they fought to a draw.

I also know that time was not on Jackson's side thereafter.


Well i guess the main difference is how we view Johnson. I believe a champion is a champion, and he without the colour line, he would have missed his Jeffries definer but would have compensated by asserting himself as the No 1 in the world and this would have been done the same way he asserted himself as the coloured champion, but spaced out over a much longer time frame to keep him sharp and focussed.


I think that Johnson went into a sharp decline after the Jeffries fight and I also think that his riotous living started to take its toll as soon as he won the title.

I would be prepared to put good money down that he would always have declined faster than his black dyanamite challengers, and even if he didn't he would likley have got unlucky against sombody.


I acknowledge that Age does catch him some time, and Harry is the most likely benefactor here, but it is far from certain. If Old Langford KOs Harry, why wouldnt old Johnson?


Johnson was never the finisher that Langford was.



Why?

A long reigning champion rarely needs to beat someone to get a title shot rematch, particularly if the lost title is a close fight.


After Johnson got out of prison he tried to set up a fight with Wills to establish himself as the No1 challenger.

The contracts were signed but the fight was not alowed, like the Dempsey Wills fight.


I can see why. The guy was huge and very marketable. statistically (height weight and strength) he is far more impressive than Wills and arguably more marketable. If you run out of challengers (black or white) Willard is always going to be a good sell, because of his sheer size.


Willard was not even a particularly well known fighter when he fought Johnson.

He was a bit of an ace up Jack Curleys sleeve.

Without a white hope campaign, he would certainly not have been seen as the outstanding challenger.

He owed his title shot in large part to political machinachions.


To be honest, i dont think he would have been too worried, he was bigger, and i think that it was the Willard win (despite his good record) that really gave Dempsey the killer image. I wonder how highly Dempsey would have rated without the Willard fight and if he had won the title from Wills on points instead.


I suspect that the Fulton fight might have given Wills pause for thought.


Without the colour line, the incumbent champion still makes more money from appearances than fighting. Neither Langford, Wills or Mc vey will defend much more than what Johnson, Jeffries and everyone else defended. There will be no musical chairs (too much) with the world title. An upset like you mentioned is possible but not likely.


It is perhaps more likley in the scenario that you outline, because these guys are not training, and looking for a credible but second teir challenger.


Possible, but wasnt Godfrey's problems morel like mob connections than with his colour.


Without the colour bar Godfrey might have had a good manager who wanted to bring him allong as a potential challenger.

That would have been a fine thing.


I think that you are assuming that the black dynamite fight each other over and over without the colour line. i dont think it happens. I also think you underate just how good Johnson was even when he got older.


I must repeat that Johnson declined verry fast after the Jeffries fight.

One last point.

If you throw a stone into the pond then the ripples get bigger as they move further out.

The butterfly effect works in boxing as much as anything else.

If John L Sullivan had lost the title to Peter Jackson then there might be discernible effects on the heavyweight division today.

I dont think that the current lineage would have re-aserted itself as soon as Jeffries became champion.

[choklab]

Its a pity the title wasnt goverend by any real rules in the early days. sulivan, johnson, willard and dempsey even braddock were all inactive by moderen standards.
However i dont think it automatic wills and co get there. in hindsight all we can say they were outstanding contenders who deserved a shot. its a fact that a lot of guys did a lot less than jackson, langford wills, jeanete and godfry to get a title shot (and lost) but it dosnt mean these dudes were cant miss champions. not by a long way.
I go so far as to say all the champs deserved the title. To say anyone else would take thier title is to say dempsey, sharkey, tunney and jack johnson did not deserve to be champions.

[janitor]

[QUOTE][quote=choklab;6145851]
However i dont think it automatic wills and co get there. in hindsight all we can say they were outstanding contenders who deserved a shot. its a fact that a lot of guys did a lot less than jackson, langford wills, jeanete and godfry to get a title shot (and lost) but it dosnt mean these dudes were cant miss champions. not by a long way.


I would challenge you to find any fighter who did more than Sam Langford to get a title shot then lost, or any two in combination.

Jackson and Wills would be prety hard sells also.

I go so far as to say all the champs deserved the title. To say anyone else would take thier title is to say dempsey, sharkey, tunney and jack johnson did not deserve to be champions.

They were champions.

I would even go as far as to say that they all deserved their titles.

That does not mean that they would be the betting favourite against any contender who the colour bar was drawn against.

A champion can be an underdog.

[Boilermaker]

I would submit that Jackson had a stronger claim for a title fight than Charlie Mitchell in 1888, and at least an equal claim to Jake Killrain in 1889.

Let us not forget also, that charlie mitchell used those take a knee tactics, Jackson wont do this, if he loses he does so with honour. And the Kilrain fight was still a good effort from John L. A Peter Jackson fight here would have definitely been one for the ages, but John L shouldnt be totally discounted here.


