Joe Jeannette V Jack Dempsey,Joe Louis,Jack Johnson?

Who is unwilling to consider contemporary quotes on Jeannette?

Why do you forever go back to JJ vs Jennette when you know for a fact that Jennette was inexperienced when he fought Johnson.

At no time during this debate have I said Jeannette was prime when he fought Johnson.

Yes but at no time did you acknowledge that he was inexperienced and shouldnt have been been even mentioned as some kind of major accomplishment it wasnt. Instead in a recent post you posted articles
and quotes about the series of fights JJ n Jennette had, saying they werent close, and that he dropped Jennette a bunch of times. Johnson was vastly experienced, no question about it, 9yrs Johnson, 2 yrs Jennette, a big difference wouldnt you say so why comeback withthe fights werent close and that Jennette had been a number of times. The last fight they had Jennette earned a NWS draw.

At no time have I said Johnson's wins over Jeannette were major wins for Johnson.
What I have done is replied to H.E .

Then why keep bringing it up????

I believe the contemporary accounts of those fights ,and I've read about 60 of them now , show that Johnson was the dominant fighter in them .

Jeez give it up already, 9yr pro ATG, vs an inexperienced guy, Yes, there should not have a question about dominance. Johnson had all the advantages over fighting a guy who was a 6 month pro to begin with and ending with the nws draw a yr and a half later.

The subject of the thread,the ONLY subject is.

Whom if any of the following does Joe Jeannette beat over 15rds?
Jack Dempsey
Joe Louis
Jack Johnson
All fights to be when the fighters are PRIME

I gave you an answer you just didnt like it.

Unfortunately one poster does not want to answer that question despite being invited to do so 4 times,

Now you are being stubborn and like the Johnson series, you wont acknowledge that he was inexperienced. I have answered the question more then 4 times. I even explained that opinions about who would've won is just an opinion and is more like fantasy boxing. Who cares what you, I or whoever thinks would win or lose.
State the relevant facts which I have and you ignore.

he is only concerned with hysterically leaping to the defence of Jeannette's reputation ,a reputation that I have not attacked.

Saint Mickey V, always playing the victim. To address this comment. Please point out where I have been hysterical in defense of Jennette. What do you call your meanlingless defense of Johnson, "fights werent close, dropped a bunch of times. Do you really think you were making legitimate points. Even a newbie can see Jennette was up against it. Why not leave that behind and make a legitimate point.

What I said regarding Jeannette was, in my opinion he was slightly overated,I'll enlarge on that because my position has not been understood,[you could say willfully misunderstood but that would assume the stridently vociferous screamer shadowing me actually grasped the point of the thread in the first place and it 's far from clear to me that he did.]

Maybe you should review the past posts I just stated what you convienently avoided to make your points. No hysterics, no drama just stated facts. If my facts are wrong jump on that. You keep mentioning that I am shadowing you, now why should I be shadowing you, I shadow if anything your posts. You have been known to veer off course countless times on many threads. O I get it you can do it but nobody else can.

I do not think Jeannette was on a par with Johnson for defence or offense

Brilliant simply brilliant, and you say you've practiced for 20yrs, what cant you understand, Johnson had a 9 yr headstart on Jennette, so it goes without saying that Jennette wouldnt be on a par with Johnson. Really is that the best you can do, pointing out the obvious.

Neither when they fought, nor later when BOTH had improved.

Johnson would have been at the very least a 10yr pro if both fought prime. A 10+ yr pro is set, he is what he is. He might improve his conditioning, but skills not so much. The one that seemed to have improved was Jennette cos he started with with practically nothing when he first fought Johnson at 0-3.

I believe their results against common opponents show that Johnson was Jeannette's superior.

Duuuuuh! But meantime Jennette fought other members of the big four and did quite well. Johnson fought Langford how many times? Jennette how many times???

How old was McVea when they fought these 3 fights? Again Johnson had much more experience then the young McVea who was a month away from his 20th birthday. Johnson was in his 6th yr as a pro as opposed to McVea who was at most 2yrs as a pro. McVea was inexperienced as a pro, and a teenager, not yet 20 in his last fight with Johnson.
These are facts, why not accept them.

