Your Top 5 from the "White Hopes" (Johnson era)

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by Luigi1985

With Johnson it´s getting really awkward now. Every win was a great result, and every fight he lost/ draw/ struggled was a fixed fight or a fight where he wasn´t in top shape. After reading Johnson´s book "Unforgivable Blackness" I lost very much respect for him, his excusses are lame and ridiculous...

Johnson was a top talent in his era. I don't think anyone here disputes that. I do think his title run was of opponents was the single worst case of sustained avoidance of ranked contenders in the history of heavyweight boxing. Johnson did not only shut out the best of the white hopes, he shut out hall of fame black fighters for title shots in Langford, McVey, and Jeanette. If the poster known as McVey cares to disagree with this outside of a “ no comment “, the forum is his to do so.

In truth Jack Johnson gave title shots to a motley mix of second rate fighters / and one washed up x champion. His title run was further smeared by a flotsam and jettison of excuses of average performances, not showing up not in shape, and alleged fixes.

For the record the one title fight of Johnson’s that was likely “ fixed “ was his match vs Jim Battling Johnson. Jack Johnson was down on points on one card, and doing no better than a draw on the other cards. Jack Johnson had an arm injury and decided to quit. In a fair and square event, Jim “ Battling “ Johnson is the new linear champ via TKO. The title should have changed hands. However on that night, I think Jack Johnson's sphere of influence preserved his championship. What a sham. And of course Battling Jim Johnson never got a re-match.

[Luigi1985]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

Johnson was a top talent in his era. I don't think anyone here disputes that. I do think his title run was of opponents was the single worst case of sustained avoidance ranked contenders in the history of heavyweight boxing. Johnson did not only shut out the best of the white hopes, he shut out hall of fame black fighters for title shots in Langford, McVey, and Jeanette. If the poster known as McVey cares to disagree with this outside of a “ no comment “, the forum is his to do so.

In truth Jack Johnson gave title shots to a motley mix of second rate fighters / and a one washed up x champion. His title run was further smeared by a flotsam and jettison of excuses of average performances, showing up not in shape, and alleged fixes. For the record the one title fight of Johnson’s that was likely “ fixed “ was his match vs Jim Battling Johnson. Jack Johnson was down on points on one card, and doing no better than a draw on the other cards. Jack Johnson had an arm injury and decided to quit. In a fair and square event, Jim “ Battling “ Johnson is the new linear champ via TKO. The title should have changed hands. However on that night, I think Jack Johnson's sphere of influence preserved his championship. What a sham. And of course Battling Jim Johnson never got a re-match.

What you wrote is exactly what I think, too.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by Luigi1985

What you wrote is exactly what I think, too.

But of course. The thing is the writers who author books or produce film documentaries on Jack Johnson do not tell the full story. Many facts about his boxing career are often omitted. Johnson was far from a dominant champion. Instead they choose to focus on social issues, paint Johnson as a victim ( he was both innocent and guilty ) and the life of Johnson, which beyond a doubt was an amazing ride for sure.

I am a historian who has had these conversations with other historians who are familiar with Johnson. They don’t disagree with me.

[Luigi1985]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

But of course. The thing is the writers who author books or produce film documentaries on Jack Johnson do tell the full story. Many facts about his boxing career are often omitted. Instead they choose to focus on social issues, paint Johnson as a victim ( he was both innocent and guilty ) and the life of Johnson, which beyond a doubt was an amazing ride for sure.

I am a historian who has had these conversations with other historians who are familiar with Johnson. They don’t disagree with me.

They don´t disagree with you, because you´re right. In general, people rating things like biographies too high, it´s normal that in a Johnson- bio for example he stands in another light than the really does...

[mattdonnellon]

why does a tread to rate the top "white hopes" disintegrate into a "rate Jack johnson" tread? or a hate jj ?

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by mattdonnellon

why does a tread to rate the top "white hopes" disintegrate into a "rate Jack johnson" tread? or a hate jj ?

