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.”

rowley wrote:Another book for the list Windy, with the latest from Adam Pollack just round the corner can only be a matter of time before the missus deletes my account on here, either that or sees sense and leaves me.

We fellas do tread a minefield or two with our toys don't we, mate ?

I've already begun the first few tentative steps. Plenty of compliments, reminding her that I consider myself to be a very lucky man, etc.

I have had to admit defeat and roll them over to an ever extending Christmas list, although it would have to be said if that list gets any longer I fully expect to be invited on Amazon's Christmas do because I will be paying for it.

"Any idea when the Miske book will hit the shelves ? "

It depends. I have had a really tough time finding a publisher for it. I'm taking one last shot at landing a publisher or agent for it. One of each is presently looking over the book proposal and some sample chapters. If neither expresses any interest I'll just self-publish it and there's a good chance it could be out before year-end.

Best of luck with it, either way.

Here's hoping it finds a publisher because when I see the words self published I tend to hear expensive, will buy it irrepsective because I enjoyed the Langford book enormously and Miske is a fascinating character but trying to learn about the old timers is not the cheapest of pass times.

My book about Sam Langford was $29.95 and it was 429-pages long (approximately 113,000 words) and I'm hoping that the Miske book won't be cost any more than that one. I think that's realistic because the Miske book is more like 80,000 words long.

That seems reasonable enough - I bought a damned expensive Marciano book for my Grandad last Christmas, however he thoroughly enjoyed it, and I'm on the verge of reading it myself, so that is some return I guess.

I must admit I really know very little about Miske, and as such may definitely look into making a purchase.

Yeah that's a good price, considering how expensive some of the books are/become i thought the Langford book was great value.

No problem Clay, as I said I really enjoyed the Langford book so if the Miske book is in a similar ball park price wise I'll definitely be getting it. Fists what was the Marciano book, have only got the Skeehan one so was thinking could do with at least one more book on him.

I believe it was the Skeehan one, Jeff. May be wrong, but that's what I seem to recall.

Must be out of print Fists because I certainly don't recall paying through the nose for mine.

Yeah i bought that a few years ago when it first came out but i believe it's quite expensive now.

The Galveston Giant wrote:Yeah i bought that a few years ago when it first came out but i believe it's quite expensive now.

Get it sold GG, remember when the Harry Otty book on Charley Burley went out of print the version I had was going for £300+ it has now been re-printed so probably ain't going for that much now.

Me being at my best Rowley i still haven't read it yet, good to know though, i have a Gene Tunney one too from roughly the same time i haven't read, and see that's quite expensive too, it's crazy the price Burley went to, i felt very pleased getting mine for £12 or so.

uiop

The Galveston Giant wrote:Yeah that's a good price, considering how expensive some of the books are/become i thought the Langford book was great value.

Tend to agree GG, however thinking about it am fairly certain I will be sent a free copy, how else am I meant to review it for the book reviews section otherwise

That can be arranged Rowley

And likewise, how are we meant to critique your review, without receiving free copies ourselves?

cmoyle wrote:That can be arranged Rowley

Ha in that case I will write the review now, the book is fantastic

Still maintain, for pure comedy value, a Galento bio would go down a storm. Well, for me it would anyway. Not aware of one being on the market either.

coxy0001 wrote:Still maintain, for pure comedy value, a Galento bio would go down a storm. Well, for me it would anyway. Not aware of one being on the market either.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Galento-Great-Authentic-Authorized-Heavyweight/dp/1258019183/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313509332&sr=1-6

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Still maintain, for pure comedy value, a Galento bio would go down a storm. Well, for me it would anyway. Not aware of one being on the market either.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Galento-Great-Authentic-Authorized-Heavyweight/dp/1258019183/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313509332&sr=1-6

Always been under the impression that was written immediately after he retired, which i feel is never a good time to write a bio. Was thinking more of a modern much delayed bio

http://www.amazon.co.uk/TWO-TON-Fight-Night-Galento/dp/1586421387/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313509804&sr=1-1

Try that one for size Coxy

cmoyle wrote:
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.”

~ Mr. Moyle, sir, regardless of whether you are the wonderful boxing author Mr. Moyle or just another cyberchitterbot, I applaud the referral to White on Black by what is surely the greatest icon in all of sports when it is said and done, the "other" greatest Jack Dempsey.

