Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

Comparing Jack Dempsey's inactivity as a world heavyweight champion with that of Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons is ludicrous. There were much more in the way of legal restrictions when it came to staging bouts during Corbett's and Fitzsimmons' time, especially bouts with the world heavyweight title up for grabs. Yes, there also were legal restrictions during Dempsey's reign, but they were falling by the wayside because the anti-boxing forces had become far less powerful after World War I.

- Chuck Johnston

 

No one is comparing Dempsey to Corbett or Fitz. It's the fact that in those days from as early as you can look back up to and including Dempsey the goal for most hwts was to win the title and tack that title on the road. For the most part they ALL did it. Prior to Dempsey they performed on stage, vaudeville and had exhibitions. By the 20's vaudeville was on its way out replaced by motion pictures. So Dempsey had many exhibitions and appeared in silient movies. During that time he lived in California 2500 miles away from the hub of boxing NY. The driving force of all this was Rickard who came from the old school.....milk the title mindset. Arcel stated Dempsey wanted to fight but Rickard ran the show.

 

ive never seen where Tunney stated he had no intention of fighting Wills. The important point is Wills turned the challenge down. Wills never was quoted that he felt the challenge was not valid.

 

The way he was going he was unsuccessful in obtaining that title shot. An offer was made of an eliminator fighting Tunney and he turned it down. The feeling at that time and after was Wills was more interested in keeping his no 1 ranking than risking it and still not obtaining a title shot.

 

Let me cut you off right there and say youve never seen a lot of things despite pretending otherwise.

"the way he was going he was unsuccessful in obtaining a title shot"

What a complete load of ****. As if it was Wills fault he didnt get a title shot and he just needed to change strategies. The way he was going (winning multiple eliminators) was causing the champion to run into hiding which prevented his title shot. You really want to argue that if Gibbons and Tunney hadnt actually been playing at gamesmanship and had actually stepped into the ring with Wills and lost that Dempsey would have fought him? **** no he wouldnt have. He would have demanded Wills fights someone else and someone else and someone else. Its not like he hadnt been doing it FOR YEARS already. Tell me how many black men Tunney fought. Here I'll help you because you probably have never seen that one either: ZERO. How many did Gibbons fight? Ill help you again: ONE, a guy who he had been ducking for SEVEN years (and that was no secret either). You know, the same guy Wills knocked out in two rounds without breaking a sweat. And that fight was at LHW not HW. So what happens? They both get shots over a guy who had been universally recognized as Dempsey's most dangerous challenger since before either one was even a HW. But I guess thats Wills fault...


"The feeling at that time was that Wills..."

And just how the **** would you know what the feeling at the time was seeing as how almost everything you pop off about is completely bassackwards wrong? Yeah, it makes perfect sense that Wills wanted to be ranked #1 (which actually didnt even exist for most of this period) rather than get a bonanza title shot... that makes perfect sense. So I guess his fighting numerous eliminations, chasing Dempsey through the halls of the NYSAC and several courtrooms, and camping on his trail so consistently that he was called "Dempsey's black cloud" and "Dempsey's black shadow" to the point where only the most deluded, racist, or biased individual could deny his right to a challenge was just a half hearted attempt at maintaining an imaginary #1 position in your eyes... I wanna drink of what youre having.

 

Wills had nearly36 lbs on Norfolk.Gibbons stopped Norfolk in 6 rds 2 years later when,Norfolk was 29 years old.

 

He had a good case but that was never my argument , mine was you stating he beat lots of good heavyweights in the timescale you stipulated when I know ,and proved he did not.

 

Listen salesman who poses as a boxing historian....no one posts more convoluted ass backwards historical information than you. You dispise Dempsey so post on a continual basis information twisted to make your argument appear accurate.

Where did Tunney state he had no intention whatsoever in fighting Wills?

Why do you continually degrade Dempsey for not fighting Wills when the man himself stated the known historical truth years later? No matter who was the hwt champion during that time Wills was not getting a title shot. This had nothing to do with Dempsey.