Well this is not too far fetched, but Mitchell, in his draw was the British champion (from memory) so it is clear why he got his shot. And the Police Gazette had Kilrain recognised as their champion of LPR fights. Regardless of race, these two fights are going to be taken (although it might have been interesting if the Gazette had recognised Jackson instead of Kilrain).

I suppose that as the Australian champion, Jackson was technically the next in line and the only thing between John L and unification, although John L seemed to have a disdain from fighting Australian's. With Jackson not the only fighter who failed to get a title shot, despite being white. In all honesty, there is a strong argument that in spite of the Colour Line, Peter Jackson actually was a World champion, and the Marquess of Queensbury was not really unified until Jeffries beat Jackson and then Fitzsimmons, or possibly when Fitzsimmons (who by this time was Australia's best fighter) defeated Corbett.


Inactivity is not an excuse, and frankly the presence of a key challenger like Jackson would probably of itself have been enough to bring Sullivan out of retirment, as the Corbett fight did.


I am not saying it is an excuse, but it is a fact and it has nothing to do with the colour line. John L dictated when he defended, not the challengers. I think he has to choose between Jackson and Corbett, as simple as that. Maybe he chooses Jackson, but maybe he doesnt. We know Corbett's team could arrange the negotiations but could Jackson's? With two equal challengers, Corbett was the safer bet to land the fight.




Sullivan was basicaly waiting for a big money challenger and his preffered option was Frank Slavin.




Jackson came back from the Corbett draw with a win over Frank Slavin, who many had thought to be the best of the three fighters and who had been Sullivans first choice of the three for a title opponent.

I say no colour bar and Jackson gets the title shot over Corbett here.



Goddard was seen as a top challenger but not quite one of the top three.

Jackson, Corbett and Slavin were seen as being on a more or less equal footing before Jackson beat Slavin.

After that Jackson was the boy, if by a narrow margin.



You say yourself it is a narrow margin. When this happens it comes down to the team that does the negotiating. In modern times, Ruiz got title shots galore whereas Tua (for example) struggled to get one. This situation has nothing to do with the colour bar, and Jackson is anywhere from a certainty.



I had everything to do with the colour line and Sullivan publicaly said so.


Well Jackson is quoted as saying he had no qualms with Sullivan not fighting him, his problem was with Corbett ducking him. I agree with him. If Jackson gets his chance, it is against Corbett. I think he beats corbett, but it is no easy fight and definitely no guarantee, he has to do what he couldnt do the first time.



I think that Corbett was lucky to get the draw against an injured Jackson when they fought to a draw.

I also know that time was not on Jackson's side thereafter.



Corbett hid behind the colour line, but dont forget also, that he did try to schedule a fight and it fell through, Corbett was a smart guy, dont be surprised if the rematch still fell through, at least until Jackson had declined enough to struggle.


I think that Johnson went into a sharp decline after the Jeffries fight and I also think that his riotous living started to take its toll as soon as he won the title.

Without the colour line, Johnson doesnt get the Jeffries fight. He therefore doesnt peek then, as he needs to establish himself. I also point out that since he had already beaten all the black dynamite, it is likely that Jim Johnson is the one still that gets the shot at Johnson and Jim Loses. Wills is the best chance and he is timed for a win, but it took him a while to master Langford, I think that it would take him a while to master Johnson also (he would probably be thrown to the wolves too early as Johnson looks for opponent) so you would expect Johnson to be every chance at winning. I expect McVey, Langford and Jeanette would have still fought each other with the winner earning a shot at Johnson. Again, Johnson would be up for this fight, and there are no guarantees that the winner beats Johnson. They couldnt do it before, so why now?


I would be prepared to put good money down that he would always have declined faster than his black dyanamite challengers, and even if he didn't he would likley have got unlucky against sombody.


And once again, you are basing this on what you think would happen, and not what actually happened. Johnson declined in relation to his Jeffries form, but he also lost one match in about 20 years. How many matches did each of the other fighters lose in the same period?


Johnson was never the finisher that Langford was.

One punch finisher, true, but Langford wasnt the defensive master and ring controller that Johnson was.



After Johnson got out of prison he tried to set up a fight with Wills to establish himself as the No1 challenger.

The contracts were signed but the fight was not alowed, like the Dempsey Wills fight.

It would have been a great fight. It certainly sounds like Johnson, even then was confident he could beat Wills. My money (smart or not) is on the old Johnson.


Willard was not even a particularly well known fighter when he fought Johnson.

He was a bit of an ace up Jack Curleys sleeve.

Without a white hope campaign, he would certainly not have been seen as the outstanding challenger.

He owed his title shot in large part to political machinachions.


True, but he is always going to be an ace up sleeve situation. A big strong man is always a chance at a title shot, it is easy to sell. If Johnson had beaten (in title runs) - Jim Johnson, the winner of the Langford, McVey, Jeanette box off, Maybe a Jim flynn or someone similar and a raw Harry Wills, there is every chance that Willard would get a shot against Johnson. Because, he was as you say, the ace up Jack Curleys sleeve.


