History HubΒ permalink
Jack Johnson vs Jim Jeffries
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Friday, 31st December 2010
Was this the most important heavyweight title bout in American history? Not so much for the quality of the boxing, but for the outcome.
Jack Johnson had become the first black heavyweight champ about a century ago when he beat incumbent Tommy Burns. However, many boxing fans felt that Burns was not the best white heavy around, and that honour belonged to JIm Jeffries, who destroyed all before him when he ruled the roost, and retired undefeated. There was a clamour from white fans to bring Jeffries out of retirement to 'teach Johnson a lesson'. The media coverage and the betting odds leading up to the fight seemed to indicate that Jeffries was the overwhelming favourite. However, Johnson was seemingly unaffected by the barrage of racist abuse in the media, on the streets, from the crowds, and from Jeffries' corner, to beat Jeffries comfortably.
Some historians have said that this result was the most significant event in black American history since slavery was abolished less than half a century earlier ('Unforgivable Blackness', Geoffrey C Ward, p217). Quite a few black Americans suddenly started to refute the segregationist policies of the United States at the time, and challenged the view that whites were superior to blacks. In the violence that followed, between 11 and 24 people died, as whites clashed with blacks. And this time, blacks were fighting back!
There is the incident where a black woman removed her cap on getting on the train, and being asked why, whereupon she said she was black, and wanted everyone to see, and she was proud of it (Ward, p215). A reporter in Chicago saw an old black man holding his grand-daughter up to see Johnson at a victory parade, telling her she was seeing the 'greatest coloured man who ever lived' (Ward, p219).
The Los Angeles Times was so concerned about Johnson's victory that it felt compelled to write an editorial warning black people not to celebrate too much, and to remember that they are the 'same members of society that they were the week before, they were on no higher plane, deserved no extra consideration, and that 'no man will think higher of you because your complexion is the same as that of the victor at Reno' (Ward, p216). The American authorities did their best to prevent films of the fight being shown in areas where there were large numbers of black people. Christian groups, newspapers, politicians, and Theodore Roosevelt combined their efforts to ensure that the film was not shown in the southern states. The San Francisco Examiner said that it was not right for young impressionable white people to see a member of their own race beaten by a 'gigantic' black man (Ward, p230). Even in the British empire, where the Johnson-Burns fight was shown in SOuth Africa and the Indian subcontinent, the British felt concerned enough to ban the Johnson-Jeffries fight from being shown in the same places (Ward, p231).
But, despite these efforts, the news spread in one way or another. In NOrth Carolina, a catchy verse was created, which ended like this:
The Yankees hold the play,
The white man pulls the trigger;
But it make no difference what the white man say,
The world champion's still a n.
At the same time, the gradualistic approach of Booker T Washington took a back seat to WEB DuBois' NAACP, and his confrontational activism. Washington had taken the approach that black people should accept white superiority, and work within that framework to change things. He didn't like Johnson's in-your-face approach, while DuBois felt that Washington's approach wasn't working, and that a more aggressive approach was needed.
It does seem that Johnson's victory over Jeffries was more than just a boxing match, and played a role in this change in approach to tearing down the barriers of segregation.... -
Message 2
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 31st December 2010
Good post, shiva! I think that Joe Louis' bout with Max Schmelling on June 9th, 1936 was even more vital than Johnson's or even Ali's bouts in the 70's.
Johnson's bout though, was a vitally important fight on several levels- boxing, law and race. Johnson had, in his youth, been paid to fight otherblack boys for the amusement (and gambling profits!) of rich white men. Here is where he honed his craft. Ever indifferent to the barrage of institutionalist racism he faced, he dated- and even married- a white woman!
However, after receiving mafia threats he divorced her and married a black girl. Hoover of the FBI also soon sought ways to discredit Johnson.
Oddly, after his retirement in 1928 he approached the new black boxing US superstar, Joe Louis- very different in character to the loud, brash and threatening (to the whites) Johnson, to train him in his 1930's build-up to fighting Max Schmelling, the star of Nazi germany.
Louis was quiet, unassuming and polite, the 'white man's blackman' (I saw in one source), but his trainer rebuffed the brash and by then liable Johnson, who was so incensed that he offered his training services to Schmelling!! A black man advising a 'nazi boxer'!
Louis' bout with Scmelling (who of course won the first clash) was not just a sporting, racial and Political clash, but also the battle of nations - Nazi Germany vs the 'free' USA (who were just as racist against blacks as the nazis, and had some similar laws as the Nazis did against jews) -
Message 3
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Friday, 31st December 2010
Thanks for your kind words, Man Upstairs....
I haven't reached that far in Ward's biography of Johnson yet. I'm still in the aftermath of his victory over Jeffries! But it is a very interesting read. I knew times were tough then, but the vitriol that passed as journalism at the time is still shocking, even for someone like me, who's not black.
Of course, that bout between Joe Louis and Max Schmeling was quite a significant match too - how could I have forgotten about that? While Johnson was very much in-your-face to white fans, as you say, Louis was a different kettle of fish. And given that he was fighting the German 'enemy', maybe that fight was good enough to start winning over white American boxing fans to support a black American boxer now. Maybe....
And isn't it sad the way Schmeling was tarred with the Nazi brush, when he had little to do with Hitler himself? When Louis fell on hard times, wasn't it Schmeling who came to his aid, and provided him with financial assistance, when no one in the United States did? -
Message 4
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 31st December 2010
Hi Shiv, you're welcome.
