There is lots of rubbish going around about the colour line at the moment. But one thing is starting to intrigue me. Was the management of Willard and Dempsey really as bad and unethical as it seems they were, in forcing their fighters to draw the colour line. Johnson pumped the colour factor for all it was worth, to get a shot at burns. Then when he won it, his PR went berserk with it, first with Ketchell, and then the absolute goating and megafight with Jeffries. Then the great white hope campain. He made an awful lot of money on the race factor and on the hate factor (although i am pretty certain he still had quite a few fans and supporters even among the white community). He made things so hyped that their were bad riots after Johnson Jeffries. Now when Johnson finally lost the title, he never got any rematch, despite going undefeated for years and years. A Johnson - Willard rematch would have sold out and grossed megadollars anywhere in the world. A Johnson-Dempsey would have smashed box office records everywhere. But both matches may have resulted in riots or even deaths if the result had been favourable (based on what happened in Jeffries case). In the case of Dempsey, it would seem that the risk was of the lowest possible denominator. In fact, there are even rumours that the fight actually took place behind closed doors. If this is true then the fact that such money would be turned down is unfathomable. It would be almost like a rock marciano cassius clay fight being held with no spectators. Unthinkable. So, what is the consensus, were their promoters doing the right thing? would you have risked riots and deaths by allowing another coloured challenger, even if that coloured challenger had earned it? Is a world heavyweight title worth riots and Lynchings? Was the title simply that much of a cash cow that it didnt matter who the champion fought. At first glance, i thought terrible racist management, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why, if this was the case, they wouldnt make the Dempsey Johnson fight at the first opportunity when it was such a money maker and such a low risk fight. Certainly more low risk than fighting the white challengers that Dempsey fought. It just doesnt make sense.
lmao, this thread reminds me of the one on BoxRec about the rumored Johnson/Dempsey fight that supposedly took place in Canada in the dead of night among high stakes gamblers. Johnson did have alot of interest gaining from a few promoters across the nation of taking on Jack Dempsey, and though it would have been a good fight while it lasted, I cant envision the 40+ year old Johnson being able to defeat Dempsey, three years of inactivity or not. IMO, Harry Greb and Kid Norfolk were the ones who got the worse end of the deal. Greb and Norfolk, for the most part, beat the **** out of Dempsey's rivals more better than what Jack did. At least Johnson got a few remarks from Kearns of "if you beat so and so, we'll get you the fight, if its what the public wants." Greb and Norfolk didnt even get that much. As for Willard, I believe in alot of ways he's been made into a villian without trying too hard to be. I remember a quote of his, when he was asked if it was true that Johnson took a dive against him, as Johnson's autobiography and the screen play The Great White Hope suggested: "If he did, he should have done it sooner (the kayo came in the 26th round), it was hotter than hell down there!" Willard was a man of his time, and it was a racist time, but I don't believe he was any more racist or cruel or unjust, than any other white fighter present at the time or before him. He just happened to be the lucky or unfortunate ******* to gain the role of being the great white hero, the dethroner of the great black menace.
I must also add, Johnson was no innocent either when it came to the color line. While its true he defeated many of the great black contenders before winning the 'white mans title', he stayed clear and far away from the blacks that could upset him, as much as the white contenders did. His lone defense against a black man was during his escape to Europe, and it was against the mediocre 'Battling' Jim Johnson. What alot of people don't realize is that, when Johnson sought Tommy Burns, that a deal was arranged while in England between Johnson and a high society type, that they would fund the money for Johnson to head to australia, and IF Johnson managed to fight Burns and win the title, he would arrange to set up a match in England between himself and Sam Langford. Johnson agreed.......but once he beat Burns he had no intention of doing the Langford bout, and went straight into Canada and fought exhibitions instead. Some argue Johnson's rationale was that white fighters meant bigger money than a black opponent, and while this may have been true, there was a period of time following the Ketchell and Jeffries bouts, that even the white challengers that were chosen to fight him generated little interest, as everyone knew in their hearts that guys like Kaufmann and Stewart and many other 'white hopes' stood no chance in beating him. Enter Jess Willard....he was buyable, because he looked the part at least. 6'6" 240 pounds. A giant compared to any other man Johnson had faced, and Willard had once killed a man in the ring. It was buyable that he could do what no one else among the white race could....BUT Willard was far from the best white heavyweight, that title belonged to Luther McCarty, another good sized heavyweight, who was scheduled to meet both Billy Wells and Jack Johnson, but died while in Canada during a fight with Arthur Pelkey.
I agree that JOhnson would have been an easy mark, so why not take it. that is why Holyfield fought foreman, Lennox wanted Tyson II etc. An easy fight which would make more money than any other and would probably save him from any public outcry from not fighting the top coloured contenders. I know Don King would take that fight in particular. So why didnt these promoters. Were they honestly trying to do the right thing. You say you would have fought kid norfolk and Greb. What about Wills. Was the colour line oddly enough actually the honourable thing to do? Would you have kept it in tact or risked riots
Wills/Dempsey is imo the only true tragedy, save Greb and Norfolk, in Dempsey's career. They had a contract, and Dempsey's management broke it. Plain and simple. People look at this as cowardice on Dempsey's part, but I think it was more along the lines that Kearn simply did not have enough faith in his man (Dempsey) to defeat Wills at that period of time, since Jack had been inactive for three years doing Hollywood movie serials and the like. He knew, Wills was prepared, knew Wills wanted it, and Wills was tougher than any one opponent that Jack ever clashed with. He believed imo, Jack couldn't win, so he eighty sixed the whole deal altogether, using the excuse of race riots to do it. IMO, Dempsey would have faired better with Wills, who would like to engage in a brawl, than he would Kearns choice in Gene Tunney, who they pegged to be an easy mark since he was a light heavyweight. Least then Dempsey would have had a punchers chance in knocking out Wills.
