Jack Johnson

I got a boxing dvd collection box from a brother in law for Christmas there and I am currently making my way through it. Joe Louis is the current boxer Im watching (now there is a REAL heavyweight!). An interesting subplot of the documentary is about Jack Johnson who was the first black heavyweight champion and a pioneer of the black cause. Despite the historical achievement of being the first black heavyweight champion the documentary makes him out to be actually not beneficial to the black cause it all. He wouldnt fight other black boxers as a champion and they all hated him it seems. He is painted out as a bit of a egomaniac who wanted to be the only black champion and to have that notoriety. As a result when he did lose black boxers were not given opportunities again until Joe Louis.

When Joe Louis did come along and was a sensation, Johnson apparently became very bitter. The trainer of Louis was a former boxer who fought Johnson and he hated him. Johnson kept offering to train Louis instead and Louis' trainer Blackburn banned him from the gym or from seeing Louis. As a result Johnson would always make negative comments about his ability and talent in the press and would back his usually white opponents to beat him which enraged the black community. By the time Johnson died he was actually pretty much hated by everyone, black or white. It might not be as black and white as that, pardon the pun, but its interesting to see he wasnt as helpful for the black cause as history makes out.

I was thinking something similar about Johnson recently, I.e that his life after being champ rarely gets told. Generally, the storey goes, him losing the title to Willard, jail under the Mann act, killed in car crash. Neglecting that he lived until 68, continuing to fight pretty much until his death.
Didn't know about his history with Louis, thanks for sharing. I do find him the most interesting of all boxers. Such an incredible life.

booker t Washington didn't like Jack either as he didn't help other black people, his first wife also committed suicide after allegedly being beaten by him

The view of Johnson is that he was detrimental to the prospects of all subsequent black boxers, don't think he's ever portrayed as helping in that regard. He lived his life believing him to be equal to the whites which he was but his flaunting of money and his like for white women rubbed white America up the wrong way. Louis when he started had the benefit of knowing what not to do to get ahead in the boxing world, so in essence learned from Johnsons mistakes.

Johnsons failure to fight the best black heavyweights of the day is given more credence by the fact he fought the woefully overmatch Jim Johnson. Fighting a man who was being beaten almost monthly by Langford, Jeannette and Mcvea will have irked them even more. That fight in particular is reported to have been made after Johnson pulled out of defending against Langford in Paris so drafted in Battling Jim in his place.

Right on all counts, catchweight. By the end of his days, Johnson wasn't all that far off being as disliked and reviled by American blacks as he had been by American whites during his career. He was little short of a joke figure to a lot of people for the final couple of decades of his life, harsh as that was.

Given the nature of the times, you can't really blame Johnson all that much for enjoying being able to run white America's nose in it once he was champion, or for trying to stack the risk:reward ratio as heavily as he could in his favour for all of his title defences. You're a long time retired in boxing (or at least you should be) and Papa Jack had a liking for the extravagant things in life, as well as enjoying travelling all over the globe to parts where he was a little more appreciated and didn't have to worry about his safety as much.

Whether he liked it or not, though, he carried the hopes of a hell of a lot of downtrodden people, and effectively came to be the representative face of them in many people's eyes - but he just never seemed too bothered by this. As I said, I can appreciate that his primary concern was looking out for number one, but I find it a little hard to fathom how Johnson seemed to feel no obligation at all to try and help with the collective effort that minorities in America were making at the time to earn an equal footing in society, seeing as he'd experienced such radical prejudice first hand.

He was still revered enough at that time by the black people of America to inspire nation-wide celebrations when he beat Jeffries, but he could have been a lot more in that respect.

And yep, it was almost solely his bitter attitude towards Louis in his later years which turned those who'd stuck by him all the way beforehand largely against him. He constantly, and very publicly, picked a string of opponents to beat him; Carnera, Baer, Braddock, Schmeling before their rematch (oddly enough, he'd publicly picked Louis in their first bout, but not without placing a bet on Schemling according to Collyer's Eye) etc.

