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.”

MODI wrote:"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.

In short, then, the answer is that you are not in any position to say that Wills' failure to meet Dempsey is synonymous with his having been deprived of a certain - or even favoured - win, and nor do you have any analytical tools at your disposal which trump those of ringside observers who believed Dempsey to have been the better man. In the absence of footage ( and, sometimes, in tandem with it, ) I've always been happy to painstakingly check ringside sources and cross refer them. I find this rather more reliable than beginning with a tired old cliché and attempting to segue circumstances into a rough fit. Still, each of us has his methods, I suppose.

This part :

MODI wrote:
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.

is, of course, woefully inaccurate. In the first instance, there is no such history, and in the second, the very rough rule of thumb applied by experts is : ' Boxer beats slugger beats swarmer beats boxer. ' If we think along the lines of Ali beats Foreman beats Frazier beats Ali we aren't far wrong, notwithstanding that Ali would eventually avenge his loss to Frazier.

Would be very interested to know when Dempsey made his second public affirmation of his intent to draw the colour line. I don't have the article among my archives. However, if these New York Times headlines are to be believed, then he most certainly didn't revoke his erasure any time during 1921 or 1922 which, according to the most helpful note which you provided in your earlier post, takes us nicely through the end of Wills' prime :

DUSKY BATTLERS TO MEET. Harry Wills and Kid Johnson to Engage in 15-Round Bout Tonight.

Harry Wills and Kid Johnson are scheduled to box in the fifteen-round feature event at the Brooklyn Arena tonight. Wills is clamoring for a chance to meet the winner of the Dempsey-Carpentier world's heavyweight championship bout....

May 27, 1921


Harry Frazee Makes Jack Dempsey Offer Of $350,000 for Title Bout With Wills

Before leaving for Hot Springs, Ark., yesterday Harry Frazee, the theatrical man and owner of the Boston American League baseball club, announced that he had made an offer to Jack Dempsey for a match between the champion and Harry Wills, the colored boxer...

March 5, 1922


FIGHT ARTICLES TO BE SIGNED TODAY; Rickard Announces That Dempsey and Wills Will Be Formally Matched...

Articles for a heavyweight championship bout between Jack Dempsey, the titleholder, and Harry Wills, his negro challenger, will be signed this afternoon, according to the plans of Promoter Tex Rickard, who has the verbal assurance of the principals involv...

June 27, 1922 - Article


DEMPSEY AND WILLS MAY CLASH JUNE 30; Rickard Says His Experience at Toledo in 1919 Precludes Independence Day...

The proposed world's heavyweight championship battle between Champion Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills, New Orleans negro challenger for the title, will be conducted on June 30 if Tex Rickard is the promoter of the important ring tilt....

November 14, 1922 - Article



Unlike you, I have never had a problem in discussing Dempsey, and I have never found that excitement necessarily blinds, though I am most certainly familiar with the propensity of prejudice to do the same thing.

Perhaps, as you say, it is more prudent to agree to disagree.

HW, I have never said that Wills was deprived of a certain win, but the opportunity. I believe it was a toss-up. I will repeat, ringside observers of that time would have certainly downgraded Jack Johnson without access to white fighters.

This flaw of needing white fighters to validate black fighters is crystal clear to me. It is a sports journalistic community phenomena that not only applies to boxing but assessment of talent of the Negro Leagues as well. Willie Mays is great because he validated it against white players and white writers. Oscar Charleston is barely known because he didn't. Without a fair understanding about the inherent bias that plagues "the informed opinion of the day", one is more likely to rest their faith in that opinion. However, I have less faith than you.

---------------

A waffling Dempsey draws color line again in 1921 (google Dempsey Draws Colorline, Unwilling to Meet Johnson for NYTmes paragraph). Like earlier I am reprinting from the Racine Journal News on the same day and Dempsey says:

"I will never fight a colored man", Dempsey said. "There is nothing to this talk about me fighting Jack Johnson. I am confident the public don't want this fight, and while I will govern myself to a large extent according the the public wishes, I can't see my way clear to fight Johnson or any other colored man."

MODI wrote:

A waffling Dempsey draws color line again in 1921 (google Dempsey Draws Colorline, Unwilling to Meet Johnson for NYTmes paragraph). Like earlier I am reprinting from the Racine Journal News on the same day and Dempsey says:

"I will never fight a colored man", Dempsey said. "There is nothing to this talk about me fighting Jack Johnson. I am confident the public don't want this fight, and while I will govern myself to a large extent according the the public wishes, I can't see my way clear to fight Johnson or any other colored man."

You do have a penchant for presenting half a story.

The application of common sense means that we must test comments according to context and that we must, as with politics, understand that subtle shifts in position which are expedient in the moment do not necessarily represent a radical change in policy.

Johnson was released in the same week that Dempsey fought Carpentier, halfway through 1921. Thus far, Dempsey's erasure of the colour line from one year prior was still in force. Dempsey was not popular at this time, and Rickard had generated the first million dollar gate on the back of Carpentier's having been a war hero and Dempsey's having been a draft dodger.

Enter Jack Johnson.

In its paranoia and bigotry, white America blamed Johnson for all the ills which had emanated from his championship reign and when his dark shadow loomed, however briefly, over their nice, safe white man's paradise once again, the unpopular Dempsey had no choice but to passionately dissociate himself from the perceived menace. His temporary rebuttal of Johnson and ' any other negro ' bears no more significance to the open minded person than does a confession secured under coercion. The categorical proof of this is that newspapers of the day continued, within a very short time, to be choc full of articles concerning a proposed Dempsey v Wills fight.

