Battling Jim Johnson vs Jack Johnson Revisited

In defense of Joe Botti, I want to say that he spent a tremendous amount of time and effort to research his Joe Jennette book. The book is an excellent resource. Some did not care for his style, but he wrote it in an entertaining, interesting, and unique way, and what he wrote in terms of thoughts/opinions is reasonably based on what he inferred/deduced/surmised based on a copious amount of research. If that isn't your thing, fine. Some eventually came to get it or appreciate it as they read along. When I read A Clockwork Orange, at first I was offput by the incessant unique slang language, but in time came to appreciate it. Furthermore, Botti cited a lot of primary sources, citing them whenever he discussed facts. The book in relevant part is based on facts he obtained from primary sources. He includes a bibliography and footnotes for anyone to cross check if they so desire. We can reasonably disagree on facts, particularly since there are so many sources, and one never knows who is getting their facts right or verified them back then, just like today. But overall the book is well done. Citing two one-star reviews is a bit unfair when the book has an overall 4.3 review rating and was given four 5-star reviews and two 4-star reviews.

In addition, Joe Botti has also written one of the most entertaining books I have ever read, Thunder & Lightning: The Fighting Gatti Brothers.

We need to appreciate authors who have spent a tremendous amount of time and effort contributing to boxing history.

 

Why would Wills lie about it?

 

https://catalogs.scpauctions.com/on...-boxers-6389404#mz-expanded-view-953836599249

Question is: was this a title fight? An advertisment says Jack Johnson is champion, Jim Johnson is 'vanquisher of Joe Jeanette'. Does it call Jim Johnson 'challenger'? It's the 'fight of the year' -- but does it say that it is for the heavyweight championship? From Jack Johnson being champion it does not neccessarily follow that any contest he engages in is automatically a championship contest. (compare, La Motta vs. Villemaine, or Duran - de Jesús I ).

 

I mentioned those two because anyone expecting a conventional biography would probably be dissapointed by his M O on this book,others gave it positive reviews.

Botti to this day argues Jeannette was 5 feet 9 inches tall and Langford 5 feet 6 and a half.
That Johnson was a full foot taller than Langford,that would have made him 6 feet 6 and a half.
There is no point in arguing with a closed mind.

 

Fighters promote themselves all the time,its part of the business.

Jeannette said he beat Johnson several times he didn't.
Langford claimed in one quote he gave Johnson life and death in their fight,he didn't.

 

Do you believe Jeannette dropped 20 pounds for his last fight with Johnson? Yes or No? Its a simple question
Do you believe Langford dropped 9 lbs to fight Johnson ?

Yes or No?
I've never questioned the veracity of Johnson's weights for McVey one way or the other.In fact I've never remarked on the difference.

This is really funny,before you were banned on BS you used to come here and trawl through my posts and repost them there, to try and catch me out, now you're doing it in reverse and pretending someone is supplying you with posts of mine from there! Hilarious! perhaps I should call you." The Post Ghost" LOL

 

Sorry that doesn’t cut it for me. Writers, promoters, managers can all be accused of the same thing. Using your logic we should believe no one.

 

With non HW its different. If a fight does not meet the weight conditions it is not a title fight. HW in theory isn't actually a weight class anyone can be a HW.

Non title bouts at HW are either A)because the contender clearly hasn't earned it or B)because its speed boxing where the fights not enough rounds or something like that.

 

Hi Buddy.
Well you would have been correct before the fighters weighed in on the day before their title fight, but as discussed a couple of days ago, that does not apply these days, both fighters might make 147 for example on the Friday, come fight time on Saturday evening, most way 9/10lbs above 147 and some lots more, so there are no " weight conditions " in the strict sense of the word, how can a fighter claim the title after winning the WW fight, when in fact he weighed the LMW limit ?
stay safe HZ26, chat soon buddy.
Mike.

 

Finally circled back. I'm more confident Langford beats Johnson prime for prime then Jeanette and Johnson ducking Langford is much more egregious then ducking Jeanette. Johnson fought Jeanette 7 times he fought Langford once. He fought Jeanette in his mid 20s he fought Langford right after he turned 20. These two cases are not the same. But the fact still remains Johnson fought Jeanette when he was below .500 and Jeanette wasn't nearly as good. Jeanette doesn't have the list of feats as Langford nor was he as dangerous a fighter but up to 1916 Jeanette was holding his own with Wills, Langford and Carpentier. While Jeanettes an easier matchup for Jack then Langford I'd certainly favor Jeanette at that time though not with the certainty with which I'd favor Wills or Langford.

To adress your points.

The Gunboat Smith and/or Jim Flynn decisions might have been robberys they were at least controversial. Langford came back and avenged both losses. Jim Flynn got much better after Jack Johnson and Langford beat him in their first fights. The reason Jack fought him a 2nd time is because Jim Flynn had been on a rampage. Gunboat Smiths 1913 is one of the best calendar years in the history of HW boxing. Smith was not better than Johnson but in 1913? Maybe.

