McVey and Mendoza going mental again

In recent discussions with Janitor it became apparent to me that Johnson's credentials as #1 contender to JJ's title were likely sealed about one year before I originally thought they were, calling the second Corbett bout into serious question and making the possibility that Jeffries flat-out ducked Johnson - allowing the colour bar - more pertinent. When Janitor happens along, he'll admit himself, i'm sure, that some of the details of Johnson's run to the #1 contendership were a little wooly in that discussion. For example, Johnson's rise to prominence (earlier than I thought) was achieved on the back of beating much "hyped" fighters, but we didn't have many examples of that actual hype. One thing i'd love to see in this thread are details of the hype surrounding Sam McVey and Sandy Ferguson.

A hyped fighter, by definition, is a fighter who is regarded as being greater than what he has actually proved. Sometimes this hype will be born out - as was the case with Sam McVey, to one degree or another, depending upon your point of view (I believe completely). Anyway, this got me thinking about Jack Johnson whose been troubling me recently. I thought it would be fun to kick up a thread to make my point of view clear, to myself as much as anyone else. It's not meant to be comprehensive and everything I write here is up for grabs to one degree or another, so wade in with your opinions and your facts, I welcome all that. We'll start with a little look at Johnson's competition pre-Hart.

First it needs to be said that Johnson's record is incomplete as seen on Boxrec. His real record seems to be much more impressive that first glance, and 1902 seems to have been the year he really re-established himself, Jack had many more fights than appear on his modern record. A cursory look by myself turned up a clutch of unrecorded Johnson fights, and McVey and MattD went some way towards confirming. This can be seen here: http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=166387 for anyone who is interested.

The key fights, though, seem to have come in 1903, the year Janitor, and possibly I, would label Johnson's first as #1 contender. The first big win of this year was Denver Ed Martin. As coloured champ, he's certainly a serious scalp. According to some, Martin was seen as a valid threat to Jeffries' title going into his six round ND with Bob Armstrong - however, Armstrong, not a top contender himself, supposedly having Martin all but out on his feet dropping him either five or six times in a single round. This took some of the shine from Martin's star, and Johnson seperated him from his title shortly therafter over 20 rounds. A fine win. The problem is what comes next. Including the Johnson fight, and the Armstrong draw which preceeded it, Martin won 2/8 in this period, losing by KO in 3 to Armstrong, 1 to McVey (who he also beat on points).

Martin, before meeting Armstrong and Johnson, had put together a winning streak (According to Boxrec) of 11 on the trot. Now, I know Boxrec is incomplete, but it IS a reasonable indicator of form. What is interesting to me here is that Martin builds up a fearsome reputation based upon pre-Johnson form, but his form at the time of the fight is horrible. What is known of this fight? How was Martin's performance seen? Was he viewed as washed up after dropping back to back fast KO losses in the immediate aftermath of this fight? Any details appreciated.

The other of the three major scalps Johnson lands at this time is the "much hyped" Sandy Ferguson. Ferguson seems to have been a mecurial talent and something of a haunted man, but he does have form at the back of fighting Johnson. Having lost to the unheralded Ben Taylor and losing by DQ to O'Brien in early 01, Ferguson redeemed himself by going unbeaten until the middle of '02 when Martin seems to have eliminated him from title contention with a fifth round stoppage. Just under a year later, he lost to Johnson, going 2-0-1 in the interim against middling competition. Ferguson then went on an excellent run, losing only to Johnson until 1907 when Jeanette sees him off for good at the highest level (allowing a supposedly horrible decision against Hart in the interim). Ferguson never beat a top HW. But is it possible this is Johnson's best victory pre-Hart?

That will depend upon how you feel about McVey. Here was another "much-hyped" fighter, but McVey had beaten nobody of note in 1903 at the time of Johnson's victory. Possiblly something of a physical phenom, McVey's Boxrec record is also likely incomplete, and the combination perhaps makes McVey's scalp more impressive, but it seems to be something of a leap to me? Janitor said he had seen, posted on the forum, an article that described Johnson-McVey as a clash for the #1 contendership - does anyone reading this have that article? I would dearly love to see it. Until I do I'll look again at the form. After his first loss to Johnson, McVey takes his first big scalp, that of Martin - but Martin, as we see may have been washed up at this time, winning just 2/8 for this period, including a win over McVey. McVey's next big fight was against Jeanette, in 1907 - which he lost. In fact McVey did not come by a top win until 1909 when he finally beat Jeanette. This would be 5 years after his third and final loss to Johnson. McVey served an entire apprentecship after his duals with McVey. I'm concerned about the significance attached to these wins. The hype might say they were worthy, but what was the reality? My guess is that the reality is that McVey was nothing like ready. He was years away from being ready against a fighter of this quality. What do you think?


In '05 Johnson met Hart in what would have been a title decider in 2010. Johnson lost. Without getting into any kind of detail, my impression has always been that Johnson won more rounds but that Hart got the nod based upon aggression. Things like this happened all the time (in fact, it seems to have happened to Hart when he was boxing Ferguson). Hart had a style. His style was designed to win fights. He allowed for the fact that aggression won him points, i'm sure. If he didn't he was a fool. Johnson also had a style, a far more complex and difficult style, less fundamental, requiring more oil...Johnson fought with a style that was fundamentally not sound for the era IMO.

"Johnson showed his usual lack of aggressiveness and would not take advantage of many of the openings his less skilled opponents left for him."

THis is from the SF Call. Even allowing for the fact that writers have 20-20 speed and bravery, this is a instructive. Johnson, in an era where the results of fights can be altered by levels of aggression fights passively. Even worse, Johnson, perhaps the bravest man ever to set foot in the ring, is described as "yellow". Although his cleverness is universally admired, his style is seen as unacceptable. It's true that Johnson persisted with his defensive genius, but he would never again be described in these terms after the Hart fight. This is what I mean when I say that Johnson was yet to peak. His style was polished and re-polished IMO. I think he did change the way fighters were seen - more, in fact, than any fighter in history - but I also think that he altered his style in the wake of this loss, to fill more openings with punches. By the time of Burns fight, it would be very difficult for him to lose in this fashion again - underlined by the fact that he never, ever did.

There is no film of Johnson during this period. We're forced to go by what we can gleen. In apprasing Johnson ONLY up until this point, what are your thoughts?

 

But he was also coming into the McVey fight having lost three out of his last four, including a pretty one-sided ND versus welterweight Joe Walcott, was he not?

You don't think this is just a question of the colour line?

 

What are you basing that on, Matt?