It belies all sense to insist that Dempsey's knee jerk reaction to Johnson carried implications for Wills when there is overwhelming evidence that the fight was still very much on the table. He renounced the colour line in July, 1920, prior to making the first defence of his title, and newspaper articles, just a few of which I've listed, prove overwhelmingly that this remained his position from thereon, Jack Johnson notwithstanding. Indeed, in drawing the colour line against Johnson, Dempsey paid warm tribute to Wills, saying " I am free to say that I think Harry Wills is a great fighter who will whip the best of them." Furthermore, in the ' Ogden Standard Examiner ' ( Oklahoma, ) dated 13th. February, 1922, Dempsey said, unambiguosly, that he had not drawn the colour line against Wills and would face him if the public wanted the match.

As a point of interest, Wills v Johnson was also on the table, for Philadelphia, but the Director of Public Safety, ( a man named Cortelyou, ) refused to allow Johnson to fight " as long as he holds office."

As regards this point :

MODI wrote:HW, I have never said that Wills was deprived of a certain win, but the opportunity. I believe it was a toss-up. I will repeat, ringside observers of that time would have certainly downgraded Jack Johnson without access to white fighters.

The contrivances employed to deny Johnson a shot at the title until three years after he first merited it prove otherwise.

Additionally, Sam Langford has never suffered in terms of his overall standing in history on account of his not having been permitted to fight for the title. I will repeat, Fleischer makes him seventh best heavy of all time, ( Johnson top, Dempsey fourth, ) and Rose makes him best heavy of all time ( Johnson second, Dempsey third. )

As if this point would require further amplification, Ezzard Charles is routinely named as the greatest lightheavyweight of all time. Circumstances of the day contrived against him to the extent that he never contested the title. Neither did Charley Burley ever contest an official world title, and no fight insider doubts his credentials, either. As Perfessor Albertus has pointed out, fight insiders are not slow to pay Wills his dues, and we can assume that if those who saw him in the flesh do not count him among the crème de la crème it is because they feel that, great fighter though he was, he is a notch down from the true elite.

No fair minded man would say other than that Harry Wills was poorly treated and denied opportunity. Equally, no fair minded man would lay the blame for it at the feet of Jack Dempsey, and tarnish the reputation of a great fighter in the process.

"His temporary rebuttal of Johnson and ' any other negro ' bears no more significance to the open minded person than does a confession secured under coercion"

I guess this is the essence of our unresolvable disagreement. Where you see the figurative gun put to Dempsey's head, I see the free will of a free man who had the freedom to decide which words would and would not come out of his own mouth. In the most generous possible interpretation, "context" could have stopped the fight from materializing, but not his tongue.

Confessions undercoersion are backed with the threat of even more jail time or worse. Dempsey faced none of this, and if Ali could face jail time and remain vocally true to his convictions which could destroy his career, then Dempsey could face potential calls of cowardice by not making public statements on the colorline. No fair-minded person would give Dempsey all the blame. And no fairminded person would render Dempsey free of it.

About Fleischer, I have a tremendous respect for the man. He rightly pushed for Dempsey-Wills more than any white journalist and I believe was the first journalist to provide some scholarship on black fighters through his "Black Dynamite" book series. And yes, I know the man is journalistic royalty who has produced prolific volumes of work. So it is with the utmost respect and humility that I say that Fleischer too was not infallible and naturally prone to biases whether those biases were influenced by a combination of time (most certainly), boxing styles, personal friendships, race, or other.

Despite having ringside seats for Ali's greatest years in the 1960's, Ali still did not make his Fleischer's top 10 before his death, yet Max Schmeling did. With the exception of #1 rated Jack Johnson -- also a personal friend of Fleischer -- I believe that he too underrated African-American fighters as a group. Now you can't possibly have Jack at #1 and justifiably not have Langford in the top 10. So a #7 ranking for Langford is not all that impressive. The only other black fighter in the top 10 is Joe Louis -- at a distant #6.

Out of all the fighters without access to white championships, only Langford tends to gets top 10 respect. To some degree, he rides a wave off the access that Jack Johnson received as it is logically impossible to honor Jack, but not Sam. Had Tommy Burns never given JJ a chance, I would suspect that both Johnson and Langford would both fall out of historians top 10 and all fall back alongside the Peter Jacksons, Joe Jeannettes, Sam McVey's, and Harry Wills.

To be clear, the only thing that I am accusing Fleischer of is being a human being with a set of biases like other human beings. That other journalists/opinions of the day tend to fall into "group think" with Fleisher playing a prominent lead role, I am not surprised at Wills lower standing at all. That I have often read assessments of Wills with too much emphasis on his more widely-viewed aging years versus his earlier prime years (1915-1922) makes for another potential bias in this recipe.

For all the reasons that I have stated in the last few posts, I am quite skeptical about just how informed the informed opinion of the day was.

MODI wrote:About Fleischer, I have a tremendous respect for the man. He rightly pushed for Dempsey-Wills more than any white journalist and I believe was the first journalist to provide some scholarship on black fighters through his "Black Dynamite" book series. And yes, I know the man is journalistic royalty who has produced prolific volumes of work. So it is with the utmost respect and humility that I say that Fleischer too was not infallible and naturally prone to biases whether those biases were influenced by a combination of time (most certainly), boxing styles, personal friendships, race, or other.

Despite having ringside seats for Ali's greatest years in the 1960's, Ali still did not make his Fleischer's top 10 before his death, yet Max Schmeling did. With the exception of #1 rated Jack Johnson -- also a personal friend of Fleischer -- I believe that he too underrated African-American fighters as a group. Now you can't possibly have Jack at #1 and justifiably not have Langford in the top 10. So a #7 ranking for Langford is not all that impressive. The only other black fighter in the top 10 is Joe Louis -- at a distant #6.

