1963 article by Jack Dempsey

First topic message reminder :

I believe the following article written by Jack Dempsey appeared in a 1963 issue of Ebony magazine. This is an excerpt of it that is included as a chapter in a 1963 book edited by two men from that magazine. The book is titled ‘White on Black’ and the title of the chapter is ‘Why Negroes Rule Boxing’:

“From the inception of boxing in this country it has been dominated by men who developed out of struggle with life. Our first real heavyweight champion, Tom Molyneaux, was born a slave in Virginia and won his freedom with his fistic talent. Fighting as a freedman in New York he beat all challengers and earned the right to be called the first American heavyweight champion.

All of the great old-time Negro boxers were born under poor and depressing circumstances but rose above their environments to win acclaim wherever they fought. Peter Jackson, Sam Langford, George Dixon, Joe Gans, the immortal “Old Master,” and Jack Johnson all knew what it felt like to be up against the wall and cornered. Their bitter experiences were reflected in their superb endurance and their toughness of spirit. Their early poverty showed itself in the way they handled themselves as men and boxers.

I am personally indebted to a number of Negro boxers who worked as my sparring partners in the years when I was learning how to handle myself in a ring. When I was fighting I had many Negro sparring partners at my training camp. One of these, Bill Tate, became one of my best friends. Now living in Chicago, Illinois, he is one of the finest men I have ever known. Then there was Panama Joe Gans, a great and clever fighter, who taught me a lot. The Jamaica Kid, a very fine heavyweight, worked with me before the famous 1919 fight with Jess Willard. The Kid did a lot to get me into the superb condition that enabled me to beat Willard and win the world’s championship.

Sam Langford, one of the greatest of all heavyweights, is another Negro fighter who showed me some tricks and gave me the benefits of his vast experience. I worked with Old Sam in Chicago when I was a youngster. I never forgot what Langford taught me. He was cool, clever, scientific and a terrific hitter besides a fine man.
Battling Gee and Battling Jim Johnson, both Negroes were also on my payroll as sparring mates. I was a pretty rough customer in those days and my sparring partners had to be good and tough to stay with me. All of these men more than made the grade.

Many times I’ve had the charge hurled at me that I was prejudiced against Negroes. It is time this utter fiction was laid to rest once and for all. All my life I have believed that all men are basically brothers and that differences of color and religion are superficial. I hate prejudice. I hate discrimination. I hate intolerance. Boxing has been guilty of its share of color bias but I categorically deny that I ever practiced it either as a fighter, manager or promoter. The several Negro fighters who have been under my management will testify to my long-held belief in equality of treatment for all men, regardless of color.

Since I am on the subject of the color line in boxing, let me clear the air of the many rumors and suspicions and charges that have been moving around me as a result of my failure to fight Harry Wills. I have never run away from a fight in my life. Ever since I left public school to work in the Colorado mines, my credo has been to fight all comers and may the best man win. Harry Wills was a great fighter in his prime and I would have liked to have been matched with him. But it was not to be. The reasons had nothing to do with color prejudice on my part (which I have never held), nor fear of Wills fighting skill. I wanted to fight Wills badly, but Tex Rickard, who had the final say, never matched us.

Rickard was a Texan. He had a rough time of it out in San Francisco, California, after the Johnson-Jeffries fight which he promoted in Reno. The repercussions of that fight swirled about Rick’s head for a long time after the fight and he was a victim of ugly charges and a wicked smear campaign. This experience soured him on mixed fights for the heavyweight crown. As a result he was never anxious to promote a match between Wills and myself.

The facts clearly show that in 1926 I tried desperately to arrange a fight with Harry Wills but the deal collapsed when my guarantee was not forthcoming. Wills and I had signed to fight with a promoter named Floyd Fitzsimmons of Benton Harbor, Michigan. Wills, I understand, received fifty thousand dollars as his guarantee for signing the contract. I was to have received one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars in advance of the fight. As the date of the fight grew nearer and my money did not appear, I became anxious and asked Fitzsimmons what was the matter. He wired me to meet him in Dayton, Ohio, assuring me that he would have the money for me there. I met Fitzsimmons in Dayton who handed me a certified check for twenty-five thousand dollars and a promise to let me have the balance almost immediately. I balked at that, demanding the full amount right away. Fitzsimmons tried to placate me by calling the bank where he said he had deposited the money. The bank, unfortunately for Fitzsimmons, informed him that it did not have that much money on hand, that there wasn’t enough to cover the twenty-five thousand dollar check he had given me. Furious, I returned the check to Fitzsimmons and told him the fight was off. Later, the Fitzsimmons syndicate financing the fight sued me for failure to honor a contract. I won the case.

When the Wills fight failed to materialize, Tex Rickard jumped back into the picture and matched me with Gene Tunney. The rest is history. And that is the real story behind the negotiations for the Harry Wills fight which never came off. I am sorry Wills and I never got a chance to square off in the ring. I am sure it would have been one beautiful scrap.”

Certainly is a difficult one to decipher. However in my view Wills was really the only credible black fighter out there to challenge a champion version Dempsey.

People might argue he ducked Langford in the 1916/17 period when he was only 21 years old or so. He may well have avoided the challenge but I dont see it as a proper avoiding but rather simply an indication that Dempsey was not yet ready for that kind of test. The fact he was struggling with fighters like Fat Willie Meehan around this time and had been lacklustre against the B grade black fighter Lester Johnson (who ironically had lost his previous bout to one Harry Wills if Im not mistaken) would support this and in all probability Dempsey was just not ready at the age and point in his career he was at.

I think regardless of whether one thinks Dempsey happily embraced the colour line or whether one thinks he was opposed to it doesnt really change the fact that he never fought Wills who for a number of years was clearly his main rival. So in a sense it doesnt really matter a great deal whether he wanted the fight or not. I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt and view him as a fighter that simply had his hands tied by the politics and circumstances of the day and dont think he would have shirked the challenge had it been presented. But I appreciate there is an argument to the contrary and its an issue that I think that is unlikely to proved or disproved based on what we know. We can only draw our own conclusions and have our own opinions.

MODI wrote:I just don't believe that the practice of "ducking fighters" which is so common throughout boxing's history in all eras is in any way analogous to avoiding an entire race. Had Dempsey ONLY rejected Sam Langford in 1918, ONLY rejected a peak Harry Wills, and ONLY rejected an old Jack Johnson in 1921, it would be a different story.

