English Champions: George "Old Chocolate" Godfrey. Part 1

The original George Godfrey, known as Old Chocolate, would go down in the history books as one of the first World Colored Heavyweight Champions, the first with a legitimate and verifiable claim to the title, and the man John L.,"lick and son of a ***** in the building" Sullivan refused to fight.

Godfrey entered the field as boxing transitioned from bare-knuckle prizefights to gloved boxing events. He fought throughout the 1880s and 1890s, and wore everything from skintight gloves to 2- and 4-ounce gloves. At 5'10‘/2" and weighing not more than 175 pounds, George Godfrey was never much bigger than a light-heavyweight by today’s standards, but was so quick, clever, and especially game, that he fought anyone, regardless of weight. Sadly, we will never know if he could have been the World Heavyweight Champion because he was never allowed a title fight when he was at the top of his game. Boxing in America during this time was largely segregated by race, and although Godfrey Fought many of the top black and white heavyweights of his era, he was denied the ultimate opportunity to cross the color line to contend for a title outside his race. For years he challenged white champion John L. Sullivan. However, despite claiming he would do so any time a sufiicient purse could be raised, Sullivan consistently refused to fight Godfrey, or any other black man.

George Godfrey was born on March 20, 1853 (although some sources incorrectly state 1852) in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada, in a neighborhood known as “The Bog.“ A poor part of Charlottetown almost all of whom were descended from slaves brought to the Island in the 1780s as a result of the American Revolution. The Bog was notorious for its poverty and minor crimes such as bootlegging and prostitution. A member of Godfrey’s mother’s family, Peter Byers, was hanged for theft in 1815, and the year after Godfrey was born, his father was convicted of petty larceny serving two weeks in jail for stealing a cow. Godfrey left Prince Edwards Island in his youth, around 1870, and traveled to Boston, Massachusetts. Godfrey found work as a porter in one of Boston’s silk importing offices. By 1879, at the late age of 26, he had taken up boxing and began fighting competitively during what was still known as the bare knuckle era. At that time he could not afford to support himself through prizefighting so he worked during the day as a beef carrier for the Boston Market. He did all of his training and fighting at nights. Later, he married a white woman and worked as a carpenter while he still tried to make it in the fight game. The origin of Godfrey's fight name is difficult to fathom because he was not especially aged by today’s standards and was so light skinned that his subsequent heirs considered their race to be white. However, 26 was considered old for one first entering the sport in the late 1800s, and Chocolate was a common epithet for blacks of the period. A similar ring name, “Little Chocolate,” was given to George Dixon, a smaller contemporary black boxer from Halifax.

Boston was noted for the sport of boxing, and Godfrey was followed to the area by several other black fighters from the Bog, notably George Budge Byers, a prominent turn-of-the-century middleweight. Godfrey’s fame as a boxing star would rise in the eastern horizon simultaneously with white boxers John L. Sullivan and Jake Kilrain. Godfrey was trained by noted black professional, Professor John Bailey, who ran the Hub City Gym in downtown Boston. At Bailey’s club Godfrey was first matched with John L. Sullivan in 1880. The match earned Godfrey a great deal of notoriety. Both fighters hailed from Boston, both claimed that they could lick anyone in the fight business, and consequently, both headed for a showdown. On September 21, 1880 Sullivan and Godfrey agreed to a fight to the finish at Bailey’s Gym. What occurred that night would be debated for years to come. It appears that both fighters were dressed and ready to fight, but once the police were informed of the fight, the bout was halted before the first round. Godfrey would go to his grave claiming that Sullivan conspired with police to have the bout cancelled so that Sullivan would not have to face him and risk losing. Sullivan would later say that he would never fight a black man. Godfrey would spend the rest of his fighting life challenging Sullivan, but the Boston Strong Boy never answered the challenge.

George Godfrey’s career interactions with another heavyweight white boxer, Jake Kilrain, had different results. On January 15, 1882, in Boston, early in both of their careers, Godfrey fought Kilrain to a draw in three rounds. Kilrain won their second three-round match on May 16, 1883. The two would not fight again until March 13, 1891. The week after the first Kilrain fight, in 1882, Godfrey traveled to New York to fight Professor Charles Hadley, a noted black boxer. The two fought to a draw. Again, Godfrey met the Professor in New York in a tournament for an official title, in a contest beginning February 7, 1883. The best black boxers were invited to a tournament sponsored by boxing enthusiast and newspaper publisher, Richard K. Fox, to contend for a National Police Gazette Belt for the World Colored Heavyweight Champion. Nat Fleischer mentioned this belt as being for the “heavyweight championship of the colored race.” This event was apparently the origin of a title which would be used well into the 1920s. I should point out to any astute and knowledgable reader, the Klondike title along with Don Knox's title are different titles with much the same claim. Klondike's "black championship" would be aborbed by this one. I can't speak to whatever happened to Don Knox's lineage at the moment. Godfrey won the title and successfully held the Colored Heavyweight Championship, defending it for five years until he was bested by Australian Peter Jackson when he came to the United States in 1888

