What If...Burns had drawn the color line

None of this changes that Johnson would be a big favourite in a series of fights against McVey, Jeannette and Langford.

If they fight 7/8 times from 1905-1915 he probably will drop a fight here or there, but I think there would be absolutely no doubt that Johnson was the outstanding contender throughout this period. Just as Langford was for Johnson and Wills was for Dempsey.

He'd be that level of dominant imo.

 

This. The Johnson fight was too lucrative to pass up for Burns. Besides Jeffries making a comeback Burns would’ve never made $30,000 against any other heavyweight. Burns pretty much extorted a 30K payday out of Johnson and his manager, which is why Johnson went out of his way to humiliate Burns when they fought.

 

I think Burns would have cleaned up the division in this scenario. He was a good fighter. Despite a tenuous claim when he beat Hart, he travelled the world and fought the best. A true champion despite probably never being the best fighter in the world.

Even as a part timer, he continued on a long winning streak. Only good fighters could have done what he done.

That being said, i also think it was Jack Johnson's destiny to win the world title. With each Burns win, Johnson would have continued dominating the best challengers. McVey, Langford and Jeanette were simply not as good as him (that is no insult). He would have dominated all of burns' competition. Even if Burns had lost the title, he would have dominated that fighter's competition. Think about it, He lost one fight in the next 10 or 15 years. Imagine that if he had maintained his pre title activity levels!

I cannot see any scenario, other than an unforeseen Johnson injury, where Jack Johnson doesnt get a title shot. He would have simply done what it takes to earn one.

 

In response to the thread question, if Mr. Burns had drawn the Color Line, Carlton Carlson would not have had a job.

 

Are you aware of the following?

1. Langford was estimated to be 20 years old and 156 pounds when he fought Johnson. Sam says he was in the 140's. This match means nothing. A prime Langford was more like 175 - 180 pounds.

2. Jeanette first meet Johnson with a losing record. Jeannette who had no amateur experince was green, yet by the end of the sires had drawn with Johnson. Jeanette also said he was much lighter for these fights. Jeanette in his prime was much better.

3. Jack Johnson beat a teenaged Sam Mcvey. How relevant is this to McVey in his prime?

None of the above fights mean jack in a 1909-1913 prime match up, outside of Johnson's chances for a stoppage prime versions of Langford, Jeannette or Mcvey are extremely low as he only had one in something like 10 fights vs. the young and green versions of the above men.

You'll get it.

By contrast, how did Johnson do vs. men in their prime or slightly past it who had experience and were not very light, very green or teenagers?

He was Ko'd cold by Choynski. He lost to a past his best Hank Griffin, and he lost to Marvin Hart.

 

Look -- you are the first one to insult, which happens quickly when facts arrive that do not suit your agenda. If you want to keep a thread clean stop doing what you do and debate. Simple.

You lied plain and simple about the purse knowing how much the purse was on Johnson vs. Johnson. Adam says the purse is unknown! So how in the heck do you know it? Backpedaling to a what a person said in another book who didn't list the exact amount is not going to save you. If you had any honor left, you'd apologize.

As for Unforgivable Blackness, Why not quote what Ward said on Johnson vs. Klondike? He says Johnson quit like a dog and gives detail. Randy Robert says the same thing. Picking and choosing your passages is your MO.

Back to Burns, who was at a low weight for Johnson. We've been over a book on Burns, which said he looked yellow and sick according to primary sources of those sitting at ringside, and the foremost historian on early Black prizefighters concurs by saying Burns had something of jaundice.

How well do I know the poster Mcvey, Tonto62 and Raisner? A Prediction. You will shoot down the sources, and call their Author's or Papa Jack and Unforgivable Blackness as wrong ( Thereby admitting the BS claim about knowing the purse from Johnson and Johnson ) , so you might as well never quote them again.

If I cared about making you look really bad, I'd purchase Pollack's Johnson book and quote any passage that rubs you the wrong way. Now that would be rather cruel. What would you do then? OUCH. Color yourself lucky I prefer books written by authors when the subject material was living. But maybe, just maybe I will buy it. I'll let you ponder that.