For those who believe that Dempsey has gotten a bad rap, let's consider the fate of Harry Wills. Beyond boxing afficianados on this board, I rarely find a general sports fan who has ever even heard his name, yet all know Dempsey's name. You can argue that Dempsey's legacy is about as privileged as it gets. With all the fights that Wills had with Langford ALONE is greater than the competition Dempsey faced.

So why does Dempsey deserve a greater legacy than Wills in 2011? I can't think of any reason.

I agree, and it's why I was surprised to see him as high as 3 on a lot of peoples lists here. His record doesn't have that much depth. But then I think there is a large element of peer ranking.

One has to remember with Wills that he himself came along at the right time to some extent in that the likes of Langford, McVea and Jeannette were all mid to late thirty veterans when he was coming into his prime.

The colour line also is a double edged sword rather than a one way street. Whilst Dempsey never faced the best black fighters, equally it can be said that Wills never faced the best white ones (he faced Sharkey, Firpo and Uzcundun late in his career though).

In terms of ranking, once you go beyond Louis and Ali it becomes very marginal and I cant think of any other heavyweight that has a vastly better claim to Dempsey for third spot. Granted everyone will have their favourites and I cant fathom people having Lennox Lewis for instance as high as second or third on some list I saw but all things considered anyone who places between Ali/Louis and Dempsey is unlikely to do so by a wide margin in my view and much comes down to how much emphasis you put on different aspects of a career.

Colonial Lion wrote:

The colour line also is a double edged sword rather than a one way street. Whilst Dempsey never faced the best black fighters, equally it can be said that Wills never faced the best white ones (he faced Sharkey, Firpo and Uzcundun late in his career though).

What is also worth remembering is that whilst he faced these fighters late in his career Wills also had a tendency to perform a little worse against these guys than did Dempsey.

For me Holmes has better longevity, best wins, many more defenses and was a better technician.

Holmes will have his own case for a third spot. Both he and Dempsey reigned for a similar length of time. Holmes had more defences but I dont neccessarily think the quality or best wins were ahead of Dempsey.

Sharkey, Gibbons, Firpo, Miske, Brennan, Willard, Carpentiers, Levinsky, Fulton amongst others is a strong resume which I dont think Holmes neccessarily outstrips despite more defences.

As for technicians, completely different styles, strengths and weaknesses.

Either way, I dont view them being seperated by a chasm. If somebody prefers Holmes to Dempsey then I am not going to complain but I dont see it being a clear cut case I must say.

The Jeannette incident highlights the need to separate the moral and sociological issues from the fistic.

It is ( and always was, ) clear that any fighter with aspirations to be heavyweight champion during the period would find himself under unbearable pressure to draw the colour line. The appalling prejudice of the day in America had been bad enough before the Johnson v Jeffries bout of 1910, but in the aftermath of that fight it became even more intense.

It was expedient for Kearns to keep Dempsey's nose clean.

The fistic issue is entirely separate. The Jeannette article is a clear hatchet job, since we are led to believe that Jeannette was this enormous giant of the fistic world and that Dempsey cowered in his presence. Jeannette was thirty nine years old, smaller than Dempsey and, in Nov. 1918, was half a dozen or so fights away from the end of his career, having recently dropped a couple of newspaper decisions to Norfolk and having engaged in no decision affairs against relatively low profile opponents.

To beat Dempsey with the ' colour line ' stick ( at this point in his career, ) might be perfectly fair, but to suggest he avoided Jeannette or Wills out of fear is a different kettle of fish altogether. Further, if we are to condemn Dempsey on the colour issue by virtue of his own words ( and those of Kearns, ) then justice demands that we also heed his own words when he declared himself ready and willing to fight Wills later on.

As a footnote, we shouldn't forget that Rickard, as early as 1922, was trying to put on Wills v Dempsey at his Boyles's Acre stadium in Jersey City, but :

The New York Times, May 24, 1922.

Louis J Messano, Chairman of the New Jersey State Athletic Commision, asserted " No permit will be granted for a bout between Dempsey and Wills because I do not think there is public demand for such a bout."

The situation is a complex one, and it is too simplistic to heap all the blame on Dempsey's shoulders.

Further to my comment above, I just checked out what Dempsey was up to during November and December of 1918, during which the Jeannette incident occurred.

He fought Billy Miske and 6ft.4ins., 225lb., Carl Morris, ( each of whom was a world ranked contender, ) and he also flattened Gunboat Smith, who was still only thirty one years old and a capable fighter.

Unlikely, then, that Jeannette would have induced quaking in Jack's boots at the time.

Interesting stuff Windy, whilst I do agree that any fighter cannot be given a pass for not fighting black fighters do think it is easy to look at things from a comfortable distance some 100 years on (or nigh on) and apply the values of our days to very different times. Whilst we live in far from perfect times and racism is far from eradicated things are a country mile more enlightened than the America Dempsey found himself operating in and perhaps at the time it was simply not possible for a young contender to be seen in the ring with Jeannette or would be a risk, the reaction to which either they did not know or could not chance.

Think also we are a little ready to dismiss as small gestures things that at the time were potentially brave or progressive steps. Dempsey for instance regularly employed Bill Tate as a sparring partner and used him on exhibition tours when champion, this may seem a minor thing but I have read some of the reaction in the press at the time particularly in the deep south and believe me looking at things from 90 years on the reaction seems completey ridiculous and in disproportion to the significance of Tate's participation. Don't get me wrong am not trying to re-paint Jack as Martin Luther King here because quite clearly he was not just looking for a bit of context and acknowledgement for the positive things he did do in his time.

Would have to say that Gunboat Smith and Carl Morris were probably no better if not outright worse than Jeanette was at that time though.

With Willard being inactive for so long, there is something to suggest that around the late 1918 and 1919 period, Dempsey was being lined up for a title shot and in all probabilty the next champion. Wins over Fulton, Miske and Levinsky were probably enough to put him in line and I think the feeling was that as long as he didnt slip up anywhere then the title would be his in the near future. Hence a series of essentially knock out exhibitions from Dempsey.

With this in mind I think his management wanted things as low risk and uncontroversial as possible. They possibly also had in their minds their future colour line policy were Dempsey to become champion - hence Dempseys colour line statement post title win.

To this effect fighting Jeannette in an exhibition was probably not worth the risk of either defeat or controversy with a potential title shot looming over an inactive and ageing champion in Willard.

