Heavyweight Title Fights That Never Happened

[Paulie W]

A recent edition of British Boxing News featured an article looking at 10 heavyweight title fights that never happened, predicted how they would have turned out and suggested how they may have changed the history of the heavyweight division. A good article, if, in my opinion, sometimes off in its assessment, which raised some issues worthy of discussion.

Five of the fights were fairly predictable, insofar as I have seen them discussed often: Jackson KO Sullivan; Wills KO Dempsey (if they met early in Dempsey's reign); Folley KO Patterson; Holmes PTs Foreman; Lewis KO Bowe.

Three were, to me at least, not that interesting: Tunney PTS Sharkey; Schmeling PTS Braddock; Marciano KO Valdes.

Two of the 'fights', however, really piqued my interest:

Langford-Burns - they saw an easy win for Sam, which I would agree with, but they then imagined that Langford, while a less controversial figure than Johnson, would have followed a similar strategy in defending his title by avoiding other black fighters. Would others agree? Or does Sam give Johnson, McBey, Jeanette, Wills, a chance?

Dempsey-Greb - I've never seen this discussed at any length before and wondered how close if at all it came to being made? They picked Greb to win early in Dempsey's reign, but imagined Greb's physical deterioration (?!) would have made Dempsey the favourite later in his reign. Any thoughts?

[Elmer Ray]

Five of the fights were fairly predictable, insofar as I have seen them discussed often: Jackson KO Sullivan; Wills KO Dempsey (if they met early in Dempsey's reign); Folley KO Patterson; Holmes PTs Foreman; Lewis KO Bowe.

Three were, to me at least, not that interesting: Tunney PTS Sharkey; Schmeling PTS Braddock; Marciano KO Valdes.

Two of the 'fights', however, really piqued my interest:

Langford-Burns - they saw an easy win for Sam, which I would agree with, but they then imagined that Langford, while a less controversial figure than Johnson, would have followed a similar strategy in defending his title by avoiding other black fighters. Would others agree? Or does Sam give Johnson, McBey, Jeanette, Wills, a chance?

Dempsey-Greb - I've never seen this discussed at any length before and wondered how close if at all it came to being made? They picked Greb to win early in Dempsey's reign, but imagined Greb's physical deterioration (?!) would have made Dempsey the favourite later in his reign. Any thoughts?

very interesting.........

however


i think dempsey knocks out wills, and i defintley think patterson kayoes glass jaw folley. pattersons combination of speed and power way too much for folley.





i would have liked to see them make report for tunney vs godfrey




btw did they give an descriptions on there predictions? like did they say anything about marciano-valdez?

[Paulie W]

They provided a short description of the fights. They see Marciano, perhaps cut and perhaps having been dropped, overwhelming Valdes in the second half of the fight.

I was slightly misleading with the Dempsey-Wills and Folley-Patterson fights since in both instances timing is seen as an issue.

By 1926 they see Wills as being too old to beat Dempsey, but in 1921 they envisage a late stoppage. In general, the author does not seem too keen on Dempsey as a fighter.

They see Folley winning early in Patterson's career (or strongly imply that) but see the post-Johansson Floyd KO'ing Zora.

[JBS]

Sounds like a good article. Even though the outcomes of such fights are all hypothetical I find it very interesting to consider what would have happened.

One I don't hear mentioned much is Marciano-Johanson. From what I understand that is a bout which for a time looked as though it was going to happen. I recently read an old RING Magazine that had an interview with Marciano in which he is seriously talking about coming out of retirement to fight Ingamar. And he discusses how he would fight him.

As for Langford, had he won the title, following Johnson's policy of not defending against black fighters, I would agree with that. One big reason being that at the time the feeling was that two black fighters fighting for a championship wouldn't draw flies nor earn a champion a fraction of what he would have earned in defending against a white challenger.

[JBS]

Sounds like a good article. Even though the outcomes of such fights are all hypothetical I find it very interesting to consider what would have happened.

