Coming Soon - In the Ring With Jack Johnson Part II: The Reign

Brilliant Bogart ^

 

Doug,

If you want to be factual, the most relevant distance is the distance between the top of their heads. That is what I believe. How about yourself?

Back to point, in initial photo presented, Choynski was a shade taller, and had longer arms.

Now, if you want to explain in detail with numbers about how much an object shrinks on a photo 3" to 9" away from another, I'm all ears!

For the record, I know objects get smaller at a long distance, but how much smaller at 3" to 9" away is the question.

 

I'm sure Adam is pleased and grateful for your contributions to his thread.:goodThere is a rumour he has written a new book, and that it came into print recently, heard anything about that?:think

 

I wasn't talking to you. I suppose you just can’t resist. If I were approaching my shelf life, I'd have better things to do.

If you want to add something boxing related, go for it. You are reading the book why not post something new. All your doing is adding noise.

 

I don't want to post too much about the book because I want tight pockets like you to buy it.

It would not be fair of me to give all the inside information out.

Now after having made yourself a total laughing stock with your ridiculous ideas about perspective, here's a novel idea.
Why not post something relevant to the thread instead of carrying on waffling about feet? .

You're in a deep hole, so stop digging!

 

You remain a clueless wonder. I have very little interest in the book. There a ton out there on Johnson already, and if you noticed I often post stuff from books or photos here. Tight pockets for boxing? Not exactly. I spend enough on boxing PPV shows.

I suppose the most relevant thing about Choynski vs Johnson is this.

KO3.

Johnson who had been fighting since he was 16, and has 20+ Documented fights was out cold fighting in his home town.

A bit of trivia for you. Which Queesberry heavyweight champion was stopped by the lightest opponent from 1900 to present?

 

You've really got it bad haven't you.

Queesberry?

You'd do better spending on a course teaching basic reading and writing.:yep

 

I've read them all and this recent book is exceptional if you want a ton of golden nuggets on Jeffries, Corbett, Sullivan, Choynski, Burns, Ketchel or a number of others .. in addition it offers a far more detailed portrait of the real Johnson than the "bad guy" image .. there is extensive coverage of post Reno ****ysis and almost universally it was agreed that the Johnson of that day was the best fighter most ever saw ... as far as Johnson's reach I think it is longer than the 74" stated based on extensive coverage of him by those who saw him ( and not just against small men ) but likely not the 78 reported as well .. 76 or so makes sense ..

 

Very good book but also glossed over Johnsons out of the ring "activities" and really laid on the racist/biased angle a bit thick. I mean, deconstructing the incident of him beating the dog **** out of a 120 lb tuburculosis patient to "no witnesses showed up" at his hearing is a bit disenguous. That did happen and even Johnson didnt dispute it other than to put up the laughable defense that it was self defense. The riots afterward were glossed over in one sided fashion as well. It isnt hard to find accounts of black on white violence as i showed on previous thread here but based on this books softball treatment of Johnson youd think the violence was almost entirely one sided, it wasnt. Great series and they keep getting better but heres the rub. Others have criticised the series for focusing almost solely on the fighters ring career. I always defended this approach because adam never pretended these books were comprehensive biographies. They were more reference books dealing with their ring career up to losing the title. In this book adam ventured far more into biographical writing than any of the previous books and i think that hurts it because it comes off as being biased whereas the previous books felt like they treated their subjects with respect but not bias. Im not trying to be overly critical because its still a great book and adam didnt do anything that just about every other biographer of johnson has done. But why go to lengths to hide his warts? Johnson simply wasnt a good guy outside of the ring, i dont understand the need to pretend he didnt court trouble or even inflame it with his behavior.

 

Speaking for myself I'm more interested in the inside info on the fights,the nuts and bolts so to speak. And Adam's books give that 100%:good

 

If you wanted to"soften", Johnson beating up that little guy surely it would have been simpler not to have mentioned it?
The idea that you deconstructed the incident doesn't hold water because you did ,you presented the facts as they were.

 

There are some selective truths in Johnson's books and some authors go fan boy or omit the dark side to make their subject material look a bit better. I suppose its the author's choice.

^^ I was unaware of this. So in addition to beating up women, being a pimp, a liar, admitting to participating in " arranged " fights, and using the color line to avoid the best black fighters as lineal heavyweight champion, now we have this. Beating the **** out of a sick 120 pound man. Utterly despicable & horrific.

 

Off topic point of interest. Manny Steward said Jack Johnson was " protected " by the mob which gave him a freedom to break / bend some laws. Is there any reference to that in the book? It is a false statement?

 

I know how to spell Queensberry you dolt. As stated I’m a busy guy who often posts at work with multiple window tabs open, meetings and calls.

Most of my errors likely happen when I’m multitasking. I’m not some crusty old man with a lot of time on his hand. You make plenty of errors too. I’d rather have a typo in a boxing forum than not knowing what I am watching, being bad at math, or using double standards to make my points as you do.