As for Burns, he wasn't very good. Johnson himself called him one of the easiest men he ever fought.

 

Wait, so in the very same post you say Johnson's victories over non prime fighters mean nothing, yet his non prime losses do mean something?

Nothing you've said really addressed the point I made in the post you quoted, so I'll just allow you time to re read it and come back to it later if you want.

 

Jack Johnson 185 lbs beat Sam Langford 156 lbs by PTS in round 15 of 15

• Date: 1906-04-26
• Location: Lincoln A.C., Chelsea, Massachusetts, USA
• Referee: Martin Flaherty

Two and a half years before the start of Johnson's legendary reign as World Heavyweight Champion, he met Sam Langford at the Lincoln Athletic Club in Chelsea, Massachusetts in defense of his "colored" portion of the heavyweight crown. Johnson, who had met the best heavyweight contenders (compared to the 156 lbs Langford, who had just recently started fighting heavyweights), dominated the bout and won by a lopsided fifteen-round decision. However, Langford's manager, Joe Woodman, told everyone who would listen that Langford floored the "Galveston Giant" with a right uppercut and gave him a tremendous battle. Woodman's account persisted for years, which offended Johnson greatly and prompted him to issue a series of vehement denials.

In an open letter to The Ring in 1934, Johnson wrote: “I have accounts of the fight from my dear old friend, Tad (legendary sports writer and cartoonist Tad Dorgan), which show how badly Sam Langford was whipped. Please note the account of our fifteen-round fight at Chelsea, Mass., which I am enclosing. The report shows that I gave poor Sam such a severe trimming that he had to find his way into a hospital to recuperate. The records of that fight prove that statement to be correct."

In 1945, Joe Waterman, who believed Johnson was the greatest of all the heavyweight champions, backed up Johnson's account. Waterman stated that he was at the fight and witnessed Johnson dish out a "terrible beating" to the smaller Langford.

In his 1958 book, 50 Years at Ringside, Nat Fleischer, founder of The Ring, produced the testimony of his father-in-law, Dad Phillips, who allegedly saw the fight.

Said Phillips: “Jack Johnson decisively defeated Sam Langford. He was complete master of the situation. Jack so far outclassed Langford that for a time, until he purposely eased up on his onslaughts, the fight was one-sided."

Langford was born on 4th of March 1883,he fought Johnson on the 26th of April 1906 making him 23 years old when he fought Johnson.
As far as experience goes Langford had engaged in56 fights,Johnson 46.

Its interesting that in an effort to boost Jim Jeffries you continually credit Jim Corbett with over 50 fights,despite him telling Tommy Loughran different ,yet accept at face value the amount of fights that have been discovered for Mcvey and Jeannette, McVey was already a leading contender when Johnson stopped him in their last fight he was 205lbs and promoters had challenged Jeffries on his behalf offering sizable guarantees for him to take the fight.Yet Jeffries ignored his challenges, if he was such an easy mark why didn't Jeffries accept his challenge? He certainly had a better record than some of the goof- offs Jeffries defended against, no hopers like Munroe and Finnegan.
Johnson floored Jeannette multiple times in their series and only lost one on a dubious dsq. Johnson once fought Jeannette and another fighter,[Black Billl] on the same day..
Its certain McVey,Jeannette ,and Langford improved as they grew more experienced,its equally certain that so did Johnson.
Now do you think you could refrain from turning this into your regular Johnson hate fest and just address the original question?

 

If a colour line is drawn there's nothing Johnson could do.

We saw this with Jackson, Godfrey, Wills and again with Langford.

 

I never lie.
The amount of purse Johnson received for defending aginst Jim Johnson can be found in Geoffrey C Ward's book Unforgivable Blackness,I provided you with the chapter and the page if you can't be bothered to buy the book to find it that's your choice.You recently privately messaged me, and I told you what I think of you and not to contact me again.My opinion of you will never change ,as said then, I loathe and despise you.
You are a sick puppy with an irrational hatred of a man who has been dead since 1946! You pollute any thread that even peripherally mentions or concerns Johnson with your phobic and toxic hatred.You are malware on this forum.
After the Jeffries fight Johnson told Burns to his face that he was a good fighter and had given him a much harder fight than Jeffries ,whom he called," easy work."
As to you buying books on Johnson and embarrassing me with their content I have 5 on the man,the only person who gets embarrassed on the subject of Lil Arthur is you ,but you're to tunnel visioned in your manic hatred to even see what a show you are making of yourself.
Now for God's sake show some courtesy to the OP,and stop this incessant derailing of threads!