One I don't hear mentioned much is Marciano-Johanson. From what I understand that is a bout which for a time looked as though it was going to happen. I recently read an old RING Magazine that had an interview with Marciano in which he is seriously talking about coming out of retirement to fight Ingamar. And he discusses how he would fight him.

As for Langford, had he won the title, following Johnson's policy of not defending against black fighters, I would agree with that. One big reason being that at the time the feeling was that two black fighters fighting for a championship wouldn't draw flies nor earn a champion a fraction of what he would have earned in defending against a white challenger.

[10-8]

Langford-Burns - they saw an easy win for Sam, which I would agree with, but they then imagined that Langford, while a less controversial figure than Johnson, would have followed a similar strategy in defending his title by avoiding other black fighters. Would others agree? Or does Sam give Johnson, McBey, Jeanette, Wills, a chance?

There's something about Langford that leads me to believe he would have defended against other black heavyweights provided there was a financial incentive and the boxing public would buy it. Langford was one of those guys that would have fought anyone at anytime at any weight. A true take on all comers fighter.

Jack Johnson had a huge ego and enjoyed the fact that he was the only 'colored heavyweight champion'

Here's a quote from Johnson:

"I won't box any of those colored boys now...I gave Langford, Jeanette and those boys a chance before I was champ. I'll retire the only colored heavyweight champ." - Keeping Pace With Johnson by Tad

I don't know too much about Langford the man but I don't think he had Johnson's level of arrogance. Langford was a fighter first and foremost and I think he would have defended against the best competition white or 'colored'.

[Mr E]

A recent edition of British Boxing News featured an article looking at 10 heavyweight title fights that never happened, predicted how they would have turned out and suggested how they may have changed the history of the heavyweight division. A good article, if, in my opinion, sometimes off in its assessment, which raised some issues worthy of discussion.

Five of the fights were fairly predictable, insofar as I have seen them discussed often: Jackson KO Sullivan; Wills KO Dempsey (if they met early in Dempsey's reign); Folley KO Patterson; Holmes PTs Foreman; Lewis KO Bowe.

Three were, to me at least, not that interesting: Tunney PTS Sharkey; Schmeling PTS Braddock; Marciano KO Valdes.

Two of the 'fights', however, really piqued my interest:

Langford-Burns - they saw an easy win for Sam, which I would agree with, but they then imagined that Langford, while a less controversial figure than Johnson, would have followed a similar strategy in defending his title by avoiding other black fighters. Would others agree? Or does Sam give Johnson, McBey, Jeanette, Wills, a chance?

Dempsey-Greb - I've never seen this discussed at any length before and wondered how close if at all it came to being made? They picked Greb to win early in Dempsey's reign, but imagined Greb's physical deterioration (?!) would have made Dempsey the favourite later in his reign. Any thoughts?

Obviously, the author has an axe to grind w/ Dempsey. I take Dempsey easily over both Wills and Greb at any time in his career, but most especially during the early part of his title reign.

I don't think Patterson would have had anything to fear from Folley, either. Folley was a great 6-round fighter and a very good 10 round fighter. He was quick, he had a good defense and he could hit. But, he couldn't take a punch any better than Patterson could and his stamina was worse. My pick: Patterson KO7 over Folley.

Jackson v. Sullivan is close to pick 'em, IMO. But I think both lose to either Corbett or Fitzsimmons.

I'm glad they gave Marciano credit for being better than Valdes. Marciano w/in 3-- and maybe in the first.

[Paulie W]

There's something about Langford that leads me to believe he would have defended against other black heavyweights provided there was a financial incentive and the boxing public would buy it. Langford was one of those guys that would have fought anyone at anytime at any weight. A true take on all comers fighter.

Jack Johnson had a huge ego and enjoyed the fact that he was the only 'colored heavyweight champion'

Here's a quote from Johnson:

"I won't box any of those colored boys now...I gave Langford, Jeanette and those boys a chance before I was champ. I'll retire the only colored heavyweight champ." - Keeping Pace With Johnson by Tad

I don't know too much about Langford the man but I don't think he had Johnson's level of arrogance. Langford was a fighter first and foremost and I think he would have defended against the best competition white or 'colored'.

