Do you consider James J Jeffries an ATG?

Again your comments are delusional and lack historical understanding. In other words you really have no idea what you are writing about!

First I never wrote "didn't know any better". Show everyone where that exact quote you just wrote exists.

Secondly the worlds hwt championship was always considered in a different category vs lower weight divisions. Being the worlds hwt champion meant you were the physical master of ALL MEN. Huge phycological implications here in the minds of the predominantly racist American society of 1905. Only Burns gave a black man a title shot from Sullivan up to Joe Louis.

Regarding your social change in sport comment. Society and those running the sport must be ready for that change. This is why it took so long to integrate other sports such as baseball (1950's). Once again your comments drip of not knowing the subject matter.

Fighters fight. Promoters, managers working with boxing commissioners set up fights. Know the sports history before you further embarrass yourself.

 

Jeffries stated emphatically he would not defend against Johnson if he won, why is that hard for you to accept?

 

WW Naughton, the editor of the Police Gazette was considered one of Johnson's sternest critics.
his head line next day said"Pluck And Awkwardness Better Than Mixture of Cleverness And Cowardice"
Greggains stated beforehand," I have notified Johnson that he must fight all the time or the fight will be called a no contest". What do you think the reaction would be if a referee said that to Floyd Mayweather before a contest? Pollack gives plenty of reports that say Johnson should have gotten the decision and he also questions the objectiveness of the referee ,its glaringly obvious that racial prejudice played a part in this fight and its eventual decision.
Pollack mentions the flash but does not say anything about Johnson being staggered.

 

The night before the fight Bill Delaney said ,"Should Hart beat Johnson tomorrow,Jeffries will fight Hart,but if the negro wins there is nothing doing,inJune 1905 Jeff will arrive in California and by that time ,if there is no white man ready to make a match with him Jeffries will retire from the ring".

 

Adam Pollack in his Johnson book postulates that Alex Greggains, the referee and promoter may have been motivated by financial reasons when he awarded the decision to Hart.
Hart and Jeffries would be a money spinner,Pollack says if Johnson had won ,Jeffries v Johnson would have drawn more but Jeffries stance on defending his title against blacks precluded that fight ever happening.Therefore Greggains, in the hopes of promoting a future fight between Jeffries v Hart may have been financially biased towards the Kentuckyan.

 

"Pollack mentions the flash but does not say anything about Johnson being staggered."

I was quoting (and mentioned) Unforgivable Blackness by Geoffrey C. Ward. "Hart saw his mistake first, whirled, hurled himself at Johnson, and hit him with a solid right hand that made Johnson stagger at the bell." (p. 71)

But that doesn't seem to be the only time Johnson might have been hurt in the fight. Box rec quotes the Washington Post, "Hart managed to deal the only effective blow in the eleventh round when he landed a right swing on Johnson's jaw that staggered the black man and nearly knocked him over."

That 11th round punch might have been critical. In 1910, before the Jeff fight, Tad Dorgan quoted those familiar with Johnson as mentioning that after being floored by Griffin, Johnson became so cautious against Griffin that he was never able to fight that effectively against him, with a loss and two draws in three fights. The Hart fight seems to have gone differently after the 11th with Johnson much more defensive.

Could terms like "stagger" be exaggerations? Sure. But we have no way of knowing.

"W. W. Naughton"

I didn't know he was with the Police Gazette. I know he was a long time sportswriter with the San Francisco Chronicle.

"one of Johnson's sternest critics."

But this begs an issue. Why would he feel that way? Naughton was widely respected as the dean of American sportswriters (although from New Zealand) and had been a strong backer of Peter Jackson years earlier. This makes it questionable to just put him down as another racist. Perhaps his critique of Johnson was based on valid complaints.

Greggain's pre-fight comment again raises the issue of why Johnson fought so defensively. The ringside reports have Hart staggering Johnson but never report Hart being in any real trouble, with Johnson pecking away with jabs while Hart missed a lot but landed the heavier blows. It was mentioned that Hart seemed able to block the uppercuts which did so much damage later to Jeffries.

"it is glaringly obvious that racial prejudice played a part in this fight and its eventual decision."

I can't deny that this is a plausible deduction,

but plausible deductions aren't necessarily history in which truth is often elusive to pin down.

What is a bottom line is that Jeffries strongly drew the color line and would not have defended against Johnson regardless.