I suspect that the Fulton fight might have given Wills pause for thought.

You are probably right, but he still wouldnt have garnered the same popularity as he had now. Most people, willard included, thought willard was going to beat Dempsey.


It is perhaps more likley in the scenario that you outline, because these guys are not training, and looking for a credible but second teir challenger.



Without the colour bar Godfrey might have had a good manager who wanted to bring him allong as a potential challenger.

That would have been a fine thing.

I agree. I do get the feeling that he was a lot better than most people realised. It is just that i dont know whether his problems had more to do with corruption than the colour line.


I must repeat that Johnson declined verry fast after the Jeffries fight.

One last point.

If you throw a stone into the pond then the ripples get bigger as they move further out.

The butterfly effect works in boxing as much as anything else.

If John L Sullivan had lost the title to Peter Jackson then there might be discernible effects on the heavyweight division today.

I dont think that the current lineage would have re-aserted itself as soon as Jeffries became champion.

That ripple effect is interesting, but i disagree, i think it all comes back to lineage eventually. I have a thread around here which traces the lineage of every dodgy title in existence when Lennox Lewis retired. 90 per cent of them have found their way back to Wlad and Vitali. This is what would have happened if little ripples had occurred. It Happened with pretty much every ripple in history.

And one more point, the colour line technically started with John L and finished with Tommy Burns. Jackson has a brief chance to break it, and so does a couple of others in Jeffries reign but none would be any better than 50/50 chances. For the record, i would cheer for and think Jackson would be good enough, but it is a pick em fight against either John L or Corbett and he doesnt get both chances.

[Boilermaker]

Its a pity the title wasnt goverend by any real rules in the early days. sulivan, johnson, willard and dempsey even braddock were all inactive by moderen standards.
However i dont think it automatic wills and co get there. in hindsight all we can say they were outstanding contenders who deserved a shot. its a fact that a lot of guys did a lot less than jackson, langford wills, jeanete and godfry to get a title shot (and lost) but it dosnt mean these dudes were cant miss champions. not by a long way.
I go so far as to say all the champs deserved the title. To say anyone else would take thier title is to say dempsey, sharkey, tunney and jack johnson did not deserve to be champions.
I actually prefer the inactive Champion. The biggest difference was that the challengers were not inactive and they fought off to earn their right at the title (at least far more than today). With an active champion, challengers dont take risky fights because they know they will get their shot if they bide their time and dont lose (against mediocre opponents). If they only get one shot a year, they need to take risks and fight good opponents to make themselves clearly the best option for the champion to take from a money perspective.

[choklab]

[quote]
[quote]





They were champions.

I would even go as far as to say that they all deserved their titles.

That does not mean that they would be the betting favourite against any contender who the colour bar was drawn against.

A champion can be an underdog.

I realise champions can be underdogs -braddock v louis, wallcot (agaist marciano), holmes (against cooney) johnson against jeffries etc.
I accept that wills, godfry and co would represent 50-50 fights against any champion, im just not certain the fans of the day would actualy have sulivan, jefries, dempsey, tunney as underdogs. rightly or wrongly they were seen as unbeatable gods of the day. I would like to know if any champions during a colour bar were EVER underdogs as defending champions?

[Boilermaker]

[quote]
[quote]

I would challenge you to find any fighter who did more than Sam Langford to get a title shot then lost, or any two in combination.

Jackson and Wills would be prety hard sells also.



That is a bit unfair. Some would say it impossible to find someone who did more than Lanford, period. But if having a shot at it, what about Cassius Clay? Or Sugar Ray Robinson when he went for light heavyweight title?


They were champions.

I would even go as far as to say that they all deserved their titles.

That does not mean that they would be the betting favourite against any contender who the colour bar was drawn against.

A champion can be an underdog.


I agree. I just think That neither Johnson or Dempsey would be underdogs. I think that you will find that plenty and maybe even the majority of other world champions might be a different story.

[choklab]

I actually prefer the inactive Champion. The biggest difference was that the challengers were not inactive and they fought off to earn their right at the title (at least far more than today). With an active champion, challengers dont take risky fights because they know they will get their shot if they bide their time and dont lose (against mediocre opponents). If they only get one shot a year, they need to take risks and fight good opponents to make themselves clearly the best option for the champion to take from a money perspective.


very good point. :happy Today a champion/ belt holder defends against untested guys who make a top ten for having one more win than the #11 rated fighter. its not like all "contenders" beat a rated contender to make a list anymore. I dont blame todays fighters its the system. But old champions taking years out was silly.