Hey, who knows, maybe he genuinely did see the fights going that way, but those predictions, along with his frequent criticisms of Louis' style ("he's just a plodder who doesn't throw his punches correctly", as well as "even now, at the age of 58, I could go three rounds against him without getting touched" were just two remarks concerning Louis which Johnson made in 1936), really alienated a lot of people.

According to Dave Margolick's book on Louis and Schmeling (fantastic book, as well), the straw which broke the camel's back for a lot of Louis' fans who'd previously also considered Johnson a hero came when Johnson, in an interview with John Lardner, picked up a picture of Louis reaching after Schmeling in their first fight but leaving himself wide open to a right hand counter, and said, "See, that's why Joe Louis will never be another Lil' Arthur. People say I'm jealous, but that picture tells another story."

With regards to Johnson's rift with Blackburn, I've read two possible theories. One is that Johnson never forgave Blackburn for giving him a tanning in sparring many years beforehand, which left him feeling a little embarrassed in front of one of his girlfriends, and the other is that it was Blackburn who couldn't forgive Johnson after he'd refused a request to hold a benefit night for Blackburn once he'd got out of prison. Was most probably a mix of the two.

Throughout his career Johnson cared about on person and one person alone, Jack Johnson and acted purely out of self interest. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but neither should it be portrayed as anything particularly noble or heroic, which Johnson's life is sometimes inexplicably painted as.

Funnily enough I have just started an excellent biography on Joe Jennette and what comes through in the book is the genuine feeling of optimism the likes of Joe, Langford and McVea felt when Johnson won the title. They genuinely hoped now a black fighter had won the title similar opportunities would be afforded them, especially as that black fighter was one who they had fought frequently and some considered to be a friend.

Is pretty well known the fallout from the Johnson Jeffries fight was one of the reasons Tex Rickard had no desire to give Harry Wills the chance he richly deserved against Dempsey and whilst plenty don't agree I cannot help but feel that the course of the sport could have been a whole lot different had it been someone like Langford or Jennette who had been given the crack at Burns. Dare say both would have beaten him but am confident they would have trodden a different path than Johnson as champion

As Joe Jennette put it about Johnson "Jack forgot about his old friends when he became champion and he drew the colour line against his own people"

Chris - According the Kevin Smith's book The Sundowners he agrees with the sparring story being the source of Johnson's antagonism towards Blackburn. As you have said Blackburn apparently stood the much bigger Johnson on his head in sparring, even bloodying his nose. Johnson always maintained the session did not happen but according to Smith plenty around the Philly gyms at the time supported Blackburn's story. Personally do not view the story as too far out of left field. Blackburn competed on a pretty level basis with Sam Langford on a pretty regular basis and regularly fought guys much bigger than himself so certainly had such a performance in his locker.

There's a great comment from comedian Dave Chappelle (in my mind, one of the most insightful minds in the world today, when he isn't high), he was congratulated by some or other fan for leaving Hollywood with his integrity in intact, and his retort was, "That's great, I'm gonna go home and make my kids some integrity sandwiches". For quite obvious reasons, pioneering black athletes and entertainers are held to adjusted standards, to the point where them conducting the business of the day was seen as wrong, or somehow immoral.It's the same viewpoint that has had JJ be depicted as Uncle Ruchus. As has already been discussed, there was nothing inherently wrong with JJ deciding to look after #1. And the question has to be asked, "How much of this is made a big deal purely because of his race?". White fighters overlooked black fighters for a while before him, it wasn't financially viable - And they'd lose. Are they held to a similar degree of scrutiny? No, because there's this myth/theory that Black people are like Disney's Little Green Men, and that ones pain is anothers, and we are constantly seeking to improve the lives of each other. Was JJ a hero? Of course not! He never pretended to be, and was most likely an a$$... but I think the greater questions are: why is he given the burden of uplifting an entire race? Would the same be expected of a white fighter?

*If my post is inciteful, rather than insightful, feel free to delete it, I mean to cause no arguments of that nature - I just don't think you can separate JJ's mythology with the history and the suppression of black America.

Johnson did more for black people then Louis.

Jack had BALLS his own BALLS and showed Black people what could be achieved if they believed in themselves. The US government carried Louis's BALLS in their hand bag.