Out of all the fighters without access to white championships, only Langford tends to gets top 10 respect. To some degree, he rides a wave off the access that Jack Johnson received as it is logically impossible to honor Jack, but not Sam. Had Tommy Burns never given JJ a chance, I would suspect that both Johnson and Langford would both fall out of historians top 10 and all fall back alongside the Peter Jacksons, Joe Jeannettes, Sam McVey's, and Harry Wills.

To be clear, the only thing that I am accusing Fleischer of is being a human being with a set of biases like other human beings. That other journalists/opinions of the day tend to fall into "group think" with Fleisher playing a prominent lead role, I am not surprised at Wills lower standing at all. That I have often read assessments of Wills with too much emphasis on his more widely-viewed aging years versus his earlier prime years (1915-1922) makes for another potential bias in this recipe.

For all the reasons that I have stated in the last few posts, I am quite skeptical about just how informed the informed opinion of the day was.

1. Fleischer was by no means alone in believing that Ali had not proven himself worthy of a top ten place by the end of his first reign. Many regarded Ali as a flawed diamond, and had been unconvinced by his wins over an injured Patterson, a woefully inadequate Cooper, London and Mildenberger, and a shot - to pieces Williams. Excellent wins over Chuvalo, Terrell and Folley, coupled to the great performance against Liston in the first fight were not deemed by all to have been sufficiently high currency.

2. Fleischer could hardly have named other black fighters among his top ten. By 1958, when he initially published his ratings, the heavyweight division had only seen Johnson, Louis, Charles, Walcott and Patterson from the African American community ascend the throne. Nobody would reckon Charles, Walcott or Patterson to have been worthy of displacing those among Fleischer's top ten. Even by the end of the sixties, we had only seen Liston ( who had disgraced himself, ) Ali, ( already covered, ) and Frazier, ( a brand new champion who, to this day, remains a fringe top ten candidate, ) to augment the numbers.

3. To charge Fleischer with having under rated fighters of African origin says a great deal more about your knowledge of boxing than his. Barbados Joe Walcott was his pick as top welterweight ; Joe Gans his top lightweight ( at the expense of the immortal Benny Leonard who, like Fleischer, was Jewish, ) and George Dixon his top bantam. In addition, let me say - again - that this same Fleischer risked bankruptcy for his fledgling ' Ring ' magazine ( first published in 1922, ) by pleading Wills' case in the face of an unwilling and hostile white America. Your charges reveal a shocking lack of understanding of Fleischer and of boxing.

4. Fleischer and Rose did not exist in a vacuum. Anybody who is interested in boxing from the period will have read and cross referred countless sources in order to arrive at some kind of intelligent view regarding Wills' worth in relation to Langford, Johnson, Dempsey et al. The very fact that you insist in trying to belittle every opinion of the day in order to make your tenuous argument ' fit ' once again only serves to highlight that you know little of boxing during the period and, to be frank, some of your comments ( exciting fighter always favoured over boxer, etc., ) are so utterly wrong as to render your opinions about boxing redundant in comparison to the ringside views offered by Wills' contemporaries.

For somebody who suggested we agree to disagree a little while ago you seem Hell bent on wringing the last drop of blood out of this particular stone. Regrettably, noble though your intentions might be, your argument has become tenuous to the point of absurdity, and a classic case of somebody desperately trying to force the facts to fit a theory as opposed to modifying his theory according to evidence presented. All you are left with are shoddy remnants of a tired and clichéd argument and your last stand is to tear down irrevocable fact in blind denial. Denial, in fact, to the point whereby you make sweeping and wildly inaccurate statements claiming that Wills is downgraded on the back of his having been denied opportunity, while completely ignoring the stone cold evidence that Langford, Charles and to a slightly lesser extent men such as Jeannette, McVea, Burley, etc., are absolutely revered by boxing historians and hard core fans.

Boxing sages better informed than you or I long ago acknowledged that Wills was poorly treated by white America, and long ago took all available evidence and exonerated Jack Dempsey from blame. Even Wills' mini bio at the International Boxing Hall Of Fame points the accusing finger at the New York Governor of the day while acknowledging Dempsey's willingness to meet Wills.

TIMELINE

Nov 1918 - Kearns refuses to allow Dempsey to fight Jeannette, citing the colour line.

July 1919 - Dempsey wins title and is attributed with having drawn the colour line.

July 1920 - Dempsey, still to defend his title for the first time, erases the colour line and says that Kearns had advised him that inter racial matches were bad for boxing. He announces himself ready to fight any man.

July 1921 - Jack Johnson, released from prison, stirs up a hornet's nest by challenging Dempsey. Dempsey responds by emphatically refusing to fight Johnson, but says "There is nothing to this talk about me fighting Jack Johnson. I am confident the public don't want this fight, and while I will govern myself to a large extent according the the public wishes, I can't see my way clear to fight Johnson or any other colored man." Dempsey takes this opportunity to pay Wills a glowing and public testimonial.

Feb 1922 - Dempsey publicly declares that there is no drawing of the colour line as far as Wills is concerned and that he wishes to fight him.

Feb 1922 onward - Newspapers continue to buzz with Dempsey v Wills and Dempsey never again draws the colour line. Meanwhile, State Athletic Commission Presidents, State Governors, owners of the New York Polo Grounds, etc., etc., do everything within their powers to frustrate attempts to make the fight happen.

