How good were the white hopes?

[mattdonnellon]

I dont necessarly agree with the article in its entirety but its a good read. Willard has a decent claim to be one of the top White Hopes based on his win over Johnson, Moran and probably edging out McCarthy. But the best you could say for any of them is that they might have a shot at beating Jeff Clarke-is that a fair comment?

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

I do not think McCarty was the best of the white hopes. Gunboat Smith had the better resume by far. Maybe McCarty was the 2nd best white hope. Or perhaps it was Dillion. I digress as this is another thread.

The feature article I have is from an author who saw many of the fighters in action from 1880's to 1914. He strongly indicates the “ white hopes “ from 1908-1914 would not be champ in any of the pervious eras. They would be cannon fodder to contenders of yesteryear. Even if there was no Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, or Jeffires, the author says Goddard, Choynski, Jackson, Slavin, Mitchell, Sharkey, Ruhlin, Hart and Root were better than the “ White hopes “ I am probably missing a few names. Yes I am Maher, Schreck, Bruns and Kid McCoy and others are mentioned too.

The author does mention Gunboat Smith as the best of the white hopes and says he would only be able to defeat Ruhlin and it a maybe in his opninion. The reason was styles and Speed. Smith could fight.

Aside from the compare and contrast between the eras, the descriptions of styles of each fighter, and explanations as to how the matches might go vs the “ white hope “ crew is most impressive.

I have decided to upload the article for the readers. Click on the below link to downlaod the article, and let me know what you think.

Regards,

[URL="***********.megaupload.com/?d=059WTNSA"]***********.megaupload.com/?d=059WTNSA[/URL]

I think most contemporary observers and also later historians judged McCarty to be the best of the White Hopes. The man only fought two years and was barely 21 when he died. Certainly his record, positively and negatively, does not compare to Smith's, but he had actually never been decisively defeated while knocking out Morris, Kaufman, Flynn, and Palzer, and badly defeating Moran. He was showing remarkable improvement through late 1912 and into 1913. The New York Times in January of 1913 remarked that he was now too good for Willard or any of the others who had earlier given him trouble.
Some quotes--Nat Fleischer--McCarty was "the best of the White Hopes. There is little doubt that had McCarty lived he would have won the title."
Dan Daniel--"Had Luther lived, he and not Willard would have dethroned Johnson."
DeWitt Van Court--"Unquestionably the best heavyweight prospect since John L Sullivan."
Billy McCarney--"In my judgement, the best heavyweight prospect of all time."

McCarty was much bigger than Smith, who often fought in the 170's. McCarty was 6' 4", weighed about 205, was quick on his feet with a vicious jab, had already proven his stamina, and had been in with some of the big punchers of the day such as Palzer and Moran without being floored.
Without film, it is hard to tell how much is hype, but McCarty might have had it in him to be something special if fate had been kinder. Smith, on the other hand, is just another fairly good contender, although because he lived, we end up knowing more about what he could do and what he could not do.

I would emphasize and reemphasize that McCarty was barely 21 when he died.

[radianttwilight]

I can't believe that anyone brought solely into boxing for the purpose of defeating one guy could be anything more than simply "good".

The white hopes were probably the first hype-jobs in existance

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by janitor

Ironicaly the two best white hopes McCarthy and Pelkey efectively eliminated each other.

Why is that ironic?

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by mattdonnellon

I dont necessarly agree with the article in its entirety but its a good read. Willard has a decent claim to be one of the top White Hopes based on his win over Johnson, Moran and probably edging out McCarthy. But the best you could say for any of them is that they might have a shot at beating Jeff Clarke-is that a fair comment?

Gunboat defeated Willard, Moran, and Langford. He also knocked Jack Johnson down and hurt him in a sparring session. Wins over Coffey, Pelky, Ross, Flynn, and Levinksy round off his resume. At his best, I think Smith was the best White Hope. He seemd hit the wall in late 1915, but in his prime years from 1909-1914 he was very good.