Now for Langford who fought Johnson when he was 20yrs or near a HW in wt and nowhere near his prime so Johnson never fought any of the big three in their prime.
While Jennette fought them all in their primes

I consider and its only my opinion,that Langford was clearly superior to Jeannette ,and that between Jeannette and McVey,[ whom Johnson dominated 3 times out of 3 ,]there was no more than a gnats c*ck as far as talent and ability.

Fine and dandy but all of them were no where near their prime McVea 19yrs old, Langford 20yrs old, Jennette 27yrs old (but was a pro 2yrs and 22fights)

So perhaps we can return to the subject of the thread?
Whom of these three over 15rds does Jeannette beat, all fights when prime?
Maybe you would care to answer my question?

This content is protected

, that is my answer, like it or not. Have you answered anything that I have asked of you? Regurgitation alert, for instance the Louis right hand, the Louis pic.
Now I ask you show me the rule of this forum that I have to answer your fantasy boxing question the way you want it to be answered. I have answered your question only you seem not to like it why?????
That he would've been a handful for any of them is saying more honestly then a simple imaginary answer so n so would've beaten so n so, exactly what difference would it make? I will tell you nada, zlich, my response at least is honest and more to the point, and tells you he was one tough fight for any of them, that is saying more then who, you or I think who would've won.

 

"Perry,As per Fleischer Johnson stood head and shoulders above Langford, Jeanette and McVea.

Yes Perry, but Johnson didnt fight any of them as experienced pro's, Langford came closest cos the # of fights but he was maybe at most a MW and was only 20yrs old at the time. McVea was 19yrs old. Old Nat was in love with Johnson, he even got to see one of Johnson's wives naked, I would say that's as close as you can get lol. Why did Johnson not fight them when they were experienced? After all all blacks in that era fought each other multiple times, why not Johnson?

Here are some more quotes:
Jack Johnson-
Joe jennette is a tough fighting proposition. I’m not afraid to face him in a ring, but I would much rather fight Sam Langford or Sam McVea.

Nat Fleischer-
Jack Johnson often remarked to me that the man who gave him one of his toughest battles he has ever had, was Joe Jennette and Joe was then only a novice.”

Sam Langford-
Joe Jennette, to my way of thinking, was the toughest man in the ring”

Jack Johnson-
Joe Jennette was the toughest man I ever saw and Langford was the most dangerous

 

Fleischer had a bias for Johnson, one he didn't try and hide. The fact that Johnson struggled, and lost to Jeannette when he was but a novice and still developing physically and the fact he had his hands full with McVey at the end of their series until McVey gassed and how Johnson was hurt badly more than once and showed signs of worry in his bout with Langford before he was physically and boxing wise, in his prime says it all. Johnson also admitted on many occasions that Jeannette had a style he wasn't sure if he could win against when he hit his prime and said was the toughest style wise for him and he admitted he knew Langford could knock him out especially once he hit his prime bc a smaller pre-prime Sam nearly did says alot. He also said Sam could beat anyone in the world, and he didn't exclude himself. And many experts of the day thought they were all in a great chance of beating the other, many thought Jeanette could out point Johnson and many thought Langford could knock him out.

 

You keep asking me to post what you say you have. If you have it, post it. Simple as that. Why would I post the very thing you have been dying to get apparently. The very thing that is so precious to you you would lie about it. No, it doesnt work like that. You are the one keeps making these silly allegations about what I have. You are the one who keeps pretending you know what I have. So go ahead, like I said, post excerpts from list that identify what I have on certain fighters and I will post screenshots proving that you are totally incorrect. Ive done this before, you know it and anyone here who has posted for any amount of time knows it, and thats exactly why you wont. Because you know I will call your bluff. I always have, always will, and you will always slink off and then return months later pretending it never happened and saying the same **** over and over.

