Let's Be Honest : Color Line and HW Champs

I agree with your point, except probably Jeffries. He did defeat Jackson, Armstrong, and Griffin on his way to the white championship. The issues with Jeffries begin about 1903 when Johnson emerges as the top challenger and Jeff refuses to meet him.

As great as they were, Dempsey and Tunney just did not prove they could defeat the best black fighters of their era.

 

It should also be pointed out Johnson avoided black fighters, with one exception, and that ended in a very fortunate draw for the Champ.

I think you legitimize Jeffries reign more by also pointing out that he beat Peter Jackson who although way, way, way past his best, was the owner of the Police Gazette Title, and considered by a large minority THE Heavyweight Champion of the World....

 

I have the Corbett vs Jackson report in paper format. Using the round by round report to assign rounds won ( semi dangerous with just one report ) Corbett won more rounds than Jackson did, but Jackson won a few more rounds by a sound margin. There was little action after round 30. Corbett did not fight the first 30 rounds to survive at all. He boxed, moved jabbed, and let lose a good one every now and then. It should be noted that Corbett offered Jackson as re-match as champion, but Jackson declined.

I tend to believe that Jackson would have beaten Sullivan in the late 1870's, but one cannot be sure. Jackson was even with Joe Goddard ( each man scored a KD, some reports suggest Goddard was the better by a shade ), who was similar in Sullivan to build and style. I tend to think Sullivan hit harder than Goddard hit and was a trifle more durable but it is just an educated guess. If Sullian fought Goddard or Slavin, I think we would have a better read on how he would do with Jackson since Jackson fought both Goddard and SLavin.

Outside of Jackson, and Hank Griffin, there really was not a top black heavyweight in the 1880-1899 time line.

Jack Johnson came into his own around 1906-1907 period, and shortly after than McVey, Langford, and Jeanette emerged as true heavyweight threats.

Best guess is with no color line the championship might look a bit like this:

Sullivan
Jackson
Corbett
Fitz
Jeffries
Jeffries retires in 1905, then Hart vs Johnson is the title match. Hart wins.
Then Burns defeates Hart
Johnson defeats Burns. Johnson is now champion

The wild variation is Johnson would have to deal with Langford, McVey, and Jeanette from 1908-1915, and I strongly believe if these three would have been offered title shots one of them defeats Johnson before Willard does.

 

This argument can be turned on its head so that we can say the great black hw's of that era did not prove they could beat the white hw's. My thinking is that the societal reality of the era hurt the legacies of both groups. We all lost in this situation.

 

Well, Joe Louis only defended his title against 2 Black fighters as well, John Henry Lewis and Jersey Joe Walcott.

 

Correct, only two black men got a title shot vs Joe Louis. Joe gave John Henry Lewis a shot because he was ill and needed the money.

I think the color line to prevent matches pretty much ended after Marciano became champion.

 

And arguably lost to one of them in their first meeting....

 

I've had these arguments with other posters before, and frankly I think Louis was just as guilty of not fighting the best men in the division as anyone else.. He twice gave a title shot to Abe Simon who Lem Franklin likewise beat twice. He gave title shots to all kinds of fighters, but not to Elmer Ray who was on one of the greatest winning streaks in heavyweight history. These are just two examples, but there are others. Some have tried to take the lazy defense by saying that the best black fighters simply were not the highest rated, which in my opinion is horrible weak argument. They weren't rated as high BECAUSE they were black...

 

Denver Ed Martin. Fitz and sharkey would not fight this guy. I have a video clip of Martin tooling on Ruhlin who was training to fight jeffries for the title. it made me wonder why isnt martin the one getting the title shot. Denver ed knocked out hank griffin. At 6'6 with 84" reach, I suspect the midget white boys of the day wanted no part of him.

 

Why should they have fought him? He wasn't very good and offered nothing if they beat him. Not a persuasive argument.

 

Galento beat a lot of the tough Black fighters of the Joe Louis Era and so did Bob Pastor...as far as Johnson,Dempsey,Tunney....I would guess it had to be a money issue..but its a shame anyway..the BEST SHOULD ALWAYS GET A TITLE SHOT...Marciano had to fight Walcott he was Champ...but Charles was fresh off 2explosive Ko's of Coley Wallace and Bob Satterfield and Rocky fopught fought Archie Moore...Lastarza beat everyone he faced at 53-3.....and Cockell but nobody wanted to fight Moore..4-2 for the blacks over the whites by Marciano...Vlad has fought more blacks and so has Vitali...as far as the guys that did not fight the best because they were black or was it because the promoters were not paying., still it was wrong..why did Johnson avoid giving blacks a payday, he should have known better....it is wrong

 

Being honest for a moment, John L, despite "inventing" the colour line really loses absolutely nothing from not fighting a coloured fighter as no coloured fighter earned a shot. When John L finally fought Corbett (who was at least as deserving as Jackson due to their draw) he was so far gone that a loss would have meant nothing at all in terms of his legacy and he probably stood more of a chance against Jackson than Corbett due to the fact that he seemed a more stationery target.