Dempseys management and promoters were big time and one has to reason that Dempseys career was being carefully managed and the intention to draw the colour line was there at an early stage. Therefore Jeannette would be seen as an unnacceptable opponent.

rowley wrote:Interesting stuff Windy, whilst I do agree that any fighter cannot be given a pass for not fighting black fighters do think it is easy to look at things from a comfortable distance some 100 years on (or nigh on) and apply the values of our days to very different times. Whilst we live in far from perfect times and racism is far from eradicated things are a country mile more enlightened than the America Dempsey found himself operating in and perhaps at the time it was simply not possible for a young contender to be seen in the ring with Jeannette or would be a risk, the reaction to which either they did not know or could not chance.

Think also we are a little ready to dismiss as small gestures things that at the time were potentially brave or progressive steps. Dempsey for instance regularly employed Bill Tate as a sparring partner and used him on exhibition tours when champion, this may seem a minor thing but I have read some of the reaction in the press at the time particularly in the deep south and believe me looking at things from 90 years on the reaction seems completey ridiculous and in disproportion to the significance of Tate's participation. Don't get me wrong am not trying to re-paint Jack as Martin Luther King here because quite clearly he was not just looking for a bit of context and acknowledgement for the positive things he did do in his time.

Quite so, jeff, and Jeffries did precisely the same thing with Bob Armstrong, a man whom Jeffries counted among his friends. The pair fought one official ten rounder when Jeffries was on the way up, and numerous exhibitions later on. Jeffries was also photographed playing with African American children, ( Armstrong's, perhaps ? ) in lighter moments at training camps.

John L Sullivan was effusive in his praise for Jack Johnson following the Jeffries bout, ( and was among the first to shake his hand, ) while still declaring his " antipathy toward his race."

The whole issue was complex, and probably far bigger than we could imagine one hundred years on.

Colonial Lion wrote:Would have to say that Gunboat Smith and Carl Morris were probably no better if not outright worse than Jeanette was at that time though.

Absolutely true, of course, that Smith's recent record had been pretty dire ( I hadn't checked, when I wrote the above, ) and that Morris never represented much more than a huge physical presence, but it's impossible to say with any certainty what kind of challenge Jeannette was capable of mounting against Dempsey's youth, vigour and ferocity by late 1918. We do know, however, that Billy Miske represented a serious challenge. Six months prior he and Dempsey had shared the spoils in a ten rounder, with many ringsiders feeling that Miske might have deserved the nod.

One would certainly have to favour Dempsey to beat Jeannette then, but theres a very good chance it wouldnt be the one or two round blow out that would be expected of Dempsey. Might be wrong but I think Langford was the only man ever to knock Jeanette out in well over 100 bouts so the chances of Dempsey being able to go in and just blast him out would be slim and the wily veteran was more than capable of making Dempsey look bad.

When you factor in the colour line policy Dempseys management employed then a fight with Jeannette (even an exhibition) was pretty much the quintessential all risk no reward kind of bout. With Dempsey closing in on a title shot I am sure his management did not want to do anything to potentially rock the boat.

However its hard to imagine that a hungry fighter like Dempsey was back then would be in any way intimadated by Jeannette at that point in time, especially for what was going to be an exhibition bout.

"so does make you wonder why he accepted Kearns' no so readily here."

Yes, it does but I think you have to keep in mind what he said about Kearns and Rickard about how he felt it was those two who really made him in terms of generating the opportunities and guiding him to the title and big money fights so I imagine he felt a much greater obligation to follow their marching orders than he would to a man like Reisler.

Either way, there's no getting around the fact that the whole color line issue was a black mark on anyone who used it, including Jack Johnson who refused to fight a black man after winning the title and only eventually fought Battling Jim Johnson over in Paris after he'd fleed the country and was in need of money.

Clay it is the Johnson thing that makes me a little more forgiving of the likes of Corbett and Sullivan who undoubtedly avoided the likes of Jackson behind the colour line because what I think happens a lot is people often slaughter fighters like these for avoiding black fighters whilst very often giving Johnson something of a pass for doing similar, because as you amply illustrate in your Langford book numerous attempts were made to match him with Langford, particularly in Australia and whilst the failure of this fight to come off is not solely at Johnson's door he is far from blameless in the affair, does seem to smack a little of inconsistency to me.

Clay, thank you for those pieces on Jeannette. I also have an article somewhere on the matter, and if I can find it, I will print excerpt.

I do think that a lot of discussion on Dempsey's "intentions" from his heart are pretty irrelevant. We don't really know, nor should we really care. His actions are what shaped boxing history -- the only reason we are discussing him. When it came to the benefit of his own career, he used the color line of his day both before and after his championship.

In terms of racial prejudice someone like Tommy Burns held clearly racist views unlike Dempsey, but he still gave Johnson a shot. For our sports historical purposes, we could care less about Tommy Burns "the man". What is important is that this individual prejudice did not ultimately morph into institutional prejudice. Dempsey clearly PRACTICED racism to his benefit. It really doesn't matter how many black sparring partners he had (BTW, Wills was also invited to be Dempsey's sparring partner).

Interesting, I didn't know Wills was invited to be his sparring partner at one time. I guess Burns should receive some credit for ultimately fighting Johnson but he sure tried to avoid doing so for a long time. Ultimately, I believe he found himself backed into a corner in Australia and was left with little choice when the ponied up the fee that he demanded.

Dempsey's failure to fight Wills as well as Harry Greb are definately black marks on his career. It's a shame that neither of those fights happened.

I think that Wills was invited before and after the Willard fight, and I know of one time where Wills rejected the offer as not to let Dempsey gain an advantage for a future match. If I can locate source I will. I do have some old newspaper articles around a s a result of a short-lived intensive research week.

Harry Greb and Dempsey would have also been quite nice!

A note about Jack Johnson. While he does deserve criticism for avoiding black fighters, I don't view it as analagous to the actions of Dempsey, Sullivan, and others for three reasons.

1) While Battling Jim Johnson was no Sam Langford, the fight is significant in that he showed that the occurence was possible and that an entire race was not shut out. It also opened the door that if the money was right, the possibility was there. Whether Johnson or Joe Louis, the truth is that black-and-white fights made money and white-and-white fights made money, but black-and-black rarely did. I suspect if the right money ever came up right with Langford, we might have seen that fight. I remember from Clay's book that this almost happened, but never made it to the finish line. Perhaps Clay could expound.

