Let's Be Honest : Color Line and HW Champs

Oh my.

I can't believe someone actually felt Dempsey would beat Langford.

For those who don't know, Langford was the ONLY man Dempsey feared.

"The hell I feared no man. There was one man, even smaller than I, I wouldn't fight because I KNEW he would flatten me. I was AFRAID of Sam Langford.

There you have it.

 

NOt many of the top white contenders among that bunch. I know he had beaten Fitzsimmons by now, but Fitz was rumoured to only have one arm for that match. And the next best he fought in Choynksi knocked him out cold. He could have earned the title shot by beating the next available white contender in Hart, but history tells us that didnt happen either.

No one is saying that Johnson would not have been a good and even the toughest fight. But, if Johnson had won it would be a major upset and he just hadnt done enough to make the fight a blockbuster or trick the public (not the hardcore fans) into paying to go to the fight. I think that the choynski loss in particular hurt Johnsons chances as much as anyone. Maybe if Johnson had tried to avenge that loss, or beat some of the other top white contenders this would have also helped, but he didnt.

 

Where's that quote from?

 

Do they have to be white to be contenders then?
How does the Choynsky loss hurt Johnson's chances ?
Choynsky beat Johnson in 1901 when Jack had had 9 fights.We are talking about the JOHNSON OF 1904.who had gone three years with only one other defeat in 21 fights [Griffin]
As late as 1902 Johnson was weighing 185lbs, by 1904 he was more matured physically,and appreciably heavier.A year later 1905 ,Hart beat Johnson in a debatable fight,the referee /promoter Creggains scoring for Harts" late aggressiveness".
At that time Hart had been beaten by Gardner on a stoppage1903
Lost to Root 1902.
Been kayoed in 1 rd by Billy Hanrahan 1901.or 1905 Johnson was the logical contender.

 

Dempsey was referring to the time when he was managed by John The Barber, he was a skinny light heavy then ,just another tough kid.Beleive this I think Dempsey beats Langford ,Wills,Mcvey ,and Jeannette.

 

Quite possibly they do, in the eyes of the public in those days. It is a fact of life that in those days most of the money paying public considered the whites to be the better fighters (rightly or wrongly). With the exception of a few (such as peter Jackson) the whites were considered to be dominant. I would guess that the they had a pretty good win percentage in those early days.

If the same colour division existed today, would you think that the say (for example) Joe Mesi could be the logical contender to a world title, if he only fought white american contenders (leave aside the European resurgence) when there is a clear public perception that the white americans are not as good as the black fighteres.

The same applies regularly to European fighters. Most of the Europeans (Calzaghe and Ottke are two recent examples to come to mind) are not generally really considered the standout challengers by most people until the fight the American fighters or champions. I should point out that I am a huge Johnson fan, i think he is better than most do, but he knew that he had to do something to force the fans issue. Jeffries was seen as an all time great unstoppable force a class above everyone. Much like Tyson or even how lewis became, certainly far better than the two klitchskos are at the moment.

Yet even with the klitchsko's is there really currently anybody who has done enough to warrant a big match. Peter, on the back of a losing effort? Byrd had a good angle to fight based on his history and last result against Vitali, but that isnt there anymore. If you forget about mandatorys (which didnt exist), who could the klitchskos currently fight to make money? There isnt anyone available so they have picked David Haye based on his cruiserweight feats. If they wanted to get out of the game, the reality is that nobody currently would start favourite against them.

Sure, if you sit down, you might consider Haye to have built a good case (he ripped through a good group of fighters and claimed his cruiserweight title and although he has been knocked out he might very well be the logic challenger, just like Johnson could have been). But, would there have really been a problem if instead of Haye, Klitchsko had fought say Nicolai Valuev since he is the best of those campaining at the heavier weight (current opinion suggests heavyweight is better than cruiserweight, even though more ATGs were closer to the cruiser limit than the heavy limit). And in any case, if the Klits had earned their fortune and had enough, had they not already currently proved themselves the best in the world, with no really serious challengers on the horizon. This is the same situation that existed with Jeffries and Johnson. If johnson wanted the fight he needed an angle. He could have followed jeffries around like he did to Burns. He could have knocked out Sharkey, who jeffries couldnt, or Choynski, who jeffries couldnt, he could have kod all of the best white fighters, who jeffries was fighting or could face. He did none of this and while it may have been the most logical fight left for Jeffries, Jeffries would have been a massive favourite, there would be very little interest in the fight. Put simply, with Jeffries already champion, having cleared the division, and there being no great demand, Jeffries would have been absolutely crazy to take the fight. If he was not retiring that is obviously a different story.

