O'Brien vs Johnson. Who won? Was there talk of a re-match?

He is only over-rated because pundits ascribe him God-like, infallible status when he was merely pretty damn good. He had too many off-nights in what should have been his prime years and pulls around a wagon of excuses for each one. His apologists tire the hell out of me.

 

Mendoza ,you started this thread with the express purpose of discrediting Jack Johnson,You know it,I know it and so does everybody else on here.
Unfortunately for you, it has come back to bite you in the arse.
No one has conceded that O Brien actually deserved the decision over an ill- trained Johnson,no one has conceded that there was any call for a rematch . You are left with nowhere to go.
Let us take your points[such as they are].
I said between 1901 and 1915 no one stopped a Johnson whom, you a stated was easy to hit and, had a suspect chin.
That is 14 years,I further said Johnson was then stopped by Jess Willard ,after 26 rds when Johnson was 37 years old.He then went another 11 years before being stopped again ,at the age of 48years.
I asked how can we reconcile your statement that Johnson was not hard to hit with the fact that, during the time frames stated.
NO ONE MANAGED TO STOP HIM?
Griffin stopped Johnson on a tko early in Johnson's career.
Johnson fought him twice more, gaining a draw, and stopping him,he was not on the floor in either of those fights.
Choynsky, an acknowleged great puncher, stopped Johnson in 1901,he then went 14 years without taking a ten count.
Hart beat Johnson ,or, at least he got the decision he did not floor him however .
Langford had 50 fights when he met Johnson he weighed 156lbs,Johnson weighed 185.Langfords optimum weight was probably around 180lbs, at most. ,given that he was 5'7'' [ many would say Langford was best at 175lbs] . Johnsons best weight was 208 lbs[I could have gone higher] .So,Langford was 24lbs below his best weight.Johnson was 23lbs below his best weight ,and Langford was the more experienced fighter.

Langford was given a drubbing ,by his own admission ,and floored on route Johnson was not floored at any time

Mcvey was 20 years old when he had his third and last fight with Johnson a 20rd ko loss, in his previous fights he had stopped Denver Ed

Martin in 1 rd,kod Kid Carter and Fred Russell, in three fights he did not floor Johnson.

The Smith affair was a 6 rd spar, according to Smith, who was there at the time, he did not ko Johnson ,in his own words ,he put him through the ropes.
You operate on the Joseph Goebbels principle," if you repeat a lie often enough people come to beleive it", well ,not while I am alive to correct you.

I see that after newspaper proof that the Johnson /Johnson fight was a TEN ROUNDER, you have dropped the claim that it was 20 round fight cut short. Neither you, nor anyone living has seen the Jim Johnson fight but, what we do know is that Jack Johnson fought with a fractured tibia,and at NO time was decked.
Moran who possessed a good right hand punch .his Mary Ann never hurt Johnson ,and when he did land, film evidence shows Johnson stepping back and applauding him .

You did not address my earlier points ,I did not expect for one moment that you would.
You are hoist with your own petard ,buried in a hole you dug yourself.


DEAR MENDOZA. YOU ARE OUT OF BULLETS, AND, OUT OF TIME.
GOODNIGHT SWEET PRINCE:hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi:

 

"Ill-trained" "Hungover" any more excuses? He was fought to a standstill by a featherfisted midget, an offense that would be absolutely unforgivable in this day and age. But as usual Johnson is given a pass.

And Willard was 34. Big deal.

So, by your logic, he was over the hill when Willard beat him but went on to be great again... You can't have it both ways. The reality is that he fought no one worth a **** after Willard.

Johnson was a master clincher, delayer, staller. He was strong as an ox and could frustrate his opponents through his strength and relative size advantage. I do not think he was especially chinny.

A heavyweight being KO'd by a light heavy would solicit instant and irreparable derision in any era but Johnson's. Today, it would never be lived down.

He won by all accounts. Or I suppose the white press conjured this again. Is it time to reverse every loss by a black fighter to a white fighter pre-1970?

This is ludicrous supposition. How do you suppose to know their best weights? Langford was a menace while in the 150's. Johnson had a 30 pound weight advantage, plain and simple. The case of a very good heavier fighter beating a great lighter fighter.

TIBIA? I thought the patented Johnson honk excuse this time was supposed to a broken arm, an arm which those in the arena saw broke in the later rounds. Or are Johnson pundits as impervious to anatomy as they are to boxing reality? Regardless, according to newspaper accounts Jack was getting schooled in this bout (by a rather mediocre opponent) and was ever so lucky to walk away champ.

Why do so many Johnson bouts require such prodigious qualifications in regards to his underwhelming performance? I say, where there is smoke there is fire. Too many stale performances to guarantee any certitude of greatness. Rather "goodness" befits his real status.

