Battling Jim Johnson vs Jack Johnson Revisited

Bronson666 · Aug 8, 2025 at 7:55 AM

mcvey said: ↑

Johnson signed to fight both Langford and Mcvey in Australia for H D McIntosh, for $ 45 ,000,plus $5000 exes ,plus 4 round trip tickets,plus a percentage of the movie rights, but once Johnson jumped bail the Aussie public and the church turned against him, and McIntosh cancelled the defences, giving a public statement to that effect.
Johnson also signed to defend against Joe Jeannette in NY twice for his price for a defence ie $30,000,the NY AC vetoed the fights and threatened any promoter who put them on with having his licence withdrawn.

The AC Commissioner,O Neil, and the would be promoters, the McMahon brothers made public statements confirming this.

All this can be found in Adam Pollack's excellent 2nd vol " Jack Johnson The Reign".
The facts show that when Johnson was offered his asking price of $30,000 for a title defence he accepted it.

It's all rather inconvenient for those who habitually like to dump on Johnson,but,nevertheless ,its true.
Click to expand...

He signed to fight them and then demanded $10,000 to be deposited in an American bank before he arrived. Johnson also knew he could not fight in NY, he made a show of signing to fight Jeannette knowing the fight could not be made.

Bronson666 · Aug 8, 2025 at 8:00 AM

Dubblechin said: ↑

Jack Johnson fought Sam McVey three times, Sam Langford once, and Joe Jeannette 10 times.

Out of those 14 fights, Johnson lost on a foul to Jeannette one time.

How many goddamn times do you have to fight someone? Seriously.

Should Usyk fight Fury EIGHT MORE TIMES or he's ducking him?

The only black fighter among them who apparently had an argument for a return with Jack Johnson was JIM Johnson. And Jim couldn't beat a one-armed Jack Johnson convincingly.
Click to expand...

When did Johnson fight them during their respective careers? McVey had less than ten fights, Jeannette had a losing record with less than twenty fights, Langford was a middleweight. They were all hollow victories. He never gave them their title shots. Jeannette and Langford are on record declaring this, they were there, I'll take their word for it over a guy who recycles the same sources over and over and over without an original thought of his own.

Would you have said cruiserweight Holyfield beating Hagler would be a GREAT win!? That's essentially what Johnson/Langford was in comparison.

Bronson666 · Aug 8, 2025 at 8:01 AM

HistoryZero26 said: ↑

I agree with all of that especially with Langford. The IBU was demanding Johnson fight Langford and Langford and Jeanette fought in Paris just 24 hours apart from Johnson&Johnson. It was a duck but he had an excuse for it plug this scenario into the modern era and it'd be the same. With white HWs it was a similar story guys Johnson already beat stopped the emergence of new contenders and then Johnsons training partner cleaned out the white side of the division. Johnson was inactive after 1909 but he had fairly logical excuses for most or all of it. Those excuses were still excuses..

Besides Langford most of the guys who'd have beaten Johnson fairly easy show up or get their act together in 1914 or 1915(Wills, Fulton, Coffey etc). Langford fought 10x as much in the early 1910s and Johnson could have done the same regardless I'm just saying he got away with it for a reason the same way Jeffries and Dempsey did. Dempsey might have ducked Wills but if he had gotten through Wills and Tunney the division was otherwise "cleaned out". And if Johnson had rematched Langford and Jeanette and somehow beat both the division was cleaned out.

WW1 really changed this whole story as it really removed European boxing politics from the picture. It is possible Johnson would have played ball and fought Langford eventually but any pressure to do so vanished.

I'm defending giving the shot to Jim Johnson more then I'm defending not rematching Langford and Jeanette or even his inactivity. Jim Johnson wasn't a cherry pick he was the highest ranked black HW Jack hadn't beaten at that time. In December 1913 Jim Johnson was only 1-6-1 against the big 3 but he'd only been stopped once and it took 21 rounds. A lot of people had Langford, Jeanette and McVea all in their top 5 or top 6. In the elo rankings from this period Jim does not enter the top 10 until after the Jack Johnson draw but he had a case to be in the top 10 already.