The point is more that Johnson is credited with uplifting his race widely. Lots of black people, not just boxers credit him as inspirational figure for their cause. But it seems when you look past what his image stands for he was actually not the great spokesman or figure for black rights. On the contrary, he seemed to hold them back and in his old age was a bitter man who wanted to be the only black champion in history and belittled Joe Louis out of jealousy. Its strange for a figure so closely associated to black rights and credited a hero and all that to not actually being all thay beneficial or popular with his own people at all. Its a bit like finding out William Wallace didnt actually care about Scottish independence but he just wanted a bigger castle for himself.

catchweight wrote:The point is more that Johnson is credited with uplifting his race  widely. Lots of black people, not just boxers credit him as inspirational figure for their cause. But it seems when you look past what his image stands for he was actually not the great spokesman or figure for black rights. On the contrary, he seemed to hold them back and in his old age was a bitter man who wanted to be the only black champion in history and belittled Joe Louis out of jealousy. Its strange for a figure so closely associated to black rights and credited a hero and all that to not actually being all thay beneficial or popular with his own people at all. Its a bit like finding out William Wallace didnt actually care about Scottish independence but he just wanted a bigger castle for himself.

They were scared of him. He was too brash and confident, a CRIME for black people back then. They wanted him to be humble but he would have ended up fighting other black fighters for peanuts like Langford, Jennete and the others.

If you don't think Johnson was good for black rights then consider this....

This is what Jefferies said before his fight of the century with Johnson

"I am going into this fight for the sole purpose of proving that the white man is better than the Negro."

This is the view from the New York times before the fight....

"If the black man wins, thousands and thousands of his ignorant brothers will misinterpret his victory as justifying claims to much more than mere physical equality with their white neighbours."

This was Johnsons view before the fight...

"There were few men of my own race among the spectators. It wasn't just the championship that was at stake: it was my own honour, and in a degree the honour of my own race. The 'White Hope' had failed."

Make of that what you will.

Again CW, why is he compelled to help his fellow brothers? Why isn't he allowed to be a self-serving greedy capitalist?

kingraf wrote:Again CW, why is he compelled to help his fellow brothers? Why isn't he allowed to be a self-serving greedy capitalist?

Thats not what I am saying. I am wondering why he is remembered and held as such a champion of the black cause when it seems he actually wasnt. Loads of black heavyweight from Ali to Tyson to Lewis cite him as an inspiration when it seems if they were around back then they would hold a much different viewpoint. The black boxers of Johnsons era didnt seem to view him as a hero of the black cause at all. The way he is described you would think he would be happy to have been the only black heavyweight champion in history and seen all other black heavyweights suffer. He seems to have become a symbol of something he wasnt. I dont think he had any obligations but if you are going to be credited as great for black rights then it would help if you actually went out of your way to do it. It seems like Johnson didnt when you scratch below the surface of his image.

Quite simple really - when you are bereft of heroes, you have to make concessions with the ones you have. Mahatma Ghandi said some vile things about black people, but I dare you to find a relevant black civil rights leader in the past 60 years who doesn't reference him.

kingraf wrote:Again CW, why is he compelled to held his fellow brothers? Why isn't he allowed to be a self-serving greedy capitalist?

You've made valid points, raf, but I don't think anyone is actually lamenting him being that, rather just the way he's often been painted as something else. Be a self-serving capitalist, fine. But if that's the case, then you shouldn't be widely painted as something else, particularly something saintly or selfless. That's the real issue, I think.

As I said above, Johnson never asked to be seen as a mouthpiece for black America, or for his opinions and actions to be considered a microcosm for a community of millions, so I have a degree of sympathy there. But at the same time, he was arguably the most high-profile black man in American society at the time, and certainly the most high-profile black man in sports. With so few opportunities to show their talents on a wider scale, and so few American blacks being afforded the same rights and freedoms as whites, it seems perfectly understandable to me that minorities in the States would have hoped and expected that Johnson, no stranger to racial inequalities and violence himself, to have at least made some kind of effort to either a) try to show that blacks could perform at the highest level with dignity by perhaps trying to build occasional bridges with the supposed 'enemy' , or b) at least defend his crown against the leading black challengers of his time. Refusing to show the Heavyweight title that kind of respect only gave many prejudiced writers, whose opinions still carried a lot of weight at the time, to exclaim to anyone who'd listen that Johnson was living proof that blacks were indeed almost a sub-species; untrustworthy, uppity, smug and above all dangerously volatile and disdainful towards the white community which they should have been trying to appease.

