Johnson vs Klondike 1. A quit job or KO loss?

Probably more scary than this 40 year old.

This content is protected

 

Its a good book, but it is a secondary source.

The primary sources should always take prescidence over the secondary.

 

This goes to the weakness of Unforgivable Blackness, which is its failure to use or adequately cite local next day primary sources. What is Ward's source for that information?
It is only the quality of sources that adequately support a writer's assertions. His only citation for that fight is the Chicago Tribune, and it does not support his description of the bout.

I, on the other hand, will be using and citing several local Chicago next-day sources, including the local Daily Inter Ocean, Chicago Chronicle, and Chicago Times-Herald. The next-day Chicago Tribune didn't actually say much about the bout.

 

Listen carefully to me now.

You just got owned on this thread.

Time to take stock of your hatred

 

This thread provided much lulz

 

Mendoza does not understand the concept of a PRIMARY SOURCE, he has never encountered one

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Considering this is pre-prime and johnson went on to defeat much better opposition, I don't really care whether he had too much or not.

But given the depth of research we all know adam carries out, if he's saying it isn't a quit job i'm willing to take his word for it. Sure I could trawl through the same papers he has to enforce my opinion, but i've no reason to do so as he's no reason to lie.

Bottom line is this, pre prime johnson was knocked out by haynes and klondike. During his prime he was seen to be unbeatable not some mentally fragile quit job (like today we have pac who was knocked out early doors but today is seen to be a great fighter, as opposed to ortiz who is widely considered to be mentally fragile).

 

Mendozy is a complete stranger to a PRIMARY SOURCE.


He has NEVER PROVIDED ONE to back up his many claims on this Forum.


He is also unaware that Geoffrey C Ward relied on Randy Roberts for some of his research.there is an acknowledgement to that effect.


Since Randy Roberts wrote Papa JacK ,and Ward wrote Unforgivable Blackness [which sit side by side on my bookshelf], it follows they would have the same line on the subject.


Where Adam Pollack's books differ is in his tireless efforts, to obtain primary ,contemporary ringside sources to form his opinion ,and, get to the crux of matters.

George Siler was ringside for the Johnson /Klondike fight he said Johnson did well almost stopping Klondike early but faded due to lack of proper food.

To assess Mendozy's reliability,and objectivity as a poster , on the subject of Jack Johnson, one should note he states Siler "didn't think much of Johnson".

In Siler's book "Inside Facts Of Pugilism , he takes the credit for having discovered Johnson in battle Royals and recommending him to promoter Johnny Conners,as a future world champion. This is confirmed by Johnson himself as he gives Siler the credit for his emergence from anonymnity.

It was actually Siler who was instrumental in the Johnson/Klondike match being made ,as his constant praise of Johnson irked Conners and persuaded him to pit Johnson against his house fighter Klondike in an attempt to silence Siler.


Futrher evidence of Mendozy's lack of objectivity on Johnson can easily be confirmed by his rabid attacks on him that at times resemble a shark feeding frenzy.

The" man", is not rational on the subject.

 

One thing I learned early on is that analysis of sources is very important. You don't always get the full story from one source. A secondary source is only as good as the primary sources it uses. Hence my emphasis on several local primary sources, ie the next day account written by a reporter who actually saw the bout. More than one source is often needed to obtain a more full and complete understanding of what took place, because you have different perspectives, different recall, different level of care or concern or reporting about what took place. Also, we all know that memory fades and gets altered with time, which is why I do not care as much for much later accounts.

Ward discusses the Klondike-Johnson fight on page 28. His only primary source citation to the bout is the Chicago Tribune, May 6, 1899. Actually the Tribune report came out on May 7, not May 6. The bout took place the night before, on May 6. Hence the next day report. But he does quote the Tribune's May 7 report, which is quite limited.

The Chicago Tribune said the local Chicago boxer, Klondike, defeated Jack Johnson of Springfield, Illinois in the heavyweight class, but it did not say what the specific result was or even how many rounds the bout lasted. “Johnson, a long rangy colored man from Springfield, looking something like Fitzsimmons in black, showed up well at the start, but weakened under the steady but ponderous attack of Klondike.” THAT IS ALL IT SAID!

Hence, there is no primary source support or citation in Ward for the assertions about the bout.

Therefore, we must look to other local newspapers from the time in the hopes that one of them gave a more complete account of the bout. That is what I do in my upcoming book, In the Ring With Jack Johnson, set to be released in 2013.

 

I shall certainly be finding room for it when it hits the shelves.