Could Jack Dempsey Knock Out Sonny Liston?

It's not like every major sport is played in a ghetto. And it's funny how the "lessened participation of whites" as you call it coincided with the lessening of segregation. In HW boxing the change is very aligned with Joe Louis getting broad popular acception as a black champion, and in baseball I wouldn't be surprised if you can note a change after Jackie Robinson broke the colour line. Isn't that a nice coincidence?

Changing socioeconomic conditions can probably explain a part as to why blacks came to totally dominate the HW division from about 1960 to 2000, but it cannot explain the very rapid change that happened in the 1940's. Before WW2 a grand total of three title shots at been given to black fighters (two on American soil). The same number of title shots black fighters got in the latter half of the 1940's alone. Black fighters who started out their careers before WWII.

This isn't really rocket science. America was a racist society and the opportunities for success was very limited for blacks in ANY field, in and out of sports, but boxing would be the sole exception you mean? When the statistics clearly show otherwise? No one of sound intellect can seriously believe this.

 

Maybe if he used the same gloves that he used against Jess Willard?!

 

Of course Jack could knock 'Sonny' out. When you can slug like that it could be curtains at any time.

What a great fight it would be. Liston's heavy jab was one heck a tool, but one that Dempsey's sweeping head would likely escape most of the time. One of Dempsey's best talents, slipping and ducking straight shots, and that's where he weaved out and would come back with some hell. Would be very interesting to see how Liston handled it - a full swing would likely stagger the man whom is mostly thought to be the sturdier of the two.

Liston checked himself nicely with forearms and elbows in tight up close, which would be vital in absorbing the assaults and countering with short hooks. This would be a mid-range bombing session after Dempsey made a sucker out of the jab. Dempsey was easier to 'move', so to speak, but then he was so very quick and resilient - hurt him and he'd fire back with interest.

The way Ted Spoon looks at it, Dempsey is a roaring blaze so Liston will have to be the best damn fireman on the night. It would be very hard to set Dempsey up, or control him to any degree. The way Dempsey is going is if Liston keeps everything nice and tight and waits for Dempsey's style to fall over itself, leaving the chin out for too long.

If not, Liston is unable to time him for the hammers and Dempsey persistently finds the target when Liston feels more compelled to impose himself, walking into plenty.

Tyson would likely be in better stead to contend with Dempsey because he could cut out more favourable angles and could pull the trigger quicker. The manner in which Liston conducted himself; exclusive with the jab, fairly straight-up posture helps Dempsey work a groove into him.

 

Yeah, by a cut. He took some hellacious shots without going down.

Willard was also KO'd by Firpo, and stopped by Joe Cox. And in general he met men far smaller than Vitaly's opponents. If Vitaly mostly had proved his chin against LHWs, no one would be that impressed.

Yeah, that says something.

You have a point here. But Willard didn't have that many victories over really good opposition. He has his win over a shot Johnson, but other than that Gunboat Smith should be his best opponent (after Dempsey), and he lost to him.

It should also be noted that Willard was almost 38 and had been inactive for 3 years when facing Dempsey. He probably was, by any reckoning, quite close to being shot.

Not by me. Certainly not when it concerns someone so shrouded in legend as Dempsey. It's telling that there are two different excuses for this loss: Dempsey not eating nor preparing properly, and him throwing the fight. This doesn't have the feel of seriousness. Certainly not when neither claim is backed up by ringside reports.

I think Ali-Liston II gets dismissed as a fix a little to easily, but I still disagree here. The immediate reaction from many at ringside was to scream "fix", and even Ali screamed for Liston to get up. The footage of Liston rolling around on the canvas is not convincing either.

When it comes to Dempsey-Flynn the ringside reports show none of this. Two articles actually reports that Dempsey is gone for a minute and then is so confused and groggy that he tries to slug his handlers when they help him to his feet.

I think that Willard's victory over Johnson is more suspect if anything.

On the basis that he was hepled back into the ring illegaly. If he hadn't been it may very well have been KO, and as it was it should possibly be a DQ.

 

But there's so much we don't know. How many didn't even get to a contender level because of the conditions of the time? How many Walcotts were there who never got that second chance? We can never know for sure, but we can say with near certainity that white fighters in general had an easier time getting the right manager, the right fights, the right conditions for training and preparation etc than blacks. We know that the playing field wasn't level and this should in all likelihood have been reflected in the rankings.

