Let's Be Honest : Color Line and HW Champs

Well whether Martin was good or not he was highly regarded and some sections of the press were saying that he was the outstanding challenger for Jeffries title before Jack Johnson beat him.

If he was as bad as you say then why didnt the top white contenders que up to fight him knowing that they could cement their own credentials as title challengers at minimal risk?

The answer is because they knew that they didnt have a cat in hells chance of outboxing him and would need a knockout to win.

 

Some of them would have been dominant champions anyway.

Some of them would not have been champions.

John L Sullivan was the most categorical of the white champions in his refusal to meet a black challenger but it arguably reflects upon his reign the least. Even if Peter Jackson had beaten him it would have been late in his reign and would have left his main body of work complete. Provided he lasts untill the Killrain fight it makes negligible difference.

Jim Corbett might have found himself challenging a healthy and uninjured Peter Jackson for the title which is perhaps a worst case scenario for him. I dont think that either Corbett or Fitzsimmons are necisarily givens to win the title. Sombody would have beaten Jackson before Jeffries came allong but it dosnt have to be them.

In the case of Jim Jeffries it probably wouldnt have made much difference. The only black contender likley to beat him during the period of his title reign was Jack Johnson. Asuming Johnson won (by no means a given) it would probably have been around the time of the Munroe fight and would have left Jeffries body of work intact. As it happens he came back to loose to Jack Johnson years later and I doubt he could have done any worse at his peak.

If Johnson did beet Jeffries or win the vacant title after he retired then Marvin Hart and Tommy Burns might get cut out of the picture altogether. On the other hand there is always the chance that Johnson looses the title to Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette or even Harry Wills further down the line. In this situation Willard might get cut out of the picture.

By the time we get to Jack Dempsey the picture is even more complicated. If Willard is champion then he leapfrogs over Harry Wills to get a title shot with his blowout of Fred Fulton. It might be however that the incumbant is Harry Wills, or another fighter who has ended up as champion by a random chain of events we cannot predict. Provided Dempsey gets past Harry Wills who might be starting to get a bit civilised as champion he probably gets a prety clean run into the Tunney fight.

Once Gene Tunney had disposed of Jack Dempsey an elimination tournament was held to find a challenger. The winner was Tom Heeney. One fighter who was barred from taking part in the tournament was George Godfrey. Without the colour bar it is just possible that we might have seen a Tunney Godfrey title fight.

After Tunney retires there would have been a general scramble for the heavyweigh title. White contenders like Schmeling and Sharkey would have been verry much in the mix but it is likley that George Godfrey and Larry Gains would be in there somwhere too. What I will say for the short tenure champions between Tunney and Louis is that some of them would have been champions and some wouldnt.

Eventualy Joe Louis would have brought order to the heavyweight division. With a more liberal policy towards black fighters he might have given title shots to Leroy Haynes (Louis wanted to) and Lem Franklin. I dont think that either posed a serious threat. The more interesting question is whether some top black fighters such as Joe Walcott, Elmer Ray, or Tiger Jack Fox could have been fashioned into serious title challengers during this period with the right financial backing. Given the sucess that older versions or Ray and Walcott had once the promotors got behind them you have to wonder.

 

Larry Gains was another quality fighter who never got a chance at the belt.

 

Martin knocked out Hank Griffin, won a wide decision over bob armstrong that had the papers calling out jeffries to fight martin, and beat Sam Mcvea. Denver Ed Martin could not be outboxed by those midgets.

 

Sullivan--no real difference in legacy if he loses to Jackson rather than Corbett.

Corbett--issue here is how would Jackson fare if he were champion and Corbett had to fight him in Australia or London. If champion, Jackson may have been motivated to lighten up on the drinking, although this is problematic.

Jeffries--wins title from Jackson, Corbett, Fitz, or anyone else who has it about the same time as he did.

Jeffries-Johnson--1904-1905--This would really have been a critical legacy fight. One or the other emerges as without doubt the best fighter of his generation and probably wins the best of the half-century poll. If Jeffries wins this, it probably would not have made much difference if history went the way it did in reality and he lost to Johnson in 1910. Johnson adds the huge scalp of Jeff. One question--would Johnson have still ducked Langford, Jeannette, and McVey if he had won the title in 1904?

Johnson--If he fought the top black men he would probably have lost to either Langford or Wills rather than Willard. Willard might not be much remembered except perhaps as an opponent who failed against Wills.

Dempsey-Wills--another critical legacy fight with the winner the clear #1 for his generation w/o much dispute and moving well up the ratings.

Tunney--victories over even an old Wills and certainly Godfrey would do a great deal for Tunney's standing at heavyweight and on any p4p list.

We should remember though that while beating Johnson, Wills, and Godfrey would have burnished Jeffries', Dempsey's, and Tunney's resumes, all these fights probably fall into at best the pick-em category. Tunney, especially, beat no one at all similar to Godfrey.

 

I'd favor Johnson in a rematch, on the condition he trains his butt off; if he brings the same goods he did into their '04 fight, who knows? I'm inclined to think he deserved the decision in '04; but a decision for a cautious fighter who coasts the last five rounds, facing a game fighter, is never a sure sell.

