Jeffries got what he deserved ...

But his criticism about the line remains true, does it not?

Of course. If they didn't there wouldn't be a line to begin with. Except his reign stretched the line to every weight division. And who said he was the only one to blame? I was saying the opposite is not true. Focusing on the causes of Johnson's behavior doesn't erase the fact they had consequences. He decided by himself to kick the bigots. When the world started burning around him, what did he do to try to calm things down? Did he at least try to advocate for any change in that line he refused to toe? So the black fighters had the door slammed in their faces for stuff they never did and Johnson is not given an ounce of responsibility? If he was the only one who got burned for f*cking with the bigots or if he somehow tried to change things for the black boxers with his reign the only thing he'd be getting from me is applause. As it were he dropped a bomb at their doorstep and let them cope with the damage.

Yet somehow was called to train the first black world champion since JJ.

 

There are lots of quotes blaming Jack Johnson's behaviour on his upbringing. I am pretty sure that i read a quote from Jack Johnson which i think was in reference to him hanging with white women, which blamed this on his upbringing. He said that he was not thumbing his nose at white society but that he had always been brought up (in or around a white household) and he was taught that both races were equal and that there was no differencebetween himself and whites. As such he found it difficult to not associate with whites especially after he had just won the world heavyweight championship.

AS others have said there was a touch of arrogance regardless, but i highly doubt he was alone in showing this trait, among heavyweight champions (much less most celebrity/top notch athletes).

 

This carries a degree of truth.

Johnson grew up in a mixed race environment, then got thrown head first into the social expectations of the era.

Johnson did a lot of things that were wrong, but he never hated white people because they were white.

Only fair to note that.

 

On the first reading I thought this was about Louis, but I think it is actually about Johnson,

so I withdrew my comment.

 

See i dont agree that everyone who was opposed to jj was a racist scumbag. Clearly there was a very very substantial population (i would argue more than the racists) who didnt like him based on his behavior and actions rather than his skin color. Especially when you consider how he was even lambasted by the black press and foreign countries as well, many of which were far more accepting.

 

So you're claiming it existed and he was made to feel in ways that could lead one to negative actions... but it's not an excuse. You would be flat out wrong as many disagree with such a notion. The court system has found you to be flat out wrong on this matter, as there are certifiable defenses to crimes you commit because of outrageous behavior you've experienced. Psychologist also disagree agree with your notion as their expertise and case studies have proven direct links to certain behaviors when exposed to certain negative variables. So you're saying then that all these people are wrong and Jack Johnson's actions and behavior had nothing to do with his upbringing and experiences. I couldn't disagree more.

You proof of this is citing how some black people didn't act like he did and thus this proves somehow that you didn't have to act out and could turn the other cheek. That isn't even an argument, let alone a good one. So because one woman sits there and takes abuse her whole marriage because she feels helpless and subhuman, means a woman who finally pulls a knife on her husband after years of abuse isn't as good of a person as woman A. This couldn't be further from the truth.

You seem to be under this notion that an AA actions in 1905 should be ****ogous to riots currently going on in the united states. You're the only person making such a claim, as I've never even thought to make such a misguided ****ogy. They couldn't be further apart. Nobody is saying his actions were always appropriate or okay. Nor am I saying that his actions were all a direct result of his upbringing and unavoidable. What I am saying is, much of his actions were DIRECTLY related to his upbringing and what he was exposed to. To think otherwise, and hold him to standards not of his time isn't fair nor is it right.

 

Oh get real. Now who doesnt know what he is talking about. What you referring to is the "black rage" defense. The black experience is rarely if ever used as an adequate defense in criminal cases. If you dont believe me go look it up. In fact many black intellectuals have rejected the notion of "black rage" as a demeaning, self defeating, and ineffective crutch. Youre going to have to do better than that.

 

I hold him to the standards of his peers within the context in which he existed. Its you who wants to pretend his actions should have been universally accepted by the same peers you accuse me of ignoring and who actually almost universally frowned on him. The guy was a pariah judged as such by not just whites but blacks, latinos, anglos, french, spaniards, swedes, etc etc. YOU are the one ignoring that fact and pretending that a guy who was actually better educated, more travelled, more well read, wealthier, and experienced a less severe upbringing than most jim crow blacks was somehow the norm in his antisocial behaviors. He wasnt, he was the exception and it had nothing to fo with his race, or black rage and everything to do with the fact that at best he was a jerk. Nothing illustrates this more than the fact that he actually got worse the more money he got and more his sense of entitlement grew. Thats not a guy that is seething with bkack rage waiting to explode at every chance thats a jerk who got a taste of fame and fortune and thought it made him a king and that he was untouchable. You see it all the time. You just want to argue that johnson is different from every other antisocial **** because hes black.

 

You seem to think that because there have been other boorish asses in history that this makes johnsons behavior acceptable. Nevermind the fact that the totality of his actions. He wasnt just an *******. He wasnt just a woman beater. He wasnt just a pim . He wasnt just a guy sped relentlessly regardless of others. He wasnt just a guy who refused to pay his bills. Etc etc. Sorry but when you add all of that up and the picture of a monumental ******* emerges you can easily see why johnson was unpopular among the majority of people be they black, white, brown or purple with pink polka dots. Was corbett an unsavory guy? Yes. Was sullivan a drunken brawling boorish punk. Yes. Was jeffries an egotistical jerk. Yes. All of these guys were boxers for christ sakes, not role models. And thats why its asinine to say that justice was served when jeffries lost and that because detestible creatures exist among the human race that johnsons actions should not just be accepted but lauded in some corners is beyond ridiculous.

 

***

 

Janitor said the worse people that were against him, he never suggested that everyone who was against him was a racist scumbag.
Johnson received many positive comments in the black press ,books are full of them.

The underlined is again your opinion it has no basis in fact,you may argue it ,but you cannot prove it.

 

H E never suggested justice was served, justice had nothing to do with it, he asked if Jeffries got what he deserved?

Which post on this thread lauds Johnson's boorish behaviour and propagates acceptance of it?

 

And by and large he did a fine job with him bonding with the withdrawn youngster, and becoming almost a Father figure for him, that doesn't erase his past though does it?
Blackburn trained him he didn't speak for him, and show me any interviews
with Louis where Blackburn makes a statement?

Roxy did any talking that Louis couldn't handle.

 

Cool. I'll concede. Good thing considering there wouldn't be a black man fighting for a world title in years to come. You kinda expect more from the first black HW champion though.

Had he stayed in shape and his career ran normally with a regular schedule of defenses he'd possibly be as dominant as Louis, with more depth, at least as top contenders is concerned, and look better against the opposition. Top 5 material I think. Maybe 3.