Well, was it? Louis was more or less the only elite black fighter of the 30's (and perhaps John Henry Lewis should get a mention). The 20's had both Wills and Godfrey. Sure, in the period 1905-1915 there seem to have been a surge in black talent (Johnson, Langford, McVey etc), but in the preceeding generation there was only Peter Jackson more or less. At HW that is.

Anyhow, my point that the playing field wasn't level still stands.

EDIT: In the late 40's you have all of a sudden (besides Joe Louis) guys like Bivins, Murray, Ray, Franklin, Bobo and of course Walcott and Charles. For me that's because of the colour line dissipating since they all started out before the end of the war more or less (see below).

Since almost all of the fighters active in the 40's and many of those active in the early 50's had started out in boxing before this rise in living standards, I don't think it had had that impact by then. Rather the change was a reflection of how Louis had increased the acceptance of black fighters on an elite level. I also think that the horrors of WWII had made outright discrimation that much more untenable. Jackie Robinson broke the colour barrier in baseball in 1947.

However, I do think that the changing socio-economic conditions was part of the reason as to why the sport started being totally dominated by blacks (and then also hispanics in the lower divisions) from the late 50's, early 60's onwards. It was a mix of both IMO.

 

Someone make the appropriate pun here. I'm not gonna do it.

 

Let me break this ***** down for you.

Blacks don't even account for 9% of MLB players today. Are they inferior baseball players? No. But they don't ****ing play baseball. Not many white people play basketball. I've lived in a Navy town, I've lived in Texas and I've lived in Detroit... you know the difference between white and black basketball players? Aggression. Blacks play ball HARD from childhood, and it develops into a more competitive style. But no, it's genetics...

You know what's interesting? Right around the time that segregation fell, whites left the ghettos. Where I live today, 50 years ago this was a 100% Polish-German neighborhood. Crime was nonexistent, but income was similar to where it is today. Employment was very high and people worked hard for very little. Today, half the neighborhood is on welfare, it's ~90% black and crime is very, very high. White people bettered themselves and left the ghetto. My Uncle was a walkon for the Detroit Tigers, and he never played organized baseball in his life. He played stickball in the streets and baseball with some neighborhood kids when he could, but he was good enough to get a MiLB contract which he turned down. His son skates. Could this be.... a social trend? No, that's dumb...

You're so hungup on racism you can't see the forest for the trees. Are you an American, Bokaj? If not, then please STFU.

 

I've adressed this several times, so I'm not going to do it again at any length. In short, I agree that social economic factors played a part, but it changed too quickly (over just a couple of years) for them to explain far from all of it. It's all in my previous posts. Try to read them through for once.

No, I'm not American, but what does that matter? None of us was around in the 20's, American or not, (hell, were you even around in the 80's?), so we can only go by secondary sources anyway. That can be done either side of the Atlantic.

As I said, everything is in my previous posts. I've said my piece, so if you're going to go on rambling, you're on your own.

 

But what you call "the talent surge in the late 40's" was there to stay, which implies it was more than simply a talent surge. That's the difference. And to explain away that with that the socio-economic shift then took over, is making it a bit simple for oneself considering that we know there was open discrimination and racism in boxing and in society in general.

Even though I respect you and always enjoy discussing with you (FAR more than with the ocassional stray from General) I really feel I've made my point here. We all know that there was a colour line in Dempsey's time and that even extremely talented black fighters (Walcott, Moore, Williams, Burley etc) had trouble getting the right management and the right fights as late as 20 years later. So saying that the playing field wasn't level during Dempsey's era and that this fact had an effect on the competition is for me such a given that it's kind of a waste time arguing about it for too long.

So this is what I'll say about the subject, and then everyone else can make up their own minds.

 

Fair call.

I am not saying that you are way out of line here with what you are saying and you always make good points.

One point that I should make is that the black dynamite era before Dempsey was one of the richest eras of black talent that we have ever seen. Whether we are talking about the Jack Johnsons and Sam Langfors of the heavyweight divison, the Jeff Clarks of the middleweight division, The Joe Walcotts and Dixie Kids of th welterweight division or the Joe Gans's Jack Blackburns, Dave Holly's and Bobby Dobbs's of the lightweight division, there was all time great talent at every level.

I don't think that there was that kind of talent in the black divisons of Dempseys era.