Jeffries got what he deserved ...

I don't understand the focus on only Jim Jeffries for not agreeing to defend his world heavyweight title in a bout with a black fighter. Keep in mind that only Tommy Burns and Jack Johnson fought black challengers in world heavyweight title defenses from the 1880s to 1937. Yes, black heavyweight contenders generally got a raw deal during that period of time, but it was a vastly different era compared to the early 21st Century.

In his conduct as the world heavyweight champion towards black challengers, Jeffries wasn't any better or worse than John L. Sullivan, Jim Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, Jess Willard, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Max Schmeling, Jack Sharkey, Primo Carnera or Max Baer. Jeffries could be surly towards reporters and other people outside his social group, but seemed to treat his wife, the rest of his family and his circle of friends well. Moreover, it appeared that Jeffries was generally quite popular and well-respected in the Los Angeles area, a place where he live for the rest of his life after moving there as a child.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Completely incomparable. And Jeffries was absolutely correct. As I've pointed out many times here, Ken Burns and his "Unforgivable Blackness" got it wrong. Johnson was not to Jeffries what Wills was to Dempsey or Jackson was to Sullivan. Not even close. The sportswriters who were wanting to see the color line shattered were the only ones hot for this. The public was not. All anyone has to do is go back and read and see for themselves. The fight public thought Johnson incredibly boring and were hardly excited for a Jeffries-Johnson showdown.

 

I said it could not of helped. And whether it factored in or not it casts a very negative shadow on Johnson as one would think. Just being objective. Who cares what Johnson said actions speak louder than words. He beat her, she took her own life, he wasted no time remarrying. Those are the facts. And whether she took her own life or not beating a woman is a creep. Stop being an apologist.

 

How long had Jack Johnson been a heavyweight contender at the time that Jim Jeffries retired for the first time? It was only two or three years at most. Both Peter Jackson and Harry Wills were contenders for a far longer period of time without getting a shot.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Exactly. And the public was actually excited about seeing a Jackson-Sullivan or Wills-Dempsey fight. The same can't be said of Johnson-Jeffries when Jeff was champ. Wills and Jackson were exciting fighters. Johnson was considered as colorless inside of the ring as he was colorful outside of it. A defensive-minded fighter who seemed to be doing everything within his power to make sure a fight DIDN'T happen in there. Nobody was champing at the bit for that fight except sportswriters who wanted to see the color line broken.

 

To answer the question, no doubt. Lots of others have raised very interesting issues but different threads? Different times so not like been raciest to-day but even then some people rose above that.

 

How many thought he was a horrible guy? If you have sources by all means post them. Here is what the Pittsburgh Courier, the most prominent black newspaper in America at the time wrote about Johnson: "In spite of the strong feeling against negroes in many quarters, Johnson would never have been as unpopular in America as he is now if it were not for his actions outside of the ring since he won the championship. Johnson has drawn upon himself more animosity by his actions in public life than he did when he defeated a big favorite in the ring at Reno." I think Ill take their word over yours as they black press was FAR more biased toward their own than the white press was against blacks. Nevermind that Johnson alienated EVERYONE in every foreign local he visited including the much more tolerant and accepting France and Mexico.

Oh bull****. Pure bull****. Those rules that Johnson was "supposed" to follow are called societal norms. You follow them every day and it has nothing to do with the color of your skin. You dont whip out your **** and **** in the middle of a restaraunt because you feel like it. You dont beat your woman in public because you feel like it. You dont slap a waiter because he didnt bring you the check fast enough. You dont drive 40 miles over the speed limit, everyone else's safety be damned, simply because you dont feel like you should have to abide by the same rules as everyone else. You want to paint that as the white the man keeping the black man in his place just like those ****ing morons in St Louis who want to pretend its ok to rob a store and assault a cop and if anyone says anything about it its racism. Thats horse****. Jack Johnson wanted to be able to do whatever he wanted to do and didnt want anyone telling him different and that had nothing to do with race and everything to do with him being an egotistical, elitest, anti-social *******.

And my point is that if you think thats some kind of moral victory then its a small man who claps for it. "Jeffries was dismissive" Big deal. Who cares. Johnson was never dismissive to anyone??? LOL. I think I'll take Jeffries' so-called dismissiveness over Johnson's antics any day of the week and twice on sunday.

 

Oh here we go. "Robbed against Hart." The guy who was doing everything he could to stink out the joint (not the first time BTW) after having been told that he would have to fight for the paying customers due to his previous unsatisfactory performances meets a guy who was making the fight despite every disadvantage and thats your robbery? Pfff. Whatever. Im glad you had a ringside seat to tell us all about it because the one guy who has done more research on that fight than anyone, ADAM, doesnt go so far as to call it a robbery. Johnson knew what he had to do to win and was more than capable of doing but once again he refused to be told what to do and paid for it. He allowed Hart to stay in the fight, make the fight, and win the crowd. When he lost it was debateable at worst. Hardly a robbery. You are talking about a different era when fighters actually had to perform for their coin, not stink the joint out with hugging, running, and surviving. The list of fighters who were DQd for "not fighting" in the early part of the 20th century is a mile long so I dont want to hear any horsehit about Johnson being robbed under the context of that era. This isnt the Association of Boxing Commission rules we are talking about and frankly modern boxing could do with a bit more of the old "you fight or you dont get paid" mentality.

 

I find myself sympathising with both Jeffries and Johnson more than most here.

They were both fallible human beings, and they were both victims of the era.

They were both unarguably great champions, and they should ultimately be remembered for that.