[Dempsey1238]

I actually prefer the inactive Champion. The biggest difference was that the challengers were not inactive and they fought off to earn their right at the title (at least far more than today). With an active champion, challengers dont take risky fights because they know they will get their shot if they bide their time and dont lose (against mediocre opponents). If they only get one shot a year, they need to take risks and fight good opponents to make themselves clearly the best option for the champion to take from a money perspective.

Sounds good in theory, but what happens if Champions takes YEARS off.

Sullivan took about 2 years after the Kilrain fight, Dempsey took about 5 years off of his 7 year rein. Corbett in his title rein of about 5 years defended one time.

What would you say about that? And Good old Jimmy Braddock's 2 year break. Would you like that?

[Boilermaker]

Sounds good in theory, but what happens if Champions takes YEARS off.

Sullivan took about 2 years after the Kilrain fight, Dempsey took about 5 years off of his 7 year rein. Corbett in his title rein of about 5 years defended one time.

What would you say about that? And Good old Jimmy Braddock's 2 year break. Would you like that?

Obviously, the ideal situation is somewhere between the two. I was just pointing out, that it isnt the be all and end all. If you start with a strong undisputed and dominant champion, imo, it is up to the challengers to mount an irresistable case to be the no 1 challenger. Johnson did this and so did others.

In fairness to Sullivan, Corbett, Dempsey etc, while they did take time off, they often fought exhibitions during this time. In fact, sometimes the exhibitions were not far off full flung fights. Make no mistake, if fighters were to win or KD the champ during these exhibitions, there would ahve been a title shot. It happened to Jeffries (disputably).

I tend to think i would prefer to see a dominant champ lapping up the title and making money from it with challengers fighting each other and giving a good challenge. As opposed to now, where we strip fighters and get 4 champs, no one fights each other, no one cares about most of the champions, challengers duck champions, because they are bad matchups etc. If Vlad Kos vitali tomorrow and for good measure say david Haye, to become undisputed champ, while i would prefer him to defend it regularly, i dont really care if he sits on the title for 12 months or even longer. If in the meantime, a young fighter KOs say Toney, Chambers, Areola, Valuev and Chageav, then i think that if he fights Vlad in 3 years, it will have been worth the weight. If these guys all fight each other in the next 2 years and swap losses with no standout form shown, then who cares if Vlad doesnt fight, it isnt as if they would beat him. Particularly if Wlad fights exhibitions regularly with Vitali.

It is just an alternative viewpoint, obviously neither situation is perfect.

[dabox]

i think hank griffin would be included in the title race in early 1900's

[Unforgiven]

Obviously, the ideal situation is somewhere between the two. I was just pointing out, that it isnt the be all and end all. If you start with a strong undisputed and dominant champion, imo, it is up to the challengers to mount an irresistable case to be the no 1 challenger. Johnson did this and so did others.

In fairness to Sullivan, Corbett, Dempsey etc, while they did take time off, they often fought exhibitions during this time. In fact, sometimes the exhibitions were not far off full flung fights. Make no mistake, if fighters were to win or KD the champ during these exhibitions, there would ahve been a title shot. It happened to Jeffries (disputably).

I tend to think i would prefer to see a dominant champ lapping up the title and making money from it with challengers fighting each other and giving a good challenge. As opposed to now, where we strip fighters and get 4 champs, no one fights each other, no one cares about most of the champions, challengers duck champions, because they are bad matchups etc. If Vlad Kos vitali tomorrow and for good measure say david Haye, to become undisputed champ, while i would prefer him to defend it regularly, i dont really care if he sits on the title for 12 months or even longer. If in the meantime, a young fighter KOs say Toney, Chambers, Areola, Valuev and Chageav, then i think that if he fights Vlad in 3 years, it will have been worth the weight. If these guys all fight each other in the next 2 years and swap losses with no standout form shown, then who cares if Vlad doesnt fight, it isnt as if they would beat him. Particularly if Wlad fights exhibitions regularly with Vitali.

It is just an alternative viewpoint, obviously neither situation is perfect.

Yeah, I agree. There needs to be a balance in there somewhere. I respect and admire the man who sets out to be a "fighting champion", taking on all-comers, BUT it gets a bit monotonous when he's scraping up crappy opponents who offer no real challenge. For example, some of Joe Louis's men, or Larry Holmes taking on the Scott Franks etc. ...... Ali fought some disgraceful bums too just to stay active and on his stage.

Of course, there's always the chance of one of these unknowns to prove themselves a worthy challenger on the night or even spring an upset but more often than not that wasn't the case, and the whole routine usually detracts from promising young fighters wanting to develop and earn a shot as seasoned fighters - their managers are quick to grab their shots too early, or even serves as an excuse for the champion to miss the most deserving contenders.
The other extreme is no less desirable, champions taking years off stating that no real challenger exists, and endlessly demanding that the contenders continue in a series of eliminations, which were often never honoured or resolved.