The second half of Godfrey’s career would find him in the ring with stellar heavyweights Peter Jackson in 1888, Jake Kilrain in 1891, Joe Choynski in 1892, and Peter Maher in 1894. Far older than his opponents, Godfrey would lose to these distinguished men of the ring. It is an interesting fact that, unlike others whose stars fade after they begin to lose, GodFrey’s reputation became all the more heroic during the latter part of his ring career. He was the one man during this era whose name was synonymous with gameness. His bouts in the ring displayed tremendous courage and sportsmanship, and for these reasons many younger fighters looked to him for their education and training. Most of the heavyweight battlers were relocating to the California fight center. While Nat Fleischer credits W. W. Naughton, sportswriter for the San Francisco Examiner, for inviting Australian Peter Jackson to the United States, it is not clear if the scribe brought him to the United States or simply helped to arrange a fight after he arrived in California. When ]ackson arrived, San Franciscan promoters began trying to arrange a marquee fight. First choice John L. Sullivan refused to fight the newcomer. Sullivan’s career was riding high, and although the Champion of the Pacific Coast, as Sullivan was billed, was thought to be unbeatable, he refused the purse said to be a fortune offered by the California Athletic Club. Organizers sent for George Godfrey as their second choice, a choice which explains just how good Godfrey really was at least believed to be. Patrons of the sport would not be disappointed. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, August 25, 1888, "It is doubtful if any contest that ever took place in San Francisco attracted as much attention from ring goers and the lovers of sport generally as that between the colored pugilists, Peter Iackson and George Godfrey, in the gymnasium of the California Athletic Club last night. The records of both men are already familiar to every one who pays attention to the achievements of professors of the manly sport." In brief exhibitions prior to the match, spectators were favorably impressed with ]ackson’s boxing abilities. They witnessed everything rumored about the “champion of champions” he was “clever as old Jem Mace, with all the dash and reach essential to a first-class heavyweight pugilist. The local men pitted against him were totally unequal to the task of making him extend himself, and all his exhibitions were no more than pleasant exercise just barely conducive to perspiration." More than anything, Jackson was a curiosity: he could speak like an English gentleman and fight like an African lion. Unlike the American heavyweight gladiators of the period who rushed at their opponents head-on and who timed their punches and defensive head movements. Jackson was faster, more clever, and had more pugilistic tools in his arsenal.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As always, thanks for having a look, hope some of youse enjoyed it. Oh, and I should say, I was pretty tired when I did this'en. If some bits don't make none sense let me know so I can reword it.

I should add, the English, Ancient, American champion bit in the titles are meant to reflect the time they came from not nationality. If y'all would rather, I could do it by nation. Godfrey's right there on the fence so originally I had this titled American just by time ya know John L contemporary and all. then after I linked this to my main thread I saw I made that time switch at Sullivan, which is plenty fair, so Godfrey I'll leave as the last major champion of the English era.


[url]English Champions: George "Old Chocolate" Godfrey. Part 2[/url]

[url]Heavyweight Champions from Ancient to Present[/url]

 

just under the word cap.

 

There's quite a lot on it in Sundowners actually. Like with Euthymos and Theaganes in the ancients I just feel like it's best to mention and move on in these threads then explore what is usually debated later. Was John L. ducking Old Chocolate? I don't really know, in Sundowners Kevin gives good reasons for George to not fight that occasion and when I was reading on Sullivan I do remember those authors being sympathetic to John's position so I reckon authors just shine the best light they can on their subjects.

I reckon it's thread worthy on it's own and would rather this focus on George than the highly debated ducking issue. Especially since it's going to come up again when one of us covers John. So I'm just kind of leary of focusing on the accusation in either thread because I don't want them becoming two threads that are just a battleground for the same one debate.

I purposefully looked for an alternative to the Sundowners narrative so that the thread wouldn't be too terribly John-centric. I respect the information, acknowledge its usefulness, and enjoy forming my own opinions around it, I just think it should be separated from the main narrative of each man.

If you like you can beat me to it and I'll link you up here. There may even already be a debate thread for that I'm not sure.

