If there hadn't been the colour line in the 1910s and 1920s?

Yes and corbett deserves all the credit in the world! But, when he won the title over Sullivan, he then refused to give Jackson a rematch for the title!

 

Yes Corbett should have fought Jackson, even had the contract up for a rematch at one point, but Jackson wanted it overseas, and Corbett wanted it in SF. So the deal was off.

Corbett did have the power to avoid a rematch with Jackson, and he used it. Again, had Jackson went out in a few rounds in the first fight, sure I think Corbett would have bite and giving a rematch. But after 61 rounds like that, I pretty sure Corbett though it best to not give the rematch.

Again I dont think color played a part in the choice, I think it was the 61 rounds of hell that made Corbett's mind up in regards to Jackson.

 

What do you base this on? His comp seems better than Dempsey/Willard and we have no footage to draw conclusions from

 

I know that if you take 3 years to die ,,engage in 23 fights ,winning all but 1 of them, over very respectable opposition, for an average of over 7 fights a year.Reports that you were at death's door, during the fight preceding this are probably exaggerated.

 

Do you feel this strongly about Sullivan ducking Bill Farnan, who knocked out JAckson?

Jackson's real beef always was with Corbett. And to be honest, i see no way how Corbett can justify the ducking. Sullivan was shot by the time Jackson was a force.

 

How do you see the championship changing hands?

 

Wills reputation rests very largely on his wins over the black triumvirate of
Langford,Jeanette, and McVey.

Langford.
Langford was aging in their first fight [1914], Wills took a meritorious decision ,but Langford was allready 32,later in that year Langford kod Wills.1915 Wills beat Langford, now 33.1916 He repeats this win. Langford reverses the loss with a ko later in the year.
1917 They fight a draw,then 2 wins for Wills, over the 35 year old Langford.
1918-19 Wills dominates as Langford is 36-37.
Their last fight is also a win for Wills ,but Langford is 38.
I think Wills beat a past his best Langford whose eyesight was going.

Jeanette.
Jeanette held Wills to a draw in 1914 ,Jeanette was 35.Wills won their second fight in 1919 ,but Jeanette was 40 years old.

McVey.
McVey fights Wills in 1915 over 10 rds he wins 9 of them.
Wills has a good win in revenge ,later that year.
Wills wins a rather inconclusive fight by stoppage in 1918 McVey claims a foul. McVey is 34.
Their last fight in 1920 is a disgrace both are thrown out for stalling and banned from fighting in Philadelphia. Mcvey is 36 years old


Of the rest ?
Denver Ed Martin was 40 years old.
Kid Norfolk was a LHVY, losing to the best men he faced at that time.
Floyd Johnson went into the tank.
Gunboat Smith was finished," I went down for the boat ride".
Madden [ W NWS] was 34 and, like Norfolk losing to the better men.
he would be kod in 3 rd s by Tunney a year later

Weinert was a good result
Firpo was a good result ,but Dempsey had allready stolen that thunder by koing Firpo in 2 rds.
Fulton another good win, 3 rds ko, but Dempsey had put Fulton away in 23 seconds ,2 years previously.
As I said i think Wills may be overated. I would rate him below the triumvirate myself.

The no footage is of course, a two way street.

 

No Jackson said he would fight Corbett anywhere in the States except the "Deep South", which was the only place Corbett would agree to.
When Jackson embarked for Australia ,Corbett came out of the wood work ,with Jackson ,safely a continent away he began issuing challenges to him.
HE DUCKED A TITLE DEFENCE AGAINST JACKSON .

 

Sorry but your wrong. Thats not how this kidney ailment worked.

 

Not trying to be clever, but, what little I have gleaned on the subject appears to show several differing forms of this disease.Have you categoric evidence you can share with us that indicates the severity of Miske's ailment at the time he fought Dempsey ,for the title?
If not , I have to say you are in the dark as much as myself on the subject.
I don't doubt that the disease killed Miske , I just question the effects of it on him when he met Jack.

 

