Fact or fiction on Johnson vs Burns?

That's not a primary source!!!
That's dear old Bob Mee ,[whose latest book has received a slating,] talking in the Independent. Regurgitating the stories of the gun and the pipe in the newspaper that have been around for over a century and surfaced in the 1950's in B I which I have.
There is no evidence that McIntosh bet on Johnson, there is plenty of evidence that he was extremely close to Burns,[ having both promoted and refereed him previously,] and disliked Johnson which rather fouls up your premise that McIntosh was partial to Johnson in the fight .
Unless, let me guess? McIntosh was like ,Arthur Donovan 1. Corrupt.2.Incompetent?

You are going to have to do a lot better than that.atsch

N.B. McIntosh visited Johnson at his training camp for Jeffries, he asked Jack what shape he was in? Johnson replied bet your house on me Mac.Hugh D made a good bundle of $$$$.

 

Bob Mee writing in the Independent is not a primary source. I notice you did not include this part of his article I wonder why?

"It's impossible to imagine the kind of courage Johnson must have possessed to ignore it all and to walk into hostile arenas time and again to prove himself... and then to walk out, past white faces with anger fuelled by drink or lost bets."
Nor this bit.

" It was a slow, dreadfully one- sided contest. Burns took a steady pounding. Along the way the big Texan offered him free shots at his stomach, smiling: "Go on, Tommy. Hit me here." Burns was cut, and bled from the nose, but abused Johnson loudly in the clinches. Johnson laughed and told ringsiders how he intended to spend his winnings. In round 14, with the Canadian tottering after getting up from a knockdown, the police intervened and stopped it."

Now ,which bit of the story do you want us to believe, and which to discount?:huh


According to you ,Burns broke Johnson's ribs and put him in hospital!

Johnson must have been brave because he went for a swim after the fight ,then on to a victory party.

I've had cracked ribs, believe me you don't feel like swimming or partying with them.

You just keep shooting yourself in the foot don't you?

 

It isn't for me to prove he did not ,it is for you to prove he did.

You raised the question not me.
An article without provenance in a newspaper nearly a century later is not proof. Provide your evidence and we can all debate it,that's how it works.
To date you have NEVER provided a primary source to back up any claim you have made since I have been a poster on this site ,that's in 8 years of posts.

You said you wanted others to comment on your query. So far has anyone agreed with you?


"The end came in the fourteenth round when the police, seeing: Burns tottering and unable to defend himself from the savage blows of his opponent, mercifully stopped the fight. Previously it had been arranged that if the police interfered a decision should be rendered on points, and referee Mclntosh without hesitation declared the big black man the winner, for all through the fight he had shown himself Burns's master in every style of fighting.

Burns in an interview after he had gone To his dressing room said: “I did the best I could and fought hard. Johnson was too big and his reach was too great."

Johnson appeared fresh after the fight, while Burns's eyes were badly puffed and his mouth swollen to twice its normal size. The Canadian fought a game battle and showed Indomitable pluck, but he was no match for the big- black Texan"
Burns was floored 4 times and was about to go down again when the police intervened.
McIntosh obviously won the fight for Johnson.

ps.
I know your wrting has a tendency to be archaic and [,lets be charitable],"somewhat eccentric",but}
Have you met,do you know,anyone who has ever used the word dolt?

 

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/art...m=hugh mcintosh burns reminisce&searchLimits=

This is a good little article that has Bill Lang claiming that he beat Tommy Burns but was robbed of the title by Hugh McIntosh' decision. He also notes that he had success with the uppercut that jack johnson helped him perfect.

Here is McIntosh's version of the appointment of a referee which seems to be pretty reliable and believable.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/121173325?searchTerm=mcintosh memoirs&searchLimits=


One thing though, which McIntosh says, and is undoubtedly correct. He invested every single shilling he owned in promoting the fight. That is one hell of a gamble and a bet. (in fact i wouldnt mind comments of Hugh McIntosh saying that he gambled every last cent he had on this this fight are the sole reason why some people have misinterpreted things and thought that he actually bet on the fight). The idea for anyone who has promoted a fight (assuming we can all agree that Tommy didnt take a dive!) of this magnitude to have placed a bet on one of the fighters is quite frankly, riduculous. It might be different if he had long term options on the fighters and/or stood to somehow make money from a certain result.