Nowt wrong at all with Johnson putting himself before anyone else, and it was unfair that he carried so much pressure on his shoulders when he never asked to. But then again, black America never asked to be subjected to the kind of injustices they faced 100 years ago, but they were subjected to them all the same. You can't blame them for wanting Johnson to do his bit in their struggle, and as a result overall I do think that a lot of Johnson's career decisions once he won the title, as well as his shameless quests for (usually negative) publicity in his later years, are pretty reprehensible in retrospect.

All I'm saying tis that integrity and "me we" don't spread the bread. Why aren't questions being asked of Mayweather fighting one black opponent in what's going on eight years? Different time of course, but I bet money plays a role. White journalists hated Johnson at the time because he was greedy, self-serving, smug, and disdainful towards the white community... basically they hated him because he represented everything they stood for, and worse, he was a black man who saw himself as not just equal, but superior. Must have been hard staring into a mirror and seeing a black man's reflection.

Does JJ get more love from the press fighting a black fighter? You can't tell me you honestly think that goes down any better, Chris! White journalists realised they can't get a white hope to shut this 'coon down, so they hoped they could find Uncle Tom somewhere to do it for them. I'm just having trouble believing you're really suggesting it was his refusal to fight a black opponent that got him the criticism, as if it would somehow make everything better...

Whilst I can see your point to an extent Raf none of us live in a bubble and life does not exist in a vacuum and it certainly didn't for Johnson. If we look a few years ago at the world of music, a bands job is to make music and make money through selling and performing that music. If we accept that would we argue the likes of Queen or Elton John were right to break the Apartheid ban and perform in Sun City?

If we take your argument that they are not responsible for the lot of other people it would seem we could absolve them of blame for breaking the ban, after all the impact their actions has on other people is not their problem. Got to say I am not overly comfortable with such a position.

The point about shunning the leading black challengers of his time was more to do with commanding the respect of his fellow blacks, raf, rather than pleasing the predominantly white press of the time. As I said, toning down his more extreme tendencies would have been a better way of going about the latter.

I don't think there's much doubt at all that his failure to fight any of Langford, Jeanette, McVea etc while champion has garnered a hell of a lot of scathing criticism, really, albeit it would largely have been blacks who were critical of him for this at the time, whereas most whites of the day wouldn't have been bothered at all. These days, however, critics of Johnson of any colour will be quick to point it out, and rightly so.

One thing that should also not be overlooked is Johnson was not being offered peanuts to fight black fighters. Australian promoter Hugh Macintosh made huge offers well in excess of $20,000 for him to face Langford. Similarly the clamour and money available in France for a Jennette match on the back of Joe's win over McVea in there finish fight was immense. There are several reasons that Jack chose not to fight his black contempories but a lack of money in the fights was not one of them.

I don't hold the colour line against Johnson, if he had of fought Langford when proposed, chances are he would have lost, and with the loss his future earning potential, plus I've a feeling Johnson enjoyed his infamy, a lot of that would be gone too.

Langford was at his peak, Johnson was prob past peak by the time he beat burns.

He was held up as such but, did Johnson ever claim to represent the black population of the US? Well, he did when he said he was upholding the dignity of his race. But, ultimately, I don't think he ever really thought of them. He was out for himself and I can't really blame him. But, it is right to challenge those who try to pretend he did.

Johnson, like Ali, were more ego than idealist. Most of what is attributed to them as being for the greater good, wasn't. It was for their own engrandisement.

Nothing wrong with that and it is probably others that tried to bestow their crusading status on them.

However, it is right to criticise JJ for not fighting Langford etc., when offered the purses to do so, for the same reason we criticise any fighter for "ducking" fights. Further, his jealousy/criticism of Louis isn't befitting of someone who, at his peak, was such a talent.