 

They are not my excuses they are the facts as presented by writers such as Randy Roberts who spent 3 years researching his biography on Johnson ,a biography which drew considerable praise from the Washington Post,The Library Journal,the NewYork Times Book Review,and plaudits from writers and documentary makers such as Geofrey C Ward and Ken Burns, if you have a problem with them ,you should contact them.
I belive 99% of posters would agree that Johnson was past his best when at age 37 he defended against Willard.,in fact many would say he was declining after his 1910 defence against Jeffries.
Nowhere on this thread have I said Johnson was great ,neither before, or after his comeback from prison when he was a man in his 40's.
Indeed in other threads ,I have stated that Johnson was no longer a viable threat to the title after his loss to Willard.
You are putting opinions in my mouth.
I may not be smart ,but no one has ever needed to provide me with opinions.

Johnson was kod early in his career by Choynsky,whom Jeffries Johnson ,and Fitz named as the hardest puncher they ever met.he then went 14 years without taking a 10 count,had a year in prison then went a further 11 years without being stopped till he was tkod at the age of 48.Which was the crux of my rebuttal to Mendoza who stated that Johnson's defence was weak and his chin suspect. I asked that ,given the facts I gave, how could we reconcile them with his statements?
You decided to join in and I have answered you.
There is controversy over the Hart fight I did not start it,as old as I am ,I was not around for that one.I merely mentioned it, and made no further comment.I did not originally mention Langford ,I just referred to him because Mendoza mentioned him
I beleive I have been even handed with the facts about their weights and have not tried to make anything of the victory for Johnson ,that he was not entitled to .It was a 29 lbs weight advantage, both were below their prime weights by about the same amount imo. How many pounds did Jeffries have over Corbett,Fitz,Choynsky,and Sharkey?
I named the wrong bone ,my apologies ,it was the radial bone ,still I provided you with the opportunitiy to make as much of it as was possible, including a very weak joke, along with a slightly offensive question.
NO ONE KNOWS when Johnson broke his arm he stated it was early in the fight ,some in the crowd SPECULATED it MIGHT have happened later in the fight,when both were involved in a tumble to the floor .The only man who could answer that question has been dead since 1946.
I would prefer it if you did not lump me with the honks ,whatever and whoever they may be ,I've been civil to you and require the same in return.If you want to act like Mendoza ,I will address you accordingly

 

Hello my little ******ed , illiterate friend. I have answered Seamus and ,will get back to you soon ,dont fret.I am going out to lunch with friends now,to listen to some Jazz .Don't get lonely now.:hi:

 

When I said " no one ", I was referring to the posters on the thread ,likewise the rematch.

I thought that was self evident.

Sorry, I forgot I was dealing with "Rainman".

The Smith affair a was a sparring session, not a match , according to Smith.
Smith said he put

Johnson "through the ropes", his words.

I stated from 1901 to 1915 surely even a chimp like you can grasp that?

I said Griffin ,I meant Klondike, Johnson subsequently drew with and kod Klondike ,who ,Cyberzone describes as a strong muscular fighter, who could hit hard.

Johnson said The referee picked the wrong arm to raise in the excitement when he commented on the Hart fight if you accept one comment you must accept the other.

Joe Woodman ,Langford's manager is on record as saying Langford did not floor Johnson ,he stated he started the story to drum up interest in a further fight. Langford never alluded to his flooring Johnson ,in fact he said "he handed me the only real beating I ever took, I take my hat off to him".

You first mentioned McVey and Langford ,not me, I just stated the facts about how long Johnson went without being kod.these are irrefutable.

I see you have embraced Seamus as an ally,I forsee stormy weather ahead for this tag team.Would you care to comment on Seamus's opinion ,that.
" Jeffries would not even be in the top ten strongest heavyweights over the last decade"???????
It ill becomes an illiterate 5th Grader like yourself ,someone who cannot write a sentence without a grammar ,punctuation,or spelling mistake in it , to criticize my posts.Cro Magnon Man.

Your posts are getting more and more frenzied ,and hysterical,I dont know whom you hate more, Jack Johnson ,or me.

 

Please to offer me any proof that he could compete with today's athletes in matters of explosive strength. And do not recite some old yarn about him carrying Babe the Ox 8 miles through snow drifts or the fact he could match my 8th grade mark in the high jump. Unless you feel like adding some hilarity to my day.

I discussed earlier with the old wag that I agree Jeffries had great endurance and brought strength to the later rounds but as far as explosive, anaerobic strength... that is another matter.

 

I would imagine Jeffries was a phenomenon for his times,but would expect him to blend in unoticed with todays heavies, regarding physique and strength.
I was not challenging your statement , just saying that you two might make unlikely bed fellows.

 

How do you measure maximum strength of a boxer ?

 

I think that this is fairly likely.

One thing you cant criticicise todays fighters for, is their size, strength and power.

Jeffries would stand out still, but it would be because of his stamina and speed for a big man. I dont think his strength would be anything out of the ordinary. At best he would be in the George Foreman bracket, but more than likely he would be not any stronger than say a Shannon Briggs or Andrew Golotta, or most of the Superheavys.

 

That's the dicey question. It needs to be much more qualified than merely "the strongest"... Were Jeffries to last 14 rounds with one of the elite legit superheavies of the past two decades, then I guarantee with his training that he would be the strongest in the 15th. But I also doubt he could put up numbers in the weight room that a Shannon Briggs or other such modern could...