 

I think your analogy falls down on two levels.First there is ,as you say no clear standout contender for the Bros Grimm to fight .Haye has as good credentials as any .Contrast that with JEFFRIES, after he beat the pitiful Munroe ,his standout challenger was clearly Johnson,but instead of fighting him he retired.So the Klits have no clear standout ,but Jeffries did have.
Second you say Johnson needed an angle to inveigle Jeffries into a defence, and question why he did not fight the leading white challengers ?
This presupposes that they were willing to fight him.Tom Sharkey once had Johnson as a sparing partner ,so he knew a bit about him.
Sharkey a man not noted for having the sunniest of dispositions at the best of times,did not like many of his opponents ,but he absolutely despised Johnson.Late in Johnson's life when he was reduced to working as a barker in a flea circus ,and allowing members of the public to take pot shots at him , he met up with Sharkey again. Sharkey went in with Jack for what was supposed to be a friendly spar a tubby Sharkey did his best to kill Johnson who had to hold him and talk to him in an effort to calm his rage.Years after he had retired Sharkey who was skint and being helped financially by Jeffries his close friend, was asked his opinion of Johnson this is what he said"In all round ability Johnson was the best ,he was the finest defensive fighter I ever saw,and I tell you this honestly ,because I hated the man"
This long winded dissertation is my way of explaining why PERHAPS Johnson did not fight Sharkey.
As to the other white top men I think by 1904 Johnson would have handily beaten Choynsky who did not have the best of chins,though he may well have had the best of punches p4p according to Johnson who rated his power above FItz ,and Jeffries.
Johnson gave Jeffries brother Jack a beating in an effort to inveigle him into the ring but to no avail. It is very possible that Jeffries retired because Johnson WAS such a threat to his title.and NOt because there were no more worth while challengers out there.

 

I believe he would have probably beaten Wills, McVey, and Jeanette, but I don't think in a million years he would have ever beaten Langford. Langford would have gone Fireman Jim Flynn on him in my view.

 

Yes but that might have been a bit like Mike Tyson being afraid of 40 year old George Foreman.

Afraind of the man they had once been and not being able to separate the difference.

 

You do know Dempsey kod Flynn a year later in 1 min10 seconds ?
You do know that Dempsey kod Fulton in 23 seconds the same year that Fulton beat Langford in fact only a couple of months previously and a year after Fulton had stopped Langford in 7 rds.?
Given this information I find your certainty on the result of a Dempsey v Langford comical.

 

O dear, Dempsey would have destroyed Langford. It would have been Foreman-Frazier all over again. I strongly believe Wills is the toughest test for Dempsey. Wills beat langford 13 out of 15 times.

 

I think that a prime Langford would be a more dangerous test for Dempsey than Wills.

Dempsey thought so as well.

I also think it is a bit of a tretch to say that Wills won 13 out of 15. Some of them were split media decisions.

 

No doubt Langford would be very dangerous ,more dangerous than Wills imo,but to aver that Dempsey does not have a chance against him is foolish.

 

There is is a solid argument that Langford dominated the series with two clean KO wins, and Wills only started winning when Langford started slipping.

 

The "Pitiful" Monroe had a 20 round loss and a draw with Hank Griffin. in 1900 and 1901. The exact same same Griffin who fought to a draw and a wo round win against jack johnson. The same Griffin who fought 3 draws and 20 round win against Jack johnson in 1901 and 1902. Given that Hank was to lose only one more fight until he retired then i would have thought that if anyone had a claim to being the standout contender it was him. But wait, hadnt he already been comprehensively beaten by Jeffries?

In 1903, the 'pitiful' Monroe locked horns with former title claimant Peter Maher. Admittedly Maher had been slipping, but he was still a name. In todays climate he was a Hasim Rahman type of fighter. Monroe knocked him out comprehensively. He followed it up with a KO of Al Limerick who was a big 220 lb heavyweight who had beaten the tough Philadelphia Jack O brien. Then in 1904, he set up the world title fight with a victory over Tom Sharkey. Sharkey was really the only contender to have gone the distance with Jeffries and looking at that, you would have to imagine that his loss here robbed us of a third and final chapter to the 'trilogy". Sharkeys other attempt at setting up a trilogy had been derailed by both Bob Fitzsimmons and Gus Ruhlin. Both of them were, surprise surprise Jim Jeffries Victims.

Johnson was not a standout challenger in the eyes of the public. When Riddick Bowe chose not to fight Lennox Lewis, that was a standout challenger. Or when Douglas fought Holyfield instead of a Tyson rematch. Admittedly Hank Griffin lost what would appear to be a fluke loss to Russell, but that was it. If anything, he was the standout challenger because he had actually beaten Jack Johnson (in a series not a one off match) and eventual challenger Jack Monroe. Given that he had already been thrashed by Jeffries, i dont see how you can say that "johnson" is a standout challenger. It would be like saying that Toney is a standout challenger for Wlad after he lost a 4 fight series to Peter, just because he beat a few contenders, many of whom had also been beaten several to times by Peter victims and Vlad Victims. Sure a fight may have been justifiable, but there is no standout challenger.