I was thinking the same thing. Financial imperatives may have pushed him towards white challengers but as Johnson's reign showed they werent that thick on the ground. Johnson could have made more money by fighting Langford, Jeanette, McVey, etc, than he did in his match against Moran! He simply didnt want to take the risk. Langford seems a different beast from what I understand. If he'd won the title from Burns I wonder if he could have repelled Jeffery's challenge - I think yes, although Jim may have been less inclined to return anyway to fight the less controversial Langford - and I wonder if he could have beaten Johnson - he would have been a different proposition in say 1910 to the Langford who Johnson beat in 1906.

[Overhand_Right]

Rock started training intensely for a fight with Ingo claiming he was nothing but an amateur. But after less than a month he gave up & realised how hard it was at that stage of his life to come back and said he would never fight again.

[HE Grant]

Marciano was smart enough to know not to do it...after being out of the ring for four years, pushing or at age 37, he would have been hurt bad by Ingo.

[JBS]

If he had come back and lost to Ingo (a rather unmemorable champion) it certainly wouldn't have helped his legacy in the all-time rankings.

I sometimes wonder how Jefferies would be regarded on these all-time lists had he not come out of retirement and fought Johnson. I have a strong suspicion that if that was the case the school of thought by many today would be "Good thing for Johnson that Jefferies never came out of retirement to fight him."

[hawk5ins]

that there was more financial gain in bouts with Jeanette, Langford and McVey, but At the time, would that have been the case?

I see this comment applying to Jack as well: "would have defended against other black heavyweights provided there was a financial incentive and the boxing public would buy it."

Financial incentive. Who puts up the money? Boxing public would buy it. Who went to see title fights during Jack's reign? Answer? I think we know.

I think it would have been wonderful for Johnson to have defended his belt over fighters he had already proven his superiority over for no other reason than THEY were still the best challengers to his crown.

But I have a hard time beleiving that these bouts would have sold better than the naive and oft times racially misguided, perception of a white challenger possibly upsetting Jack.

The mentality of the public back then was Good (white guy) vs. Evil (Papa Jack). Unfortunately it wasn't AS interested in Good (talented challengers to the crown. Ie Langford, Jeannette, McVey etc) vs Good (Johnson).

Hawk

[Elmer Ray]

Marciano was smart enough to know not to do it...after being out of the ring for four years, pushing or at age 37, he would have been hurt bad by Ingo.

maybe, maybe not. brian london knocked ingo out cold.

[10-8]

Hawk, it's unlikely those match-ups would have taken place in America.

Black heavyweights were big gate attractions in France and Australia with Johnson, McVey, Jeanette, and Langford all fighting there during this time. McVey in fact fought exclusively in France, Britain and Australia for 7 straight years, while Langford also fought many times in Australia as well as Britain and France.

Australian promotor Hugh Mcintosh offered Johnson a guaranteed $55,000 to fight Langford in Sydney Australia, then at a later date Sam McVey. The money and interest was definitely there in Australia and France if not on American soil.

The Jeffries fight had a purse of $101,000 to be split with a 60-40 split between the fighters depending upon who won. The Langford offer then of $55,000 was on a par money wise with the Johnson-Jeffries fight.

Johnson got alot of mileage out of his line that two blacks contesting for the heavyweight championship wouldn't draw, to the point that it's accepted today. History shows that the money was there and offered to Johnson but he declined. It also didn't stop him from defending against Jim Johnson another black heavyweight, but less of a threat than Langford, Mcvey or Jeanette.

[Gallicrow]

maybe, maybe not. brian london knocked ingo out cold.

I've always believed that myself, though I've never seen the fight. However, in the current Wikipedia entry for Ingemar Johansson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingemar_Johansson) there is the following report on the end of the London vs Johansson fight:

Johansson won most of the eleven preceding rounds but in round 12 with 4 seconds remaining in the fight London tagged Johansson with a powerful right hand that knocked him down. Johansson got up at the count of 4 just as the bell sounded to signal the end of the fight. London congratulated Johansson on the decision but Johansson wisely never fought again.

