What if the colored heavyweight title still existed in the 70s?

Would Sullivan have beaten Jackson?
Would Jeffries have beaten Johnson?
Would Willard have beaten Wills?

 

Since we are going down this road, a quick simple trivial question, What links Tommy Morrison to Rocky Marciano beside the fact that Tommy once starred in Rocky 5?

 

I think there's some very good points raised in this thread and it seem like there's at least a level of open mindedness here that I don't usually see when talking colorline. IMO, well done everyone.



I do think looking at the past and supposing is interesting, but I also think it's a waste of time. I'm not criticizing, I do it, I enjoy it, but I do see it as entertainment, not insight.

I understand the hypothetical's obvious implications and in my first post I even went as far as to name the name that's going to be most vehemently defended regardless of the dubious nature of the entire history of his whole career; Dempsey. I get it, but, let me try to grab you very knowledgeable guys and get you to speak to a fighter who was only ever not champion because he was black.

I encourage anyone who cares anything about the history of boxing and boxing history keeping and justify the stance on Robert Delaney

Beat the best men of his era, him being the best of his era is uncontested, and authors from his time were blatant about the fact he was not considered champion solely because he was not white. Today he still lacks any honor signifying the period in which this man was the best known to the boxing world other than historians being fully aware of the situation and telling you all about it.

No one but no one has the neck to call Robert a champion, but, do not dare imply my sweet Dempsey was anything but.


You can tell me but calling Robert a champion is re-writing history. True, so is calling Figg a champion while Peartree's being promoted as the champion by Figg himself. Or telling me Jem Ward was champion during a period when everyone saw Burke as champion. History as kept by the likes of CBZ and the IBRO is already re-written and all they do to justify the re-writing is explain themselves in their books but this seems to only happen if the principle subject is white.


Molyneaux's claim is dubious because there's no lineage.

Figg's claim having any lack of lineage doesn't matter though.

O'Rourke's claim having no lineage never mattered

Can't even tell you who the first Aussie HW champion or French, because they're allowed to just start with the first popular guy who made the claim. When the character is black then let's write in our books skepticism though and use different rules to justify every choice we made when presenting the principles.

I acknowledge the champions, in a matter of fact sense. Like if you google it these are the names you will get, but that's about it. Even if say Dempsey or Sully or whatever were the best of their era I refuse to give them the same credit I give Usyk and Fury and such, who fought any race, any nation. They simply are not the same caliber champion, boxing was not the same caliber sport.

 

I think Godfrey might have won but either way he wasn't the best black HW Peter Jackson was.

Jackson was a better fighter than Corbett and if that fight had been scored Jackson probably wins because he had success in more rounds.

If Fitzsimmons didn't draw the color line fact remains he didn't fight Peter Jackson. That would be a very good fight and they were the same age. Fitz ranks higher all time H2H because of his power but that doesn't mean Jackson wasn't better.

Jeffries fought Armstrong and while he got the win its not at all clear if this was a robbery or not or if Armstrong wouldn't have won in a different era. I do not think Armstrong was better than Jeffries but Armstrong was a 6 ft 4 HW in the 19th century and like Martin was a very unique opponent for Jeffries.

I accept the outcome but Johnson later on would have beaten Hart.

No.

Given how Fulton destroyed Langford then Langford destroyed Andre Anderson right after I frankly have no idea how Langford v Willard would go down as hes someonewhere in between. I'd pick Willard over Jeanette and McVea but not Wills and Tate. Also Willard was sorta fading himself he just feels younger because he turned pro at 30.

Tossup. I'd pick Dempsey if not for how blatant the ducking was but that really swings it.

 

Probably not in the narrow timeframe where it was possible, but then not much changes.

Could go either way in the narrow timeframe where it was possible, but even if Johnson wins, then not much changes.

No in my opinion, but Willard probably gets to Johnson first, so not much changes.

 

Flash, you act like he couldn't have just changed his name to Smith or something.

 

Fitz had just started fighting at heavyweight when Jackson effectively finished. Peter probably coached/sparred Bob in Foley's earlier though.