The most prestigious title in boxing is the Heavyweight Champion of the World. This weight class is for boxers greater than 175 lbs. or 80 kg. In September of 1952 the champion is Jersey Joe Walcott.
Walcott won the title on July 18, 1951 when he knocked out defending champion Ezzard Charles at Forbes Field in Pittsburgh. He defended it by defeating Charles again, this time by a decision on June 5, 1952 at Municipal Stadium in Philadelphia. Three months later, Walcott looked for another opponent to earn another big pay day.
On July 28, 1952, undefeated Rocky Marciano knocked out Harry "Kid" Matthews at Yankee Stadium to cement himself as the next contender to face the champion. Walcott agreed to fight Marciano on Tuesday night, September 23, 1952, again at Municipal Stadium in Philadelphia.
For a couple of weeks before the fight, Harvey and Burt discussed nothing else. Early on Harvey talked up the inevitability of Marciano continuing his undefeated winning streak. His record was 42 wins (37 by knockout) and no defeats.
"Nobody can stand in front of Marciano for long. He is unbeatable."
Was it a coincidence that again Harvey took the white guy? So, Burt was for the champion, Jersey Joe, the black guy.
"Nobody is unbeatable. Even greats like Sugar Ray Robinson and Willie Pep tasted defeat."
"It (is) a match that (has) inspired great public interest. Opinions on who (is) more likely to win (are) sharply divided. For some, Marciano's advantages in youth (29 year-old) and power (are) too much for a ring-worn, 38 year-old to overcome. But more than a few (see) Walcott's edge in experience, ring smarts and technique as being the deciding factors."
Marciano is a 8-5 betting favorite. It is the first time since challenger Joe Louis fought Jimmy Braddock (1937) that the champion is the underdog.
Normally such important fights are televised or at least broadcast on the radio. But not this time. There is new technology. The heavyweight championship fight will only be shown to paying customers in about 50 movie theaters around the country. This will generate more revenue to the promoters and fighters than in the past.
When Burt went to bed that Tuesday night, he almost couldn't fall asleep as he anxiously waited for the sun to come up Wednesday morning when the newspaper would tell him what he desperately wanted to know. He was praying this was the day he had been waiting for. Walcott will win and Burt can show his father that he too could pick a winner.
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Sunday, January 20, 2019
New World
In August 1963, I passed through a transformation. I had spent the first eighteen years of my life in small town Oswego, New York. Now I would enter a new world as a student at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, a big city.
From my perspective, I had been a Jew living in a non-Jewish world (Oswego). Now I would be Jew in a very Jewish environment (Penn and Philadelphia).
This Jewish perspective was not something put upon me by my peers (I never felt any animus or antisemitism). It was put upon me by my parents who made me feel some kind of vague danger from the non-Jewish world.
There was a second element to this transformation. I had been under the thumb of my mother who was a very controlling person. She believed children lacked the ability to know what they should do given a choice. Between adults and children, who would make a better decision?
But, then this logic falls apart. At eighteen with no experience, I was cast out, encouraged to leave home, go to a good university and start making decisions on my own. Good luck!
However, from my perspective, it felt as if I was being released from prison. Despite my lack of experience, I felt I was ready for the challenge. I could do whatever I wanted (making quick decisions) even if, with 20-20 hindsight from fifty-five years into the future, what I wanted turned out to be not such a good idea...some times.
As I recall, the period from my high school graduation to leaving for Penn (2 months) was one of planned isolation. I basically abandoned my high school friends as if I was entering a new chapter of my life and had no room in it for them. I would replace my old friends with new Jewish friends that would fulfill my Jewish identity. Is there such a thing as having too many friends?
For the next twenty-five years, I did not realize what I had so easily and carelessly cast aside. When I received an invitation to our class reunion in 1988, I came to the realization that I wanted to include my old life along side my new one. But I got a punch in the gut when I arrived and discovered my best friend from the old days, Frank Ruggio, had died of cancer six months before. However, I was able to reconnect with some of my old Oswego friends.
Returning to August 1963, I remember being abandoned by my parents in my dorm room after dinner. My two roommates (from Boston and Orlando) on the fifth floor of the Class of 1928 dormitory had not as yet arrived. I was alone and lonely. I was at the crossroads of my life and was not quite sure if I was adult enough to act like an adult.
