Why is Tunney a great heavyweight?

[HOUDINI563]

The color line was an American cultural tradition especially noted in the heavyweight division. It really was not the fighters choice. It was EXPECTED that a new heavyweight champion state they would never allow a black man to fight for the title. Enormous pressure upon every new heavyweight champion to make this statement.

Why? The worlds heavyweight championship was not only the most prized of all sport’s trophies but also the man who held that title could claim to be the physical master of all men. A black man being able to make that claim was the concern. All sorts of cultural and phycological ramifications. The race that was constantly proclaimed as inferior by the white man is now in fact superior. What’s next?

[Willie Pep 229]

Very well explained, even if you did call Maher Mader

Isn't being a colorline champion just a point of fact though?

Isn't having not fought any colored champions just another fact?

Hell, if y'all're letting me slide on that you might look at it, I could be wrong, I did not check.

I don't feel like it's revisionist to say the champions from Sullivan to Braddock did not defend their titles against black men. That's simply what happened.

It isn't revisionist to point out guys before Dempsey strengthened their claim over all boxing by seeing a colored HW champion prior to being champion themselves.

There's nothing revisionist about any of that. Most people, myself included, don't see the boxers as the 'bad guys'. Some were, but to be honest I'm a fan of them too. It's not a poetic justice thing, it's just pointing out what happened.

I don't think it's revisionist to denote Maher's time as champion. If anything, what you just explained to me is revisionism. Why should I give a GD how strong or weak Maher's claim to being the best of the era is? He is the man who is called champion. He is the man with the belt and he won that belt in a pre arranged fight for that belt. Anything but denoting his title run is revision. Corbett is gone and not denoting that is revisionism.

I see myself as setting the record straight and in doing that revising what's been revised back to the original.


There shouldn't be a line because there never was. There's disputes from day one and who are historians to tell anyone who has the strongest claim? Why not present everyone and let the readers decide who the real champions were? Isn't that exactly what was actually going on?

When you have champion A who claims to be the champion because X and champ B because Y how is it not the application of modern standards to make any judgement at all rather than present the argument and the sides?

Jack Dempsey was a colorline champion, Peter Maher was the guy you'd call champion while reading about Corbett's exploits as an actor. Covering it up because one's a weak claim while saying the other shouldn't have modern standards applied seems to be a case of exactly what I said before. The only time we in boxing history actually believe in upholding dated opinions is when those opinions happen to be racist. If they happen to be something we disagree with then **** it, call it weak and challenge me to make an argument for Maher's merit rather than the fact that Corbett's ****ing around with Edison and Maher punched his protege into oblivion for his title.

To be clear, I'm not accusing you or Dini of being racists or upholding racism. I'm just pointing out it is a totally different standard being used to defend not denoting the colorline history and the standard being used for defending not denoting a title reign. One is because it's wrong to apply modern standards...even though the colorline happened, and the other is because being elected to the vacant title fight by the champion has been deemed weak by historians, which is applying a standard to history. And for that standard to be from historians it's got to be more modern than the history itself.

Why cover up anything? Seems to only serve to make men look better. Men our grandaddies told us were the bee knees and to say otherwise is wrong, historically speaking....

I didn't mean to suggest that you were being a revisionist by bringing in the 'color line.'

No doubt when evaluating Dempsey one has to assess that he didn't fight any Black challengers.** It creates questions that go unanswered and is a proper challenge made.

But to ignore the prevailing social temperament of the day and go into the research believing that a wrong had occur and that, in itself, warrants Dempsey's greatest be diminished, is in my opinion, wrong.

If one wants to say he wasn't that great then say what he accomplished wasn't great, not what might or should have been, if he had been fighting post Braddock. IMO that is unfair.

Your use of the phrase "color line champions" makes me ask if you are not making that prejudgment when assessing these fighters' greatness. Assess their greatness by what they did accomplish, not the 'what ifs.'

I have no opinion on Maher barely know anything of him except the controversy surrounding Gentleman Jim.

I have always been a Hart man. Exposing my age, I use to throw his name into the champion mix back on Prodigy, just to be a troll.

I think Hart got screwed out of his title by the money men.

The day of the Hart-Root fight Jeffries declared Hart HW Champion. Four days later he retracted his words and announced that Hart needs to fight a few more times before we should call him champion.

Can't you just hear it, the money boys grabbing Jeffries and saying 'what the hell did you just do'? We need to milk this for a few more elimination fights before we give the title to anyone, besides that bastard Hart won't sign with us, now get out there and retract your declaration. (Just joking, sort of.)

