Who actually beats Johnson at his absolute prime?

[travestyny]

- - As a reminder for our untutored posters, the very wealthy Opera producer in Boston Harry Frazee and owner of the Boston Red Sox offered a Jack who had beat Willard and Harry fight in the Red Sox Stadium for the largest purse in boxing history, and both teams agreed, but Boston Politicos killed it.

The next year with his financial buddy, the equally wealthy Jacob Ruppert who owned the NY Yankees and had just built the new Yankee Stadium, they offered an even bigger purse in their new stadium that both agreed to, but NY politicos killed it. After that their was no $$$ in the fight because it was impossible as it played out because who wants to waste $$$ on an impossible fight?

Why the usual idjit ninnyboys who love to do dumpbys on forums.

Of course, the moon landing was faked, recent presidential elections stolen, and there were weapons of destruction in Iraq and so on forevermore little BBs rattle in Brittle Noggins...forevermore...

Post the proof that these fights were agreed to by both parties and that they were killed by politicos, and once that's all settled, we can move on to other negotiations and their outcomes.

But somehow I don't think we will get as far as your proof.

[Bronson66]

Post the proof that these fights were agreed to by both parties and that they were killed by politicos, and once that's all settled, we can move on to other negotiations and their outcomes.

But somehow I don't think we will get as far as your proof.

No,all you'll get is some more childish name calling every time you post a verified source or ask for one in return!

[QueensburyRules]

Post the proof that these fights were agreed to by both parties and that they were killed by politicos, and once that's all settled, we can move on to other negotiations and their outcomes.

But somehow I don't think we will get as far as your proof.

- - Already posted the proof now buried in the lower archives of this Forum.

If dummies want to suffer their ignorance over and over and again and again, nothing I can do about it.

[Willow The Wisp]

Use the simple search function and find it for us. We all know you have the time on your hands because you spend 80% of your time here writing meaningless posts with insults so odd that in my head I imagine you are 133 years old and from Bucharest.

The ball is in your court QueensburyRules.
This could be your greatest triumph. Worth the search.

[GhostofDempsey]

This is hilarious! Johnson signed contracts to fight Langford,McVey,and Jeannette,men he had already beaten and posted cash bonds as proof of good faith.

Yet you dismiss these as BS because you hate Johnson!lol

Your blatant hypocrisy and biased double standards leap off the page here!!!

Want to talk about weight disparity as a means of disparaging Wills?

In the fights against Langford in which weights are recorded we have the following.
SL HW
187 210
190 208
196 203
204 215
195 204
195 205
190 210
190 21 0
McVey Wills
217 206
219 208
These fights were in1914 McVey was not washed up!

Jeannette Wills
204 209

Firpo Wills
224 217
Firpo was 5 years younger than Wills

Fulton Wills
210 204
Fulton had won his last19 fights beating the likes of;
Flynn
Smith
Madden
Moran
J L Johnson
Cowler
Meehan
Langford
He hadnt lost a fight for 2 years

F Johnson Wills
203 215
Wills was 6' 2" and around 206lbs. Was he supposed to avoid fighting men like Clark, Langford , Jackson, who were shorter?

As I pointed out a long time ago your hate blinds you , you have no objectivity either concerning Johnson or your hero Dempsey.

You absolve Dempsey from any blame for not defending against Wills,but place the blame squarely on Johnson's shoulders for his defences against the black trio not happening,even though public statements as to why those fights were pulled were made by the Chairman of the NYAC the promoters The McMahon bros and H D McIntosh in Australia placing the blame fairly and squarely on the authorities and public opinion,not on Johnson.

William Muldoon as head of the NYAC was in the" cleft stick position".in his role he had to be seen to desire the Dempsey v Wills fight ,and consequently banned Dempsey from defending in NY against anyone but Wills,but privately political pressure was exerted on him not to allow the fight to happen.

Rickard haunted by the riots and deaths after Johnson V Jeffries also did not want to promote the fight and had no intention of doing so.

The contract wasn't worth the paper it was written on ,its obscure wording gave no dates, or purses or venue.Also Rickard would have lost his biggest draw.

Kearns did not want Dempsey to fight Wills for two reasons.

Wills was the most dangerous challenger and Kearns would have been out in the cold with his meal ticket,much devalued had Dempsey lost.

The other reason was if Dempsey defended against Wills a precedent would have been established.and the implicit,if unwritten law that white heavyweight champions did not defend against black challengers would have been broken.
This would have opened the gates for other black challengers like Godfrey ,and Kid Norfolk to make challenges that could no longer be reasonably dismissed on the grounds of colour.

Dempsey as champion must shoulder his share of the blame for the fight not happening,he was no longer the young contender in thrall to Kearns,he was a mature champion with a mind of his own.

I don't think a prime Dempsey feared any man ,but,by taking the path of least resistance,he allowed the status quo, the iniquitous colour bar that prevented blacks from challenging for his title to remain in place, so he was complicit in the avoidance of Wills and must be held to account for it.

It's a shame imo because I think he would have stopped Wills , removed his spectre from his record and in doing so enhanced his own all time standing.

I say this with Dempsey being my favourite boxer,but facts are facts and must be faced,even if you are never willing to do so!

image.png

You never proved a thing with your long recycled copy and paste job from the other forum. You don’t know exact weights, and Wills was still considerably larger than Langford despite your weak efforts to prove otherwise. You conveniently left out that Langford was blind in one eye for the last 8 fights with Wills. Moyle described Wills as “much bigger and stronger” than Sam.

You keep wasting your time dribble when Wills himself said Dempsey never ducked him. You want to dispute the men who were really there because you are too stubborn to admit when you’ve been proven wrong. You love to quote Pollack so much but in his trilogy of Dempsey bios he outlines how Dempsey was willing to fight him and provided countless examples of obstacles that prevented the fight. None of which were Dempsey himself.