2) Risk-Reward: Johnson knew full well that if he ever lost the title, he would never get another crack unlike any white champion. "Risk-reward" was not just about one fight, but an entire career. Dempsey could lose to Tunney and then get a handsomely paid rematch. Yet Johnson would not get a rematch versus Willard. Dempsey would not entertain one. And no other top white contenders would have it. Losing a title for peanuts against Langford on one well-placed punch did not mean losing a fight -- but meant the end of a career. If Dempsey fought and lost to Wills, there would be a rematch three months later for an incredible purse. As a white champion, Dempsey had extreme privileges that were not afforded to Johnson.

3) Jack Johnson already fought Jeannette and McVey on multiple occasions and a young Sam Langford (clearly the biggest victim of the Johnson era). Johnson basically said on many occasions "I paid my dues. I already beat them!". Had Dempsey fought Langford and Wills and an old-man Jeannette on the way to his defeat of Willard, then this entire line of Dempsey discussion would have a very different flavor to it and these fights would all be used as the ultimate shield against criticism of Dempsey's white title reign.

I'd venture that Johnson could have earned considerably more for a title defence against Langford than he would have made by defending the title against Jack O'Brien, Tony Ross or Al Kaufmann.

Would probably also have to say whilst the risk reward argument certainly has some validity you'd probably have to say it also holds the same for white fighters as well, particularly going back before Dempsey, is well known fighters such as Corbett and Fitz made more from theatrical engagements and exhibitions than fighting. Does seem fair to ask how their earning potential would have been damaged were they the fighter who lost the title to a black opponent. Again not arguing this justifies but at the risk of using an appaling pun does suggest the issue is far from black and white.

Very good article with good responses...

Must say I don't resent any white fighter in them days deciding not to defend against a black fighter......

Very difficult times and Johnson didn't help the black cause...

Think he made life difficult for all the Gentlemen blacks that followed him..

rowley wrote: at the risk of using an appaling pun does suggest the issue is far from black and white.

apologise for your own appalling puns jeff...don't nick mine and then apologise for them.

Fascinating thread this. Far more learned guys on Dempsey here than me, but strikes me that he was fundamentally a decent guy, certainly charismatic but an opportunist. He basically did what he felt was best for his career at the time. He may have drawn the colour line, but then to not do so, whilst commendable, to us all retrospectively was to make a stand and not go with the cultural norm of the time.

In 1963, he came out with his all men are equal speech at a time where white america was still pretty divided on the subject, so for that he deserves credit... all be it he was a little creative with his accounts of the past. I believe he had some indian blood in him, so its easy to believe he might be more sympathetic on this subject than some. He was a hero to many and we'd all like our hero's to be the types who stand up for injustice and change the world. Could he have done more to push for the Wills fight earlier - i'm sure he could have. Unfortunately this is real life and dempsey's job was to punch people for a living. Bit tough to expect him to be a race campaigner too... especially if doing so might endanger his livelihood.

At the end of the day, his career is still being blackmarked by a few isolated people on message boards around the world for not fighting Wills. His legacy suffers for it and rightly so... though obviously the real victim is obviously wills. Dempsey, neither saint nor sinner on this subject for me... he just did what most would have done in his shoes.

HumanWindmill wrote:I'd venture that Johnson could have earned considerably more for a title defence against Langford than he would have made by defending the title against Jack O'Brien, Tony Ross or Al Kaufmann.

While it is possible, none of those men posed risks. Higher risks usually garner higher pay...

trussman, I guess I don't look at Dempsey in terms of personal resentment, but in terms of historical legacy.

During Dempsey's reign there were two champions. They didn't fight because of Dempsey. Under these circumstances, should Dempsey deserve a legacy that is greater than Wills? Should Sullivan deserve one that is greater than Peter Jackson? IMHO, Wills and Jackson deserve the greater legacy. And Jack Johnson does not deserve a greater legacy than Langford either (but yes to McVey and Jeanette).

Their injustices can't be corrected, but our perceptions of them can. While some progress has ben made (see Clay's Langford book), that just hasn't happened. One hundred years later Dempsey shows up at the top of all-time lists and Wills is nowhere to be found.

While each man's career bene

"1) While Battling Jim Johnson was no Sam Langford, the fight is significant in that he showed that the occurence was possible and that an entire race was not shut out. It also opened the door that if the money was right, the possibility was there. Whether Johnson or Joe Louis, the truth is that black-and-white fights made money and white-and-white fights made money, but black-and-black rarely did. I suspect if the right money ever came up right with Langford, we might have seen that fight. I remember from Clay's book that this almost happened, but never made it to the finish line. Perhaps Clay could expound."

I don't think Johnson's decision to fight "Battling" Jim Johnson was really a case of the money being right, or at least a lot. He doesn't seem to say much about it in his biography 'In the Ring and Out' (1927) but I just referred to Randy Roberts book 'Papa Jack' he writes:

"Wresting and boxing exhibitions in France and England provided a routine for his exile and furnished spending money. But they did not yeild francs and pounds enough for Johnson to live in championship style. To ear that kind of money he had to defend his title, preferably against a white challenger..." and then "To meet the expenses of Christmas, Johnson agreed to fight "Battling" Jim Johnson, an undistinguished ring veteran. Except for a few fights against Joe Jeannette, he had battled in relative obscurity. Now, probably because he was readily available, he was matched for the world's title." I don't see any mention of Johnson's fee for the fight in Roberts book.

Surprisingly as I search through various books about Jack Johnson by Denzil Batchelor, Finis Farr and others I am having a very difficult time finding much information about his fight with Jim Johnson. However, I just came across a book written by Robert Jakoubek titled 'Jack Johnson, Heavyweight Champion' (1990) that says the following:

"Pursued by his creditors, Johnson earned what he could. In December 1913, his desperation was such that he broke his self-established color line and fought another black, "Battling" Jim Johnson. A comparative unknown, Jim Johnson was no threat to win the title, but in the course of hte 10-round fight, the champion broke the radius bone in his left arm. In severe pain, Johnson fought even more defensively than usual. His strategy displeased the crowd. They first shouted for "action," then started yelling "fake," and when Jack Johnson's victory by decision was proclaimed, they screamed for "our money back." For the evenings work, the champion collected 35% of the $3,000 gate."

So, if this is true Johnson received very little in the way of compensation for his fight with "Battling" Jim Johnson but he was in desperate need of cash at the time. I find it very surpising that some of the books I have written about Johnson devote so little attention to his fight with "Battling" Jim Johnson.