 

Martin beat
Sandy Ferguson
Frank Childs
Sam Mcvey
Bob Armstrong
Hank Griffin
Klondike Haynes
Fred Russell
Frank Craig
All these men were contenders.

 

By the time Dempsey gets the title, Sam is very old. To me, i am unsure about Dempsey. Sometimes i think he is great sometimes i think he is vastly overated. If he is as good as most people think he is then he beats an old Langford in any series (just like Wills eventually did). If he isnt and he loses, it makes little difference, because an old Langford will lose before long to Harry Wills, at the least. So, I do think that Lanford has little to gain in this scenario. He was ducked by Johnson, but even if Johnson did give him a shot and Langford did win the title in the middle of Johnsons reign (not a given) it should be noted that somewhere around this time, he has losses to MC Vey and Gunboat smith, so it is not likely that he would have held the title for very long anyway. I think it would add nothing to his legacy (other than a win over Johnson).

Wills, is a different story. I accept he could beat Dempsey and likely win the title but that is a toss up and one which is no more than a 50.50 call. If Langford has the World Title in 1914 when they meet, he earns a rematch with his first draw, but then he is knocked out in the 14th round. after then splitting a series with Sam McVey, would he be given another shot against the champion Langford? If he is then he would not rest the title from Langford, because he would only come up with a draw or no decision in 1915. Would he continue to be given any more chances at the world Champion by this time, or would he be considered danmaged goods.?

Even if he did , would his controversial 20 rnd decision mean anything when Langford turns around a month later and knocks him out in the 19th round. Would the public really want to see a further mauling in 1916? And if they did demand such a match, would Langford not have made enough money on successfull title defences to retire by now? And have proved himself as the no1 fighter of the time? Or would he be forced to defend against the white fighters like Willard, Moran, Flynn etc. By now, Wills would not have much stock at all as a world title challenger because langford had asserted total superiority, like Jeffries did earlier to Corbett and Fitzsimmons (and even Sharkey and others). It would certainly be some time since Wills is given another shot. And even if it did come against Langford, there would be another no decision fight against the aging Langford.

In these circumstances, i cant possibly see any way at all that Langford could justify granting an 8 round title defence against wills on the basis of his no decision with Lester. If langford doesnt retire here, he has to prove himself/defend against other challengers and wills would be frozen out of the picuture at least until Dempsey wins the title, maybe longer.

So, If Wills does eventually win the title he does so either from Dempsey (or whoever beats and retires the aging Langford). He would not get a chance to right his legacy against Sam like he did without the world title so that would always hang over his career. Now let us assume that Dempsey wins the title in 1920 or so. Given Wills presumed title record against langford it will be at least a couple of years before he becomes the standout challenger. I would say that at least 1922 but given Dempseys inactivity, the proposed 1924 fight would be about right. Let us assume this date. If wills wins, in dominating fashion, like Tunney did, he cant escape the same criticism, Dempsey was inactive and not at his best. Sure he has a title to his credit, but how long does he hold it? Based on his record he Likely defends in a ND against Firpo. I am not sure whether Firpo is rematched as he had already been obliterated by Dempsey. I also dont know how kindly two easy defences against Winert and Johnson go down. Or even if there were any credible challengers at all who could add to his legacy at this time. Certainly a Tunney win would mean nothing. And i am not sure a Dempsey rematch would mean all that match either, although this is a likely possibility. If we assume that wills retains the title, in 1926 or 1927 he will either lose the fight on fouls to Sharkey or lose the title to Paulo Uzcudeen. Looking back on his career, without the colour line, the best result for Wills is that he wins the title with a short reign (but has a win over a Dempsey who probably wouldnt be as highly rated as he is now anyway). A worst case is obviously that Dempsey knocks him out and he was not seen to be in Langfords class or the main avoided challenger and clear cut no 2 of the era.

I think that Wills had more to risk by the removal o fthe colour line.

In hindsight, this would have been a brilliant time for a fight. But, look closely at Johnson's record. In 1902, he lost to Marvin Hart. This loss was never avenged and while no one ever thought that Hart could beat Jeffries, he remained the major contender, as evidenced by him getting the shot when Jeffries retired. You can moan about Johnson deserving the decision but the reality is neither of us saw the fight (nor did the 90% of the boxing public at the time). No matter what anyone says, it was definitely a close fight and Hart got the decision. This ruled out a fight any time after March 1905. Furthermore, Jeffries actually retired in May 1905 due to lack of challengers. Arguably, this was once he saw that the coloured champion Johnson was no better than the white challengers he had dominated (based on his result with Hart who no one considered to be in the same league as Jeffries). So realistically you are actually looking at a time between 1903 and 1904. 1902 is really where Johnson started to emerge as a major player, but even then, despite numerous attempts Johnson could not beat an old Hank Griffin. AFter losing their first fight, they constantly battled to a draw. This is the same Hank Griffin who was beaten in 1895, when in his prime by Jeffries and then when older in 1901, he was knocked down and totally dominated by Jeffries in an exhibition bout. At this stage, Johnson started what has become his impressive body of work, but really, does this make him a stand out contender? Sam Langford was very small and really, had not come into his own. Same with McVey who one would imagine had not become as highly thought of as he later would. In hindsight i think they are great wins, but at the time, it did not really make him a standout challenger.

