Jack Dempsey-John Lester Johnson, July 1916

That was funny, but you gotta acknowledge that he would have no part of any black fighter in a professional fight anymore after that.

 

If you actually read about those race riots rather than listen to dipshits like Bert Sugar you would realize that in many instances blacks were guilty of rioting and attacking whites as well. Oh what you didnt think blacks rioted? :roll:

 

UpWithEvil, I appreciate the good humor and it gave me a laugh, but if your best piece of evidence is dempsey "sparring" with top black fighters, rather than getting in the ring in a paid professional fight while the black fighters are allowed to try there best, than you dont have much to go on. Sparring means jack**** to be honest. Professional Fight, now that means something.

 

All I have to go on is your specific claim: "After suffering broken ribs in this Draw, Dempsey never got in the ring with a black man again." Obviously this couldn't be less correct.

 

When I say "ring" it clearly means the proffesional prize fight. I think that is VERY CLEAR to anyone on this forum but you. But you like to twist words around. I stand by my statement.

 

I have never read anywhere the Jeannette story ...where is this from ... Jeannette was forty or so at the time so I do not see how this is so but who knows ...

 

Oh, obviously. Dempsey was so a-scared of the mighty negro supermen that he'd only beat on them in the privacy of training camp.

 

I think the man was 37, in an age when a boxer was usually done past the age of 32.. that didn't deter Dempsey from getting back to his dressing room when an aging super negro entered the ring! [Click for larger version]

This content is protected

 

So, all of those stories of black people being denied access to restaurants and having to sit in the back of buses were all part of this Bert Sugar-esque conspiracy to mock white people for being racists?

 

Sparring means jack ****. Besides, whos to say he beat them? there are various sources on what happened.

 

"Instead of the clean Bonds, he saw big black smiling Joe Jeanette, his fists encased in 6-ounce gloves and in fighting togs. Jack appeared not the least bit disturbed, but Kearns immediately got into the ring and made it known that under no circumstances would he permit his man to box the husky negro.

Kearns explained to the members of the committee that he had agreed to let Dempsey box Bonds, and unless Bonds was willing to fight the match would be declared off."

How shameless are these efforts by modern-day revisionists to tar the fighters of old with the same crimes of bigotry they themselves are so guilty of?

Here we have Jack Dempsey, by November 1918 already considered one of the hottest rising fighters in the world, graciously agreeing to box a charity exhibition despite his incredibly busy schedule - by the time of this scheduled exhibition, Dempsey had already fought nearly 20 times that year, with two more paying fights scheduled by the end of that month!

Dempsey's opponent was agreed upon in advance - Joe Bonds, a fighter well-known by both Dempsey AND manager Doc Kearns. With two paying fights in the next two weeks and a heavyweight title shot on the horizon, an old pal like Bonds was just the man for a charity event exhibition.

But what's this - the organizers of the event change Dempsey's opponent WHILE DEMPSEY WAS ALREADY IN THE RING?

Sadly, these modern historical revisionists still wish for boxing to have been something more like professional wrestling, with surprise opponents and nefarious double-crosses being perfectly acceptable entertainment. In their view, DEMPSEY is in the wrong for not immediately charging Jeannette with a flying bodypress (instead, Dempsey's obvious cowardice was noted by the newspaper - "Jack appeared not the least bit disturbed"), while KEARNS is in the wrong for not completely ignoring the career of his prize contender and putting him in the ring with whoever shows up at this free exhibition, despite having already agreed to a very specific opponent and with two paying fights scheduled in the next two weeks. One headbutt, one thumb, one trailing elbow and thousands of dollars swirl down the drain, but so what? It isn't my money at risk!

Shame on all of those revisionist bigots who wish for nothing more than to tarnish the reputation of honest men long after they've been laid to rest. You'd do a better and more open job if you merely hopped a train to go **** on their graves, rather than foist off your disreputable slanders from the comfort of your keyboards.

 

Some more quotes from the article:

'Jack Dempsey, conqueror of Fulton, took refuge behind the "color" line.'

Note the quotation marks around the word color. Even back then it was obvious that it was just a convenient excuse to avoid the better black fighters.

Going on: (UpWithEvil take note) 'Dempsey, who today stands at the pinnacle as a result of victories over all-white heavyweights'

'For weeks, Jeannette has sought a match with the Utah wonder, but for some reason best known to himself and his manager Kearns, Dempsey has persistently refused to meet a negro, despite the fact that he has fought John Lester Johnson in this city a couple of years ago'

'When he agreed to box at the Garden Show, Dempsey stipulated that he be matched with a white boxer and at that time refused to meet Jeannette or any other negro.'

'That had started out as one of the greatest fistic carnivals ever staged in this city, had been marred by one of the worst examples of sportsmanship - or lack of it - ever witnessed in the annals of local boxing. '


'There is no alibi for anybody involved in this disgraceful episode. In the first place, Dempsey should have accepted the negro's challenge if he had an ounce of sporting blood in his make up. To be sure, he had everything to lose and nothing to gain, but last night was no occasion to seek refuge behind the color line. There is no excuse whatsoever for Dempsey.'

 

Up With Evil has put this in to context,and your own clipping admits ,"Dempsey had nothing to gain and everything to lose".Name one fighter who would have gone through with this obviously deliberate ruse to get Dempsey in the ring , in those circumstances?
You have allways knocked Dempsey,thats your privilege ,but this thread has such an obviously slanted spin on it, its lack of objectivity takes away its chance of credibility.

 

"Some more quotes from the article"

All opinions. You want facts?

1) Dempsey and Kearns agreed to box a free exhibition for charity against Joe Bonds.
2) Dempsey had two paying fights within two weeks following the exhibition.
3) The organizers of the charity event changed Dempsey's opponent without informing either Dempsey or his manager.
4) Dempsey did not learn of the change until both he and Jeanette were in the ring.

For anyone to claim that this tawdry affair in any way reflects badly on Misters Dempsey and Kearns is the worst sort of historical revisionism imaginable. Dempsey clearly had no qualms about giving Jeanette a drubbing, but any manger who allowed such blatant chicanery to pass would be guilty of nothing less than clear malpractice against their fighter.

 

That article shows Dempsey basically ducked a 39 year old black man.

This content is protected