As for Greg's dumbass not knowing what exactly a degree in history is. Well, that is just too comical and explains a lot about why his arguments and conclusions are so childish. Yes indeed he got pissed when someone said that his grandfathers trainer was overrated. His entire view of Jeanette is based upon his families relationship with the man, not any real critical research into his career. That tells you all need to know about him. I stand by my assertion. I never said he was a bad fighter or anything even remotely like that. I said hes overrated and I think he is. I dont think he was ever the top contender in his class, I dont know that you can make a solid case for him having ever established himself as the logical contender to the point where anyone can see he was ducked by any champion. I dont think he would have ever defeated Johnson for a title and I dont think he would have ever beaten Langford in a fight where something like a title, title shot, etc were on the line. Im not even sure he proved he was better than McVea (who I also think is overrated). He certainly wasnt some uncrowned champion that some of his fans want to believe he was. Much of his legacy is built around the idea that he was ducked by Johnson and I just dont see that.

One final point, someone put a lot of faith in a comment by Blackburn that he would never have matched Louis with Jeanette. A studied person wouldnt give such a comment so much weight because a studied person would know that Blackburn made that comment dozens of times in relation to dozens of fighters. He said that about Jack Johnson, Joe Jeanette, Harry Greb, Maxie Rosenbloom, and many others. Do you really believe that Blackburn had such a low opinion of Louis' chances against those men or is it more likely that he was paying homage to the men of his era? Thats why merely quoting a bunch of testimonials is a pretty weak foundation for an argument for greatness.

 

Nobody is denying that Jeanette was tough and durable. Chuvalo was also tough and durable. But what remains when you weed that out is the fact that those four quotes you posted (one of which was Fleischer quoting Johnson, not Fleischers own opinion) is nothing. They all say he was tough. They dont say he was the best fighter they ever fought or anything more than he was a tough proposition. Nobody disputed that. You just cant stand when people dont agree with your rose colored view that the sun shone out Jeanettes ass.

 

Jeanette was definitely in line for Jack's title though, and was for years. I'm not a big fan on the term "duck" in general bc usually there is good reason why it didn't happen; money, timing, or a fight that just didn't make much sense. But in Johnson's case against Langford, Jeanette, and McVey, the money was there multiple times from multiple different backings, it was over multiple years they were the top men in the country and the fights made plenty of sense with those things mentioned not to forget most boxing personnel, experts and real boxing fans thought they were the matches to be made. Johnson got into an altercation after his Ketchel bout when a fan called him a fake for taking the match and he was bashed in some of the papers for taking the bout as well, not only bc of size but bc it was mixed with Ketchels style which would play right into Johnson's.

 

Those were his toughest matches, Johnson on top of others admitted that much. Johnson was also said by a reporter that he didn't wanna face any top opposition and risk losing his title, that didn't set well with many.

 

Fleischer did not have a bias for Johnson....he felt Johnson was the greatest hwt champion. This means plenty as Nat saw Johnson at his best live from ringside. He felt Johnson was head and shoulders better than Jeanette, Langford and McVea. He, not you or I, is in the best position to make that determination. If you look at what's available ON film JOhnson is the far superior talent.

 

LOL, Klompton wont even show us his " public list. " FYI sport a few others on the ESB have it. If its public, what do you really have to lose???

I can produce a list with your name on it with 1,000's of fights. Find two 3rd party judges that I agree to and we can arrange a wager

But we know you'll freeze again and never agree to such terms. You'll just keep denying it, and show something not related to the topic at hand. You fool no one.

 

"klompton2,Nobody is denying that Jeanette was tough and durable. Chuvalo was also tough and durable. But what remains when you weed that out is the fact that those four quotes you posted
Perfect example of your lack of actual boxing knowledge, you cant compare two different styles of toughness But you know that. right?!

(one of which was Fleischer quoting Johnson, not Fleischers own opinion)

Now that's why you are the prof of pysstorianism. Did you figure that out yourself or did someone else tell you.
I think the comment was quite clear, but you muddy it up by the manure you spew. Dear old Nat said Johnson told him duh.
Historian FYI there is no degree that automatically makes you a historian you can have a degree in History, and even then that degree doesnt make you a historian it makes you a history teacher haha

They all say he was tough. They dont say he was the best fighter they ever fought or anything more than he was a tough proposition. Nobody disputed that.

