New Book - In the Ring With James J. Jeffries

No L'Aero. PM me ans I'll send you a copy. There are numerious mentions of the fight for over a week prior to the event and for several days afterwards(in French, obviously) and also the Jeannette-Langford fight of the same time. The latter contest was billed as a World Championship fight and has some credence to be considered as such.

 

Mcvey,

I think its time to check your cankerous responses at the door. This is a boxing forum here. If you can't accept a fight report, I suggest you re-arrange your lawn furniture. I was talking to Matt, not you.

Also if your going to quote another website, why not do it correctly. Here's what the CBZ had to say on this fight! Note they say 20 rounds. Johnson should lose on points if it was 10 rounds or via TKO when he quit inside the distance.

Dec 19 [url]"Battling" Jim Johnson[/url] Paris, Fr D 10

This content is protected

This bout was scheduled for 20 rounds but terminated after 10 rounds due to arm injury to the Champion. [url]http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/jjohn.htm[/url]


PS: For a guy who rips people for misspelled words, you really should look in the mirror.

 

Ok Chimp .
First, if you are talking privately to a poster,send a pm ,otherwise it is in the public domain.
You cherry pick what you think will help your point of view and ignore the rest.
For example CBZ states that Frank Moran was a hard right hand puncher ,which I told you ,and you refuted.

As to my spelling ? allmost is correct, if you can manage it, you will notice that I spelt defence differently than it is typed on CBZ too.
Why ? Because I am English ! And that is how it is spelt in England, not surprisingly, because it is the ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
You speak a *******ized version of Shakespeare's language,and spell it accordingly,[ as in color, when it is colour]
.So get your facts right.

I asked you for a comment on CBZ's appraisal of Johnson's ability and you ignored it.Too unpalatable?

Any comment on Donnellon's newspaper report, stating the fight was scheduled for 10 rds?

 

Ok Mr. Dolt. I'm still laughing at your mis-spelled words. An English professor you are not. I don't care if I speak in your version of the Queens English, but I do find it ironic how wrong you can be when you attempt to criticize other people's English. I think I made that clear in the past few days. Also you need to learn how to put spaces between your sentences.

As for the fight, there are conflicting opinions on whether it was scheduled 10 or 20 rounds. I posted the news report, did you read it? My opinion on the fight is this. Battling Jim was robbed of a decision if it was 10 rounds for sure, and should have been the winner via TKO if it was 20 rounds! Face it, Jack Johnson got whipped by a tough journeyman type of fighter. He's so over rated it is not funny.

As for the CBZ's appraisal on Johnson, they really don't go into much detail of his fights, rather its a overview and opinion of the writer who created the web page. Also, if your using the CBZ as your benchmark, they say it was a 20 round fight. Embrace that fact. Don't pick and chose items from the CBZ and disregard others to suit your agenda.

My question to you is this, who do you think deserved to win that match? Battling Jim Johnson or Jack Johnson? You reply will either expose you as a ball washing excuse ridden fan, or show me for once you can be honest on this particular prospect. I look forward to reading your reply.

 

I take no more notice of CBZ than I do of you ,I just find it amusing that you ignore things you don't like.

I cannot, for the life of me see how you can have so much hate for a man who has been dead for 63 years.

Its an obsession with you ,I have pms from posters taking the **** out of you, saying how you cannot objectively discuss ,either Johnson ,Jeffries or the Klitschko's

I am more than willing to give Jeffries kudos , but the slightest negative criticism finds you rushing to his defence ,it's like a mania .

I have read quite a few reports on the Johnson /Johnson fight,some thought Jack was fading at the finish , some thought he fought even more defensively than usual, because of his injury.After all a broken bone in your arm is a solid reason for a sub par performance I think .
Your hero, Vitali certainly thought it was a good enough reason to quit in a fight he was winning and he did not have any broken bones.

I think it would kill you to accept CBZ' opinion of Johnson's capabilities, you can't even bring yourself to repeat them.