Yes Schmelling was a decent bloke, unwittingly tarred by the nazi brush he was caught beneath! He became friends with Joe Louis after 1945, by which time he was past his best, yet under West german Govt he was allowed to keep most of his wealth, unlike his friend, Louis. Both retired in 1948, though due to deep tax debts, the latter was forced back into the ring.
I personally think that the right-wing J.Edgar Hoover, chief of the FBI (who hated MLKing and JFKennedy and whose homosexuality was purportedly blackmailed by the Mafia) was behind alot of the (apparent) Government's cynically unfair treatment of Louis, who had done alot to promote war bonds whilst a serviceman in WWII, and personally gave his bout purses to the US navy.
"Joe Louis donated money from two fight purses to the Navy Relief Fund and the Army Relief Fund. Rooseveltβs new tax laws were complicated, however, and Louis was not allowed to deduct those two purses, or other gifts he made, from his taxes." -
Message 5
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 2nd January 2011
shivfan
I think that this thread like several others that you have started raises the fact that the Wilberforce campaign, and the Society of Friends campaign of which it was a "British" extension, misled black slaves into believing that their slave status was the cause of their problems rather than a symptom.
In fact the story of Olaudah Equianno suggests that an African slave was probably most likely to rise out of the helpless position in which he/she had sunk initially within African society through the benevolent support of those with at least enough wealth and power to make sure that they had education and the opportunity to "better themselves". Who you know was/is always more important than what you know.
Wilberforce, as an evangelical Christian, was more concerned with the dangers to the immortal soul presented by the new access to wealth and power- and its abuse- in that Age of Revolution: and, in that, he was an appropriate ally for the "Quakers" who believed in the simple life and self-help- even at the price of remaining very much "outsiders", who were promoting a counter-culture.
In my considerable experience of teaching in the Brixton area this old-tendency was replicated by those of my colleagues, who like me had gone to work in the Inner City because of the great concentration of deprivation, disadvantage etc- but who saw the challenge faced by their pupils largely in terms of Communist and/or Socialist revolution, and rather like Marx and Engels welcomed the explosive potential of discontented masses who might bring about a total change.
While things will have to change in radical, perhaps even revolutionary, ways, it is a "sin" to "leave undone those things that we ought to have done".
As the product of the "ladder of opportunity" that allowed people like Neil Kinnock and me to get to university, when no-one from our families had ever done so before, I felt that, while we were working out how to change the world, many black pupils were not effectively shown "the way up" by people who saw the value in having gained entry to the Middle Class. Those who believed that the world works by conflict, struggle and exploitation were more interested in gaining recruits to their cause than actually helping talented individuals to achieve their potential. And historically it has been too easy to see "black people" as part of a group to the detriment of their individuality, whereas- like the great sand dunes that cross deserts- human society too has to move grain by grain, and hopes for manipulated and artificial "great leaps forward" are usually bound to fail.
Cass -
Message 6
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Sunday, 2nd January 2011
hi shivfan
no it wasnt the most important heavyweight fight - it may have shown that the blackman was every bit as good as the white man in combat - johnsons behaviour confirmed the racialists prejducises - why a blackman shouldnt be allowed to fight for the title
the most important heavyweight TITLE fight was james braddock against louis - a black champion was crowned who by his dignity and behaviour ensured that black fighters could contest the heavyweight title until this day
he defended the title 25 times against white and black - he had charity matches for us forces charities - and even after his dog days - his fights were never the great white hope contests ie against Marciano it was just a fight between 2 fighters
as it has been ever since - with johnson people wanted him batterred - against louis people wanted the american to win lol
st -
Message 7
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Sunday, 2nd January 2011
When Marciano beat Louis he was almost upset that he had seen his hero fall by his own hands?
"I didn't beat Joe Louis. I beat a shadow of Joe Louis." -
Message 8
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 3rd January 2011
Shivfan,
Here's a doc on Youtube about Jack Johnson:
-
Message 9
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 3rd January 2011
And here's a doc on Louis & Schmelling:
-
Message 10
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Tuesday, 4th January 2011
Thanks for those links, WhiteCamry....
-
Message 11
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 4th January 2011
shivfan
Just an aside, I realised today that KP wants to bat like an all-rounder in the Botham-Flintoff mould...
But one of the reasons why they could play in a cavalier fashion- and yet stay in the team- was that,when they failed with the bat, their teammates knew that they would address the deficit in their bowling and bowl with added purpose.
Cass -
Message 12
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Tuesday, 4th January 2011
hi man alive
i like the other marciano quote "After 4 rounds i realised i had to find a way past Joes jab or find a new nose " lol
the thing wth louis was that white or black - dont forget he battered the white ex champion - primo carnera - the british and commonwealth champion tommy farr - buddy baer etc etc he was a champion against contenders - not white men
when he lost to schmeling he accepted it - when he won he accepted it as did schmeling - no complaints
we all know hitler was so annoyed he invaded poland lol
this period was the most important in heavyweight boxing history - fighters like ezzard charles and jersey joe walcott - were legitamate contenders no matter what their colour - leading the way to patterson and even the awesome (slightly suspect) sonny liston
the rest is history - all down to one man
st -
Message 13
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 6th January 2011
Cass, here's a great messageboard to talk cricket....