Mr. Dempsey always gave the greatest credit to those fighters before and after his time and was so active in retirement that he was scarcely missed until his very brief doddering years. Another slam more damning to Mr. Dempsey came from an 1918 incident in NY where Mr. Joe Jeannette was a surprise ring replacement on a war funds exhibition bout Mr. Dempsey was due to fight in.

There was much brouhaha by Doc Kearns over the replacement, at which time Mr. Dempsey was withdrawn ingloriously to a chorus of boos as Mr. Jeannette stalked the ring to great effect. Mr. Jeannette was on his last legs, but a solid fighter to the end, so whilst he couldn't accomplish much in the 4 round distance, he was an experienced spoiler with a puncher's chance at very least.

Dadburned shame on history it didn't turn out better for both fighters, but they did middlin fair me thinks.

Which leads me to Mr. Wills who reportedly turned down a chance to fight Mr. Tunney in a eliminator Mr. Rickard was organizing to temp Mr. Dempsey away from Hollywood. Imagine the historical repercussions had Mssrs Dempsey, Tunney, and Wills engaged in a tasty round robin of fights back then?

To whom goes the long count?

Dadburned shame about all that, but still........

Yeah seen that one Rowley, just feel there's more to the oversized character than one fight he actually tried to fight properly in...! Past the quotes there's always his infamous fight with Nova etc

"Another slam more damning to Mr. Dempsey came from an 1918 incident in NY where Mr. Joe Jeannette was a surprise ring replacement on a war funds exhibition bout Mr. Dempsey was due to fight in.

There was much brouhaha by Doc Kearns over the replacement, at which time Mr. Dempsey was withdrawn ingloriously to a chorus of boos as Mr. Jeannette stalked the ring to great effect. Mr. Jeannette was on his last legs, but a solid fighter to the end, so whilst he couldn't accomplish much in the 4 round distance, he was an experienced spoiler with a puncher's chance at very least. "

That's true, I'm familiar with that story and have the newspaper article concerning it somewhere around here.

May be wrong but was Sugar Ray Robinson not involved in a similar incident when he turned up to an exhibition only to be greeted with an unexpected opponent in the corner, am sure I read it was Kid Cocoa or someone but may be wrong on this, from what I heard though Ray reacted exactly as Dempsey appears to have done and refused to go through with it.

"Realistically what would you have Dempsey do?"

I'd be far more comfortable if he said "as a fighter I am willing to fight and beat any fighter including Harry Wills to show all that I am the best in the world. If a fight could be made, I would welcome it, but I will leave that decision to the promoters and commissions." If not that, then next best would be if he didn't announce the drawing of the color line. Then the "powers that be" explanation would hold more weight or any assertion that he was an innocent bystander.

Let me add that I am not convinced as others that all "commissions" and "white America" would not allow a Dempsey-Wills fight. While partly true in some instances there is just as much a chance that this excuse was used as a smoke screen to protect Dempsey (most likely by Rickard). To my knowledge (which albeit is far less than some of the historians on this board), Nat Fleischer from Ring Magazine was touting a Dempsey-Wills match for years and I believe that he would disagree with the assertion that "white America" wouldn't allow it. Wills was also the out-of-ring polar opposite of Johnson.

Nor am I convinced that it wouldn't be a money-maker (unlike the terrible "risk-reward ratio" of Jack Johnson fighting a great black opponent as champion). This was also at a time where star white barnstorming baseball players -- including Babe Ruth -- supplemented their income facing Negro League players in the off-season much to the chagrin of Landis.

It probably doesn't sound like it, but it has been a pleasure enaging. I don't have these exchanges with anyone I know because nobody I know even knows Wills -- perhaps the biggest frustration...

MODI wrote:"Realistically what would you have Dempsey do?"

I'd be far more comfortable if he said "as a fighter I am willing to fight and beat any fighter including Harry Wills to show all that I am the best in the world. If a fight could be made, I would welcome it, but I will leave that decision to the promoters and commissions." If not that, then next best would be if he didn't announce the drawing of the color line. Then the "powers that be" explanation would hold more weight or any assertion that he was an innocent bystander.

Let me add that I am not convinced as others that all "commissions" and "white America" would not allow a Dempsey-Wills fight. While partly true in some instances there is just as much a chance that this excuse was used as a smoke screen to protect Dempsey (most likely by Rickard). To my knowledge (which albeit is far less than some of the historians on this board), Nat Fleischer from Ring Magazine was touting a Dempsey-Wills match for years and I believe that he would disagree with the assertion that "white America" wouldn't allow it. Wills was also the out-of-ring polar opposite of Johnson.