To try to draw an analogy with todays fighters, he had lost to top contender, say a Nicolai Valuev on points. He had fought a contender who had already fought and lost (comprehensively) to the champion twice (say Chris Byrd). His result was one loss and 3 draws. Though he did have quite a few wins against unproven young talent Say Mesi, Guinn, Austin, Povetkin. This does not make him a standout contender although i guess a fight would not be totally out of the question. With such a record, i doubt many would be demanding vlad to fight such a guy, but he might be a decent name on Vlads resume.

Jeffries only fight in 1903 was a rematch with corbett. Corbett had lost earlier, but he was previously the undisputed champion and many had thought he outboxed Jeffries before getting careless and getting knocked out. In modern terms, if Jeffries hadnt fought Corbett, it would be like Lennox Lewis fighting on and not giving Vitali a rematch or Chris Byrd being the current champion but refusing to defend against Vitali. While not totally out of the question, common sense suggests that this is a reasonable defence to make. Given that this happened in August 03, it means that 1903 is pretty much ruled out as an opportunity to defend against johnson so we only need to consider 1904 as a possible chance to defend.

By this time, it is clear that Jeffries had proved himself the best in the world and he only wanted to earn money from the title. With no challengers he took the easy money option with Monroe, something which was fair enough, given his previous defences. Particularly so, when there was a fight between what most would consider the no 1 and 2 contenders in Johnson and Hart booked for early 05. This was a chance for both to get a shot at Jeffries. Neither did enough to stand out as a clear cutchallenge to Jeffries and thus, he retired. In hindsight it was the perfect time to fight, but in realityit wasnt at the time. Interestingly, i know nobody who thinks Hart was in any way better than Jeffries, yet people think that if Jeffries fought Johnson it could go either way (i am probably one of them). But be honest, if it was Jeffries instead of Hart fighting that night, isnt more than likely that Jeffries woud have at the very least eeked out the same decision that Hart did, and more than likely won in a more comprehensive fashion than hart, since he was quite a bit better than Hart?

Consider also, if Johnson had fought Langford or McVey instead of the ancient Jeffries (and lost), would you not be sitting here saying that Jeffries should have fought Langford or McVey during this time? It is all about Hindsight.

 

Boilermaker:

On the Jeffries-Johnson-Hart situation. The problem is that Jeffries made it clear on numerous occasions as far back as 1903 that he would not defend against Johnson.

SF Chronicle 3-28-1905 ----- preview of Johnson-Hart fight:

"The winner is promised a fight with Jeffries if the winner should be Hart. The hairy one has not withdrawn the color line and has no intention of doing so."

SF Chronicle 3-29-1905

The next day in their report on the fight, the Chronicle quoted Jeffries from New York on his reaction to the result:

"I am glad the white man won. If Hart, in the opinion of the public, is a fit opponent for me, I will readily sign articles for a fight."

Johnson losing merely got Jeffries off the hook about ducking him more blatantly.

This is a fight I would really like to see a film of to judge how fair the decision was.

 

Jeffries on another ocasion said that:

"I wont fight Johnson if he beats the entire Japanese army".

 

I believe all that you can do is accept the Black HW Championship as being just as legitimate as what was essentially the White HW Championship.

Sometimes people get all in a knot and come to some bizarre conclusions. By the time Dempsey was champion Langford would have stood little chance. Before that, when Jack was raw and Sam prime it would have been the other way round.

It goes for pretty much all of them. Timing is everything...

 

Russell, Craig and Klondike were never contenders. Griffin wasn't either but he probably should have been. McVey was not yet and Armstrong ceased to be a contender after Childs bested him. Childs was good but never a HW contender and Ferguson at beast a maybe.

 

Russell beat
Mexican Pete Everett
Klondike
Griffin

Klondike drew with
Jack johnson x2
Joe Kennedyx2
Frank Childs
and beat Childs.

Childs beat
Walcott
Everett
Butler
Bonner
Klondike
Armstrong
Dunkhorst
and drew with Griffin
I will give you Craig. ,the others were certainly good enough to be called contenders ,Griffin for

example drew with and beat Jack Munroe who fought Jeffries for the title.All ot them were better than Jack Finnegan!

 

There is an article one of the San Francisco Chronicle (if memory serves) in late August, 1903 (I think the 30th) reviewing Jeffries' career and the status of the heavyweight division. The writer's position was that there were no worthy white contenders on the horizon and by far the best opponents for Jeffries out there were Jack Johnson and Sam McVey.

By the way, in evaluating Jeff's career, the writer concluded that Jeffries was the greatest heavyweight America had produced as his opposition had been much better than Sullivan's.

 

Up to the end of his reign I would say Jeffries was certainly the best Champion ,whether that would have been the case had he met Johnson for the title from ,say 1903 -1905 we don't know.