Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-03-2012, 05:31 PM   #31
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,384
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson vs. Phil. Jack O'Brien - May 1909

Quote:
Originally Posted by apollack View Post
Straight Queensberry rules allowed hitting in clinches and on breaks. That is where the phrase "Protect yourself at all times" came from. If the fighters wanted to modify the rules, they usually needed to negotiate it before the fight, and typically such a modification was announced to the crowd, or at least that was best practice, so that the folks knew if a fighter was being fouled or not. Sometimes crowds thought it was a modified rules with clean breaks fight, but it was not, so they might boo if someone got struck on the break. Hence you'll see reporters question why the crowd booed, and note that what the boxer did was perfectly legal. Generally referees favored straight rules, and did not have much sympathy for fighters who got hit during the fight, even on the break. Bottom line is it was a fight and a fighter needed to defend himself at all times, and if he could not, then tough luck. Sometimes they advertised clean breaks to satisfy the law, but wound up fighting straight rules anyhow.
Absolutely correct!

This can be seen in news reports of at least two of Jeffries fights .

Pre -fight reports of the Fitzsimmons, and Munroe fights, both refer to pre -arranged agreements regarding," hitting on the breaks".
Of course, if you have a fixated hatred towards Johnson ,you might, in your haste to put a negative spin on things, not take this into account.

Last edited by mcvey; 08-06-2012 at 01:19 AM.
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-05-2012, 06:24 PM   #32
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,116
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson vs. Phil. Jack O'Brien - May 1909

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey View Post
Given that Johnson destroyed both Burns and Ketchel, who both beat
O Brien ,this 6 rounder only makes me wonder how long O Brien would have lasted if 1. Johnson was in shape? 2. It was over say 15rds. I note that the report states O Brien scaled 170lbs for the fight.

If correct it shows that O Brien was not a middleweight.
O’Brien was 160 pounds vs. Ketchel 2 months prior to facing Johnson. The weight of 170 pounds for O’Brien seems unlikely. I would venture to say O’Brien was under the super middle weight limit.

205 pounds for Johnson was a fine weight for him. Since Johnson’s stamina on film is fine at over 205 pounds, it’s hard to argue he was not in good enough working condition to go a fast six rounds.

The fact that Johnson destroyed Burns or Ketchel has no bearing on this fight. Those two were easy to find boxers who were who were much shorter and lighter then Johnson. In boxing, it is not hard to hit a guy with low guard that is stationary and is several inches shorter.

O’Brien was a bit taller, had a good jab, and fast feet. O’Brien landed his jab repeatedly on Johnson. Ketchel had tough man like skills and on film had no jab. There’s a huge difference in skill level. Johnson’s vaunted defense does not seem to help him in this match. The report listed is a primary source, but it includes a detailed round by round report.

Reports are mixed as to who won this 6 round match. If it were 10 or 12, I think the same pattern continues. If it was 20 rounds or more, I think Johnson would stop him late. The conclusion here is those who can move, box and jab had no problem landing on Johnson even if they were shorter and much lighter.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 06:27 PM   #33
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,116
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson vs. Phil. Jack O'Brien - May 1909

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
To deny that it can reveal tendencies in a fighter is just willful ignorance, a favorite past time in these parts. I'm not going to contend that O'Brien was going to beat Johnson over 12 or more rounds, but the match does give a glimpse into an offensive skill set and approach that obviously bothered Johnson.

And at 205, Johnson weighed less than he did against Jeffries so I can pretend he was that far out of shape.

^^^ The truth.

Could you imagine is say the middle weight champion was able to fight Wlad on even terms for six round? He would be laughed out of boxing.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 06:53 PM   #34
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,623
vCash: 330
Default Re: Jack Johnson vs. Phil. Jack O'Brien - May 1909

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
^^^ The truth.

Could you imagine is say the middle weight champion was able to fight Wlad on even terms for six round? He would be laughed out of boxing.
Well didn't conn fight even terms or better with louis for 6 rounds. He's one of the greatest hw's in history.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 08:03 PM   #35
apollack
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,518
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson vs. Phil. Jack O'Brien - May 1909

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
Well didn't conn fight even terms or better with louis for 6 rounds. He's one of the greatest hw's in history.
Excellent point. Fact is that very fast, skilled, experienced, well conditioned boxers with footwork can give big men troubles, regardless of size.
apollack is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2012, 01:23 AM   #36
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,384
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson vs. Phil. Jack O'Brien - May 1909

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
O’Brien was 160 pounds vs. Ketchel 2 months prior to facing Johnson. The weight of 170 pounds for O’Brien seems unlikely. I would venture to say O’Brien was under the super middle weight limit.