Smith was likely viewed as the #1 contender in a Ring Magazine type of rating system when he defeated a prime Sam Langford.

After Smith, I say Willard was the 2nd best. The author of the article thinks Smith was the best, circa 1914 and the resumes back that up.

As for Clark, I tend to think he was better than every white hope except for Willard and Smith.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

I think most contemporary observers and also later historians judged McCarty to be the best of the White Hopes. The man only fought two years and was barely 21 when he died. Certainly his record, positively and negatively, does not compare to Smith's, but he had actually never been decisively defeated while knocking out Morris, Kaufman, Flynn, and Palzer, and badly defeating Moran. He was showing remarkable improvement through late 1912 and into 1913. The New York Times in January of 1913 remarked that he was now too good for Willard or any of the others who had earlier given him trouble.

Some quotes--Nat Fleischer--McCarty was "the best of the White Hopes. There is little doubt that had McCarty lived he would have won the title."

Dan Daniel--"Had Luther lived, he and not Willard would have dethroned Johnson."

DeWitt Van Court--"Unquestionably the best heavyweight prospect since John L Sullivan."

Billy McCarney--"In my judgement, the best heavyweight prospect of all time."

McCarty was much bigger than Smith, who often fought in the 170's. McCarty was 6' 4", weighed about 205, was quick on his feet with a vicious jab, had already proven his stamina, and had been in with some of the big punchers of the day such as Palzer and Moran without being floored.
Without film, it is hard to tell how much is hype, but McCarty might have had it in him to be something special if fate had been kinder. Smith, on the other hand, is just another fairly good contender, although because he lived, we end up knowing more about what he could do and what he could not do.

I would emphasize and reemphasize that McCarty was barely 21 when he died.

Good quotes. McCarty is the classic case of Potential vs Production. Before his fatal fight vs Pelky, McCarty lost 3 news decisions, drew once, and had an NC Vs Willard. How could such a man be called the best prospect of all time? I have DeWitts rankings. He doesn’t mention McCarty.

Smith’s best weight looked to be in the low to mid 180's, which is fine for the era. At 6'2" he was taller than normal for the era. But most importantly, Smith had skills, and could hit. Smith lack of size didn't prevent him from beating a much bigger Willard or Morris.

Looking back, I still think Smith was better though the quotes you have provided make me wonder. A film on McCarty and Smith would help settle the issue. I wonder if there was ever talk about matching the two?

Between Smith, Willard, and McCarty, I rank them as I listed them with my reason being based on who they beat and when / how they beat them.

[Marciano Frazier]

Originally Posted by janitor

The effort to dethrone Jack Johnson brought about the search for the “Great White Hope” during his 1908-1915 reign and produced an array of talent that has rarely been matched in any other period. But, even they could not touch Johnson in his prime.

Tracy Callis

They were awfull.

Bert Sugar

I'd say the truth lies well in between those two very extreme points of view.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by TBooze

Why is that ironic?

The white hope campaign was conceived in sin and it imploded in tragedy.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

Good quotes. McCarty is the classic case of Potential vs Production. Before his fatal fight vs Pelky, McCarty lost 3 news decisions, drew once, and had an NC Vs Willard. How could such a man be called the best prospect of all time?

Think about it like if Alexander Povetkin falls under a bus tomorrow.

We just would never know how good he could have been but the leat you could say was that he was good enough to beat Chris Byrd in his 14th fight.

Looking back, I still think Smith was better though the quotes you have provided make me wonder.

Obviously Smith must be considered greater based on his body of work but McCarthy got verry far at a verry young age. Give him a few years and who the hell knows?

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

Good quotes. McCarty is the classic case of Potential vs Production. Before his fatal fight vs Pelky, McCarty lost 3 news decisions, drew once, and had an NC Vs Willard. How could such a man be called the best prospect of all time? I have DeWitts rankings. He doesn’t mention McCarty.