Before Johnson took off he was having problems with Sandy Ferguson too. Couldn't finish Ferguson either all those fights weren't "cake". Fergusons probably the best white HW of that era to not get a title shot of any kind. Nothing wrong with Sandy Ferguson.

The way black boxing worked fighters were thrown against top competition right away. This is not a typical "the champ beat this guy x amount of times". McVea wasn't winning half his big fights the whole way through it was different but if a fighter improved some allowance for the terrible early record was in order. Despite not fighting a black HW champion until his 17th fight Jack Johnson at one point had won less half his fights. Johnson got thrown to Klondike Hayes in his 4th fight and Jeanette got thrown to Johnson. Beating someone starting their career and then refusing to fight them when they become elite is something that can be questioned.

Also Jeanette was winning that fight before the DQ per boxrec.

" Jeannette ,Langford ,and Mcvey were floored multiple times in their respective fights with Johnson.
Johnson was never floored in any of their contests and never in any danger of being ,so you see my dilemma with your opinion."

This is heavily misleading. In all his fights with the trio Johnson scored one KO in the 20th and final round. Johnsons lack of power was a real limitation especially in an era where most little guys had power. Its why he was defeated by Willard even winning a shutout he just couldn't do damage. If a fighter with power beats up an opponent for 25 rounds if somehow that opponent is still up they should not be well enough to stop the fighter right away once they tire. Jeanette was no power guy either but one of the reasons I'm so sure Johnson would lose to Langford is hes got to survive the whole fight with him. Johnsons best wins were start to finish dominations like Burns, Kaufman, Ketchel, Lang, Flynn and Jeffries. In these fights his earliest stoppage was the 9th. Johnson wasn't changing the course of a back and forth battle with his power. Johnsons main power feats were 2 40 year olds and Denver Ed Martin who very abruptly regressed and was getting knocked out by everyone.

Not only had Langford just turned 20 at the time of his encounter with Johnson he weighed 156 pounds and had mostly MW experience. Langford quit against Jeanette a few months earlier and was stopped by Young Peter Jackson a few months later. After this Langford didn't get stopped for 11 years in 120 fights against elite competition. And he was KO'd by Fred Fulton one of the most feated punchers of the 20th century. Besides Fulton and Harry Wills Langford wasn't knocked out for an additional 6 years and 100+ fights. Johnson knocking down Langford once as a kid in 15 rounds in 1906 doesn't mean anything. Its like King Herod hurting Jesus.

Jeanette wasn't a power guy but his chin was imacculate. After his 3rd fight in a 165 fight career Jeanette only got knocked out once by Langford. That's it.

Now Johnson might have been tough but Johnson didn't really didn't survive any long wars he was losing. Everyone he fought that had power he was beating fairly easily at least after the early part of his career. Langford and Jeanette survived those wars again and again and again. Langford got Wills, George Godfrey, Tate and Andre Anderson. I really see no reason to doubt Langford would be able to hurt Johnson.

Now the own qualifier for my confident prediction is if Langford and Johnson fight 6 rounds or something like Langford did with Ketchel. Then all of a sudden Langfords margin for error is quite slim. Changes the whole dynamic of the fight. To a lesser extent 10 rounds cracks the door open. But a championship distance fight? Nope.

A big reason no one has wins over Johnson(except Hart and Jeanette) is Johnson didn't fight nearly as much. He beat up on the big 3 when they were younger went on a 10 fight run and rested on his laurels after the Jeffries fight(ironically just like Jeffries before him). I acknowledge Johnson had reasons to justify this inactivity. He'd beaten all the top black HWs except Langford multiple times, and the best white HWs kept losing to guys Johnson had beaten or his sparring partner. But regardless if anyone other than Langford could challenge his status as the best HW the fact remains he wasn't fighting and you can't lose if you aren't fighting. Johnson did have the O Brien and Jim Johnson draws over a 7 fight period he wasn't unbeatable he was barely fighting compared to Langford.

 

Good post and I'll try and address your points.
Langford was Johnson's most dangerous rival imo, that's got that out of the way.
Your premise that because Johnson did not stop any of the those you mentioned is, to quote you," misleading" ,Johnson allowed many opponents to go the distance

