Was Johnson Close to Defeat in the Flynn Rematch ...

As it was a no decision bout that would have been a trifle hard to do!

 

In regards to Unforgivens dismissal of and HEGrants blind faith in newspaper reports there is a little thing called context. You have to approach anything you read with some intelligence. Why anyone would blindly accept, or dismiss out of hand, the written report without taking into account any context is beyond comprehension. In this case we are talking about reports about one of the most polarizing fighters in history, possibly THE most polarizing. So when some of the reports dont jive with what we can see with our own eyes is it all that surprising? Not really.

So when I ask "beyond what a couple of white reporters said, WHAT IN THE FILM GIVES YOU THE IMPRESSION THAT JOHNSON WAS EXHAUSTED?" and get in return "Simple .. it was reported by many sources..." Does that make any sense to anyone? GO WATCH THE FIGHT WITH YOUR OWN EYES!! Dont come back here and tell me that a few guys who REALLY REALLY wanted Johnson to lose or simply didnt like him because he was an ******* and bad for the sport said it because they wanted it to be true. When that fight ended with Flynn fouling out in the most ridiculous manner ever caught on film while being a bloody mess without having won a single round while Johnson is calm and relaxed just as he was in the first round I find it beyond comical that someone would come on here and completely overlook just how unpopular Johnson was when discussing these reports which we can compare with the actual film of the fight. Clearly you havent done either the critical thinking or even watched the film to form the opinion that prompted you to start this post. When you do that come back here and do yourself a favor by clicking the edit button.

 

HE,

I think some posters here are confusing ability with a 45 round fight, essentially a fight. We have seen 100 fights where the man in the lead gasses. To be objective, Ross Purrity vs Wlad anyone.

Johnson has a history of fading in matches from 1905-1915. Hart, Jim Battling Johnson, and Willard come to mind. They were not going away, just like Flynn.

This fight was in the desert heat of July and Flynn was a punching bag, but durable enough and could hit a bit. and According to those at ringside felt Flynn was the fresher of the two with 30+ rounds to go in the desert heat in July.

 

We're the same reports not saying Johnson was easily beating Ketchel and Burns? They called it as the film shows. You show me a news report that says Ketchel or Burns was in the lead, or a filmed round they press was very biased in.

I'll we waiting to read it...The film pretty much corresponds to what the press says. Not 100% of the time, but the vast majority for sure.

It's not like there was a conspiracy here to suggest Johnson was fading, and Flynn was the fresher of the two. They all said it at ringside, so here we have primary sources saying the same thing. As a historian, you have to take that seriously. No one says Johnson wasn't in the lead.

30+ rounds to go here...

 

That's true.
But my counter point would be that we can't always know what other agendas and influences were at hand in other fights, such as personal biases, monetary interests, or any manner of things, nevermind simple error or ill-judgement. The context and possible motives surrounding reports of Jack Johnson are obvious enough, but we can never know everything. We can assume that some things are lost in history and were hidden at the time, because that's how real life is.

I'm not saying we should dismiss newspaper reports out of hand.
I'm saying we can't be sure of the accuracy of details if we can't see the fight, ever.

It doesn't really change much of anything. I'm just a bit more cautious of newspaper reports. And that goes for everything, not just sport.

 

I have seen quite a bit of the fight and Johnson was beating Flynn easy and toying with him.
It looked like a mismatch.

 

Its absolutely untrue that all reports have Johnson fading. You are no different than those pathetic muppets ringside who said Johnson had taken the beating of his life, or was exhausted, or that Flynn might have won, because thats what they wanted to happen so badly when we can see nothing of the sort happened.

Is it more ideal to have the written account AND film? Of course! Its always better to have MORE sources not less. Do you have occasion like this or Gibbons-McFarland or Wolgast-Rivers where some of the papers differ wildly from the actual events? Yes. BUT those occurences are in the great minority and the exception, not the rule. We have FAR and away more examples where we have films AND newspaper reports that perfectly compliment each other. Its always better to understand the events and their context and do as much homework as possible. Thats the reason why its so comical when some armchair historian who has no concept of how actual research is conducted comes on here with one single article he got from a quick easy google search and starts pontificating.

 

We're the same reports not saying Johnson was easily beating Ketchel and Burns? They called it as the film shows. You show me a news report that says Ketchel or Burns was in the lead, or a filmed round they press was very biased in.

I'll we waiting to read it...The film pretty much corresponds to what the press says. Not 100% of the time, but the vast majority for sure.

It's not like there was a conspiracy here to suggest Johnson was fading, and Flynn was the fresher of the two. They all said it at ringside, so here we have primary sources saying the same thing. As a historian, you have to take that seriously. No one says Johnson wasn't in the lead.

30+ rounds to go here...

- Mendoza

Okay, who at ringside said differently? Seyna is a good research historian who posted plenty ringside sources. Yours who were at Ringside watching the fight who disagreed were who?

Comical will be if you don't answer the question and come up with some names.

 

No they didn't ,"all say it", those who thought Flynn was the fresher were in the decided minority and included known Johnson bashers such as Bill Naughton.

 

Johnson looked more tired than Flynn? Flynn had already declared that if he found himself on the verge of losing he would intentionally foul out.Thats what I see in this fight, no more obvious and blatant fouling can be found!
No again, he finished fresher than Jim Johnson and he was fighting under the handicap of a broken arm.There is only so far you can take this.

 

Some reports stated Johnson was fighting under wraps and never at any time tried to take Flynn out and several said he could have finished the fight anytime he chose,where does Mendozy get these fairy tales from?

 

How many times did Flynn go 20 rounds let alone 45? Johnson is the one with proven stamina here .

 

No spin here. Im not the one giving ridiculous credence to a few racist reports and ignoring whats right in front of him.

Post your video of Johnson-Johnson that gave you such a strong opinion, i cant wait to see it.

 

Oh so now you're suggesting it was a pre-arranged event, just like Ketchel? .

Flynn sucked, but he was in shape, could hit a bit and game. Seyna's reports of those at ringside tower over anything you or Klompton have come up with. If you think primary reports, most of which agree are fairly tales, then you might as well leave this forum.