These are the facts of the situation, and have been for the best part of ninety years. You have produced absolutely nothing new and have shed no new light on a tired old conspiracy theory which has long been put to bed by those who were aware of the facts. When ninety nine men march ' left, right ' and one finds himself marching ' right, left, ' it is, perhaps, time to consider that he might just be wrong.

What is so difficult with getting a view on the Dempsey Wills issue and how experts viewed it at the time is that most of the biographies of Dempsey such as the Kahn one are so in love with their subject matter they are probably not the best place to look to for an honest appraisal but from what I have read and can ascertain on the subject most are in agreement that whilst Wills undoubtedly deserved his shot few if any viewed him as being likely to turn Jack over, with Ray Arcel even going as far as to say Wills was a good journeyman, which seems harsh but does not suggest he would have turned Jack over.

In the absence of exhaustive footage of him in action to make our own judgement on think we perhaps have to give credence to those that either did have the priviledge of seeing him in the flesh or who have done far more research than us and when to a man they tend to have Wills between 15-20 all time one has to suspect this is a reasonable assessment of his abilities, particularly as many of those making those ratings such as the IBRO have many guys who were similarly denied shots such as Langford and Burley in far higher positions.

Sir,

1. I think that you actually made my central point for me and will elaborate in comment to Rowley.

2. I agree with your statement about the fighters you mentioned.

3. I will retract the statement about Fleischer for three reasons: 1) I could be wrong; 2) The bias "charge" is perceived by you in a far more negative light than my intention when talking about human subtleties of bias -- traits in which no person is immuned - racial or otherwise; and 3) At the end of the day, the statement sidetracked my central argument which is that Fleischer is not infallible despite his honorable and distinguished service to the sport. Historians far more well-read than I would take exception to Joe Louis at #6.

4. Throughout this exchange I just don't understand why you write that I "smear", "tarnish", "belittle", and so on. I thought I more than adequately prefaced my remarks on Fleischer with a healthy dose of respect. I believe that I stated that Dempsey was a fabulous fighter. However, neither of these men are Jesus Christ. Neither is above criticism or dissent.

Having said all that, this time around you were belittling me. That's okay. I'm not a boxing historian as I stated, but I know enough to surmise that Fleisher's top 10 heavyweight list is flawed. I haven't studied every journalist opinion of the day, but have studied the phenomena of "groupthink", and how it can easily render group opinion wrong. I am also aware of the myriad of flaws existing within the sportswriting community in any era; that the greatest minds once thought the earth was flat; and that before DNA any self-respecting historian who had the audacity to claim that Thomas Jefferson had children with Sally Hemings would have been ridiculed out of the historian club. ...

I do have a tremendous respect for the work of historians, just not blind allegance.

To your point Rowley... HW says that Fleischer was not alone in not ranking Ali a top 10 fighter based on his 1960s performance. So let me ask, what if Ali was banned for life after his Vietnam stance? What if we never saw him after he lost his legs enough to show his chin, guile, and heart? Would Fleischer and other experts opinion be the final say on the matter? The answer is yes, and dissenters would be told to get in line with the rest of the sheep.

Does Ali's guts in the 70s CHANGE his brilliance displayed in the 1960s? No it didn't. It only updated a previously flawed assessment based on unknowns. Why couldn't ringside experts accurately see the value of his never-before-seen speed and body angles from a man that size?

Ali's post-1960's opinion might be the clearest argument for Wills. Wills had an absolute tremendous stretch from early 1916 to 1922 with around 60 fights without a loss (couple of fluke DQ's) while taking on all-comers including those Dempsey would not. I am not sure what more the man could have possibly done.

I don't believe Wills has a "reasonable" assessment, but an incomplete one. And if history is our guide, "incomplete" assessments of both Ali and Jack Johnson would have been clearly and unforgiveabley wrong without the "second half" of their careers. Don't these experts flaws of observation give you legitimate reason for pause?

Based on history, I believe that it is far more reasonable that Wills and Dempsey go down as an inseparable tandem to define that era. I'm not sure why anyone would have trouble with this conclusion.

Modi you do make a fair point and certainly one with some validity, however for me I do think with some, although not all of the black fighters who were denied their shots at white champions history has sometimes served to elevate their chances in the fights to some way what they would have been had the fights actually happened, am firmly of the opinion Johnson Jeffries is one such example of this, obviously pure speculation but do feel given how fights were scored at the time Jeffries would have found a way to win that one and from what I've read, which is plenty but by no means exhaustive there are plenty around at the time who felt the same.

Likewise I do feel Wills' chances against Dempsey have increased with the passage of time. Will however say this is a little more speculative in terms of predictions because of the lack of footage of Wills and the fact so many Dempsey biographies, particularly Kahn's embarrasing love fest, are so one sided but my gut tells me he would not have won, given this my gut instinct tells me Wills' failure to secure one fight he probably would not have won cannot and does not hurt his standing too greatly.

MODI wrote:

Having said all that, this time around you were belittling me. That's okay. I'm not a boxing historian as I stated, but I know enough to surmise that Fleisher's top 10 heavyweight list is flawed. I haven't studied every journalist opinion of the day, but have studied the phenomena of "groupthink", and how it can easily render group opinion wrong. I am also aware of the myriad of flaws existing within the sportswriting community in any era; that the greatest minds once thought the earth was flat; and that before DNA any self-respecting historian who had the audacity to claim that Thomas Jefferson had children with Sally Hemings would have been ridiculed out of the historian club. ...

