Jack Johnson's title run

I don't. Another difference though, is that I don't post my opinion then trumpet it as "fact". I've done my own reading where this fight is concerned and it is not referred to as a title challenge, anywhere. Why?

Well, you are wrong. Ketchel's title wasn't on the line when he fought Langford, that was patently clear. If Langford had won, i'm sure he would have made claim to the title, but Ketchel would have remained the recognised champ. That is what a non-title fight is. Was O'Brien-Johnson a title fight? Dunno. There seems to be no primary evidence that it was. I've posted a detailed thread about this fight and asked this very question. Nothing was forthcoming.

I don't understand at all. A few days ago you told me that you only used primary newspapers and film to form these completely unbiased views, now we see you manipulating another secondary source - Boxrec no less, ever evolving, most recently in awarding Langford a NWS win over Ketchel (I wonder have their title lines at MW been updated?) - to suit.

Why does Boxrec label this a title fight? That's the historians question here. I certainly don't label myself that, but I know that "Boxrec" and "others" is bad history.

And more than one paper/reporter thought Johnson was better. That is my entire point. Your entire point is that the newspapers indicated that O'Brien would have won the fight if a decision had been rendered.

TIMES DISPATCH agrees:
"Johnson, the big coloured HW champion failed to win over Jack O'Brien the Philadelphia light-heavyweight in a six round bout. The fight was even, the consensus of opinion that the result would have been a draw were a decision permitted. "

And that's about the size of it. Some papers have Johnson winning by virtue of hs aggression, others O'Brien by virtue of his boxing. I see absolutely NOTHING to support your position that the papers would have given O'Brien the decision. It's even, and a terrible mess.

Well your point seems to have changed quite drastically since the original post, which had O'Brien winning according to the papers. By a shade.

 

No, I did NOT ask for examples, ever. I asked for PRIMARY SOURCES. You provide an additional secondary one, and totally ignore what i've said to you about bad history.

No, I cannot show you a primary source that says, "this is not a title fight". Why on earth would any primary source say this? Every single primary source i've seen, without exception, fails to mention this is a title fight. That is every single press report. Every single press report winds on endlessly about Kauffman, Jeffries, Willard being exactly that. It's in every paragraph!

Maybe it was a title fight. If it was, it's odd that the press didn't appear to know. Either way, you need to go much further to prove this "fact" as you claim.

You have to go much, much further to prove Burns's jaundice a "fact" than saying "Kevin Smith said there was some evidence."

Mendoza. I KNOW. I KNOW PAPERS HAVE O'BRIEN WINNING. I HAVE NEVER DISPUTED THIS.

What you said is, "the papers indicate that O'Brien would have won by a shade" if a decision was rendered. You've labelled this "a fact". I say it's totally unproven by you, and the decision would most likely have been a draw - and that claiming this as a "fact" is dishonest.

I've explained this to you multiple times. I'm not disputing that some papers had O'Brien winning. I know that. I started a thread on exactly that some years ago.

 

Do you actually read my posts?

What kind of bizarre logic is this? Mendoza, I don't KNOW if the fight was a title fight or not. Have I not been clear about that? You've labelled this a title fight, and that's a fact. What is your strong opinion based upon? Please, tell me, it's not that the newspapers of the day DON'T say it isn't?

All secondary sources. I want to stress this to you. I don't mind secondary sources. What you've said is:

And two, that this is definitely a title fight.

The only "listings" you can produce are secondary. That's fine. Some of us chose to look deeper than Boxrec and Cyberboxing, which are often wrong and often right (and those people will be the first to admit), to primary sources. No primary source seen by any member of this forum indicates a title fight. Again, where it suits you, you completely ignore primary sources and prioritise secondary ones. You've done this repeatedly over Jim Johnson-Jack Johnson too. For the third time, why do you priorities secondary sources over primary ones where Jack Johnson is concerned?

This is an especially bizarre statement. So you are saying that all historians regard Ketchel-Langford as a title match, Jack McAuliffe-Paddy Smith was a title match? Do you acknowledge Johnny Thompson's claim to the world title? Most, if not all historians, do NOT. All the indications are that they were not.

Was the title on the line when O'Brien got the better of Dempsey?

Are you creditting Tommy Ryan with sixteen title defences between 02 and 07?

Are you REALLY trying to say historians do so? Or do they acknowledge these NON-title fights?

Where was it reported by the foremost expert?

Above you've written a second post, entirely without source and you've put in bold a section which reads a few weeks before the fight was scheduled to go on, Burns fell sick. No one knows what the illness was to this day.

You yourself have said that "there may be no way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Burns the illeness was a result of a jaundice", and then you ask me to "agree that those are facts"??! Do you see the gaping contradiction?

this is what I mean about your actually reading my posts.

We do NOT agree. I think it is newspaper reports make it uncertain who won the fight, and that the most reasonable deduction is a draw. You think that the newspapers indicated that O'Brien got the better of the fight and that this is a "Fact".

Then you fail miserably to prove it a fact, then you say we agree...


:blood

No. I've seen some of these reports as i've already told you.

I've also seen the papers that say the reverse.

What I want to know is, how have you deduced that Johnson was the loser in the eyes of the press? Why is this a fact to you?


And once again, why do you prefer secondary sources over primary ones in the matter of the distance Johnson-Johnson was scheduled for?

 

In the end, you are talking about a deeply despised black man winning the title from a white American around one generation removed from actual slavery, basically the most racist era in American history since slavery was abolished, and the white guy had an illness for the fight, and nobody in the press at the time seems to have mentioned it.

Doesn't that seem a little...odd? If it was a factor, at all, why no mention of it in any primary sources?