If Jack Johnson is so overated ,how come so many premier boxing writers disagree with you ?

Tracy Callis for one,Nat Fleischer for another, Gilbert Odd and Denzil Batchelor ,two more.
Add Randy Roberts, Terry Leigh Lye, Hugh Mcilvanney, Charley Rose ,Herb Goldman.

"In all round ability, he was tops " Nat Fleischer.

Boxers quotes.
"In all round defence he was the greatest,and I tell you this honestly ,because I hated him".
Tom Sharkey.

"He is the Emperor of Fistiana",Jim Corbett.

" No, I couldnt have licked him in a thousand years " Jim Jeffries.

" I sparred with him once, I couldn't lay a glove on him ,he was simply marvellous ".Ted Kid Lewis.

He has the best defence I have ever seen for a heavyweight " Jimmy Wilde.

All these are wrong and you are right ?






Who deserved the win ?

I haven't got a clue I haven't seen the fight ,and neither have you, so we are even ,the difference is, I don't try and make it a victory for Jack.

If it was scheduled for 20 rds Jim Johnson should have been crowned champion ,and I have said this before, but, NO ONE, HAS GIVEN IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT THIS IS THE CASE.

In fact the evidence points towards a 10rd fight having been scheduled ,with the new evidence that Donnellon has unearthed .

Box rec has it as a scheduled 10 rounder

To be quite frank with you ,I dont give a **** either way.

My earlier post, might quite well have been similar to your usual scribblings ,I typed it at about 5 am,I was up early ,because I was going on a shoot.
I have no problem with you typing in "Americanese", if I might call it that ,why would I have?

I thought it would have been obvious that, being English ,I would spell words the English, [original] way .
Maybe you were so excited thinking you had an error to point out you did not stop to think ?
Bless you

I read a lot of American fiction ,but have never come across anyone using the term dolt,tell me is it still in common usage?

Or, only in your neck of the backwoods, [ duelling banjo land]?

Why do you suppose I would type something to gain your good opinion?

You cannot seriously think I give a flying **** about your opinion ,surely?
I take anything negative you say as a compliment ,why havent you used poltroon or knave to describe me yet?
Ask yourself this ,if you discovered that James Jackson Jeffries had a homosexual relationship with Tom Sharkey, and, that he had paid Fitz and Corbett to go into the tank,would your world be destroyed?
If the answer is yes ,you need to think about devloping another interest.:good

 

Well, that's the question, 'Was it for the heavyweight title'? Pollack, if I'm understanding him correctly, is inclined to view it as a non-title tune-up, though I don't think he'd say this is something we definitively know one way or the other. (

This content is protected

) Do we have anything from the time that states that the title was on the line against Finnegan?

 

From what I have read Jeffries was not in top shape for this ,and who could blame him?
But we should not be too harsh on him, he took on Corbett soon after this , though I wonder why three years had to elapse before he did so,given the sterling effort Corbett put up in their first fight.
ps The book is a Xmas box ,or so I am told.

 

Of course you are right , my error .
I will be interested in the underlying reasons why Jeffries did not rematch Corbett until three years had passed.
I have allways assumed it was down to Corbett's inactivity.

 

Well, the CBZ says 20 rounds, and Unforgivable Blackness ( I think ) also says 20 rounds. You still ducking my question! If it was 10 rounds, based on the news read I posted, who do you think should have won?

Battling Jim, or Jack Johnson.? Its a simple question really. Can you give an answer to that without spin control? It might also interest you to know that the French wanted to strip Johnson of his championship for this effort.

Here is the link to the fight for you to read:

[url]

This content is protected

[/url]

 

By the sounds of things, Finnegan was no worse an opponent as the majority of guys who get shots today. Certainly no worse than say the Kirk Johnson that once fought for the title, or Ray Austin. A far cry from the worst fighter ever to fight for a title, which many suggest, and i was starting to believe

 

Thank you, apollack, for your response to my Jeffries-Finnegan question.