CNN's Pick for "The Fight that Changed History"...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vi...rtsIllustrated/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin

I dunno, but I think Jack Johnson vs Tommy Burns changed it a bit more. First black heavyweight champion as a result of Burns not drawing "the coloured line". Johnson had to chase him all over the world to get that shot from what I've read on the subject.

 

Nobody got lynched after Johnson beat Burns. :nono:

Also, the fight happened in Australia and Burns wasn't particularly highly thought of at the time.

Plus it's the 100 year anniversary, so Johnson/Jeffries has been getting a lot of hype lately.

 

There was a program on Radio 4 the other day about Johnson-Jefferies. I missed most of it but I caught the end and an extract from a NYT article written the day after. Shit was disgusting, imploring Blacks not to 'puff out their chest too much' or get above their station etc, that Johnson's victory may have elevated his esteem in society but that the common negros relation to society was not changed one iota. Brought home A) just how fucked up American society was B) just how HUGE boxing was & how socially significant was a fight like that. It said there was a wave of killings the week after the fight as blacks celebrated.

 

Yeah, I've seen many mainstream newspapers of that day regularly refer to Johnson as "the n*#ger Johnson".

Johnson vs. Jeffries was huuuuuge at the time, with a long simmering buildup to the fight.

Johnson vs. Burns was more spur of the moment. Took place almost on a whim when the Australian promoter Hugh McIntosh threw a ton of money at Burns to take the fight against Johnson, who had followed Burns to Australia.

They built an entire stadium for the fight in a ridiculous amount of time........like two weeks or so.

 

Who would have thought it, a guy more out of shape than Sam Peters and coming back off a 6 year lay off could play a role in the most important fight of all time.

For me the most important fight of all time cannot, ironically, be distilled down to just one fight.

The fight game derives it's energy from manifold sources: cultural significance {acceptance of all races, diversity, general popularity}, social acceptance {the transition from illegality to legality, the drive to make the game safer and to guarantee the fighters their fair share} and compatibility with modernity {i.e. retaining a place in the publics imagination despite changing tastes and mores}

You could argue, therefore, that Dempsey vs Willard, Johnson vs Burns, Ray Leonard vs Duran, Clay vs Liston I, Foreman vs Ali, Golota vs Bowe etc all helped play their part. Jake Kilrane vs John L. Sullivan, for instance, dragged the game out of the bare knuckle era and began the moden era. That got the ball rolling. Of course, there were more changes needed. But, maybe, if there is no Kilrane vs Sullivan, there is no Burns vs Johnson. And even with Burns vs Johnson, what's the point unless there is a Dempsey vs Willard, or a Dempsey vs Tunney- two fights which first established, and then confirmed, that the Champion boxer was as legitimate a sportsman or champion as any other, if not outright superior.

Any fight that helped introduce radical safety measures {Watson vs Benn}, any fight that helped boost a lagging sport {Ray Leonard vs Duran}, any fight which rocked existing stereotypes and exposed vulgarity and obscenity {Johnson vs Jeffries, Golota vs Bowe} any fight which undermined thuggery and helped eradicate corruption {Clay vs Liston} or any fight which just maintained general popularity and kept boxing topical {Ward vs Gatti}....was an important fight.

The introduction of the glove, while detrimental to the health of many fighters, helped make boxing more acceptable to the Victorian society which oversaw and witnessed the nascence of the sport and it's transition from a bloody, open-air spectacular to a more "prize" oriented sport. Thus, the first gloved fight, the first interracial bout, the first fight with oxygen at ringside, ....all of them were/are vital.

 

Jeffries was old and shot but he was far from out of shape on fight night. :nono:

 

He had been 6 years out and dropped down from 300lbs. 20 years ago, with a guy like Ray Leonard, 5 years was considered too much. And Ray kept in shape. Jeffries did not.

Even at the end of his "first" career, he was showing signs that his physical prime was deserting him, as evidenced by the photos.

I don't think it detracts from the historical significance too much, just from the pugilistic significance. For me, there were more important fights out there, which either established the sport, kept it going, or made it safer. As I said before, it comes down to more than one fight.

 

Jeffries was a wreck next to his halcyon days. He was not close to being, "in-condition."

The Jeffries of his day would have found a way through Johnson eventually, but the one who turned out for that fight in 1910 would need a miracle which never came.