Then there was a knock on the door. Another freshman from down the hall invited me to come to his room where others had gathered to shoot some bull. I accepted and quickly started to feel I had successfully entered the new world I had been looking forward to.
From my perspective, I had been a Jew living in a non-Jewish world (Oswego). Now I would be Jew in a very Jewish environment (Penn and Philadelphia).
This Jewish perspective was not something put upon me by my peers (I never felt any animus or antisemitism). It was put upon me by my parents who made me feel some kind of vague danger from the non-Jewish world.
There was a second element to this transformation. I had been under the thumb of my mother who was a very controlling person. She believed children lacked the ability to know what they should do given a choice. Between adults and children, who would make a better decision?
But, then this logic falls apart. At eighteen with no experience, I was cast out, encouraged to leave home, go to a good university and start making decisions on my own. Good luck!
However, from my perspective, it felt as if I was being released from prison. Despite my lack of experience, I felt I was ready for the challenge. I could do whatever I wanted (making quick decisions) even if, with 20-20 hindsight from fifty-five years into the future, what I wanted turned out to be not such a good idea...some times.
As I recall, the period from my high school graduation to leaving for Penn (2 months) was one of planned isolation. I basically abandoned my high school friends as if I was entering a new chapter of my life and had no room in it for them. I would replace my old friends with new Jewish friends that would fulfill my Jewish identity. Is there such a thing as having too many friends?
For the next twenty-five years, I did not realize what I had so easily and carelessly cast aside. When I received an invitation to our class reunion in 1988, I came to the realization that I wanted to include my old life along side my new one. But I got a punch in the gut when I arrived and discovered my best friend from the old days, Frank Ruggio, had died of cancer six months before. However, I was able to reconnect with some of my old Oswego friends.
Returning to August 1963, I remember being abandoned by my parents in my dorm room after dinner. My two roommates (from Boston and Orlando) on the fifth floor of the Class of 1928 dormitory had not as yet arrived. I was alone and lonely. I was at the crossroads of my life and was not quite sure if I was adult enough to act like an adult.
Then there was a knock on the door. Another freshman from down the hall invited me to come to his room where others had gathered to shoot some bull. I accepted and quickly started to feel I had successfully entered the new world I had been looking forward to.
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Tale of Two Statues RevisiTed
On March 26, 2015, I published a post regarding two Civil War statues, one in my hometown dedicated "in honor of the soldiers and sailors of the County of Oswego who nobly defended the Union, 1861-1865." The second was in my adopted home of Chapel Hill, North Carolina dedicated "to the sons of the University who entered the war of 1861-1865 in answer to the call of their country (the Confederacy)."
The second statue (known as Silent Sam) was erected in 1913 on the UNC campus at a time when a narrative was spread throughout the region that the Civil War was all about the independence of southern states, similar to 1776. However, the spark for such independence was the desire to perpetuate the slavery of blacks. Such slavery ended when the 13th Amendment was added to the Constitution in December 1865.
In 1913 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was an all-white public institution. It became integrated in 1955. As I stated in my original post, "How can the University's administration expect the black student body, faculty and staff to tolerate a symbol of a time when white North Carolinians fought to preserve the slavery of their ancestors?"
In 2008, I sent a letter to the editor of The Daily Tar Heel (student newspaper) advocating Silent Sam's lawful removal from the campus. My letter drew a threat from another reader. Subsequently, the State passed a law making it illegal to remove such Civil War statues.
On August 20, 2018, demonstrators pulled Silent Sam off of his pedestal. This was the culmination of decades of protests and vandalism against the statue's presence on the campus.
The demonstration started in the center of Chapel Hill in support of a UNC student who faced criminal charges for throwing red ink and blood at Silent Sam on an earlier date. However, it quickly "morphed" into a march to the statue. In spite of police presence there, the demonstrators were able to take down the Confederate symbol. Many demonstrators were arrested by the police. Campus staff placed the statue on a flatbed truck and removed it from the area.
The University issued the following statement: "Last night's actions were unlawful and dangerous, and we are very fortunate that no one was injured. While we respect that protesters have the right to demonstrate, they do not have the right to damage state property (Silent Sam)."