Smith’s best weight looked to be in the low to mid 180's, which is fine for the era. At 6'2" he was taller than normal for the era. But most importantly, Smith had skills, and could hit. Smith lack of size didn't prevent him from beating a much bigger Willard or Morris.

Looking back, I still think Smith was better though the quotes you have provided make me wonder. A film on McCarty and Smith would help settle the issue. I wonder if there was ever talk about matching the two?

Between Smith, Willard, and McCarty, I rank them as I listed them with my reason being based on who they beat and when / how they beat them.

McCarty's production is actually very high. He had ko's of Morris, Kaufman, Flynn, Palzer, and Joe Cox. He had victories over Jim Barry and Frank Moran, all when only one month past his 21st birthday. In the history of heavyweight boxing, how many can you name who could match this? Only three names come to mind--Louis, Ali, and Tyson, perhaps.
And that is real fast company.

Don't forget, McCarty, not Smith, is the White Heavyweight champion while McCarty is alive and actually is a claimant to the World Championship, as Johnson is talking retirement.

I would point out that not only was McCarty only 21 when he died, but he was 6' 4" and described as fast and athletic. It is concievable that boxing would not see a really top level talent this big again until the era of Ali and Foreman, if not Lewis, Bowe, and the Klitschkos.

Without film, who knows for certain. but McCarty may indeed have been what McCarney describes him as--the best prospect ever.

[OLD FOGEY]

Mendoza--Jack Curley was apparently negotiating for McCarty to fight Johnson at the time of the tragedy with Pelkey. Smith was really not in the picture yet.

[Langford]

McCarty went to NYC at the age of 20 and partied. He turned up his worst showings in front of the New York Papers against Stewart and Willard. Stewart was a popular NY heavy at the time, when NY felt that they really needed one,
G. Smith would go on to absolutely ruin Stewart in his very next fight.

Lute was really coming into his own starting with Kaufman. Followed by Flynn, Palzer, Flynn, Moran. His wins against them were all pretty one sided and those would be three of Johnson's title defenses right there. Keep in mind he was just twenty and he beat them all in six months.

I think he would have went far.

[Mendoza]

[quote=janitor]

Think about it like if Alexander Povetkin falls under a bus tomorrow.

We just would never know how good he could have been but the leat you could say was that he was good enough to beat Chris Byrd in his 14th fight.


Obviously Smith must be considered greater based on his body of work but McCarthy got verry far at a verry young age. Give him a few years and who the hell knows?

McCarthy lost and drew a few times. If he was that big and talented, raw ability alone keeps him from losing. Yet it did not. Povetkin has yet to lose a pro. If he were to stop boxing tomorrow, I believe he is a better " what if " than McCarty, though McCarty is certainly a very good " what if " for Johnson, Wills, and Dempsey.

[Ringrat]

[quote=Mendoza]

Originally Posted by janitor

McCarthy lost and drew a few times. If he was that big and talented, raw ability alone keeps him from losing. Yet it did not. Povetkin has yet to lose a pro. If he were to stop boxing tomorrow, I believe he is a better " what if " than McCarty, though McCarty is certainly a very good " what if " for Johnson, Wills, and Dempsey.

McCarty didn't have the benefit of Povetkin's 300+ amateur fights. He started boxing right away in the pro ranks and was soon fighting top names. His win over Al Palzer was considered huge at the time and McCarty was being touted as the best of the white heavies by the time he met Arthur Pelkey in Calgary. Smith definitely had the better credentials based on his more extensive resume, and once McCarty was out of the picture and the Gunner had disposed of the hulking Pelkey in a tough scrap, it was Gunboat Smith who was widely regarded as Number One despite early losses to Jim Barry, Joe Willis, Charley Miller, Jack Geyer, Jim Stewart and Porky Flynn .

It's unfortunate that except for matching them in your own Alternate Universe in Title Bout, we'll never know what would have happened had they met in the squared circle. McCarty's future remains one of Boxing's great "What If's".

[dmt]

Mendoza, maybe McCarthy was losing a bit because of his in experience