His contemporaries including Johnson himself had great things to say about Jennette

Nobody said that but why bring up the Johnson series with Jennette time and again when you also knew he was inexperienced. So Johnson with 9yrs experience beat a guy in his 3rd and drew with Jennette who was in his in his 22nd fight.

Since boxing is your weak point and you still DKSAB, I will explain, there are different forms of tough. Tough as in hard to drop or ko, tough as in fighting skills. Jennette was the latter.

You just cant stand when people dont agree with your rose colored view that the sun shone out Jeanettes ass.

To tell you the truth I dont care what shone out of Jennette's ass, you're the bottomfeeder thats your realm. Now this is comical "You just cant stand when people dont agree with your rose colored view" now that applies to you more than anybody else. Regurgitation alert: You dont know what an offer is, what an agreement is and what a contract is. Example, you said Greb signed for a 6th fight with Tunney and Tunney "ducked" Greb. Now a wise pysstorian as yourself, should know Tunney was under absolutely no obligation to fight Greb again. Greb signing meant nothing, Greb seemed to be forever chasin' the big names. Nobody seemed to be chasin Greb, you might say and you have, using your favorite word, they ducked Greb cos they were afraid, he was too good
they were afraid of looking bad. Something you didnt say was that Greb was a draw at the gate, thats why Greb chased everybody that had anykind of name, something like the present day "unknown" Cubans, haha that was funny you didnt know who they were, some of those Cubans were on the p4p list. Anyway the point was like the present day Cubans Greb had to chase guys who could asses in the seats so that they could get a decent payday and that seemed to be Grebs motivation.

You know what they say about people who live in glass houses, you probably have a lot of broken in your glass house.
Please do me a favor I am the one arguing with you, not greg, not Tom, D ick and Harry or anybody else.

 

Crapper sez- You keep asking me to post what you say you have. If you have it, post it. Simple as that.

I have even a simpler solution, this list you have is a public list, right, so why not post it it a public list after all.

Why would I post the very thing you have been dying to get apparently.

It is a "public" list as opposed to a private list, why cant you post it then. Why arent you posting what is described by you as being a public list. Hmmm strange.


The very thing that is so precious to you you would lie about it. No, it doesnt work like that. You are the one keeps making these silly allegations about what I have. You are the one who keeps pretending you know what I have. So go ahead, like I said, post excerpts from list that identify what I have on certain fighters and I will post screenshots proving that you are totally incorrect. Ive done this before, you know it and anyone here who has posted for any amount of time knows it, and thats exactly why you wont. Because you know I will call your bluff. I always have, always will, and you will always slink off and then return months later pretending it never happened and saying the same **** over and over.

Cut the manure spewing from both ends post the PUBLIC list no harm in that. You're like the kid who has the only football in your neighborhood, and the kids kiss your butt cos you have that football otherwise they would be kiking your ass cos cos you are a snotty brat.

As for Greg's dumbass not knowing what exactly a degree in history is.

Again, I dont know who this greg is the only thing I know for sure is I am the one addressing you. I didnt say that, why put it in, I said there is no "Historian degree", there is a history degree but that degree doesnt make you a historian. You DKSAB and you claim you're a historian. A true historian doesnt have to exaggerate, spin, have biases, post agenda riddled comments, call people names. That's why you are pysstorian always pyssing on someones parade. Excuse me except for your true love "Greb".

Well, that is just too comical and explains a lot about why his arguments and conclusions are so childish.

I have posted facts why is that comical, what is truly comical is your comical view of the Dempsey situation. You know and anybody with a laptop and access to the internet knows, that the reason Dempsey never fought Greb, was he was a 5'8, 165 pd MW, SMW at best and was deemed too small. Dempsey, didnt have to consider fighting Greb at all.
Yes indeed he got pissed when someone said that his grandfathers trainer was overrated. His entire view of Jeanette is based upon his families relationship with the man, not any real critical research into his career.