Yes I have Miske's own words detailing the fact that he was hospitalized suddenly in late 1919 with severe back and hip pain. He was told by the doctors that he had a incurable kidney ailment (termed Bright's disease at the time, which is now considered a generic term for a number of terminal degenerative kidney diseases at the time that were all thought to be the same thing or related). Miske spent several months in the hospital under treatment and then retired from boxing after he got out, never giving a reason for his retirement. He was told, correctly, that his condition could enter periods of remission but that it would ultimately kill him and that boxing would only serve to speed up the process, particularly taking punishment to the body. After he retired Miske tried to open an auto dealership but the business failed very quickly and left him broke. He decided, against the judgement of his doctors, that he would go back into boxing telling the world that he had retired due to a strained back and hip muscle which had caused the pain he had complained about before entering the hospital. After one tuneup fight against the woefully inept Jack Moran Miske, or his representatives (sources vary) approached Dempsey telling him of Miske's financial troubles, his impending death, and asking for a payday for Miske. Dempsey readily admitted to this after the fact. Kearns, who was looking to face the weakest possible competition he could while getting the most money readily agreed. During his training camp several newspapermen make mention of the fact that Miske looked pale and sickly and not well at all. This fight is often painted as a charity move on Dempsey's part but the fact that Dempsey viciously attacked Miske's body during the fight while knowing full well what his condition was illustrates to me that this was as much as a business move on Dempsey's part than a simple kind hearted gesture. I think far too much has been made of Miske's post Dempsey record. It wasn't a secret that he was very ill if not dying and at the very least there are substantial suspicions that Bill Brennan threw his fight to Miske. Its not out of the question to suggest others fought half heartedly against him as well. Furthermore, he didnt decision Gibbons. He lost every round of one fight before winning on an accidental DQ and then lost the rematch. Several of the other "big" names you mention Miske beating during this time were in truth past their primes. As an example: Fulton hadnt faced a top fighter since getting slaughtered by Wills in three, his next best opponent was human heavybag Bartley Madden who got a disputed draw with Fulton six months before Fulton faced Miske in a bout that was almost universally hailed as a horrible decision. Several others such as Meehan etc where in the middle of slumps or slides and again, I dont think its too much to think at least some of these guys went easy on Miske. They all knew each other, often trained with each other, and more often shared a locker room when going into a fight.

 

Thanks for taking the time to post this I have a correction,Miske lasted 4 years after fighting Dempsey.
Brights disease was named after a Dr Bright, one form of it is nephritis.the symptons you described Miske complaining of tie in here.Perhaps the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle.I ve read that on his death bed Miske said," tell Jack thanks", its a nice story but maybe I am an old cynic.

 

Well perhaps in 1914-1916 Wills was still not in his prime, or it could be like you say he started dominating Langford/Jeanette/Mcvey after they faded, this is something we'll never know. But these are arguably the top3 men in the world, all great heavyweights so even beating them past their best, is an excellent achievement. Losing against the best and coming back to beat them is no bad thing

From 1916-1926, a 10year period Wills was practically unbeaten (in a Vitali Klit sense ).

Obviously he has the many wins over Langford/Jeanette/Mcvey, but he also has loads of depth with Fulton/Firpo/Norfolk/Clark/Bill Tate/Ed Martin/Meehan. Yes Dempsey might have knocked Firpo/Fulton out quicker, but it can be pretty hard to replicate a fast KO and not knocking someone out quickly doesn't make you a bad boxer, Hamed stopped mutual opponent quicker than Barrera/Morales for instance. It just means your not the same type of KO artist, and Wills didn't get punched out the ring by Firpo either

We'll never know how good Wills is, its safe to say though he's at least the second best of the Dempsey era though. Given their mutual performances against Firpo, I see no reason for your reasoning that Willard may beat Wills

 

That may be but Jack himself admitted several times that the fight was basically a back room deal to help Miske out. I dont doubt that the quote "Tell Jack Thanks" is or could be made up but the fact remains, and Dempsey admits it, that it was at best a poorly kept secret that Miske was ill/dying when that fight was made. In fact you can find several newspaper reports in the old papers which detail his hospitalization, retirement, his excuses for what caused both, and rumors (long before they were ever confirmed) that he was indeed dying. You can also find reports his failing business (he was actually sued during the venture at least once) and his eventual and ill advised return to the ring. Throughout the return there stories of his illness in the papers, and even repeated hospital visits etc. If all of these things were deemed newsworthy for a guy who wasnt exactly a household name its a safe bet that the men reporting understood how foolish/tragic Billy's continued boxing career was because after his loss to Dempsey in 1920 he was never really seriously considered a contender (if he was indeed considered a serious contender when he actually contended for the title). Yes he fought, and he fought some name fighters, and he won, but dont you think its at least a little odd that if he fought those guys and those wins were as impressive as you think they were that Miske would have been mentioned up there Wills, Firpo, Greb, and others who were chasing Dempsey? He wasnt. In fact he was often mentioned behind guys that he had "beaten" (if he was mentioned at all). You could argue that this is because he had already lost to Dempsey but Brennan, Gibbons, Firpo, and even Willard all remained in contention for a shot at Dempsey years after losing to him yet Miske is almost NEVER mentioned at the time as a logical, likely, or even possible opponent. Thats because insiders knew.

 

I covered the other contenders pretty thoroughly I think.
Norfolk was beginning to slip ,and was a LHVY.
Martin was 40 years old.
Tate was really only a sparring partner.
Clark was a LHVY who started as a welter.he drew with Wills when Clark was 27, he had 8 fights with Wills and as he aged was stopped quicker and quicker each time, since he never beat Wills, nor was competitive after the first couple of encounters its puzzling why they were matched so many times,Clark was 36 in their last fight.
Wils would have been the next best to Dempsey until Tunney came along imo.
I didn't say Wills loses to Willard ,but that he might lose to the Willard who beat Johnson.
I rate Langford,McVey,and Jeanette above Wills, just a personal opinion.
But one that Jack Johnson concurred with.