Is this accurate, or did Johannson actually get KOed at the end of the 12th?

[JBS]

I don't think a black vs black championship bout at that time would have drummed up any public interest outside of fight fans. What made fights like Johnson-Jefferies and later Dempsey-carpentier such profitable ventures for all involved was because the bouts appealed and transcended to people who didn't even follow boxing.

Johnson-Langford of course would have made for a great match-up, but I just haven't seen any evidence, outside of boxing fans at that time, pushing for such a bout. I don't think the biased public of the time would have accepted Langford as a 'black white hope' or a 'white man's champion'.

In hindsight we look at a Johnson-Langford championship bout as if it would have been monumental. But at that time I don't think the general public would have cared enough about it to make it very profitable for Johnson or a promoter... At least not in America at that time.

[JBS]

10-8, I read your post after I posted mine. Very interesting. I never knew that about Johnson being offered such a sum to defend his title against Langford or McVey.

I do recall reading that a Johnson-Langford championship bout was trying to be set up in England but Johnson said the money he was being offered was'nt worth it. I didn't know about the 55G he was offered in Sydney. So apparently there is truth to Johnson avoiding Langford for reasons other than money.

[bobbydobbs]

Okay on September 24 1912 it came out that McIntosh offered Johnson $50,000 to fight NOT 1 BUT 2 fights in Australia. This money was also supposed to cover his expenses in Australia. Johnson claimed that the money was tempting but he would hold out for more $$$ when he talked to McIntosh.

On October 9 it came out that Johnson would accept the offer to fight Langford, McVey and possibly Jeannette.

On October 12 it came out that it would 100,000 for Langford and McVey (Australia) and Flynn (Paris). That money would include $55,000 for the two and 5000 expenses and 5 round trip tickets. The Flynn fight would cost at least $35000 just for the fight.

Oct 13, it is reported (and there is a quote from Johnson) that he signed the fights and will leave in October.

Dec 21, McIntosh comes out and says he will not bring Johnson to Australia. He says that fight game is going well and he won’t bring that type of element to Australia.

[10-8]

...and so there was financial incentive and a fan base willing to see Johnson defend against black challengers outside of America.

[JBS]

Now I'm confused. Are you saying Johnson was offered 55G to fight BOTH Langford and Mcvey? If that was the case then you're talking 27.5G for a Langford bout. In which case I don't blame Johnson for seeking more profitable avenues.

[hawk5ins]

That according to what Bobby just posted, the offer was rescinded. So there may have at ONE point been a fan based interest to pay Jack a decent but not extrodinary payday to come all the way to Aussie land to face and defende agianst Sam and Mcvey. But that kinda withered away.

History will show us that Holmes was offered significant money to defend agianst John Tate and Gerrie Coetzee. And Holmes Signed for BOTH fights. But neither happned becuase Tate pulled out with an injury and the Coetzee bout fell apart becuase the Promoter (JDP Sports) could not come up with the money.

Critiqueing Jack for not defending agianst these guys when there WAS a monetary offer made to him is analoguous to criticizing Holmes for Not unifying agianst Gerrie when there was a significant monetary offer made his way. Unfortunately the end of both stories is that they fell apart or were rescinded or simply were not for the amount orginally reported.

Paul Harvey: "And that's the rest of the story....."

Bobby, I'm exceptionally lazy. Do you have a source you can point me towards re the Johnson to Austraila offers?

Hawk

[HC05]

I've always believed that myself, though I've never seen the fight. However, in the current Wikipedia entry for Ingemar Johansson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingemar_Johansson) there is the following report on the end of the London vs Johansson fight:



Is this accurate, or did Johannson actually get KOed at the end of the 12th?

I have seen footage of the fight several years ago and I seem to remember that Johannson got up well before a ten-count but was badly hurt.

[10-8]

I've read different accounts of what Johnson was offered. The common denominator of all accounts I've read is that the fights were to be outside of America in Australia, France or England.

