Did Jack Dempsey ever face a black opponent?
Jeff S.
opponent,any one know if Jack Dempsey ever did?
J.S
jonah
randy roberts
he gives accounts of his fights against Lester Johnson and The Boston
bearcat.
Tunney never fought a black fighter. Infact in some of his writings he
went as far to say that he never even had a black fighter as sparing
partner. By all accounts Tunney comes across as racist a lot more so
than Dempsey who of course continualy employed Big black heavy's as
sparing partners
Tunney held the similar view of his predessers partically Sullivan and
Corbett. This was that he did not agree that (partically in the
Heavyweight Div) that a black heavy should be allowed to fight for the
Championship.
The closest that Tunney ever got to engaging a black opponent was when
he thought that the only way that he would get a shot at Dempsey for
the Title was to get past the number one contender Harry wills.
Promoter Tex Ricard Offered Wills $150,000 to fight Tunney on Tunney's
insistance, but Wills's manager refused believing politics of the day
would force Dempsey hand instead and give his man a much bigger and
deserved pay off.
Even when Tunney won the title he said that he would draw the color
line
Tunney was a tremendous fighter but he was not the gentleman people
make out, infact he was was an ambitious and ruthless businessman and
no one becomes successful as he did if they were not as ruthless and
selfish as him.
Jonah
Devilb...@webtv.net (Jeff S.) wrote in message news:<2953-3D9...@storefull-2292.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
Citizen-Y
> Tunney was a tremendous fighter but he was not the gentleman people
> make out, infact he was was an ambitious and ruthless businessman and
> no one becomes successful as he did if they were not as ruthless and
> selfish as him.
>
> Jonah
>
Roy Jones Jr. is the modern day Gene Tunney. Except that he lays beat downs on every race.
Ivan Weiss
"jonah" <jona...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1262dd8.02100...@posting.google.com...
> Tunney was a tremendous fighter but he was not the gentleman people
> make out, infact he was was an ambitious and ruthless businessman and
> no one becomes successful as he did if they were not as ruthless and
> selfish as him.
Jesus Christ?
----
Ivan Weiss
Vashon WA http://www.baseball116.com
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0219/nc-fullerton2.shtml
Bobby Bearden
Dempsey's main sparring partner was Big Bill Tate. Tate's record is
incomplete, which is common for that era, but he fought the best black
fighters of the time and some of the better white fighters. He fought Sam
Langford, and beat him twice officially and once via newspaper decision, he
fought Joe Jeannette several times, he fought Gunboat Smith a couple times
and beat him at least once, Harry Wills he fought 5 or more times and won
once on a DQ and had a draw.
In the preliminary fights before Dempsey fought Billy Miske, Tate fought
Langford and though the fight was declared a NC/ND the newspapers said Tate
won on points.
While Dempsey was champion, he went on tour with the Sell-Floto Circus
Troupe and he and Tate would spar as part of their show. It was a popular
exhibition till they arrived in the Louisiana Delta. Just sparring with a
black fighter was considered taboo in the deep South of the time, and
regional newspapers blasted Dempsey for it.
Dempsey said, "More than anything else, I was surprised. I figured some of
the people might have trouble with my voice and the way I bit off my words,
but Hell, Tate was one of my guys."
They kept the pressure on him day after day to quit sparring with Tate and
spar with only white men. Instead Dempsey quit the circus tour. He said that
even though Tate worked for him, he thought of him as a buddy and liked to
have him around.
The unfair criticism of Dempsey has it he himself decided not to fight black
fighters. He lived in a time when even sparring with a black man was enough
to have dozens of newspapers attacking him. Dempsey had good reason to be
wary of the power of the press. They had kept on him for not joining up to
fight in World War I until he ended up in federal court fighting to stay out
of prison. Few realize that Dempsey faced years in prison while heavyweight
champion just because he didn't join the Army. It cost him all the money
he'd made till that point, plus put him heavily in debt to people like Tex
Rickard, to defend himself.
