Jack Dempsey-John Lester Johnson, July 1916

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49 [url]

This content is protected

[/url]
That article shows Dempsey basically ducked a 39 year old black man.

Agreed. There is no alibi for the article. However the agenda remains 80 years later.

 

Anyone who adopts and stands by the opinions in that Dempsey-Jeanette article as their own is being moronic in the extreme, IMO, and opportunistically attacking Dempsey out of hand.

Dempsey was invited to box a routine match for charity, an "exhibition" (and in those days that might just mean "non-title match" or a polite way of disgusing "prize fight"), against the ordinary Joe Bonds, but he was tricked and Joe Jeanette was the real opponent awaiting him. Jeanette was a much better fighter than Bonds.
At which point Dempsey's manager said "no".

Regardless of whether the color line was being used to justify it, how can anyone argue that Dempsey's manager wasn't justified in refusing ?

I mean, please name a few top contenders who have been tricked this way and carried on in a charity match or a low-purse match ?

It's like Mike Tyson arriving to fight a charity match with Lorenzo Boyd and finding Razor Ruddock there instead, expected to fight for the same purse.

 

not really. Because Jeanette was 39 years old at this point. It would be more like Tyson going in looking to fight James Broad and ending up with 39 year old Larry Holmes.

Dempsey should have gone out there and disposed of the 39 year old man. For someone who is portrayed as fearlous as Jack Dempsey is, he needs to go out there and get the job done and prove to the public he is not hiding behind the color line. Don't forget, Jack Dempsey had turned down a fight with 35 year old Sam Langford in 1917 because he wasnt "ready". By Jack Dempsey turning Jeanette down, was he yet not ready for another "Old" black man? This would be like Strike Two. Then from 1920-1925 he would not tangle with the # 1 contender african american harry Wills who was also in his 30s at the time. Strike 3. If you look back, this could not have looked good on his reputation.

 

You think Jim Jacobs and Bill Cayton would have allowed Tyson to fight Larry Holmes in a SURPRISE TRICK match for the same purse (or even a poor nominal fee in aid of charity) a James Broad fight was offering ??

No ****in' chance. :deal

Actually I disagree. Boxing is a business. Everyone in boxing in late 1918 knew that Jack Dempsey was next in line for a shot at Jess Willard. And everyone in boxing reckoned he had proved himself worthy of a shot by beating Fred Fulton. In such situations well-managed fighters dont take foolish risks.

Dempsey turned down white fighters as well in 1916 and ended up fighting J.L.Johnson, a black man, who he probably wasn't ready for either. That's before he was well-managed.
Face facts, well-managed fighters have their opponents hand-picked for them to some extent for much of their careers. Well-managed fighters only take real risks when there's something to gain and money on the table.

Harry Wills deserved his shot at the title and it's a historical fact that the color line was drawn. No alibis for Dempsey.

But it's just plain stupid to go back over his career and try to say the Jeanette affair was a case of "ducking" or that the fight with J.L. Johnson made Dempsey "scared of black men". Those are among the stupidest things I've ever read on here, to be honest.

 

Well thats just it. It was racism that totally hid Harry Wills out of the picture. Harry Wills by 1918 had defeated much better fighters than Fulton had. Wills in 1914 and 1915 defeated the 3 top challengers to Johnsons crown sam Langford Joe jenette and sam mcvea. Wills should have been the top dog by 1918, but racism prevented Wills from getting the recognition he desered. Finally he got to put an end to the fraud fulton by easily knocking him out in 3 and breaking his ribs. Wills was better all along but just never got that chance vs a top white dog. Wills should have been given alot more credit by the press for defeating the THREE MAIN CHALLENGERS they accused jack johnson of ducking. Funny how fred fulton got so much credit for beating sam langford in 1917 when Harry Wills had already defeated sam FIVE times. LOL. Racism.

 

Yeah. All more or less true, but .......
How does the injustice done to Harry Wills mean Dempsey did wrong in the Jeanette affair ?

This outrage against Dempsey for the Jeanette thing is way off the mark, IMO. If you and others stuck to the actual Harry Wills injustice you wouldn't sound like you're on some childish anti-Dempsey trip.

 

Look Kearns had every right to pull Dempsey out of that sneak attack exhibition. That being said the ducking of Wills is an all time asterick next to Dempsey's name in my book ...

 

That was an obvious setup. Kearns did the smart thing by withdrawing Dempsey...in my opinion. It would have been plain stupid to do otherwise. Ordinary life experience makes it easy for me to understand it. I would have done the same thing in his place.

 

For some reason Jack Demspey is tagged for using the color line as champion, but Jack Johnson is not. I'll never understand why.

Regarding Dempsey vs John Lester Johnson, Demspey himself called it one of his toughest fights.

 

Its true that Wills stopped Fulton in 3 rds in 1920,its also true that Dempsey did it in 23 seconds 2 years earlier.

 

Bingo.

 

Simple really,Black fights White, Black fights Black,with the certainty that the winner and Champion is Black.

 

Black paper of N.Y.C. at that time was "The Age" called this fight a draw. Also Pee Wee Barber who swung towel on J.L. Johnson that night told Nat Fleischer he thought the same verdict.

 

None of those fighters were still considered the top 3 challengers for Johnson's crown in 1914-1915. Gunboat Smith was considered the leading contender in 1914 before losing to Carpentier, after which there was a lot of debate and confusion over who (if anyone) should be considered leading contender.

No he shouldn't have, because he was only beating the same dead horses over and over without fighting any of the top contenders, plus he had quit to Battling Jim Johnson just before that.

Not really, given that he beat Langford far more impressively and decisively than Wills had in his previous wins. Besides, that win didn't establish him as a leading contender either. It was used as a "comeback" fight coming off a frustrating loss to Carl Morris. He also used Langford as a comeback opponent a year later following his crushing loss to Dempsey. That Wills' arguably best and most troublesome rival was being used merely as a comeback opponent for Fulton is indicative of the higher level of opposition Fulton was fighting at this time.

No, common sense. He did something Wills hadn't been able to do yet, and he got noticed for it. To have pretended Fulton didn't beat Langford more impressively than Wills had would've been racism.

 

Johnson actually fought his men. There's you're difference. Blah, blah not at their best, but yadda and he actual fought them, the end.