Who Were the Black Heavyweight Standouts Who Were Denied Title Shots Between Tunney and Louis' Reign

[travestyny]

It's not only about who was more deserving. It was about who his manager contracted him to fight, and the problems that still existed in many states with color lines and HW champs. You want to hold Dempsey to the standards and ethics of 21st century America. There was a whole other dynamic taking place back then and Dempsey wasn't in control of his career any more than one of Arum or PBC's fighters.

But didn't Dempsey fire Kearns and use other promoters besides Rickard? Seems he had some power, no?


I didn't say it was only about who was most deserving. You seem to be trying to shift this conversation to be about something I said. It only came up because you said Wills was not deserving of a title shot. I just wanted to know who was more deserving if not Wills?

And how much weight do you add to that with the public overwhelmingly wanting Wills to get the shot?

[Willie Pep 229]

Let me make this McKetrick stuff as clear as I can.


The point of the matter is that ALL SIDES INVOLVED said that the signed fight between Johnson and Jeannette was for the championship. Johnson is quoted as mentioning it. Jeannette through his manager mentioned it. The promoters mentioned it. Various newspaper articles mentioned it.


But you first claimed that it was impossible simply because it was in New York. When I proved that was false, now you just say McKetric is a liar and that means it wasn't for the title. I'm still trying to make sense of this argument.

Would it be for the championship?

Or would the championship be at stake via a KO only?

The proposed fight is often referred to as a 10 round go.

At this historical period most championship fights were scheduled for 20 to 45 rounds. Sometimes 'to the finish.'

When champions pop up in these 10 rounders they are usually set up as 'no decision' fights with the challenger having to win by KO to claim the title.

IMO Jeannette wasn't being given a full shot at the title; Johnson I suspect was placing restraints on Jeannette's prowess by severely limiting the number of rounds making a KO less likely.

Dempsey-Miske was fought under these conditions; Louis-Walcott I was suspose to be fought under these conditions until the NYSAC pulled a last minute change.

DIGRESSION: There is one LHW Champ in the 1920s or 1930s (who's name I can't recall) held the title for several years by defending under these conditions only. Lost multiple consecutive NWS fights but never lost his title. Wish I could remember his name

I suspect we will never know if the JJ-Jeannette fight was going to be a decision fight or not, but I find it hard to accept a 10 round fight in 1912 as being viewed as a title fight, except from the challenger and his people's POV (who usually have big dreams).

[Willow The Wisp]

Travesttyny, GhostofDempsey, Willie Pep 229 and Ivich are four of perhaps a dozen or less folks who still post here regularly who frankly; know enough about our shared sport to be entitled to a strong opinion. Any opinion. Day or night.

That's where I like to leave it. I respect you all, and a number of others as well. Indeed my respect goes out for far more that just 12 here.

But as the highly literate and erudite Gene Joseph Tunney said when naming his excellent 1932 book, A man must fight. So....




I would just like to interject that Johnson did NOT maximize the 2,291 days he enjoyed as champion between December 26, 1908 and April 5, 1915.

He did not schedule a string of title defenses to take place regularly during each season of the tenure, as Louis, Marciano, Patterson, Ali, Holmes, Tyson, Lewis and other moderns so effortlessly did. Nor did he ensure that every top contender receive their shot during his time as king. All of this is true.

He is credited, however with facing the great Joe Jeanette, his very good friend; a whopping seven times as “colored heavyweight champion” before he became the world's heavyweight champion. The Great Sam McVey received three tilts; and before Johnson's loss of the title in 1915, the immortal Sam Langford, Peter Felix, Sim “Young Peter Jackson” Thompkins, Claude “Black Bill” Brooks, Morris Harris, “Denver” Ed Martin, Frank Childs, “Philadelphia” Walter Johnson, John W. “Klon***e” Haynes and Hank Griffin, the BEST black heavyweight of the age, had an opportunity to stop Jack Johnson's rise to the top; and they could not.




We cannot overlook the fact that during his time as world's champion there were Millions who would liked to have shot him dead on the spot, if given half the chance, found lurking all over North America, Europe and much of the so-called civilized world. It must be said here that Johnson did not enjoy the ease of life or the buoyancy of his accomplishments to the extent that every other heavyweight champion did; for it was Jack Johnson singularly, and not William E.B. Du Bois, Booker T. Washington, Roscoe Simmons, Marcus Garvey Sr., Ralph Waldo Tyler any any other man of mere words, however eloquent; in his beatings of Misters Burns and Jeffries, the very best that the white race could marshal, under history's foremost and final code of measure; who proved beyond debate to the entire watching world, that white superiority in all things was simply a myth. It really IS the last word on it.




Well.......back to it boys.