205 pounds for Johnson was a fine weight for him. Since Johnson’s stamina on film is fine at over 205 pounds, it’s hard to argue he was not in good enough working condition to go a fast six rounds.

The fact that Johnson destroyed Burns or Ketchel has no bearing on this fight. Those two were easy to find boxers who were who were much shorter and lighter then Johnson. In boxing, it is not hard to hit a guy with low guard that is stationary and is several inches shorter.

O’Brien was a bit taller, had a good jab, and fast feet. O’Brien landed his jab repeatedly on Johnson. Ketchel had tough man like skills and on film had no jab. There’s a huge difference in skill level. Johnson’s vaunted defense does not seem to help him in this match. The report listed is a primary source, but it includes a detailed round by round report.

Reports are mixed as to who won this 6 round match. If it were 10 or 12, I think the same pattern continues. If it was 20 rounds or more, I think Johnson would stop him late. The conclusion here is those who can move, box and jab had no problem landing on Johnson even if they were shorter and much lighter.
You are prepared to take the 160lbs without question , but not the 170lbs weight , I wonder why that is?
O Brien scaled 167lbs in 1907 when he fought Burns that is two years earlier.

There was nothing stationary about Tommy Burns he was fast afoot and had good defence.

You drew a conclusion on a meaningless 6 round no decision that you have not seen and ,one that has many conflicting opinions as to who did what in it.

Sounds eminently objective and reasonable.


For you.

You contradict yourself in this summary, and argue against your own premise
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2012, 07:54 AM   #37
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,623
vCash: 330
Default Re: Jack Johnson vs. Phil. Jack O'Brien - May 1909

Quote:
Originally Posted by apollack View Post
Excellent point. Fact is that very fast, skilled, experienced, well conditioned boxers with footwork can give big men troubles, regardless of size.
Definitely. Over a shorter distance, hand and foot speed advantage is a tremendous asset which likely wouldn't be hindered by stamina issues.

I suspect if all fights were 6 rounds or less we'd see a huge change in history, one which would favour the lighter man.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2012, 11:28 AM   #38
round15
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,681
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson vs. Phil. Jack O'Brien - May 1909

Quote:
Originally Posted by apollack View Post
Straight Queensberry rules allowed hitting in clinches and on breaks. That is where the phrase "Protect yourself at all times" came from. If the fighters wanted to modify the rules, they usually needed to negotiate it before the fight, and typically such a modification was announced to the crowd, or at least that was best practice, so that the folks knew if a fighter was being fouled or not. Sometimes crowds thought it was a modified rules with clean breaks fight, but it was not, so they might boo if someone got struck on the break. Hence you'll see reporters question why the crowd booed, and note that what the boxer did was perfectly legal. Generally referees favored straight rules, and did not have much sympathy for fighters who got hit during the fight, even on the break. Bottom line is it was a fight and a fighter needed to defend himself at all times, and if he could not, then tough luck. Sometimes they advertised clean breaks to satisfy the law, but wound up fighting straight rules anyhow.
Nice.

I think the importance of the referee and proper officiating goes hand in hand with what you've said here.

Referees usually tell both fighters to "break" or "step back" when he says and "obey my commands at all times." The slight change in the rule on hitting between breaks was more to do with the ref protecting himself as opposed to getting clock with a shot separating the fighters.

Holding and hitting in the clinches is usually determined by how much action the referee allows both men before the fight gets dirty. The instant wrestling tactics start taking place of clean tactical shots, the ref should call time-out immediately, stop both fighters and warn them both before calling time-in to finish the round.
round15 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2012, 11:44 AM   #39
round15
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,681
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson vs. Phil. Jack O'Brien - May 1909

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey View Post
You are prepared to take the 160lbs without question , but not the 170lbs weight , I wonder why that is?
O Brien scaled 167lbs in 1907 when he fought Burns that is two years earlier.

There was nothing stationary about Tommy Burns he was fast afoot and had good defence.

You drew a conclusion on a meaningless 6 round no decision that you have not seen and ,one that has many conflicting opinions as to who did what in it.

Sounds eminently objective and reasonable.

For you.

You contradict yourself in this summary, and argue against your own premise
I knew an old guy who's father sparred with Tommy Burns on occasion. Always said the man was fast on his feet with solid defensive skills.
round15 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2012, 11:48 AM   #40
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,384
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson vs. Phil. Jack O'Brien - May 1909

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
Definitely. Over a shorter distance, hand and foot speed advantage is a tremendous asset which likely wouldn't be hindered by stamina issues.

I suspect if all fights were 6 rounds or less we'd see a huge change in history, one which would favour the lighter man.
I would give Harry Greb a shot against Dempsey over 6rds.
Wiilie Meehan proved with wins over Dempsey ,and Langford that over short distances the dynamics can change.
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2012, 08:59 PM   #41
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,116
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson vs. Phil. Jack O'Brien - May 1909

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey View Post
You are prepared to take the 160lbs without question , but not the 170lbs weight , I wonder why that is?
O Brien scaled 167lbs in 1907 when he fought Burns that is two years earlier.