The University issued the following statement: "Last night's actions were unlawful and dangerous, and we are very fortunate that no one was injured. While we respect that protesters have the right to demonstrate, they do not have the right to damage state property (Silent Sam)."
It has become a polemic issue as to what to do with the removed Silent Sam. On December 14, 2018, the University's Board of Governors was set to vote on a proposal to build a $5.3 million historical center on campus where Silent Sam would be placed.
However, "just hours ahead of the Board Meeting, (Spectacular Magazine) published an open letter from (UNC) athletes that accused the University of using black students as 'accessories' and criticized the Athletic Department for not taking a stand on (Silent Sam)." The Board voted against the proposal. What to do with Silent Sam remains in limbo.
On January 15, 2019, at the direction of UNC Chapel Hill's Chancellor, the statue's base, which bore plaques commemorating university students who had fought for the Confederacy, was removed as well.
Sunday, January 6, 2019
In the Heat of the Night
A wealthy businessman from Chicago was found murdered on an empty street in Sparta, Mississippi (where he intended to build a factory) In the Heat of the Night in 1967. Who done it? A black man "wearing white man's clothes" found waiting at the train depot? A local young man trying to escape over a bridge into Arkansas with the dead man's wallet? A Sparta policeman who deposited an unsubstantiated large sum into his bank account? A cotton plantation owner "least likely to mourn" the passing of the murder victim? Or was it somebody else? It was somebody else.
In the Heat of the Night won 5 Academy Awards including Best Picture (Walter Mirish, producer), Best Actor (Rod Steiger) and Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (Sterling Silliphant). I should also mention another actor, Sidney Poitier, who won an Academy Award for Best Actor in the 1963 film Lillies of the Field.
Similar to A Naked City (September 2, 2018 post), In the Heat of the Night is a police drama murder investigation. But on a deeper level it is about racism laid bare in a small Mississippi town in the 1960s.
There is an attitude among the white population there, even those below the poverty line, that at least they are better than a black. Thus, there is a reluctance to accept the help of a northern black homicide expert to the point of irrationality. "Who is this boy?" and "I don't need you."
The local Chief of Police (Steiger) has an additional problem. Newly hired to his job and a community outsider (although a Southerner), he needs to solve the murder to prove his metal to the Sparta town fathers.
Thus, Gillespie, the Chief of Police, is forced to virtually beg Virgil Tibbs (Poitier), the northern black homicide expert, to assist him in finding the murderer. On the other hand, Tibbs can't resist the opportunity to prove a black can outsmart his white counterparts. He also is not above his own racism in trying to prove the white cotton plantation owner is the guilty party. He isn't.
In the end, Tibbs and Gillespie, each getting what they hoped for in solving the case and catching the murderer (Ralph), develop a mutual respect (and friendship?), not that they will ever work together again. Tibbs happily returns home to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, not Philadelphia, Mississippi.
In the Heat of the Night won 5 Academy Awards including Best Picture (Walter Mirish, producer), Best Actor (Rod Steiger) and Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (Sterling Silliphant). I should also mention another actor, Sidney Poitier, who won an Academy Award for Best Actor in the 1963 film Lillies of the Field.
Similar to A Naked City (September 2, 2018 post), In the Heat of the Night is a police drama murder investigation. But on a deeper level it is about racism laid bare in a small Mississippi town in the 1960s.
There is an attitude among the white population there, even those below the poverty line, that at least they are better than a black. Thus, there is a reluctance to accept the help of a northern black homicide expert to the point of irrationality. "Who is this boy?" and "I don't need you."
The local Chief of Police (Steiger) has an additional problem. Newly hired to his job and a community outsider (although a Southerner), he needs to solve the murder to prove his metal to the Sparta town fathers.
Thus, Gillespie, the Chief of Police, is forced to virtually beg Virgil Tibbs (Poitier), the northern black homicide expert, to assist him in finding the murderer. On the other hand, Tibbs can't resist the opportunity to prove a black can outsmart his white counterparts. He also is not above his own racism in trying to prove the white cotton plantation owner is the guilty party. He isn't.
In the end, Tibbs and Gillespie, each getting what they hoped for in solving the case and catching the murderer (Ralph), develop a mutual respect (and friendship?), not that they will ever work together again. Tibbs happily returns home to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, not Philadelphia, Mississippi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)