Fact: Jack Johnson Agreed to fight Joe Jeanette for Championship Title

[travestyny]

Nope, not when those names were just starting out. What matters is Johnson never gave them title shots once they were in their prime.

So according to Travy, Jeannette, McVey and Langford were all liars when they said Johnson wouldn’t give them title shots. But Johnson, the guy who lied about taking a dive against Willard was the pillar of truth? Even Johnson himself said he wouldn’t fight them, there was no money in it and claimed no one wants to see it. Even admits to drawing the color line. You guys like to rewrite history with a obscure, anonymous news clippings. Same old rehash. Still don’t know why this is yet another thread on the subject.

I've never said anyone was a pillar of truth.

Jack Johnson lied when he said he took a dive vs. Willard. I've stated that plainly and clearly.

However, did Jack Johnson agree to fight Joe Jeannette for the title. The proof is plain to see. He did. You won't address the evidence that he did. Instead, you want to pretend to be appalled that it's recognized that men lie.

Jack Johnson agreed to fight all of these guys and the proof to this is sound.

Jack Johnson never admit to drawing the color line. That's another lie told by you which is easily proven false.

[ShoulderRoll]

Are you suggesting that the color line and racism didn't exist in the north just because it wasn't codified?

I'm suggesting Jim Crow was irrelevant in the North. And in the West.

[Willie Pep 229]

I'm suggesting Jim Crow was irrelevant in the North. And in the West.

I was using jim crow as a moniker for a national temperament.

There is an old Southern adage: in the South Blacks and Whites are close but never equal; in the North Blacks and Whites are equal but never close.

You are stating my argument is weak but you are fixating on the term jom crow as if this somehow erases the racism if the north.

[Willie Pep 229]

I've never said anyone was a pillar of truth.

Jack Johnson lied when he said he took a dive vs. Willard. I've stated that plainly and clearly.

However, did Jack Johnson agree to fight Joe Jeannette for the title. The proof is plain to see. He did. You won't address the evidence that he did. Instead, you want to pretend to be appalled that it's recognized that men lie.

Jack Johnson agreed to fight all of these guys and the proof to this is sound.

Jack Johnson never admit to drawing the color line. That's another lie told by you which is easily proven false.

Actually he quoted Joe Jeannette as accusing Johnson of refusing to cross the color line ( likely becuse of revenue). Do you think that quote is bogus?

[travestyny]

I was using jim crow as a moniker for a national temperament.

There is an old Southern adage: in the South Blacks and Whites are close but never equal; I the North Blacks and Whites are equal but never close.

You are stating my argument is weak but you are fixating on the term jom crow as if this somehow erases the racism if the north.

I was trying to stay out of this conversation you guys are having because I quite enjoy our conversations when we are not discussing this topic. It always tends to get a bit testy when we discuss Dempsey and I feel that sometimes you believe the things I say come off as rude, like if I type "lol" or if I say your arguments are weak. So I want to preface this by saying I don't intend to be rude at all. If I say anything that is perceived that way, just let me know and I will apologize.

But let me start by pointing you to the poll that was done in '22 in which the public chose Harry Wills to get a shot at Dempsey's title. Isn't that proof enough that there was no great public objection to this match?

"The times" was not the reason that this match didn't happen. It was there for Dempsey to take. How can you blame the color-line and racism for this fight not happening when we just had a conversation about this and you stated the reason it didn't happen was because Rickard wasn't involved? And you are also on record saying that Rickard doesn't seem to be honestly worried about race riots as well. So I'm not sure how the argument is now suddenly public racism was the cause of this fight not happening.

[ShoulderRoll]

I was using jim crow as a moniker for a national temperament.

There is an old Southern adage: in the South Blacks and Whites are close but never equal; in the North Blacks and Whites are equal but never close.

You are stating my argument is weak but you are fixating on the term jom crow as if this somehow erases the racism if the north.

The toxicity of the South had little bearing in the places where Jack Dempsey mostly fought.

The New York crowd loudly booed him when he chickened out of fighting Joe Jeannette, for example.

[travestyny]

Actually he quoted Joe Jeannette as accusing Johnson of refusing to cross the color line ( likely becuse of revenue). Do you think that quote is bogus?