It's not like the 606 site here on the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ, where the prevailing approach of posters is to abuse and insult posters. I try to talk cricket here at the Beeb now and then, but I eventually have to throw in the towel and return to the mature sanity of CMS.... -
Message 14
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Friday, 7th January 2011
Guys, personally I rate Joe Louis as one of the greatest heavyweights of all time....
But could he not have been inspired by Jack Johnson's success over Jeffries? Yes, it occurred before he was born, but before this bout, black Americans were living under the myth that they were inferior and second-rate, forced to live in segregated quarters. Black Americans had only just come out of slavery less than 50 years before, and they were told that whites were their superiors in so many ways. Johnson beating Jeffries confirmed in the minds of many black Americans that that was not the case after all....
Okay, yes, I do accept that probably Louis's win over Braddock may have been more significant. But maybe one was the forerunner to the other....
To me, it matters little that Johnson seemed to confirm the prejudices white Americans had for blacks. His in-your-face attitude turned a lot of whites against him, because he was standing up to their unfair segregation of the races. But his win over Jeffries also inspired a lot of blacks to start believing in themselves.
Yes, in certain respects Johnson's behaviour confirmed a lot of sterotypes whites had of blacks. But the white-controlled media also ignored the facts that Johnson was a very intelligent man. He could discuss politics not just in the US, but in other countries he'd visited. He was an accomplished player of the bass viol. He was very fond of classical music, and never travelled without his gramophone. He and his beloved Etta loved listening to Il Trovadore. Many times he was able to reply to his detractors with excellent witty comments.
It seems that his biggest crime, as far as white America saw it, was that he liked white women, and refused to accept the colour bar erected by the country's laws. In this twisted way, you could almost say he was ahead of his time.... -
Message 15
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 7th January 2011
shivfan
While your general argument perhaps has some thrust for those who regard boxing as a noble art, from the pure point of view of the racist attitudes to black people surely the most common stereotypes were that they were (a) vicious and gifted with an explosive and rugged physicality,(b) that they were promiscous in both the Victorian and the modern senses, and (c) that they really loved to party.
The recent death of the lead singer of Boney M is a reminder that racist attitudes have been prominent in many of the most high profile black success stories. Raciist attitudes in Germany between the wars did not stop "Pure Aryans" from enjoying the thrill of "slumming it" amongst "inferior races": and I mention Boney M because I seem to remember that they first made it big on the German circuit, decades after Josephine Baker was one of the most popular acts around in the Weimar Republic.
These attitudes were very obvious in the early careers of British born black footballers, who- until the Arsenal trio with Davis, and Thomas- were always played just for their "natural physicality" on the fringes of the game, particularly up front and on the flanks and not for their skill and/or intelligence. As someone who had done a bit of making runs up the touchline I was always frustrated that his English team mates usually did not understand the intelligence behind the surging runs of Viv Anderson, as my team mates often did not understand mine ( tending to see me as a geek, bespectacled book-worm).
But then all this is just to say that it has been a long road...
Cass -
Message 16
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 7th January 2011
I agree. When all is said and done, (rhetorically) why is it that black boxers totally dominate heavyweight boxing? Anger? Hunger? Bitterness? Natural physical ability?
-
Message 17
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 7th January 2011
Man Alive
Well having dealt with many explosive young Afro-Caribbeans- and having been (according to old friends from uni- an "angry young man" myself) I think that personal history or inheritance can make for explosiveness and combativity.
But most Afro-Caribbeans and Afro-Americans would appear to have West African roots and, as slaves they were very much sought after by the Spanish and Portuguese precisely because they were more accustomed to field work than the Amerinidians. Things like traditional slash and burn farming techniques must be pretty good at building up shoulder strength and ability to strike hard.
President Obama being East African has roots in a very different tradition. The region tends to have traditional herding societies. In the Seventies I had a white colleague who had taught in Kenya, and had even long-jumped for Kenya. He had seen the incredible athletic potential of the Kenyans for endurance running because they grew up running vast distances of grazing lands: and some like the Masai were incredibly tall and slim, and had a speciality in dancing which was jumping up high from a standing position.
More controversially, however, science might wish to tell us that the whole experience of captivity, slavery etc- that made black Christians associate so much with the Old Testament story of the Israelites- should have had an evolutionary impact.. When the going gets tough the tough get going.. Charles Kingsley wrote in Herewarde the Wake that the average Englishman of that period was superior in physical and mental health to the Victorians because the weak and inferior would have died out of the breeding stock.
More later.
Cass -
Message 18
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 7th January 2011
Hi shivfan
i take your point and you are definitely correct in saying Louis was inspired by Jack Johnson being world champion
by why against Jeffries - he won the title against tommy burns (a not very good canadian who he had tracked down to Sydney) - he - a black man had actually secured a bout against a white champion - and battered him - now that is inspiring
when he fought Jeffries the "Boilermaker" had been retired for 6 years and was unfortunately named as the 1st "great white hope" - jeffires had no chance against a fearsome big fighter at the peak of his career
he fought a few white men (but only one black man - jim johnson - and studiously avoided superb black fighters such as Sam Langford and Harry Wills (he actually knocked out the legendary stanley ketchel - but he was a middleweight)
until Louis no black fighter fought for the heavyweight title - after Louis colour was no bar (althoughlouis only fought 2 coloured fighters - henry lewis - light heavy - and walcott) -
after him anything goes - there was a black champion ezzard charles and then the supreme marciano who was a white fighter ,fought any one - black or white - the superb dignity of louis made all this possible
Hi Man Alive
in the early 70s i read your question in the Ring Magazine
the answers were almost as you suggested -
firstly hunger - its your way out of poverty - definite yes
anger - not really - bitterness - not really - you have to want to fight - and be able to fight and have the willpower to win - which when you are living in poverty comes naturally
the other suggestion was the suggested fact that the negro was naturally a larger person than the caucasian - which i agreed with
this was until i started watching us football games and saw the amount of white blokes at 17st and above - and now watch rugby union and see the size of those blokes
my answer now- is i havent a clue why black big blokes dominate white big blokes in the ring lol and to this day there are no decent white heavy weights in the top 10 - why ??