I don't think Jeffries got wiser over those four days, just had the dollars and cents explain to him.

So I include Hart. Why not! He was kind enough historically speaking to lose his 'title' to Tommy Burns and set things in order for us, so lets give him one. I say he's in!

Or do we not accept Burns as Champion? LOL -- When did Jack Johnson become HW Champion, after Burns or Jeffries? LOL


** Really just Harry Wills (whom IMHO he should of fought) but the other three McVea, Langford, and Jeanette were pass it.

[Willie Pep 229]

The only way Maher is champion is if the top two heavyweights fought once Corbett retired. The two best heavyweights DID NOT fight for the championship so the idea that Maher vs Steve O’ Donnell was “for the championship” is beyond bogus.

Alternatively Hart vs Root you can very logically make the claim that these two at that time were number 1 and 2 heavyweights.

If you don’t see the difference you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

I wonder how Marvin Hart was introduced for the Tommy Burns fight.

Most today see it as an elimination bout crowning a new champion, and if Hart accepted the fight under those conditions and it wasn't called a 'defense" that would say much about his "claim" to the title.

P.S. I just saw that BoxRec called it a title defense.

[HOUDINI563]

Again very different circumstances. From my analysis and via articles I’ve read including one written by Jeffries Hart and Root were logical top contenders. Jeffries had indeed retired. The controversy was that Jeffries anointed the bout for the championship and the winner he crowned new champion. So some felt it was an overstep of bounds. It was but since he picked “right” the winner is today, and for many many decades considered the rightful champion.

The situation with Corbett retiring and choosing two contenders to fight for his title is he did not pick the logical top contenders. Also from many accounts I read few thought Corbett was indeed retired. Spending huge portions of time not fighting in those days did not cause stripping of the title as you see today. Different time, different mindset.

[billeau2]

Ok, using Houdini's post regarding Hart as a champion.

If those revisionist historians go into their research with a preconceived definition of champion (a contemporary definition) and then reassess Hart's claim to the title, that bad history.

But Houdini's post doesn't suggest they did that. His post suggest they just looked at the events as they unfolded then, and then concluded that Hart was 'a champion.'

That is good revisionist history, but had they tried to use/apply the Marciano-Patterson-Moore event as a bench mark (a standard) then that would be bad history.

The same process should be applied in evaluating Mader's claim, but when we do it is necessary that we don't go outside the social/economic/political circumstances of the day, what historians called the prevailing social temperament.

There is no doubt that all historical research is clouded by our own contemporary biases.

An event occurs, it is witnesses (the primary source) and then historians evaluate those primary sources.

It is inevitable that historians will bring to that research their own contemporary bias, that's why we have the rule, to warn the historian to guard against bringing in his contemporary values and standards (as best he can.)

It is never bias free and it pollutes all history.

Evaluating Hart or Mader's claim to the title can be done within the proper parameters, but to diminish a man's greatness, when his contemporaries all called him great just doesn't work, unless of course one breaks the rule and brings in his own contemporaneity standards.

You have to judge a man's greatness compared to his contemporaries, not the whole fabric of time.

Just my opinion I guess, I originally didn't reply directly to your post because it wasn't just your post I was reacting to, its a pet peeve of mine. I use to teach historical methods.

And I probably should have used a different word than pretentious. Sorry that was unnecessary, but it wasn't meant just for you.

Good! A man who can discuss methods and appropriation. Lets look at some of the prevailing methods before we look at boxing.

Boxing like most endevours is dialectic. We have Hegal's lord and the bondsman...the champ and the moment the champ realizes, along with those in witness that a new champ is born...this is very basic, very easy, there is not any role asserted by the viewers of the event...Ultimately a change of consciousness happens all by itself. In the days of long fights and few judges, it happened naturally.

Much as Marx asserted one day people would just wake up through working in the factory and just take what they needed as things poured through the assembly line, cluttering the floor, in a boxing contest there is a point where it becomes obvious the torch has passed. In those days this was to be self evident: judges could be newspaper guys, and maybe the ref could weigh in if the fight did not show an obvious winner. But from the prevailing attitude we know that decisions were not the things we call them today... where judges can score a fight for anyone regardless of what happens in the ring!

There was simply faith in the process: a champ would emerge today...if not they might fight tomorrow...another 15 rounds...

Gadamer, the German historian, in his hermaneutics, asserts that the author, does not entirely control meaning, it is shared, determined by readers, etc. At some point boxing became concerned with more meaning than the natural process of a champ emerging. meanwhile there was this struggle where boxing was becoming more approachable, less of a guild controlled by a professional class of fighters like Figg who would tell people who the champ was. The fans would want part of the power to declare a champion... much as we would rather the two best college teams play football, than being told who was ranked the best.

