As we all know, place a member of a demographic systemically held back in a position of power and now that position and system that led him there is no longer racist. ... ... ... I'm not contradicting that one at all, just restating it so it's super obvious how short sighted "But Johnson doe" actually is. Interesting to me you would assert the colored title was segmented based on the color of the champions rather than available opportunity. Unfortunately for you and the stance you chose to represent, the colored title continues operation for as long as the lack of opportunity continues operation. IS it the title of the man who holds it or the title on the man who gives it? ATM all HW titles are Ukrainian because the champ is? Not by most. Most people consider it the WBC's or WBA's or WBO's or IBF's title. Usually the champion does not impart their race, nation, or any other part of their identity on to the title but rather the title to him. Johnson was the World's HW champion. He was also a colored HW champion. Those two titles stayed distinct because his winning them did not change who gave them out. Also, it is interesting to me, given, you know the colored title existed prior to johnson, during johnson, and after johnson, but the only time the white title is active is during Johnson's reign. Almost as if the colored title remained its own entity while the white title was born out of a hissy fit from the world title supporters. If either got segmented it's the white title. It's funny to me y'all lean so heavily on contemporary reports when in the same paper I can read an article that is about biometrics and eugenics scientifically proving racism? And the generation prior just change science to God and how much consensus from contemporary newspapers can I find that says black men are not even human? But everyone from the time says ... is a silly argument to take when you have already acknowledged the era is racist and steeped in racist propaganda. It's always fine when it's vague like that. Bring details into it and now you've an argument ... for some reason ... because your father and his father and his father called John L a world champion he must be ... despite you knowing better. I'm not going to waste time explaining the British "tools of civilization" propaganda machine nor the American slave trade propaganda machine, that's basic history. We all know world sports began claiming world level before there was a nation on the planet let alone private organization that could actually organize and kind of world event. You know America and England were the only major boxing nations when John L was crowned, yet you call him World champion and would lean on the world sports propaganda you know was propaganda to prove it. Because they did. In America and the BE. China ain't even heard of the sport yet, but America and BE ... good enough. See what I just did there? You can make whatever kind of logical fallacy you want or cite whatever source you like, fact is boxing was not a world sport yet and you know that. Just like the fact is boxing was a racist sport in the early 1900s and you know that. But if I say John L was not a world champion you're going to post a bunch of US and English articles that says he was while ignoring the utter lack of mention of the sport in most cultures around the world. And if I say Sam Langford's belt is closest represented by the WBC, you'll be so caught up on the fact the WBC is a respected belt and Sam was not owner of any respected belts in his time you will lean on the consensus of men you know are racists while ignoring the minority egalitarian of the era. So, y'all do actually pick and choose when popular opinion matters but either way love to stay deep in relying on propaganda and propagandists to make a point. So much so if I play your games and post some contemporary news that does not feed into the propaganda machine of its time I am met here and now with suspicion and denial. It's not me who first called into question the idea of a world champion before a world body nor is it me who first questioned relying on racists for race based reporting. I have posted contemporary newspapers questioning the reality of world boxing and reports showing Harry Greb did draw the colorline. In both cases the power of contemporary went out the window in favor of staying with in the propaganda of the era. And so, John L continues to called world champion by men who know better. Harry Greb continues to have never drawn the colorline by men who know better. And now Sam Langford can't even so much as be called the closest thing to a WBC champion in his time without folks who know better crying and posting ancient racists' opinions like as if it's a good source. You do care about my stance. I'm the man who traced the authorities in time. In my work you will find the most complete chronology of anything considered an authority in boxing. I am the influence that has folks talking about sanction body champions who are not recognized as world champions by most. Even if they don't know it. Shoot, you can prove that in our own microcosm with posting history alone. I am a bit hazy on the organization behind the white HW title. From memory it's just a promoter's title? Spot different from a body title isn't it? As in what sanctioning body regulated the white championships? Lacking any, it's not at all the same as pointing out the modern version of Sam's IBU or NSC titles are the WBC is it?
According to a book about him I read, very, very good. But who knows? We dont have any video of him to analyze.
For the NSC title. I think they ran the Commonwealth title and the domestic titles as well though the timeline of how that came to pass is unclear. Langford v Lang(Langfords last fight before being stripped) was referred to on the program international title fight or something like that with no mention of the NSC. Tate was a 2x "colored" champion. The other time he beat Langford by decision.