Jack Johnson v Ezzard Charles 15rds?

Mendoza, I am not going to ask at CBZ. This is your information, that is your job as far as I am concerned. Leaving this aside, you have STILL not answered the questions I am asking you.

I am now copying and pasting these questions, having asked you them on 4-6 separate occasions in this thread. I refuse to retype them.


2) Name and reporduce/link the PRIMARY source you claim shows the fight was 20 rounds

3) Respond to the multiple primary sources describing Johnson as tired and out of shape and explain why you are dismissing them.



The New York Times: "Johnson looked tired in the fourth round."

The Times Dispatch: "Johnson was not in good condition."

Points Daily Journal: "Johnson appeared slow on his feet, and appeared not to be in the best conidtion."

Referee McGuigan, quoted in The Bakersfield Californian: "Johnson looked tired."

Jack O'Brien () in The Telegraph-Herald: "I was better against Johnson because I was in better condition."

Bakersfield Californian: "Johnson looked a bit bulky around the middle."

Finally, The St.John Sun, from before the fight:

"Of the two, O'Brien seems to have done the more conscientious work...Johnson has taken on some flesh."

 

This content is protected

 

Mendoza. What the ****. This is just copied and pasted from CBZ. This is not a primary source.

Can you share your primary source?

 

For me, the point of the debate is not that Mendoza may be wrong but that Mendoza may be lying.

As it happens, I am emailing Mike now. The problem is, Mendoza, rather than continuing to expose himself with his inability to answer what should be the simplest of questions, will say "ah, wait and see, Mike will put him right."

In other words, Mendoza no longer has to defend himself and the mis-truths he posts on the site, he is hoping to have a champion to do it for him.

If he is lying about having secret historian friends who cannot be named and lying about having seen a French source, which, for some mystifying reason, he refuses to produce, name, or repeat or answer ANY questions about, this allows him to worm his way out of answering these questions.

And for me, that was more the point. Posters who habitually mislead the forum, which should be about finding the truth, infuriate me.

The thing is, in a sane world, I would be Johnson's biggest critic on the board.

What is Matt's second name? Matt D that posted the original French article reproduced by McVey in the thread?

 

Why are you responding to him and not the 20th and 21st times i've asked you for detail concerning your claims on the thread?


I won't recreate my email to Mike here, but some of the press I included:


Indianapolis Star: "Jack Johnson...and Battling Jim Johnson...met [in Paris] in a ten round fight tonight."

The San Francisco Call: "Jack Johnson...coloured heavyweight champion...outpointed Jim Johnson...in a ten round fight."


"Jack Johnson...meets Jim Johnson in Paris on December the 19th. Jack undertakes to stop Jim in 10 rounds. He fights Frank Moran in Paris on Januray 25 for the World's championship at 20 rounds."


The New York Times, 12/19: "The bout, a ten round affair, was a disappointment to the crowd...Johnson was clearly groggy when the bell put an end to the bout."


In none of the press I have seen anywhere - ANYWHERE - is the bout described as being 20 rounds. Given Johnson's stanind in US life at the time, this basically rules it out as a possibility.