Heavyweight Boxing History With No Color Line

very good point. :happy Today a champion/ belt holder defends against untested guys who make a top ten for having one more win than the #11 rated fighter. its not like all "contenders" beat a rated contender to make a list anymore. I dont blame todays fighters its the system. But old champions taking years out was silly.

 

Sounds good in theory, but what happens if Champions takes YEARS off.

Sullivan took about 2 years after the Kilrain fight, Dempsey took about 5 years off of his 7 year rein. Corbett in his title rein of about 5 years defended one time.

What would you say about that? And Good old Jimmy Braddock's 2 year break. Would you like that?

 

Obviously, the ideal situation is somewhere between the two. I was just pointing out, that it isnt the be all and end all. If you start with a strong undisputed and dominant champion, imo, it is up to the challengers to mount an irresistable case to be the no 1 challenger. Johnson did this and so did others.

In fairness to Sullivan, Corbett, Dempsey etc, while they did take time off, they often fought exhibitions during this time. In fact, sometimes the exhibitions were not far off full flung fights. Make no mistake, if fighters were to win or KD the champ during these exhibitions, there would ahve been a title shot. It happened to Jeffries (disputably).

I tend to think i would prefer to see a dominant champ lapping up the title and making money from it with challengers fighting each other and giving a good challenge. As opposed to now, where we strip fighters and get 4 champs, no one fights each other, no one cares about most of the champions, challengers duck champions, because they are bad matchups etc. If Vlad Kos vitali tomorrow and for good measure say david Haye, to become undisputed champ, while i would prefer him to defend it regularly, i dont really care if he sits on the title for 12 months or even longer. If in the meantime, a young fighter KOs say Toney, Chambers, Areola, Valuev and Chageav, then i think that if he fights Vlad in 3 years, it will have been worth the weight. If these guys all fight each other in the next 2 years and swap losses with no standout form shown, then who cares if Vlad doesnt fight, it isnt as if they would beat him. Particularly if Wlad fights exhibitions regularly with Vitali.

It is just an alternative viewpoint, obviously neither situation is perfect.

 

i think hank griffin would be included in the title race in early 1900's

 

Yeah, I agree. There needs to be a balance in there somewhere. I respect and admire the man who sets out to be a "fighting champion", taking on all-comers, BUT it gets a bit monotonous when he's scraping up crappy opponents who offer no real challenge. For example, some of Joe Louis's men, or Larry Holmes taking on the Scott Franks etc. ...... Ali fought some disgraceful bums too just to stay active and on his stage.

Of course, there's always the chance of one of these unknowns to prove themselves a worthy challenger on the night or even spring an upset but more often than not that wasn't the case, and the whole routine usually detracts from promising young fighters wanting to develop and earn a shot as seasoned fighters - their managers are quick to grab their shots too early, or even serves as an excuse for the champion to miss the most deserving contenders.
The other extreme is no less desirable, champions taking years off stating that no real challenger exists, and endlessly demanding that the contenders continue in a series of eliminations, which were often never honoured or resolved.

The point about exhibitions serving as non-title try-outs is a good one. I think some of the defences active champions such as Ali made dont deserve to be viewed as much more than exhibitions to be fair, and could have been advertised as such, considering the quality and experience of the "challengers".

I actually think the PPV era has fixed some of the worst abuses to some extent, regarding quality of opposition. Kevin Johnson is about as weak as it gets these days, but he's still a damn sight better than a Jean-Pierre Coopman. Valuev fought some trash when he had a belt maybe - Valuev is trash and acknowledged as a second-rate champion. Then again, if somebody with Ali's star appeal came along maybe they'd get away with fighting anyone they wanted on PPV too.

 

Excellent post mate.

 

The Smith vs Johnon match happened in Johnson's peak in 1909...when Smith himself was not at his peak. What this shows is Smith hit hard enough to KO Johnson. Chins in a gym are the same as chins in the ring.

Here's the read for anyone who wants the details:

[url]

This content is protected

[/url]

Could Smith beat Johnson? Sure, Smith could have beaten Johnson. O'brien, and Jim Johnson nearly defeated Jack Jonson fin 1908 and 1913 respectively. Frank Moran was very competitive vs Johnson in 1914 too.

