Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

Complete BS. Arcel was based in NY and NY was the hub of boxing in those days. Just by living during those times in the business as a great trainer he would know more of Dempsey and Wills and Greb than any of us including a salesman posing as a historian.

Wills years later did not blame Dempsey. During that time everything and anything was said to make the fight happen. So you can discount much of what was said during that time. Wills stated in the 50s......Dempsey had nothing to do with the fight not occurring. It was the promotors and managers to are to blame. Argument is OVER.

 

Boxing sages better informed than you or I long ago acknowledged that Wills was poorly treated by white America, and long ago took all available evidence and exonerated Jack Dempsey from blame. Even Wills' mini bio at the International Boxing Hall Of Fame points the accusing finger at the New York Governor of the day while acknowledging Dempsey's willingness to meet Wills.

TIMELINE

Nov 1918 - Kearns refuses to allow Dempsey to fight Jeannette, citing the colour line.

July 1919 - Dempsey wins title and is attributed with having drawn the colour line.

July 1920 - Dempsey, still to defend his title for the first time, erases the colour line and says that Kearns had advised him that inter racial matches were bad for boxing. He announces himself ready to fight any man.

July 1921 - Jack Johnson, released from prison, stirs up a hornet's nest by challenging Dempsey. Dempsey responds by emphatically refusing to fight Johnson, but says "There is nothing to this talk about me fighting Jack Johnson. I am confident the public don't want this fight, and while I will govern myself to a large extent according the the public wishes, I can't see my way clear to fight Johnson or any other colored man." Dempsey takes this opportunity to pay Wills a glowing and public testimonial.

Feb 1922 - Dempsey publicly declares that there is no drawing of the colour line as far as Wills is concerned and that he wishes to fight him.

Feb 1922 onward - Newspapers continue to buzz with Dempsey v Wills and Dempsey never again draws the colour line. Meanwhile, State Athletic Commission Presidents, State Governors, owners of the New York Polo Grounds, etc., etc., do everything within their powers to frustrate attempts to make the fight happen.

These are the facts of the situation, and have been for the best part of ninety years. You have produced absolutely nothing new and have shed no new light on a tired old conspiracy theory which has long been put to bed by those who were aware of the facts. When ninety nine men march ' left, right ' and one finds himself marching ' right, left, ' it is, perhaps, time to consider that he might just be wron

 

Agreed its only an opinion, but
since Langford fought Wills multiple times,I think his opinion carries some import and cannot be dismissed as hero worship which seems to be what a poster is implying regarding Schmeling's opinion of Dempsey.

 

It's an expert opinion and as such carries weight.

 

In his autobiography Schmeling writes he sparred with Dempsey when a young man, and Dempsey visited Germany. He does not say if he saw Dempsey in a fight at ringside. But his opinion of Dempsey must carry more weight than you or I, as he saw every major heavyweight champion from Dempsey on to his death at the ripe old age of 99. Who B, amongst us now can say our opinion of Dempsey is more valid than Max Schmeling's ?...
P.S. Sparring in the ring several times as young Max did with Dempsey can give a fighter great insight of style, strength and
overall ability especially when later on Schmeling fought Sharkey, Baer,and Joe Louis etc...

 

Anyone arguing that Wills did not deserve a title shot?

 

No one denies he was very worthy of a title shot. Blaming Dempsey that it did not occur is the contention. Wills layed no blame on Dempsey instead he pointed his finger at the promoters and boxing commissioners which is the reality. No matter who was the champion from 1919 to 1926 Wills was not getting a title shot. A horrible shame but blame early 20th century predudice not Jack Dempsey. He was a pawn just as much as Wills all through these years. The thing is it was unheard of for a champion to pursue a match with a challenger as Dempsey did once he departed from Rickard and Kearns. Just the fact he took these steps shows he wanted the bout to take place. Promotors and commissioners behind the scenes made sure the bout never materialized.

 

I am not arguing that Wills did not deserve a title shot either.

Although, if i was arguing this, i suppose i would ask why he didnt force Dempsey's hand by:

Defeating the former champion Jess Willard.
Defeating the Lineal Coloured Champion, Jack Johnson.
Defeating the Man who beat most of Dempseys challengers, Harry Greb.
Defeating the man who Jack Dempsey ultimately knocked out, Jack Sharkey.
Defeating Greb's Sparring partner, Bill Tate in January 1922.
Defeating more than 2 or 3 opponents a year from 1923 to 1926

 

I suspect that beating a 40 something Willard (who didn't even have a fight for four years after losing to Dempsey), a 40 something Johnson (persona non grata anyway after losing the title), a middleweight, a journeyman black heavyweight he'd already beaten four times, and a young contender at the age of 37 when he'd already been #1 for 7 years wouldn't have done much to improve Wills' chances of a getting shot at Dempsey. I doubt it would have made any difference at all.

 

How about if he had defeated Gibbons or Godfrey?
Where does it say he was number 1 for 7 years?

 

Tunney did challenge Wills in 1925 and it made headlines in all the major newspapers of the time. Wills turned the fight down. The thought was that Wills did not want to risk losing his No 1 ranking. Maybe Wills realized that no matter what he would do he was not getting a title shot so instead he became satisfied being the leading contender.

 

Considering Gibbons ducked Norfolk for 7 yrs i doubt he would have fought the guy who easily knocked him out in two rounds.

 

And Tunney also later admitted that he never had any intention of fighting Wills and that his challenge was just a publicity stunt to line himself up as Dempseys challenger. Thats exactly why it hit all the papers. Its pretty telling that he felt the need to challenge Wills (fake or otherwise) in order to have people consider him a championship contender.


And while we are talking about what Wills SHOULD or COULD habe done to force a title shot just consider the eliminators he fought over the yrs. How many eliminators does a guy have win before he actually gets his shot? You apologists bandy this around like it isnt the same lame game Dempsey played: wait wait wait and hope Wills is beaten. When another yr or two goes by you come out any pretend he hasnt done anything lately. Well no ****, hes been waiting for Dempsey to **** or get off the pot. Its pretty ridiculous that Dempsey and his fans want to throw that ball in the other court when during his reign Dempsey had six fights, Wills had forty and several of those were eliminators. Wills more than proved himself. It was Dempsey who was inactive and avoiding his best challengers, its dempsey who had/has something to prove.