As for a second fight with Langford, I think the bottom line was thought Johnson felt he was too dangerous a proposition to tackle again and felt that there was just as much money to be made fighting others so why take the chance. I didn't want to take the time to go dig up the exact quote from my book but as I recall the Australian promoter, Hugh McIntosh, said that finally tiring of his efforts to match the pair Johnson ultimately confided to him that he had to desire to fight that "little black smoke" again because he had a chance to win against anybody.

Thank you. I appreciate that information. Okay, here is the McIntosh quote on page 257 of your book:

I spent months trying to persuade Johnson to agree to a match with Langford, but he ostinately refused and one day he frankly told me the reason. "Say, Mister Mac,' he drawled, 'you're only wasting your time talking to me. I don't want to fight that little smoke. He's got a chance against anyone in the world. I'm the first black champion and I'm going to be the last.'

Also according to Duke Mullins on next page, "Johnson said that there were dozens of easy money white men for him to meet without having him to face a tough guy like Langford. While Johnson told Duke [Mullins] that Jeannette was the toughest man he ever saw, he admitted to him that Langford was the most dangerous."

MODI wrote:

During Dempsey's reign there were two champions. They didn't fight because of Dempsey.

This is mere conjecture.

No evidence has been presented, either in this debate or elsewhere, to prove that Dempsey systematically avoided Wills while he was champion.

We have evidence, verbal and photographic, that he signed to fight Wills. We have his word that he was prepared to fight Wills. We have proof that, as early as 1922, Jersey City refused permits for a Dempsey v Wills fight and, while not presented here, there is evidence to say that other cities, also, turned the fight down.

Gene Tunney, homing in on a challenge for Dempsey's title, also declined to meet Wills in what was, effectively, an eliminator. Tunney openly declared his unwillingness to enter an inter - racial bout. Furthermore, Jack Dempsey did not gain an immediate rematch with Tunney, once having lost his title to him. Rather, Dempsey had to first negotiate Jack Sharkey in one leg of an elimination series which had earlier seen Sharkey beat......Harry Wills.

The waters have always been muddy with regard to the Wills / Dempsey / Tunney go round and, enjoyable though this debate has been, we cannot claim to have shed any new light on the issue to either condemn or exonerate Jack Dempsey.

MODI wrote: One hundred years later Dempsey shows up at the top of all-time lists and Wills is nowhere to be found.

~ Why sir, it strikes me that while your boxing acumen seems impressive at face value, it is devalued ultimately due to an obvious bias against Mr. Dempsey who made a valiant effort to slip the bonds of the most powerful men in boxing, Mr. Rickard and Doc Kearns.

Mr. Wills occupies a prominent place in Ring Rankings, being the first ever #1 ranked heavy in history for starters, and is currently 18th in IBRO ratings ahead of Mr. Corbett and Fitzsimmons, so you have overplayed your hand sir, a bluff charge for the common duff who knows no better.

To follow up, your claim that black on black bouts didn't make much money would be laughed to smithereens by Mssrs. Wills, Jeannette, Langford, and McVey who spent lavishly and traveled the world in style at a time when 99.5% of the world was confined to brutal day work or selling off their assets for a one way ticket in the bilge of an American bound ship for greater opportunity.

Still, even a bluff charge in BarneyWorld provides excellent daycare for the soft lads, so congrats on your newly acquired veneer.

I don't have a bias against Dempsey at all. I think Dempsey was a fabulous fighter and is underrated in the sports general public -- as are most early day fighters black or white. And if I were in a discussion with sports fans with little boxing knowledge who often dismiss Dempsey as merely a "slugger", I would actually be the first to defend Dempsey and correct.

The problem with virtually any discussion on Dempsey is that pre-invested audience tend to either dismiss him outright or give him a ridiculous benefit of the doubt that they would not entertain in any other line of rationale conversation. Both positions are flawed, and the truth is in between. I have been accused of Dempsey bias from both ends.

Anytime an entire field is biased -- the dissenter will generally be accused as biased. I get that. But there is no doubt that "the field" is biased in Dempsey's favor. From mainstream sports media, to his authors (beginning with Roger Kahn), to, yes, all-time ranking lists.

I plead 100% guilty to being a bit hyperbolic. I didn't mean that "black and black" rarely made money "in a vacuum", but in comparison to white-white and white-black -- decisions that shape the risk-reward calculations of any fighter. I am also guilty of further hyperbole in stating that Wills is "nowhere to be found" on all-time lists, but I suspect that if I go back to digging up prominent best heavyweight lists, you will find that there is a significant disparity between the placement of Dempsey and the placement of Wills. Maybe there is an exception or two out there such as IBRO. That there are 563 books (Note: hyperbole :-) on Dempsey, and none that I know of on Wills just reinforces this point on historical legacy.

I am no historian, do not claim to be, and grant that many on this board have a far greater depth of boxing knowledge than I do. However, I have a decent read on the influential popular sports media. And I do think that there is a path of recognition that often starts with the very important work of historians, which then informs mainstream media, and then makes its way into the public. The fact that I can do a sports-related presentation in front of 100 general sports fans -- and not a single one of them has heard of Harry Wills is troubling (though most know Dempsey). Historians have played an indirect role in such occurences.

Wills fought Langford about 20 times, Sam McVey too, and was #1 contender for virtually Dempsey's entire reign. I don't see any logical reason for Dempsey to be rewarded to a status higher than Wills. There is nothing "muddy" about Dempsey drawing the color line multiple times. There may be other "muddy" areas that include Dempsey's motivation, role of Kearns-Rickard, commissions, and local politics, etc -- but the fact that he drew the color line and announced it for at least parts of his career -- and in Wills prime -- is indisputable.

To point out this fact and its potential impact on his own legacy and how we now perceive Wills is not biased at all. Only to dismiss it is. Surely Jack Johnson would be downgraded by historians if Burns never gave him a shot. So let's recognize that dynamic when recognizing Wills in relation to Dempsey. In my opinion, that boxing era should be referred to as the "Dempsey-Wills" era.

There may not be anything ' muddy ' in Dempsey's having found himself compelled to draw the colour line at a given point in his career but the waters are, indeed, profoundly muddy as to whether he drew it in relation to Wills, which is the central theme of this debate.

There is absolutely no proof that Dempsey was complicit in the shutting out of Wills.