The point about exhibitions serving as non-title try-outs is a good one. I think some of the defences active champions such as Ali made dont deserve to be viewed as much more than exhibitions to be fair, and could have been advertised as such, considering the quality and experience of the "challengers".

I actually think the PPV era has fixed some of the worst abuses to some extent, regarding quality of opposition. Kevin Johnson is about as weak as it gets these days, but he's still a damn sight better than a Jean-Pierre Coopman. Valuev fought some trash when he had a belt maybe - Valuev is trash and acknowledged as a second-rate champion. Then again, if somebody with Ali's star appeal came along maybe they'd get away with fighting anyone they wanted on PPV too.

[mcvey]

[quote]


I would submit that Jackson had a stronger claim for a title fight than Charlie Mitchell in 1888, and at least an equal claim to Jake Killrain in 1889.



Inactivity is not an excuse, and frankly the presence of a key challenger like Jackson would probably of itself have been enough to bring Sullivan out of retirment, as the Corbett fight did.

Sullivan was basicaly waiting for a big money challenger and his preffered option was Frank Slavin.



Jackson came back from the Corbett draw with a win over Frank Slavin, who many had thought to be the best of the three fighters and who had been Sullivans first choice of the three for a title opponent.

I say no colour bar and Jackson gets the title shot over Corbett here.



Goddard was seen as a top challenger but not quite one of the top three.

Jackson, Corbett and Slavin were seen as being on a more or less equal footing before Jackson beat Slavin.

After that Jackson was the boy, if by a narrow margin.



I had everything to do with the colour line and Sullivan publicaly said so.



I think that Corbett was lucky to get the draw against an injured Jackson when they fought to a draw.

I also know that time was not on Jackson's side thereafter.



I think that Johnson went into a sharp decline after the Jeffries fight and I also think that his riotous living started to take its toll as soon as he won the title.

I would be prepared to put good money down that he would always have declined faster than his black dyanamite challengers, and even if he didn't he would likley have got unlucky against sombody.



Johnson was never the finisher that Langford was.




After Johnson got out of prison he tried to set up a fight with Wills to establish himself as the No1 challenger.

The contracts were signed but the fight was not alowed, like the Dempsey Wills fight.



Willard was not even a particularly well known fighter when he fought Johnson.

He was a bit of an ace up Jack Curleys sleeve.

Without a white hope campaign, he would certainly not have been seen as the outstanding challenger.

He owed his title shot in large part to political machinachions.



I suspect that the Fulton fight might have given Wills pause for thought.



It is perhaps more likley in the scenario that you outline, because these guys are not training, and looking for a credible but second teir challenger.



Without the colour bar Godfrey might have had a good manager who wanted to bring him allong as a potential challenger.

That would have been a fine thing.



I must repeat that Johnson declined verry fast after the Jeffries fight.

One last point.

If you throw a stone into the pond then the ripples get bigger as they move further out.

The butterfly effect works in boxing as much as anything else.

If John L Sullivan had lost the title to Peter Jackson then there might be discernible effects on the heavyweight division today.

I dont think that the current lineage would have re-aserted itself as soon as Jeffries became champion.

Jackson is the most hard done by of the early black contenders, imo, a fading Sullivan would not face him . Corbett after their inconclusive marathon, a fight in which Jackson was nursing an injury , put all manner of obstacles in the way of a rematch,then ,once Jackson was safely back in Australia ,came out of the wood work, throwing out challenges to him.
After the draw with Corbett, Jackson who was allready slightly past his prime ,began to drink very heavily and contracted TB.

Langford should have got a shot at Johnson 's title, if he had, I believe,Jack ,knowing the calibre of Sam would have been in tip top shape and decisioned him, nontheless he never got the opportunity,and,White America did not really care which black held the title as whoever won, the status quo would have remained ,thats why no concerted efforts were made to get shots for the deserving black challengers.,and white hopefulls were pushed to the front of the queue.

Johnson beat Jeanette enough times to be proved his master ,ditto Mcvey.Thats my take on it.


Wills for me is the next most deserving black challenger,imo ,Dempsey kos him ,but that is not the point,he was the standout challenger ,once acheiving this position, his manager adopted the cautious approach ,taking on relatively easy challenges,until Wills his skills somewhat eroded ,lost to Sharkey.He should not have needed to prove his case again,but, if Wills had called Tunney's hand and accepted an elimination fight with him ,the winner to face Dempsey ,maybe history would have been changed?
I tend to doubt it,Wills was allready on the downside ,and ,I think Tunney outpoints him.

Godfrey? How do we assess him ? He was physically awesome ,a hard hitter ,but very inconsistant at times ,and not a skilled boxer, how many fights were handcuff jobs? Who knows?
Its possible he catches an old Dempsey unprepared ,but Jack usually beat the big slow men.
A guy not mentioned in this debate is Larry Gains,maybe not as good as some others ,but he had his wins and beat some good heavyweights,Godfrey ,Carnera,Schmeling,Scott,Gorman,Rojas.
He easily beat Carnera,dropping him along the way ,but Carnera got the title shot,and Jack Sharkey would never fight Gains,
.
Larry was definitely frozen out of a title shot .