st -
Message 19
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 7th January 2011
Two things to add- though related:
A colleague originally from Barbados- Oxford graduate and London barrister- just teaching French to help out (and usually excluded -as he often remarked quissically from the meetings of the "Black Teachers" in the school) told me about some post-grad research that he had done on the impact of the abolition of the slave trade on Barbados. As no more slaves could be purchased legally from abroad, it became vitally important to treat the existing slaves as "breeding stock"- and he said that there was pretty clear evidence of the policies of "selective breeding" that were revolutionising the shape of other "breeding stocks". In the case of field hands this would mean a preference for people with a very good power to weight ratio- excellent for explosive activity.
In the USA something like the same result seems to have been achieved by the practice of using some slaves as "dog-drivers". These were the overseers in the field who whipped the slaves and kept them "at it", and the most suitable ones obviously were large and powerful. It was understood that one of the perks of the job was the right to have sex with the female slaves, thus creating a bias within the gene pool.
But- as with a pupil of mine in 1970 in my local boys secondary modern school- I think that Clinton Mackenzie is the only one of the boys from a school serving largely a couple of tough council estates who actually made a name for himself.. I think he even stood for Parliament, or something similar recently.
Boxing has often been a "ladder of opportunity" for boys from rough backgrounds.. Frank Bruno reminded me of a huge youth in a group that I warned off in the late Seventies when some of our pupils were being mugged going across the park to school..
Cass -
Message 20
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 7th January 2011
Cass, Stalti,
Yes, the raw hunger to escape the slums/projects must be the basic force which propels the young black boxers to excel above the young white heavyweights, but as we have discussed, something else. I think it's the same negro (or 'black', not wanting to use disparaging terminology) physiology that propels black sprinters down the racing track faster than white runners? -
Message 21
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 7th January 2011
hi manalive
re the black sprinters - i i- apparently black athletes are better than white sprinters because black athletes have a longer achilles tendon than whites - ie the explosive muscle that makes them faster
apparently that is also the weakness that stops black athletes form being top swimmers
is seems a good reason
st -
Message 22
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 7th January 2011
Yes there have been many theories put forward relating black prowess to racial features/differences.. But what I noticed as a teacher was a much stronger culture of having something to prove- An early introduction to "West Indian "Culture came through my early experimental first year of teaching when I brought a small radio into the classroom to try background music, having done much of my own studies with background music.
The Afro-Caribbean pupils would just get up and dance when a really good dance record came on. But this was quikly dance-fighting, which they enjoyed tremendously. The aim was to achieve a strong hip-thrust in the hope of knocking "the other one" off balance.. In school dances if I started to dance (as I usually did) I often found myself in a ring of pupils dancing "against" a boy/youth who was trying to outdance me in the eyes of the audience.
I had a very sporty older brother who at the age of ten, he being 13, would tell me off for twitching my leg to the beat of rock and roll records being played in the fair grounds.."Stop showing us up!".. But D.H. Lawrence desribed the death of dancing within modern British society. I am not sure that black people and dancing/movement is a racial rather than a cultural thing.
To what extent, therefore, is all this in the mind.. The athletics sensation of 2010 in France has been a young white French man, about 6'4" tall who did a Bolt in I think the European Championship- and seems to have the potential to be a world beater.. When interviewed he explains that he just loves to run as fast as he can in the way his body can, and refuses to be beaten.
Cass -
Message 23
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Saturday, 8th January 2011
talking about black heavyweights who fought with dignity courage and humour
we should think about gary Mason RIP who died thursday after a road accident
39 fights - 1 loss to lennox lewis - retired through eye injury - what a character - fought with a smile on his face - part of the Louis legacy
st -
Message 24
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Monday, 10th January 2011
Yes, the fast-twitch muscles found in those of West African origin play a significant role in the abilities of sprinters....
With regards to boxing, it could be that the strength of a lot of black athletes makes them suitable for certain sports. -
Message 25
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 14th January 2011
the funny thing is that one of the great black heavyweights - Joe Frazier - owes the fearsome power of his left hook to an accident in his childhood when he was chased by a huge pig - he fell over and injured his left arm - deforming it - which led to him developing his short left hook
which as we know wasnt a bad weapon
st -
Message 26
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Friday, 21st January 2011
" it may have shown that the blackman was every bit as good as the white man in combat - johnsons behaviour confirmed the racialists prejducises - why a blackman shouldnt be allowed to fight for the title"
This is a valid point that is very much in existence today...in the tennis world.
Ever since the Williams sisters emerged from the Compton ghetto of Los Angeles and won a lot of tournaments, tennis crowds have hated them with barely disguised racism that is very reminiscent of what I'm reading about the hatred that Johnson generated from the white public about a century ago. Like Johnson, Venus and Serena are two very confident, self-assured athletes who do not accept that they're inferior to whites, and this seems to breed great resentment from the tennis public, especially at the Slams in Australia, the US, France and - yes - Wimbledon.