Corbett is the man who first got a real advantage out of the colour line, as he should have rematched Jackson. STill, who is to say that he wouldnt have retained against Jackson. If the fight was identical to the first fight (and if neither declined it theoretically should have been), then Jackson would not have got a world title. If you look as Jackson's health and alcoholism, you would imagine that Jackson would have deteriorated more than corbett, by the time Corbett gave him his overdue title shot.

Fitz cant really be accused of ducking anyone (other than possibly a Corbett rematch), as he did not hold the title long enough. Jeffries had already beaten the coloured champion by the time he was champion, so up until Jeffries, the coloured line has really not played any significant role, imo. Certainly not as great as the WBO, WBC, WBA and IBF Line. Jeffries, in all reality, could have defended against Johnson (lanford etc were to soundly beaten by Johnson to be legitimate challengers) but imagine the furore if he defended against johnson. It would have meant that he Ducked Marvin Hart! So still, being honest the colour bar did not play a serious role in the World championship so far.

This leaves Tommy Burns, who really deserved a shot about as much as Johnson did. Burns did travel as opposed to taking on the best fighters but he fought often, against guys who easily could ahv ebeen the best and he fought Johnson early on. Again, there is no way the colour line removal would have effected his fights, unless it resulted in him fighting less deserving coloured fighters like Langford, mcvey or Jeanette. So, again until Johnson there was no really big effect on the World title.

Johnson, though is an iffy one. To be honest, i can see the justification for him not fighting Lanford and Co. He had already fought them and dominated them. In some ways it would be like Sam Peter crying that Vladimir never gave him a third match, or Jerry Quarry claiming Ali ducked him by not giving him the third match. Yes, in hindsight at least one of them should have got a shot, but i dont think that the ducking is as bad as it seems. In fact, if anything, it was not much worse than the way that Marvin Hart was ducked during the time, given that Hart actually defeated Johnson. Or that Burns was not given his rematch etc. Johnson had simply won so comprehensively that he did not really need to defend against guys he had already beaten.

This leads us to Jess Willard, who was probably as guilty as anyone. Lets be honest, He should have given the champion a rematch. He ducked him as bad as Douglas ducked Tyson. He chose to fight MOran and Dempsey. Neither really appeared to be any more established than Langford and Co at the time that they fought Willard, even though Dempsey became an all time great. I dont think that there is much excuse for this and it would have had a big effect on history because ultimately, if he rematched Johnson, or one of the others, we would have seen some great ATG fights and it may be that history would have changed massively. Perhaps Wills would have a lengthy reign, or Johnson would have beaten Dempsey, or Dempsey would have been forced to fight Wills, or Johnson Wills would have taken place. IMO, it is Dempsey that would ahve had the biggest influence on the heavyweight picture.

This leaves Dempsey, who should have fought Wills and could have easily also fought aging Langford, Johnson, McVey etc. How would this have changed his legacy? If he won all fights, which age wise he should have (exception of Wills), then i think that it would put wills in particular down a lot and maybe Johnson Langford and McVey also (although this might be perceived as a little unfair, i think most people would do this). In a sense, it is quite likely that the colour line only helped these guys legacies.

After Dempsey we have Tunney, who really cant be accused of using the colour line. A Wills / Godfrey fight would have been nice, but was not really much of a chance due to both losing fights at the wrong time. In any case, it is quite clear that if they were ducked, it was due more to their size and strenght more than their colour. If they were ducked, they would have been done so regardless of whether the line existed.

In summary, being fair, as the original poster asked, i think that the colour line has had minimal effect on the title picture. It did, admittedly prevent one or two fighters from a "Chance" at winning the title, but there were no guarantees that they would have won, and the flip side is that if they had fought for the title and lost their legacies would be likely to be unfairly damaged. The fighter, imo, who most profited from the line was Jess Willard, who ironically is not really one who is traditionally mentioned when the colour line is talked about.

 

I disagree completely. You dismiss Langford and Wills asif they're walkovers for Dempsey, while they are better than anyone Dempsey ever beat and avoided for a reason.

As for Jeffries, just saying that "he ducked Hart if he fought Johnson!" doesn't make much sense, either. He never fought Hart at all despite not fighting Johnson either. The big black man earned his shot anywhere between 1903-1905 and the color line was blatantly used to deny him a shot. Again, this is not a small footnote; the title may well have changed hands had he gotten his rightful title shot.

 

Correct. Ed Martin could not take it to the head or body and had a string of early KO losses. I do not think he would last long vs Jeffries. In fact Jeffries has a reported KO over Martin by newspapers early in his career before becoming champion.