More like you won't which is why I show it to you in print. Now will you acknowledge that Ferguson was perfectly capable of winning rounds vs. Jack Johnson, in addition to journeyman like Jim McCormick a fighter who at the time has a known losing record ( that fight was even! ), or is that simply beyond your ability?
McCormick has nothing to do with this thread. The headline is Big Black Boxer Has All The Better Of It Ferguson Fouls Out When He Sees He Is Beaten I've just read 4 newspaper ringside reports of the fight, not a wire service one which is what you produced,3 gave Ferguson the first 2 rounds and after that it was Johnson,the end happened when Ferguson kneed Johnson in the groin 3 times with Johnson well on top at this point . Bottom line Johnson fought McCormick 4 times. Wins for McCormick=0 Johnson fought Ferguson5 times.Wins for Ferguson=0
Read the report, it states Ferguson won rounds. Now just admit I showed you facts, for once. You asked for it, I obliged. I added McCormick as the date to me was interesting. The year, 1906. If you really want to learn, you might be surprised at how Johnson struggled in lesser known fights. I had a thread on it months ago, complete with news clippings much to your chagrin. IMO, Johnson came into his own around 1907 and was at his peak in late 1908-1912. Yet he certainly had his share of struggles in 1909 with shorter men, and lighter men in his prime years as the heavyweight champion.
You are referring to their 1900 meeting. I'm talking about 1906 ( 3rd meeting ), when Johnson was listed at 185 pounds for his next fight in the same month with Sam Langford. If your suggesting Johnson was at a low weight for this fight, that's not going to fly. He had his hands full with a journeyman type, losing several rounds in the process. If anything the 3rd McCormick fight shows just how light and young Langford was as Johnson handled him ( Langford estimated at 156, 20 year old by his Clay's book ) ...with a 30 pound give or take a pound advantage. Once again, can you acknowledge the points I made. You did ask for them. I presented them to you.
I know that idiot. And I was talking about the third fight, where I had access that showed Jack Johnson did fact struggle vs. a fighter with a known losing record. The date 1906! Can you read? It's beyond you to admit I'm right, but we both know I am. You asked for proof that Johnson lost rounds to Ferguson, and I once again put in it your grill and then some. If you want to read other fights were Johnson lost rounds vs. weaker opponents, was hurt, or fought dirty, I do have some examples for you to read. However learning and admitting with you is a near impossibility! Its typical of you to go off tangent, and try to excuse Johnson by indicating he was at a lower weight when I clearly am quoting a fight when he wasn't. Checkmate once again.
Jesus Christ you are a thick **** aren't you? Ive conceded 3 newspapers gave the first two rounds to Ferguson! I ****ing typed it in my reply! I put in Johnson's weight in another fight because it is an interesting fact I pointed out it wasn't the fight in question. You are definitely not dealing with a full deck! Can I read? Yes .A ****ing sight better than you and I can write and spell too which you obviously cant! ****ing ******! Did you happen to notice this thread is entitled " Vitali Klitschko vBattling Jim Johnson"? Not." Lets Yet Again Slag Off Jack Johnson." **** Me! Don't you ever get tired of this ridiculous and absurd obsession ? Because I can tell you, the rest of us are thoroughly sick of it! You bull doze in and hijack every ****ing thread and turn it into a vitriolic crusade against Jack ****ing Johnson! Don't You Get It ? Nobody ****ing Cares!
McVey, No you cannot read. That much has bene proven many times. Sometimes you say oh my bad because you can't read well after someone else points it out to you. At least now you are admitting I'm correct. Congratulation's, you just might be on a roll. There are plenty of facts I can show you. You put Johnson's weight from a 1900 fight and purposely left out his weight in 1906, which was about 185 pounds as an attempt for an excuse. You love to play with dates and weights pick the best ones to suit your agenda. It’s a pattern and not an accident. Bottom line, after losing to Hart in 1905, Johnson struggled badly vs. a fighter with a known losing record in 1906. I proved that. I ponder if such information is in Adam's book that you keep referring to. If you want to talk boxing, go for it, but when you are out classed, you have to start cursing. I get it, its not easy being you.
I really don't give a ****! I've much more important things on my menu right now. Here's a novel idea , post something pertinent to the thread!
Most people today don't rate Johnson highly anyway. He probably doesn't crack the top 20 of most younger fans so what is there to gain by criticizing him?
Behold, Jim " Battling Johnson " The year is most likely 1913, not 1910. Johnson's height looks to be close to Sam McVey's. About 5 9" to 5'10" Sam McVey has the Jim Corbett thong, which is thankfully covered by tights. Battlin' Jim wears the white shorts with stripe on it. Sam McVey by the way looks like he goes down at the 4:51 mark. Or maybe he slips? Unfortunately when films were shown the crowd often asked to see it again. The film operator would often rewind the film in the projector, and extra back and forth wear on the film eventually blurred the viewing experience. I think I have a longer version, and Battling Jim hits McVey with a long shot, that bothers him and forces him to retreat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pay6XBYfnRc PS: Jack Johnson vs. Battling Jim Johnson is rumored to be out there.