[flamengo]

Excellent post mate.

[Mendoza]

This was an exhibition during Johnson's training to fight Ketchel NOT A FIGHT .AD NAUSEUM.

Smith was indeed a White Hope ,and was briefly considered the best of them from the end of 1912 to1914 he had a good run ,which came to an end when he fouled out to Carpentier ,he then lost to Levinsky and was kod by Langford .Smith himself said after the ko loss to Langford, he went down hill fast.
Smiths peak coincided with Johnson's exile to Europe.
Anyone on here think Smith beats Johnson?

The Smith vs Johnon match happened in Johnson's peak in 1909...when Smith himself was not at his peak. What this shows is Smith hit hard enough to KO Johnson. Chins in a gym are the same as chins in the ring.

Here's the read for anyone who wants the details:

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

Could Smith beat Johnson? Sure, Smith could have beaten Johnson. O'brien, and Jim Johnson nearly defeated Jack Jonson fin 1908 and 1913 respectively. Frank Moran was very competitive vs Johnson in 1914 too.

I happen to think Gunboat Smith, who beat Moran by a wider margin than Johnson, and also beat Willard, whom later knocked Johnson out in 1915 would have a very good chance to win.

Smith did not get a shot because he was too good during that time line. Johnson picked softer touches...and some of those easier picks made him look average in the ring.

Ironic, the best whipe hope of all from 1912-1914 was shut out.

[Mendoza]

i think hank griffin would be included in the title race in early 1900's

Griffin was older in the early 1900's,and had his chance in the ring in a 4 rd exhibition match with champion Jim Jeffries. Griffin was floored multiple times, and struggle to last the distance.

Had Griffin done well, he would have upped his chances for a big time money match.

[Ezzard]

best thread I've read in ages...

[janitor]

[quote=Boilermaker;6146563]
Let us not forget also, that charlie mitchell used those take a knee tactics, Jackson wont do this, if he loses he does so with honour. And the Kilrain fight was still a good effort from John L. A Peter Jackson fight here would have definitely been one for the ages, but John L shouldnt be totally discounted here.



Of course we cannot discount either Sullivan or Corbett against Jackson, but I have to think that he was the best heavyweight on the planet for a significant period.

I coulod carve out a period where I would make him favourite over either Sullivan or Corbett.

Well this is not too far fetched, but Mitchell, in his draw was the British champion (from memory) so it is clear why he got his shot. And the Police Gazette had Kilrain recognised as their champion of LPR fights. Regardless of race, these two fights are going to be taken (although it might have been interesting if the Gazette had recognised Jackson instead of Kilrain).


The Gazette did recognise Jackson as champion after the Killrain fight.

Perhaps this could have provided the catalyst for a Sullivan Jackson showdown.

You say yourself it is a narrow margin. When this happens it comes down to the team that does the negotiating. In modern times, Ruiz got title shots galore whereas Tua (for example) struggled to get one. This situation has nothing to do with the colour bar, and Jackson is anywhere from a certainty.

Jackson was every bit as smart and astute as Corbett and he had a good team behind him.

He was less of a sh1t than Corbett, which you might list as a weakness.


Well Jackson is quoted as saying he had no qualms with Sullivan not fighting him, his problem was with Corbett ducking him. I agree with him. If Jackson gets his chance, it is against Corbett. I think he beats corbett, but it is no easy fight and definitely no guarantee, he has to do what he couldnt do the first time.


When we take the odds of:

Jackson beating Sullivan/Corbett
Langford/McVea/Jeanette/Wills beating Johnson
Wills beating Willard/Dempsey

How likley is it that all these potential bullets are dodged?

You also have to consider the possibility of a Jimmy Braddock style black champion. Sombody who should go into the title fight as an underdog but won on the day. If an inverse colour bar had aplied, a lot of the white champions would not have been named as likley kings.


Corbett hid behind the colour line, but dont forget also, that he did try to schedule a fight and it fell through, Corbett was a smart guy, dont be surprised if the rematch still fell through, at least until Jackson had declined enough to struggle.


Always on the cards.

Without the colour line, Johnson doesnt get the Jeffries fight. He therefore doesnt peek then, as he needs to establish himself. I also point out that since he had already beaten all the black dynamite, it is likely that Jim Johnson is the one still that gets the shot at Johnson and Jim Loses.

There was huge interest in matching Johnson with the more experienced versions of Langford, McVea and Jeanette and big purses were offered.

Ironicaly these fights might well have happened if Johnson had not been arested under the mann act.

That arrest is a crux point in history that could have prevented some big fights from happening.