Jack Johnson might have beat the big 3 when they were young and was trying to take advantage of that but you can use this same logic to defend Jim Johnsons bad record against the big 3. Virtually all the top black HWs except Wills got "thrown to the wolves" at the start of their careers and were farmed by top guys in their prime including Jack Johnson himself. In "black boxing" this was systemic. Jeanette was below .500 at the start of his career for a reason and its not that he sucked for a top fighter that age. Jim Johnson fought Langford and McVea at 22 and Jeanette at 24. Jim Johnson lost to Jeff Clark in his 4th fight and knocked out superheavyweight Bill Tate in Tates 3rd fight. This was the way black boxing worked. So Jims record against the big 3 is much more impressive in this context at least going into his title shot.

Another factor that makes Jim Johnson look good was the resurgence of Tony Ross who Jim had a draw against. Tony Ross had a career resurgence in the early 1910s and in late 1913 Tony Ross was the 2nd highest ranked active white HW behind Gunboat Smith.
Click to expand...

Jim Johnson was beaten by Jeannette twice that same year, and Jeannette offered $20,000 to Johnson. Instead, Johnson accepted around $1,000 to fight a guy Jeannette had beaten twice earlier that year. That's a blatant duck and for far less than his usual demand of $30,000.

Bronson666 · Aug 8, 2025 at 8:04 AM

mcvey said: ↑

This is the line Johnson drew.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Once his price was met he signed on the dotted line.
Click to expand...

Except his price wasn't met against Battling Jim. He turned down $20,000 for Jeannette so he could make $1,000 to fight Battling Jim who lost to Jeannette twice that year. Johnson ends up struggling with Battling Jim in a fight he nearly lost.

he grant · Aug 8, 2025 at 8:17 AM

Johnson won the title at thirty, and from that point on, his main goal was making money. He wasn’t taking any real risks leading up to the Jeffries fight. Earlier in his career—pre-title days—he fought everyone and clearly more than held his own. Jeannette might’ve been his toughest challenge, but Johnson handled that era impressively.

After Jeffries, though, he was older and went right back to playing the risk/reward game. His personal life was in chaos, and he wasn’t in a great place mentally. Sure, we all wish he had faced Langford, McVey, or Jeannette again—but for a lot of reasons, that just didn’t happen.

HistoryZero26 · Aug 8, 2025 at 8:23 AM

Dubblechin said: ↑

Jack Johnson fought Sam McVey three times, Sam Langford once, and Joe Jeannette 10 times.

Out of those 14 fights, Johnson lost on a foul to Jeannette one time.

How many goddamn times do you have to fight someone? Seriously.

Should Usyk fight Fury EIGHT MORE TIMES or he's ducking him?

The only black fighter among them who apparently had an argument for a return with Jack Johnson was JIM Johnson. And Jim couldn't beat a one-armed Jack Johnson convincingly.
Click to expand...

Langford was the much bigger problem then Jeanette because he'd fought him once when Langford had just turned 20. But Jeanette had improved greatly. When Jack Johnson was fighting Jeanette, Jeanette had a record below .500 and he was just pulling even at the time of their last fight. Going into his IBU title fight in late 1913 Jeanette was 68 fights over .500.

Per boxrec Jeanette was winning the fight where he got the DQ win over Johnson. It was a real victory.

And yeah Usyk and his rematches lol.

Dubblechin · Aug 8, 2025 at 8:38 AM

Bronson666 said: ↑

When did Johnson fight them during their respective careers? McVey had less than ten fights, Jeannette had a losing record with less than twenty fights, Langford was a middleweight. They were all hollow victories. He never gave them their title shots. Jeannette and Langford are on record declaring this, they were there, I'll take their word for it over a guy who recycles the same sources over and over and over without an original thought of his own.

Would you have said cruiserweight Holyfield beating Hagler would be a GREAT win!? That's essentially what Johnson/Langford was in comparison.
Click to expand...

What great wins did I mention here, exactly?

I said he fought them freaking 14 times all together and lost one on a foul. How many times do you need to fight someone?

If you don't think Holyfield beating Hagler would be a great win ... and instead would be a hollow victory ... why the hell would you want them to fight 10 or 11 times?

I have no idea what you're arguing.

catchwtboxing · Aug 8, 2025 at 5:20 PM

HistoryZero26 said: ↑

I agree with all of that especially with Langford. The IBU was demanding Johnson fight Langford and Langford and Jeanette fought in Paris just 24 hours apart from Johnson&Johnson. It was a duck but he had an excuse for it plug this scenario into the modern era and it'd be the same. With white HWs it was a similar story guys Johnson already beat stopped the emergence of new contenders and then Johnsons training partner cleaned out the white side of the division. Johnson was inactive after 1909 but he had fairly logical excuses for most or all of it. Those excuses were still excuses..

