Johnson vs O'Brein. Who won? Here's the report.

[Mendoza]

Mcvey Question . Why do you keep claiming NO DECISION fights as wins for people?

Did I say it was an offical win? NO, but fighters do get the better of each other in no-decison bouts.

for example."Clark beat Jeanette,McCarty,Dixie KId ,Levinsky, and Battling Jim Johnson" NO HE DIDNT These were all NO DECISION fights.You are trying to build up Clark as an opponent that Johnson ducke d while Champion ,ok lets look at his resume from 1908 to1915,the time that Johnson was reigning Champion. In 1908 A year before Johnson won the title Clark lost 2 fights to Dixie Kid. Aman who 4 years before when he was in his prime had been a WELTERWEIGHT!.His next biggest fight was in1910when he was kod in 2 rounds by Sam Langford,in 1911 he is held to a draw by middle weight Frank Mantell.Clark never beat Jeanette,JIm Johnson,or Levinsky ,and in 1915 ,Johnson s last year as Champion ,Clark wasbeaten by Sam Mcvey in 10 rounds,why should Johnson have given him a title shot?

Once again, a ND just means there is no official decision; it does not mean that one fighter can not best another.

Clark got the better of Sam Langford in 1914 in no decision fight!

He got the better of Jeanette in 1912!

Clark got the better of both Levinsky and McCarty in 1911!

Clark got the better of Jim Johnson in 1910. We all know what Jim did to Jack in their 1913 fight.

Seriously McVey, it is easy to see that Clark was fighting and beating far better competition than Johnson while Johnson is champion. Would you agree, or will you choose to skip the question? I predict the later.

Clarks record from Dec 1908 to April 1915 is very impressive.

IMO, Jeff Clark was better than Ross, Kaufman, and Flynn for sure. Yet the slick boxer never got a title shot from Johnson, while the other ones who could not box a lick did. Hmmmmmmm........

[Langford]

From a style point of view you have to admit that you have Johnson standing there, with a speed that is not captured on film, (you can tell that he's fast because he can back straight back, most fighters would be followed and caught off the back foot, which is why they circle, Johnson was quick) and like Ali DEFENSIVELY ORIENTATED, in other words, he does his best when you come after him...if he has to press the fight he is not as good. See Ali vs. Young.

Who is going to be the easier opponent? Frank Moran, coming in slow but with a rock hard punch, that stands no chance of landing, or a smaller more agile guy who works angles, and has to learn to box because there is no punch there? O'Brien is not going to stand there and trade. Johnson would have to go after him when O'Brien was not moving in.
No, I am afraid that stylewise, PJOB is a bad match up for Jack Johnson. Its the style that has to be taken into effect. Not saying OBrien would win, but it would be a tougher match up than Ketchel, Burns, who fought as small men with great punches. That is a recipe for disaster against big men with bigger punches. You have to know how to fight as a small man. PJOB knew how to do this. There is more to this fight than just Johnson showed up drunk.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by Langford

From a style point of view you have to admit that you have Johnson standing there, with a speed that is not captured on film, (you can tell that he's fast because he can back straight back, most fighters would be followed and caught off the back foot, which is why they circle, Johnson was quick) and like Ali DEFENSIVELY ORIENTATED, in other words, he does his best when you come after him...if he has to press the fight he is not as good. See Ali vs. Young.

Who is going to be the easier opponent? Frank Moran, coming in slow but with a rock hard punch, that stands no chance of landing, or a smaller more agile guy who works angles, and has to learn to box because there is no punch there? O'Brien is not going to stand there and trade. Johnson would have to go after him when O'Brien was not moving in.
No, I am afraid that stylewise, PJOB is a bad match up for Jack Johnson. Its the style that has to be taken into effect. Not saying OBrien would win, but it would be a tougher match up than Ketchel, Burns, who fought as small men with great punches. That is a recipe for disaster against big men with bigger punches. You have to know how to fight as a small man. PJOB knew how to do this. There is more to this fight than just Johnson showed up drunk.

Except that O'Brien was 5' 10" and 160 lb. A quick big man like Johnson will be able to reach him often. Remember, O'Brien is basically a middleweight, and not a young one either. Ketchell knocked him out and Kaufman defeated him in 1910.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Langford

From a style point of view you have to admit that you have Johnson standing there, with a speed that is not captured on film, (you can tell that he's fast because he can back straight back, most fighters would be followed and caught off the back foot, which is why they circle, Johnson was quick) and like Ali DEFENSIVELY ORIENTATED, in other words, he does his best when you come after him...if he has to press the fight he is not as good. See Ali vs. Young.