I most certainly was not belittling you, and I unreservedly apologize if I gave that impression. Perhaps you, also, were not intending to demonstrate a superior tone when pointing out the period considered to have been Wills' peak. Text has no tone, and it is sometimes all too easy to misinterpret things. I passionately disagree with you over Dempsey, but I would not presume to belittle you. I do confess to having been a trifle irritated at what I perceive to be a systematic assassination of a great champion's reputation, but I certainly didn't intend to offend you and I am truly sorry that I appear to have done so.

I merely wished to highlight the inconsistency in your calling into question the collective opinions of those who saw Wills and Dempsey from ringside when your own judgement and understanding of boxing from the period has been demonstrably flawed ( again, no offence intended. ) Neither am I convinced that your ' flat Earth ' analogy is apt, under the circumstances. Our misconceptions that the world was flat required education and the shedding of new light in order that we might learn and move on. The central thrust of my criticisms of your position with regard to Dempsey is that you have not provided any new evidence to challenge the long established consensus view that Dempsey was all but innocent in the shoddy treatment which Wills suffered.

With regard to Fleischer and co. I most certainly do not subscribe to Fleischer's rankings, either. Nor do I blindly accept those of Rose. However, I do believe that these men knew far more than I, having seen so many legendary fighters first hand, and I am inclined to seek out other sources and cross refer them all when I find myself lacking understanding. This has been a lifelong passion and, to this day, I still delight in finding some new snippet of information about the old legends.

From the moment he beat Liston first time out, Muhammad Ali became my hero, and he remains so ( if grown men are permitted heroes, ) nearly fifty years on. To me, as a teenager, it was unthinkable that Fleischer should have omitted him when he revised his top ten in 1971, just as some find it unthinkable that Floyd Mayweather is not named among the all time top twenty, p4p, today. Finding Ali's exclusion to be unthinkable, it was left to me to decide, either that Fleischer was senile, or to find out what others thought. I took the latter course and discovered that Fleischer was not alone. It would take Ali's glorious second coming to cement his place in history and win over the doubters, who would then, almost unanimously, admit that his dazzling style and marvellous athleticism had not, after all, merely flattered to deceive, but that there was also within Ali a fighting heart, fighting brain, immense toughness ( physical and mental, ) and plenty more besides.

To return to the principle subject, I have very good reason to believe that Dempsey would have beaten Wills, even though I have only seen a tiny clip of Wills in action. My reasoning is partly derived from exhaustive research into the opinions of those who saw them from ringside, and it is partly born of an understanding of the technical aspects of the day. By 1915, boxers in the lower divisions were accustomed to throwing combinations and using the mobility which we see today. The heavyweights were not yet regularly throwing combinations of more than a couple of punches and, Corbett notwithstanding, had not demonstrated great movement. Dempsey's style was revolutionary. He was the first bona fide heavyweight to combine speed of hand and foot, bob and weave and punching in combinations. The surviving tiny clip of Wills in action, coupled to the photographs we have, show Wills to carry himself in the manner of the day ; right arm across his midriff, left hand low, a widish stance and slightly leaning backward. In my opinion, Dempsey's movement, angles, bob and weave, combinations and ferocious power would be too much for Wills' dated style.

The points to which I have alluded, above, would equally apply to the mature and very best version of Sam Langford, and are the reasons why many believe he might have had too much for Johnson had the two met a second time. ( Fleischer, incidentally, was one of those who opined that Johnson would have beaten Langford again, while Rose believed otherwise. ) The Langford who came off very much second best in his series against Wills was not the same Langford, by any means. One of the Langford v Jeannette fights survives in its entirety and in real time ( surprisingly good quality, too, ) and we see that Langford has, like Dempsey, taken heavyweight boxing into a different direction. There is appreciably less reliance on blocking and catching ( Johnson's forté, ) and more on movement and workrate. Fair to say that Dempsey's hands appear quicker than Langford's, and equally fair to say that Dempsey was appreciably the bigger man, notwithstanding that Langford was incredibly strong for so small a man. In short, I believe that Langford, a natural lightheavy, was in many ways a forerunner of the bona fide heavyweight Dempsey, perhaps not in style, per se, but certainly in terms of attributes and strategy.

Very few historians or contemporaries tipped Wills to beat Dempsey, and I don't know of a single one who has ever ranked Wills within spitting distance of Dempsey overall, though I have seen one or two rank Langford above him.

MODI wrote:
Does Ali's guts in the 70s CHANGE his brilliance displayed in the 1960s? No it didn't. It only updated a previously flawed assessment based on unknowns. Why couldn't ringside experts accurately see the value of his never-before-seen speed and body angles from a man that size?

~ Why sir, the question arises how it is that YOU cannot see that Ali was not always impressive in his fights, particularly when his bum was kissing the canvas as the fairie dust fairly exploded out of his blasted noggin.


Had the experts a dime for every upcoming heavyweight with never before see speed and talent, there would be no longer any need to be experts whilst lounging in rich tropical paradise retirement.

Rowley, if I get started on Kahn's treatment of Wills, I will have to start a whole new thread. Kahn has a great lifetime body of work, but is yet another classic example of the dangers of putting men on pedestals based on past reputations.

prof, I believe that Ali's speed and and angles were unprecedented for a man his size, and there are some serious testimonials from opponents. He made Liston and others seem like slow motion. If I'm not mistaken, some folks quantified his speed through frame by frame video study and were stunned at the results... If there are previous men his size with his speed and angles, I am not aware. Although somewhat different (and smaller), Tunney is one of Ali's closest stylistic precedent, and I don't see it.

HW, points well taken in first paragraph, and I too apologize if a superior tone was perceived. And I appreciate some of your reasoning in your last post.

