What boxing media do you trust the most on fights that happened decades ago?

bert sugar

 

paul gallico

 

Combination film & historians

 

Film only.

 

When it comes to understanding a fighter's style, and resolving questions of fact, there's no substitute for film, but for subjective opinions on who was ahead on points I'll take the majority view of the people who were actually there at ringside over my own view from watching a choppy, grainy, 100 year old film. Even on modern high quality video, you can't really sense how hard and cleanly the punches are landing - not the way you can when you're sitting a few yards away.

 

UOTE="SolomonDeedes, post: 18607215, member: 78052"]When it comes to understanding a fighter's style, and resolving questions of fact, there's no substitute for film, but for subjective opinions on who was ahead on points I'll take the majority view of the people who were actually there at ringside over my own view from watching a choppy, grainy, 100 year old film. Even on modern high quality video, you can't really sense how hard and cleanly the punches are landing - not the way you can when you're sitting a few yards away.[/QUOTE]
How many films of the early 1900's can be viewed in their entirety?
Who alive has seen all of:
Walcott v Louis 1
Jeffries v Corbett 2
Jeffries v Johnson
Johnson v Willard
Johnson v Moran
Should we ignore contemporary sourced reports of those fights by boxing experts of the day who were actual ringside observers of those fights?
Should we not give credence to the diligent research done by such acclaimed boxing authors as Adam Pollack and Clay Moyle who spent a considerable amount of time and effort poring over old fight reports?
What would be their motive for spinning such accounts in an unobjective and biased way?

Film is valuable especially when used in conjunction with these reports but grainy old clips,often shown at the wrong speed, giving just brief excerpts of the early battles can never give a complete picture. The problem arises when a biased poster who has a self confessed hatred of acertain fighter ,[Jack Johnson],allows his irrational prejudice to cloud and poison his judgement.
This leads to him refusing to accept first hand accounts from judges, referees ,boxers and the participants themselves. Instances of this hatred driven agenda can be found in such statements as.

"Tommy Burns had jaundice when he fought Jack Johnson."
Before and after the fight Burns stated he was in the shape of his life.

"Burns broke Johnson's ribs."
Immediatley after the fight Johnson went for a swim.
" The fight between Jack Johnson and Battling Jim Johnson was originally scheduled for 20 rds but shortened to 10 rds after the champion broke his left arm early in the fight".
The fight was always scheduled for 10 rounds and Matt Donnellon, who unfortunately does not post here often, posted a news paper heading advertising the fight.
"Gunboat Smith tkod Johnson in an exhibition fight"
Smith dropped Johnson in sparring. Johnson sparred with two more sparring partners immediately afterwards.
"Jack Johnson was offered huge sums,$100,000 to defend his title against Langford and Jeannette but ducked the fights."
Johnson signed to fight Langford and McVey in Ausrtralia and twice to defend against Jeannette in NY all 4 fights were cancelled through no fault of Johnson's.
At no time was Johnson offered $100,000 to fight either Jeannette, Langford, or McVey and repeated requests of proof from the "hater "of big purses being offered by promoters for these fights have met with stony silence!
" The Johnson v Jeffries fight was even up to the tenth round."
Round by round contemporary fight reports show this is bullsh*t. And film of the fight supports that.

"Johnson was tiring against Flynn in their last fight and Flynn was still fresh."

Flynn did not win a single round against Johnson ,was cut badly above both eyes and bleeding profusely from the mouth as early as the 2nd rd.
The Police Captain who intervened and instructed the referee to stop the fight said he did so because "the fight had become a slaughter,and ceased to be a contest".The referee gave his stated opinion that Flynn fouled out to save himself from a ko.
"The Johnson v Moran fight was close."
The remaining footage shows Johnson playing with Moran and the fight reports all say at he won clearly some suggest that he could have stopped Moran in the early rounds when he had him in some trouble.
" The Johnson v Ketchel fight shows both men trying their hardest from the get go"
Film of the fight shows Johnson clearly picking Ketchel up twice and ,on at least one occasion backing off when he has the smaller man in trouble.

