Why Does Jack Johnson Get a Pass on Opposition while Marciano Does Not?

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Looking back we can say negro was a derogatory term. From where we are now, but what I am saying is that during that era blacks themselves referred to one another as negro. Negro History Week began in 1926, changed to Black History Month in 1976. It wasn't until the mid-1960s and the Black Power movement that negro was no longer deemed appropriate. Those are just historical facts. Not sure where you went to college, but these are facts provided by a professor at the University or Chicago, so you can take it up with him.

The N-word has always been a term designed to hold power over black people. It's always been racist. A lot of black people today refer to themselves as "*****s" but the term is still racist.

There's a difference between a white person calling black people negro and blacks referencing each other as that. The former is racist and the latter is not. It's the word that the white man gave them. If it wasn't racist they wouldn't have changed it. They didn't just wake up one day and say "Hey that's racist", no that **** always has been.

[GhostofDempsey]

The N-word has always been a term designed to hold power over black people. It's always been racist. A lot of black people today refer to themselves as "*****s" but the term is still racist.

There's a difference between a white person calling black people negro and blacks referencing each other as that. The former is racist and the latter is not. It's the word that the white man gave them. If it wasn't racist they wouldn't have changed it. They didn't just wake up one day and say "Hey that's racist", no that **** always has been.

There were only a handful of activists in the late 19th and early 20th century who objected to the term negro, and that was because it was not culturally or geographically specific. A majority did not use it as idiots today use the N word on one another. It wasn't used in that context.

But we are going off on a tangent again. The gist of this argument was whether or not Dempsey was a racist, which most anyone with an ounce of objectivity can conclude he was not.

[Dempsey-Louis]

I wonder: if Dempsey had taken the Jeanette fight that night and knocked him out, would we be here today listening to how unfair it was that Jeanette had to take the fight at the last minute? I am starting to think this forum is just a 'get Dempsey forum.'

I am well aware that early black fighters were given a raw deal, but on these boxing forums, both here and BexRec I have noticed an obsession with calling pre-World War II black fighters the 'greatest of all time,' often when the poster has never actually seen the guy fight.

Example: For years people went on and on about how Harry Wills would have out boxed Dempsey just as Tunney did. Then finally a film of the Wills-Firpo fight appeared and suddenly we all realized that Wills was a ****er with limited boxing skills. Now this Sam McVea film appears and once again reality tells us a different story than legend would have us believe.

It has become popular for posters to overstate the prowess of pre-WWII black fighters; to take Jack Johnson's skills and automatically apply them to all black boxers from the period simply because they are black. Maybe the whole issue needs a historical revisit.

[Dempsey-Louis]

Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid

The term 'negro' came from the 19th century's desire to scientifically label everything, it came from the same minds that gave us the terms moron, idiot, and imbecile.

The term at the time was considered formal (not hateful); by the 1960s it became impolite, not because of the word itself, but because it represented the racist thinking of the 19th century.

Next time you see a Chinese try calling him a 'mongoloid' see how that goes over.

[Anthony342]

Mongoloid also used to be used to refer to someone mentally ******ed.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Jack Dempsey's sparring partners were black, including George Godfrey, who was rumored to be nearly as good as Harry Wills-a black fighter at the time who Dempsey was accused of ducking. Dempsey is said to have easily handled Godfrey, showing that he would most likely easily handle Wills.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ri...odfrey&f=false

[travestyny]

I wonder: if Dempsey had taken the Jeanette fight that night and knocked him out, would we be here today listening to how unfair it was that Jeanette had to take the fight at the last minute? I am starting to think this forum is just a 'get Dempsey forum.'

You seem to be accusing people of some sort of prejudice against Dempsey. What I've found is that often when anyone criticizes Dempsey at all, they are labeled a racist. I've been accused out of nowhere of saying that Dempsey was a racist and saying that black boxers are superior to white boxers, yet I challenge anyone reading this to quote me saying this. You won't find it. If I've mentioned that Dempsey avoided black fighters, it is because that is factual and proven by even his own quotations. To say that you believe people would think it unfair had Jeannette lost would be ludicrous since he was willing and they would have fought a fair fight. Why would anyone have a problem with that? The fact of the matter is that they didn't fight because Dempsey backed down.

I am well aware that early black fighters were given a raw deal, but on these boxing forums, both here and BexRec I have noticed an obsession with calling pre-World War II black fighters the 'greatest of all time,' often when the poster has never actually seen the guy fight.

Example: For years people went on and on about how Harry Wills would have out boxed Dempsey just as Tunney did. Then finally a film of the Wills-Firpo fight appeared and suddenly we all realized that Wills was a ****er with limited boxing skills. Now this Sam McVea film appears and once again reality tells us a different story than legend would have us believe.

It has become popular for posters to overstate the prowess of pre-WWII black fighters; to take Jack Johnson's skills and automatically apply them to all black boxers from the period simply because they are black. Maybe the whole issue needs a historical revisit.

