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

the thread should have been ended at this point.

Fighters are ducked constantly, it has no effect on who the lineal champion is. The number one contenders could theoretically be ducked for a million years and the lineal title could rightfully be passed around without them participating. It's not nice but that's what it is.

 

The difference here is, in a close fight , the benefit went to the white fighter as observers stated.


Ferguson was totally outclassed by Johnson in their first two fights ,no one could reasonably give him the verdicts. In their third meeting he blatantly kneed Johnson twice in the groin, no way could he escape a dsq.
B, you seem in denial about the very fact of racism in boxing in the long ago ,how then do you account for the White Hope era?

 

ALL champions & top contenders should be thought of in this light...

Ducking, avoiding top men,
top men fighting outside their division in trying to get champs to meet them,
titles uncontested = champions or contenders wrongfully placed

ownership, which had the power to protect

and Longievity as either champ or contender contesting against true competion

this is how ALL fighters should be rated, then Top 10, 25 or 100 would read a bit more accurate!

 

Who cares if it was in the book or not! In fact Adam might have been unaware of the article which are Jack Johnson's own words. Either tell us the article is bogus with proof, or STFU as I present the facts as they are given. You just don't like them

 

You haven't given any facts,you have typed out a sentence from an unnamed source.
Any one can do that, you have then attributed it to Johnson ,despite him saying in his autobiography that he disagreed with the verdict,the onus is on you to prove it is true ,don't you get that? :huh

I know spelling, and grammar are your weak points ,it seems logic ,and reason are too.atsch

 

There have been many.

Usualy a claim either gathers momentum or falls by the wayside.

You have the Fitzsimmons Sharkey fight for the vacant title, which evapourated once Corbett came out of retirment. The circumstances under which Sharkey won can't have helped.

The press were prety skeptical about the Hart/Root fight for the vacant title, but eventualy it gained momentum. Tommy Burns rescued it to some extent by beating Hart then setting a high level of activity.

When Jeffries came out of retirment some people tried to argue that he was still the champion, but after Johnson had beaten him why bother?

Schmeling and Sharkey were probably the two best contenders available, but the circumstances of the win caused some disquiet. After Schmeling beat Young Stribling people just went with it.

Ezzard Charles's claim to lineage was questioned by some, but then he mopped up the other claimants.

More recently, you have controvesy over whether Vitally Klitschko ever gained lineage.

 

I think the claims held by vitali and then by wlad are just as valid as those began by all the other original claimants. They were both widely regarded as the best in the world, vitali could have beaten anyone after the lewis fight and he'd have been accepted as the champion. Wlad has essentially unified 4 of the 5 belts with the only over belt being held by his brother.

 

Not to be a dick, but that's the worst use of commas I've seen in years... plus a run on sentence.

Are you acquainted with the semi-colon? I think that, and less commas, is what you needed there.

OK. I am being a dick.

 

I am a big fan of the semi-colon; it is the most unappreciated punctuation mark today, imo.

 

I think that their claims to lineage are as strong as, or stronger than the Hart/Root claim for example.

It is a little too early to say whether they will gain general acceptance. We will have a better idea in ten years.

 

Dick, nothing wrong with my colon ,I drink a litre of water a day.
;;;;;;;;:::::~~~~~######
Commas are for enharmonic intervals , I am very much in touch with my enharmonic side.:good

 

Unnamed source? Its from a boxing magazine you dolt! Do you really believe half the stuff in Johnson's autobiography? I know you don't so attempting to use it as some sort of walking cane. On second thought why not add more egg on your face.

Since you worship Johnson, I suggest you read Unforgivable Blackness. While you might be blind to Johnson's dark side, just read the Hart fight. His own corner was urging him on, telling him if he doesn't pick up the action, he is going to lose.

Sounds like they knew what they were talking about. In a true high stakes type of fight, your boy pulled David Haye. Now deal with it.
, and the funny part is its true

 

Does that include Jack Johnson?

 

I guess we all knew it was from a boxing magazine when you used the words Boxing Illustrated atsch the question is what was their source?
It 's really hard having to explain everything to you.
I read Unforgiveable Blackness and have it here.
If you read an earlier post of mine I mentioned that Johnson's corner were urging him to close the show.Poltroon.
I put my thread up admitting I got it wrong about Haye ,only prats like you cannot admit when they are wrong.

 

And I'm sure you sleep with the book under your pillow. If you want to discredit a book or magazine, the onus is on you to do so. I could ask you back up 100's of things you say in books or magazines all day long. Is that really the best you have?

Why don't you re-quote book on the Hart fight, word for word. Be sure not to leave anything out Johnson's corner warned him about the ref's tendencies, and urged him to pick up the pace. He did not! Once again, Johnson dogged it, or to put into a more modern context, pulled a David Haye.

END.