Is it possible that the fighters and promoters who drew the color bar acted from honorable motives?

Rickard set up Johnson-Jeffries, right? So no problem with race riots if a white man had the chance to win the crown it seems.

 

Why is it so very, very, very, very hard to call Jeffries and Dempsey for the ducking cowards they were? They were a disgrace to the sport like nothing that has come after. Why this revisionism? Why is it so hard to call something for what it is?

That doesn't make them less talented fighters if that's the problem, but it makes them lesser champions and competitors. They were either racists or cowards or both. I'll personally go for the third option, but any of the three is reasonable.

To pretend that they were looking out for the greater good... Ffs what's next. Let's just justify every blatant act of self serving discrimination with a yearning for social stability, shall we? Because it is easily done, and has been done.

 

There is nothing honorable in denying someone the chance of doing something perfectly legal because allowing them to do so "might" result in morons committing crimes ...

Allow people following the law to proceed and arrest the criminals who can't handle it.

 

The colour bar in Britain was entirely racially motivated. With a large empire, it was seen as essential not to draw into question the idea of white British superiority.
It's not often mentioned that no black man was allowed to fight for a British Title until D.ck Turpin in 1948.

 

Yes. And Jeffries and Rickard had no problem when Jeffries stood to win a title, only when Jeffries (and Dempsey) stood to lose one.

 

I love this forum most of the time, but that Patterson gets as much, or more, flak from imagined ducks of Liston and Williams than Jeffries and Dempsey get for their clear and shameful ducks of Johnson and Wills is quite sad and something we should have moved past.

 

Race riots were an excuse. Black and white fighters up and down the weight divisions fought each other in title fights.

Joe Louis made 25 title defenses over 11-plus years ... only two challengers were black men.

The idea that for more than 32 years - from 1915 when Johnson lost to 1947 when Walcott first challenged Louis - that only two black men (Joe Louis and John Henry Lewis) challenged for the Heavyweight title was ridiculous.

Think of all the talented fighters during that period who had zero shot of getting a title fight no matter who they beat.

And both Walcott and John Henry Lewis were considered ridiculous no-hopers when Louis signed to fight them. Louis and his team didn't think they were going out on a limb either time.

Drawing the color line - whether you were a white champ or a black champ - was wrong and had EVERYTHING to do with promoters and managers trying to protect their "champs" ...

They weren't trying to "protect" society any more than Jim Braddock was trying to "destroy" society by defending against a black man.

 

The system was racist and could be easily used as an excuse not to fight a top black contender as their was ample amount of them at the top at any one period.
Money has always been the main motive of most promoters, isn't it why they exist, to exploit the boxers coming up from the slums using their boxing skills or lack of as probably the only way out.
I think some boxers were in charge of their own destiny and these seemed to be worse of ducking top contenders black or white. I think young naive boxers like Dempsey, the promoters would be licking their lips. If you look at his record once he won the number 1 spot off Fulton his matches slowly dwindled into exhibitions, they wanted to protect their investment. Then when he won the World title he became a cash cow, of course greedy fingers going to keep him away from losing and losing all that money. They told him sit back and relax, make a few films and we'll set you up for big paydays. Dempsey wanted to fight frequent and often but what good is that to Rickard and co if he loses his belt in a few months with a few small venue battles.

I've heard that quote from John L Sullivan a few times, does that mean he feared Peter Jackson? He wouldn't fight Frank Slavin either.

 

I think many people just 'did their job' and tried to make a living in an obvious 'onesided' business... But the BIG Promoters and even 'lesser' managers who owned Top men, obviously dealt with each other, and it was never to the gain of littleman's fighters.

it makes me laugh how much we know about Boxing corruption, but these Boxing Forums will only except what suits, rather than what the documented history records.

Boxing IS a S hithole Business, and thousands of great fighters had to settle for less, because of the TOP Promoters, Managers and corrupt Boards.

Boxing History is only about 70s accurately right, in otherwords, there should be many other names in the record book of champions.

 

No