Dempsey vs james j jeffries

"That's two more black fighters he fought and beat!"

Yes, but looking at boxrec, neither of these men has a listed victory.

 

I'm talking about a poster stating Dempsey only fought one black fighter ,and I have shown that is untrue.Im not saying how good or bad they were, just that they were black and Dempsey fought them!

 

Fleischer was no racist,he was a close friend of Johnson's and campaigned for Wills to receive a title shot against Dempsey.

 

That's exactly how I see it.

 

I am not saying he was personally wholesale racists but he clearly was biased by #1 the boxing heros of his youth and more importantly he was a businessman who would not commit career suicide of his business by naming black fighters above the white fighters if he could avoid it and with Johnson beating Jeffries he kind of could not rate Jeff high without rating Johnson higher....whether he personally like Johnson or not he was still a product of turn of the century America.....the Johnson victory caused lynchings and set blacks back a few years here...many do not understand Fleischer was a story teller selling the drama of unarmed combat between two men through dramatic story telling in written form. Historians write more objectively though usually slanted......writers preceded great blow by blow announcers like Don Dunphy. Having said all that what Fleischer personal opinions were are unknown IMO and beside the point.....to me the truer picture comes from an examination of the various sports writers articles and personally memoirs not rah rah writers/ businessmen.

At the end of the day disagreement is with what I consider dishonesty in the reporting....a little fluff here a little exaggeration there creative writing here taking liberties in creative story telling that is what I believe to be the core of the issue. I believe the more honest reporting was the regional papers in a more progressive area....if you look at dishonesty in media now this was a growth out an industry norm....they have always wagged the dog

 

Couple comments here:

Punching Power: Fitz certainly, unquestionably had devastating power. However, two points can be made about him and his era. First, the gloves were tiny things, like UFC fighters wear. They MUST have hurt a lot more than the big gloves used today. Second, we know many of the oldtimes had dozens even hundreds of fights, many of them 3 or 4 or more per MONTH. How many guys were suffering the effects of a concussion in a previous fight when they got ko'd again? And lots of the guys on record had terrible won-lost records and must have taken terrible beatings in 20-25 round fights. All this must show that KO's in those days may have been a little easier to achieve.

Racism: First of all, we can't bring our 21st century morals to the late 19th-early 20th century table. Sure, some of these white fighters were racists then and would be now, but still Jeffries and Dempsey fought black boxers so how racist could they be? Dempsey had black sparring partners; you can see videos of those sparring sessions and see them in his corner at the Willard fights. Not letting a black man have a shot at the HW title could have been fear, racism, or a knowledge of the aftermaths of some of these fights (riots, hangings, etc). The only well known highly regarded boxer that was a bona fide racist was Tunney. Wouldn't let even a black sparring partner put a glove on him.

 

"with Johnson beating Jeffries he kind of could not rate Jeff high without rating Johnson higher"

Why not? He rated Dempsey above Tunney despite Tunney twice beating Dempsey.

Is it impossible to rate Louis above Marciano or Charles because he lost to them? Is it impossible to rate Ali above Holmes because he lost to him?

 

Fleischer risked financial suicide with his newly fledged Ring Magazine by writing strident editorials supporting Wills right to a title fight with Jack Dempsey.By doing so he was addressing the "Elephant In The Room," here was no profit in pushing a black fighters right to a heavyweight title shot ,but he did it.Whatever his faults racism was not one of them.

"By the 1920s it became increasingly difficult to ignore black heavyweights. To be sure, the three best blacks of the Johnson era-Langford, McVey, and Jeanette-were too old for serious consideration, but Wills could not be circumvented without notice. The new organization of the sport made Wills's plight more visible. In February of 1922 Nat Fleischer, a boxing reporter, started publication of the Ring. In the foreward to the first issue he wrote, "The Ring will stand by the public, by the boxers, by those who give honestly their share to the great and glorious game." In the months that followed, the Ring established itself as the leading boxing periodical, replacing the Police Gazette. Fleischer made a serious effort to accumulate accurate records, publish lists of leading contenders, and insure that the sport imbibed liberally the virtues of honesty and integrity that he preached. "Nat Fleischer and The Ring made the sport respectable," his son-in-law, Nat Loubet, claimed. "Before Nat any manager could say his boy was 48 and 0 with 42 knockouts. Nat checked the records; he made damn sure the manager was on the up and Up."

No sooner had Fleischer established his magazine than he started a crusade to eliminate the color line in the heavyweight division. Acting as editor, business manager, circulation manager, and general handyman of the Ring, Fleischer risked financial suicide by pleading Wills's case in the third issue he published. Speaking for the magazine, Francis Albertine wrote that "it seems only just that prejudices be eliminated in every clean sport, and that if boxing is to hold its place in the field of athletic activities, discrimination must not be countenanced." Albertine continued by asserting that Wills, unlike Johnson, "is a clean athlete, a splendid sportsman, a boxer of high ideals who has proved himself a credit to the game and to his race." Several months later George B. Underwood, another writer for the Ring, resumed the argument: "It would not be stretching the truth to say that Wills is running Booker T. Washington a good second in the Africo-American [sic] Stakes." Again, the editorial staff of the Ring demanded that Wills be given the opportunity to battle for the title. As Fleischer published more articles in favor of a Dempsey- Wills bout, public pressure began to mount in favor of the match."

 

Because of the significance of the fight and the resulting social upheaval as well as their was no question that Johnson was superior even in Jeff's prime...,I don't people were lynched in the other fights results

The fact that Fleischer opinions of fighters has been questioned and the all time list was appropriately by popular opinion reestablished in a more agreeable listing that makes more sense should be a big sign of Fleischer period bias and as a result his opinion should not be included in all time matchups.