 

I'm a little puzzled this morning. Wondering why a 7 year old thread is in my notifications. It's not a bad thread. Honestly, looking bad at myself and where I was I think I did quite well and wonder why this far more respectful and humble version of me didn't get nearly the traction my most obnoxious portrayal has commanded. I mean, look at me telling you exactly where I got my spiel from and why I try to include more than one perspective. Even telling you the historians who claimed what without bad mouthing those guys or their hard work? It's almost like I tried to spread information once through a voice that didn't capture attention then when I came back I came back with the tools to not only provide less useful information but garner more attention while encouraging the original intent; the spread of information.




In my opinion this is a case of you can not have your cake and eat it too. Or rather, there are competing narratives at play over the same source material. I claim no ownership over these stances and as you can see even back in 2018 I was happy to ride the fence for most of what is argued. The one stance I will take is John L Sullivan did not fight black men for any title.

Our Senya has posted a heap of primaries and should be applauded for this. I looked for the hail emoji or some such similar but all I saw was stuff like spankings and such. Not only did Senya provide a litany of solid sources but he did it in a manner that provides the reader with nothing else. There is no leading or gaslighting and for that I love you bro. I don't honestly know what the highest form of exaltation here is but you deserve that.

So, okay back to my point on narratives. I named the names in the OP and original convo with Senya in 2018. If you do not know the names Nat Fleischer, Richard Fox, Kevin Smith, Naughton, etc. and know their work, not know of but actually have read black dynamite and the lives and battles and such; they all more or less pass around the same sources. As time goes and you get closer to present you have misconceptions and bad work weeded out but what's left is two perfectly reasonable outlooks on the same history. Neither of which am I willing to tell you, you should or should not believe.

On one hand you have these interactions between Sullivan and Godfrey where Sullivan is willing but Godfrey pulls out.

On the other hand there's plenty of times where it's John who is the problem.

There is, as far as I know, only one serious attempt at pairing them in the ring. During that attempt at a fight it is, by my memory, the police who stop the fight from having happened.

Everything else is speculation based on the sources. And what is worse, as noted in 2018, this speculation tends to favor the subject of the book. Read a book about Sullivan and you'll be well armed to defend Sullivan against any claims of ducking. Read a book about Godfrey and you'll be well armed to defend Godfrey.

Excuses for Sullivan range from outright denial to the business aspects of fighting black men along with cultural atmosphere.

The same ranges exists for Godfrey, plenty will tell you Godfrey never ducked anyone, plenty will also rely on the racism of the period.


The truth is probably in between but who am I to say? Did AJ duck Wilder or Wilder duck AJ? Sometimes all we have is a debate and no one's really wrong but no one's right either, it's just your opinion.


"A white man...has nothing to gain by swapping punches with a negro...I was insulted from one end of the country to the other in the attempt to stampede me into that fight, and I was angry enough at one time to throw principle to the wind and give [Peter] Jackson his. Another time I almost came to a set-to with George Godfrey, but I am glad to say I didn't. When I go out to battle with a man I agree that he is of equal standing. A negro is not the equal of a white man, and it is no kindness to the negro to let him think so. Fights between negroes are all right, but the line should be drawn there."

Does this support or deny John L ducking Godfrey?

Okay, does Godfrey avoiding a sparring session support or deny Godfrey looking for a fight?

Whole entire books written to get you to agree with their POV but the truth is the only serious attempt at any fight was broken up by the police.

To say Sulli and co did that is speculation. To say Godfrey and co did that is speculation. What is not is both men had pressure to fight one another and neither took much effort to make it happen.









So, the only claim to Godfrey/Sullivan that has ever actually been refuted and should be put to rest is this idea racism prevented the fight.

If racism prevented Godfrey from seeing Sullivan what pressure of culture was there for Sullivan to pretend like he is willing?

If racism prevented Sullivan from seeing Godfrey then what pressure of culture was there for Godfrey to pretend like he is able?

If racism prevented these men from fighting then why does every GD primary you ever find on them, by the, from them, speak to the very clear pressure there was for them to fight?



I don't think did X duck Y is really the question. The question should be why are you trying to convince me X ducked Y rather than just telling me what happened?








"I will not fight a Negro. I never have, and I never shall" Direct quote? Is it? Certainly attributed to John L by everyone under the sun since like 1905 but where did come from? When did he say that? What is the primary? Okay bro, then why did dudes you call historians claim he said that in quotes and all, and repeated it and repeated it, instead of telling you its a summary of statements made through his late and post career?

hmm

He didn't fight a black man, that's true, he didn't start bragging about it until racists starts to brag on him about it. Then John L was proud to have avoided black men.