Further to above, there is also nothing to suggest that Wills is worthy of equal ranking to Dempsey in absentia. The fact that they didn't meet in the ring is not synonymous with the notion that Wills would have won had they done so. On the contrary, the informed opinion of the day ( and the opinion of a certain Sam Langford, ) was that Dempsey would have prevailed.

Sometimes, however noble our intentions, we simply have to accept history as it is without contrived efforts to rewrite it.

Next up, otherwise, might be the case of Sugar Ray Robinson and Charley Burley, along with quite a few others.

"the informed opinion of the day ( and the opinion of a certain Sam Langford, ) was that Dempsey would have prevailed"

The same exact statement -- inclusive of Sam Langford -- can be made about the lead up to the Jack Johnson-Jim Jeffries fight. Yet we saw how that informed opinion turned out.

And thus is the inherent flaw that all historians must grapple with. The fact that "the informed opinion of the day" was also often quite biased -- whether consciously or subconsciously. I mean, all of us can uncover racial bias in media in 2011, so lets just think how that might play out 100 years ago at a time when racist cartoons were the norm in newspapers.

And that bias also includes any black fighters at the time who were desirous of any future title shot. It would be in their best interest to promote the white fighter for their own good. If Tommy Burns never gave JJ a shot, we would likely be discussing my noble and contrived efforts to elevate Jack Johnson. Thus is the great double privilege of getting to control racial history -- you still reap its rewards 100 years later.

Wills should not bear the historical burden of Dempsey's colorline, Dempsey should. ...As for Dempsey's complicity, his own words are inherent proof when he says "or any other Negro fighter".

MODI wrote:"the informed opinion of the day ( and the opinion of a certain Sam Langford, ) was that Dempsey would have prevailed"

The same exact statement -- inclusive of Sam Langford -- can be made about the lead up to the Jack Johnson-Jim Jeffries fight. Yet we saw how that informed opinion turned out.

With respect that simply isn't remotely the case.

White America believed Jeffries could win, but informed opinion was that he had next to no chance, and such slim chance as there was had been entirely predicated on the idea that Johnson might possess a yellow streak.

A fight between the pair in 1905 would have been an entirely different proposition. For the 1910 affair, however, even Sullivan, of all people, told Jeffries at his training camp that he couldn't beat Johnson. That is documented fact.

With regard to Dempsey's " any other negro " comment ( attributed to him the day after the Willard fight, ) I wonder why it should be so convenient for you to repeatedly refer to this comment, but to not refer to his later comments, ( which were not attributed to him but, rather, emanated directly from his own mouth ) by which he categorically and unambiguously stated a willingness to fight Wills ?

Great article, cmoyle. Thank you for sharing.

The issues around the article can be debated and its great reading all the responses. It's horrible that we will never get a definite answer.

I cannot remember the source, but this is what I remember reading in a book about the lead up to Johnson-Jeffries. If I am wrong, then I will retract. I will see if I can find...

As for Dempsey publically stating that he would end the colorline, I have never disputed. He did do that. But that gesture -- whether genuine or not -- does not represent his full title reign.

MODI wrote:I cannot remember the source, but this is what I remember reading in a book about the lead up to Johnson-Jeffries. If I am wrong, then I will retract. I will see if I can find...

As for Dempsey publically stating that he would end the colorline, I have never disputed. He did do that. But that gesture -- whether genuine or not -- does not represent his full title reign.

Langford might or might not have said it. Johnson wasn't his favourite person at the time, and with very good reason. Clay will know, for sure.

Regardless, the overwhelming informed view was that Jeffries had no chance. I don't know if you have seen the fight, but it was evident from as early as the third round that Jeffries had no chance, and that the fight was destined to play out much as the fight insiders had predicted.

We have only a tantalising glimpse of Wills on film, and his athleticism and strength are there for all to see. However, his style is somewhat ' loose ' and seems very vulnerable to a left hook, although Uzcudan actually upends him with an overhand right. Granted, this is a Wills a couple of years past his best, but it shouldn't be forgotten that it was Paolino Uzcudan coming out of the other corner and not Jack Dempsey. Uzcudan was not a feared puncher, but was pretty much the Chuvalo of his day. Further, it is commonly accepted that the speedier, smarter fighters such as Gibbons were a much more difficult proposition for Dempsey than the larger, stronger men, such as Wills.

Of course, Wills would have been a dangerous and live opponent, but that is not the same as to say that he would have been favoured to win. Firpo was the best part of 6ft.3ins. tall, weighed 220lb., was unbeaten and, to this day, figures in ' Ring ' magazine's top 100 punchers of all time. Dempsey demolished him. While we're at it, it's instructive to remember that this same Firpo would, a year later, take Wills the full distance to drop a very dull and uneventful decision. Granted, styles make fights and triangular logic doesn't always work, but it is, nonetheless, instructive.

Nat Fleischer believed so strongly in Wills' right to have a shot at Dempsey that he risked public outcry and bankruptcy for his fledgling magazine by calling for the same. Fleischer, glowing though he was in his praise of Wills, believed that Dempsey would prevail. In 1958, Fleischer would name Dempsey fourth best heavyweight of all time. Wills didn't make his top ten. Colleague and fellow ' Ring ' editor Charley Rose saw Johnson, Langford, Wills, etc., and named, for his three best heavyweights of all time, in order, Sam Langford, Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey.

Little point in labouring the point any further, since I've no doubt you see what I'm driving at.

Paolino Uzcudun vs Harry Wills 1927

http://fightfilmcollector.blogspot.com/2010/07/paolino-uzcudun-vs-harry-wills-1927.html

HW, this is from Papa Jack by Randy Roberts on the lead up to Johnson-Jeffries:

"And everyone had an opinion about who would win. The betting was 10 to six or seven on Jeffries, but as Arthur Ruhl wrote, the talk was 1000 to 1 in favor of the white fighter..."

"Most boxers and intellectuals also predicted a Jeffries victory. John L. Sullivan, James J. Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, Tommy Burns, Abe Attell, Battling Nelson--the list is extensive. They all favored Jeffries. Even black boxers like Sam Langford and Joe Jeannette picked the white. Perhaps Jeannette who had fought Johnson more than any other man spoke for them all: 'Why, Jeffries can lose half his strength, have his endurance cut in two, carry a ton of extra weight, and still whip Johnson. He has the head and the heart to do it.' The 'head' and the 'heart': it was a common theme amongst intellectuals too."