Nor am I convinced that it wouldn't be a money-maker (unlike the terrible "risk-reward ratio" of Jack Johnson fighting a great black opponent as champion). This was also at a time where star white barnstorming baseball players -- including Babe Ruth -- supplemented their income facing Negro League players in the off-season much to the chagrin of Landis.

It probably doesn't sound like it, but it has been a pleasure enaging. I don't have these exchanges with anyone I know because nobody I know even knows Wills -- perhaps the biggest frustration...

Theres a couple of issues with coming out and saying this though which need to be examined. If Dempsey knew the fight was not going to happen then coming out and claiming he would love to fight Wills would ring quite hollow and only succeed in making him look hypocritical by telling the world he wanted to face a fighter that he wasnt going to fight. If anything I think that makes him look weaker. You also have to consider that his promoters, managers and even the commissions themselves would hardly welcome this move when they themselves were not inclined to make the fight happen.

However much certain sections and even Dempsey himself might have wanted the fight, I still generall believe the fight was put beyond his reach and Dempsey suggesting any of the contrary would simply make him look like a hypocrite. The commissions softened up later when Wills became older and Dempsey began to look invincible and were more willing to entertain it then (which much greater confidence in a Dempsey win), but in the early 1920s I think the fight was basially not going to happen at the behest of a number of major parties which there was little Dempsey could do about it.

Again its entirely debateable how much one believes Dempsey genuinely wanted the fight and how much one believes he was happy to leave Wills behind. Im happy to give Dempsey the benefit of the doubt all things considered and just dont believe there was a great deal he could do when so many major powers in the sport were unwilling to make the fight possible. Trying to take on commissions and powerful promoters would be akin to career suicide in many ways and for the most part Dempseys hand was forced whether he liked it or not.

I consider the Wills scenario to be a certain blemish on Dempseys legacy, as I think a match between the two in the early 1920s when both were around their peak would be tough to call. But I am relectant I must say to place too much individual blame on Dempsey himself in what was a highly political and social event that I think was largely beyond his control.

Would just like to show my appreciation for the fine discussion on this thread. Despite not having anything to add (due to my lack on knowledge), I have found it extremely enjoyable to read and feel I have learned a great deal on the matter.

Thanks.

trottb wrote:Would just like to show my appreciation for the fine discussion on this thread. Despite not having anything to add (due to my lack on knowledge), I have found it extremely enjoyable to read and feel I have learned a great deal on the matter.

Thanks.

Very pleased that you've enjoyed it, trott. I have thoroughly enjoyed it, also.

If you are interested in Dempsey and his times, perhaps I could point you to a couple of links which you might enjoy :

http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/casey/MC_Dempsey.htm

http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/casey/MC_DempseyFeature.htm

http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/Article-JackDempsey.htm

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/jdempsey.html

You'll also find quite a lot of footage featuring the man in action at the ' broadcast yourself ' sites, such as youtube.

Hope this will be of interest to you, and that you will enjoy it.

To add to Windy's comments if anyone has a real desire to learn about Dempsey some books worth reading are Tunney - Jack Kavanaugh and The Manassa Mauler by Randy Roberts. Although primarily a Tunney biography the Kavanaugh book covers Dempsey in almost as much detail so is worth a read, also the Roberts book is pretty good, have read a few Dempsey books and some such as Kahn are a little airbrushed and in love with their subject, Roberts is a little more even handed.

Thanks Windy, I have been looking at a lot of videos of fighters old and new based on the (seeminlgy endless) knowledge of the people on here. Unfortunately the internet speed in my current location makes it extremely difficult to get everything.

Rowley, I do regularly follow your book reviews and I'm trying to amass a collection largely based on them. I am currently reading hands of stone by Christian Giudice and will post a review when finished.

Cracking book that is, Trottb, you will certainly enjoy it.

trottb wrote:

Rowley, I do regularly follow your book reviews.

So you're the one, good to know, have read Hands of Stone, hope you are enjoying it is a pretty decent read.

rowley wrote:

trottb wrote:

Rowley, I do regularly follow your book reviews.

So you're the one, good to know, have read Hands of Stone, hope you are enjoying it is a pretty decent read.

Always good to know your secret stalker eh.

trott, you're very welcome, mate.