Where as fencing had found its way to the middle classes and took many lessons to understand the concepts, boxing was, from the start, a working class endevour. One didn't need anything but their fists to learn to punch in a ring, fans could be informed quickly! Where as a fencer could enlist a judge to describe all movements up to the point where a cut was succesful and this might take a lot of understanding...A parry, a riposte, etc in boxing it was one...two.

A champ would have to be more than the guy who washed James Figg's feet, or the guy who was sworn in... Participation and kinship with the event demanded that the privalege of determining boxing primacy was to be a shared experience.
We start to get what appears to be more uniformity of rules, and scoring a fight becomes more relevant. Mind you this is gradual... It does not happen over night.

The lineal, or whatever it was called historically at the time, or was... was the way the fans put in their word. The fans demanded that the champ be the guy who licked the rest. This was important. It qualified the primacy of having a champion in a way that appealed to the fans. It was not enough to designate a champ...

power went to the spectators. Boxing became more than an offshoot of dueling, an upercrust way to handle problems, the champ became an expression, a part of everyman's struggle to the top.

Looked at this way, to me, it explains why the lineal is great for what it is: NO its not perfect, and was never meant to be. It was a way for the fighters to connect to society at large, in a place where it belonged. As much as the lineal created its own problems about succession, these problems:

1) always worked out in the end...given time and progress a new champ would be crowned, one who beat the best to become the best.

2) I believe the lineal encouraged other institutions that were part of boxing to be beholden to the fans and to act responsibly.

No, the lineal was far from perfect... It was, subject to prevailing prejudices. Although boxing did manage to integrate more than other sports at the time, it would seem to me.

In the end how we view the lineal imo has to respect the process of how the lineal came to be considered in the first place. Hegalian dialectics assert an ongoing evolution that winds up eventually as destiny. This is imo what those who have privalege want because the dialectic is moving in a direction that will protect that privalege.

Monolithic meaning... The idea that the champ will, like destiny, come through the process, be crowned, and we will follow him! This idea gave way to the process of the lineal, the champ shares his power with the obligation to perform for the people....as "their" champ.

A perfect example would be Jack London. London asserted that white man's destiny was such that Jeffries was destined to come and claim that prize...under the au****es of the privaleged position of white, literate (they read the paper) society. He was enraged that Johnson challenged that proposition and dared share in the spoils of wealth.

This struggle as real and the lineal was a process of involvement more than anything else. A way for fans to take power and pave the way for the twenties when the first sports super stars, Babe Ruth and Jack Dempsey would represent their fans, and allow their fans to live vicariously through their feats.

[QueensburyRules]

This struggle as real and the lineal was a process of involvement more than anything else. A way for fans to take power and pave the way for the twenties when the first sports super stars, Babe Ruth and Jack Dempsey would represent their fans, and allow their fans to live vicariously through their feats.

- -John L and Ty Cobb reaping huge spoils long before Dempsey and Babe became American idols.

[Willie Pep 229]

Good! A man who can discuss methods and appropriation. Lets look at some of the prevailing methods before we look at boxing.

Boxing like most endevours is dialectic. We have Hegal's lord and the bondsman...the champ and the moment the champ realizes, along with those in witness that a new champ is born...this is very basic, very easy, there is not any role asserted by the viewers of the event...Ultimately a change of consciousness happens all by itself. In the days of long fights and few judges, it happened naturally.

Much as Marx asserted one day people would just wake up through working in the factory and just take what they needed as things poured through the assembly line, cluttering the floor, in a boxing contest there is a point where it becomes obvious the torch has passed. In those days this was to be self evident: judges could be newspaper guys, and maybe the ref could weigh in if the fight did not show an obvious winner. But from the prevailing attitude we know that decisions were not the things we call them today... where judges can score a fight for anyone regardless of what happens in the ring!

There was simply faith in the process: a champ would emerge today...if not they might fight tomorrow...another 15 rounds...

Gadamer, the German historian, in his hermaneutics, asserts that the author, does not entirely control meaning, it is shared, determined by readers, etc. At some point boxing became concerned with more meaning than the natural process of a champ emerging. meanwhile there was this struggle where boxing was becoming more approachable, less of a guild controlled by a professional class of fighters like Figg who would tell people who the champ was. The fans would want part of the power to declare a champion... much as we would rather the two best college teams play football, than being told who was ranked the best.