While it seems that we will never agree on the question of Dempsey's complicity, I do strongly disagree with word "assasination" to portray my position. I'd also argue that even when excluding Kahn, Dempsey has gotten historical kid glove treatment. To my knowledge, many authors have either omitted or glossed over of his statement/actions drawing the colorline. And if there are REAL "assasination" attempts anywhere approaching the ballpark of Ali's "Ghosts of Manila" or "CounterPunch", I am not aware of them.

My position has less to do with Dempsey than exposing the historical AND CURRENT injustices that have been thrusted upon Harry Wills. It is logically impossible to shine light on Wills without discussing Dempsey's own words.

Even if you personally believe that Dempsey was Wills superior (which again, I do not), even the most ardent Dempsey fanatic would have to admit that this perceived talent gap is only a fraction in comparison to the gap in these two men's historical legacy. Outside of the bubble of boxing historians who usually just talk amongst themselves, Harry Wills is basically a complete unknown. Boxing historians, authors, sportswriters old and new, and message board enthusiasts all share responsibility in this injustice.

HW, a question: Is there any opinion that you hold within the entire realm of boxing that clearly breaks with the consensus of boxing historians? If so, what and why?

MODI wrote:Rowley, if I get started on Kahn's treatment of Wills, I will have to start a whole new thread. Kahn has a great lifetime body of work, but is yet another classic example of the dangers of putting men on pedestals based on past reputations.

Which goes to prove mate if you continue any debate long enough you will find common ground. Have to say Kahn's book is as biased a biography as I have ever read, his treatment of Tunney makes his treatment of Wills look even handed, the point when he basically accuses the ref in the second fight of being corrupt is just beyond the pail, feel free to mention the fix rumours as they were around so warrant examination and comment but to pass they off as fact is just not on.

MODI wrote:

HW, a question: Is there any opinion that you hold within the entire realm of boxing that clearly breaks with the consensus of boxing historians? If so, what and why?

Thanks for your reply, MODI, and also for your good grace.

The answer to your question, above, is ' yes.'

Almost every historian I can think of would rate Max Schmeling a better heavyweight than his principle rival, Jack Sharkey. Fleischer, as you have mentioned, even rated Schmeling above Marciano and Ali and regarded Schmeling as the most under rated heavyweight of all time. I see, in Schmeling, a tough man with fantastic conditioning and a very good right hand but not much else. In Sharkey I see a wonderfully talented - if infuriatingly inconsistent - and complete heavyweight fighter. Beautiful balance, good movement, every punch in the book, solid chin and decent enough power. With better focus and discipline he could have been a candidate for the best fifteen heavies of all time, in my opinion, but I am in a very small minority in holding that view.

I also fail to see that George Dixon, ( revered by so many historians, ) holds a candle in technique to many bantams and feathers who followed him. Dixon's upright, ' fencing ' style seems awfully dated when we watch any of the great little men from, say, the thirties onward.

Likewise James J Corbett. A pioneer, for sure, and a wonderfully clever boxer with excellent movement, but when we see the film of his sparring session with Tunney in the late twenties it seems abundantly clear ( to me, ) that his technique, revolutionary during his time, had become very dated as early as the arrival of Johnson, and certainly by the time Langford, and then Dempsey, came along.

There are several other examples I could cite, but these are the ones which readily spring to mind.

I would add that I always retain an open mind and am prepared to be persuaded otherwise by anybody who has conducted greater research or is better acquainted with the fighters concerned. I have found that my opinions have been, and continue to be, in a constant state of evolution. That is all part of the fun derived from being an amateur student of boxing history.

Thanks for the responses. It has been a pleasure engaging.

I very much enjoyed the exchanges, also, and learned a few things along the way.

Thanks for the fun.

Does that mean Dempsey week has officially ended. In that case who thinks Jeffries is a bum for not fighting Johnson?

Also, about that John Lester Johnson fight: While speculative, if anything the fight is more of an event against Dempsey than for him. It was in NY and it was setup by John Reisler, a slimy manager. Dempsey did not want the fight Johnson as he did not feel he was ready. But he had just turned down Langford (understandably so - no blame here), and couldn't refuse a second time without repercussions. Dempsey got three ribs broken in this fight and was battered badly, but still fought courageously. It was ruled a draw but most ringside obsevers thought Johnson won the decision. For his courage Dempsey received a $35 take by Reisler before slumming it back to Colorado. It also marked his transition to Doc Kearns.

To my knowledge Johnson would also be the last black fighter that Dempsey would ever face. The context of Dempsey's awful experience with Reisler is often brought up as a pivotal segue to Kearns, but his experience with John Lester Johnson is never brought up as having any lasting psychological effect -- not even in speculative terms. Now I don't know if it did, but that the question is barely raised through reams of literature is telling. The problem with Dempsey and the word "context" is that the word is almost exclusively used to support the man, and almost never to cast doubt. It's a recurring theme.

Modi would guess for most people the frustration with this thread and waingro is that in your case it is clear you have a knolwedge of the era, the circumstances around at the time and have weighed them against counter arguments to arrive at your position that Dempsey deserves to shoulder some blame for not facing black fighters, which is how a position or stance should be arrived at and whilst the likes of Windy or myself may not agree with it we certainly respect it and your ability to argue it.