I happen to think Gunboat Smith, who beat Moran by a wider margin than Johnson, and also beat Willard, whom later knocked Johnson out in 1915 would have a very good chance to win.

Smith did not get a shot because he was too good during that time line. Johnson picked softer touches...and some of those easier picks made him look average in the ring.

Ironic, the best whipe hope of all from 1912-1914 was shut out.

 

Griffin was older in the early 1900's,and had his chance in the ring in a 4 rd exhibition match with champion Jim Jeffries. Griffin was floored multiple times, and struggle to last the distance.

Had Griffin done well, he would have upped his chances for a big time money match.

 

best thread I've read in ages...

 

I know the details,and from the horse's mouth, so to speak ,a taped interview with Gunboat himself.'he said it was an exhibition,NOT A FIGHT,NOT A MATCH, NOT A BOUT, AN EXHIBITION.
He said he put Johnson through the ropes,NO MENTION OF KOING HIM.
The Jim Johnson fight has been categorically proven to be a 10 ROUND bout, newspapers posted on here show it to have been so.Johnson fractured his radius bone in the third round.
Smith could not beat Light heavyweights, Carpentier, Levinsky or Dillon who gave him a real hiding.
You know very well the circumstances surrounding the 6 round NO DECISION bout with O Brien

Johnson was 37 when Willard kod him ,and it took him26rds to do it after being behind for the first 20rds.
The best White Hope was Macarthy.
I refuse to rehash the same tired **** with you,you have your hatred ,which you keep nurtured , thats up to you.
Me ? I have a life.

 

Thanks:good
ps. Wonder how good Bill Farnan was ? He stopped Jackson in only his 6th fight , and later drew with him.

 

There's a lot to be said about Farnan mate... in some aspects, he's in similar position to Corbett. Larry Foley in Australia, as did John L in the USA, ruled the roost during the years seeing out the Prize Ring. Foley, under the guidence of Jem Mace had almost single handedly vocalised the acceptance of Gloved bouts.

After Foley was 'soundly thrashed' to a 'draw' with Billy Miller, the young Farnan emerges with challenges to Foley (still claimimg champion honours). The pair never fought a paid battle, although Foley did give the go ahead for the matches between Jackson and Farnan in 1884. The two matches were under Queensbury rules and Jackson was KO'd in 4 and the second was ceased by police after the crowd became unruley.. Jackson was copping a flogging. So, Farnan was the first Australian H/W Champ under Queensbury Rules... 1884

How good was he?? Pretty much reliant on brute strength, yet interestingly, his body shots are what ****ed Jackson in the first bout, so a level of co-ordination is apparent. Richard K. Fox had mentioned a proposal for Farnan vs John L. Calling it the Greatest Match in the Games History.. it never eventuated. John L clearly avoided anyone with two functioning arms, weighing above Bantamweight. But he's the greatest thing since sliced bread???

Unfortunately, by the time John L's tenure of pretence to World Honours was nearing a close, Farnan had been destroyed by Tom Lee's twice, mentally fell apart and become institutionalised and died a broken man less than 7 years after the Jackson bouts, in 1891.

I don't see the Jackson bouts as being the yard stick of Farnan's measure.. perhaps a bout with Foley in 1881-2 would have provided a better scenario, or facing a more mature Jackson?? Either way, tragedy creates legend, as does timing and consequence. Farnan may very well have been around at the right time... much like Corbett.

 

Forget the colour line, if they didnt draw the Australian Line, Farnan, Foley, Miller, Jackson, Lees, Goddard etc would have been very good chances as world champions. And Fitz may very well have held every title from Lightweight to Heavyweight and been middleweight champion for about 15 years.

It is very arguable that the mythical Australian line did have such an effect, as (and i am sure Flamengo can expand more) the best American fighters in the early days rarely travelled to australia (probably due to distance and costs as much as anything. Why John L didnt fight Farnan or at least one of Australias best is a mystery beyond me, and i am one of his big fans.