Langford improved after he fought Johnson no question,do you think Johnson did not? Another point to keep in mind is though Langford had very little experience of facing heavyweights when he met Johnson , he had actually taken part in10 more fights.
Neither Langford or Johnson weighed in for their fight,but let us say their guestimate weights were pretty accurate ,Sam at156,and Jack at185,both added weight.Clay Moyle, the expert on Langford believes Sam's best weight was 175/180lbs.
Johnson is quoted as saying he was in the condition of his life against Jeffries and he certainly looked it,for that fight he was 208lbs, so if both men fought at their optimum weights there would still be an up to 28lbs weight disparity
As to ducking Langford ,Johnson signed to defend against both him and McVey in Sydney . The fact that the fight never happened was down to public opinion aided by the Church turning against Johnson when he skipped bail,the promoter made a public statement outlining that and its in Pollack's 2nd vol on Johnson.
If as you say Johnson was deficient in power,how come he flooredJeannette ,whose chin you say was immaculate, multiple times.Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Johnson v Flynn2 ,Flynn was never in this fight,the referee stated Flynn was continually trying to foul out because he was so overmatched.
Do you think Johnson could not have finished Flynn earlier if he had really opened up on him?
I disagree that Flynn improved after his first fights with Johnson and Langford.He was 28 when Johnson ko'd him in1907 ,and 42-8-17and 175lbs ,a year later Langford ko'd him. For his 2nd fight with Johnson in1912 Flynn was 60-15-20 and at 32 added18lbs of surplus flesh.His only wins of note later in his career had been a stoppage of novice Carl Morris and a win over Kaufman whom Johnson had toyed with.

Langford's face was described as being a mask of blood again Flynn in their 1910 fight.In his Langford bio Moyle states." Flynn produced one of the biggest surprises of the year when he outboxed Sam over the course of the scheduled 10 rounder.While no official verdict was given the general consensus was Flynn was the clear winner.he showed no hesitancy to mix it up with Langford,crouching low throughout the fight and repeatedly rushing into clinches,as Sam attempted to set himself.
Flynn also seemed to get the better of the infighting throughout the fight.
Sam suffered a deep cut over his right eye,in the 3rd round producing a steady flow of blood.
The middle rounds reportedly belonged to Flynn,and he also appeared to get the better of the action in the last couple of rounds." So its pretty certain Flynn deserved the decision.
promoter Tom McCarey ,ringside said Langford lost because he was not in shape,and we will focus on that in a minute.
Langford's fighting more regularly than Johnson is explainable when you consider 2 things.
1.Langford was not getting purses,that amounted to even a fraction of Johnson's.
2.Langford's manager Joe Woodman was a race horse betting addict,and several times blew, not only his share of the purses ,but Sam's also.

Your explanation that Johnson only has those 2 losses is because he didnt fight more often is unconvincing because.
1.If he had fought more often he would have been in better shape.
2.He might very well have amassed more wins without any losses.
It cuts both ways.

 

Back to condition, after 1910 Johnson was never in top shape again it is entirely possible, if he had entered the ring against any of the black trio in the sort of condition he was in for Battling Jim and Moran he would have been defeated,no man is unbeatable.
The problem with this ,at least in so far as Langford is concerned, is Sam himself was often not in shape,allowing his weight to fluctuate like a yo yo.
As far as my own humble opinion goes, [that is a joke,]a prime Johnson beats a prime Langford. Johnson had an excellent jab as shown against Ketchel and Jeffries,he also had an uppercut unmatched by a heavyweight until Holmes came on the scene,imo.
Langford's kryptonite was a man with a good jab Smith beat him with it and Fulton turned the trick twice,short men are also vulnerable to the uppercuts of taller men.I hope we can agree on that? Sam at his best would be Russian Roulette for Jack because of his power,but short men did not do well against Jack.John L Sullivan stated."no short man is beating Johnson". All things being equal I agree with him.
I responded with a lengthy post because you took the trouble to do so yourself,and like yourself,I've kept things courteous.It's refreshing to be able to disagree with a poster and still retain a degree of civility and politeness.Thanks.

 

I am unsure what your claim here is bud.

Is Joe referencing in a manner like the reader should already have some awareness of the quote, or quoting Wills while leaving the source uncited?

What I mean is you don't often see "lick any son of a ***** in the building" actually cited. It's more of a reference to a quote than an actual quote in most cases and more often than not it is used in a manner that assumes the reader had some prior knowledge of its existence.

I've literally never seen "Lick any son of a *****" or "I have never fought a negro and never shall" actually cited. Both commonly attributed though.

 

I think anyone from before 1905 who was still good in 1914 improved a great deal more than a typical fighter of their caliber. But thats a seperate topic. Johnson was at or nearing his physical peak and had years of experience against top opponents. Langford was a 20 year old MW who fully grown was under 5 ft 7 and had no top flight experience at HW. If someone whose like 25 gets allowance for not being developed(which is reasonable even today) Langford should.

I don't really care about Langford being 156. What matters is his age and lack of experience. I think "peak HW Langford" was 165 at least thats the weight were he had his most impressive performances. I get the reasons why Langford bulked up he needed to be heavier to fight Wills over and over or to knock out the taller superheavyweights. But that weight was just fine for fighting Johnson.

I never said Flynn or any of the others weren't overmatched. I said Johnson struggled to end fights he was dominating. And if not for Flynn provoking the DQ the fight would have lasted however long it lasted.

Ah yes the penal colony morally outraged over someone skipping bail.


Dempsey signed to fight Wills and thats the dictionary example of ducking. But whether Johnson was willing to or not the fight didn't happen. Maybe Johnson would have listened to the IBU eventually if WW1 didn't happen. Either way this was 3 and a half years after Langford became a title claimant.