We see nothin similar with Waingro just as the lion says a willingness to repeat over and and over again the same mantra that he didn't fight black fighters, with no willingness to engage in addressing specific points raised or back his position up with why he lays the blame for this at Dempsey's door, which is the polar opposite of your stance. I could, as I said earlier say the world is made of chees and if when countered on this with evidence to the contrary, if all I repeated was the world is made of cheese this would not be a particularly intelligent way of arguing my position and would suggest a lack of actual evidence or background knowledge that had allowed me to arrive at such a stance

My position on Dempsey is that I rate him very highly in historical terms and feel that even without Wills on his record his talent, title reign, win column and so on more than entitles him to a lofty position in my own standings and should at a bare minimum give him a strong argument to a lofty position in the rankings of others, even those who do rate him on a personal level I think should acknowledge his claim as being strong.

However theres no doubt that wills remains a blemish on his record whether he is completely guilty or completely innocent of all charges. The fact remains he never fought or beat him and as such will always have that issue to contend with. How much personal blame that is to be apportioned is incredible difficult to determine but I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt based on what I know about him as a man and a fighter. In the simplest terms I dont think it was in his nature to refuse legitimate challenges and that is consistent with him all the way back to his days as a bar fighter where he would routinely take on anyone that was willing for a paycheck. However Dempsey was not a politician or particularly well educated in matters of finance or management. Its reasonably clear he left alot in the hands of his manager and promoter (to his own detriment with Kearns in some cases) and was willing to follow their advice and instruction in recognition that they were better placed than him to make such calls. Sometimes I think we expect too much from our sports figures, especially in climates of political, social or cultural change. a classic example being a young Clay who I believe was misguided and manipulated into become a figurehead that was largely beyond his understanding and what ultimately impacted his career negatively. It would be nice if Dempsey as a white man were to have championed the cause of the black fighter back then but its still unknown what kind of reaction it would have received and how it would have impacted on his career. The only scenario that I would be willing to mark Dempsey down significantly before would be if it could be proved that he shamelessly exploited the colour line and privately used it as a means to avoid Wills while publicly declaring the opposite. However I believe theres than enough evidence to indicate that Dempsey was nothing like that callous.

The other point is to do with Harry Wills and on this I am very much in agreement with MODI. Wills was the real loser in almost every sense here. We know now that Dempseys place in boxing history has not suffered significantly due to the Wills issue. He is still revered and rated very highly. If anything the bulk of his naysayers now seem to rely on twisted logic that he was a crude face first brawler with no skill to denounce him rather than anything Wills could muster. But Wills I believe suffers beyond even what the denial of this opportunity should result. It was doing my top 15 heavyweight list that I pondered placing Wills higher than his eventual 15 and was forced to recognise that history has been most unkind to him in terms of what I think his record and achievements deserve. Yes in educated boxing circles he is recognised but seldom appreciated and is almost unknown to the general boxing public. Does he deserve to be demoted to such footnote standard?

Certainly not in my view. The 7 year run he put together up until his loss to Sharkey is most impressive and he was certainly more deserving of a title shot against the ageing Willard than Dempsey was. From reading through this thread I also think on some level there is a small consensus forming that Wills was not actually that big a threat in reality and that Dempsey would almost surely have won anyhow. On this I would have to largely disagree. Firstly I think that anyone who has a vested interest in boxing history will know that history is not objective and nor is it even handed. Dempsey by the end of his career had been an extraordinarily popular champion and theres no doubt in my mind that history wanted to remember him well in the best possible light. To this extent I think it has become a little more common to downplay the threat level of Wills and to try and forget about Wills own results and achievements at the time. Nobody wants to believe Wills might have won and the great Dempsey might have been upstaged.

Without detailed footage of Wills its difficult to develop a complete appreciation of his chances however his record alone including multiple wins over Langford, McVea and Jeannette would indicate very strong contership, even if the counter argument could be the aforementioned negroe champions had seen better days. I must admit that I am reluctant to take on things like contemporary opinion of the day as the foundation of an argument against Wills. It can be used by all means to support an argument or strengthen it, but I think its far too flimsy a source of evidence to base almost an entire argument around. The problem is that quotes from respected figures of the day carry far more weight than should be expected and without knowing the exact and specific context and timing of the quote the strength of it is severely diminished anyhow. In many cases the logic of the quote can be refuted also. Langford has been widely though to have backed Dempsey in a potential showdown but it would seem strange to me that as a man who would have given anything himself for a title shot and would have faced Dempsey in the belief that he would beat him could come to this conclusion having been so routinely beaten by Wills over a long period of time. I think we need a more exact context and reasoning. Was the question put to Langford a leading question?, was it taken out of context?, did Langford feel he could answer it honestly?, was it made after a particularly poor performance from Wills or a strong one from Dempsey? etc etc

Take for example the recent heavyweight bout between Klitschko and Haye. Klitschko was the favourite for the fight in the bookies but "expert" opinion was split on the outcome. Freddy Roach for example is arguably the most respected trainer currently active today and he tipped Haye to win decisively. Now consider they had never fought and we had little footage of Haye to go off, Roachs opinion in 50 years or so would carry enormous weight. He even worked brielfy with Klitschko. The weight of Roachs opinion would stretch far beyond the reality in my view and anyone discussing the potential outcome could be banished behind Roachs statements. Likewise consider Jeffries and Johnson had never gone through with their bout. Whisperings that the likes of Corbett and Sullivan privately were doubtful of
Jeffries chances only merged historically after the fact and the result was in the books. On further research it has come out that the whispering in boxing circles at the time was not that Jeffries was the big favourite that the public at large believed. However had the bout never happened does anyone really believe that Corbett or Sullivan would ever have gone on record doubting Jeffries chances? I very much doubt it and if anything believe the mantra would be what they gave the public namely that Jeffries would be far too much for the negro.