The main promoter of Dempsey, Tex Rickard, considered the gate the most
important consideration of who the champion should fight, and produced the
first million dollar gate fights. Rickard had promoted during Jack Johnson's
time, including Johnson's fight in Reno, Nevada with an old Jim Jeffries. It
was his opinion, stated many times, that a black heavyweight champion wasn't
worth anything as a draw. He had seen Johnson forced out of the country for
years, taking the heavyweight title with him, and focused not on the racism
of it, but on the loss of revenue as a tragedy for boxing.
Even on the several occasions when Dempsey made public statements that he
wanted to fight Harry Wills, Rickard worked in the background to make sure
such a fight never happened. At one point, Dempsey placed his own article in
the papers saying, "I hope some promoter will come up with the right
guarantee for a match between Harry Wills and myself."
Rickard refused to be that promoter. Another promoter tried it, gave Wills
$50,000 to sign, but when it came time for Dempsey to sign, the promoter
gave Dempsey a bad check. Dempsey kept his unsigned contract and told the
man when the money was in his hands, he'd sign for the fight. The money
never came through.
Of course, some will say, "You're just defending Dempsey". That's right, and
why not? If it's current PC to condemn a dead man for the attitudes of his
era, why not defend him with a few facts. Keep in mind, not fighting a black
challenger was very PC in his time, just as banging a drum and taking the
moral high ground is PC now. Guess what; both views are wrong. I would bet
you most of the loudest complainers wouldn't murmur a word if they lived in
those times. Everyone can be brave and outspoken over a distance of 80
years.
Twenty years after Dempsey's reign, most of the world sat silently while the
Nazi's murdered millions of Jews and others. If people didn't speak out
against mass-murder and genocide in the 1940s, is it surprising few spoke
out to change the situation in boxing for black fighters in the 1920s?
Yet Dempsey gets more bad press today for not fighting Wills than the
leaders of the Western Democracies get for refusing to lift their
immigration quotas so the Jews could escape Germany and the death camps. And
that's an example of why currently fashionable moral attitudes are so
hypocritical; they stink of false morality.
Bobby Bearden
The Sanity Cruzer
news:anhgaj$8ud$1...@feed.centurytel.net...
>
> "jonah" <jona...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b1262dd8.02100...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Tunney was a tremendous fighter but he was not the gentleman people
> > make out, infact he was was an ambitious and ruthless businessman and
> > no one becomes successful as he did if they were not as ruthless and
> > selfish as him.
>
> Jesus Christ?
Being crucified is hardly what I'd call the pinnacle of success.
Genial Uncle Bob
>Twenty years after Dempsey's reign, most of the world sat silently while the
>Nazi's murdered millions of Jews and others. If people didn't speak out
>against mass-murder and genocide in the 1940s, is it surprising few spoke
>out to change the situation in boxing for black fighters in the 1920s?
It should be pointed out that most of the world didn't know about the death
camps until 1945. And besides which, at the time that the camps were operating,
a hefty chunk of the world (Russia, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and
after 1941, the US) WAS actively involved in defeating the Nazis.
I agree with the rest of your post, but you've chosen a bad example. Now, if
you'd used the pre-1939 Nazi treatment of Jews as an example, that would have
worked. The world knew about that, and most were pretty unsympathetic.
>Yet Dempsey gets more bad press today for not fighting Wills than the
>leaders of the Western Democracies get for refusing to lift their
>immigration quotas so the Jews could escape Germany and the death camps.
The death camps didn't exist before the war. As far as anyone knew, the Jews
were suffering from having their property confiscated and being discriminated
against.
And
>that's an example of why currently fashionable moral attitudes are so
>hypocritical; they stink of false morality.
Yes, you're right. They do. It is easy to criticize those who went before. But
how many things being done today will be exempt from criticism in 100 years?
Very few, I think.
Bob Sheehy
bullcrap. The Dempsey-Tunney fight took place in Philadelphia only
because the NYSAC forbade Dempsey to defend his title against anybody
except Harry Wills. New York was unquestionably the most lucrative and
sought-after venue for any prizefight at the time. Some of the most
influential sportswriters of the day, such as Grantland Rice, had been
openly calling for a Dempsey-Wills match and would have welcomed its
taking place.