The unjustified booing that Venus has been subjected to at this Australian Open going on now has been disgraceful. The way racist comments were hurled at the Williams sisters at Indian Wells in the US was so bad that they refuse to play there again. And who can forget the horrible reactions of the Parisian crowd to Serena when Henin was the player who actually cheated by raising her hand, saying she wasn't ready, and then claiming she never did so, even though it was caught on TV? And Wimbledon, 'fans' constantly complained about the Williams sisters playing each other in the finals as if it was their fault that the rest of the players were not good enough to reach the final. At every match these sisters played at these four Slams, the crowds always cheered for the opposing player.
So, in much the same way that Johnson generated hatred from the white public, and it could be argued that it set back black heavyweight boxing a generation until Joe Louis came along, the same could be happening to tennis. I've spoken to parents of young black athletes who say there's no way they want their child to go thru what the Williams sisters are currently enduring, and would oppose any wish by their child to take up tennis. Rather, let them take up football, cricket, boxing, athletics, anything but tennis, with those racist crowds!
And those of us who've hung around some of these so-called elitist tennis clubs have seen the barely-concealed racism that exists there. It's almost as if some of them feel that tennis is the last vestige of white dominance, and that the Williams sisters are threatening it. It's sad, that the boxing crowds of Jack Johnson's days can be replicated in the tennis crowds of modern days.... -
Message 27
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 21st January 2011
shivfan
Makes one understand the Arthur Ash meditation zone technique..
But, having seen Yanik Noah being interviewed in France a few months ago on the release of his latest album, I am wondering whether it is especially in France that black male tennis players are encouraged and treated as national heros- Jo Wilfred Tsonga and at least two others will no doubt figure prominently in the French coverage of the French Open this year.
But I wonder to what degree the disruption of the family life of African-Americans has impeded the development of top tennis players. The Williams sisters are an example of the way that it takes obsessive and effective parental drive to form a top tennis player.. And, perhaps with a few exceptions like Jimmy Connors, sons may not get that from their mothers. Andy Murray and his brother are current examples: and one wonders how being a Mummy's boy impacted upon Andy's tendency to crumble and need hugs when things go awry.
In the case of the Williams sisters, Sharapova, Stephie Graph, possibly Kim Cluisters and no doubt many others this over-riding commitment and ambiotions of fathers for their "dear daughters" has clearly been crucial. Statistically single-parenting has been more common in those who roots run through slavery, and that has made it very difficult for black children to get access to tennis.. Those of us who were once boys know that it is easier to find a place/space to play football or even cricket (who remembers street cricket?) than tennis. Two rackets, a number of balls and a level surface with a net.. And even when you have one close by at the end of your garden, as we have, you have to wait to take your turn..
Having said that, I can see that court 1 is being used, but it is time to go and see whether one of the courts that were flooded the other day is now playable.
Thank God for a bit of sunshine!
Cass -
Message 28
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Friday, 21st January 2011
The thing with players like Yannick Noah, Jo-Wilfred Tsonga and Gael Monfils, they don't win a lot of tournaments. Noah just won one French Open title, and his two successors haven't won any yet. So, the unthreatening black man, maybe? Sort of like Lenny Henry, if you know what I mean....
But the Williams sisters are very 'threatening'.... -
Message 29
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Friday, 21st January 2011
Shivfan -
Did you ever see the spectacular 1970 film "The Great White Hope"? It's a fictionalised version, with the names changed, but obviously it's about Jack Johnson. James Earl Jones played the lead, quite brilliantly I thought.
In view of your comments about 'Amistad', I just wondered what you thought about this film. -
Message 30
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Friday, 21st January 2011
No, I haven't seen it, Jak, but now that you've brought it to my attention, I must look it up....
Thanks for that! -
Message 31
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Friday, 21st January 2011
No prob, Shivfan. It may not tell the whole story - it's "fiction"(!) after all - but it gets some nasty points across.
Jack Johnson was a great hero to my father (a bit of a boxer himself), who often told me about how Johnson had been obliged to feign having been knocked out, then stay down in the ring (although obviously OK) - because of a sniper in the audience. Some 'sportsmen', eh? -
Message 32
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 21st January 2011
Actually shivfan
I have not watched the particular incidents about the William's sisters that you have quoted.. but without necessarily being racist, there are those who are critical of their current policy of trying to "cash in" on the fruits of all that hard work..
Personally- from a teacher's perspective- I am all for the message of people working hard in order to be so empowered that they can then largely live the life they choose..
In many ways you have to give up a normal childhood and adolescence to "make it" in performance sports or arts, and I think that it is OK for them to calculate that they can pursue interests closer to their adult heart and soul just playing the Grand Slams on very little match practice because they will almost certainly still do well enough for their financial needs.
But I suppose that some real tennis officianados may feel that there are loads of girls and women slaving away at the whole circuit, which is "fired up" by the much bigger "pay days" offered by the Grand Slams.
In the men's game is it not a similar case with Nalbandian? I believe that he actually decided years ago that his real passion was the breeding of horses, and he picks out a few tennis tournaments like the Australian- just enough to fund what he really wants to do with his life.. But he is not a World Number One.. Noblesse oblige and all that.
