Great as in Michael Moore great?
...I think Moore stopped making Documentaries awhile back.
Michael Moore is not a great film maker.
And I thought Jack Johnson was a surfing hippy who new how to play a few chords on guitar?
Jeff Wells book "Boxing Day" is an excellent account of Jack Johnson's quest to get a shot at the heavyweight title.
Johnson was a great fighter - but even he refused to give Sam Langford a title shot.
Dempsey didn't duck Johnson. Johnson was out of the title picture by that point. Harry Wills was the best black heavyweight when Dempsey was champ, but Tex Rickard was warned not to stage a fight between Dempsey and Wills for fear of social repercussions.
ttt
Johnson was considered the greatest defensive fighter of his era. He was not a hard hitter compared to other elite heavyweights of the day, but had great footwork and fast hands. Like Ali, he was known for running his mouth during fights.
I think Jim Jeffries in his prime would have whooped Johnson soundly, but by the time Jeffries took the match against Johnson he was a 320lb alfalfa farmer.
"Johnson was a great fighter - but even he refused to give Sam Langford a title shot."
True. But while he avoided the good black fighters as champion, he at least had already fought (and won) against most of them in his pre-championship days. Langford included, whom Johnson beat by decision IIRC.
"I think Jim Jeffries in his prime would have whooped Johnson soundly..."
Jim Jeffries might have beaten him, maybe. But maybe not--Jeffries himself said after the Johnson fight that he didn't think he could have beaten Jack even when he was in his prime.
In any case, "whooped soundly" is a bit too strong IMO. Johnson was too good to get blown out.
I can relate to wanting to ignore all cultural/political stuff, def, in wanting to think about a fighter, but the reality is that all spectacle is ultimately more about cultural/political stuff than the art around which spectacle develops.
That's why it is "spectacle" rather than merely "sport" - i.e. why sport becomes cultural phenomenon, instead of merely competition (which does not resonate socially on the level of "spectacle).
Without intending to offend people who are irritated by having to think about things like this, a few links to web articles and cites (various types, various degrees of intellectual rigor) related to Johnson and texts about him:
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/film/journal/articles/muhammad-ali-jack-johnson.htm
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17557
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HOLPRO.html
Those of you who are at Universities that have UMI Proquest will be able to find deep reserves of academic work on Johnson, spectacle, boxing & American social contest with a search string like "Jack Johnson boxer cultural studies" or similar.
Those of you who aren't interested in these types of readings, or who don't care about the topics they cover, please know that this is just intended for those who are interested, & do care to pursue these topics. It is not intended as some form of personal attack on your disinterest. These are just resources that should be discussed when Jack Johnson is a topic of discussions.
Johnson is still going to end up being a lightning rod for racialized (and racist) talk and thinking, whether openly or in habituated & liminalized ways, as some of the posts on this thread demonstrate.
If it's useful to you, good. If not, OK.
Jack Johnson IS boxing.
The guy was one of the toughest boxers ever who was even more of a rebel outside the ring.
He was targeted by law enforcment because he had sex with white women, which was a no-no at the time.
He openly challenged authority figures and fought all of that era's social taboos.
He was always outspoken and never backed down from anyone who treated him badly.
He also just happened to be one of the toughest men in the World.
I watched an old match of his where he hits a guy so hard the guy's teeth STUCK into his glove!!
You can actually see him brush the teeth out of his glove as the guy is lying on the floor!!
Now THAT'S BOXING.
"He was targeted by law enforcment because he had sex with white women, which was a no-no at the time."
Several people on this thread have stated this same thing, now, using the same type of language.
It needs to be pointed out that the same statement can be made in another way, using language that has a very different political freightage:
"He was targeted by law enforcement and white society because he married a white woman, and white people at the time could not tolerate the idea of "interracial sex."
It's important to point this out because in the wording of the first statement, the onus of transgression or guilt is tilted toward the black male, rather than the system of values which is where the moral error really lays.
People today find it more natural to state the same thing the first way for the same reasons that the "interracial sex problem" existed in the first place: people still cannot really bear the burden of talking about racial problems as a problem of white supremacy - certainly not in a way that befits the problem itself.
Also, if you don't know it already, you should look into the content of contests over "interracial sex." They are not about sex, but about social power and what sex signifies.
In American popular discourse, "sexual equality" - signified by sexual "intercourse" - stands in for "social equality," and vice-versa. You can talk either subject without having to mention that subject itself by simply talking about the other.
That is why people were lynched under accusations of "rape" when in fact their real crimes were things like "backsassing" or "failing to walk in the gutter as whites approached on the sidewalk." It is also why in the popular discourse of that era, the need for lynchings and mob actions on the part of whites against blacks was always spoken of as a need to protect "white womanhood" from "black brutes." Since "sexual transgression" stands in for "social transgression" and vice versa, you can talk about the latter by speaking solely about the former, and that is what people did in Johnson's time, and what people still do today (even without thinking about it, or being self-aware of it).
The problem for Jack Johnson was that he was perceived as "uppity" and as a "bad nigger." If you recognize that the content of those phrases has more to do with Johnson's "race" than his behavior - divorced from any difference of "race" - then you understand that the problem for Jack Johnson was the ways of white folks.
Again, those ways are a problems people still cannot bear to discuss openly, even as they recycle the problem itself in failing to do so. It's just something that needs to be pointed out, in the interest of resisting the recycling process, or just plain unmasking it.
Somebody needs a girlfriend.
(j/k):)
Thread killin' ain't my concern. :)
There are more important things in life than getting along with others, or "going with the flow," honestly.
That's kind of the point of 90% of my posts.
btw, GaryG, given my (academic, whatever you want to call it) point, your one liner has a kind of ironic genius to it, though probably not the one you intend - though if you did that was pretty clever of you.
"possession of woman's body = measure of social equality/human validity = contested ground"
That being the psycho-sexual perversion I was trying to highlight, maybe you can see why your comeback is kind of ironically brilliant.
ttt
Re: Johnson's Style
It was actually very interesting...and rather unique for his time. Johnson's style involved deflecting punches with his hands and forearms...basically "chasing down" incoming punches, intercepting them, and landing heavy counters. That would be a VERY hard (if not impossible) style to apply in this day and age of boxing.
It's said that where he had some considerable trouble was against "infighters" who crowded his defense zone and sneaked in short powerful punches.
So we're DEFINITELY not talking about the crappy musician, then
Well then hook me up, historian.
"btw, GaryG, given my (academic, whatever you want to call it) point, your one liner has a kind of ironic genius to it, though probably not the one you intend - though if you did that was pretty clever of you."
I'll admit I didnt make the connection without you pointing it out. I was just being a smartass. I'm appropriately humbled.
Its clear you're not only very intelligent, but you're a good sport.
If you watch the program I'd be interested in your thoughts.
6'5" and 185 lbs....you guys need to get your shit straight.....
" jack johnson was a bad mofo. he was GIGANTIC for the era, 6'5", and strong."
The IBHOF lists him at 6'1, 190, only slightly larger than "Gentleman Jim" Corbett who went 6'1, 176. Jim Jeffries, considered the greatest of the era by boxing historians of the first half of the century, was 6'2, 205.
" jack johnson was a bad mofo. he was GIGANTIC for the era, 6'5", and strong."
You're confusing him with Jess Willard.