Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

This column by Robert Edgren goes into more detail about mixed matches.
Attitude on Mixed Bouts of Bill
Muldoon, Chairman of Boxing
Board, Has Changed.
WILLIAM MULDOON. Chairman
of the New YorK State Boxing Commission, can be depended upon for a story with a new idea on any dull day In the year. He's full of Ideas, and, unlike some
other people In political positions, he doesn't look mysterious and dodge publlcity. When Bill thinks of some
thing he pops right out with It, and usually his notions are original and interesting enough to be worth a par-
graph or a column. Who else but Muldoon would ever
have thought of notifying Jack Dempsey he must fight Harry Wills because Wills has deposited a $2,500 forfeit
with a challenge with the New York Boxing Commission. That was original enough, especially since the commission In the past has prohibited "mixed matches" on the ground that they are against public policy and
likely to cause disorder.
If Dempsey doesn't flght wills, according to Mr. Muldoons announcement, he will forfeit his claim to the world's heavyweight championship as New York State Is concerned, Dempsey may be champion In all
other parts of tho world, but when he crosses the Hudson from New Jersey or steps ashore at a New York wharf from an ocean steamer he'll land minus his title.
Mr. Muldoon attitude on mixed matches seems to have changed. In his younger days Muldoon was at
a time a friend and handler of John I. Sullivan, original inventor of the "color line." When Peter Jackson, greatest of all colored fighters, came to America from Australia to
challenge Sullivan, John L. flatly refused to meet Jackson because he was a black man. So far as I've ever heard Mr. Muldoon didn't hold any opinion that Sullivan forfeited his worlds championship through this
action. The public may disapprove of bull
fighting, but If a genuine Spanish bullfight could be held
publicly In an arena built In New York 100,000 people would pay extortionate prices to see It out of curiousity
The same would apply to a Dempsey-Wllls bout. Every one knows that within twenty-four hours
after the Jeffries-Johnson affair in Reno over thirty negroes were killed ln riotous disturbances In parts of the
country where the aggressive exhultations of blacks and the bitter resentment of the whites caused clashes,
it's an unfortunate situation that undeniably exists and that overshadows the sporting side of the affair entirely.
Yet the crowd would turn out if the fight was held.
Purely as a matter of sport I'd like to see Dempsey and Wills In a championshlp bout Wills Is nearer a match
for Dempsey than any other rival now in sight. He Is a much bigger man than Dempsey, a clean living and decent fellow, a good boxer and a man who can give and take punches. When not engaged In boxing. Wills works at his Job as a stevedore, which is in his favor.
Comparing Wills and Dempsey, the champion has the better record. Nothing In the annals of pugilism compares with the performances of Dempsey when he was working his way up to the championship, knocking out Men like Morris, Fulton, Flynn, Pelky
and all that lot in a round each. He won his last five fights before Willard in a round each. He practically
knocked Wlllard out In a round, as Willard was on the floor at the end of the first and never could have
come up for the second except for the delay caused by the trouble with the bell, which gave him a long rest.
Many fighters of no more class have gone from six to fifteen rounds with wills. In his long list of fights Wills
has knocked out only a very small percentage of opponents. He has been knocked out twice by Sam Langford in fourteen and nineteen rounds, and
that when Sam was far past the time that saw him one of greatest fighters In the world.
Dempsey is a cleaner fighter then Wills. He has never been accused of taking unfair advantage in the ring. Wills has a trick of holding and hitting, which is
against all boxing rules and gives him a tremendous advantage because of his size and strength.
Mr. Muldoon accuses Dempsey of fighting Inferior opponents. That's hardly Dempsey's fault. The promoters
can’t find a white man whose fistic ability equals Dempsey's, or they would have done it long ago.
Dempsey has taken what matches he could get. Mixed matches have been prohibited all over the country, and
even where smaller mixed matchers would be allowed the authorities would prohibit a heavyweight Championship match between a white man
and a colored man.

 

Muldoon was not trustworthy.

It seems that he deliberately tried to sabotage a Dempsey Wills fight, while claiming to be trying to make it!

 

J, you might be right but there is a common thread that runs though all the articles and that is the race riots. That seems to be on eveybody's mind at the time whether by convenience or fact.

 

D, fine and lucid post you wrote mentioning the valid fears of those long ago times of pitting a black and white heavyweight title fight because of the riots and numerous deaths following the
Jeffries / Jack Johnson fight in Reno...I growing up as a youngster would read about those times in old Ring Mags from the late 1920s and 1930s. I would buy these magazines from book stores for 5 or 10 cents along with copy's of Police Gazette
and saved them for many decades periodically re-reading them until Hurricane Sandy destroyed most of them a few years ago..
But you are CORRECT in saying that in those articles the fear of race riots were prevalent those days, to such a degree that
prevented a Harry Wills a deserved shot at the title. But today
there are certain deniers who refuse to accept this fact and
tarnish the legacy of Jack Dempsey, accusing him of either
being a racist or coward, PLAIN and Simple. They are dead wrong in both cases, but they are denying the different times
and fears of those harsher days. They even DENY the fact that
Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills did sign for a bout promoted by a Michigan boxing promoter which fell through because his backers could not come up with the funds...So D , good post on your part...cheers...

