Ray Arcel on the black fighters of the 30's.

He could be right.

 

Being "in the gym" and training pretty much guarantees a fighter won't get fights, being able to "do everything" only reinforces it. When managers/promoters are looking for substitutes they prefer somebody who is not training, and who will take a fight on short notice without training. I just watched a video recently of a fighter who fought out of NYC in the 50s. He mentioned in the video that when fight people called the gym, they'd ask "is ____ (whoever, depending on the weight) training?" If the fighter was training, he wasn't mentioned again. If he wasn't training, they wanted to find his manager and offer a fight.

When a promoter or manager is going to pay a fighter's purse, travel, and expenses to fight his fighter, he isn't looking for somebody who can beat his fighter. His preference is for a "name" who is not training and has a drug or alcohol problem who will show up, lose, and take the money.

 

Or maybe he simply had fond memories of the fighters, from the time he himself was young. Those long bygone early days often seem to be put on a pedestal by old-timers... whose opinions therefore should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

He didnt name names but considering the racial segregation that existed at the time it s not an unteasonable thought.

 

If Ray Arcel said it..... It more than likely was true. He wasn't a man for nonsense. And where the country was as far as race relations at that time,
I'm sure he was correct in his assessment.

 

He wasn't? What do you make of his over-the-top adulation of Dempsey?

The Mike Casey Archive | The Cyber Boxing Zone

 

No problems with Arcels opinion. Note that in the same article both Jack Sharkey and Max Schmeling also said they considered Dempsey nearly unbeatable. Are their opinions also null and void just because they respected Dempsey above all,others? None of the three would be betting financial compensation from their statements so they were totally honest.

 

This is why any supposed ATG without having at least 25% black opponents on their record should be excluded from the AT rankings and conversation

 

So when Arcel claims, that Dempsey would walk through everybody that followed him, almost like if they weren't even there... you're fine with that? To me that's too ridiculous to be taken seriously.

Another example of Mr. Arcel's "selective memory", is the Dempsey-Galento inciden't in Stillman's gym. What do you think of that tall tale?

 

Not necessarily.

There have been eras where the top black contenders simply weren't at the same level as the top white contenders.

 

I think he has a point

 

What lmao? In that case, how about we exclude any supposed ATGs who haven't faced at least 25% Hispanic opponents as well? How about people who haven't faced at least 25% Jewish opponents? Your greatness isn't dependent on the race of your opponents.