Did Racism Rob Boxing of More Golden Era's in the early days?

It is a good point about holding all those belts. But really, is there anyone who doesnt rank Langford as a pound for pound great at those weights? And how would his record look, if his early losses to Young Peter Jackson, Joe Jeanette and Jack Johnson were instead losses to Marvin Hart, Jack Root and Tommy Burns. Or if his multiple fight series with McVey was replaced with a 1-1 head to head record against McVey and a few other white nobodies.

What if Jeffries in 1904 had actually fought and beat Johnson and/or Langford and co, what does this do for their legacy?

Wills is another one, i agree he probably would have got to Willard or johnson, and who knows maybe even Dempsey. But it is a catch 22. Willard was a big man, what if Willard beat him, then Wills just becomes an average challlenger who struggles with Tate, cant beat Willard and is Kod by Langford. and if he does beat Johnson or Willard, what does this do to the legacy of Johnson or dempsey.

The persception in the old days was that the white fighters were better. The likes of Choynski seems to indicate that until Langford, McVey and Johnson and Co came along they were. How are the coloured fighters percieved if this perception was correct, higher or lower? Today, i think that the coloured fighters get a bigger boost from teh current perception that coloured fighters are better than white fighters and therefore they must have been supressed. Partcularly those in the era before Langford and co.


You may be correct about the good outweighing the bad, but i personally think it is six of one half a dozen of the other. Any increases in status by one fighter would be pretty much accompanied by a drop in the other.

Potentially Langford, Wills, McVey, Jeanette and possibly Godfrey and Tate could become real winners. But they also could become real losers as well, if they were to fail.

By the way, it would be interesting to think of the fighters legacies who have most benefited from the coloured line. I think Johnson and possibly Sugar Ray Robinson might both be right up there, two all time great coloured fighters.

 

World War II breaking out didn't give them any help either as the majority of their primes were during the early 1940s.

 

Exactly. There were many factors.

 

World war II actualy gave the black contenders their chance.

With a dramatic reduction in the number of active fighters, promotors became less picky about the colour of their prospects. Fighters who had previously been shut out, like Joe Walcott and Elmer Ray, suddenly found themselves being offered contracts that would allow them to train full time.

The period of the war and the years after, were conspicuously dominated by black fighters, in a way that the pre war era had not been. The main factor in this seems to be that they were being backed up by money.

 

I was talking about title shots though.

 

What if we say Sullivan forfeited his right to be called champ when he refused to fight Godfrey and, Jackson?
What if we say Corbett was not really a world champ because he refused to defend against Jackson?

What if we say Jeffries was no longer champ from the beginning of 1904, because he refused to fight Johnson?
What if we say Johnson could not call himself champ because he refused to defend against Jeannete,and Langford ,[McVey didn't want to fight him again ].
Ditto Willard and Dempsey with Wills.
What if ? what if? WTF.

 

Sullivan did forfeit his right to be called world champion when he retired from the game and Jackson was recognised as the champion everywhere except America. I dont see how the American title would make Peter Jackson any higher regarded than he already is. Most assume hed have beat corbett (even though he didnt and couldnt when he tried) and also that he would have beat Old John L (what if hadnt?). It would have been nice for Peter to get his dream, but really it doesnt effect his legacy at all.

Well Corbett was the american champ (and he shoudl have fought Jackson). But, if he wasnt recognised as the world champ, and instead Jackson was, i think his Drawn fight with Jackson would stand him in pretty good steed. In fact, if he hadnt been perceived as ducking Jackson, i wonder if he would have got more mileage out of the drawn fight?

Damn, good point, that would really add to the legacy of Marvin Hart! Unbeatable until he lost focus and slipped up to the nowhere near as talented Tommy Burns! Fair point

I presume this happens in 1911 when the Langford beats Johnson for the title. After swapping with McVey (how good would this look for Johnson if McVey wouldnt fight him) I would say that the legacy of Gunboat Smith, and from their Georges Carpentier would look pretty good in hindsight. As a bit of a side issue Dempsey's win over Carpentier would be worth a bit more. Anyway, not sure who this would all reflect on Langford. Why did he not fight Johnson, and why did he slip up when Johnson didnt. I dont see Langfords paper title being as strong as Johnsons lineal.

It might drag Johnson down but i cant see the others going up in legacy much.

[/quote]
Ditto Willard and Dempsey with Wills.
What if ? what if? WTF.[/QUOTE]

Willard, being stripped for not fighting Wills isnt really going to make much difference, is there anyone who rates willard over Wills anyway?

Wills, from memory loses to Tate, so he would be a decent winner. Would Wills be the standout and feared no 1 contender who was ducked for years and the second highest money earner of the time? Or just another paper champion who ducked his two top contenders in Dempsey and Greb before being stopped by Dempsey victim Sharkey. Also, doesnt a loss to Jim Johnson figure in there somewhere?

Dempsey is another one who we saw his carpentier victory go through the roof. It is probably balanced by the drop in status of the surprised Willard. Though the Sharkey victory over Wills would place him above the Wills lineage i think. Probably a substantial drop in legacy assuming he did the same things.

 

You make some solid points :deal