Who are you talking about and what are talking about? This guy must've butt hurt you bad cos you keep bringing him up address my posts I am the one posting.

That tells you all need to know about him.

Yes I fully agree that tells you all you need to know about you and how petty you are.


I stand by my assertion. I never said he was a bad fighter or anything even remotely like that. I said hes overrated and I think he is.

And I responded by saying not so his contemporaries thought well of him. I also said he is labeled overrated by "historians/pysstorians a 100yrs later.

I dont think he was ever the top contender in his class, I dont know that you can make a solid case for him having ever established himself as the logical contender to the point where anyone can see he was ducked by any champion.

Maybe you should ck who the big four was, Jennette earned his way in, he beat and drew with all of them, and he was just a novice at the time. Johnson fought the big four when they were all novices. Johnson never fought them again. Langford, McVea and Jennette, would have been much better to fight any of the big four rather than, Fireman Jim Flynn, Tony Ross, Al Kaufman, Frank Moran and Jack Murray.

The big four surely were better then that lot.

I dont think he would have ever defeated Johnson for a title and I dont think he would have ever beaten Langford in a fight where something like a title, title shot, etc were on the line.

These are only your opinions, others would think differently, the one who held the title never again fought any of the big three and that means something. Dont comeback with nobody wanted to see two blacks fighting cos Batt Johnson was black.


Im not even sure he proved he was better than McVea (who I also think is overrated). He certainly wasnt some uncrowned champion that some of his fans want to believe he was. Much of his legacy is built around the idea that he was ducked by Johnson and I just dont see that.

Of course you would think that 100yrs later but as I said before his contemporaries thought different.

One final point, someone put a lot of faith in a comment by Blackburn that he would never have matched Louis with Jeanette.

Jeez and you are a historian wanna be, stop cherry picking and nitpickin your responses. He is quoted as saying what he said. Why would a "studied" person even consider going deeper into that statement. Only you, FYI, fighter, managers, trainers say all kinds of thing, and change their minds constantly, Blackburn said it for a reason, why not leave it there, nope the king of all nitpicker's has to blow up a comment made by Blackburn into somekind of smoking gun, please.

A studied person wouldnt give such a comment so much weight because a studied person would know that Blackburn made that comment dozens of times in relation to dozens of fighters. He said that about Jack Johnson, Joe Jeanette, Harry Greb, Maxie Rosenbloom, and many others.

Great so what does it mean really? Nothing it was his opinion, but, that he said it means something, he might have meant it at the time, no big deal. The only reason I posted it was cos Blackburn said, and that alone should be enough, why would a "studied person", waste his time trying to figure out what Blackburn meant. He said it and he meant it, thats all.

Do you really believe that Blackburn had such a low opinion of Louis' chances against those men or is it more likely that he was paying homage to the men of his era?

Does it really matter? A studied person wouldnt waste his time studying Blackburns motives for such utterances

Thats why merely quoting a bunch of testimonials is a pretty weak foundation for an argument for greatness.

"er, um who was arguing greatness for anybody. It's kinda funny that you would say this, if these quotes and testimonials were of Greb you would jump to use them to your advantage

 

I really don't understand how one can compliment Johnson and not the other 3. Johnson had all he could handle from unprime and unfilled out versions of the other 3. Johnson himself didn't even deny that they were the best around in his class or that he wasn't sure he could beat them. Experts of the time, including refs, writers, inside personnel, promoters and those willing to be finacial backers all thought highly of he chances of the other 3 being able to beat Johson. Especially Langford and Jeanette.

 

There is no doubt Johnson, Jeanette, Langford and McVea were head and shoulders above all white contenders of their time. There is also no doubt Johnson was head and shoulders above the other three. It's very obvious when watching the available film footage even if you do not want to rely on eye witness expert testimony.

Also Fleischer getting to see Johnson's wife naked as you put it paints a sordid picture. Fleischer was invited to Johnson's apartment and Jacks wife unknowing that a guest was present walked out of the bathroom nude. In a tirade she hurled insults, and furniture from the apartment at both men as they ran down the stairs and out the front door.