Did Jack Johnson benefit from being born at the right time?

:rofl

 

O Brien was the reigning Light heavyweight champion of the world ,and he was only 2 months older than Johnson.

Burns did not have jaundice , you are wrong ,but you know that anyway, you are just being naughty again.:nono

PS. Before you begin educating me, I suggest you spend some time learning how to spell . It wouldn't do for both of us to be illiterate would it? Old Pal.

 

Edification?

Wrong context to use this Pal.:nono

.Which larger, more skilled heavyweight do you suggest, instead of O Brien?


Would beating Jeannette 4 times qualify?

A 167 lbs man went 20 rds with Jeffries 230lbs, and fought a draw.

Live, live, live, live, live it .
PS Try not to avoid writing anything down at work , no use telling them what everyone on here allready knows .
See you later Pal.:hi:

 

Not counting your own , there have been 120 replies to this thread only 5 have been in your favour ,all by Cael
2 of those were incorrect and, I corrected them ,he has since abandoned his position by exiting the thread.
I think therefore ,that we can take this as a resounding defeat for your premise that Jack Johnson was born at the right time since.
NO BODY AGREES WITH YOU.:nono
I await your next character assassination of John Arthur Johnson with bated breath. Your Old Pal Boucher.:thumbsup

 

Its interesting that O Brien, who was 31 years old,the same age as Johnson, was "on the decline",despite the fact that he fought on for another 3 years and ,went on to beat Shreck and Flynn.

Yet ,according to you ,a 33 year old Corbett who had been retired for 2 years and, had not won a fight for 6 years, was in fine shape for Jeffries.

Likewise, a 37 year old Peter Jackson who , had not fought in 3 years and then, had only one fight in the last 6 years,was an alcoholic ,and in the first stages of the TB ,which would kill him within 3 years , was in" great shape" when he met Jeff.
Very interesting that.
Speak soon Old Pal.:hi:
P S make another thread soon please.

 

Fireman Jim, using his head.



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7ZDut_33_M[/ame]

 

Boucher is a monter poster. H2H nightmare in discussions. I want to see Boucher Vs (other monster of knowledge poster i cant remember the name of)

 

You are kind. I've read some of the old stuff ,My Two Cents, and Old Fogey look formidable.
Too many good current posters to mention,they make the odd fool stand out a mile.

 

Old Fogey! Thats the guy i was thinking about. You'd probably cancel each others fountain of knowledge out and just agree though

Yeah there are some good posters on here. My2Sense, Pachilles etc..

 

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F30A11FC385D14738DDDAD0994DD405B828EF1D3

The end of this article is interesting. Not sure if it is true or not but I never knew Jack Johnson fought 3 argentinians at once!

 

A lot of interesting and intelligent posting going on here. Kudos:good

The one thing I do have to challenge is the previous suggestion that there was "big money" in a Jeffries-Johnson fight circa 1904. When one does research on the era and gets a good line on Johnson and how he was viewed by the public and boxing people in general AT THAT TIME it becomes quite a stretch to land on the conclusion that this fight was a big money maker. It wasn't.

Outside the ring Jack Johnson was like Cassius Clay- he had charisma, the gift of gab and knew how to make people pay attention to him.

But inside the ring he was like John Ruiz- dull and yawn-inducing, but effective (keep in mind I am NOT comparing skill sets here, only excitement factor).

The boxing people in the era Johnson fought in had a high tolerance for the interminable clinching and lack of action that was part and parcel for the time (intolerable to today's boxing public). But even in those pre-attention deficit disorder years they widely considered Jack Johnson to be a dull fighter and considered his bouts almost unbearable to sit through. Sure, they acknowledged his skills and ability to shut down the offense of his opponents, but if you read the newspaper commentary they spent just as much time complaining about the lack of thrills in Johnson bouts. He had his moments here and there, but overall watching him fight was about as exciting as watching a caterpillar munching a cabbage.

Like Hector Camacho, he did a lot of talking about how great he was and then often turned in stinker performances to back up his words. This didn't help his popularity or box office draw.

No matter what Ken Burns and his lopsided "Unforgivable Blackness" tried to sell the public, there was no huge demand for a Johnson-Jeffries fight. Most of the clamoring for this bout- and I've stated this before- was from writers and other boxing people who wanted to see the color line crossed and a black man getting the shot that was denied Peter Jackson and other deserving men. Jack Johnson was simply their best candidate, but not one that they were really all that excited about. If you need more proof simply compare his press to Peter Jackson's when the "Black Prince" was breathing down Sullivan's neck. Big difference.

As far as Delaney's sour grapes bad mouthing of Jeffries goes, take it with a grain of salt. Jeffries wasn't afraid of Johnson at all. Reminds me of Tom O'Rourke's sour grapes against Tom Sharkey, whom he reported in the press was "terrified" of Joe Walcott, citing Walcott's flooring of Sharkey in sparring. What he conveniently forgot to mention was that Sharkey got up from the sucker punch and dropped Walcott seconds later.

Disgruntled ex-manager comments always should be taken with the utmost suspicion.

 

And please allow me to make something clear here. Despite how my post reads I actually DO like Jack Johnson and admire him in many respects (not so much in others). But that documentary and so much that has followed it have done more to distort boxing history than anything in recent memory.

I wonder if the makers of that thing still think that picture of Joe Walcott is Sam Langford?