[travestyny]

Would it be for the championship?

Or would the championship be at stake via a KO only?

The proposed fight is often referred to as a 10 round go.

At this historical period most championship fights were scheduled for 20 to 45 rounds. Sometimes 'to the finish.'

When champions pop up in these 10 rounders they are usually set up as 'no decision' fights with the challenger having to win by KO to claim the title.

IMO Jeannette wasn't being given a full shot at the title; Johnson I suspect was placing restraints on Jeannette's prowess by severely limiting the number of rounds making a KO less likely.

Dempsey-Miske was fought under these conditions; Louis-Walcott I was suspose to be fought under these conditions until the NYSAC pulled a last minute change.

DIGRESSION: There is one LHW Champ in the 1920s or 1930s (who's name I can't recall) held the title for several years by defending under these conditions only. Lost multiple consecutive NWS fights but never lost his title. Wish I could remember his name

I suspect we will never know if the JJ-Jeannette fight was going to be a decision fight or not, but I find it hard to accept a 10 round fight in 1912 as being viewed as a title fight, except from the challenger and his people's POV (who usually have big dreams).

Right. I can't remember the LHW's name but I thought I made a thread about him not terribly long ago.


Jeannette would have to win by knockout for sure, as were the rules of NY at that time. That doesn't make it less of a championship fight, however. There were clearly championship fights in NY at this time.

[Willie Pep 229]

But didn't Dempsey fire Kearns and use other promoters besides Rickard? Seems he had some power, no?


I didn't say it was only about who was most deserving. You seem to be trying to shift this conversation to be about something I said. It only came up because you said Wills was not deserving of a title shot. I just wanted to know who was more deserving if not Wills?

And how much weight do you add to that with the public overwhelmingly wanting Wills to get the shot?

Na!

He didn't fire Kearns, he stop fighting, waiting until their 10 year deal (1916-1925) came to an end.

That's why he started talking to Fitzsimmons in late '25 about fighting Wills. Dempsey thought Kearns would be left out in the cold if he fought in '26. Kearns thought differently.

You know my opinion, all of 1922 was about Kearns keeping Dempsey away from Rickard.

When Kearns blew the big money in Shelby, Dempsey began his mental break from Kearns.

Dempsey then quickly ran back to Rickard, the guy who made him big money, fought Firpo in fall '23, made the biggest purse to date, and then semi-retired until Kearns' time ran out.

So I think.

Kearns was talking 50%

I know it bothers you, sorry. But I believe Willls got screwed because Kearns was avoiding Rickard. Wills was too connected to New York and by proxy, and at times by contract, to Rickard.

Kearns kept Rickard tied up by consistently allowing everyone to think Wills-Dempsey was realistic, while he was actually looking everywhere, anywhere else. Thus Shelby.

Wills got used and it was probably never really about Wills (at least in Kearns' mind).

P.S. Dempsey in 1921 gets a 300K guarantee for Carpentier. You and Ghost have been throwing around a 30K figure for JJ in 1912.

There just wasn't that kind of inflation in those 10 years. Something else was going on.

JJ's numbers were low because . . . ?

The 1920s economic boom hadn't taken off yet, 1921-1922 were recession years.

[travestyny]

Na!

He didn't fire Kearns, he stop fighting, waiting until their 10 year deal (1916-1925) came to an end.

That's why he started talking to Fitzsimmons in late '25 about fighting Wills. Dempsey thought Kearns would be left out in the cold if he fought in '26. Kearns thought differently.

You know my opinion, all of 1922 was about Kearns keeping Dempsey away from Rickard.

When Kearns blew the big money in Shelby, Dempsey began his mental break from Kearns.

Dempsey then quickly ran back to Rickard, the guy who made him big money, fought Firpo in fall '23, made the biggest purse to date, and then semi-retired until Kearns' time ran out.

So I think.

Kearns was talking 50%

I know it bothers you, sorry. But I believe Willls got screwed because Kearns was avoiding Rickard. Wills was too connected to New York and by proxy, and at times by contract, to Rickard.

Kearns kept Rickard tied up by consistently allowing everyone to think Wills-Dempsey was realistic, while he was actually looking everywhere, anywhere else. Thus Shelby.

Wills got used and it was probably never really about Wills (at least in Kearns' mind).

P.S. Dempsey in 1921 gets a 300K guarantee for Carpentier. You and Ghost have been throwing around a 30K figure for JJ in 1912.

There just wasn't that kind of inflation in those 10 years. Something else was going on.

JJ's numbers were low because . . . ?

The 1920s economic boom hadn't taken off yet, 1921-1922 were recession years.

You just admit that he got out of his contract with Kearns and fought for other promoters than Rickard. He stated himself that anyone who gets his signature he would fight for.


