McVey and Mendoza going mental again

You can't be the top heavy if the champion avoids you,and the jury is still out, as to whether he can beat you, if he refuses to try.
Do you think Johnson needed Ketchel to take it easy on him. He carried Ketchel for 12 rds,show some sense.

 

Why not actually post something that is not a critique of others?

You profess disdain for the subject at hand , yet , whenever Johnson's name is mentioned , you turn up like a reliable old spaniel programmed by Pavlov .
Please show us any subject on which you have enlightened the Forum
with a positive thread.

Let us have the benefit of your pearls of wisdom, that would be a novel concept.

Until then, you remain Mendoza's doppel- ganger.

 

I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Anyway, I don't make excuses for Johnson. I just assess things as I see them, based on the facts.
I suppose you think Johnson's career should be defined by a loss to Choynski, some **** 6-round ND against O'Brien, and a lame 10 rounds with Battling Johnson.
I think there's more to him than that.

 

BAWAHAHA! Is this Hawaiian?
I notice it prefaces some of your recent efforts ,,what happened to your previous one, McCunt? That was awe inspiringly erudite.

You are not saving me time ,as I told you previously, I am not a slave to the clock.
I am the employer ,not the employee.

Let us recap .

You stated Jeff Clark merited a title shot while Johnson was Champion.

I posted Clark's wins during this time, and also some of his losses, and draws to illustrate he did not.

Clark's best wins during Johnsons's reign were a dec over Langford


And a decision over Jeanette.


Unfortunately, [ for Clark] ,he had been previously destroyed by Langford in 2 rds ,being floored 5 times, before you say Clark was green or any other such rubbish,Clark had 41 fights under his belt when Langford thrashed him.
Six months after beating Langford, Clark could only draw with Rough House Ware.1-4-4

Clark won a 6rds NWS over Jeanette in 1912 ,but lost a 10 rds rematch rematch in 1913 .

Another fight with Jeanette the same year was stopped, because Clark was obviously outclassed ,and Jeanette was carrying him, which suggests that Jeanette might not have been going full out in their first encounter.

So ,Clarks 2 best wins are cancelled out by emphatic losses to the same fighters.

In my efforts to be even - handed ,I listed Clark's wins over name fighters but pointed out where appropriate ,their lack of ring experience when meeting Clark.

McCarty, 20 years old, for instance, was a 7 fight novice, one of which he had lost.

Clark had 51 fights when he beat McCarty.

As late as 1913 Clark could only draw with Johnson's sparring partner George Kid Cotton 5-4-0 something he had duplicated the year previously.

Clark had engaged in 75 fights when he drew with 5-4-0 Cotton.

That must have really got the public talking about him as a prospective challenger for world title honours.

Clark had a draw with Wills 8-1-0 ,Clark had 66 fights when he drew with 9 fight novice Wills, this was 1913 ,take a look at Clark's opponents during this time .
In fact take a look at his record, and especially look at the resume's of the vast majority of the men he fought, during Johnson's reign.

Remember, this is a debate about whether Clark was a viable opponent for Johnson while Johnson was champion. I believe I have proved he was not.

The ball is in your court.
PS. Really miss that McCunt,it was so you.:hey

 

How's Johnson supposed to beat a man who refuses to fight him because of his skin colour ?

I'm not saying Johnson was the best from 1903 but there's a case, just as there's a case for Lennox Lewis from 1992, or Liston from 1960 (some even argue '59 !).

The Hart fight was close. Disputed even.

And there's certainly a strong case for him being "uncrowned champion" some time prior to beating Burns.
I accept that the content of his 1908-15 reign isn't outstanding. We can even say it's poor. But when you add his prior work his dominance and accomplishments are a lot more than you try to portray them as.

I don't think he, or any fighter of his time, had the kind of "integrity" you are hoping for.
Fights were staged. Yes, we don't know which WINS on Johnson's record were staged fights either.

The Ketchel knockdown LOOKS blatantly fake on footage. I comment on it because I can see it with my own eyes. I can also see Johnson holding the man up for the best part of the fight.

I don't question the O'Brien fight. I simply see it for what it was. SIX ROUNDS TO NO DECISION.
I pity the suckers you'd expect to see the finest championship fighting in such a bout. Sure, Johnson could have done better but he simply didn't bother. That wasn't how he operated in every fight, or at his best, though.
You say "too many" poor performances. But I can count quite a few poor performances in the careers of many of the greats. The good results and performances greatly outnumber the bad.
Of course, it's possible to undermine entire careers if you constantly accentuate the negative and find fault with the positive.
Any balanced view would conclude than Johnson achieved greatness despite some flaws and blemishes.

 

.
No, on second thoughts scrub it-------------------------------------

 

Wait, if you claim the fight was a pre-arranged fix, then Johnson did not carry Ketchel at all. It was in the script. Make up your mind on this one. Also if Johnson participated in fixed fight, one must ask which other fights were fixed for him?

 

Ground hog again

 

Yes, it was scheduled for 10 rounds despite what CBZ say:

This content is protected

 

Thank you for posting this,Matt Donellon did it a while ago, Mendoza ignored it ,and laid low for a while, then came back with the old BS.He will ignore this too ,and wait ,then repeat the same old lies.
He said one of the judges at the Johnson/ Battling Johnson draw ,voted for Battling Jim.Matt asked him which one ?
He gave an evasive reply." I shall have to look it up, I believe it was mentioned in, Unforgivable Blackness", we have heard no more of it. But, at a suitable interval he will spew it out again.

 

Id be interested in more details on the judging myself as it was far more common in those days to have the referee as the sole arbitor.

 

What are the thoughts on the NYT article that had the Parisian crowd jeering the decision? Is this considered to be a lot of shite?

 

Klompton, there were indeed three judges, the referee and two others. I have there names but I dont know how each individual scored.

 

This occured to me too. Were there even judges officiating?

 

I believe there is no doubt the crowd were not happy,they had just witnessed a boring 10rds,whether their disgruntlement was down to this ,or the decision I do not know?