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

"G.I **** YOU!!" :twisted:

No further comment.

 

Have to say this all means nothing to me. Boxing is the same as any other sport, or any organized compeition for that matter: to be the recognized as the best (i e champion in any meaniningful way) you have to beat the best.

That fighters erronously often have been hailed as champions in boxing whithout fulfilling this simple principle is no excuse. You can call these guys lineal champs, alpha champs, whatever - they're are not legitimate champions in any meaningful sense of the word unless they prove their claim against the best avaliable. I can't for the life of see why this is even a subject for discussion.

I've said the same thing over and over for 4-5 posts now, so this will be my last one.

Ps. You're right; sorry for the name calling. That was unnecessary. I won't apologize for saying that many posters' reason go out the window once we go into black-and-white terroritory (no pun intended), though. This thread is yet another quite embarassing example at what lengths posters will go to protect the name of old time "champions". It's the worst single part of this forum imo.

 

How many world champions "in a meaningful way" has there been in history ?

 

And yet there are just as many instances of newer champions doing the same ****. The only real difference is that the old ducking was oft characterized by race, even if it was being done by colored folk unto each other. Look at Larry Holmes with Dokes, Coetzee, Thomas, Page... And yet we rank mr. Holmes rather highly as a nigh-universal #3 greatest of division despite that(excuses or not)... Yet Dempsey's entire legacy and ranking has been unwound over the years on two men alone.

Roads go both ways. You can say 'OLD TIME BIAS', which is probably true considering it is the classic forum. But the 'color line' is resume wise no less deleterious to a resume than other forms of ducking, or hell, just not getting the money or groundswell or negotiations for a fight done.

 

Langford and McVey fought 15 times, only 6 of then in Oz, 5 for the Aussie title McVey had 7 fights in Oz with white opponents,Langford 5.
Some believe the Smith/ Langford first fight to have been a carve up, with Langford deserving ,but not getting the dec,if it had been for his ttile I think he would have been wise to make sure he kod all his white opponents rather than rely on the referee.

 

It is always wise to KO an opponent instead of leaving it to the judges, but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that fighters ever lost fights, because of the colour of their skin. Sure, if they had bad managers, they would throw fights or whatever (so did white fighters), but no one is going to lose a fight because of skin colour. Boxing might have had a colour line, but it was not a racist sport.

In fact, despite the so called racism within boxing, the first ever black vs white championship fight ended with the title being awarded by the referee to the coloured fighter. Burns Johnson could have easily been declared an NC due to police interference, as many other fights were. In fact, it didnt seem to worry Lanford or stop him from getting the decision against Sandy Ferguson. Coloured fighters sometimes got bad decisions (as did everyone) but it had nothing at all to do with skin colour. "Don King" style politics maybe but not skin colour.

 

Evidence would be allmost impossible to prove would it not?
Is it not possible Johnson deserved the verdict against Hart?
Langford against Smith?

Your opinion flies in the face of several biographers of black fighters.

 

It is ethically different but not effectively different. The results are the same. If we want to have a group hug and crying fest, sure. But if we are talking about the actual effect on the sport, then no.

 

They were not permitted to partake in the sport. Is that close enough to exclusion for you? Since the mid-90's the impact of the Eastern bloc athletes on boxing has been substantial. It is obvious the sport was missing a deep talent pool for the past century.

 

Anything is possible. Johnson may have deserved the verdict against Hart, Just like Jeff Fenech may have deserved the verdict against Azumah Nelson (racist decision?) Lewis against Holyfield etc. There were bad decisions then, as there are now. They didnt just go against the black fighters or white fighters, although sometimes i am sure they did.

Many black fighters were managed/promoted by white men. If anyone is going to fix things, it is these people. Do you honestly think they will try to fix a fight (and costs themselves money) against their own fighters just because they are black. I think this is ridiculous.

Obviously if a white man has a big following, that is a different story. The key is following and dollars, not skin colour. Obviously then, like today, it was harder for the coloured fighters to get that following in the first place. But, Langford was good enough to have earned and had a decent following.

Dont get me wrong, there is no doubt that colour definitely provided major obstacles for a number of fighters. But to suggest that when a fight was scored the Black fighter lost, is ridiculous. Otherwise, coloured fighters would never have won close fights on points. In a so called racists society, and in the racist fight of the century (Johnson Jeffries), is the boxing world really so racist when several of johnson's training and entourage (correct me if i am wrong) were actually white! Most of the racism issues are blown out of all proportions, imo.

 

The public , back in the old days, wanted white champs, hence the White Hope era, your naivety is touching , but misplaced, why would managers have any say in the result,officials ie Judges and refs were bought and paid for plenty of times in the old days. What do you think Jack Welch is doing helping Wolgast up while Joe Rivers is down? Wyatt Earp awarding the fight to Sharkey after Fitz kod him?
Alexander Creggains the ref in the Johnson/Hart fight, stated BEFORE the fight that Johnson had to fight offensively or he would penalise him, if a referee made such a statement today, he would be barred from officiating.

 

Johnson said in his autobio that Hart "whipped him" if memory serves.

 

That would be in the book that also says Langford dropped him .
The one that was not written by Johnson ,was ghosted by a French hack,then translated into English, sold as a weekly serial for the US market,failed to sell ,was shelved ,then reissued and " condensed into a book," after being" translated" again.
Johnson's auto biography , In The Ring And Out" is on my desk as I type this.

 

By Managers, i meant promoters. They are the guys making the money and paying the bills. No different to today. They are the ones with the largest say.

Judges and refs are bought and paid for plenty of times in current days as well. or at least so it seems.

Maybe he was quoted a little out of context? It would be wrong today, because everyone supposedly knows how to score a fight and a ref doesnt need (or theoretically cant) to put his own spin on scoring a fight. Although i must say, it might be a lot fairer if some judges today came out and said fighter A must score the knockout because i am not going to award him the fight.

 

Let us focus on the word "lineal" .

Not undisputed.

Not fair.

Lineal.

The lineal title, is a done deal as far as history goes.

It is like the lineage of the British crown.

Take it or leave it, but that is what it is.