Boxing’s Brainiest Champ and His Upset of the Great Jack Dempsey

These days,.. those ethnicities are the absolute WORST at fights,..:bomb:

Boxing was at an all-time low, they should never win in mythical matchups or otherwise.

 

ointlaugh:

 

not really, they're about as good as everybody else is... i.e. not very good

 

no one who has watched James Jeffries plod forward, throw a punch and then clinch like a poor man's Ruiz and then watched Jack Dempsey bob and weave, punch in combination and throw this crazy punch called a left hook should think otherwise

Dempsey would annihlate him

 

Jock Dempsey would have had his Choctaw ass blasted on by Irish Jim Jeffries.......

 

Jim Jeffries never saw a jab in his life

Fucking slow-motion fencing

Dempsey would bob and weave, throw body/head combos... Jeffries would be eaten alive

 

Jack Johnson is the subject of many books, he would beat Dempsey, be sure of it.

 

Johnson would get steamrolled

 

Another pathetic post from you
you're, once again, making insinuation. Never said that the white fighters were pampered bourgeois, and I don't doubt that a couple of them were tough as nails .Still doesn't change the fact that these guys were duckers, and i won't call anyone that refuse to fight a mandatory challenger (for 7 years iirc) a world champion.

 

Put up some stats or GTFO.


Pretty sure this is another of your baseless claims you make every now and then

 

yes, these two guys were

you implied there was a CLUB, Bonhomme

 

put up some stats?? who are you, mikE?

why don't you learn some history, first, Carlos The Jackoff

Where did the majority of the best fighters come from? They came from the slums, from the ghettos.

Who lived in those ghettos back in the 20s? Use that tiny brain of yours for once. More poor whites means more white fighters. Common fucking sense to anyone who isn't a mongoloid.

 

TITS OR FUCK OFF!!!!!!!

 

As I tought, another post full of questionnable circumstantial evidence and with nothing to base your previous positions that the boxing world was not like baseball, and they were waay more white boxers in this era than now . (statement wich would need clarifiying ,since more is in absolute or proportion).

Wasn't expecting more from you to be honest

 

were there more poor white people in inner cities (the breeding grounds of the pro ranks) in 1925 than there were in, say, 1975, yes or no?

use your brain, Bonhomme

 

Again, is it in proportion or absolute number ???? if it's the former I'd say yes, if it's the later i'd say no. And still, it doesn't validate your claims that they weren't that many black boxers in that epoch, and that it is not comparable with the situation in baseball.


And your premise is pretty much flawed, the correlation between living in inner cities and being a quality boxers might be true in the states, but I dispute it has such a big impact in other countries.

 

Actually a lot of that has to do with the fact that you had an old fellow in your avatar, and people have been known to put their own picture in their avatar. That was why I thought you were older than you were. I didn't know what Nacho looked like.

 

Not true. I didnt have Beristain as my avatar for the first three or four months I was here. The assumptions I was an octogenarian were formed from my respect for older boxers. It says a lot on the subject of bias.

 

For the first little while that you were here, I don't even think you posted much. I know what my assumption was based on, but if you don't believe what I posted, believe what you like. It's what I thought although frankly I don't recall you posting much for your first few months here or interacting with you.

I remember looking at the picture and thinking, "Hmm, looks older than most here". Sorry if you don't believe me.:dunno:

 

I remember the style of posting contributing too, Ramonza. Very little colloquillsms, contractions or swearing & usually a slightly more slow paced prose. It certainly wasn't solely because you liked old timers

 

Wait

Ramonza isn't 80?

 

Agreed on this. He was so well-mannered, polite, and well-spoken that I instinctively thought he was much older. Maybe he did add the profile picture later, but I looked at his profile back then and I'd swear he had more than one picture of Nacho, so I thought perhaps it was him.

 

In the 1920s, where did 90% of the best fighters in the world come from? The United States, other countries are IRRELEVANT in that time period, boxing-wise

In the 1920s, there were ZERO black players in the Major Leagues

In the 1920s, there were literally dozens of quality black contenders and champs... the only division with a real, clearly visible color line was Heavyweight

I never said there weren't that many black fighters, you just can't read. I said there were MORE white fighters than there were later. When you have more of everything, you get diversity in the rankings. By the 1960s in America, "white flight" had happened, immigrant groups of the turn of the century and later had "moved up"... the blacks had not (I would expect a guy who never misses an opportunity to piss on the U.S. to be already aware of this) and they made up the bulk of the American ratings for basically the next 40 years, they were the guys left to take part in the ultimate high risk/high reward sport (such sports have traditionally culled their ranks from the poor classes, HERE anyway, I don;t know about Canada because they have had maybe 10 fighters worth a shit in all of history)

Boxing was like a Rainbow Coalition compared to Baseball back then. To say otherwise is to revise history or at the very least show a profound ignorance of it. It was NOT perfect and deserving guys were shut out of title shots, but it was nothing like baseball where you could not even participate if you were a black man.

 

So, I had too much time in my hands and went to look for old census of the US. starting with 1930 (wich would represent the 20's), i calculated the % of the urban population that is black.

1920 : 6,6%
1930 : 7,5%
1940 : ??? (for some reason I can't download the census)
1950 : 9,7%
1960 : 11%
1970 : 12,3%


After this, this statistic is no longer made available (at least haven't founded it)

So while, as we both tought, the % of black as increased with years , I don't think the increase is dramatic enough to impli that they weren't that many black boxers in this era (assuming that , as you stated, inner city population is representative of the number of world class boxers), not to mention the gentrification of a lot of these blacks, which didn't exist in 1920.

It certainly doesn't explain why in 1980, 9 out of the 11 best hw were black according to the ring, while in 1924, only 2 were black. If blacks weren't racially discriminate, most of these so called great (Dempsey, Tunney, Greb, Walker) would be footnote in the history of boxing.

 

If I had actually said "there weren't many black fighters" you would have a point, but I didn't and you don't

 

Urban ≠ ghetto

 

yeah I know (as implied that some of the urban blacks had gentrify in the 70's), but it's still the closest proxy I could think of.

 

Your statement that they were way more white fighters in this era ( wich I assument to be in %) made be think you did. My mistake

 

A quintile income breakdown by ethnicity would be a better one. But I think we know the social history of the US well enough to know that the % of whites in concentrated, poor urban areas collapsed. Not sure why this is an argument, mate

 

not according to cdogg (and he had a point). We had this discussion years ago and claimed that it wouldn't be good cause most of them were living in rural area, wich traditionnally doesn't produce a lot of boxers.

And the argument is about wether or not the fact that they were more white living in ''ghetto'' absolve in part fighters like Tunney and Dempsey for ducking black fighters, not wether or not fewer whites lives in the suburb than before (wich is an evidence).