This is not a well titled thread, but i just got to thinking. There is lots of talk about the lack of black contenders around Sullivan's time and how coloured fighters would have dominated if given equal chances and how this is proved by the coloured domination once Joe Louis took the title. My question, and it is a question posed to those who might be more knowledgeable than me, is whether ornot this situation is mirrored in the athletics ranks. In sports where times can be measured objectively, were coloured athletes dominating at time when the white contenders were the dominant champions? I thought that Jesse Owens was the first great black athlete around HItlers time, but does anyone know how the white and coloured athletes performed against each other. Obviously none would be wearing the cuffs in these races.
I really dont buy into all this color stuff. I believe it has more to do with who is the poorest on the economic scale tend to turn to sports as a way out. Because of a lack of being able to get a good education it's the only way out. Let's look at boxing right now. The Latino's have always dominated the smaller weight classes and where are they from. Very poor countries in most cases. Now let's move up in weight. Look at all the East European fighters. Where they come from is very very poor. Fighting in alot of cases is there way out. There is no shortage of world class fighters coming out of the former Soviet Block countries. Extremely poor countries. That's my take for what its worth. I dont play into racial superiority crap
By the same token there were a lot more white American minorities living in poor socioeconomic conditions in the pre war era. You could make an argument for the 1920s and 30s being the era of Jewish domination!
The problem with other sports is that unlike boxing there was a COMPLETE color line. There were and could be no black major league baseball players from the 1880's (when I think the color line was drawn) to 1947. There were a few black football players in the NFl back in the 1920's when the league was sort of catch as catch can, but by the 1930's the color line had been drawn in the NFL also. Likewise basketball. And many sports, such as track and field, relied on the colleges to provide talent, but many, and perhaps most, colleges drew the color line. In baseball, the major sport, there were "Negro Leagues" which functioned independently of the white major leagues. No one had any doubt that the best of the Negro League players such as Josh Gibson, Oscar Charleston, and Satchel Paige were the equal of the best white stars. Interestingly, exhibitions including these black players drew big crowds. Asking why there were a dearth of black stars in mainstream sports prior to the late forties (with the exception of boxing) is like asking why there were no black movie leading men prior to Sidney Poitier. It was not because there were no black actors capable of being leading men. It was because none got any chance.
Real problem is that most black people at the time lived under southern apartheid system that kept them working as sharecorppers and menial laborers from dawn to dusk (or on the chain gang). I'd bet there were plenty of black men who could have been champion boxers but never got the shot to train and compete. As rough as things were for some of the white "ethnic" immigrants in that period, they were still much better off, and more likely to live in northern urban areas where they might get into boxing.
Who? Even though 90+ percent of all black Americans lived in the former slave states in the late 19th/early 20th century, very few of the top black boxers of the time came from that area (other than maybe big cities in Texas and New Orleans). As far as I can tell, anyway. Black men in that time period faced serious societal and economic barriers that prevented them from becoming professional prize fighters. The vast majority of them couldn't just walk into a gym or an athletic club and start training.
Perfect answer. Segregation was a genuine, historical reality and it carried over into American sports just as it did in other parts of society. Like you say, boxing was more the exception than the rule here but was still hugely impacted by it. To suggest that this was simply an issue of economics misses a significant piece of historical context.
Economics clearly plays a strong part in terms of who the best boxers are today. But I think the mentality of 'turning to sports as a way out' is a relatively recent thing for black Americans. When racial segregation was still a fundamental part of American society, black Americans did not have a well-structured path to a career in sports so I'm not sure that the pure economic argument works here. But boxing being a fundamentally working class sport generally had fewer issues than other sports in taking black men into it. Money still talked the loudest, as it does now. It was really when the heavyweight title became under threat that white America drew the colour line. Boxing didn't deny black fighters like baseball did its black players.
The Amateur Athletics rules of some sports probably didn't help them either. A track athlete who excepted any financial remuneration, even for a sandwich, could be barred from all amateur events. A man who had even one professional boxing match, could get barred from participating in all athletics events.
That's a reasonable thing to say by itself but the original post was about the influence of the colour line and how it denied black fighters the opportunity to fight on equal terms. I have no doubt that the history of boxing would look very different had black fighters been given the same opportunities as other fighters. That's not the same as saying 'black fighters would have cleaned up in all the divisions had they been given the same opportunities' but they would have won world titles that they didn't get to fight for because there was some remarkable talent there that was denied.
This is talking about a very specific historical time and one where segregation was not a purely economic issue but an issue of race. It absolutely had an influence on the history of boxing. Had opportunities for black fighters been the same as for other fighters, would boxing history look significantly different? Yes, it would.
Most fighters, when given the option, will go for the highest reward for the lowest risk. I don't blame 'em (but I do judge 'em!)
Yes, fair point. As you already pointed out, not all white fighters (Packey McFarland being a great example) got the same opportunities. But black fighters were specifically discriminated against as a result of segregation, that's the crucial distinction I was making.
And most people didn’t travel, especially when they were able-bodied black men living in apartheid. My point is that extremely few young black men came from rural areas to become professional boxers, especially considering that virtually all black people lived in such areas. That’s not a coincidence. It wasn’t just discrimination on the part of gatekeepers within the sport. Black Americans of that era were basically too oppressed, downtrodden, and isolated to pursue careers in prize fighting.
A lot of great theories posted, however mine is quite simple Many African American fighters, especially heavyweights pre 1960, were robbed of opportunities to become champions in situations that were out of their control. It’s sad what happened to them, but we can recognize them as great contenders who had championship ability who were wrongfully denied title opportunities. Most of the time, promoters shielded the racism by placing a bunch of obstacles in front of the black contender to make it look like he was still given a chance to fight for the title. A black mark in history