Wills is the best chance and he is timed for a win, but it took him a while to master Langford, I think that it would take him a while to master Johnson also (he would probably be thrown to the wolves too early as Johnson looks for opponent) so you would expect Johnson to be every chance at winning. I expect McVey, Langford and Jeanette would have still fought each other with the winner earning a shot at Johnson. Again, Johnson would be up for this fight, and there are no guarantees that the winner beats Johnson. They couldnt do it before, so why now?


I suspect that if you threw Joe Louis in with all of the black dynamite crew then one might beat him even at his best.

Put Johnson past his prime and the odds get interesting.


And once again, you are basing this on what you think would happen, and not what actually happened. Johnson declined in relation to his Jeffries form, but he also lost one match in about 20 years. How many matches did each of the other fighters lose in the same period?


Johnson was matched between silk sheets compared to the other black dynamite members over this period.

Nobody could have fought as they did without the odd blemish.


It would have been a great fight. It certainly sounds like Johnson, even then was confident he could beat Wills. My money (smart or not) is on the old Johnson.


A 40+ Johnson vs a prime Wills?

I don't know if I could make Johnson favourite.


True, but he is always going to be an ace up sleeve situation. A big strong man is always a chance at a title shot, it is easy to sell. If Johnson had beaten (in title runs) - Jim Johnson, the winner of the Langford, McVey, Jeanette box off, Maybe a Jim flynn or someone similar and a raw Harry Wills, there is every chance that Willard would get a shot against Johnson. Because, he was as you say, the ace up Jack Curleys sleeve.


I think that Willard is the fighter in this thread most effected by the lack of a colour bar.

Without it he is basicaly a second teir contender.

He would have had to fight the black dynamite guys to get to the front.

Not an easy task.


That ripple effect is interesting, but i disagree, i think it all comes back to lineage eventually. I have a thread around here which traces the lineage of every dodgy title in existence when Lennox Lewis retired. 90 per cent of them have found their way back to Wlad and Vitali. This is what would have happened if little ripples had occurred. It Happened with pretty much every ripple in history.


I don't think you see how far the ripples travel.

If Peter Jackson had beaten Corbett or Sullivan it would not only have effected the lineage but also the fights between top contenders of the day.

For example would Jeffries have even fought Corbett if his only claim to fame was drawing against Peter Jackson?

[mcvey]

The Smith vs Johnon match happened in Johnson's peak in 1909...when Smith himself was not at his peak. What this shows is Smith hit hard enough to KO Johnson. Chins in a gym are the same as chins in the ring.

Here's the read for anyone who wants the details:

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

Could Smith beat Johnson? Sure, Smith could have beaten Johnson. O'brien, and Jim Johnson nearly defeated Jack Jonson fin 1908 and 1913 respectively. Frank Moran was very competitive vs Johnson in 1914 too.

I happen to think Gunboat Smith, who beat Moran by a wider margin than Johnson, and also beat Willard, whom later knocked Johnson out in 1915 would have a very good chance to win.

Smith did not get a shot because he was too good during that time line. Johnson picked softer touches...and some of those easier picks made him look average in the ring.

Ironic, the best whipe hope of all from 1912-1914 was shut out.

I know the details,and from the horse's mouth, so to speak ,a taped interview with Gunboat himself.'he said it was an exhibition,NOT A FIGHT,NOT A MATCH, NOT A BOUT, AN EXHIBITION.
He said he put Johnson through the ropes,NO MENTION OF KOING HIM.
The Jim Johnson fight has been categorically proven to be a 10 ROUND bout, newspapers posted on here show it to have been so.Johnson fractured his radius bone in the third round.
Smith could not beat Light heavyweights, Carpentier, Levinsky or Dillon who gave him a real hiding.
You know very well the circumstances surrounding the 6 round NO DECISION bout with O Brien

Johnson was 37 when Willard kod him ,and it took him26rds to do it after being behind for the first 20rds.
The best White Hope was Macarthy.
I refuse to rehash the same tired shit with you,you have your hatred ,which you keep nurtured , thats up to you.
Me ? I have a life.

[mcvey]

Excellent post mate.

Thanks:good
ps. Wonder how good Bill Farnan was ? He stopped Jackson in only his 6th fight , and later drew with him.

[flamengo]

Thanks:good
ps. Wonder how good Bill Farnan was ? He stopped Jackson in only his 6th fight , and later drew with him.

There's a lot to be said about Farnan mate... in some aspects, he's in similar position to Corbett. Larry Foley in Australia, as did John L in the USA, ruled the roost during the years seeing out the Prize Ring. Foley, under the guidence of Jem Mace had almost single handedly vocalised the acceptance of Gloved bouts.