Cass -
Message 33
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 21st January 2011
hi JAK
your father is obviously referring to the Jack Johnson vs jess willard fight in cuba in 1915
after 26 fearsome rounds willard knocked johnson out in the 26th round
the photos of the knockout showed johnson on the canvas with both hands over his eyes leading to the conspiracy theory that johnson was shielding his eyes from the sun and was taking a dive
also that he had been told there was a sniper in the audience so he lay down to minimize the target
absolute rubbish - willard in top condition fought a much under par johnson who had let himself lapse after winning the title
the sad thing was the hysteria because willard had "returned the title to the white race"
willard then lost the title to the 12st Jack Dempsy
st -
Message 34
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Saturday, 22nd January 2011
Thanks, Stalti.
Now you mention it, I remember Dad saying something about Johnson shielding his eyes from the sun as he lay on the deck - and that there was a photograph which (allegedly) showed this.
But I'll certainly take your word for it - it's just another conspiracy theory.
There are far too many of of them about! -
Message 35
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Saturday, 22nd January 2011
"I have not watched the particular incidents about the William's sisters that you have quoted.. but without necessarily being racist, there are those who are critical of their current policy of trying to "cash in" on the fruits of all that hard work.."
Actually, I find that a cop-out, because all the tennis players do the same, and they're not treated the same way. It's much the same as Jack Johnson's womanising, and occasional incidents of wife-beating. He was not alone. John L Sullivan and Jim Corbett were also womanisers and wife-beaters, but they were never prosecuted, and stories about their behaviour never even made it into the press. HOwever, Jackson's escapades did, in much the same way that the criticisms levelled by the tennis world/fans against the Williams sisters are not levelled at the white players....
With regards to the Johnson/Willard fight, I strongly recommend that you guys read this excellent biography by Geoffrey C Ward entitled 'Unforgiveable Blackness'. Ward explains how the theories of Johnson's 'throwing' of the fight came up, especially after the fight itself, when JOhnson claimed it was rigged. However, Ward looks at the evidence, and concludes that JOhnson lost fair and square, because he was much older, less fit, and clearly under stress from persecution by the US govt. -
Message 36
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 22nd January 2011
shivfan
Thanks for your reaction...
There is in fact the wider connection of professional sport to slavery, which I think is relevant to this whole thread.. And perhaps to the approach of the Williams sisters and others to the element of exploitation involved.
Though the sums of money are much greater there seems to be no problem in people being bought and sold in professional sport.. for they usually get a cut. Though not always the "milch cows" who underpin the whole system- that is those who are prepared to pay in one way or another for the right to follow the sport or their team. Though that commitment can lead to a sense of ownership and entitlement. "This is our club" etc
My own sporting obsession for sometime has been English Rugby and I was furious when the English RFU cashed in on the TV audience that the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ had built up over the years and sold me and all the existing audience to Sky TV- for though there was potential for a wider audience- the existing one was a good basis to build upon. I believed that the English team was the team that represented the English people- not just those who could afford SKY TV.
This gross commercialization of sport tends to result in developments contrary to the sporting ethic. Perhaps Roman games evolved in the same way. Of course fist-fighting was more damaging than boxing, but even with the boxing rules it is a hard and abbrassive sport.
But the introduction of big money into other sports has had its impact in terms of modifying the games in order to fill TV screens and stadia with an vulgar appeal to those who want "Big Bang" and sexy experiences. In terms of tennis there have been various changes to increase the power of play, and at the same time to make the power less effective. Whether women sports actually perform better with fewer clothes than their male counter-parts is an interesting point. From the time that Virginia Wade was paid to pose in a bikini I suppose it has been obvious where the money was leading.
But generally the result in the physical cost to players is very obvious with the amount of injuries because sports are now no longer designed for healthy and normal human beings but- at the highest level- for freaks. Most sports in this global age have anticipated global warming in having no seasons.
I made my previous post before I knew that Venus had had to pull out of her match after seven points because of a recurrence of an injury.. But once again I have noticed that the surface that the Australians use is the worst of all the Grand Slams at rewarding genius. Strokes that would be aces and clean winners on almost any other surface in world tennis are not decisive on this blue surface. So the stakes are stacked against the player, and along with the heavier and more bouncy balls that are now used, the Aussies get a kind of tennis that is rather like the Dance Marathons in the era of "They Shoot Horses Don't They". I think it appeals to the Aussie mentality.
The great Wimbledon final between Borg and Macenroe is a universe away.
Cass -
Message 37
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Saturday, 22nd January 2011
Johnson should be seen in the context of the times he lived in. It was the times of lynchings, jim crow, to turn back the gains made during post civil war re-construction, where blacks were given rights, could vote, stand for election, sit on juries over whites etc. If this had continued naturally there would no need for the Civil Rights movement of the 60s. In fact African Americans were getting the start of full rights which was denied to them following the War of Indepence a century earlier, when both sides promised them they would end slavery after the war if they supported them. Alas that promise like similar ones made with the Native Amricans at the time and ever since was broken. There were some who did not want equality for all and wanted 'America' to be as it was under the founding fathers, afimative action for one group only. So the political and social gains during re construction were blocked and Jim Crow emerged.
It was stated that other African American leaders like Booker T called for gradualism and non confrontation to improve their lot collectively. But it was boutnd to fail, only a few would make good. And they would be shut out of the mainstream society. For instance there were all black towns in the south, with black banks, insurance companies, factories etc. all back sports teams in the negro leagues. There were some black millionaires, some owned planes and fleets of rolls royces. however they could not served or allowed in the top restaurants and hotels.
