Battling Jim Johnson vs Jack Johnson Revisited

Johnson turned down an offer of $20,000 because he did not want to fight Marathon Man Jeannette over 30 rds and it was$10,000 short of his asking price. Ghost is banned on the other Forum , Z was banned for a time but is now back.
Bronson666 was banned here initially because it was thought he was Z/Mendoza.he has PM'd me to say he is not Ghost and I believe him,I do believe you are Ghost and your posts are exact replicas of his I think you are back posting on the other Forum under the Alt Big Dunce

Explain how Johnson would know the NYAC would not allow him to fight there when the promoters and his opponent didn't know?
Explain why ,he went to NY and began training there for a fight he knew would not be permitted to take place?
Why would he accept the terms for the fight in the first place?

Why wouldn't he just say, I've beaten this guy several times knocking him down multiple times , while doing it,I don't need to prove I'm better than him,I already have.

Seven months before Jeannette beat Battling Jim,Battling Jim beat him,you forgot to mention that!

Facts prove that Johnson signed to fight all the black trio when his price was met ,and all the vitriol you spew out will not change that.

 

I think you got your names mixed up.

 

You are right I did. Willard being ranked above Fulton is so wrong my subconscious wouldn't let me write the words lol.

 

I think you didn't see my original post which posited a hypothetical situation in which Max got the shot at Braddock and won the title. I then asked if the fact that he defeated Louis decisively in 1936 would have been an excuse for not defending against Louis. Posts had maintained Johnson's defeat of Langford in 1906 justified Jack not again fighting Sam. You seem to have read a follow-up post.

No problem. These threads do run on and not reading all the posts is understandable.

 

"The Black press condemned Johnson for flaunting his White women in the face of whites."

What does an entirely separate issue have to do with his defenses. I don't care about Johnson and his white women. I care about Johnson and his black challengers.

"invariably"

I am not interested in often, usually, most of the time, more often than not, etc., on other issues. I am only interested in their take on Johnson not defending against his best black challengers.

"The leading Black newspaper"

There were more than 1800 black newspapers. The Black newspaper with the largest circulation in 1915 was the Chicago Defender.

"invariably supportive of Johnson"

Please give quotes from the Freeman stating they support Johnson not fighting Langford. Otherwise, there is no point being made. even a weak one, by selecting one out of almost 2000 newspapers.

 

"The offer to defend against Jeannette was for a 30 round fight, Johnson at the age of35 had no interest in such a fight."

Well this is a healthy dose of irony.

This would be a reasonable argument if not for the fact Johnson all but gave away his title by signing up for 45 rounds.

 

A very important piece of context here is in December 1913 Jim Johnson was the only one to beat Jeanette in nearly 3 years(over 50 fights). Jim Johnson was the only person not named Langford to beat Jeanette in 4 and a half years.

 

I see your point but it is still a thinly veiled duck. The elephant in the room is that he accepted a mere $1,000 for fighting Jim while insisting on $30k for Jeannette and anyone else who wanted a shot

 

I am not ghost and a quick glance at the oher forum indicates he is not banned. Trying to deflect from the topic of the thread by accusing posters of being alts is your way of trying to silence and distract them. I can see several accounts on here that have your posting language all over them. You deny having alts but they are obvious to anyone paying attention.

It doesn’t matter of Jim beat Jeannette before Joe beat him. It only matters who was the last to win and more deserving of a title shot. That would be Jeannette, who you call a liar, along with Langford, Wills, Blackburn and other black fighters who spoke ill of Johnson. For a guy who claims he isn’t a Johnson fan you sure do defend him on every thread quoting your half dozen Johnson books amd anonymous sources.

 

They were excuses he had the excuses though. Jim was the highest ranked black HW he hadn't beaten.

Lets not get it twisted we're talking about 3 other black fighters who were ranked ahead of Jim Johnson. McVea lost about 70% of his big fights while he could have fought McVea again instead of Jim Johnson Jack didn't have to justify not fighting him. He had the best run of his career after this btw. So we're talking about 2 people. This situation carried to the white HWs were guys Jack beat in the 00s were ruining all the contenders. Which is ultimately why I'm understanding Jacks inactivity in the early 10s once you get past Langford and the fact he was fighting 10% as often as Langford. Guys Jack had beaten were dominating the division. Then in 1913 his sparring partner was dominating the division.


Now an interesting thing is Wills in a few months hits the scene and would be ranked ahead of Jim. By the time Wills was the "colored" champion Jack had lost this belt. When you look at top white HWs who were around during Jacks later tenture like Fulton, Coffey and Carl Morris its the same story. Morris was around this whole time but was an incredibly late bloomer.

After losing his belt Jack Johnson only fought 1 decent opponent until his late 40s. But he'd left the country. Regardless hes not champion thats no longer really his responsibility.