Search me ? Igave up on it,the gist is all the writers such as nat Fleischer,Gilbert Odd,Randy Roberts ,and Denzil Batchelor ,dint do their research properly or did but decided,NOT TO TELL THE FULL STORY,,OMITTING FACTS.Why they did this isnt explained but one man on here " THE HISTORIAN"knows the truth,recent books on Johnson such as Roberts "Papa Jack are dismissedhere are some reviews on his book"Randy Roberts lucid and extremely well researched biography of Papa Jack JOhnson breathes life into the legend.His portraitof Papa Jack chips away the myth and makes for reading that will not easily be forgotten.The best sports biography I have read in over a decade.[Floyd Patterson].
"One of the finest biographies in the entire sports genre"[Washington Post]
"Thoroughly documents Jiohnsons stormy careerand eventual downfall an absorbing historyof the ring in the early 1900s" [Library Journal]
"A skillful compact study that reflects many disturbing realities of our society"[New York Times Review].of course roberts and Fleischer didnt know as much as our self appointed resident "Historian",but then who does?
Personally I couldnt give a shit who likes Jack Johnson , or who likes Jim Jeffries,every one is entitled to their opinion,but some of the recent posts on this thread ,[which started as an evaluation of the talents of the White Hopes],are just blinkered rubbish,why do people have to tear down a fighter to build up their own favourite?Im neither a historian or an expert just a layman who has an interest in boxing,which I enjoyed taking part in when I was younger,{Joe Louis was the champ when I was born],I dont call my book collection or my magazines which date from the early 50s "archives",nor my 300 films ,people will judge me by my posts some will decide Im a fool maybe a couple might be diverted by a post I make ,at the end of the day the opinions I value are those of the posters I respect as being knowledgeable and objective,the others ,well who gives a ****?

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

For the record the one title fight of Johnson’s that was likely “ fixed “ was his match vs Jim Battling Johnson. Jack Johnson was down on points on one card, and doing no better than a draw on the other cards. Jack Johnson had an arm injury and decided to quit. In a fair and square event, Jim “ Battling “ Johnson is the new linear champ via TKO. The title should have changed hands. However on that night, I think Jack Johnson's sphere of influence preserved his championship. What a sham. And of course Battling Jim Johnson never got a re-match.

A lot of claims are made for this fight but contemporary sources give a mixed picture. I have never personaly seen a convincing source to suggest either that the fight was scheduled for 20 rounds or that Johnson quit.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

Johnson was a top talent in his era. I don't think anyone here disputes that. I do think his title run was of opponents was the single worst case of sustained avoidance of ranked contenders in the history of heavyweight boxing. Johnson did not only shut out the best of the white hopes, he shut out hall of fame black fighters for title shots in Langford, McVey, and Jeanette. If the poster known as McVey cares to disagree with this outside of a “ no comment “, the forum is his to do so.

You seem to be begging for a devils advocate here so I will not disapoint you.

OK then.

I submit that Johnson did not fight Langford, Jeanette or McVea because the sums that he was offered for these fights were a fraction of those that he was offered to fight the lame duck white hopes. Johnson received $30 000 up fron to fight Fireman Jim Flyn. Do you know of any comparable offer for a fight with say Sam Langford?

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by janitor

You seem to be begging for a devils advocate here so I will not disapoint you.

OK then.

I submit that Johnson did not fight Langford, Jeanette or McVea because the sums that he was offered for these fights were a fraction of those that he was offered to fight the lame duck white hopes. Johnson received $30 000 up fron to fight Fireman Jim Flyn. Do you know of any comparable offer for a fight with say Sam Langford?