For the final time, the purse Johnson got for his defence against Jim Johnson can be found in Unforgivable Blackness in chapter 11 The Fugitive ,page 354.

 

If Ketchel becomes HW champion he's a GOAT contender.

 

You never lie? Bahawhahahaha. As usual you have no replay back to my facts You can't accept the truth, so you go to insult.

Yes, your are obsessed with your wife being idol and liar. I pointed out that it was you who started with the insults. Note I don't need to go as low as you do. Don't go negative on posters and they won't embarrass you with a reply back. It's simple.

Johnson said Burns is the easiest man I ever fought. How can you have 5 books and obsess over man so much and not know the details?! Johnson also said Jeffries was the greatest. Beating a 5'7 1/2 inch 168 pound heavyweight and a man who was fat, old and had not fought in 6 years get your juices going.

PS: That page does not give an exact amount. Stop hiding behind BS. You claim you knew, You don't!. Yet you continue to lie about it.

PPS: I can produce 50 + Men Corbett boxed have have done so already. Too bad Corbett never fought Johnson in the late 1890's or very early 1900's. You hold him in high regard like Choysnki.

 

I listed the situations. If beating a teenager, a 20 year old 156 pound man, and fighter with a sometimes losing record means something to you, please tell me why.

Who says Johnson wasn't in his prime for Hart? He certainly was. He also had 23+ fights or more under his belt when Choynski past his prime waxed him in three rounds, and later was bested by Griffin, who was also past his prime in a 3 fight series. Johnson had been boxing since 1894.

If you need the names, dates, ages or amount go fights of the passage above, I can provide them for you.

I do think Johnson's victory over Burns means something. He was champion at the time and Johnson handled him. I think that or Denver Ed Martin is probably Johnson best win. So do a lot of people. We had a poll on Johnson and the result was no one thinks Johnson's win over Langford or Jeanette is among his best 4 wins. Even the poster McVey said Johnson win over Langford to paraphrase what he said was not a big one.

 

I disagree.

Peter Jackson was a great fighter. Very underated and Many people of his time actually did consider him the world champion. Corbett (not John L) ducking of him was probably as bad as any duck ever, stirred on by the colour line. That being said, If Jackson had actually beaten Corbett when they fought, things would have been different.

Wills also should have been given a shot at Dempsey. If he hadnt of lost to Sharkey and Uzcuden he would have.

Godfrey was a great fighter, a lot better than he is given credit for and possibly the best fighter in the world for a while (though i would have loved to see how those Godfrey Johnson spars went down). Still, i couldnt imagine Johnson wearing cuffs the same way Godfrey is alleged to have done.

Look at it another way, if Burns had gone on and continued fighting and winning, how would johnsons record look. With 10 to 12 fights a year for another 2 to 3 years, there would be simply no challengers left. Imo, there is no way that Johnson allows the colour line to stand.

I think the world title was his destiny. I cant see the colour line preventing him from fulfilling it.

 

Because they were all ranked contenders when Johnson beat them, as they got better he also got better. As I said, I've no doubt in a series of fights later on he would drop a fight or two against them all, but I've also no doubt he would be the dominant fighter in the series.

The Hart fight was a contentious decision, I give Hart the benefit of the doubt because I haven't seen it myself. But I struggle to believe anyone saw Hart as the best HW in the world.

Why would I need dates, they're all on boxrec.

I've seen your thread. Jeffries was ranked number 4 and Langford number 5. I'd argue Jeannette was better than Jeffries. And McVea was already in the top 5. No offence to McVey but I don't post based on his opinions, I post based on mine.

This thread is about what happens if the colour line is drawn. I've stated my view, Johnson is the dominant and outstanding contender to whichever white man had the belt.

What's your view on what happens?