I wouldn't dream of bringing v2 into disrepute by suggesting dubious practices, but it might be worth your while to check the legality of some kind of ' capturing ' software to enable you to properly enjoy the youtube footage.

Cheers Windy, .

The links for the articles on Dempsey are cracking. The plight of the man just to get in the ring to start with would have been enough to kill almost anyone. Also interesting to see how highly the likes of Ray Arcel him. A Dempsey book is definately next on the agenda.

Glad you enjoyed them, trott, and you are very welcome.

Some good insights.....however one does think had he pressured his illustrious Promoter more he'd have had to cave in to a fight with the great black fighter...

One must remember Dempsey was in the good position in 1963 of avoiding rebuttal from the redoubtable Rickard....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Some good insights.....however one does think had he pressured his illustrious Promoter more he'd have had to cave in to a fight with the great black fighter...

One must remember Dempsey was in the good position in 1963 of avoiding rebuttal from the redoubtable Rickard....

True and an excellent point.

However - Dempsey's story does fit with the context of the times. Personally don't buy the conspiracy theory.

Dempsey also taking deliberate advantage of the context of the times fits in well with the context of the times.

And yes, the Jeannette incident seems to be the most damning of all. None of Dempsey's biographers seem to mention it.

"And yes, the Jeannette incident seems to be the most damning of all. None of Dempsey's biographers seem to mention it."

I'm not really all that surprised that it wasn't mentioned in any of the Dempsey biographies. My first draft of the Langford book was 160,000 + words. I had to cut that down to 113,000 + words to get the book down to 429-pages and as a result had to make a lot of hard decisions about what to cut. There's an awful lot of ground to cover in a biography about Dempsey and in the grand scheme of things I could see where a biographer might not view that cancelled exhibition as partcularly noteworthy. I don't believe the incident garnered much press at the time.

Jeannette was pretty darn long in the tooth at the time but I guess I could see why Kearns would have been adamant about not letting Dempsey go forward with the exhibition against a surprise opponent. Do you have the article concerning the incident handy? I faintly remember reading that Dempsey wanted to go forward anyway, but Kearns insisted he not. Now, one could certainly argue that Dempsey should have been able to call the shots and insisted upon going forward against Kearns wishes but it seems pretty clear that he rarely went against Kearns during that period of time.

Too bad though, it would have been interesting to see how it played out if they had gone forward with that exhibition.

Wait, I found the article in my files. Unfortunately, the source isn't noted. This was from the http://joejennette.com/JenneteVsDempsey.html site:

"Dempsey Shows Yellow Streak in Refusing to Meet Jeannette

New Yor, N.Y., Nov. 29 - More than 8,000 fans of the fistic arena hooted and howled, booed and baaed, or otherwise expressed their feelings at the partial resuscitation of boxing here last Saturday night in Madison Square Garden. As usual at those affairs, something always turns up to mar the evenings program: this time it was up to Jack Dempsey to turn the trick. If ever a boxer showed a yellow streak Dempsey did, when he absolutely refused to don the mitts with the publics idol, Joe Jeannette. Jeannette was scheduled to meet Kid Norfolk while Dempsey was to meet some fellow by the name of Bond. However, neither one put in an appearance. Just after Dempsey entered the ring, Jeannette hopped over the ropes, and then the trouble began, for Dempsey absolutely refused to box Joe giving the same old "color line." Jack Kearns, who carries the title of manager, and Dempsey, resembled the last (word?) of summer, when cat calls yellow, etc. brok loose from the spectators as Jeannette stood against the ropes looking scornfully at the so called white man, after Kearns announced that Dempsey would box any white man in the world. "Stay there, Joe," howled the spectators, and the veteran pugilist of hundreds of hard fought battles took a seat in the corner. Then he got up , walked over to Dempsey and dared him to fight.

Dempsey ignored the challenge, which every common-sense thinking man should realize must have been humiliating for his honor, and especially so because the boxing tournament was staged for the benefit of the United War Work campaign. Then Dempsey's mouthpiece, Kearns, yellwed, "get him out, for we will not meet a Negro."

After order was restored, Jack Britton climbed into the ring and offered to box Dempsey three rounds, but he couldn't see it. Charlie Harvey yelled that Bond was stripped and in the garden, but nobody got a glimpse of him if he was. It could be said that it was either a camouflage yell of Harvey's, or it was queer Bond did not get into the ring. The ring now filled with boxers of both races, managers, referees and announcers, all talking at once. The scene was a disgraceful one. Dempsey finally said he would not box at all, and poor Jeannette then left the ring in disgust, after contributing a tidy sum to the campaign committee.