Who is going to be the easier opponent? Frank Moran, coming in slow but with a rock hard punch, that stands no chance of landing, or a smaller more agile guy who works angles, and has to learn to box because there is no punch there? O'Brien is not going to stand there and trade. Johnson would have to go after him when O'Brien was not moving in.
No, I am afraid that stylewise, PJOB is a bad match up for Jack Johnson. Its the style that has to be taken into effect. Not saying OBrien would win, but it would be a tougher match up than Ketchel, Burns, who fought as small men with great punches. That is a recipe for disaster against big men with bigger punches. You have to know how to fight as a small man. PJOB knew how to do this. There is more to this fight than just Johnson showed up drunk.

ONE MONTH AFTER THE JOHNSON FIGHT,IN HIS VERY NEXT FIGHT IN FACT,OBRIEN WAS KOD IN THREE ROUNDS BY KETCHEL,MENDOZA SAYS OBRIENSHOULD HAVE HAD A REMATCH WITH JOHNSON,DO YOU THINK HE DESERVED ONE AFTER BEING KOD BY KETCHEL? REMEMBER THIS WAS THE SECOND TIME KETCHEL HAD TURNED THE TRICK HE KOD OBRIEN IN THE CLOSING SECONDS OF THEIR FIRST FIGHT.OBRIEN WHEN HE WAS IN HIS PRIME COULDNT BEAT BURNS ,NOW AT 3I WITH TWO KOS AGAINST HIM FROM A MIDDLEWEIGHT DO YOU THINK HE COULD BEAT A MAN WHO PLAYED WITH BOTH BURNS AND KETCHEL? I LEAVE IT FOR YOU TO DECIDE.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

Did I say it was an offical win? NO, but fighters do get the better of each other in no-decison bouts.



Once again, a ND just means there is no official decision; it does not mean that one fighter can not best another.

Clark got the better of Sam Langford in 1914 in no decision fight!

He got the better of Jeanette in 1912!

Clark got the better of both Levinsky and McCarty in 1911!

Clark got the better of Jim Johnson in 1910. We all know what Jim did to Jack in their 1913 fight.

Seriously McVey, it is easy to see that Clark was fighting and beating far better competition than Johnson while Johnson is champion. Would you agree, or will you choose to skip the question? I predict the later.

Clarks record from Dec 1908 to April 1915 is very impressive.

IMO, Jeff Clark was better than Ross, Kaufman, and Flynn for sure. Yet the slick boxer never got a title shot from Johnson, while the other ones who could not box a lick did. Hmmmmmmm........

You say Clark had the better of these no decision fights,who else ?
Jeff Clark has no wins on his resume between 1909 and 1915,Johnsons reign ,to entitle him to a shot at the title.Ive looked at Clarks record and see nothing to justify a title shot,he wasnt some early version of Charley Burley.Langford kod clark in 2 rounds in 1911,the middle of Johnsons title reign.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

Except that O'Brien was 5' 10" and 160 lb. A quick big man like Johnson will be able to reach him often. Remember, O'Brien is basically a middleweight, and not a young one either. Ketchell knocked him out and Kaufman defeated him in 1910.

O'brein is listed at 5'10" 1/2, about 160-165 pounds. This means he was taller than Burns, Ketchel, and Flynn, and had more speed and mobility than anyone Johnson fought. O'Brien's reach was about even with Johnson’s. The reach is the key since O'brien relies on the jab.

While he could not punch much, O'brien had great speed, skills and defense. Enough to win a fight with Johnson on points if he isn't knocked out.

Johnson was not a chase you down / high out put puncher on film, and in most cases Johnson did not score a knockout vs class opponents. Johnson was an in-fighter more than an out fighter. His trouble in this fight would be catching up to O'brien to in-fight. O'Brein could box and move for 20 rounds. He would not let Johnson clinch him.

You could say that O'brein was past his best by 1910. You could also say that a past his best O'brien made Johnson look bad. It works both ways.

I think if a re-match was ordered in 1909, this would be a very intersting fight.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

O'brein is listed at 5'10" 1/2, about 160-165 pounds. This means he was taller than Burns, Ketchel, and Flynn, and had more speed and mobility than anyone Johnson fought. O'Brien's reach was about even with Johnson’s. The reach is the key since O'brien relies on the jab.

While he could not punch much, O'brien had great speed, skills and defense. Enough to win a fight with Johnson on points if he isn't knocked out.

