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

Ward's "Uunforgivable Blackness" describes Johnson,as looking "dangerously thin, " going into this bout ,and the famous referee George Siler refers to him as "not having a thimble full of victuals in his stomach". Both quotes are in Ward's book.

Quotes that Mendoza seems to have some how missed out.:think

 

That to me sums up the purpose of primary sources - looking for common events. Some cherry pick sentences here and there to fit their agenda but looking at the events that appear the most paints the truest picture imo.

Johnson was unique, no doubt about. Testament to the great man that today people debate over his talent.

 

" Ward's take on what happened in the Battling Jim Johnson match?"



Why, here it is,page 354.


"When the two men met at the Nouveau Cirque on December19th ,nothing much happened for two rounds.
Both were counter punchers,and Battling Jim seemed especially wary.
In the third the champion launched an attack that sent the younger man reeling.
Then,for no apparent reason,he pulled back.
There were cries of Fake!

Some customers called for their money back.


In fact the champion had fractured his left forearm slamming the challenger's head,and had to fight the next seven rounds with just one hand,clinching whenever he could.

At the end ,it was the younger man who was breathing hard.

The referee declared the bout a draw.

The crowd ,unaware of Johnson's injury ,hissed both men."A terrific hubbub marked the conclusion of a wholly unsatisfactory encounter",the London Times reported."The audience dispersed ,continuing to express its disaproval of the whole proceedings".


Johnson walked away with just a little over one thousand dollars.

His contest with Frank Moran would have to be postponed until spring. "

That is a verbatim copy of Ward's " Unforgivable Blackness" chapter eleven, "The Fugitive", page 354.
No mention of the fight being scheduled for 20 rds, as you constantly say is in this book, no mention of Battling Jim being robbed either. You have been castigated by McGrain, Janitor ,and Apollack, three of the most respected and credible posters on this forum. You have zero credibility on this subject, and absolutely no respect from the rest of us.


As McGrain called it ,you are a" ****ing idiot."
Now, take that silly hood and bedsheet off, you clown.atsch

 

Wow.

Here we have primary sources alluding to the police requesting a fight gets stopped. That's not a subjective opinion on events, it's an actual event that happened in history.

Regarding walcott - louis 1. We all know scoring is subjective and people see things differently. Whilst a majority scored for jersey, a lot of people still scored for louis. Without footage it's really impossible to conclude who should have won in your own opinion. In situations like this I consider the fight a draw.

I think the problem here is that mendoza has an agenda and is searching for anything that slightly favours that agenda.

I'm pretty confident that everyone else on the thread is more at home reading the primary sources, looking for commonly described events and basing their conclusions on that.

 

I don't know quite how Joe Louis got into this thread, but I do know Mendoza trashes him at every opportunity.

To my knowledge no one here has seen the entire Walcott Louis1 fight.

That being the case, no one is entitled to give a definitive opinion on the merits/ justice of the verdict

Louis, in his autobiography, stated he tried to leave the ring as soon as the decision was announced because he was disgusted that he could not catch Walcott,he also stated he had no doubts that he won the fight.


Louis's manager, John Roxborough was a numbers runner,,hardly Al Capone.


Mendoza has implied before, that Louis got unfair advantage in several of his title defences, enjoying extra consideration by fighting in MSG and being refereed by Arthur Donovan.

A cursory look at his title defences will show this is a spurious slur on a great champion.. And one on a hall of fame referee.

 

The link doesn't give access to book contents, only the cover pic, publishing info, reviews and related books.

 

My post, 6 above this, gives a word by word account of Ward's piece on the Johnson v Johnson fight.

 

I have Ward's paperback. The link in the first post seemed to be directing to a different book.

 

No ,the only "different book " is in Mendoza's head .