Where as fencing had found its way to the middle classes and took many lessons to understand the concepts, boxing was, from the start, a working class endevour. One didn't need anything but their fists to learn to punch in a ring, fans could be informed quickly! Where as a fencer could enlist a judge to describe all movements up to the point where a cut was succesful and this might take a lot of understanding...A parry, a riposte, etc in boxing it was one...two.

A champ would have to be more than the guy who washed James Figg's feet, or the guy who was sworn in... Participation and kinship with the event demanded that the privalege of determining boxing primacy was to be a shared experience.
We start to get what appears to be more uniformity of rules, and scoring a fight becomes more relevant. Mind you this is gradual... It does not happen over night.

The lineal, or whatever it was called historically at the time, or was... was the way the fans put in their word. The fans demanded that the champ be the guy who licked the rest. This was important. It qualified the primacy of having a champion in a way that appealed to the fans. It was not enough to designate a champ...

power went to the spectators. Boxing became more than an offshoot of dueling, an upercrust way to handle problems, the champ became an expression, a part of everyman's struggle to the top.

Looked at this way, to me, it explains why the lineal is great for what it is: NO its not perfect, and was never meant to be. It was a way for the fighters to connect to society at large, in a place where it belonged. As much as the lineal created its own problems about succession, these problems:

1) always worked out in the end...given time and progress a new champ would be crowned, one who beat the best to become the best.

2) I believe the lineal encouraged other institutions that were part of boxing to be beholden to the fans and to act responsibly.

No, the lineal was far from perfect... It was, subject to prevailing prejudices. Although boxing did manage to integrate more than other sports at the time, it would seem to me.

In the end how we view the lineal imo has to respect the process of how the lineal came to be considered in the first place. Hegalian dialectics assert an ongoing evolution that winds up eventually as destiny. This is imo what those who have privalege want because the dialectic is moving in a direction that will protect that privalege.

Monolithic meaning... The idea that the champ will, like destiny, come through the process, be crowned, and we will follow him! This idea gave way to the process of the lineal, the champ shares his power with the obligation to perform for the people....as "their" champ.

A perfect example would be Jack London. London asserted that white man's destiny was such that Jeffries was destined to come and claim that prize...under the au****es of the privaleged position of white, literate (they read the paper) society. He was enraged that Johnson challenged that proposition and dared share in the spoils of wealth.

This struggle as real and the lineal was a process of involvement more than anything else. A way for fans to take power and pave the way for the twenties when the first sports super stars, Babe Ruth and Jack Dempsey would represent their fans, and allow their fans to live vicariously through their feats.

Thanks for the post -- a good read.

I fear patience has waned in a world bent on instant gratification.

Trying to support the lineal line is like holding onto a buoy in a rough sea; I fear lineal is losing out and will be forgotten.

Who will be remembered as the 'youngest HW Champion ever' Patterson or Tyson? The 'lineal' answer: Patterson.

Spinks-Tyson, the lineal champion vs. the undisputed champion, what's one to do with that paradoxical statement?

Is there a record book out there that lists Tyson as a Spinks title defense?

As of late the lineal champion is usually viewed as just another claimant.

But still, I will be a lineal guy until the end.

[billeau2]

- -John L and Ty Cobb reaping huge spoils long before Dempsey and Babe became American idols.

That is technically correct, but not nearly on the same level. The Sullivan Kilrain fight was huge for the time, but Sullivan never approached super star status as internationally as Dempsey, or Ruth. Need I even mention the Georgia Peach by comparison? He was the Billy Martin of his time lol.

[billeau2]

Thanks for the post -- a good read.

I fear patience has waned in a world bent on instant gratification.

Trying to support the lineal line is like holding onto a buoy in a rough sea; I fear lineal is losing out and will be forgotten.

Who will be remembered as the 'youngest HW Champion ever' Patterson or Tyson? The 'lineal' answer: Patterson.

Spinks-Tyson, the lineal champion vs. the undisputed champion, what's one to do with that paradoxical statement?

Is there a record book out there that lists Tyson as a Spinks title defense?

As of late the lineal champion is usually viewed as just another claimant.

But still, I will be a lineal guy until the end.

yeah true! I mean we have these big institutions now that want to take power from the people again... the British Boxing Council demanding that Haye and Chisora not fight, and in so doing, asserting their authority. People talk about the mob in boxing, but the mob was still up close and personal. These groups are large and exist to get larger and stronger.

The lineal is beautiful because it is simple. It is often debatable, as though that is a bad thing?

[QueensburyRules]

- -Given John L fought in Europe and fought foreign fighters domestically and public level of braggadocio, John L was The First international sports star expanding far beyond both boxing and your limitations.

Just stating the obvious!