When Johnson was first champion his asking price was $30,000 per defence (he was later paid this sum for the Willard fight). As the new champion, Johnson was offered that sum to fight Langford in Australia and turned it down. A later offer was made of $40,000 with Johnson again turning it down.

I have read that McIntosh offered Johnson anywhere between $50-100,000 for either a two fight deal (Langford/McVey) or a three fight deal against Langford, McVey and Jeanette.

No contracts were ever signed so it is difficult to know if these numbers are exaggerated or inflated etc....but we do know there were offers made that financially met with Johnson's asking price for a title defence.

Too bad.

[10-8]

Critiqueing Jack for not defending agianst these guys when there WAS a monetary offer made to him is analoguous to criticizing Holmes for Not unifying agianst Gerrie when there was a significant monetary offer made his way. Unfortunately the end of both stories is that they fell apart or were rescinded or simply were not for the amount orginally reported.

Quite a different parallel unless you are willing to concede that:

1) Holmes publicly stated he would not defend against Coetzee as Johnson stated on more than one occasion that he would not defend against 'those colored boys'

2) Coetzee was fighting better competition more often during Holmes reign as Langford was during Johnson's reign.

We know that's not the case involving Holmes-Coetzee.

[bobbydobbs]

Bobby, I'm exceptionally lazy. Do you have a source you can point me towards re the Johnson to Austraila offers?

Hawk

my bad i should have done that.

"$30,000 offer to Jack Johnson," New York Times, 06/26/1912. This says that McIntosh has offered Jack 30,000. The paper assumes it is for a Langford fight. The report comes from LV, NM.

"40,000 Offer to Johnson," NY Times, 08/09/1912. Says that Johnson will fight McVey and Langford for 40000 with 5000 expenses and a 10000 forfeit.

"60,000 Offer to Johnson," ______, 09/12/1912. This says 30 for Langford, and 15 for McVey and Jeannette.

"Johnson to get Big Some," Los Angeles Times, 09/24/1912. Reports that Johnson will get 50 for Langford and McVey. the Langford fight will be on Dec 26.

"Jack Johnson to Sign," NY Times, 10/12/1912. This is 100 for Langford, McVey and Flynn (Paris)

"Jack Johnson Signs," ______, 10/13/1912. 50000 for both Langford and McVey.

"McIntosh Calls of Australia Fights," Los Angeles Times, 10/22/1912. He called off the fights with his main reason being the Lucile Cameron case.

"Australian Promoter Cans Johnson," ______, 12/21/1912

[hawk5ins]

common denominator is that the offers either fell apart or were eventually rescinded if the Dec 21 comment by McIntosh did indeed take place.

And as far as public statements, Holmes DID at one point go on record as saying he would not fight Coetzee unless they paid him $100 million. Of course he did sign to fight him form much less. And actually did come out with $3.5 that was a non refundable advance.

And where as Holmes DID say he'd never face a South African (politically based charge and let's face it, Larry would have faced his mother Flossie if the money was right.), Johnson DID actually face "them Colored boys". Albeit like Liston, cleaning up the division before becoming champ.

As far as Coetzee facing better comp, the Holmes critics will always point out that Gerrie faced Pinky and Dokes and then defended agianst Page, where as Holmes did not. Yes it's a rather loosely based and weak argument, given it's hard to criticise Holmes (who was facing top flight opp himself), when these guys kept getting knocked off at about the time they developed enough of a rep to actually call Larry out, but it's one I have heard before.

Ok, enough of my Keanu Reeves, Devil's Advocate impression. Bottom line is I think we are all dissappointed the bouts never came off as title fights.

Edit: Thanks Bobby!

Hawk

[bobbydobbs]

my take is that Johnson was a business man and did not duck any of the Big 3. when he got his money he signed to fight. McIntosh (who did not trust black fighters) pulled out when he realized that he had been got again.

on a side note-- while all this was going on in the fall of 1912 Burns claimed that reportedly he was going to take $10,000 to fight Langford in Sydney.

[raylawpc]

If he had come back and lost to Ingo (a rather unmemorable champion) it certainly wouldn't have helped his legacy in the all-time rankings.