Besides Langford most of the guys who'd have beaten Johnson fairly easy show up or get their act together in 1914 or 1915(Wills, Fulton, Coffey etc). Langford fought 10x as much in the early 1910s and Johnson could have done the same regardless I'm just saying he got away with it for a reason the same way Jeffries and Dempsey did. Dempsey might have ducked Wills but if he had gotten through Wills and Tunney the division was otherwise "cleaned out". And if Johnson had rematched Langford and Jeanette and somehow beat both the division was cleaned out.

WW1 really changed this whole story as it really removed European boxing politics from the picture. It is possible Johnson would have played ball and fought Langford eventually but any pressure to do so vanished.

I'm defending giving the shot to Jim Johnson more then I'm defending not rematching Langford and Jeanette or even his inactivity. Jim Johnson wasn't a cherry pick he was the highest ranked black HW Jack hadn't beaten at that time. In December 1913 Jim Johnson was only 1-6-1 against the big 3 but he'd only been stopped once and it took 21 rounds. A lot of people had Langford, Jeanette and McVea all in their top 5 or top 6. In the elo rankings from this period Jim does not enter the top 10 until after the Jack Johnson draw but he had a case to be in the top 10 already.

Jack Johnson might have beat the big 3 when they were young and was trying to take advantage of that but you can use this same logic to defend Jim Johnsons bad record against the big 3. Virtually all the top black HWs except Wills got "thrown to the wolves" at the start of their careers and were farmed by top guys in their prime including Jack Johnson himself. In "black boxing" this was systemic. Jeanette was below .500 at the start of his career for a reason and its not that he sucked for a top fighter that age. Jim Johnson fought Langford and McVea at 22 and Jeanette at 24. Jim Johnson lost to Jeff Clark in his 4th fight and knocked out superheavyweight Bill Tate in Tates 3rd fight. This was the way black boxing worked. So Jims record against the big 3 is much more impressive in this context at least going into his title shot.

Another factor that makes Jim Johnson look good was the resurgence of Tony Ross who Jim had a draw against. Tony Ross had a career resurgence in the early 1910s and in late 1913 Tony Ross was the 2nd highest ranked active white HW behind Gunboat Smith.
Click to expand...

Good to have a little debate.

HistoryZero26 · Aug 8, 2025 at 5:37 PM

Dubblechin said: ↑

What great wins did I mention here, exactly?

I said he fought them freaking 14 times all together and lost one on a foul. How many times do you need to fight someone?

If you don't think Holyfield beating Hagler would be a great win ... and instead would be a hollow victory ... why the hell would you want them to fight 10 or 11 times?

I have no idea what you're arguing.
Click to expand...

Langford fought Jeanette and McVea 28 times. That is more fights then the current HW champs whole career!

You asked the question

Boxing GOAT · Aug 9, 2025 at 9:02 AM

Dubblechin said: ↑

What great wins did I mention here, exactly?

I said he fought them freaking 14 times all together and lost one on a foul. How many times do you need to fight someone?

If you don't think Holyfield beating Hagler would be a great win ... and instead would be a hollow victory ... why the hell would you want them to fight 10 or 11 times?

I have no idea what you're arguing.
Click to expand...

I think his point is, Langford was 156 lbs and 21 when he fought Jack. A 25 year old Sam at 175 is way more dangerous. That’s a different fight.

Log in or Sign up

Battling Jim Johnson vs Jack Johnson Revisited

Bronson666 New Member Full Member

Bronson666 New Member Full Member

Bronson666 New Member Full Member

Bronson666 New Member Full Member

he grant Historian/Film Maker

HistoryZero26 Boxing Addict Full Member

Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

catchwtboxing Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

HistoryZero26 Boxing Addict Full Member

Boxing GOAT Active Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Battling Jim Johnson vs Jack Johnson Revisited

Bronson666 New Member Full Member

Bronson666 New Member Full Member

Bronson666 New Member Full Member

Bronson666 New Member Full Member

he grant Historian/Film Maker

HistoryZero26 Boxing Addict Full Member

Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

catchwtboxing Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

HistoryZero26 Boxing Addict Full Member

Boxing GOAT Active Member Full Member