I think that Wills is the decent favourite for any pre title version of Dempsey. He had by far the better results and performances. Obviously the post 1924/5 version of Wills that was demolished by Sharkey would have been no match for Dempsey. But between 1921-24 I think its very close and difficult to really say with much conviction in the circumstances. The majority of people and history itself I believe wanted Dempsey to win so accordingly his chances have grown comparitive to what they perhaps should be on paper. My personal opinion is that Dempsey was a fighter that improved enormously over short spaces of time. Within two years of struggling with guys like Willie Meehan and Al Norton he was the heavyweight champion of the world and he continued to improve with every fight right up until his lay off. So I think Dempsey would have won had they met when Dempsey was an establish champion but I certainly believe Wills was capable of winning.

"The problem is that quotes from respected figures of the day carry far more weight than should be expected and without knowing the exact and specific context and timing of the quote the strength of it is severely diminished anyhow."

As you might have guessed CL, I share many of the views in your post (nice point on Roach), and this statement above hits the root of the issue for me. We are attempting in good faith to discern information based on a poisoned well. This is especially true when you consider just how much a cash cow Dempsey was. Just like today, his celebrity left him an incredible amount of protection from sportswriters as we have seen more recently by the likes of Lance Armstrong (the past 10 years), Mark McGwire in the 90's, and Michael Jordan. When an athlete becomes an industry where everyone eats off them, truth becomes fuzzy.

And as biased as sports media can be now, it was worse back then. No one knows just how many sports writers Tex Rickard had on the payroll. Who knows how many fighters were pressured or paid off to make statements. This was supposedly the "Golden Age of Sports Writing" where writers like Grantland Rice and others deliberately create myths of sports heroes that would sell more papers. The entire mainstream media industry was paid off either literally or indirectly through Dempsey's legend/popularity. I imagine the brave souls who played it straight were in the minority. And all that is before we even dig in to the inseperable racial dynamics of this time.

As for quotes by black fighters like Langford and others, it is hard to trust their validity. Most black fighters were well-trained both in and out of the ring to "carry" white fighters if they had any hopes of sticking around. The popular "scientific" defensive style employed by Gans, JJ, and other black fighters is a cultural extension of that and black life in general. In the ring Langford was punished by his race and style. He wasn't just avoided by JJ, but most white contenders. White fighters just couldn't have a black fighters knocking you out cold and get some more good fights. With that in mind, it would be very prudent for Langford to side with white fighters with his words outside the ring as he did both Jeffries and Dempsey.

Balt, thanks. While I agree that the condescension is not worth additional attention, the truth is. That black fighters often carried white fighters in various forms is well-known. I did not make this up. Historians and authors haven't done a fantastic job of delving into "context" surrounding black fighters as they have white fighters. However, some notable exceptions include Randy Roberts, Gerald Early, Kevin Smith, Clay Moyle... From Moyle's biography on Langford (page 129):

"Sam expressed confidence in a Jeffries victory. He said that Johnson lacked gameness and that if Jeff was fit and could hit like he used to the champion would quit under fire. Sam also indicated that he would not challenge Jeffries if he won, because he felt he would have no chance to defeat the former champion . This statement is the only evidence that the author found of Sam expressing reluctance to face another fighter. It raises the question: did Sam really believe he was no match for Jeffries, or was he just stating that in an effort to appease white Americans who were eager for their champion to reclaim the title? Sam added that if Johnson were to succeed, he would continue to hound him for a match."

To simply take Langford's prediction and amazing follow-up statement at face value without further consideration is not the stance of a genuine truth-seeker. We would have to suspect that Langford -- with dynamite in his hands -- didn't believe he even had a puncher's chance against Jeffries, but also that he couldn't use the payday either. And then there is this next paragraph:

"Joe Woodman made it known that he had recently visited Jim Jeffries' camp and offered Sam's services as a sparring partner. Sam was offering to help Jeffries, the former champion, prepare for his upcoming fight with Johnson. Jeffries accepted the offer."

Amongst other potential influences, one suspects that Langford's job application as Jeffries sparring partner might have been rejected had Sam publically predicted a Johnson victory. But to suspect that Langford's "honest nature" might possibly be compromised would be a completely reckless assertion on my part I suppose...

That's not actually true though is it MODI, Langfords avoidance of Jeffries is well known and not during the timeframe of that quote but rather when Jeffries was at his absolute best, Langford simply wanted no part of him and it's fairly stupid to speculate on things just using guesswork.

It's a fair assumption that black fighters of the era might not all have been so stubborn as Johnson. Having principles is all good and well, and sure, it gives the historians reason to look kindly on you, but at the end of the day someone in Langford's situation still had to think about being able to make money, and unlike Johnson he didn't have the luxury of being the champ. I think it's a very reasonable assertion to suggest that any boxer who shared Langford's predicament would approach it in a business-like manner.

"That's not actually true though is it MODI, Langfords avoidance of Jeffries is well known and not during the timeframe of that quote but rather when Jeffries was at his absolute best, Langford simply wanted no part of him and it's fairly stupid to speculate on things just using guesswork."

This is news to me, i.e., that Langford's avoidance of Jeffries when James J. was at his absolute best is well-known. When would you say that Jeffries was at his absolute best? He retired as undefeated heavyweight champion in 1906, a time when Langford was still only a middleweight and the year that Sam fought a heavyweight (Joe Jeannette) for the first time in his career. There would have been no consideration whatsoever at that point in time of Langford fighting Jeffries.

It occured to me last night that I said that Langford fought Jeannette for the first time in 1906. It was actually Dec. 25, 1905.