It seems to me that without access to the title, that Johnson would have received a similar conclusion from experts as Wills. (note: Wills prime was 1915-1922)

Publicly they supported Jeffries, and the money taken in bets was Jeffries money, but privately fight insiders backed Johnson.

John L Sullivan wrote the New York Times article the day after the fight and confided that he had picked Johnson to win inside fifteen rounds. There are also numerous other accounts from insiders who said that their public pledge to Jeffries did not reflect their private fears. Corbett had employed Jeffries as a sparring partner in Jeffries' youth and was a personal friend, and Fitzsimmons and Jeffries had toured vaudeville circuits together and were even closer friends. To suggest that Jeffries was favourite is, frankly, absurd. Cross reference of several independant sources proves otherwise.

Sentiment was overwhelmingly with Jeffries, but stone cold logic was not.

While I am indebted to you for having alerted me to your note, I am perfectly well aware during which period Wills was considered to have been at his best.

Jeffries wasn't favourite with anyone who was picking with their common sense and not with their bigotry or sentiment. He'd had a considerable lay-off and had had to lose something ridiculous like a hundred pounds of excess weight. The white public simply didn't want to admit that a black man could win.

"privately fight insiders backed Johnson"

HW, I'm not quite sure how one validates what was really lurking in the heads of "fight insiders". Of course, everyone had a revised opinion the next day after feeling foolish. I did the same when Bernard Hopkins beat Felix Trinidad. But John L. Sullivan wouldn't be the first to play Monday Morning Quarterback to remove a little egg from face. Very convenient for him. No matter who wins, his prediction would be correct. Much more is needed than this anecdote to sunstantiate this fight insider claim.

Lets be honest about this. The primary reason we honor Jack Johnson's defensive genius today is because he was granted access for that brilliance to be validated against white fighters and thus white writers of his day. If not, Randy Robert's passage that is being dismissed right now would be Exhibit A on Johnson's inferiority. And without that access, he would have a stepsister legacy like that of Harry Wills based on "the informed opinion of the day".

Wills has been put in an unwinnable trap then and now. By simultaneously denying and requiring him to validate his greatness against the best white fighters, but not requiring the same for Dempsey with the best black fighters is journalistically drawing that color line all over again.

HW, if JD was the white champion and HW was "the Colored Champion", tell me why would it kill you to recognize both as co-champions of this era? Is almost 20 fights with Langford not enough dues-paying?

MODI, it's been pretty well documented that Jeffries was both well past his peak and incredibly ring-rusty at the time of the Johnson fight. He'd retired and hadn't intended to fight again, until pressure from an agitated and anxious (not to mention, white) public mounted to such a degree that Jeffries was the last 'great white hope' they could look to. I'm not sure why you don't believe this, but the sources are out there. He's said to have been very reluctant to come out of retirement.

It was no uncommon thing for opponents to be built up in order to better sell a fight, just as it's not uncommon at the present time. One only has to see the ridiculous photograph of Ketchel in the build-up to his fight with Johnson, with the two men stood side-by-side, Ketchel wearing an oversized and padded coat, and thick-soled shoes in order to disguise the fact he would be a middleweight fighting the heavyweight champion.

As for your comment regarding Wills and Dempsey as 'co-champions'; quite simply, Dempsey was free in theory to fight any man. Black fighters were not. It's akin to having one fighter as world champion and one as a lesser-for example European-champion. It's all a cover to prevent the white population from suffering the shame and indignity of their finest athlete being bested by a black, supposedly inferior person. It's just the way it was. Because the black fighters from then were often denied opportunities to prove their excellence, their achievements have to be considered with that in mind. Unfortunate, but such was the era.

baltimora, I agree that Jeffries was well past his peak and reluctant to unretire, and they knew it then too. But even with that, according to most objective measures (betting odds, media accounts, and general consensus among fighters) Jeffries was picked to be the favorite. I know that this is hard to imagine with post-fight hindsight. If it has been well-documented that Jeffries wasn't the favorite BEFORE the fight, then please share that documentation.

Your last paragraph hits on the crux of the issue. We all know history "the way it was". However, we now have the ability to interpret history with a corrected lens, but in general we still don't. Dempsey's legend continues to be protected at Wills' expense 100 years later.

MODI wrote:

HW, if JD was the white champion and HW was "the Colored Champion", tell me why would it kill you to recognize both as co-champions of this era? Is almost 20 fights with Langford not enough dues-paying?

I have never, ever, disputed Wills' claim to a place in history, and nor have I, at any time, implied that he would not have represented a stiff challenge to Dempsey.

However, neither have I contrived to rewrite history - as you have, and without a shred of evidence - to suggest that Dempsey was complicit in shutting the door on Wills.

As to Johnson v Jeffries, John L Sullivan, in his New York Times article, July 5th., 1910, makes it abundantly clear that he had intimated to Jeffries, when pushed, that he had believed Johnson would win. Your trumping up of Corbett as a Jeffries advocate carries little weight, since Corbett was working Jeffries' corner and he - Corbett - despised Johnson and regarded him as a poseur. Langford and Jeannette also had very good reason to hope that Johnson would come unstuck. Those without a vested interest regarded Jeffries' challenge as being very unlikely to succeed, though some banked heavily on the idea that Johnson had a ' yellow streak. ' These are documented facts, available from the newspaper articles of the day and other publications.

Your assertion that Wills has been devalued by his not having fought for the title is flawed. Langford did not fight for the title, either, yet Fleischer ( who saw them all from Jeffries through Frazier, ) rated Langford seventh best heavyweight of all time, Dempsey fourth, and Wills outside his top ten. Charlie Rose, also, saw all of these from ringside and rated Langford the best heavyweight, Johnson second, Dempsey third and Wills outside the top ten.

Again, I would point out to you that the public had no wish to see a Wills v Dempsey fight until Fleischer began to call for it in the new ' Ring ' magazine. Rickard's attempts, in 1922, to promote Wills v Dempsey at Boyle's Acre were turned down flat by the New Jersey Athletic commission because ' there was not sufficient public interest ' for such a contest. It was Fleischer who brought the bout to the public eye, whereupon Dempsey, at least once, ( and according to the historian, Jorgensen, twice, ) signed to fight Wills. These are facts, pure and simple.