Keep copying and pasting your recycled posts from elsewhere and I’ll keep knocking them down with facts.

[GhostofDempsey]

The idea that Dempsey's commitment to defending his title (The World's Title) against Wills or Godfrey would make the fights occur, is not in keeping with the societal facts present at the time. Dempsey had admiration for Wills, sympathy for his plight; and limited control over the social architecture of the times.

Imagine today, a Hollywood movie celebrity extolling the virtues of **** and child ******ation.
"Oh, the kiddies love it!", he claims.
How would the public react?

That should give us a sense of what Dempsey and Wills were up against in the 1920's; the Ku Klux Claniest decade since the 1860's.

Only a fool would try to superimpose contemporary thinking on another age.



17520657521429163600661942540872.jpg

This was a point I’ve tried making numerous times here. A certain poster here insists on applying 21st century “thinking” to early 1900’s reality and social norms. Even Jeffries himself had tremendous respect for Johnson, it was Jeffries who insisted Johnson be given a fair chance to win and insisted no one harass him, cheat him, or harm him regardless of the outcome of their fight. Wills was interviewed in the 1950’s and expressed his respect for Dempsey and insisted Dempsey himself never ducked him. It was politics of the era that prevented the fight amongst other obstacles. But we have race-obsessed casuals here who are unable to apply context, and continue to try and pound round pegs into square holes by applying today’s social norms to those of over a century ago.

[Willow The Wisp]

This was a point I’ve tried making numerous times here. A certain poster here insists on applying 21st century “thinking” to early 1900’s reality and social norms. Even Jeffries himself had tremendous respect for Johnson, it was Jeffries who insisted Johnson be given a fair chance to win and insisted no one harass him, cheat him, or harm him regardless of the outcome of their fight. Wills was interviewed in the 1950’s and expressed his respect for Dempsey and insisted Dempsey himself never ducked him. It was politics of the era that prevented the fight amongst other obstacles. But we have race-obsessed casuals here who are unable to apply context, and continue to try and pound round pegs into square holes by applying today’s social norms to those of over a century ago.

Brilliant post.

[them_apples]

This was a point I’ve tried making numerous times here. A certain poster here insists on applying 21st century “thinking” to early 1900’s reality and social norms. Even Jeffries himself had tremendous respect for Johnson, it was Jeffries who insisted Johnson be given a fair chance to win and insisted no one harass him, cheat him, or harm him regardless of the outcome of their fight. Wills was interviewed in the 1950’s and expressed his respect for Dempsey and insisted Dempsey himself never ducked him. It was politics of the era that prevented the fight amongst other obstacles. But we have race-obsessed casuals here who are unable to apply context, and continue to try and pound round pegs into square holes by applying today’s social norms to those of over a century ago.

For sure there is definitely a racial bias - usually from black guys or white libe RralZ. Just being honest.

[Bronson66]

You never proved a thing with your long recycled copy and paste job from the other forum. You don’t know exact weights, and Wills was still considerably larger than Langford despite your weak efforts to prove otherwise. You conveniently left out that Langford was blind in one eye for the last 8 fights with Wills. Moyle described Wills as “much bigger and stronger” than Sam.

You keep wasting your time dribble when Wills himself said Dempsey never ducked him. You want to dispute the men who were really there because you are too stubborn to admit when you’ve been proven wrong. You love to quote Pollack so much but in his trilogy of Dempsey bios he outlines how Dempsey was willing to fight him and provided countless examples of obstacles that prevented the fight. None of which were Dempsey himself.

Keep copying and pasting your recycled posts from elsewhere and I’ll keep knocking them down with facts.

I posted the fights in which Langford and his opponents weighed in.
You accept the weights when you think they help your agenda,and discard those that contradict you.
Langford being blind in one eye after his1917 fight with Fulton has absolutely no relevance to how much he weighed in the fights .
You excuse Dempsey not fighting his number one challenger for years,because you are a fan boy.
You condemn Johnson for not defending against his black challengers,because you hate him.


Ive been proven wrong twice this week ,by Apples on his Marciano thread and Queenie on Usyk's managerial connections.

I readily admitted I was wrong to both of them.
Something you have neither the balls or the manners to do.
You are a hating hypocrite.

[Bronson66]

This was a point I’ve tried making numerous times here. A certain poster here insists on applying 21st century “thinking” to early 1900’s reality and social norms. Even Jeffries himself had tremendous respect for Johnson, it was Jeffries who insisted Johnson be given a fair chance to win and insisted no one harass him, cheat him, or harm him regardless of the outcome of their fight. Wills was interviewed in the 1950’s and expressed his respect for Dempsey and insisted Dempsey himself never ducked him. It was politics of the era that prevented the fight amongst other obstacles. But we have race-obsessed casuals here who are unable to apply context, and continue to try and pound round pegs into square holes by applying today’s social norms to those of over a century ago.

I posted the Jeffries thread,which by the way comes from Adam Pollack,the man whose work you consistently disparage as copy and paste jobs.

Wanting fairplay in the ring does not equate to regarding a man of colour as an equal.

Jeffries also referred to Johnson many times as a coon,a skunk,and a ******.

Jeffries also refused to shake Johnson's hand at the contract signing of their fight.

Jeffries also refused to shake Johnsons hand in the ring, either before or after the fight,and when Johnson went over to commiserate with him he was waved away.
Who was it who ascribed his defeat to drugged tea and allowed his name to be coupled with the accusation in ," Two Fisted Jeff ."

"Who said when there are no more white challengers to face, I shall retire.I will never take a chance on losing my title to a black man."
Who said," I am coming back to redeem the honour of the White race."