There was nothing stationary about Tommy Burns he was fast afoot and had good defence.

You drew a conclusion on a meaningless 6 round no decision that you have not seen and ,one that has many conflicting opinions as to who did what in it.

Sounds eminently objective and reasonable.


For you.

You contradict yourself in this summary, and argue against your own premise
UM, I listed a weight less than 3 months ago, why go back two years? LOL.

O’Brien wasn’t a stationary short guy who fought like a tough man for Johnson go grab and maul. See Flynn, or Ketchel. No sir, he was mobile, and had a good jab. You don’t read Johnson blocking, ducking or countering much here. Where is this legendary defense when matched with a guy with skills?


Nor do you read Johnson trying to clinch O’Brien, because he wasn’t stationary. You do read Johnson getting hit often, and sometimes resorting to dirty tactics, such as throwing O’Brien down ( Not in Queensberry rules ) and hitting on breaks, which was frowned upon.


Back in the day, there often wasn’t a huge difference in height and reach among super middles and the heavyweight champ. However, this clearly is today, and the smaller / shorter heavies without a of power are at a huge disadvantage when matched vs. a much larger heavyweight who also has skills and speed.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2012, 09:04 PM   #42
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,116
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson vs. Phil. Jack O'Brien - May 1909

Quote:
Originally Posted by apollack View Post
Straight Queensberry rules allowed hitting in clinches and on breaks. That is where the phrase "Protect yourself at all times" came from. If the fighters wanted to modify the rules, they usually needed to negotiate it before the fight, and typically such a modification was announced to the crowd, or at least that was best practice, so that the folks knew if a fighter was being fouled or not. Sometimes crowds thought it was a modified rules with clean breaks fight, but it was not, so they might boo if someone got struck on the break. Hence you'll see reporters question why the crowd booed, and note that what the boxer did was perfectly legal. Generally referees favored straight rules, and did not have much sympathy for fighters who got hit during the fight, even on the break. Bottom line is it was a fight and a fighter needed to defend himself at all times, and if he could not, then tough luck. Sometimes they advertised clean breaks to satisfy the law, but wound up fighting straight rules anyhow.
Did Queensberry rules allow for throw downs? I think not. Johnson fouled here by throwing O'Brien down.


I'm sure you research it. Johnson we went low, was accused of going low, hit on the breaks etc..


As for the rules for this fight, I'm not sure if hitting on the break was allowed or not in this match, but the crowd clearly voiced their displeasure with Johnson's tactics.


I believe the phrase " protect yourself at all times " , came from one of the Ketchel matches where a guy slugged him when he was not ready.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 02:22 PM   #43
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,384
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson vs. Phil. Jack O'Brien - May 1909

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
UM, I listed a weight less than 3 months ago, why go back two years? LOL.

O’Brien wasn’t a stationary short guy who fought like a tough man for Johnson go grab and maul. See Flynn, or Ketchel. No sir, he was mobile, and had a good jab. You don’t read Johnson blocking, ducking or countering much here. Where is this legendary defense when matched with a guy with skills?


Nor do you read Johnson trying to clinch O’Brien, because he wasn’t stationary. You do read Johnson getting hit often, and sometimes resorting to dirty tactics, such as throwing O’Brien down ( Not in Queensberry rules ) and hitting on breaks, which was frowned upon.


Back in the day, there often wasn’t a huge difference in height and reach among super middles and the heavyweight champ. However, this clearly is today, and the smaller / shorter heavies without a of power are at a huge disadvantage when matched vs. a much larger heavyweight who also has skills and speed.
As I stated Burns was neither stationary, nor lacking in defence, how do you account for his thrashing by Johnson? Fact is you have no idea what O Brien scaled for the Johnson fight,you don't even know if he weighed in do you? Sad Sad Sad.And very desperate
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 02:23 PM   #44
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,384
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson vs. Phil. Jack O'Brien - May 1909

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
Did Queensberry rules allow for throw downs? I think not. Johnson fouled here by throwing O'Brien down.


I'm sure you research it. Johnson we went low, was accused of going low, hit on the breaks etc..


As for the rules for this fight, I'm not sure if hitting on the break was allowed or not in this match, but the crowd clearly voiced their displeasure with Johnson's tactics.


I believe the phrase " protect yourself at all times " , came from one of the Ketchel matches where a guy slugged him when he was not ready.
Whistling in the dark and, to a tune only you can hear. You not only are devoid of objectivity, you are positively fixated and , rabid on the subject.
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013