I agree with your premise Janitor,"money talks",Johnson didnt fight the best black challengers because 1. he didnt have to the white press and predominantly white audiences didnt demand it,if a black had to be Champ who cared which one and if two fought for the title a black would still be Champ at the finish,plus Johnsons dissolute lif3e style meant that he was often not in the best of shape,certainly after the Flynn fight as you noted earlier,in1912 ,when he beat Flynn Johnson weighed 195 1/2 two years later 1914 he fought Moran scaling 221 a 241/2 increase,against the "lame duck white hopes " he could afford to be out of shape, if he took on the best black challengers he could not,I think to some extent this scenario of avoiding black challengers was repeated during the reigns of Louis and Robinson,in 25 defenses Louis met 2 black challengers Lewis and Walcott twice and Robinson never fought Burley ,sound business practice I suppose ,why take achance fighting a dangerous oponent for a small purse when you can get the same ,or more for meeting a leeser foe? White fighters have been criticise for avoiding the best blacks of their era,curiously black champions would seem to also have been guilty of the practice,do you agree?

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Personally I couldnt give a shit who likes Jack Johnson , or who likes Jim Jeffries,every one is entitled to their opinion,but some of the recent posts on this thread ,[which started as an evaluation of the talents of the White Hopes],are just blinkered rubbish,why do people have to tear down a fighter to build up their own favourite?

McVey,

If I wanted to build up Jeffries', Moran's or Flynn's of boxing, it would be in my best interested to paint Johnson as a force of nature in the ring. This way, they lost to a great fighter.

It is my observations that fans of Louis' tend to have higher opinions of Schemling and Baer. Fans of Marciano's tend to have higher opinions of Walcott and Charles. Fans of Ali have higher than normal opinions of Frazier, and Foreman. Fans of Holmes tend to have higher opinions of Norton and Witherpsoon.

I hope you catch the gist of my point. That is when ranking " your man " it is best to build up the guys he fought, not tear them down.

I prefer to let the films, news reads, and ring records tell the tale of what really happened in the ring. Books on a particular subject material are great, but let's keep in mind they are often misty eyed love fests more so then objective analysis.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by janitor

You seem to be begging for a devils advocate here so I will not disapoint you.

OK then.

I submit that Johnson did not fight Langford, Jeanette or McVea because the sums that he was offered for these fights were a fraction of those that he was offered to fight the lame duck white hopes. Johnson received $30 000 up fron to fight Fireman Jim Flyn. Do you know of any comparable offer for a fight with say Sam Langford?

I'm not sure, but I do know Langford and Johnson were once scheduled to fight while Johnson was champion. Johnson backed out. The managers of Jeanette, McVey, and Langford undoubtedly tired their best to secure a match with Johnson for the championship. Jeanette said, “ When Johnson won the championship he forgot about his old friends and drew the color line against this own people. “

If Johnson got $30,000 for Flynn, I tend to think he could do even better vs Smith, or Dillion and make just as much vs Langford, Jeanette, or McVey. Langford, Jeanette and McVey were popular in France and Brittan. The fight could have been held there, and I dare say it would have been a packed house.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

I'm not sure, but I do know Langford and Johnson were once scheduled to fight while Johnson was champion. Johnson backed out. The managers of Jeanette, McVey, and Langford undoubtedly tired their best to secure a match with Johnson for the championship. Jeanette said, “ When Johnson won the championship he forgot about his old friends and drew the color line against this own people. “

If Johnson got $30,000 for Flynn, I tend to think he could do even better vs Smith, or Dillion and make just as much vs Langford, Jeanette, or McVey. Langford, Jeanette and McVey were popular in France and Brittan. The fight could have been held there, and I dare say it would have been a packed house.

I do know that most of the offers he received to fight Langford and McVea were verry small compared to the purses that he got for fighting white hopes. The year he fought Flyn for example he was ofered $4000 to fight Sam Langford in London.

Which do you think he was going to take?

I am not saying that he did not receive a substantial offer to fight Langford at some point but I do not know of one.

The other factor that you have to consider is the fact that he was in exile for the tail end of his title reign. Any promotor that worked with a fugitive champion to set up a title fight abroad was going to have to be a bit of a chancer.