Onetwo's comments comparing JJ with Louis are just shameful. Being a gouche, arrogant tw*t is not admirable. Like Ali, JJ's behaviour was frequently misguided and ego driven. Louis was brighter and had greater integrity as a human being. He realised his place in history and society and tended to act accordingly. Its like saying Martin Luther was an uncle tom but Elijah Mohammed was great because he stuck it to "the man" etc. Or that Ghandi was a sop but Bose was the light. Commending people purely because they are brash is as mindless as commending them for their looks.

JJ looked after himself and there is nothing wrong with that, in a solo sport like boxing. But, I am sure the consequences for black America was a distant second, or he wouldn't have antagonised so many people. As a result none fought for the title till Louis. Louis conducted himself with dignity and paved the way immediately for Charles etc.

Rowley wrote:Whilst I can see your point to an extent Raf none of us live in a bubble and life does not exist in a vacuum and it certainly didn't for Johnson. If we look a few years ago at the world of music, a bands job is to make music and make money through selling and performing that music. If we accept that would we argue the likes of Queen or Elton John were right to break the Apartheid ban and perform in Sun City?

If we take your argument that they are not responsible for the lot of other people it would seem we could absolve them of blame for breaking the ban, after all the impact their actions has on other people is not their problem. Got to say I am not overly comfortable with such a position.

Worth noting that at the time Sun City was in effect a sovereign state of sorts, and was one of the few places South Africans were able to interact (in theory anyway) regardless of race - it's success and presence as a "nation" went a long way towards weakening apartheid. Elton John's decision to perform in Sun City, certainly didnt harm his popularity with black South Africans, for the simple reason that you can't draw nice contours of where politics and entertainment interchange. Blake and white people crammed into the Independence stadium to watch John Tate beat Kallie Knoetze - is this to say these black fans must apportion some of the blame for a racist regime lasting apartheid long? As if an apartheid government which was in reality a collection of comically stupid people, and cartoonish villains (trying to create nuclear weapons which only affect black people) would have given a damn if Queen (who they probably didnt even know) were to boycott Sun City.


Regardless of that, you raise great points Rowley, I don't claim have a perfect alternative. I myself haven't claimed JJ to be anything other than self-serving and an a$$.

Would not claim to be an expert on South African politics by any stretch but is widely accepted the world of sports and the arts pretty much universally embargoed performing there in an attempt to weaken the regime and register their distaste at the apartheid system. How much affect this had is questionable but it is a gesture and is one of those situations where you have to pick a side. For me the likes of Queen and Elton John chose their side and think we can both be fairly sure their stance was not on the back of some nuanced understanding of Sun City’s status as a sovereign state, they did it for the money and nothing more.

For me nobody is asking Johnson to march on Washington or petition the Senate for the end of the colour line, all anyone expected of him is for him to fight his best available opponents and not be such an objectionable idiot in his dealings with the public.

Pick a side is a very black and white view, I'd say. Never bought the idea that the "free world" had a sudden epiphany regarding race relations in South Africa... Think they were more spooked about the fact that there was a group of people backed by China, the Soviets and Cuba - it's quite serendipitous that after years of civil disobedience which went nowhere in the eyes of the world... Black Africans get some soldiers from Castro, and some weaponry from Moscow - and now Apartheid absolutely has to stop. The embargoes don't sit well with me, just seems like the game had to be stopped one both parties where on equal footing, even though it was absolutely fine while black South Africans were hopelessly outgunned... as such I don't particularly feel anyone who performed in SA shoul'd be vilified. My dad certainly doesn't break into political mode when he plays Paul Simons Graceland, neither does any one I know.

JJ has as much a right as anyone to duck dip dive and dodge until someone forced him to - Why take on a live fighter for $20, 000, when you can pi$$ off white America for fractionally less?

People tend to forget that pre-title Johnson was actually a fighter worthy of all the respect the post-title Johnson seemed to think he deserved without sadly doing anything to advances/support those claims.

