Jack Johnson vs Frank Moran. Film link, narrative and 19 minutes of footage shown

• The St. Petersburg Daily Times reported the following on June 28, 1914:

"The battle was hard fought, but Johnson won easily. Moran was game and stubborn and did most of the leading. Johnson's superior skill was effective and his upper-cutting wore Moran down and won the contest. . . . There were no knockdowns, or anything resembling a finishing blow in the fight. At the close Moran's face was bleeding from a cut under the nose and left eye. Johnson showed no marks."


"When the fight took place, before a fashionable audience at the Vélodrome d'Hiver, McKetrick saw he had been terribly mistaken about Moran's chances. It was true that Johnson was not in first-rate condition, but his superlative defense held up, and he was able to evade the dreaded Mary Ann and give Moran a severe beating without the full use of his left arm. Johnson had a rather preoccupied air, for he had heard rumors of writs and lawyers and knew but too well that this always meant trouble. And, as he feared, he was told after the fight that French police had grabbed the money and taken it away."
Johnson was 221.5lbs and 36 years old.He did well to go 20rds and never be in any trouble whilst in such poor shape.

 

The audio is by Steve Holdsworth ,he commentated for Sky Sports before his contract was let go.

Johnson hit Moran after the command to break in the 10th rd.
Which other fouls do you say he committed?

You do know they had mutually agreed to hit whilst holding and work inside I take it?

I ask because I remember you also tried to say Johnson fouled Burns by hitting and holding which again they had agreed to beforehand, a fact Burns said he regretted after the fight.

Moran backhands Johnson in the 1st rd and rabbit punches him 3 times in the 10th, did you somehow miss that?
Johnson won this fight comfortably enough as you have been told by others such as Klompton ,who has more footage of it than you have ever seen.
I wonder if you would be interested in Frank Moran's own opinion of how the fight went?
"I've got no kick coming.The black completely surprised me.Everybody led me to believe all I had to do was to last ten or fifteen and I'd be sure to win solely on the bad condition and age of the negro.But Johnson's defence was so good, in the nineteenth round as well as the first , and when the twentieth round came I was too much all in to be able to notice ."

Frank Moran interviewed by the New York American June 29th 1914.

Two days after the fight.


The New York Sun. "It was not a fight,it was not even a near fight Moran showed absolutely nothing.Johnson was never extended".

The New York Times." In the final round Johnson stood in the center of the ring.Moran circled about Johnson,and called out, "Come on hit me!"Then the referee forced him to fight and amid screams from the crowd Johnson landed a left uppercut and the fight was finished as Moran went reeling against the ropes" .

NB Johnson finished the fight with a right hand swollen to nearly twice it's normal size, he blamed this on his wearing 4 ounce gloves for the first time instead of his usual 5 ounce ones.


Keep your agenda going ,you only damage your own credibility,dog=,bone, bone =dog.lol!Knock yourself out lol!

 

The footage gives a good testament to an ageing Jack Johnson's ring generalship, albeit against a fighter a few levels below himself.

 

,:Webiano]UOTE="Mendoza, post: 18224476, member: 19227"]Mcvey says:

Johnson hit Moran after the command to break in the 10th rd.
Which other fouls do you say he committed?

Mendoza says: Why would a newspaper I posted fabricate what happened? Johnson has a history of fouling. We see it here on film. He also pinched biceps among other things vs Moran.




McVey says: Johnson won this fight comfortably enough as you have been told by others such as Klompton ,who has more footage of it than you have ever seen

Mendoza says: Absolute BS, he won comfortable you say? LOL This was a close fight. How come films of Johnson show the opposite of whatever your narrative is? Gee I wonder why. As for Klompton, he will need to prove he owns more than 20 minutes of footage, and even if he owns 30 minutes, it's not the entire film and history shows once he's set in his ways, that's it. He refuses to acknowledge several ringside reports comments that Johnson was fading vs Flynn prior to the DQ, even though they were there and he was not!

Now would you care to score the shown footage? Like I said its close! [/QUOTE]
So you can't name another foul he committed in this fight?
And we have Moran's own testimony,[ given in an interview the day after the fight,] saying Johnson was too clever for him,and that he was all in at the end of the fight.
Plus I supplied three ringside newspaper reports,confirming it was a comfortable win for Johnson.
No one took the bait on your thread and the only other poster ,Webbiano thought Johnson did well, so another failed, agenda driven thread from Simon Legree!
You carry on with your agenda Klan Man, no one gives a good f*ck about your opinion anyway.

 

Thats the great Steve Holdsworth commentating . He's a long running boxing commentator on Eurosport , not Sky.

I wonder what show this was from

 

Is this Mendoza guy actually bashing Johnson for fouling. Look at his klitschko avatar.. lol!! what a joke of a man.

 

Good upload Mendoza.

We have good footage of the fights vs Flynn, Moran, Burns and Jeffries.

Hard to say who his toughest opponent is out of those 4 victories .

 

Yes that's right Eurosport, I got mixed up, just like he did when he said Moran had won his last 24 fights!

 

I would have to factor in Johnson's age and condition at the time of each fight. eg He was 36 years old and well over weight for the Moran fight.

 

I mean from the point of view of the opponent, which of those 4 was the best.

 

I love the description before round 5. They talk about Moran winning the round because of supposedly vicious blows delivered to the body of Johnson. You watch the round, and most of those blows were meaningless. Johnson landed the much harder blows in that exchange. That description was comical

 

I haven't watched the video so I can't/won't comment on it. However, it's absolutely
a fact that newspapers of the day were the only means of communicating these fights.
Most fight films, especially between white and black fighters, were either banned outright
or shown to few people. So, in order to sell newspapapers, the writers had to make the bouts
seem as though Thor battled Zeus or Superman fought Batman. They were histrionic to the
extreme. Why? Because they were the pulp fiction of the day! And the writers had to try and pretend
they were Pulitzer Prize level scribes.

I've seen many of the so-called Best Fights Ever (like the Burt Sugarman books among others)
that describe bouts as if they were Rocky vs Apollo Creed but when you watch the film most
of the fight was grabbing, holding, and waltzing around the ring.

Again, I'm not necessarily describing the actions of this bout in this thread.