That approach would not work and the only way was the way of Johnson. Some saw him as the 'uppity negro' who did not know his place. His actions insprired generations after him. When warned not to fight a white fighter, because it may cause race riots and killings, he just sneered, 'I dont care, i'm still going to knock that white guy out' and he did. It took bravery to do that.
Now when Muhammad Ali called himself 'The Greatest' in the segregated 60s, it was still dangerous and threatening to some people. Sign of a black man who did not know his place. But he would not be able to do that if it was not for Johnson, who some said was either mad or brave.
Joe Louis was loved, by all, as some claim. But it was pointed out the US govt did not give him a break over taxes despite all the fund raising and support for the war effort he gave. When he met the president, he only met him in the gardens and not inside the White House like he did to his visitors. He was still treated like a 'negro', who had to sit out on the porch. Johnson was a different kettle of fish.Who did what he wanted not bowing to anyone even the powerful whites who did not see him as an equal.The 'whites' or the public who wanted to see him battered, wanted to see a black man who knew his place, not one who refused to accept it. Johnson having white women as partners so blatantly also angered the establishment. Who believed the white woman was pure and should be protected by the evil blacks. This was a message of the iconic film 'Birth of the Nation' which was made around the time of Johnson.
Final point and I apologise for the length of this. In American schools, do they teach that segregation, slavery, the genocide and breaking of agreements with the Native Americans was wrong?Which helped to create a racially divided society, Or that it just happened, its all in the past and lets 'dont talk about it'? When the US helped to re write the post war constitutions of Germany and Japan, they made sure the next generations were taught about the wrongs of the past. Did the American do that? It would help the healing caused by the past.
The aparent prejudice against the Williams Sisters and Tiger Woods being held out to dry for doing what many other rich and famous guys do, could be part of the said legacies of the past. -
Message 38
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 22nd January 2011
Shivfan
Thinking further about my last-- I still can not rule out that the reactions to the Williams sisters, to which you alluded may well have been based upon knowledge rather than ignorance, and if the latter perhaps not it is not the ignorance associated with racism.
Having mentioned the big money in sport, the new African "body trade", in which those being traded end up being fabulously rich, has thrown up lots of examples of black men who try to use their money and fame to make a difference "back home".. This is the case with a number of footballers,and I recently watched a feature in which one of the stars of GB basketball went back to South Sudan, where his family came from to England, in order to see what he could do to help his country especially should it become independent.
In terms of tennis Mr and Mrs Agassi have charitable foundations within their native USA and Germany, the American one funding a secondary school dedicated to disadvantaged children. And a couple of weeks ago Federer and Nadal played a couple of matches for their own charitable foundations, in Switzerland and Spain. Federer's mother is I believe from South Africa and one of his foundations is based on helping people in the townships there. Federer I believe was once again one of the first people to volunteer to play a charity match just before the start of the Australian to raise funds for flood victims.
Perhaps Venus and Serena are just much more discreet about the good works that they can now achieve after a decade of being probably the highest earners in women's tennis..
I only really get deeply involved at Wimbledon, but when interviewed the Williams sisters are usually full of projects involving new worlds that they can conquer for themselves - fashion, modelling, the movies.
Of course there have, as I suggested before, been many sportswomen who have used their sporting success to launch more lucrative paralle careers. I think that Sharapova paid the price of enjoying the glamour, fashion and such world too much.. And she has it all to do career wise before she can be compared with the Williams sisters..
I suppose boxing was one of the first activities where peope could be "Buppies".. and so far mostly the Oil Industry and the Mafia have produced the "Ruppies"-- Russian Upwardly mobile people- but tennis seems to becoming an ex-communist zone speciality.
Cass -
Message 39
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Sunday, 23rd January 2011
I forgot to add this to my earlier post above. The Establishment and perhaps most whites, saw Johnson as personifying the biggest fear they had of blacks since slavery began: the black uprising seeking revenge. During Reconstruction where blacks held key positions in the state legislation houses, fears of 'reverse racism' or 'black backlash' was immense as well as being ironic and hypocritical. It led to the denial of political and citizenship rights and the evil jim crow segregation laws often enforced with extreme violence, ignored by state and federal government. So Johnson was a very brave man in those times
(1871) Joseph H. Rainey, βSpeech Made in Reply to An Attack Upon the Colored State Legislators of South Carolina..." from blackpast.org:
We are certainly in the majority there; I admit that we are as two to one. Sir, I ask this House, I ask the country, I ask white men, I ask Democrats, I ask Republicans whether the Negroes have presumed to take improper advantage of the majority they hold in that State by disregarding the interest of the minority?
Also at:
.html
Black Reconstruction - THE INITIAL STAGES, BLACK POLITICAL POWER, THE END OF RECONSTRUCTION, LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR FUTURE RESISTANCE
In South Carolina, for instance, African-American politicians such as Rainey, Robert Smalls, and Robert B. Elliot were able to win election to the U.S. House of Representatives, African Americans held a majority in the state house of representatives for several years, and African Americans served as Speakers of the House for four years (including Elliot, from 1874β1876). -
Message 40
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Friday, 28th January 2011
I think Elkstone has summed it up perfectly....