 

Jeffries, like all of his contemporaries, especially the heavyweights, was a crude boxing dinosaur... even Johnson, by the standards of literally just 10 years later was an archaic antique... but compared to Jeffries, he may as well have been Willie Pep

I dont know anyone can watch a fight of Jeffries or any of the other guys from that era and contend that they would do anything but get murdered by any halfway decent fighter post 1920-1925 or so... they basically stand upright, head movement is almost non existent, holding is essential and non-stop... combination punching is utterly alien and a feint is like some magical, secret trick that only a handful of fighters ever try... Nat Fleischer was WRONG

 

It is interesting to note, "modern boxing" often seems to coincide with fighters no longer being filmed on a hand-cranked camera. It's a source of amusement to me to imagine how people would perceive Vitali Klitschko on said camera, as opposed to hi-def TV.

I think the swing in opinion would catch many off-guard.

 

Jesus Christ. The phrase "old and shot" wasn't enough for you guys.

Jeffries actually worked his ass off to get into shape for that fight. You can see it in the ring.

Obviously he was no longer what he once was and it wouldn't have mattered what kind of shape he would have gotten himself into at that point.

Whether he would have ever beaten Johnson is up for debate.

An old Corbett boxed the shit out of a prime Jeffries for 20+ rounds before he was overtaken by Jeffries stamina and strength.

Corbett never had a chance in what basically amounted to a fight to the finish against Jeffries............because he was never going to knock Jeffries out. He just didn't have enough pop at that point in his career.

Johnson was just as skilled as Corbett, he was bigger and he was stronger.

 

So due to the cameras in use, we magically missed all of the combination punching, bobbing and weaving, feinting, movement that was going on and yet somehow we can see the rest?:dunno:

in 1919, Jack Dempsey looks like an alien from another planet (where apparantley people can box) against Jess Willard

 

If you watch MMA right now. Their stand-up game is basically what boxing looked like in that time period.

I don't quite understand the need to belittle guys from that era. Without them there is no later version of the sport.

Yes it was a different sport........that's why you don't even bother comparing fighters of drastically different fighting eras.

I absolutely despise Mythical Matchup threads because of this.

Always some asshole declaring Tye Fields would dominate the Heavyweight division if he could magically travel back in time to the John L. or even the Joe Louis era. :shit:

Follow that up with some inane reference to Jesse Owens like that somehow has something to do with guys smashing each other in the body and face.

 

The more I think of it, the less historical significance I give to Jeffries-Johnson. Jeffries had already fought and beaten black fighters, so the interracial aspect was pre-established. Burns had already fought Johnson and lost, so the colour line was well and truly crossed. And when you consider what a wreck Jeffries was in comparison to his prime {and in his prime he took a lot of punishment} then the fights pugilistic significance diminishes accordingly.

It's popular with CNN because it features an old, tired white guy being beaten for, ostensibly, being racist.

If that's the case, Bowe vs Golota I must be pretty significant too.

I would venture so far as to say that Joe Louis vs John Henry Lewis was more significant than Jeffries vs Johnson.

 

It was very significant for the United States --- much moreso than Louis-Henry, or Ali-Frazier I. Globally, the fight loses steam, & takes a backseat to Louis-Schmeling II.

However, within American shores, there are few more telling events than this bout in the sport.

 

TOTALLY WRONG, Noble

my issue IS that there are people who actually say things like Jeffries would beat Sonny Liston... Jack Johnson would beat Max Schmeling

Im sorry, that is fucking ridiculous

 

Globally, the second Louis-Schmelling fight should have NO historical significance unless the FULL and PROPER story of that fight is told, and that includes how:

*Hitler was NOT fond of Schmelling
*Schmelling had a JEWISH manager
*The authorities refused to allow his JEWISH manager accompany him to the ring
*Schmelling was pelted with detritus en route to the ring.

 

I am sure you would be just as vigilant in your pursuit of the facts if we were discussing Schmeling/Louis I

for instance, how the crowd cheers Louis at first but once he starts losing, they turn on him and the mood in the arena becomes racist and the crowd cheers Schmeling while shouting racial slurs at Louis


Hitler wasnt fond of Schmeling, but he was more than happy to use him for propaganda afater he beat Louis... and thats what the people of the world SEE... they dont SEE behind the scenes... the fight was highly significant from a socio-global perspective, to say otherwise is ridiculous... you have to go by what the PUBLIC SEES... the public doesnt see Hitler behind the scenes not liking Schmeling, they dont see the stuff with his manager... They see Schmeling as representing the Nazis... the fact that Schmeling wasnt an anti-semite and had nothing against black people is only relevant behind the scenes, its irrelevant to HOW the event was perceived at the time by the public... Nazi vs. American... that was it... for that reason, the fight was a HUGE deal

 

Perception is reality, as they say. Well-put, CDogg.