Johnson was not a chase you down / high out put puncher on film, and in most cases Johnson did not score a knockout vs class opponents. Johnson was an in-fighter more than an out fighter. His trouble in this fight would be catching up to O'brien to in-fight. O'Brein could box and move for 20 rounds. He would not let Johnson clinch him.

You could say that O'brein was past his best by 1910. You could also say that a past his best O'brien made Johnson look bad. It works both ways.

I think if a re-match was ordered in 1909, this would be a very intersting fight.

One question,hand on heart ,both in shape,who wins?

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by mcvey

One question,hand on heart ,both in shape,who wins?

Where and when? From 1901-1905, maybe O'brein wins. From 1909-1910, I'll take Johnson assuming he's in reasonable shape.


My main point is there should have been a re-match. There was none. I certainly think O'brien was capable of winning a decision six months after the 6 round affairs between the two.



Suppose this fight never happened and some one suggesated O'brien in 1909 would Johnson an even fight. You would not believe it. Yet it happened.

By not giving O’brien and Jim Johnson re-matches, Jack Johnson has two smears in on his record in his prime years.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

Where and when? From 1901-1905, maybe O'brein wins. From 1909-1910, I'll take Johnson assuming he's in reasonable shape.


My main point is there should have been a re-match. There was none. I certainly think O'brien was capable of winning a decision six months after the 6 round affairs between the two.



Suppose this fight never happened and some one suggesated O'brien in 1909 would Johnson an even fight. You would not believe it. Yet it happened.

By not giving O’brien and Jim Johnson re-matches, Jack Johnson has two smears in on his record in his prime years.

Two points how do you know OBrien was faster,and had more mobility than Burns ,who was clearly his master?Given that OBrien was kod in his next fight after meeting Johnson,and this only a month later,how does he merit a rematch,particularly as he was kod by a middle weight,the same middleweight that Johnson played with before kayoing him? Your argument doesnt make sense does it?Lets put it another way,Joe Louis fights an exhibition against ,sayJoey Maxim,Louis enters the ring undertrained but still drops Maxim twice,in Maxims next fight,a month later he is kod by Robinson, a middle weight,does Maxim then deserve a title shot against Louis?

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Two points how do you know OBrien was faster,and had more mobility than Burns ,who was clearly his master?Given that OBrien was kod in his next fight after meeting Johnson,and this only a month later,how does he merit a rematch,particularly as he was kod by a middle weight,the same middleweight that Johnson played with before kayoing him? Your argument doesnt make sense does it?Lets put it another way,Joe Louis fights an exhibition against ,sayJoey Maxim,Louis enters the ring undertrained but still drops Maxim twice,in Maxims next fight,a month later he is kod by Robinson, a middle weight,does Maxim then deserve a title shot against Louis?

"O Brien was capable of winning a decision 6 months after the 6 round affair between the two",OBrien wasnt capable of even lasting 3 rounds against a MIDDLEWEIGHT in his next fight! He was KOD<and carried back to his corner ,SPARK OUT!

[C. M. Clay II]

Originally Posted by janitor

If Johnson could turn up to a bout with a hangover and fight O'Brien on even terms knocking him down twice then what would he do to him if he actualy took the fight seriously.

Lets face it O'Brien was never going to get a more favourable set of circumstances.

I think this says it all.

[Langford]

Originally Posted by mcvey

ONE MONTH AFTER THE JOHNSON FIGHT,IN HIS VERY NEXT FIGHT IN FACT,OBRIEN WAS KOD IN THREE ROUNDS BY KETCHEL,MENDOZA SAYS OBRIENSHOULD HAVE HAD A REMATCH WITH JOHNSON,DO YOU THINK HE DESERVED ONE AFTER BEING KOD BY KETCHEL? REMEMBER THIS WAS THE SECOND TIME KETCHEL HAD TURNED THE TRICK HE KOD OBRIEN IN THE CLOSING SECONDS OF THEIR FIRST FIGHT.OBRIEN WHEN HE WAS IN HIS PRIME COULDNT BEAT BURNS ,NOW AT 3I WITH TWO KOS AGAINST HIM FROM A MIDDLEWEIGHT DO YOU THINK HE COULD BEAT A MAN WHO PLAYED WITH BOTH BURNS AND KETCHEL? I LEAVE IT FOR YOU TO DECIDE.

Hey McVey

If you asked me out of Ketchel, Burns, or O'Brien who would have the best chance of beating Jack Johnson, I would pick O'Brien. Because of style reasonings. The fact that O'Brien was beat by Burns and Ketchel does not mean that he would not do better against Johnson than those two.

