Nobody that drew the colour line should be considered a lineal champion

How can we be certain that any of the black trio would have acted any differently than Johnson did once he was champ?
If Langford ,or the others won the title ,it is likely that there would have been more financial inducements to face white challengers than black. What is allmost certain is that they would not have engaged in a prolonged series with each other.
I see no white boxing establishment being happy for Langford ,Jack, Sam, and Joe to play pass the parcel with the title.The white hope era that followed Johnson's reign would have been trebled in intensity if that gifted quartet began to hold the title on a rota like system.

Langford's training was rather hit and miss at the best of times.

 

Funny how difficult this simple concept is so hard to understand.

 

Oh, sorry. I forgot. Boxing is this unique sport where you don't have to beat the best available to call yourself the best.

Man, you're thick some times. The concept that you have to prove yourself against the best to be called the best is applicable in every sport. Right now it's applied better in MMA than it's probably ever been in boxing. Not perfect, mind you, but definitely better.

And just the farcical concept of calling yourself the best in the world, but refusing to prove it against challengers of a certain creed or colour, regardless of their merits - and getting away with it. Still!

This shouldn't be up to debate with intelligent people. But it's frighteningly to see on this forum how the brain cell count drop once you go back in time past 1950.

But then very few (if any?) of today's champs are undisputed world champions. Just as they shouldn't be.

Yeeah, but I personally moved past that to the concept of champion in any way which counts for anything. And I think that really was the point of the thread.

 

The difference is they were never excluded

 

First post summarizes already everythign up.

//close thread.

:thumbsup

 

I don't know if it's unique.
But the general principle is quite straightforward - you have to beat the champion to be the champion.

Proving yourself "the best" in boxing is something completely different, and a never-ending process. It's actually almost impossible, because there's always someone else to fight. If the champion was always the best fighter in the world then the title would never change hands !

 

I agree with what you are saying regarding these three acting differently, but i think it crazy to think that the establishment would prevent the three from fighting. In fact, Langford/McVey did have their series over the Australian title which was almost a form of the world title. There was no overly pressing need for this title to be defended solely against white hopes.

I think if Langford were handed the title, he would need to defend it to gain credibility. In fact, i think that his actual reign (assuming that he didnt unify with Johnson at some stage, which i think would be the biggest fight available and would happen) would ahve likely looked like it did. The Gunboat title loss would have been a big deal though. I think that this would have been lapped up by the press. And when you consider that Gunboat lost to Europe's Georges Carpentier (which would have been hugely popular), you wonder whether it would have given Langford, McVey, Jeanette or even Johnson the chance to slip into a Joe Louis style hero's role and win the title back for America.

 

And he was ducked by the Native American Dempsey because he was white. :-(

 

Depends. Not making a match vs 1 highly ranked challenger due to the politics of the time happens. In fact it can happen today. However, when a fighter clearly avoids say the best 3-4 fighters out there, and takes much easier matches then its a different story.

 

interesting

 

Muhammad Ali famously refused to fight Vietnamese, it should be noted.

 

Not to be racist but, Vietnamese don't make good Heavyweights.

 

Some say they lack heart too ... that they are yellow.

 

Jesus Christ. My point on the tennis thing is that it's better organized than boxing and always has been. One int'l organization for men's and womens tennis respectively. The interests that govern boxing politically are diverse in order, from everything to ABC organizations, to promotional companies, to organized crime. Obviously fighting the best of the best is desirable. But is it always realistically possible? Has it ever been, really? I'm not sure how many times i have to make this point for you to understand that yes! boxing is a unique sport! It's history and politics are nigh incomparable to any other. That's part of the appeal. By the way, I have refrained from insulting you in any way; I try not to do so when i'm arguing with someone in a respectable debate(forum shenanigans aside) so please have the common courtesy and class to do the same.

MMA is great at matching up the best of the best....Inside each promotional body. It's not really different from what GBP and Top Rank are doing with only in house matches more or less. Its arguably worse, because UFC fighters can't take on Strikeforce or WEC champs or whatever period, they're contractually forbidden to do so. Nonsense. Do you really know what you're talking about here?

Obviously the color line is horrible. I'm not white, and i'm an american- you have to understand that I comprehend the hindrance of racial discrimination rather well. The point is that claiming someone isn't a champion, by the lineal definition at least, because of fights not made is nonsensical. In today's game undisputed has more relevance than lineal. But then again championship really doesn't have much relevance at all.

I have no idea why you are accusing other people of thickness and low brain cell count when you contribute nothing more than poor comparisons, whining, and rehashed talking points.