This debate, interesting though it has been, has shed no new light on the Dempsey v Wills affair, and your argument is not persuasive. Circumstances of the day remain the most likely reason that Harry Wills was shunned, and not unwillingness on the part of Jack Dempsey. When I was a young fan in the early sixties there were numerous fight insiders still living and for whom the Dempsey v Wills saga had been fresh in the memory. They had no definitive answers then, and you haven't produced any here, but have rather tried to smear Dempsey with a very old cloth.

Since it appears to be open season for questions I have one for you. What do you see in Wills' style which men such as Fleischer and Rose, ( who saw him from ringside, ) did not see, and which persuades you that Wills would have beaten Dempsey ? Perhaps you'd also care to share with us the reasons you believe that Wills deserves equal footing with Dempsey in the pantheon when neither Fleischer, Rose, nor any other historian I can think of, feels likewise ?

New York Times, July 19th., 1920.

Under the heading " DEMPSEY ERASES THE COLOUR LINE "

Jack Dempsey has erased the color line and stands ready to make a match with a colored fighter, either Harry Wills or another. This statement contained in an announcement given out for pub­lication yesterday by the International Sporting Club, which will stage the bout between Wills and Fred Fulton at the Newark Sportsmen's Club next Monday. The following is Dempsey's declara­tion as to the obliteration of the color line which he has hitherto drawn as champion:

"As for the colored boxers, you can say for me, and make it as strong as you like, that I have absolutely no scruples whatsoever about boxing them. After l won the championship, Jack Kearns, my manager, contended that mixed bouts are injurious to the sport, and for that reason would not consider any for me. It is different now. If the press, public or promoters want me to box a negro, I'll gladly take the match. That goes for Harry Wills and the rest of his ilk. To be quite frank about it, I need the money.

When Wills and Fulton meet in Newark, I'll be right down there at the ringside. And I'll be pulling for them to box a hard draw, in order that I may meet both of them in the future. In case one of them is knocked out, the victim will be eliminated from considera­tion for a match with me, and will lose a profitable bout. "

This New York Times article appeared one year and two weeks into Dempsey's reign and proves, conclusively, that he was ready and willing to fight Wills during Wills' prime years. Furthermore he had not, at this stage, yet defended his title. Therefore, not one solitary Dempsey defence of his title was ever tainted by his having chosen a soft option at the expense of Harry Wills.

Corbett publically backed Jeffries to beat Johnson but privately he was very doubtful of Jeffries chances. Jeffries spent the bulk of his training camp getting having to lose a huge amount of weight and getting into fighting shape. He had very little sparring or skills training and most of his training was simply conditioning. Corbett is on record saying that Dempsey was very short on sparring and ring work.

Due to the views held at the time its very possible white America and the general white public thought Jeffries would win (he was viewed as a superman figure back then) but the informed opinion from insiders and those in the know was that Jeffries was a significant underdog. Jeffries certainly didnt rush out of retirement to face Johnson and is unlikely to have wanted to but found the public pressure simply too much to contend with.

Colonial Lion wrote:Corbett publically backed Jeffries to beat Johnson but privately he was very doubtful of Jeffries chances. Jeffries spent the bulk of his training camp getting having to lose a huge amount of weight and getting into fighting shape. He had very little sparring or skills training and most of his training was simply conditioning. Corbett is on record saying that Dempsey was very short on sparring and ring work.

Due to the views held at the time its very possible white America and the general white public thought Jeffries would win (he was viewed as a superman figure back then) but the informed opinion from insiders and those in the know was that Jeffries was a significant underdog. Jeffries certainly didnt rush out of retirement to face Johnson and is unlikely to have wanted to but found the public pressure simply too much to contend with.

I felt for jefferies, he certainly had far too much pressure on him, he was quite happy in retirement. The amount of weight he lost was unbelievable, he was absolutely huge when he signed to fight and looked great come fight time. His main goal in camp was to lose the weight. Most people in the fight game knew it would be too much for him but the public believed.

"What do you see in Wills' style which men such as Fleischer and Rose, ( who saw him from ringside, ) did not see, and which persuades you that Wills would have beaten Dempsey ? Perhaps you'd also care to share with us the reasons you believe that Wills deserves equal footing with Dempsey in the pantheon when neither Fleischer, Rose, nor any other historian I can think of, feels likewise ?"

Since there is no tape of Wills at his peak, I don't have the privilege to see much at all which is a big problem. I don't know who would win which is also the problem. I do know that Dempsey can end up on the wrong end of a punch (see Firpo), and that Wills was certainly more disciplined than Firpo. Could some Dempsey dynamite knock Wills out as Langford did on two occasions? Sure. Could Wills win more boring decisions or even KO as he did to Langford on many occasions? Sure.

I also know that there is a long history of experts favoring the exciting knock out artists over boxers or the cagey and crafty types. I understand why this bias exists whether its Hopkins/Trinidad, Clay/Liston, or something as prepostrous as Ali or even Jimmy Young beating George Foreman. In fact
if these fights never happened and I was left to rely on "experts" the outcomes would all be vastly different. Even Nat Fleischer's and Charlie Rose's expert opinions are not infallible even if honest. When the exciting great fighter and the boring technician do not fight, the KO artist will generally get the prediction benefit of the doubt (note: I am not reducing Dempsey to a "slugger").

I find that there are two fighters on this planet that it is almost impossible to discuss: Dempsey and assessing a PEAK Mike Tyson with younger fans who grew up watching him. Both are exciting as they come, and both receive the benefit of doubt at every conceiveable turn. Excitement blinds.

Yes, Dempsey publically "erased" of the color line which I already alluded to in previous posts. Of course, this came in between two times where he publically drew the colorline -- thus also calling the legitimacy of that interim erasure into question. So we know that he drew it and erased it at different times, but again -- he definitely drew it for part of his reign.

I'm not sure how pointing out this fact is a "smear". These were not my words, but Dempsey's own. Dempsey was not a Manchurian Candidate, while he may not have had much control of match-making, he had control of the words that came out of his own mouth. Of course, this information is nothing new, it was legitimate information then and now.

Likewise, the "trumped up" statement I provided on the Johnson-Jeffries lead up was from the biography of Randy Roberts so you would have to take it up with him. I believe that this paragragh carries more weight than Sullivan's anecdote and Corbett's anecdote. And to the primary point, the public statements of these men would be used against Johnson if he had no title shot.

I would also argue that the weight that was put on Jeffries shoulders -- however substantial -- pales in comparison to the weight on Johnsons.

HW, I do think that we have been going in circles for some time now. I appreciate the exchange, but we may have exhausted a path to agree-to-disagee point.