-
Message 41
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 28th January 2011
Obviously the heavyweight championship was a salient point in sporting history - theoretically the greatest unarmed fighter on planet earth
when and who were the other black sporting milestones - American football, baseball, basketball etc - was there a similar furore
come to that - what about the lighter boxing weights - did that cause a fuss
st -
Message 42
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 22nd September 2011
As we all know, race was also a major issue with the arrival of Cassius Clay, who made a point of changing his name in 1961 to Muhammad Ali, to identify with the Nation of Islam and the civil rights movement. He wanted to distinguish himself from the heavyweight champs of previous years, who followed the Joe Louis model of doing nothing to upset the white paymaster. In that respect, it could be said that Ali had more in common with Jack Johnson than with Joe Louis.
I've just watched some footage of the fight Ali had with Frazier in 1971, and even though it was seven years since he changed his name, and even though all his handlers had the name Muhammad Ali written on their gowns, the commentator insisted on calling him Clay for most of the fight, just occasionally letting an 'Ali' slip in. Now, I know that quite a few American boxing commentators were against the civil rights movement, and were the ones who insisted on calling him 'Clay'. But this commentator was British!
Fortunately, the crowd knew what to call their man, and chanted the name 'Ali' over and over again....
I guess it just goes to show that the commentators tended to represent the status quo, and did not necessarily represent what the people felt.... -
Message 43
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 22nd September 2011
Corrections: Clay changed his name in 1964, not 1961, to Muhammad Ali....
-
Message 44
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 22nd September 2011
Shivfan
"Racism" perhaps more than "race".. And surely it was a essentially "Africanism" .
To Ali - as a follower of The Prophet Elijah Mohamed - Christianity was the religion of slavery and slave masters who wanted their slaves to be Christians and "turn the other cheek" etc ..
And taking a Muslim name is quite normal for people who convert to Islam as in Yusuf Islam- Cat Stevens.
But in terms of slavery Islam did not abolish it. It merely insisted that slaves were equal in the sight of Allah. So slavery and the slave trade in West Africa was inextricably connected in the Islamic era with the outreach of the Islamic Empire right down to sub-Saharan states like Ghana and Mali which were staging posts for the slave trade across the desert.
But I think that the Black Muslim argument was that at least these were African states.
As for Ali was it before 1961 that he won the Olympic Gold as Cassius Clay?
I remember staying up in c1963-4 to see the Cassius Clay-Sonny Liston fight .. Was it not once he was world Champion that he started insisting on being called MA? Which would not necessarily mean that he had made the change in 1961.
Cass -
Message 45
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 22nd September 2011
shivfan
My previous post brought back to mind meetings in our Lambeth staff room in which it was stated that Indians, Chinese, South Americans- in fact all of humankind apart from white Europeans and their direct descendants were "black". Hardly therefore a "race" as such.
Cass -
Message 46
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 23rd September 2011
cassius clay declared he was a muslim after he beat liston in 1964 - at some some that year he announced his new name
he won the gold medal in 1960 and when he came home to louisville as the story goes he went to a burger bar and ordered a hamburger - the owner said "i dont serve ni-----s" ali said "I dont want a n-----r - i want a hamburger"
that night he threw his gold medal in the river (hey find that and put it on ebay lol)
he was from then on a muslim and who can blame him
he destroyed a man - who whilst not an uncle tom was at least pliable to the white mans wishes
this made him an enemy to the ruling class and from then on every fight even against black men - was the white mans hope
its quite ironic that if liston hadnt come across ali - he would have been heavyweight champion for years - and he would have been a worse black icon than ali ever was (to the ruling class that is )
st -
Message 47
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 23rd September 2011
stalti
That goes along with what I remember.. Presumably once he was World Champion he could "go public.".
I remember seeing a dicumentary about Nat King Cole- I loved his TV shows in the Fifties -- But the **** he had to take, and still keep smiling politely.. Ku Klux Klan crosses burned on his lawn because he bought a house in somewhere nice... No wonder he was a chain smoker (according to his widow- only cigarettes ) and died in his mid forties .. Hatred and hostility take their toll.
Cass -
Message 48
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Sunday, 20th November 2011
cassius clay declared he was a muslim after he beat liston in 1964 - at some some that year he announced his new name
he won the gold medal in 1960 and when he came home to louisville as the story goes he went to a burger bar and ordered a hamburger - the owner said "i dont serve ni-----s" ali said "I dont want a n-----r - i want a hamburger"
that night he threw his gold medal in the river (hey find that and put it on ebay lol)
he was from then on a muslim and who can blame him
he destroyed a man - who whilst not an uncle tom was at least pliable to the white mans wishes
this made him an enemy to the ruling class and from then on every fight even against black men - was the white mans hope
its quite ironic that if liston hadnt come across ali - he would have been heavyweight champion for years - and he would have been a worse black icon than ali ever was (to the ruling class that is )
²υ³ΩΜύ Interesting, stalti, thanks for that.... -
Message 49
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Sunday, 20th November 2011
stalti, I thought I'd post this here....
It could be argued that Joe Louis was the acceptable face of black boxing because he did his best not to offend whites, and knew his place, at a time when black people were second-class citizens in the US, unlike Jack Johnson, who demanded equality at a time when America was not prepared to give it....
The question is, which approach was the better one to take? Most modern black Americans would feel a greater affinity to Johnson's stand against perceived injustice, than the Brown Bomber's meek acceptance of it. -
Message 50
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 25th November 2011
hi shivfan
not sure if i am replicating here lol
but - jack johnson somehow managed to get a fight against tommy burns - and beat him
he didnt help his race by fighting a black fighter - but went for the money by fighting willard
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.