 

Thank you, sir

 

Okay, so people are stupid and don't see behind the scenes. It's kind of like saying that LH Oswald shot the President, cos that's what the people think.

Hitler used Schmelling. So what? What could Schmelling do about that?

Hitler also sent Schmelling on suicide missions during WW2. It's not like old A-Dolf was a benefactor of Max.

 

What a bunch of Monday morning bullshit.

None of that was relevant at the time. Jim Jacobs was also called a traitor by many American Jews at the time because he was handling Schmeling.

Hitler was not fond of Schmeling, because Schmeling was not fond of Hitler.

However............there are newspaper photos out there of Schmeling giving the "Heil Hitler" salute at events. This is what the public saw at the time.

"In hindsight"........."in retrospect". Bullshit!! Those terms don't apply.

Go read contemporary newspaper coverage.....both pre-fight and post-fight of Louis/Schmeling II and of Johnson vs. Jeffries and tell me neither fight was of historical significance on a societal level.

Sure, the outcome of both fights weren't exactly shockers...........but that has nothing to do with nothing.

"the FULL and PROPER story", has been told. Over and over again. That's why they continue to hold historical significance........in both cases.

 

Im not syaing otherwise

none of that matters in the public perception at the time

therefore, the fight was MAYBE THE BIGGEST EVER

 

What am I wrong about? That it wasn't a different sport? :dunno:


I think the comparisons are stupid in both directions. There's too many what ifs both ways. Transport Liston back in time to Jeffries era. Is there any way Liston could survive a 25-40 round bout with Jeffries if he couldn't knock him out in the first 10-15 rounds or so. Liston was like Tyson.........a frontrunner. Could Liston handle Jeffries crowding and rough-house tactics over the long haul.

Likewise, Jeffries in no way, shape or form could win a 10-15 round decision against Liston by 1960's standards, if he wasn't somehow stopped on cuts or pummeled to a TKO loss before then.

Give Jeffries time to adapt to the modern game...........give Liston time to adapt to the early game..........who the fuck knows.

I say, just keep the comparisons to guys within the same time frame. Serves no purpose to denigrate one era of fighter to build up another.

Humans haven't evolved that much if at all in the last 100 years. Darwin sure as shit didn't think evolution was that fast. We do however "Adapt".

Move Jack Johnson as a small boy to the modern era. He was not a small guy..........he would be athletic and fast for his size in any era. Take a guy like Sam McVey. Very raw, even in his time. Transport him to the modern era and he'd be one of those guys everybody would swear was on Steroids.

There will be fighters who can exist in any era and others who might only be good in one era or another.

 

The first time an ape wiped it's ass with a leaf is of historical significance. Nobody gives a fuck about it either. When I wipe my ass I don't tip my hat to the first ape who mastered the skill.

 

Wow! I guess you win.

 

I guess so.

Thanks.:cheer:

 

The sport has evolved... Liston, throwing combinations, moving his feet and head and punching with straight, compact punches literally murders Jeffries

Liston does not have to adapt to the early game

the early game needs to adapt to what it IMPROVED INTO... why would a later fighter need to regress and fight like a 1900s stiff?

Is Teemu Selanne not allowed to skate incredibly fast and shoot 95 MPH slap shots if we put him in a time machine and have him play against the Montreal Maroons in 1915??

Sure, we could speculate that Jeffries, transported into being born in 1920, develops into every bit as great a fighter by 1940s standards as Joe Louis or Ezzard Charles, but that isnt what actually happened...

The bottom line, if you take Jim Jeffries as he actually was in his prime and put him in a boxing match with Joe Louis or Sonny Liston or Rocky Marciano, he gets fucking killed... the fight doesnt need to go 40 rounds... because he is beaten to shit long before that

 

Have you ever read Jack London's "analysis" of the fight of the century. He was my favorite author as a child and come to find out he was a virulent racist. ::

 

Yup. He was one of the main guys to push Jeffries out of retirement.