A manager works for you. Not the other way around. If Dempsey presses for this fight while with Kearns or after Kearns, he could have had the fight. There was more than one promoter willing, including Rickard during the Montreal fiasco.

[Willie Pep 229]

You just admit that he got out of his contract with Kearns and fought for other promoters than Rickard. He stated himself that anyone who gets his signature he would fight for.


A manager works for you. Not the other way around. If Dempsey presses for this fight while with Kearns or after Kearns, he could have had the fight. There was more than one promotyer willing, including Rickard during the Montreal fiasco.

Once champion he fought for Fitz once (Miske), the fiasco in Shelby which was Kearns' promotion, and six times for Rickard (If you count Willard).

What did I admit to that wasn't already a recognized fact?

"ADMIT" . . . Why does this always have to be adversarial.

OK

That is nonsense, you listen to your manager, you don't make your own decisions.

Listen to yourself paraphrased . . . "He shouldn't let himself be MANAGED by the guy he's paying to MANAGE him."

What an absurd argument to make. Stop making that argument.

[GhostofDempsey]

But didn't Dempsey fire Kearns and use other promoters besides Rickard? Seems he had some power, no?


I didn't say it was only about who was most deserving. You seem to be trying to shift this conversation to be about something I said. It only came up because you said Wills was not deserving of a title shot. I just wanted to know who was more deserving if not Wills?

And how much weight do you add to that with the public overwhelmingly wanting Wills to get the shot?

He was given his shot in ‘22 and ‘25, it wasn’t Dempsey’s fault the players involved failed to keep their end of the contract. The public overwhelmingly wanted Floyd to fight Manny back in 2010 and every year until 2015. He was his own boss and had no real excuse, but that didn’t stop him from offering about ten different excuses not to fight Manny sooner.

Does the public dictate fights? The public also wanted Floyd to rematch with Oscar, fights with Mosley at 135, Freitas, Casamayor, Williams, Cotto at 140, Margarito, Tszyu, Khan, and others. The public demanded Johnson vs Langford, Jeannette and McVey for the title too.

They also demanded Duran vs Arguello, Jones vs Benn and Michalchewski, Leonard vs Pryor, Morales vs Marquez…none of those fights ever happened and no one outside of a few casuals accused any of them of ducking the other.

I suppose Dempsey could have fought Wills by 1926, but Wills was done and ducked had ducked Tunney and got worked over by Sharkey. Tunney was a far more dangerous fight.

[travestyny]

Once champion he fought for Fitz once (Miske), the fiasco in Shelby which was Kearns' promotion, and six times for Rickard (If you count Willard).

What did I admit to that wasn't already a recognized fact?

"ADMIT" . . . Why does this always have to be adversarial.

OK

That is nonsense, you listen to your manager, you don't make your own decisions.

Listen to yourself paraphrased . . . "He shouldn't let himself be MANAGED by the guy he's paying to MANAGE him."

What an absurd argument to make. Stop making that argument.

Admit doesn't mean adversarial. What I'm simply pointing out is that Dempsey was not a slave. When he didn't want to work with Kearns, he didn't. When he didn't want to work with Rickard, he didn't. That means he did have some control over his career.

He even admit that if the fight wasn't made, he would insist on knowing why and demand it. He said that in '26. Could he have done it earlier? Absolutely. That says really all you need to know. Again, direct from his mouth. Now you tell me if I'm taking that out of context. Also tell me if I'm taking it out of context when he said that whichever promoter gets all the signatures will get the fight, and that if a promoter comes along with the proper deal, he will be found with pen waiting to sign. And as we see, he did sign.


If I took that out of context, let me know. If not, that seems pretty damning to me.


So again, let me know what part of that I misunderstood. Let's see you change the words out of his mouth to fit your agenda.


We both know which members here have ridiculous arguments when it comes to Dempsey. That's the ones who have to ignore his quotations and completely make up things out of the blue to justify what is obvious. That he was happy to sidestep Harry Wills. Period.

[travestyny]

Once champion he fought for Fitz once (Miske), the fiasco in Shelby which was Kearns' promotion, and six times for Rickard (If you count Willard).

What did I admit to that wasn't already a recognized fact?

"ADMIT" . . . Why does this always have to be adversarial.

OK

That is nonsense, you listen to your manager, you don't make your own decisions.

Listen to yourself paraphrased . . . "He shouldn't let himself be MANAGED by the guy he's paying to MANAGE him."

What an absurd argument to make. Stop making that argument.

Here. This should help prove my point.

You are going to have to contradict Dempsey in order to be correct, and that's a very strange argument to make.


"Anytime you have anything to say about Dempsey fighting somebody, you just come around and do your talking with Jack Dempsey."