No, that is not what he is referring to. He is referring to Jack Johnson making the obvious joke when asked if he will fight Sam Langford, "No, I intend to draw the color line like some other actors," from one of GhostofDempsey's "anonymous newspaper sources" that he claims he never uses to fit his agenda.

Jack Johnson made this statement while engaged in vaudeville and it was obviously a joke. GhostofDempsey then ranted at me that I don't get to interpret how Jack Johnson meant it. We had a long conversation about it:

Jack Johnson indeed said he will draw the color line. You don't get to re-interpret what he said. You've done with with McKetrick, Sugar and Johnson as well as other sources. No answer to your endless twisting and turning of the facts is going to satisfy you. Whatever mental or personality disorder you have that is driving this behavior has now gone beyond reason.

Does it seem like a clear joke to you? It does to me. But in case it doesn't, look what I found. Jack Johnson engaged in vaudeville saying that his threat to draw the color line was simply a joke.

"Johnson said laughingly today that his threat to 'draw the color line' was simply a joke"

9ozwoe.png

So I guess I don't have to interpret what is now clearly stated, and what should have been already obvious. Is it coincidence that these things just pop up to support my opinion, or do I simply have the truth on my side?



As for a Joe Jeannette quotation, why would I say it is a false quotation? I've never said that any quotation proven to come from Joe Jeannette was false. I've challenged the accuracy of what he was saying. You yourself have already admit that the proposed Jeannette/Johnson fight that was signed, sealed, and delivered to the NY Commission was to be for the title. The only one who contests this is the guy above who can't stand that the truth is plain to see. GhostofDempsey is an enemy of the truth when it comes to Jack Johnson. Actually, he's an enemy of the truth when it comes to Jack Dempsey as well.

[Willie Pep 229]

The toxicity of the South had little bearing in the places where Jack Dempsey mostly fought.

The New York crowd loudly booed him when he chickened out of fighting Joe Jeannette, for example.

New Jersey refused the proposed fight and so did Boston and both States made the announcement even though there was no fight signed at the time only proposed.

[Willie Pep 229]

I was trying to stay out of this conversation you guys are having because I quite enjoy our conversations when we are not discussing this topic. It always tends to get a bit testy when we discuss Dempsey and I feel that sometimes you believe the things I say come off as rude, like if I type "lol" or if I say your arguments are weak. So I want to preface this by saying I don't intend to be rude at all. If I say anything that is perceived that way, just let me know and I will apologize.

But let me start by pointing you to the poll that was done in '22 in which the public chose Harry Wills to get a shot at Dempsey's title. Isn't that proof enough that there was no great public objection to this match?

"The times" was not the reason that this match didn't happen. It was there for Dempsey to take. How can you blame the color-line and racism for this fight not happening when we just had a conversation about this and you stated the reason it didn't happen was because Rickard wasn't involved? And you are also on record saying that Rickard doesn't seem to be honestly worried about race riots as well. So I'm not sure how the argument is now suddenly public racism was the cause of this fight not happening.

I never said anything about Rickard fearing race riots NEVER! Someone else must have made that statement to you and I would be pleased if you would stop asking me that question.

Rickard didn't want a repeat of the JJ saga because in the end it cost everyone too much lost revenue. That's I have have always exclaimed.

And we are repeating ourselves - so I will say it again you guys are not taking the racism that drove America cukture, in all regions, as a serious enough issue.

I never never they couldn't be made and I have said that they would have packed the Polo Grounds had the fight been made. But as always I say the only promoter who could pull off a fight that big a fight, a million dollar gate, was Rickard and he wouldn't play along.

Are you aware that once Dempsey lost to Tunney in '26 that week Rickard announced he was ready to match Dempsey in Yankee Stadium with Wills ( the title no longer at risk) but Wills folded against Sharkey and he the the summer '27 fight against Dempsey, went to Sharkey, not Wills.

Rickard jumped at the chance to match Dempsey with Wills once it was no longer for the title. Doesn't that suggest something to you?

[ShoulderRoll]

New Jersey refused the proposed fight and so did Boston and both States made the announcement even though there was no fight signed at the time only proposed.

The point was that the crowd at Madison Square Garden in 1918 didn't hold Jeannette's color against him and even booed the white man Jack Dempsey for "showing a yellow streak."

The temperament in New York was obviously much different than that in the South.