Look at Billy Conn and look at John Henry Lewis, for example. Both Louis victims. Look at how Lewis was a KO 1 and Conn could have concieveably taken a decison from Louis. I would equate Conn with O'Brien and I would equate Lewis more with Ketchel.

Now Ketchel had a huge middleweight punch. It is possible that he could have knocked out any middleweight placed in front of him. But you can't bring your punch up with you. What you would want is a guy who could dart in and out, be elusive, and make the most of someone who fought defensively and Johnson was a great defensive fighter.

In order for Johnson to beat O'Brien he is going to have to be the offensive force in that matchup. Because O'Brien is not going to charge him to try and take him out. He is going to move in, tap, tap, tap, and move out.
Johnson would have to try and catch him when he came in, or move in after him while he was on the retreat. Like Ali in the Young fight. And like Ali, another defensive mastermind, Johnson was not as good going after you as he was letting you miss, letting you lead and then making you pay.
Johnson made his opponents pay dearly, but they had to be agressive towards him. You try and punch me, I will block, I will counter with an uppercut whilie you're in range. Give Johnson a big slow moving guy with a big punch, and he will neutralize you and counter.

Also remember that in 06, Burns second defense was against O'Brien and it was a draw. Many thought that Burns had won, but O'Brien had papers that supported him, too. The third fight (OBrien had beat Burns in first) O'Brien was unpreparred for. He was under the impression that Burns was going to be taking a dive. Now I am not vouching for O'Brien's character and I do not know why there was this "understanding" but O'Brien did not train for the rematch and only found out before hand that the fix was not in.

Burns could do one thing very, very well. And that was mentally destroy a fighter. He was probably one of the most mentally savvy of all heavyweight champions. If possible, he would anger, upset, or trick any opponent who was in front of him. He let O'Brien think that it was a dive until right before. And then told him the fight was on. Of course Burns had been training all along and PJOB was screwed.

Now Ketchel was a bad matchup for O'Brien. Ketchel would pursue and pursue and come in wild and agressive. It's like a crazed soldier with a machine gun coming up against a tank in his fight against Johnson.
Against O'Brien he could do this, though.

The whole A beats B and B beats C does not mean that A beats C. It is something that I think the Johnson haters missed out on. I am not saying that O'Brien would win, but he would have been a much smarter choice than Ketchel, Kaufman, Ross, Flynn or ring rusted Jeffries. And like all things Johnson, White America may have hated him, but they blew every single chance they had of disposing of him in the ring.

Johnson was so intelligent, he outsmarted an entire country who wanted to see him defeated and he did it the same way that he beat his ring opponents, by capitalizing on their inexperience, their agressiveness, and misguided sense of being superior.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Two points how do you know OBrien was faster,and had more mobility than Burns ,who was clearly his master?Given that OBrien was kod in his next fight after meeting Johnson,and this only a month later,how does he merit a rematch,particularly as he was kod by a middle weight,the same middleweight that Johnson played with before kayoing him? Your argument doesnt make sense does it?Lets put it another way,Joe Louis fights an exhibition against ,sayJoey Maxim,Louis enters the ring undertrained but still drops Maxim twice,in Maxims next fight,a month later he is kod by Robinson, a middle weight,does Maxim then deserve a title shot against Louis?

I know O'brien was much faster than Burns. I have the 50 minute O’Brien vs Burns fight, which is a near full 20 rounds of action. O'brien was a quick a a cat. The thing is Burns had excellent stamina and a chasing type of style in this fight, which is why he won the decision. The series between O’brien and Burns is 1-1-1. Johnson had more of a stationary type of style, which is why the speedy O’brien peppered him with jabs.

While Ketchel did Ko O'brein next, he also floored Johnson too. You could say Ketchel did what Johnson could not vs the same guy and it would be fact.

Who hit harder, Ketchel or Johnson?

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Langford

Hey McVey

If you asked me out of Ketchel, Burns, or O'Brien who would have the best chance of beating Jack Johnson, I would pick O'Brien. Because of style reasonings. The fact that O'Brien was beat by Burns and Ketchel does not mean that he would not do better against Johnson than those two.

Look at Billy Conn and look at John Henry Lewis, for example. Both Louis victims. Look at how Lewis was a KO 1 and Conn could have concieveably taken a decison from Louis. I would equate Conn with O'Brien and I would equate Lewis more with Ketchel.

Now Ketchel had a huge middleweight punch. It is possible that he could have knocked out any middleweight placed in front of him. But you can't bring your punch up with you. What you would want is a guy who could dart in and out, be elusive, and make the most of someone who fought defensively and Johnson was a great defensive fighter.