The history of Wills - Dempsey has been known for 90 years. Dempsey was exonerated decades ago for any blame. If you were a historian instead of a salesman posing as one you would know this as a fact.

Keep putting snippets from newspapers together to make illogical pints of view. Next think you will be telling us is the lay public wanted a Dempsey Greb fight in the 1919-1921 time frame. Certainly sports writers wrote stories but that does not mean the boxing public wanted the fight. Public interest generally makes bouts happen not a dozen sportswriters looking for a story.

 

And YES the feeling at the time was Wills did not want to risk his No 1 ranking. He was certainly aware more than likely he was not getting a title shot and his source of income is being no 1 contender. A loss to Tunney or Gibbons would lower his marketability and the purses he could obtain.

 

Should I apologize for being a successful businessman? How many full time professional boxing historians do you know? Show me one and I'll show you a retiree.

Furthermore, considering Ive been writing on boxing history for nearly 20 years, published a highly regarded book about this era, and have compiled one of the most respected collections of footage on this era IN THE WORLD, I will take that over some doofus on the internet who time and time again illustrates his complete lack of knowledge of the era or the subjects he professes to be a fan of. But hey, lets just throw out the historical record like you seem to be wanting to do above and just pretend that the history written in your pwecious little magazines is worth the deacying paper its printed on. LOL. Lets just pretend that all of those crusty old asshats who worshipped Dempsey actually saw as much of him as we can today while they were living in an era where his films were illegal, where access to multiple news sources was limited, and where yellow journalism and the cult of personality ruled the day. Sorry dip****, doesnt work like that. Real historians, ones who actually do the work and dont stop at Ring magazine, go out and look objectively at the big picture. You can pretend that Im not objective but out of myself and the deluded fanboys on here who want to believe in their hero there is a big difference: When I started out I was as much of a fan of Dempsey or more than anyone on this forum. The difference is Ive actually spent decades doing real in depth research into this subject and era and have drawn together a massive amount of sources across numerous disciplines. As Ive educated myself Ive come to the conclusion, which is irrefutable regardless of what some faceless pinhead on the internet thinks, "perry," and thats that Jack Dempsey was an overrated, overhyped, overprotected champion who benefited from the fact that he actively ducked his top contenders while cashing in on his title and fighting bums. That isnt going to change regardless of what some armchair idiot thinks (I wont even honor you by calling you a fake historian because you havent even demonstrated the knowledge to be complimented in that manner). The historical record is on my side. The only thing you have on your side and the only thing anyone who defends Dempsey is ever able to back up their claims with are the ramblings of guys who idolized the man. Thats not good history its pathetic.

 

Im sorry, I thought we were discussing heavyweights. Was Wills supposed to apologize for being more dominant in the division because he was bigger, stronger, and harder hitting? How exactly does that help Gibbons' case? And yes, Gibbons ducked Norfolk for 7 years. Its a fact. Go look it up (you couldnt be bothered). When the finally fought Norfolk was mostly blind and nowhere near the fighter he had been in the past. It was no coincidence they fought when they did. Adding that it took him longer to stop a shot Norfolk than Wills also doesnt do much to impress me.

 

Which of Dempsey's filmed fights was it illegal to see?:huh

 

Like Wills was going to lose to two safety first light heavyweights who spent their careers ducking black fighters. Funny. Yeah, by not fighting them HE was guilty of trying to preserve HIS rating. What absolute rivisionist horse****. As if it was black fighters who were abusing the color line. I like how your dumbass adds that he was "aware that he was likely not getting a title shot" no **** sherlock. Thats your heros fault there, not Wills'. Once again we are putting the responsibility of the issue back on the victim. Let me guess if werent a child living in your parents basement and actually had a wife and she got gang ****d it would be her fault right? Never ceases to amaze me how ignorant a person will willfully be in order to continue living in a fantasy world as long as his heros reputations are preserved.