I sometimes wonder how Jefferies would be regarded on these all-time lists had he not come out of retirement and fought Johnson. I have a strong suspicion that if that was the case the school of thought by many today would be "Good thing for Johnson that Jefferies never came out of retirement to fight him."

. . . or if Jeffries had fought Johnson in 1904 instead of Jack Munroe. Sadly, most people today remember Jeffries only because of his defeat at Johnson’s hands in 1910.

For the past five years, I have researched Jeffries’ life with the idea of writing a book about him. I have over 1,000 newspaper clipping about Jeffries in my files from over 40 different newspapers and periodicals. Those stories all tell me that he was a phenomenal athlete, and a wonderfully talented boxer. W. W. Naughton, the premier sportswriter of the time, wrote of Jeffries in 1902: “He boxes cleverly, defends himself well and strikes a hard blow. But back of all these are the qualities which have made him a champion, to wit, magnificent strength and wonderful endurance.” (W. W. Naughton, Kings of the Queensbury Realm (Chicago: Continental Publishing Company 1902), p. 120.) He was also a champion who continued to get better and better. By late 1904, Sam Austin of the Police Gazette commented: “That Jim Jeffries is the peer of all fighters is a fact admitted; that fact makes it apparent, too, that the fighting game, so far as the heavyweight division is concerned, will languish and remain inactive until he goes into voluntary retirement and leaves the title to be recontested . . . Jeffries is so good he is a bad thing to have around.” (The National Police Gazette, December 31, 1904, p. 10.) Another editorialist wrote: “The sporting world is now confronted with the serious problem of getting rid of the greatest fighter that ever put on a glove.” (This quote from the Cincinnati Enquirer is found in The National Police Gazette, December 31, 1904, p. 10.) Interestingly, Sam Austin did not particularly care for Jim Jeffries the person, but by 1904 regarded Jim Jeffries the fighter as the best that ever lived.

Based on all I have read about him and Johnson circa 1904 and 1905, I think the Jeffries would have defeated Jack Johnson had they fought in either of those years. They didn’t fight because Jeffries refused to cross the color line. (Some claim – most notoriously Randy Roberts in Papa Jack – that Jeffries drew the color line to avoid boxing Johnson. Not true: Jeffries asserted the color line as early as 1901 when some sportswriters suggested a match with Denver Ed Martin, whom Jeffries had no reason to fear and almost assuredly would have defeated.)

If I am right, that raises two questions . . .

1. If Jeffries had met and defeated Johnson in 1904 or 1905, would Johnson have ever gotten a title shot at Burns?

2. If Jeffries had met and defeated Johnson in 1904 or 1905, and if Johnson had defeated Burns in 1908, would Jeffries have felt compelled to come out of retirement to fight Johnson in 1910 since he had already defeated him once?

More grist for the mill.

[Mr E]

my take is that Johnson was a business man and did not duck any of the Big 3. when he got his money he signed to fight. McIntosh (who did not trust black fighters) pulled out when he realized that he had been got again.

on a side note-- while all this was going on in the fall of 1912 Burns claimed that reportedly he was going to take $10,000 to fight Langford in Sydney.

I think Johnson probably figured that Langford was a risky proposition whom no one w/ any power was pressuring him to fight. So, why take chances?

I thought Marciano gave up the comeback idea when Patterson beat Ingo in the rematch. In other words, he thought Ingo was a very beatable fluke and wanted to cash in, but he didn't really want to risk his rep coming back against a legitimate champion like Patterson (or, Heaven forbid, Liston). Am I wrong about that?

[rocky111]

I have to think that Schmeling being denied his deserved championshiip bout with Jim Braddock ranks with the big injustices. I mean the guy didnt get the bout after signing and training for it and showing up to the weigh in SOLELY because he was a German. Very unjust and racist.
Harry Wills not getting his true shot also very racist and unjust.
Valdes could have gotton a title bout had he beat Archie Moore but Moore won it and got the bout himself.
Langford didnt get his shot from Jack Johnson and Im sure that was personal.