No Color Line , Different Heavyweight Champion Lineage ..

If the color line was not drawn, here are some very possible alternate title histories.

Peter Jackson def John L. Sullivan, 1888
A prime, active Jackson could have defeated Corbett, Fitz and ruled till he loses to Jeffries and old age.

James J. Jeffries, def Peter Jackson, 1898

Jack Johnson def Marvin Hart, title eliminator, 1905 as Jeffries vacates title .. No Hart as champion. Johnson defends against Burns. No Burns as champion.

Harry Wills def Jack Johnson , 1915 wins title. Wills defeats Willard, no Willard as champion. Wills defeats Dempsey, 1919, no Dempsey champion.

Tunney defeats Wills, 1926. Tunney retires 1929.

Larry Gains def Schmeling 1930, wins title in eliminator. No Schmeling, no Sharkey.

Max Baer defeats Larry Gains, was title. 1934.

Joe Louis defeats Max Baer, 1936, wins title. Holds it as per history ..

It could easily have played out this way with a level playing field.

 

I think it at least worthwhile to wonder how many white champions there would have been w/o the color line.

I assume he grant is considering that the decision in the Johnson-Hart fight might itself have been affected by the bias behind the color line. And w/o that bias would the Johnson-Willard fight have been scheduled for 45 rounds.

Certainly the fact that there were only two white champions in the last 63 years of the 20th century after the fall of the color line with Joe Louis--Marciano and Johansson--with only Marciano sustaining a championship reign, at least raises doubts about the domination by white champions during the first 37 years of the century.

 

Wills wasn't ready for Johnson in 1910.

 

Really? Wilder? Anthony? Or are you including them in as being " White Champions". ( Wont be the 1st time history being "White washed lol)

 

So my response to what YOU wrote somehow makes my reading comprehension wrong? And according to you I should stay out of this section? Maybe you should look in a mirror, admit too yourself in that particular post YOU WROTE was a obvious mistake. And apologize to yourself for being an idiot. ( I Don't need your, apology I already know you are one)

 

It could have done, but it probably wouldn't.

I think that it is very likely that Peter Jackson could have defeated the ageing Sullivan, but somewhat unlikely that he could have reigned until Jeffries came along.

Johnson getting a title shot might have eliminated Hart from the lineage, but equally it might not have done. Hart did after all beat him.

Ironically we might have seen Johnson's reign shortened, if somebody like Sam Langford got to him.

I don't think that either Langford or Wills would have been a long reigning champion..

I also doubt that a young and hungry Dempsey would have been denied.

I don't think that Larry Gains was quite as good as Schmeling or Sharkey, so probably very little changes in the 30s.

Perhaps George Godfrey slips through he cracks somewhere, or perhaps not.

 

Especially considering the Corbett fight in 1891. Had it been allowed to continue, it'd be hard to see Corbett not winning eventually.

Jackson was totally finished by his loss to Jeffries, and would have picked up plenty of losses if he tried to be active against good opposition until then. In 1898, I think he would have been quickly beaten by someone like Ed Dunkhorst, let alone a Sharkey or a Fitzsimmons.

 

Those around in 1888 didn't think Corbett or Jackson had a good chance against Sullivan.

Corbett and Jackson fought to a draw. That actually happened. Now you can tell me about some ankle injury or another and I will yawn.

1910 is too early for Wills. Do your homework.

Wills beating Dempsey at any stage is a leap of faith. That bout could have gone a number of ways. The combatants were both specimens and their records about equal in quality results.

 

The worst thing that you can do for a fighters consistency, is give them the title.

A few champions have maintained their form while they held the crown, but the vast majority do not.

I suspect that the same would have been true of these guys.

 

We know that Peter Jackson slipped into alcoholism later in his career, and I suspect that holding the title would only have accelerated this process.

 

Thank you for adding a bit of intellect to flushing my point. Erasing the color lie is not just allowing a black man to fight for a title but under equal conditions .. like ..

Corbett not dictating the fight with Jackson so that Jackson, with an badly injured leg goes through with the bout under that condition or risks losing any shot at rescheduling.

Johnson getting a fair decision over Hart opposed to a loss because he did not fight a style less advantageous ..

Johnson not having to to live on he run in Europe for years scrounging for money because of trumped up racially motivated charges and while near broke agreeing to a bout under highly unattractive conditions to get the money.

A prime, 29 year old Harry Wills fighting a 24 year old Dempsey opposed to the 34 or 35 year old version that was at least considered .. when so many write Wills off based on the footage of the Firpo bout they leave out he was already at that time 33 years of age .. How'd Dempsey look at 33 ?

It is easy to see that Corbett, Fitz, Hart , Burns and Willard would not have won titles .. it is 50/50 that Dempsey might not have won a title. (50/50 because the color line against Wills was drawn by Willard and Dempsey).

It goes on and on ..

 

Actually erasing the white washing of history.

 

Correct .. meant 1915 when he was ..

 

Why ? Schmeling was beatable .. he was criticized at the time as getting the most gifted straight shot to the title of any fighter .. Sharkey was clearly past his prime in the 1930's .. he peaked in the 20's .. Carnera was nothing. I can see it just as easily as it played out with these guys winning ..

 

Good point .. and in a rematch ..