Jeffries got what he deserved ...

I am sorry, but you are simply wrong here.

There was arguably more interest in matching McVea against Jeffries, than there was for matching Johnson.

It is highly debatable what Johnsons wins over Langford and Jeanette are worth, but we have to give him credit for beating McVea.

 

Its a bull**** excuse and you are comparing apples and oranges with a **** victim who kills her abuser to Johnson who knew exactly what he was doing. It wasnt like he didnt have a choice and it wasnt like he didnt understand the consequences of his actions on either himself or those around him. The guy wasnt a victim. Plain and simple. At some point, as adults, we have choices. Johnson never showed that he couldnt understand the consequences of those choices. In fact more than once he articulated very well that he just didnt give a damn and didnt feel that anyone should be in a position to judge him. Thats called a sociopath. "A person whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience." Sound familiar. The funny thing about sociopaths is that they always want to play the victim role because in their mind NOBODY has a right to judge them or tell them what to do or whats right and wrong and so anytime they do something "wrong" or illegal they, in their mind, are being persecuted. Id love to see Johnson repeatedly try to use "abuse" as his defense for any of the offenses that he regularly committed such as abuse, assault, speeding, prostitution, etc etc. "Im sorry your honor I got into that traffic accident because I was abused" "Im sorry officer I beat pimped out those girls because I was abused" "Im sorry magistrate I slapped my wife in a restaraunt because I was abused" Horse****. He wasnt a five year old. The guy knew right from wrong and chose wrong. This ***** ass bleeding heart bull**** over a guy who even friends of his admitted was a ****head is beyond misguided and does a disservice to real victims and real proponents of civil rights.

 

Are we talking 1903? Okay, Sam was a teenager who had fought 10 times in the USA, losing two of them. He beat Martin who had been KO'd by Bob Armstrong 3 months ago. Post Martin in 1903, McVey was easily beaten by Jack Johnson

How much demand could there have been for Jeffries vs McVey?

Martin had already been KO'd twice before meeting Mcvey.

In 1904, McVey lost to Martin, and quit boxing for a year as mentioned in black dynamite. You won't see a match for Sam Mcvey in 1905 either. He was out of the game.

Essentially Martin was damaged goods coming off a KO loss, and McVey next fight after Martin was a loss. Then he quit the game for over a year.

 

Red herring after red herring eh? The slippery slope doesn't extend to I got a traffic ticket because I was abused. The ****ogies you used were about as far off as your understanding of urban studies. I'm not trying to be a **** here, I'm really not, but you're could seriously use some research in these areas. You're coming from the perspective that continues to support hegemony or has no clue what it means or its impact. Do you not think Johnson saw woman ****d and demeaned... especially black woman? Do you not think that altered or skewed his view on that subject? It's virtually unbelievable to me that you can't comprehend the damage of being made to feel inferior your entire life... all your relatives.. all the people you look up to and around to learn from are all treated subhuman by many. To think this wouldn't be severely detrimental with long lasting impacts is foolish at best. The reality is, we can say Johnson actions weren't the most positive at times. They weren't. What we can also say is, he was raised and exposed to things that most should never be exposed to and it clearly impacted him.

 

OK, lets say that Jeffries and Johnson are looking down on us right now.

Jeffries (who was generally guided by public opinion) doubts his previous choices, but ultimately wishes that he stayed retired.

Johnson is positively delighted by the fact that he still divides opinion, 100 years later.

On most debates on this forum, opinions fall into two or three camps.

Here every opinion is unique, and I am having to stand my ground against two people with opposite opinions, on a couple of issues.

 

Dont preach to me about what i dont understand and what i need to study, you dont know me. My degree is in anthropology with a minor in history and a hefty course load of sociology as well. Ill put cash money on the fact that my background in the studies you claim im ignorant of are far more extensive than yours.

And dont sit there and project some pseudo psychology onto Johnson that you have no basis for and which is complete supposition on your part. You act is if you know the man and his experiences and you dont. All we have to judge the man on are his actions and the facts that are readily had by anyone. You arent privvy to any knowledge that anyone else has so stop pretending you have ANY insight into Johnsons psyche beyond what anybody else has. Those facts point squarely to johnson being the architect of his own misery and, as repeated ad nauseum, that fact is supported by numerous people who actually knew him from all walks of life. For some armchair apologist to come along a century later with the duel excuses of johnson being merely a victim of his surroundings and anyone who says otherwise is either racist or an uncle tom is about as pathetic and weak an argument as it gets.

Its just that argument and the resulting refusal to take responsibility for ones own actions that gets so much pushback and sets back civil rights. Far more than the supposed racism that you would accuse those pushing back of.

 

Klompton really crushing this thread. Well written, well versed and researched on the subject matter. Taking no prisoners. Kudos.

 

Spot on.

 

Pretty much. Equal parts Patrick Henry and James Madison. Fiery oratory merged with icy logic.

Out of the park.

 

I agree with your post 100%. Today no one wants to be responsible for their transgressions, for "we are all victims",
mentality...B.S.

 

He's certainly done it to you enough times!

 

McVey had already beaten Fred Russell,Kid Carter,Martin and twice gone the distance with Johnson.
What McVey did in 1904 has no relevance to Jeffries refusing to fight him in1903.

 

Fitzsimmons was 39 years old positively ancient for the 1900's.He had been in retirement for 2 years.
Jeffries should have rematched him in 1900 when Fitz kod both Sharkey and Ruhlin.

Corbett was a month off of 34 years old when he fought Jeffries in 1903 and had not fought for 3 years and that one ,[against McCoy,] is believed to be a fake.
Prior to that he had not won a fight since Jan1894 and that against the middleweight Charley Mitchell!
Munroe was nothing a hyped nobody who had no business anywhere near a title shot. Jeffries knew it and so he did next to no training and came in out of shape.
The problem with evaluating who else was around is none of the white challengers were prepared to fight the black ones?