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

[ShoulderRoll]

Fought McVey when he only had less than ten fights. Fought Jeannette when he had only less than twenty fights. Fought a much smaller Langford while he was still coming up and never gave him another shot. Got worked over pretty good in a draw to Jim Johnson, which was the only black fighter he gave a title shot to, a cherry pick gone wrong. I believe Jack injured his arm in that scrap.

Jack Johnson fought Jeannette 10 times. He also fought McVay and Langford. And was willing to fight them all again at one time or another while champion.

How many times did Jack Dempsey fight Jeannette? Or any of the others?

That's what really bothers you here. The criticism of Dempsey for avoiding black fighters. Which is why you try to draw a false equivalency with Johnson that simply isn't there.

One guy has the names on his resume. The other one doesn't. It's as simple as that.

[Willie Pep 229]

Jack Johnson fought Jeannette 10 times. He also fought McVay and Langford. And was willing to fight them all again at one time or another while champion.

How many times did Jack Dempsey fight Jeannette? Or any of the others?

That's what really bothers you here. The criticism of Dempsey for avoiding black fighters. Which is why you try to draw a false equivalency with Johnson that simply isn't there.

One guy has the names on his resume. The other one doesn't. It's as simple as that.

No it isn't that simple - both the timing of the Johnson fights and the racial prevailing temperament surrounding Dempsey were both relevant.

If we were to take your interpretation of the circumstances regarding Dempsey ("simple") we would have to conclude that "Jim Crow" was an insignificant event that had no impact on society.

Of course that is wrong.

In prize fighting it is never 'that simple"

[GhostofDempsey]

Jack Johnson fought Jeannette 10 times. He also fought McVay and Langford. And was willing to fight them all again at one time or another while champion.

How many times did Jack Dempsey fight Jeannette? Or any of the others?

That's what really bothers you here. The criticism of Dempsey for avoiding black fighters. Which is why you try to draw a false equivalency with Johnson that simply isn't there.

One guy has the names on his resume. The other one doesn't. It's as simple as that.

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.

[ShoulderRoll]

No it isn't that simple - both the timing of the Johnson fights and the racial prevailing temperament surrounding Dempsey were both relevant.

If we were to take your interpretation of the circumstances regarding Dempsey ("simple") we would have to conclude that "Jim Crow" was an insignificant event that had no impact on society.

Of course that is wrong.

In prize fighting it is never 'that simple"

When Dempsey gets shat on for not fighting black fighters you don't get to deflect by bringing up Jack Johnson.

Johnson fought them. Multiple times.

[Willie Pep 229]

When Dempsey gets shat on for not fighting black fighters you don't get to deflect by bringing up Jack Johnson.

Johnson fought them. Multiple times.

I don't- but why not?

[Willie Pep 229]

When Dempsey gets shat on for not fighting black fighters you don't get to deflect by bringing up Jack Johnson.

Johnson fought them. Multiple times.

The question at hand is title shot. Does a black fighter get at shot at the title or not? It applies to both fighters and many others, sad to say.

[ShoulderRoll]

The question at hand is title shot. Does a black fighter get at shot at the title or not? It applies to both fighters and many others, sad to say.

Johnson tried several times to give black fighters a title shot.

Did Dempsey?

There's an obvious difference between the two even in that.

[Willie Pep 229]

Johnson tried several times to give black fighters a title shot.

Did Dempsey?

There's an obvious difference between the two even in that.

I agree (Johnson) - I disagree (Dempsey) -- both had obstacles, both had reasons.

Too often posters on this forum try to judge the color line situation in a moral vacuum. To do is to say that "Jim Crow" was an oppression that could be cast aside with 'simple' moral indignation. It wasn't, it was a powerful agent affecting all aspects of society. Social, economic, and political.

To cross that line had to been done judiciously and recognized that there would likely be consequences, if not dire ones.

This 'all Dempsey had to do' argument forgets to acknowledge the power of segregation.

As late as the 1960s White Southerners were murdering White Civil Rights activists as 'N lovers.'

In the 1920s White Catholic Priests were being beaten by White Southerners for refusing to acknowledge the color line.

You want the argument to be a 'simple' moral one; that denies the overwhelming impact of 'Jim Crow.'

[ShoulderRoll]

I agree (Johnson) - I disagree (Dempsey) -- both had obstacles, both had reasons.

Too often posters on this forum try to judge the color line situation in a moral vacuum. To do is to say that "Jim Crow" was an oppression that could be cast aside with 'simple' moral indignation. It wasn't, it was a powerful agent affecting all aspects of society. Social, economic, and political.

To cross that line had to been done judiciously and recognized that there would likely be consequences, if not dire ones.

This 'all Dempsey had to do' argument forgets to acknowledge the power of segregation.

As late as the 1960s White Southerners were murdering White Civil Rights activists as 'N lovers.'

In the 1920s White Catholic Priests were being beaten by White Southerners for refusing to acknowledge the color line.

You want the argument to be a 'simple' moral one; that denies the overwhelming impact of 'Jim Crow.'

Jim Crow laws applied to the Southern US. Jack Dempsey rarely fought in the South, spending most of his career out West or in the Northern states.

So that doesn't seems like a strong excuse.

[Willie Pep 229]

Jim Crow laws applied to the Southern US. Jack Dempsey rarely fought in the South, spending most of his career out West or in the Northern states.

So that doesn't seems like a strong excuse.

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