In order for Johnson to beat O'Brien he is going to have to be the offensive force in that matchup. Because O'Brien is not going to charge him to try and take him out. He is going to move in, tap, tap, tap, and move out.
Johnson would have to try and catch him when he came in, or move in after him while he was on the retreat. Like Ali in the Young fight. And like Ali, another defensive mastermind, Johnson was not as good going after you as he was letting you miss, letting you lead and then making you pay.
Johnson made his opponents pay dearly, but they had to be agressive towards him. You try and punch me, I will block, I will counter with an uppercut whilie you're in range. Give Johnson a big slow moving guy with a big punch, and he will neutralize you and counter.

Also remember that in 06, Burns second defense was against O'Brien and it was a draw. Many thought that Burns had won, but O'Brien had papers that supported him, too. The third fight (OBrien had beat Burns in first) O'Brien was unpreparred for. He was under the impression that Burns was going to be taking a dive. Now I am not vouching for O'Brien's character and I do not know why there was this "understanding" but O'Brien did not train for the rematch and only found out before hand that the fix was not in.

Burns could do one thing very, very well. And that was mentally destroy a fighter. He was probably one of the most mentally savvy of all heavyweight champions. If possible, he would anger, upset, or trick any opponent who was in front of him. He let O'Brien think that it was a dive until right before. And then told him the fight was on. Of course Burns had been training all along and PJOB was screwed.

Now Ketchel was a bad matchup for O'Brien. Ketchel would pursue and pursue and come in wild and agressive. It's like a crazed soldier with a machine gun coming up against a tank in his fight against Johnson.
Against O'Brien he could do this, though.

The whole A beats B and B beats C does not mean that A beats C. It is something that I think the Johnson haters missed out on. I am not saying that O'Brien would win, but he would have been a much smarter choice than Ketchel, Kaufman, Ross, Flynn or ring rusted Jeffries. And like all things Johnson, White America may have hated him, but they blew every single chance they had of disposing of him in the ring.

Johnson was so intelligent, he outsmarted an entire country who wanted to see him defeated and he did it the same way that he beat his ring opponents, by capitalizing on their inexperience, their agressiveness, and misguided sense of being superior.

Look ,we both agree ,styles make fights,but at the time he fought johnson PJB was on the downslide ,he had been kod in his previous fight ,being saved by the bell,and would be kod in his next fight in 3 rounds.
the rest of PJB,s career shows us 3 nodecs,1 ,against Jim Flynn was very close by all accounts ,the other 2 were against nobodies,PJB has just 1 win on his record ,after meeting Johnson ,and 2 ko defeats .PJBs soel win was over Mike Schreck,now what do you see in PJBs resume at this stage of his career to make a title fight justified? I dont think a prime OBrien could beat Johnson ,and Im convinced that the 31 yearold version who was twice kod by a midle weight and by langford ,who weighed about 170 for their fight ,had no realistic chance against Johnson.
Why do you think O Brien was a better boxer than Johnson ?which victories ,have convinced you of this? This is a man who won the LH title from a 45 yearold relic ,and never defended it had 1 win over a young Tommy Burns ,who for that fight weighed inside the middle weight limit,was subsequently proven to be inferior to Burns and Ketchel ,won and lost ,by ko .against Al Kaufman who Johnson carried ,after breaking his nose in the first round,was kod by welter weight Dixie Kid ,but was awarded the win in a fixed fight,and also lost twice to the the Dixie Kid ,who was 4 years past his best weight.OBrien for me is the most overated fighter of that time,he was harmlessly clever ,had no power ,and ran like a thief ,against Burns and Johnson.IMO he wouldnt have gone 6 rounds with Ray Robinson .let alone beat Johnson in his prime.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

I know O'brien was much faster than Burns. I have the 50 minute O’Brien vs Burns fight, which is a near full 20 rounds of action. O'brien was a quick a a cat. The thing is Burns had excellent stamina and a chasing type of style in this fight, which is why he won the decision. The series between O’brien and Burns is 1-1-1. Johnson had more of a stationary type of style, which is why the speedy O’brien peppered him with jabs.

While Ketchel did Ko O'brein next, he also floored Johnson too. You could say Ketchel did what Johnson could not vs the same guy and it would be fact.

Who hit harder, Ketchel or Johnson?

How many rounds did O Brien win in that fight ? You saw the fight he ran all night,thats why Burns won.If OBrien runs away from Johnson all night ,how many rounds would he win?
Are you serious ,about your question ,who hit harder Ketchel or Johnson? If you are you have just lost any remaining vestige of credibilty you may have had.