There've been numerous JJ articles on this board and the old BBC to which I've contributed (in some form or another) and I can safely say that, as with most fighters/subjects, we're highly unlikely to reach a consensus unless it's that we're unlikely to reach a consensus.

As I have said Raf I absolutely agree he has as much right as any of us to live as we please and make the career choices we feel are right for ourselves. Not particularly a stance I agree with as I’d like to think we allow the bigger picture and principles to have some influence on our choices but each to their own.

Where I get more wound up is the frequent portrayal of Johnson as some sort of pioneer for black fighters and athletes as I simply cannot interpret actions that are little more than looking after your own self interest with never a care what impact they may have had on others or those that had to follow you as in any way shape or form noble.

like I said earlier in the thread, Rowley - when heroes are few, concessions have to be made. Look at Castro, he may be deplorable man, but good luck finding an politically knowledgeable African who doesn't see him as a sort messiah (myself included)... Because there was no one else!!

Self serving maybe, but such a driven guy too it's hard not to be impressed. He chased burns around the world, in a pre jet engine age, to get a fight, can you imagine how difficult that was? He had a mean self serving streak in him, no doubt, but I'd contest that he never would have challenged for the heavyweight title without it. And that Langford would have been no closer to challenging had there never been a jack Johnson.

jimdig wrote:Self serving maybe, but such a driven guy too it's hard not to be impressed.... He had a mean self serving streak in him, no doubt, but I'd contest that he never would have challenged for the heavyweight title without it.

Couldn't agree with those comments more. For anybody to be a "spokesperson" for any group is one hell of an ask and responsibility and to be fair to JJ, with the exception of a few comments, I don't think he ever really tried to pretend he was. There is nothing wrong with him being self serving, especially in a solitary sport like boxing where your career and earning window is short.

Its the "boxing public" and, in particular, "Black America" (not unreasonably, given the wait) that wanted him to be a spokesman and rolemodel. Personally, as I have alluded, I think Ali is in the same vein but that's for another thread.

On the contrary, Louis did seem to understand his "responsibilities" and is why he was more considered, given his quote:

"Clay is a good enough fighter, but it's unfortunate that he's a Black Muslim. A champion should represent all sects, not one."

Plus, I think he was probably a much more humble person, in general.

I'm not sure if the last quote is true:

jimdig wrote:And that Langford would have been no closer to challenging had there never been a jack Johnson.

Whether Langford or his management could have got him a shot and it is worth asking that, if they had, would the sport (and perhaps the world) have been a different place, if black fighters had been fighting for world HW titles consistently for all that time.

kingraf wrote:when heroes are few, concessions have to be made.

I agree that when heroes are few it is only natural to cling on to the few there are but I don't think that it should be done with full, blinkered prejudice and not acknowledge the failings. Its quite acceptable to say "he was a great boxer, athelete etc. but a questionable character" or identify individual character flaws. Blindly putting people on pedestals is, ultimately, offering "false prophets". I can understand why a few will blindly follow but not the masses.

I particularly find unjust people deifying people of questionable character because they were simply "Black and Proud" (which is frequently a pseudonym for brash) whilst denegrating those who are humble and more considered but, in my opinion, ultimately greater people for it.

Personally think the world title shot for a black fighter was just coming at that time, was a case of who got to it first. Johnson obviously did the most chasing and so deserved the credit but was pretty much undeniable Jennette, Langford and McVea were the best of the rest and as they plied their trade around the world they made enough influential and wealthy fans to mean someone would eventaully have offered Burns or whoever had replaced him enough money to give one of them a crack.

As I said re Johnson, the French were huge fans of McVea and Jennette and were willing to back those guys for a title shot to a fairly significant amount and Langford pretty much impressed everywhere he went and either London or Australia would have found the money to tempt a champion to give him his shot IMO.

Rowley, I actually agree with you but happy to hear the counter, as it is all conjecture, this far into the future.

I think one of them would have got the fight and won. And it would probably have been a different world. As good as he was JJ largely scotched it for everybody else for 30yrs (and reinforced some negative stereotypes into the bargain). Not that I think he necessarily had any obligation to conduct himself any other way, it would have just been good if he had.