 

This is speculation, though certainly well-informed speculation. But pointing out a possible ulterior motive doesn't prove this was the motive a man acted on.

I can't deny that it is odd to appoint a referee with such a salient conflict-of-interest.

And it still leaves unanswered the question of why Johnson apparently fought so indifferently and defensively knowing this situation. A KO would have taken matters out of Greggain's hands.

 

Pardon the pedantry but the progressive movement of that era was actually pretty racist.

 

The weakness of this argument is that it assumes the road taken was the only road which could have been taken.

But American history isn't only naked racism. What about the 14th and 15th Amendments? They needed 3/4 of the states to pass. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 which attempted to guarantee equal rights to all citizens passed over Andrew Johnson's veto with a two-thirds vote of each House. This shows there was significant support for a non or at least less racist society. President Grant used troops to enforce voting rights.
Of course the goals of the Civil War era and Reconstruction would eventually fall before the renewed strength of the solid South, and it would take a century to again attempt those goals.
But was everything set in stone as you maintain? I don't think so. For example, lynchings were very common in the South in the early 20th century. In 1921 a law was introduced in Congress to deal with lynchings. If failed because of the Senate filibuster. But lynchings became far less common. Even just debating a law and shedding light on the problem changed things to a degree.

So my bottom line about boxing. Yes. Sullivan lived in a racist society. Jeffries lived in a racist society. Dempsey lived in a racist society. But Joe Louis would have been surprised to learn he didn't live in a racist society, and yet he got his chance and it changed things.

We really don't know what would have happened if Sullivan or Jeffries or Dempsey would have taken the stance that competing with blacks in a sporting event wasn't that big an issue and defended against worthy black challengers. Blacks competed against whites in college football and the 1920's NFL with apparently no major problems. There was plenty of racism against Native Americans, but some competed in major league baseball (Jim Thorpe and Hall-of-Famer Chief Bender)

That said, I don't deny there were major political considerations at play. Jeffries might have been worried about a possible Federal ban of boxing. Dempsey might well have been constrained by authorities worried about igniting race riots.

But one thing is certain. If you don't try to change something you won't change it.

 

I have Ward's book I know it's in it I'm just saying Pollack doesn't mention it and of the two Pollack is the more thorough researcher.
Pollack's book said both finished strong. GREGGAINS!
Bill Naughton was not a fan of Johnson's ,I didn't say it was because he was black. Johnson finished the fight unmarked , Hart's face particularly the left side was badly swollen, guts and aggression are fine but they have to be effective just going forward isn't enough, or it shouldn't be,otherwise Randy Cobb might have been champ! GREGGAINS!

 

I guess I misspelled Greggain's name. Well, thanks for pointing it out. I will change it on my previous posts.

"guts and aggression"

But ringside reports do point to Hart landing heavy punches to the body, and at least occasionally the jaw.

 

That's not the progressive movement though, the racists status quo faction, that is the opposite of the progressive movement. Even before the revolutionary war there were select newspapers located in the north that talked about getting rid of slavery, that is was morally wrong. The progressive movement started in the north and gradually filtered downward, but it was still there. Shoot, there were books written even before Uncle Tom's Cabin discussing why slavery and racism were wrong; and I believe Uncle Tom's Cabin was written in the 1850's, again well before Jeffries time. The civil war happened because the progressive movement had gained traction over the prior years. This is just in American, progression had existed even before that in Europe. Point being, this was well before Jeffries or Dempsey's time.

 

No-- "progressive" didn't have the social justice connotations then that it has now. The progressive movement was full of scientific racists and segregationists. The anti-racists you refer to were not a part of that movement.

 

Of course, but the way the term progressive is used today, that is what that movement would be called. I could've used terms like Abolitionist, Anti Slavery Society, Reform Movement, Garrisonians etc etc; but I choose Progressive because that is what the movement became in later years (Woman's Suffrage for example and in later years for example mitigating income inequality). Not only for racial issues, but other socioeconomic issues.

 

Which black heavies do you think would have a chance to beat him from 1899-1901? That would be zero. And from 1902-1904, the best answer is also zero, with maybe just one worthy of a title shot.

Both the black and white fighters and press agree that Jeffries was the best of his time.

You could say even Joe Louis had a split title, as only two of his 26 title defenses were were black opponents and be more correct.