Controversial - should heavyweight history be revised?

[EzzardFan]

From 1876 until 1935 the world heavyweight championship was mostly segregated, and with the exception of Jack Johnson, black boxers were denied the opportunity to fight for the title. In fact even Jack Johnson declined to fight other black boxers for the title once he held it.

Throughout most of this period what was ostensibly the 'offical' heavyweight championship was really little more than the white heavyweight championship.

Few people dispute that had black fighters been allowed to fight for the 'official' title that there would have been more black champions, and that heavyweight history would have been very very different.

A quick trawl through wikipedia for black champions:

1876-1878 Charles C. Smith “The Black Thunderbolt”
1878-1881 Morris Grant
1881-1883 Charles Hadley
1883-1888 George "Old Chocolate" Godfrey
1888-1896 Peter "Black Prince" Jackson
1896-1898 Bob Armstrong
1898, 1901-1902 Frank Childs
1898-1901 George Byers
1902-1903 "Denver" Ed Martin
1903-1909 Jack Johnson
1909, 1911-1912 Sam McVea
1909-1910 Joe Jeanette
1910-1911, 1912-1914, 1914-1916, 1916-1917, 1917-1918 Sam Langford
1914, 1916, 1918-1926 Harry "The Black Panther" Wills
1917 Bill Tate
1926-1933 George "The Leiperville Shadow" Godfrey
1933-1935 Obidiah Walker
1935 Larry Gaines

Of those there are three absolutely stand out boxers who probably would have beaten their white contemporaries:

Peter Jackson
Sam Langford
Harry Wills

My question is whether 'official' heavyweight history should be revised to reflect this? The way I see it, there are three options:

1) Leave as is. Personally I believe that this is wrong.
2) Officially separate the division into black and white and cite both champions. EG in 1896 the world champions were Peter Jackson AND James Corbett.
3) Revise the 'official' lineage and factor in who most likely was the world champion. Of course this is not an exact science but they could poll say the worlds top 100 boxing experts or something. If that were to occur then I have a hunch the three names listed above would then be included in the 'official' lineage of HW champions.

[sonnyboyx2]

load of rubbish

[BattlingNelson]

History is what history is. You cannot rewrite it even though you disagree. BITD there was a real champion and a black or white champion. We all know it shouldn't have been that way, but so it was. The consequense of changing history as you suggest would be that anything is subject to change to whatever 'general consensus' there might be in society at any given time.

[EzzardFan]

History is constantly being reinterpreted. There are many examples of this. It's not exactly unprecedented.

In this instance the white establishment actively blocked black contenders from getting a shot at the heavyweight title. That is a fact. Give that, for how much longer must we continue pretending that those who reigned between 1876-1908 and 1915-1935 were the undisputed heavyweight champions of the (whole) world. .. when a large portion of the worlds population was effectively excluded.

With reference to the poll:

Option 1 is denialist
Option 2 is reinterpretationist
Option 3 is revisionist
Option 4 is for those who don't know and don't care.

[EzzardFan]

BattlingNelson - Who is that in your avatar at present?

[BattlingNelson]

BattlingNelson - Who is that in your avatar at present?

The guy it has always been : Oscar Matthew 'Battling' Nelson.

[Obama]

Wouldn't say history needs to be re-written, but I just acknowledge how good those guys were today unlike most people (including most people here). I rate Wills, Langford, and Jackson in my top 25 HWs. Wills and Langford make my top 10. Jackson I find hard to rate because his talent outweighed his accomplishments significantly.

O yea, I also rate Jeannette and McVea in the top 20.

[TheGreatA]

Sullivan didn't want any part of Jackson late in his career so I consider Jackson the "man" at that time. Corbett fought a slightly past prime and supposedly injured Jackson to a draw and beat an aging Sullivan so I have no problems with Corbett's claim for the championship, although he didn't give Jackson a rematch. Jackson was getting older at that point either way and his abilities were declining.

Corbett-Fitz- Jeffries were pretty much the best heavyweights while they were champions. Jeffries could have probably given a young Jack Johnson a title shot late in his reign but he chose to retire anyway.

Hart & Burns don't receive a whole lot of credit for being champions. Hart had outpointed Jack Johnson while Burns did defend his title against Johnson and lost.

Jack Johnson was clearly the best heavyweight at the time he won the title but as his career went on Langford, McVea, Jeannette proved they were worthy of a title opportunity. His reign after winning the title wasn't all that impressive.

Willard beat an old Jack Johnson but there were better fighters than him at the time. He didn't even defend his title so I regard the likes of Harry Wills, aging Sam Langford and also Fred Fulton as the best heavyweights at the time. Dempsey brutally beat Willard and Fulton and established himself as the best heavyweight, however he never took on Harry Wills, his top contender for 7 years. As with Jack Johnson, the legitimacy of Dempsey's title reign is in question.

Jack Sharkey beat both an aging Wills and George Godfrey so I'd consider the early 1930's champions as legitimate. Godfrey and Gains could have been given a shot at the title but I wouldn't argue that they were the best heavyweights at the time.

[sonnyboyx2]

Sullivan didn't want any part of Jackson late in his career so I consider Jackson the "man" at that time. Corbett fought a slightly past prime and supposedly injured Jackson to a draw and beat an aging Sullivan so I have no problems with Corbett's claim for the championship, although he didn't give Jackson a rematch. Jackson was getting older at that point either way and his abilities were declining.

Corbett-Fitz- Jeffries were pretty much the best heavyweights while they were champions. Jeffries could have probably given a young Jack Johnson a title shot late in his reign but he chose to retire anyway.

Hart & Burns don't receive a whole lot of credit for being champions. Hart had outpointed Jack Johnson while Burns did defend his title against Johnson and lost.

Jack Johnson was clearly the best heavyweight at the time he won the title but as his career went on Langford, McVea, Jeannette proved they were worthy of a title opportunity. His reign after winning the title wasn't all that impressive.

Willard beat an old Jack Johnson but there were better fighters than him at the time. He didn't even defend his title so I regard the likes of Harry Wills, aging Sam Langford and also Fred Fulton as the best heavyweights at the time. Dempsey brutally beat Willard and Fulton and established himself as the best heavyweight, however he never took on Harry Wills, his top contender for 7 years. As with Jack Johnson, the legitimacy of Dempsey's title reign is in question.

Jack Sharkey beat both an aging Wills and George Godfrey so I'd consider the early 1930's champions as legitimate. Godfrey and Gains could have been given a shot at the title but I wouldn't argue that they were the best heavyweights at the time.

Fred Fulton was in terrible physical shape most of his career having a big beer belly similar to Tony Galento... Wills was knocked from pillar-to-post by Sharkey and in all honesty would have been murdered by Dempsey.. i cannot understand how some can rate Wills so highly.. Johnson was a tremendous physical speciman in his prime and a match for anyone in history as was Dempsey & Tunney

[TheGreatA]

Fred Fulton was in terrible physical shape most of his career having a big beer belly similar to Tony Galento... Wills was knocked from pillar-to-post by Sharkey and in all honesty would have been murdered by Dempsey.. i cannot understand how some can rate Wills so highly.. Johnson was a tremendous physical speciman in his prime and a match for anyone in history as was Dempsey & Tunney

This Fred Fulton?



He was 6'7 and rarely weighed more than 210 pounds. Maybe you meant "Fat" Willie Meehan who fought Dempsey several times.

Wills was nearly 40 years old when he lost to Sharkey.