I enjoy Fleischers writings but I take it with a grain of salt and look at several sources such as social attitudes, writings and I try to avoid agenda driven books.....in terms of greatness there is no doubt since it was Fleischers era that he knew full well that there was no comparison to the difficulties for a black fighter vs a white fighter his top ten of the era however does not reflect this....

There is a fairly ample supply of writings in which Jeff is described as a big, stupid oaf with nothing going for him except size and strength over the typical fighter of the era....also quite a few op-eds written saying the top negro fighters were superior and they were the only top fighters with the size and strength to offer a sporting matchup..,Jeff made a decision not to fight black fighters and since it was socially acceptable he refused black challenges...furthermore Jeff's improvements are easily explained he was fighting the same fighters older and more worn......there are not many sports writers I can find who were impressed with his skill except those that fit into the biased narrative of Jeff being the best

 

You're suck a jack ass. At times I wonder if you trying to pull legs with what you wrote.

If you look hard you see people quote Dempsey below 187 for that fight.

+1

Fitz was 36, not 37. Stop lies, and learn how math works, please!

+2

Dempsey was floored by lesser men, fool. Ko'd in 1 by Flynn, and floored by lesser hitters. FACTS. Jeffries likely fought better punchers in Choynski a guy you think was the era's hardest hitter, Fitz, and Sharkey. Fulton lasted 18 seconds, and Willard who was hit I guess over 99 times on film before being stopped didn't land much. He was a rusty bi-pedal punching bag in that match. Inactive and 37 years old. None of these guys " big guys " tested Dempsey's chin!

What's a full fledged heavyweight in that time? Dempsey was under 190 for the most part.

Jeffries last fight was in 1904.

You reply to a post that has no mention of Dempsey fighting a black fighter? Its clear Jeffries fought better balck fighters, no debate here.

I was referring to one who beat the heck out of him.

Estimated Weights, John Lester Johnson 170, Jack Dempsey 181

"Shortly before Dempsey won the World Heavyweight Championship in 1919, The Cedar Rapids Evening Gazette quoted him as saying the following about his fight with John Lester Johnson: "In the second round, Johnson pulled something on me I had never seen before. He just lifted my right arm up high and then soaked me in the ribs. He broke three of 'em for me. He hit me on the chin in that round, too, and I saw many a star. He knew too much for me. ... I thought he licked me. I didn't know how to fight then, and Johnson did. Yes, I think he won and he taught me more that night than I have ever dreamed of before."

^^^ Sounds like the Mauler himself felt he lost that one.

 

Rather bunch of odd logic here.

"Because of the significance of the fight and the resulting social upheaval as well there was no question of that Johnson was superior even in Jeff's prime."

Actually this was a fight between two individuals. The "significance" was totally imputed by the general society, but the boxing significance would actually be the same if Johnson were a white man. It was the current champion fighting a past champion, same as Holmes and Ali. The fight proved that Johnson in 1910 was much superior to the Jeffries of 1910. It is possible, of course, that Johnson in 1904 would have handled the Jeffries of 1904, but this fight hardly proves that.

"I don't think people were lynched in other fights results."

"Jeff made a decision not to fight black fighters and since it was socially acceptable he refused black challenges."

Obviously completely true. But the fact that there was rioting and at least 19 deaths when Jeff did come back to fight Johnson might raise the issue for thoughtful people of whether mixed-race heavyweight championship fights were actually a good idea in that era. Rickard was quoted as saying privately that "Washington" made it clear to him that there was to be no Dempsey-Wills match. As a sporting matter this was totally unfair, but there are things above sports, and how many deaths is establishing sporting fairness worth? Attitudes would change with time, but this was an era in which baseball and most other sports were totally segregated. (I am just raising issues here for consideration)

"Fleischer"

I frankly can't follow what you are saying about Fleischer. Your original point hinted that racism was the basis of his high ranking of Jeff. You later accurately cited his bias in favor of old-timers. But Jeff was an older timer than Johnson and he rated Johnson above Jeff. You then went to that Johnson beating Jeff forced Nat to rate Johnson higher, but have no good answer to my point about his rating Dempsey above Tunney. I don't take Nat's ratings as gospel either, but racism wasn't the basis of them.

"quite a few op-eds written saying top negro fighters were superior"

I will be interested in you finding and printing op-eds arguing that Jeff should have been defending against this or that black fighter rather than Fitz or Corbett or Sharkey or even Ruhlin. Or was it only in 1903 and later when Jeff had eliminated these men that the focus shifted to the black fighters who were by then seen as the best available opposition.

Also, whatever you think of these men, or even Munroe, as contenders, Jeff was at least defending his title against someone every year. Dempsey managed to sit out three years without a defense while champion, not only not fighting the outstanding black contenders, but even arguably the best available white contenders, until he finally faced Tunney and was badly beaten.

 

Produce them then.

Anything that is actually contemporary!

 

Don't you see the problem here?

If anything negative is written about Jeffries, you accept it at face value.

If anything positive is written about Jeffries, you dismiss it as being influenced by racial bias, even if there is no evidence to indicate that this is the case.

This is not a good formula, for believing as many true things, and as few false things as possible!

 

Not true but you can redirect the argument I just point out their are equalling damning writings however you defend Jeffries like he was the greatest fighter but cannot seem to think that perhaps was relative only to his weak competition....you place high value on the exclusionary rankings of the era and ignore the weakness of the era overall

 

No evidence????? How much more obvious does the white vs black narrative of the time have to be????? For example your adherence to Jeff being so great despite the obvious weakness of an era that could be ruled by a middleweight moving up