The bouts, which were started an hour later than the scheduled time were well contested. The first on the program brought together Leo Johnson and Benny Volger, a French light-weight. Lew Magnolia (white) was the referee. Leo was entitled to four of the six rounds, but it was called a draw. The galleries were jammed with the real boxing enthusiasts, and in the box seats were celebrated people like Tex Rickard, James Corbett and others. Quite a sprinkling of our people were noticed here and there in the galleries. Wifred Vian, owner of Omar Khayyam, Frank McIntyre of McIntyre & Heath, Max Bluementhal, and many others subscribed $250 and upwards. This ended the evenings entertainment at Madison Square Garden, which would have been more successful had not Jack Dempsey put in his appearance."

More in next post immediately after this one.

Ok, I see the same site had another article titled 'Jack Dempsey Hides Behind Color Line' that included the following:

"Dempsey had been matched to meet Joe Bonds, a third rate pugilist with a lot of nerve, who is attached to the U.S. S. Granite State. For weeks Jeannette has sought a match with the Utah wonder, but for some reason best known to himself and his manager, Jack Kearns, Dempsey has persistently refused to meet a negro, despite the fact that he fought John Lester Johnson a ten round bout in this city a couple of years ago and has fought negroes at other times in his career."

Then later in same article: "Instead of the clean limbed Bonds, he (Dempsey) saw big, black, smiling Joe Jeannette, his fists encased in six ounce gloves and in fighting togs. Jack appeared not the least bit disturbed, but Kearns immediately got into the ring and made it known that, under no circumstances, would he permit his man to box the husky negro." (This must be the part that I remembered that made me think Dempsey was willing. Still, you'd like to think he'd insist on going forward instead of letting his manager have the final say. But like I said earlier, that doesn't seem to be the way thinks worked between the two of them at that particular time.)

Anyway, some interesting articles on that site about the incident.

Interesting stuff Clay and have to say whicever way you read it it does not reflect particularly favourably on Jack, ultimately whilst Jeannette was obviously a terrific fighter he was some way beyond his best and ultimately this was an exhibition so difficult to see what harm getting in the ring with him would have done. Does make you wonder about his relationship with Kearns because it is pretty much accepted that when Reisler tried to match Jack with Sam Langford he told him to stick it, so does make you wonder why he accepted Kearns' no so readily here.

Very interesting report there which I had not read before and would concur reflects more than a little poorly on the Dempsey camp.

As you probably know, 1919 was was a bit of a strange year with Dempsey whereby in his run up to the Willard fight he essentially fought a string of novices in little more than exhibition match ups. With Willard being inactive for over 3 years its entirely possibly that Dempsey was being groomed as the next champion and had a title shot in store as long as he didnt slip up anywhere along the way. Given the evidence of 1919 with Dempsey it seems that the above event was supposed to be simply another of Dempseys straightforward demolition matches against an absolute unranked novice but when they discovered it was Jeanette that was proposed even the ageing veteran was seen as too big a risk at that point in comparison to the relative nobodis Dempsey was tearing through at the time. You can be sure even an old Jeanette would provide a far greater challenge.

To reiterate what I said before, theres no doubt that Dempsey drew the colour line - and the above account only further adds to to this fact. But what remains debateable is how willing Dempsey was to follow policy and how much he resented it. There is evidence and arguments to support either view which makes the debate so interesting, but ultimately its probably only Dempsey and a handful of others that really know exactly to what extent Dempsey was willing to tow the line and employ the colour barrier.

Great article, thanks for sharing.

It is a tricky issue to unpick the colour line ain't it Lion, think that is why I find it so consistently fascinating, you have reports like the above which obviously portray Jack in a pretty bad light but then you have to bear in mind he used Big Bill Tate as a sparring partner and for exhibitions often drawing criticism in the south for doing so which means drawing conclusions about his motives or true thoughts are obviously pretty difficult.

Likewise most of the guys of that era, whilst it is true loads drew the colour line you do have to ask the extent to which they held racist views or the extent it was seen as the done thing at the time. Think with the earlier guys such as Fitz and Corbett what is often forgot is these guys made more from exhibitions than they did fights, is not hard to think fighting or even worse losing to a black fighter could have seriously harmed their revenue on these engagements, as many of these guys fought black fighters on the way up the ranks, interesting subject though.