The racism of 1920's America victimized Harry Wills, leaving him with no
recourse when he was unjustly passed over for a title shot time and time
again. Wills was the furthest thing from Jack Johnson, and, in his
comportment, he foreshadowed the unthreatening Joe Louis. The
suggestion that American social conditions of the time absolutely barred
Dempsey from doing what Braddock would do a mere decade afterward is
preposterous.
Bobby Bearden
Bob Sheehy <bob...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7801-3D9...@storefull-2354.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Sorry, Bobby, but your apology for Dempsey is pure, unmitigated
> bullcrap. The Dempsey-Tunney fight took place in Philadelphia only
> because the NYSAC forbade Dempsey to defend his title against anybody
> except Harry Wills. New York was unquestionably the most lucrative and
> sought-after venue for any prizefight at the time.
Not true at all. Publicly they were calling for the fight, but at the same
time the New York State Boxing Commisioner, William Muldoon, stated that if
Rickard wanted to have the Dempsey-Wills fight in New York City, he would
have to guarantee to price forty thousand tickets at two dollars each. Of
course, that was a an unrealistic ticket price that could only assure that
Rickard wouldn't promote the fight.
Muldoon held a press conference and announced he was banning all heavyweight
boxing in New York State until "honorable financing" was accepted. By that,
he wanted to fix ringside tickets at $5 and the rest at $2. He wasn't
banning boxing, just heavyweight fights, therefore ruling out Dempsey-Wills.
He also said, "There will never be a Dempsey-Wills fight in this state while
I am boxing commisioner. My oppositition is in no way attributable to the
boxers involved. They are not to blame for the existing situation. It is the
commercialized condition produced by crazy promoters and managers that is
responsible."
So, I have to say your apology for the NYSAC is pure, unmitigated bullcrap.
> The racism of 1920's America victimized Harry Wills, leaving him with no
> recourse when he was unjustly passed over for a title shot time and time
> again. Wills was the furthest thing from Jack Johnson, and, in his
> comportment, he foreshadowed the unthreatening Joe Louis. The
> suggestion that American social conditions of the time absolutely barred
> Dempsey from doing what Braddock would do a mere decade afterward is
> preposterous.
>
Rickard tried to get Dempsey-Wills set up for Montreal, but the backers
withdrew without explanation. Edward Van Every, who wrote the biography on
William Muldoon in 1929, said the English government axed the Montreal
fight, fearing trouble in provinces with "heavy Negro populations" should
another black champion hold the title. Every said the British government,
not Rickard, Kearns, or Dempsey, made sure a Dempsey-Wills fight didn't
happen in Canada.
Every also said that Muldoon's actions that kept the fight from happening in
New York weren't his own idea, but that "orders from a very high place"
forced Muldoon to find a way to block the fight.
Of course, maybe you'll say Every was lying, Roger Kahn is lying, and
everyone who doesn't place the blame on Dempsey is lying. But Every
published his book in 1929 and nobody seemed willing to say he was lying
about the circumstances that prevented the fight when he was alive and could
be confronted. That Muldoon demanded the $2 ticket price is part of public
record, but maybe he was just doing that so the poor working man could get
to see the fight, not to prevent a mixed race fight. Yeah, that's it, he was
just looking out for the little guy.
That Wills was a victim of racism isn't denied by any boxing writer or
historian. That the source of his not getting the fight with Dempsey was
almost assuredly not Dempsey is also apparent. But what the hell, it's the
age of convenient scape-goats and surface level solutions and why blame
society for following the political correctness of a given era when it's so
much easier to blame a single person; especially when it's politically
correct to do so by the standards of the current era. Isn't it funny that no
matter how much things change, they always stay the same?
Bobby Bearden
Larry Roberts
Canada has governed itself since way before 1929. I think it more likely
that Montreal didn't want to be another Shelby. Dempsey-Wills would have
been a hard sell back then. Especially for the kind of money guarantees that
old con man Rickard would have demanded.
Cap
"Bobby Bearden" <th...@digitalexp.com> wrote in message
news:upvlutg...@corp.supernews.com...