But to suggest that Hugh McIntosh would invest his entire life savings into an event and then appoint himself as referee (a job he didnt want as he had already appointed one ref who declined and he wanted another to do the job) just so that he could win a few bucks from a couple of bookies is just ridiculous, imo.

 

Thanks for the excellent links B you have come up trumps as usual.:good

This confirms what I previously posted in this thread McIntosh was broke after gambling all his money, and that he had borrowed on the purses and promotion of the fight.

Even if he were inclined to bet on Johnson he did not possess the $$$$ to do so.
The account of the meetings in McIntosh's office,correspond with those in the most respected books on Johnson even down to the threats and insults made by Burns including the chair and the inkwell ,and the presence of the little girl .
McIntosh's own story is recounted just 7 years after the event.
Since it is known Johnson and Fitzpatrick borrowed the fare to Australia one wonders where they managed to scrape up the money for Rudy Unholz to place a bet from,unless he did it on his own behalf?

As the link highlights McIntosh accepted the job of third man with great reluctance initially proposing Jim Jeffries,[ who wanted far too much money, ] then Snowy Baker for the job and after Johnson objected to him another alternate.

No conspiracy, no crooked referee, no bending of the rules in Johnson's favour.just a straight forward onesided beat down of a brave but outgunned champion by a bigger and better man.

 

Don't believe what you read years later. In the Ring With Tommy Burns and In the Ring With Jack Johnson - Part I: The Rise have the local primary sources. None of them say Burns was given a long count against Lang. Neither Lang nor his representatives made any complaint about it at the time. The press thought Burns had a great chin. He sat up and smiled quickly after being decked, continued on time and beat the hell out of Lang thereafter. Lang was an Australian, so if there was any complaint to have been made, it would have been made then. The Australians thought very highly of Burns, which is why the Australians wanted to see Burns - Johnson.

McIntosh made a great deal of money on the Burns-Squires fight, much more than expected, which is why he was willing to bankroll Burns-Johnson. He had the money. He didn't need to wager on anyone. He was already rich and was going to become richer from the Johnson-Burns promotion - exhibitions, ticket sales, and film rights. Advance ticket sales were very good. He wound up making a great deal of money on Johnson-Burns. Both Burns and Johnson wanted McIntosh to referee, feeling that he was fair. He was the only one they could agree upon. His performance was generally lauded by the press immediately after the fight.

They fought straight Queensberry rules, which meant hitting in clinches and on breaks were legal. Hence, the men literally had to protect themselves at all times. Burns had all the negotiating power, and he was the one who wanted these rules, believing himself to be the superior infighter. Johnson, being what today they call the B-side fighter, was willing to fight with whatever rules Burns wanted.

 

To my knowledge, there is nothing in the primary sources either before or after the fight saying McIntosh bet on Burns. If there is something in secondary sources, I'd be disinclined to believe it. Anything is possible in this world, but we shouldn't say it unless it can be proven with reliable sources. We should always cite our sources. I try to do that in my books.

 

I was hoping you would give us your input.

Thanks for setting the record staight.

How is the second instalment of the Jack Johnson story coming along ?
I assume it will be entitled " The Fall"?
If it is even half as good as the first volume ,"The Rise", everyone will be happy!!!
Your first volume had an unparrelleled amount of references .

Your research is both thorough and prodigious.
I avidly await the second volume.!!!

 

In the Ring With Jack Johnson - Part II: The Reign is coming along nicely. I am hoping (but not promising) to have it published before the end of the year. It will be every bit as thorough as the first book.

Thanks for the kind words.

 

We have established that Johnson did not foul Burns as you have often suggested ,and I think we have established with the kind input from both Adam and Boilermaker that there is no basis to say that McIntosh bet on Johnson.

As to bandages on Burns ? Yes he entered the ring with them on both elbows and Johnson said make him take them off or there willl be no fight,after some discussion and delay Burns reluctantly did so.

If you want to know all this stuff why not purchase Adam's book," Jack Johnson The Rise", then you will know as much as the rest of us about the subject and,hopefully will not keep making these agenda driven threads which are always discredited and torn to shreds by the rest of the forum.
ps It's a lovely sunny morning here in Kent UK, just gone 6.30 am . what a nice start to the day its been!

I have the 4 son in laws ,and a friend coming round tonight to watch the Froch v Groves fight.
Seems I'm set for a nice week end.

 

It's settled.



FICTION!
Like the rest of your threads attacking Johnson and Louis, without any foundation.:good