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

[travestyny]

You have to look at the medium as a whole...it is not to invalidate the media entirely just to understand its limitations. Regarding second hand quotes, you are depending on someone quoting a source...Many times a quote is taken out of context, misstated, and what could be called "telephoned," as in if you ever played the game of telephone?

You have a circle of twenty people lets say...the more the merrier! You whisper something to the person next to you and so on it goes....until the last person in the circle says what was whispered and...it is usually not what the first person said!

That is why media is not looked at as a way to validate the truth of an event...It is a perspective and even so called objective media is hardly! Look at the media recently...Look at the election polls for example.

Look I happen to think Wiki is perhaps the single most fantastic thing to come out of the information age on the internet...It is collaberative, informative beyond the simple "____for dummies" explanations we find in books that deal with beginning info on a subject...perfect for an intelligent person who wants and can handle a decent amount of information...But I would never hang my hat on something Wiki says. The media imo is the same... It can often confirm something and when there is ironclad consistency regarding an event that speaks for itself...But no matter the quality of the media, it is not in and of itself to be trusted as the truth, even when proporting to speak for a primary source.

Don't take my word for it, look at how Historians confirm something, or scientists confirm something, etc. Want a great example? Martin Bernal "Black Athena." Bernal was faced with a brick wall of British trained Egyptologists who refused to admit Egypt was basically an African based empire. Bernal won that battle but in so doing had to show linguistic, archeological and contextual proof for his assertions...It took like five books, and an incredible amount of research.

There are things we know about fighters from that period. We certainly know they wrapped the hands to protect them and that many treatments were used...I would never claim otherwise. we even have some information on some of these treatments.

I hear what you're saying absolutely, and I don't disagree with what you're saying. Be we're talking about something a bit more specific.

This is from the article that we were discussing:



What we know is that Harry Mills manager responded to this quotation saying that it was a bluff, and Jack Dempsey then responded to Harry Mills' manager's response, saying that it was indeed not a bluff. Clearly, Dempsey had no problem with the statement he was quoted as saying.

It's one thing to get words wrong here and there, but if they were to get any of this quotation incorrect in a considerable way, you would think that Dempsey would have corrected them. If it painted him in a bad light, you'd think that he would sue for libel. The key is if the changes in the quotation alter the meaning and if there is malicious intent.

[billeau2]

I hear what you're saying absolutely, and I don't disagree with what you're saying. Be we're talking about something a bit more specific.

This is from the article that we were discussing:



What we know is that Harry Mills manager responded to this quotation saying that it was a bluff, and Jack Dempsey then responded to Harry Mills' manager's response, saying that it was indeed not a bluff. Clearly, Dempsey had no problem with the statement he was quoted as saying.

It's one thing to get words wrong here and there, but if they were to get any of this quotation incorrect in a considerable way, you would think that Dempsey would have corrected them. If it painted him in a bad light, you'd think that he would sue for libel. The key is if the changes in the quotation alter the meaning and if there is malicious intent.

Could not get to this last night!

Yes motive is indeed very important. Furthermore every individual's motive has to be at least generically understood. Wills is an interesting situation to say the least. Wills was also a well spoken guy by all accounts.

I don't know a lot about the details of dempsey and the Black fighters of the day. I find that these issues get clouded considerably. There was definitely a lot going against a black man trying to fight for the title. And if that is not enough? a lot of the black fighters blamed Johnson for the problems! I don't agree with that btw. Louis always looked down on Johnson... very sad really.

[DreamFighter]

lets think in context - do dempsey and sullivan get a free pass? yes.

and if we are being honest, Johnson was the first undisputed world champion, legit holding the two sides of it of that time, although he "failed to defend" the colored one after winning the "white" one.


goddamn hate using these shytty racist divisional words.

[TonyGe]

I disagree Johnson fought a murders row of black fighters before he won title.Langford,McVey,Jeanette and even Denver Ed martin.All those guys better then T Burns(who was no bum)And ONLY reason he never fought them as champ was because NO ONE would pay to see two black fighters fight for TITLE.They wanted a white man and would have NO REASON to watch.Im a huge fan of the fighter and the man.I suggest you watch "UNFORGIVABLE BLACKNESS"its a Ken Burns doc about 3hrs long REALLY good.Book even better.

It's about the money as usual and about not losing his title to a credible opponent. He chose not to fight black fughters. He could have fought a couple. The, "no one wanted to see two Black fighters" I don't buy. He was hated. I'm sure if another less threatening Black fighter would have fought him it would've drawn a crowd.

[travestyny]

It's about the money as usual and about not losing his title to a credible opponent. He chose not to fight black fughters. He could have fought a couple. The, "no one wanted to see two Black fighters" I don't buy. He was hated. I'm sure if another less threatening Black fighter would have fought him it would've drawn a crowd.

I’m not sure about that. As soon as he won the title, there was an obsession with wanting to get the title back to “the whites.” That’s why Jim Jeffries agreed to come out of retirement. Because there was so much pressure for him to do it for his race.

[Dempsey-Louis]

It's about the money as usual and about not losing his title to a credible opponent. He chose not to fight black fughters. He could have fought a couple. The, "no one wanted to see two Black fighters" I don't buy. He was hated. I'm sure if another less threatening Black fighter would have fought him it would've drawn a crowd.

I am not sure if that logic applies to the 1910s, but no doubt in the '60s Patterson played just that role against Clay (Ali), the less threatening black man.

[john l]

It's about the money as usual and about not losing his title to a credible opponent. He chose not to fight black fughters. He could have fought a couple. The, "no one wanted to see two Black fighters" I don't buy. He was hated. I'm sure if another less threatening Black fighter would have fought him it would've drawn a crowd.

No it would not.(have drawn a crowd)And he did fight them all(and had winning record with all)before title.Go back and read unforgivable blackness or even Papa jack.Or just any history book of the time NO ONE had any interest in seeing a fight where they would HAVE NO WINNER.Getting title back into hands of white race was ONLY thing people wanted to see.

[john l]

I am not sure if that logic applies to the 1910s, but no doubt in the '60s Patterson played just that role against Clay (Ali), the less threatening black man.

True but as you said that's not 1910.By that time(60s)America had already had a black hero(louis)and was not a shock anymore that the white man was not the physically superior race.Although they held onto idea that they were mentally superior race until much later(if not still by some).

[GhostofDempsey]

No it would not.(have drawn a crowd)And he did fight them all(and had winning record with all)before title.Go back and read unforgivable blackness or even Papa jack.Or just any history book of the time NO ONE had any interest in seeing a fight where they would HAVE NO WINNER.Getting title back into hands of white race was ONLY thing people wanted to see.

Johnson could have offered title shots to Langford, McVea, Jeannette spite the alleged angle the that no one was interested in watching a title fight between two black men. Johnson was overrated for what I can see through footage, resume and his size advantage over most opponents. He fought those guys while they were still green. He was legit KO'd by Williard and later on admits that the fix story was a hoax, he used to to tell it to make money.

[john l]

Johnson could have offered title shots to Langford, McVea, Jeannette spite the alleged angle the that no one was interested in watching a title fight between two black men. Johnson was overrated for what I can see through footage, resume and his size advantage over most opponents. He fought those guys while they were still green. He was legit KO'd by Williard and later on admits that the fix story was a hoax, he used to to tell it to make money.

I'm sure you really know what your talking about.Who was gonna put up purse?And he fought those guys when they were in prime and multiple times EACH.And he was koed legit at 37 and having not fought regular in years.Also out of shape and was still winning until gassed late in fight.Go read a book about the times I think you will have a better understanding.