Was Fireman Flynn a good title choice for Johnson in 1912?

Saw this and just knew it would be a Mendoza thread.To start with of what relevance is Flynn's reach ?
Does it disqualify him from a title challenge?
If so, how do you account for Rocky Marciano?
And the fact that Burns had a longer reach than Johnson?
You say Johnson should have given that title shot to McCarty ,Smith, or Dillon in 1912.
Let's see.

McCarty's only win over a fighter with any name ,was a 10 fight Carl Morris.

McCarty was 20 years old in 1912.


Smith's form up until 4th July 1912.Consisted of ONE win over a name fighter, Mexican Pete Everett who was 36 years old ,and had not had a fight in 9 years ,since being kod in 2 rds by Gus Ruhlin .

Which of Smith's victories do you think entitled him to a title shot at that time?

Dillon's form, up to 4th July 1912 included no wins over a heavyweight ,no wins over a light heavyweight.

In 1912 , 21 year old Dillon was inside the middleweight limit.
In fact his first heavyweight opponent was in 1914,and, lo and behold, it was Fireman Jim Flynn ,Dillon only managed a draw with the man that Johnson crucified 2 years earlier.

Your claim that Smith,McCarty,and Dillon, deserved title shots, instead of Flynn has now been exploded.

 

The point of the article i posted though, was to show that Flynn did seem to be a very popular fighter, and therefore one who you could make more money out of and therefore it explains why Flynn might have got his chance twice at Johnson (not being as good as Johnson couldnt have hurt either).

Although of course the flipside of the article i posted, is that the same could be said of Langford, so in that sense, it doesnt hurt your side of the argument. It also shows that coloured fighters did in fact draw crowds back then and could be popular fighters, which is something i can recall having disagreements with Boucher about.

 

I challenged your ridiculous statement that McCarty,Smith, or Dillon would have been bettter opponents for Johnson in July 1912.
I conclusively proved this was not the case.
McCarty was a 20 year old novice the only win of any merit on his record was over a 10 fight Morris.
Smith's only name win was over a 36 year old Pete Everett who had not fought in 9 years ,since being kod in 2 rds by Gus Ruhlin.
In 1912 Jack Dillon scaled inside the midddleweight limit and fought for that title, he had fought NO heavywieghts ,and NO lightheavyweights.
He fought his first heavyweight in 1914 ,2 years later ,and it was the same Jim Flynn, he could only manage a draw.
What Flynn subsequently did AFTER challenging Johnson is irrelevant.
Going INTO the fight he was unbeaten in his last 11 fights with 9 kos.

Its official, you are clinically ******ed.:yep

 

" Jim Coffroth ,Tex Rickard ,and Barney Curley, all disagree with you ,they all stated two blacks fighting for the title don't draw".
Australia or France , maybe ,the US no way.
Johnson time and again stated he would defend against ANYONE who could come up with $30,000,irrespective of colour.
This was the purse Burns got for defending against him back in 1908, this seems imminently reasonable to me.

H D McIntosh NEVER came up with the DO RE MI.McIntosh offered Johnson 60% of $30,00 to fight Langford in Australia.Johnson made a public statement rejecting this offer and reiterating he wanted $30,000.
If the money was there Johnson said he was happy to fight Langford,in Australia , Paris, or London.This was in February 1911.

He took page adverts stating this,so if the money was there why didn't, any of the three premier promoters I mentioned put the fight together?

 

I enjoyed this thread, but the discussion is going in circles now, and should probably be put to rest, unless Boilermaker or somebody else has more interesting articles to post on the subject. McVey, Boucher, Janitor, McGrain, and myself have pretty much been on the same page about the merits of Flynn's 1912 shot at Jack, and it doesn't seem anything new is forthcoming about it, unless additional posters want to try bolstering Mendoza's case against it with different information and unexpressed perspectives.

McVey is absolutely correct in asserting that "fortune telling" shouldn't be a part of the consideration, the benefit of hindsight regarding the Fireman's drop from contention after his second title shot. We ought to only look at what was known on the Fourth of July that year before thinking anything of what happened after.

Gunboat Smith? His career best streak began after Flynn's shot at Johnson. I think Gunner was probably the best of the "white hopes" not to get a title shot, but the most appropriate time for him to be awarded the opportunity would have been in late 1913 or early 1914. He also might have been a reasonable alternative to Willard in Havana, but July 1912 would have been too early for him to merit such a chance.

 

Unless the hater makes some new ridiculous statement I think your perceptive post would be a suitable place to turn the page here.

 

This will be my last post on this,as frankly ,you are too stupid to make a rewarding dialogue with.
We have examined at length your claims that ,McCarty,Smith, and Dillon would have been more suitable opponents for Johnson on 4th July 1912.
I have proved this is a ridiculous statement.

I have shown their form going into that month.

Nothing in their resumes would have justified any of them receiving a title shot.

What Flynn's record is AFTER Johnson is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion.

Flynn's recent form BEFORE his title shot was the following, unbeaten in his last 11 fights with 9 ko wins.

Challengers eligibility ,and credibility to challenge for a title is based on their current form*
Not anything they may do subsequently.

Examples.Don Cockell was a reasonable, if not too threatenening a challenger, going into the Marciano fight, he had a run of 10 wins immediately prior to his challenge,after it, he lost both of his fights by ko.
Harry Mathews was another ,52 wins going in ,afterwards?

He won 9 of 12.
Ezzard Charles a very live challenger for Rocky 83-11-11 after their second fight he won 10 and lost 13.

Does this mean these men should not have challenged for the title?

* NOw if you want a challenger who absolutely had no business being in the ring with a world champion on past, current, or post form, check out my thread on JOHN FINNEGAN.

And please try and make an argument worth responding to,your value as a source of entertainment has greatly diminished recently.
ps You might notice that you garnered ZERO support for your outlandish thread by the way.