"Johnson was outboxed by Jack O Brien over 6 rds"
O Brien was on the floor several times and marked up and the end of the bout, the Philadelphia Ledger ,the local paper said Johnson would have received the verdict if it had been a decision fight. O Brien was a local boy. "Johnson was a foul fighter ".
There are numerous instances of Johnson being blatantly fouled in fights and declining to retaliate, several of the Ferguson fights, both Flynn fights,Moran back handing him twice in their contest and using the rabbit punch. Johnson hit Moran on the break once in their fight and was cautioned for it.

"Johnson fouled Tommy Burns, by hitting in the clinches and on the break."
It had been agreed before hand that both fighters would take care of themselves in the clinches and fight their way out of clinches.
There are many more agenda driven bull sh*t comments, but these are enough to demonstrate the complete absence of objectivity by this thread starter on the subject of John Arthur Johnson.The motive behind this thread is as transparent as the OP's hatred of Johnson and just as stupid.

 

If you turn off the audio, and watch only the film...sometimes you will see an entirely different fight...whether today's bouts, or yesteryear's. (Howard Cosell being a good example of being's Ali or SRL's lapdog.)

 

All sources carry some value. A significant facet of the art of historical inquiry is in being able to assess the value of the evidence. Another key ability is the 'interpretation' of the evidence.

A collection of all types of evidence - preferably those of a primary nature (or validated secondary sources, which have done most of the work for the historian) is wiser than a reliance of one type. All sources should be considered with an open mind and be subject to questioning.

Corroboration of a source is always useful. Being prepared to use sources, which might conflict with a line of inquiry must also be addressed.

To use evidence properly is a skill, as well as being labor-intensive, if one is to build a picture that best answers a question about the past.

 

Burns by his own account was in the best shape of his life.I've produced his quotes several times. Gunboat Smith tkod no-one it was a sparring match his own taped interview in1972 states that he put Johnson through the ropes that's all.
For the final time you cannot be tko'd in a sparring session!
Johnson sparred with two other partners after his stint with Smith.

Toxie Hall dropped Rocky Marciano with a left hook and Charlie Goldman cancelled the sparring for the day.
Greg Page dropped Mike Tyson.
Travis Walker and Raphael Butler both dropped Vitali Klitshko in sparring.
Should these four men have received title shots on the strength of flooring their employer in a sparring session ?
Johnson signed to fight Langford and McVey in Australia but the promoter pulled the plug.
Johnson signed to defend aginst Jeannette twice but the NY Boxing Commisson vetoed both matches.
All easily verifiable the purses the promoters ,the dates ,the locations all verified and proven.
Sorry, there is just no way you can wriggle out of that!
I don't say anything about the Flynn fight I let the referee and the boxing writers who were there say it for me and I posted their reports of the fight including the referee's opinion that Flynn deliberately fouled out to save himself from a ko.I also posted the Chief of Police's statement that he advised the refree to stop it because it had "become a slaughter and ceased to be a boxing match".
Fact .Flynn did not win a round .Fact. Flynn was bleeding heavily from cuts to both eyes and from a bad cut inside his mouth Fact .Johnson won $5000 betting he would stop Flynn inside 12 rounds.

Johnson floored O Brien twice in their 6 rounder and no decision was rendered.The fight was in O Brien's home town and the local paper, the Philadelphia Ledger gave the nod to Johnson.

The report of the Moran fight is taken directly from a contemporary fight report and I gave the newspapers name, nothing to do with me at all!
No points were deducted for fouls in the early 1900's you ignorant fool! Moran rabbit punched Johnson several times and back handed him twice

.Good God Almighty, how sad and desperate are you to continually endure this humiliation!

 

Other. Obvious example is McFarland-Gibbons highlights, which was scored to be a win for McFarland by absolutely majority of reporters, yet the parts of film that survived give a different impression. You have to evaluate all available information, not just one source.

 

Whichever one helps my argument.