I agree that the content of his championship reign 1908-1915 is not impressive, esp. from 1910/'11 onwards. I disagree with some of your details though. The Ketchel KD looks distinctly fake on the film. And I don't put much stock in his 6-round ND with O'Brien either, I take it as about as meaningful an exhibition. The Moran fight is a bonus on his resume, a win past his prime against a decent young fighter. Johnson was the dominant heavyweight in the world from about 1905 - 1910, and arguably the top HW from 1903 - 1914. At the very least he was a candidate for those honours throughout the best part of a decade. And he was relatively active too.
The argument that "the whole era was awful" is not a good one when the vast majority of his fighters and the fighters of the time don't even exist on film. I certainly don't credit Johnson for laziness and unprofessionalism, but I accept that some great fighters ARE lazy, inconsistent and at times unprofessional. Multiple instances of such may well take away from their greatness, but doesn't necessarily preclude them from greatness altogether. And, yes, fights WERE faked, staged, fixed, and still are. I would guess even more so in those times, perhaps far more so because the whole enterprise of professional boxing existed outside of the law.
Funny how Johnson honks never speak of the fights that might be staged to his benefit. I assume such a thing never existed.
Ever the victim, all things went poor lil' Arthur's way. Contortions of logic and suspension of disbelief to such an intellectually dishonest degree to make a Papist blush uphold this legend of Johnson. That is my point.
You don't' have a point, never have had one ,in fact you are pointless. You' re only objective on this Forum, is to act as a petty agent provocateur. Unfortunately ,[for you] ,you have neither the wit, nor the nous to make it convincing. You hide behind the curtain,while the play is being performed and take an occasional stab at the back of the actors, from the safety of the wings. When challenged ,you instantly resort to hyperbolic verbiage to weasel out of replying with an answer based on a logical conclusion. Your own act is tired, and unworthy of notice ,and , you have nothing else that is positive to offer on any thread that I have seen. No information, no insight, no debate,only a jaundiced , and negative view of everything, you encounter. You are like an old circus elephant , who automatically goes into his tired routine whenever he hears the roll of the drums . Underwhelming ,underqualified ,and ultimately, rather pathetic. Enough is enough. Get yourself a new act, and some fresh material.:good
I am merely questioning the intellectual position of those who insist that every underwhelming Johnson performance has an extravagant excuse, and in fact his career is a tapestry of said excuses, yet his each of his applauded performances is supposedly above suspicion. This approach is what I am chastising. Your ilk casts so many aspersions upon the fights of Hart, Ketchell, O'Brien, Choynski and Johnson. You want the objective observer to believe so many and uniquely selected Johnson encounters are marred extrinsic circumstance. I merely call bull**** on the approach. If you are too can not grasp this elevated concept, then kindly eat ****.
I agree...not with the detail (Which is highly offensive, i'm shocked), but with the idea that Johnson should be held accountable for his bad showings as much because of his conditioning and attitude as inspite of it. He DID do things in style though, and he is the all time #1 badass, hence the confusion. I, Seamus, would argue that these opposing visions of one boxing histories most dominating figures causes the confusion. You, on the other hand, would harp on endlessly about "intellectual dishonesty", which is about as wide of the mark as Mendoza's opinion of the man.
No, you intimated that Johnson may have been the benificiary of fixed fights,I asked you to enlighten us on any. You then drew your usual smokescreen out of your tired magician's hat , altered course and steamed off , without addressing the question. I don't applaud Johnson for cynically turning up hungover and out of shape to take on light hitting Jack O Brien. I have stated ,on this forum, that Jack pissed on his public . Your ilk? DEAL WITH ME, show me where I made excuses for Johnson being kod by Choynski? Johnson carried Ketchel, anyone with half a brain can see that, by viewing the footage ,he picks him up twice and sets him back on his feet. Whether the knockdown was genuine we will never know,so , I've an open mind, on it. I have agreed the Hart fight was close ,and could perhaps have gone either way, no excuses from me. In your efforts to impress with your dubious erudition , your closing sentence is gobblegegook. Kindly eat **** ? Kindly stop talking it. Debate in the open ,putting your points, [if you have any], across rationally and logically ,all you have done ,since you came on here is snipe fom the sidelines . Perhaps you just like to see your negative thoughts in print? From where I am sitting, your contribution to the debates on this forum has been ZERO. Prove me wrong, and actually post a thead that is original and pertinent to this Classic section.
Yeah, because listening to pedants regurgitate **** I've read a thousand times is so ****ing enlightening. You're coming off as the tallest midget here, not much to write home about.
You can't be the top heavy in 1903 if you can't beat Jeffires in his prime, or even Hart. Johnson was winning fights and drawing as champion from 1908-1914, but the competition was very suspect, and his results were dubious. If you think the Ketchel knockdown was fake, then Johnson's integrity comes into play. What else was faked for him? Why question the O'Brien fight,. It happened. Also one can not say Johnson looked good at all vs. Journeyman Jim Johnson. Too many poor performances. Enough excuses.
BAWAHAHAHA! Is that all you got? Debating if Clark, who was likely the 5th best heavy that Johnson never fought as champ was worthy? I'll save you some time. Any man who can beat Langford, Jeanette, McCarthy, and draw with Wills while Johnson was champion is worthy of a title shot. Now how about addressing my points on Johnson losses and draws to the top competition he fought from 1899-1905!!!! Those below 160 pounds, those who were teenagers,and those who had losing records need not apply as big wins.
Yes, this **** is tired. And in fact I believe we (the ilk and myself) are quite close in approximation of a realistic estimation of Johnson's status. However, the tired, rehearsed, and mind-numbingly regurgitated arguments which I have heard for 20 years regarding Johnson really refine the waterboard possibilities of intellectual masturbation. At this point I will retreat to my beloved sidelines... (oh, real life of making money and paying bills) whilst others conjure more tedious and equally obtuse angles of engagement. To them I wish brave, brave travels.