 

This is the consensus opinion of him.

 

Miske was dying. He hadn't had a fight in two years. He had no currency as a challenger.

It was obvious even at the time that Greb was the superior fighter. Carpentier was heavily protected and lost nearly every time he stepped up. A paper title doesn't change anything. The Dempsey fight was already in the pipeline by the time Carpentier won it. Besides that, the Levinsky fight was thought to be a fix simply to make Carpentier seem more credible.

Gibbons also lost his most recent fight with Greb, in one-sided fashion, and in a title eliminator, no less. Between his last loss to Greb and his Dempsey title shot, he'd only faced mediocre opposition, and wasn't even unbeaten against them.

Why was Greb finished a serious heavyweight challenger? He beat every heavyweight he faced in 1922 and 1923, including Gibbons in said eliminator.

Why was Firpo more credible? Based on beating Willard, who was 41 and going in had had one fight in four years? Besides Willard, almost every recognisable heavyweight on Firpo's record had already been beaten by Greb: Weinert, Brennan, Homer Smith (Greb was 6-0 against them).

 

Dempsey’s critics need to make up their minds whether he is a dog for not fighting the most qualified challengers on paper , or he is a dog for not seeking out the most dangerous challengers, regardless of their paper credentials.

If the former is the case, then losses that Wills and Greb incurred push them down the rankings, regardless of the circumstances.

If the latter is the case, then he can pick somebody like Gibbons over Greb, on the basis that he would be more likely to give him a competitive fight.

 

Williams is mitigated somewhat by the fact that Ali took on his #1 contender three months later. Dempsey didn't.

A paper title that wasn't even taken that seriously at the time (hence the existence of the American LHW title) can't trump a far superior record. Just compare who Greb had beaten, and who Carpentier had beaten. Assuming it was even on the level, Carpentier's biggest win since 1914 was against a guy who was thought to be at the end of the road, and whom Greb was 6-0 against. Can't see any way he was more deserving than Greb.

The most noteworthy of those six wins were terminally ill Billy Miske (whom Gibbons also lost to two months earlier, albeit somewhat unfairly) and Chuck Wiggins, whom Greb beat eight times! It wasn't an outrageous choice of opponent, though once again I don't know how Gibbons could be rated over Greb in that timeframe, especially in light of their title eliminator. His last win over Greb was back in 1920.

It's hard to make the case for Firpo being more deserving than Greb based on beating an ancient, inactive Willard and a few other heavies that Greb had already thrashed. Given the majority who saw the second Tunney fight considered the decision a robbery, I doubt it hurt Greb's standing much.

 

I second this post. Burt you're a class act and I enjoy reading your posts. Foxy scares me so I'm not going to denigrate him. lol

But for the most part his posts amuse me and he's worth the price of admission.

 

It's a shame for Miske that he didn't get a title shot when he deserved one but that's the way it goes. That's not an excuse to give him a shot years later. Having a terminal illness really ought to disqualify anyone from serious consideration.

Which do you think Dempsey was going for, the most dangerous in practice, or the most deserving on paper? Seems to me he was opting for less dangerous, less deserving full stop.

I would argue that holding a belt didn't make Carpentier any more dangerous or credible, and it actually had no bearing on the Dempsey fight being made. This was an era when quite often the champion was not the best in his division. That's why the American LHW title ended up being created. As I said, compare their records, who they were beating and it's not even arguable that Greb was the superior fighter and more deserving of a crack at Dempsey.

I have to ask again on what basis. It's not as if Gibbons was some terror of the division in this time frame, or Greb went on a losing streak. Between beating Gibbons and Gibbons facing Dempsey, Greb lost one fight, that disputed loss to Tunney, and indeed was on an unbeaten streak dating back to 1920. After losing to Greb Gibbons beat a few club fighters, a sick Billy Miske (who he also lost to) and Chuck Wiggins, who Greb beat eight times, including once in 1922 and again in 1923, and that's it.

Firpo was already being heavily hyped (and protected) by Tex Rickard for the purpose of facing Dempsey and Willard was specifically chosen to add a veneer of credibility to his record. Being heavily hyped doesn't equate to being more deserving. At the end of the day Firpo's resume amounted to a 41 year old, 2 fights in 4 years Willard and a few guys Greb had already beaten.

Do you think if Greb had got the official decision against Tunney it would have made the slightest difference to his chances of facing Dempsey? I don't.

 

At the end of the day, professional boxing is a business and business decisions don't always equate to legacy decisions. The sooner many posters realize this the more comments relating to ducking etc. would disappear, because they only refer to the legacy part of the equation and not the business aspect of it.