After Foley was 'soundly thrashed' to a 'draw' with Billy Miller, the young Farnan emerges with challenges to Foley (still claimimg champion honours). The pair never fought a paid battle, although Foley did give the go ahead for the matches between Jackson and Farnan in 1884. The two matches were under Queensbury rules and Jackson was KO'd in 4 and the second was ceased by police after the crowd became unruley.. Jackson was copping a flogging. So, Farnan was the first Australian H/W Champ under Queensbury Rules... 1884

How good was he?? Pretty much reliant on brute strength, yet interestingly, his body shots are what fucked Jackson in the first bout, so a level of co-ordination is apparent. Richard K. Fox had mentioned a proposal for Farnan vs John L. Calling it the Greatest Match in the Games History.. it never eventuated. John L clearly avoided anyone with two functioning arms, weighing above Bantamweight. But he's the greatest thing since sliced bread???

Unfortunately, by the time John L's tenure of pretence to World Honours was nearing a close, Farnan had been destroyed by Tom Lee's twice, mentally fell apart and become institutionalised and died a broken man less than 7 years after the Jackson bouts, in 1891.

I don't see the Jackson bouts as being the yard stick of Farnan's measure.. perhaps a bout with Foley in 1881-2 would have provided a better scenario, or facing a more mature Jackson?? Either way, tragedy creates legend, as does timing and consequence. Farnan may very well have been around at the right time... much like Corbett.

[Boilermaker]

Forget the colour line, if they didnt draw the Australian Line, Farnan, Foley, Miller, Jackson, Lees, Goddard etc would have been very good chances as world champions. And Fitz may very well have held every title from Lightweight to Heavyweight and been middleweight champion for about 15 years.

It is very arguable that the mythical Australian line did have such an effect, as (and i am sure Flamengo can expand more) the best American fighters in the early days rarely travelled to australia (probably due to distance and costs as much as anything. Why John L didnt fight Farnan or at least one of Australias best is a mystery beyond me, and i am one of his big fans.

[flamengo]

Interestingly, Larry Foley had little interest in Fitz at all, seeing no capabilities as a fighter and often attempted to disuade Fitz from being a fighter.

[mcvey]

[quote]


Of course we cannot discount either Sullivan or Corbett against Jackson, but I have to think that he was the best heavyweight on the planet for a significant period.

I coulod carve out a period where I would make him favourite over either Sullivan or Corbett.



The Gazette did recognise Jackson as champion after the Killrain fight.

Perhaps this could have provided the catalyst for a Sullivan Jackson showdown.



Jackson was every bit as smart and astute as Corbett and he had a good team behind him.

He was less of a sh1t than Corbett, which you might list as a weakness.



When we take the odds of:

Jackson beating Sullivan/Corbett
Langford/McVea/Jeanette/Wills beating Johnson
Wills beating Willard/Dempsey

How likley is it that all these potential bullets are dodged?

You also have to consider the possibility of a Jimmy Braddock style black champion. Sombody who should go into the title fight as an underdog but won on the day. If an inverse colour bar had aplied, a lot of the white champions would not have been named as likley kings.



Always on the cards.



There was huge interest in matching Johnson with the more experienced versions of Langford, McVea and Jeanette and big purses were offered.

Ironicaly these fights might well have happened if Johnson had not been arested under the mann act.

That arrest is a crux point in history that could have prevented some big fights from happening.



I suspect that if you threw Joe Louis in with all of the black dynamite crew then one might beat him even at his best.

Put Johnson past his prime and the odds get interesting.



Johnson was matched between silk sheets compared to the other black dynamite members over this period.

Nobody could have fought as they did without the odd blemish.



A 40+ Johnson vs a prime Wills?

I don't know if I could make Johnson favourite.



I think that Willard is the fighter in this thread most effected by the lack of a colour bar.

Without it he is basicaly a second teir contender.

He would have had to fight the black dynamite guys to get to the front.

Not an easy task.



I don't think you see how far the ripples travel.

If Peter Jackson had beaten Corbett or Sullivan it would not only have effected the lineage but also the fights between top contenders of the day.

For example would Jeffries have even fought Corbett if his only claim to fame was drawing against Peter Jackson?

Purse offers for Johnson to fight the black contenders were never in the same stratosphere as the purse he received for fighting a washed up Jeffries.The general public wanted a white Champion,and to get that they wanted White challengers for a black champion.
Johnson was a pragmatist, why take a chance against the tough challengers when he could make a fortune cleaning up against the paleskins, for whom, he only had to be in average shape?

This is along the same lines of thinking as Jack Kearns telling Dempsey to act in movies and shows and defend the title every couple of years, EASY MONEY,with little or no risk.

I would give Johnson a very small chance at the title when he came out of prison ,after he was dethroned by Willard.In fact about nil he was finished as a top line fighter, years of debauchery and dissipation had robbed him of his stamina ,and eroded his marvellous reflexes,he sported a roll of fat around his hips ,and an arse like a bushman in his fight with Willard, hopes that he could have come back to defeat the likes of Dempsey,Wills are "tossing pennies at the moon" [Monte Walsh]