You always ask me to show proof of what I say, and I think I've done that. Well I want to ask you to show where in this thread did anyone say that Black fighters from the pre WWII era were the greatest of all time. I'm assuming that you are talking about this thread because why else would you bring it up? Honestly, I feel that this is just an accusation that is thrown around whenever anyone mentions anything negative about Dempsey. Since I've been looking at the history section, which hasn't been very long I admit, I haven't seen anyone say what you are accusing them of saying. So perhaps you mean some other thread that I haven't seen...?

Finally, to say that you saw some film of a fight with Wills and you've declared that they were overrated is ludicrous. There is a reason that Wills won a national poll in 1922 regarding whom the public wanted to see challenge Dempsey. We can't base these things on viewing one fight of Wills or McVey. That seems to be a cop out to me. In the end it's all an opinion and every one has one. The only people I've seen actually giving an opinion about who would win has been the Dempsey fans, and you seem to be in line with saying Dempsey would beat these guys, without saying it explicitly. The point that has been brought up is that THEY HAVE TO FIGHT for this matter to be settled. Dempsey didn't fight these guys! They were willing and he wasn't. He clearly had an opportunity to fight Langford and he stated that he was too scared. He clearly had an opportunity to fight Jeannette and he backed down. He declared the color line in 1919 then erased it in 1920. Then declared it again in 1921 and signed a contract with Wills in 1922 when that aforementioned poll was out. The fight fell through and many blamed Rickard. He staged a fight WITHOUT Rickard at this time against Gibbons (1923). Wills was busy trying to sue to make the fight happen. I'm not convinced that he tried very hard to make this Wills fight at all, and I have a hunch that it was all done with his understanding to just string along the public, but that's my personal opinion based on his whole color-line waffling. I'm willing to take it for what it was and just say the fight fell through. Still doesn't explain the previous times we've seen him ducking out of fight with prominent black contenders, which by the way can also be seen as evidence.

What else can anyone say? The point is, you fight the fights to see who is the best. You don't look at videos and say, "Oh, Dempsey would have done this or that," nor can the other side claim that. If you take that mere opinion as some sort of gospel, you're just as guilty as the other side that you are accusing.

Just my 2 cents.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

There were only a handful of activists in the late 19th and early 20th century who objected to the term negro, and that was because it was not culturally or geographically specific. A majority did not use it as idiots today use the N word on one another. It wasn't used in that context.

But we are going off on a tangent again. The gist of this argument was whether or not Dempsey was a racist, which most anyone with an ounce of objectivity can conclude he was not.

I agree he wasn't because he used the term colored, normally, to refer to black folks. If he used the term negro then it would be likely that he was.

[travestyny]

Jack Dempsey's sparring partners were black, including George Godfrey, who was rumored to be nearly as good as Harry Wills-a black fighter at the time who Dempsey was accused of ducking. Dempsey is said to have easily handled Godfrey, showing that he would most likely easily handle Wills.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ri...odfrey&f=false

Lol. You are the third person to bring up something so silly. Look, the fight has to take place to find out who is the best. Point blank period. We can't say, "Oh, his sparring partner was rumored to be just as good and he kicked his ass in sparring so he would have won." That's not at all how this works. The fact of the matter is that they are only opinions. Sure everyone is entitled to one, but that doesn't give it any weight. You have to FIGHT to come to a conclusion, and Dempsey didn't.

For example, it says this in a book called Champions of the Ring: The Lives and Times of Boxing's Heavyweight Heroes.

"Some experts think that Harry Wills might have been the giant who killed Jack."

So what???

Jermain Taylor beat Hopkins twice. Taylor lost to Pavlik. Perhaps that means Pavlik beats down Hopkins????? Thinking along the line of these triangle theories has so often been proven wrong that I'm surprised you guys on a boxing site would be stating this! With all due respect, that's like a cardinal sin as a fan of the sport!

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Lol. You are the third person to bring up something so silly. Look, the fight has to take place to find out who is the best. Point blank period. We can't say, "Oh, his sparring partner was rumored to be just as good and he kicked his ass in sparring so he would have won." That's not at all how this works. The fact of the matter is that they are only opinions. Sure everyone is entitled to one, but that doesn't give it any weight. You have to FIGHT to come to a conclusion, and Dempsey didn't.

For example, it says this in a book called Champions of the Ring: The Lives and Times of Boxing's Heavyweight Heroes.



So what???

Jermain Taylor beat Hopkins twice. Taylor lost to Pavlik. Perhaps that means Pavlik beats down Hopkins????? Thinking along the line of these triangle theories has so often been proven wrong that I'm surprised you guys on a boxing site would be stating this! With all due respect, that's like a cardinal sin as a fan of the sport!

Yes, I'm very aware that triangle theories don't work. It seemed to many that Dempsey had the style to crush Wills and he was no perceived as a big threat and his sparring partner Goddfrey had a similar style to Wills and so one could assume that based on these styles and how well Dempsey dispatched of big men, that he would have crushed Wills. Is it proof? No, but it's kind of like saying you think that Felix Trinidad would have beaten Adrien Granados. Sure they never fought but based on styles and power and what they've done in the ring, it's not a hard stretch to see Trinidad beating him. Tito beat anybody who came right at him, as Granados would most likely do. Wills was comparable to Goddfrey who Dempsey easily dealt with and so it's not really triangle as much as it is comparisons of similar styles. You don't know, but you can be pretty sure.