Jeffries got what he deserved ...

I think the thread should be renamed did Johnson get what he deserved?:yep

Some obviously believe so, others are perhaps more circumspect about it. Either way its really veered away from the fistic side of things and perhaps as such has run its course?

 

Of course Mcvey is " trying " to tear down Booker T. He will say anything to protect his wife beating idol. It's transparent.

What will he say about WEB?

W.E.B. DuBois,
who wrote that “the history of the world is the history, not of individuals, but of
groups, not of nations, but of races, and he who ignores or seeks to override the race
idea in human history ignores and overrides the central thought of all history,
Johnson had no patience for the concept of “linked fate.” Johnson thought of himself
as an individual unconstrained by race. Indeed, the fighter showed little loyalty to other
Blacks and “had neither faith, confidence nor respect for colored professional men.

After winning the heavyweight title, he refused to fight any of the other men who had
been denied the chance to contend for the championship because of the color line,
saying, “I won’t box any of these colored boys now. . . . I’ll retire still the only colored
heavyweight champ. Even after retiring, he resented the success of Joe Louis and
other Black boxers. The Black press disapproved of Johnson’s independence and
criticized the fact that most of his friends and boxing associates were White men,
commenting that “when [Johnson] turned away from his own people to seek associates
among whites and found them frequently among the most disreputable, there was a
natural revulsion on the part of colored men.”

None of what you said changes a thing about WEB's opinion on Jack Johnson! Stop trying to spin the topic to WWII air men.

 

I said earlier that Jeffries got what he deserved, ie. PAID VERY WELL for the Johnson fight. He deserved every penny. As for the beating he took, you win some, you lose some.

I don't care if Jeffries was an as*shole or not, same thing with Johnson.
In fact, I don't care if all the boxers of that era were anti-social, bigoted and vicious morons ... I think many were. Prizefighting always had its fair share of dubious and immoral, uncivilized characters. It's hardly a civilized pursuit, it was certainly of the criminal underworld in its modern origins.
The fact that boxers doubled as pimps and desperate thugs and were perhaps unenlightened racist idiots should not alarm anyone.
It's odd to single out one or two, when it can probably be applied to the majority.

I guess it's natural for these discussions to occur and go off on a tangent though.

I'm slightly more surprised by the fact that some people have openly taken an opportunity to use a debate about the status of blacks in 1910 to criticize just about all African-American uprisings in general, put the historical blame for racial violence and property damage firmly on the 'flawed character' of the black people - even going so far as to uphold the versions of events reported in the white press of the Jim Crow era ! - and bring contemporary events into the discussion as some how relevant pointers to things that happened OVER 100 YEARS AGO.

I'm not surprised by the attitudes as such, just by how readily people will expose their agendas and show themselves as dusty old reactionary dinosaurs.

 

This place would have been **** down by GorDoom ( CBZ Editor ), who told everyone there this is a dictatorship and carried grudges with anyone who disagreed with him! Some of the best posters there were banned for simply talking boxing.

It is clear Jack Johnson was a despicable person who harmed others, broke laws, rooted against his own race out of selfishness, and perhaps even disgraced boxing IF he did indeed participate in arrangements with his title on the line. His own people both the fighters and the intellectuals of the time blasted him. When your own people casts you as a bad guy, you are in fact a bad guy.

You could say Johnson is a bit like Don King. A bad guy who lit-up the room who apparently got away with many crimes.

 

That's a fair point and it does seem to be the driving force in this thread continuing. Did Johnson get what he deserved?? We know Jeffries did. And Jeffries had too! He stood squarely on the wrong side of history and for the betterment of the sport he needed to lose. Jeffries was a bigot (not uncommon for the time) and a surly man who was also arrogant and for better or worse seemed to be someone who would of been happier alone among nature. He was flawed. However he does get swept up as the poster child of a larger issue which is the conquest over America's racism. He is the villain in the narrative but I don't think he was as bad a person as he is portrayed. Which brings us to Johnson. He seems to possess little character when history's unflinching eye casts it's gaze upon him. He was a hero to millions for shattering a glass ceiling and he was the right man for the job. He had to be defiant and pursue Burns to Austrailia, he had to have the talent to defeat all comers. But when the accomplishment was achieved how good of a person was he really? He may have had less desirable traits than the vanquished bigot. Which is a narrative that would upset many. Two flawed men that dabble in more gray areas than black and white.

 

Jack Johnson was a dangerous driver by all accounts, endangering lives.
He died in a car crash. So, yeah, that's a pretty good case of "getting what you deserve".

 

Web? you don't even know who he was do you?


I merely posted what he thought about Washington to show Washington was a self serving, vain *****.Similar to Johnson in that respect except that Johnson has a pair of testicles and Washington did not.

Can you really suppose there is anyone on this forum who gives a flying **** about your opinion of Jack Johnson?

WW2 Airmen:huh

 

To be honest I'm more interested in his abilities as a boxer,all men are flawed some more than others. I think it's pretty difficult to put yourself in the shoes of a man who lived a century ago. Bigotry is alive and well on this forum as Mendoza
continually shows us.

 

I'm astounded that some ,[who should know better,] are happy to believe the white press completely without ever questioning if they were being objective that fact that they do not leads me to believe they are perhaps less than objective on the subject themselves?

 

Rooted against his own race?
Would that be the same as when Armstrong,Langford and Jeannette vociferously rooted for and picked Jeffries to ko Johnson?
Johnson boosted several black fighters including George Godfrey,Kid Carter and Sam McVey,he picked Louis to beat Braddock, Baer, and Carnera and he was dead right when he prophesised Schmeling would stop Louis the overwhelming favourite for that fight. Johnson paid for Sam McVey's funeral .
Did either Langford or Jeannette contribute towards that? NO!


The underlined is something you are

in no danger of!


A bad guy who lift up the room?atsch

Did he lift it up where it belonged?

 

I agree. At best it's naivete in the extreme.
Perhaps just stupidity.
Very possibly the same centuries-old bias and prejudice.

To think that some people think they have "discovered" through OLD NEWSPAPERS that "Negroes started all the trouble" is actually both funny and depressing at the same time.

 

LOL, you say

Your bigotry and double standards are illuminated once again!

If it’s a white fighter you blame them. You once wrote Jack Johnson makes my **** boil.

Obviously you like Johnson for other reasons.

 

Yes dumb@ss. Johnson said he wanted to be the ONLY black heavyweight champion, and rooted against Joe Louis.

 

I was gonna suggest that but than I thought that would be a misnomer? He obviously didn't get what he deserved no matter how big an 4ssh0le he was. It was the Crow era. I think people criticizing Johnson are just stating he shouldn't get a free pass historically speaking.