Fact or fiction on Johnson vs Burns?

I can understand the son-in-laws, but a

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Just a mate who is a boxing fan , his lad has just started in the game.

 

If "Huge Deal" McIntosh bet on Jack Johnson in the bout with Tommy Burns, why didn't he, as the referee, stop the fight well before the police intervened in order to hedge his bet? After all, Johnson giving Burns quite a beating throughout the bout, which means that complaints of McIntosh stopping it would be far less likely.

How would McIntosh be able to keep such a bet confidential? Wouldn't the media, fans, fighters and the fighters' people complain loudly about it? Could such a bet have undermined his very lucrative boxing promotions in the long run if word got out about it?

- Chuck Johnston

 

Here is my unambiguous sentence I cannot see how even you could have misinterpreted it?

"We have established that Johnson did not foul Burns as you have often suggested "


I will reiterate it.
I'm saying that under the rules that both agreed to and which Burns in particular wanted because he was known as a great in -fighter NO FOULS were committed by Johnson.

I have the many references of Adam Pollack's book to refer to to support my statement and Adam's own comments on this thread to reinforce that stance.

Burns had two bandages on, one on each arm, the rules prohibit anything worn above the waist.Johnson was fully entitled to demand they be removed.
Please DO supply the "stuff you read"so we can tear it to shreds as we do all your unprovenanced, agenda driven drivel.
If you buy Adam's book you willl for the first time be able to make some informed statements about Johnson that are based on primary sources and painstaking research.

It will be a truly unique experience for you ,and also a novel one for the rest of us to read HONEST PROVEN POSTS by yourself.

 

Burns was favourite going into the fight if McIntosh had placed a bet I would have thought that would have been reflected in the odds.

As you pointed out Burns received a bad beating, it was a onesided drubbing, his eyes were cut and puffed, his jaw is described as being greatly swollen he was dropped 4 times and about to be dropped again when the police intervened .
McIntosh had every opportunity and justification to stop the fight earlier if he had wanted to reap the rewards of a wager.
Chuck, you have to bear in mind that in Mendoza we are dealing with a man who has a pathological and irrational hatred of Jack Johnson, anything negative about him, however tenuous and flimsy ,is grist to his mill,he does not concern himself with proof or verifiable sources, his mind is so warped and bigoted he is oblivious to reality.

 

This wont do ,you state,"according to what I read,Burns was friends with McIntosh, [proper spelling] as the ref ,even though he bet against him "
As I've pointed out that is Bob Mee writing in ,"The Independent "nearly a century after the event. He does not do thorough research, he just repeats whatever he gleans from Wikepaedia etc.

Extensively researched biographies by the likes of Adam Pollack have come up with zero evidence that McIntosh bet on the fight , now produce primary sourced rebuttals or shut the **** up!


You cannot just make an unsupported statement like this and not provide a primary source ,when will you grasp that?
You've been humiliated on the Donovan referee thread and now this one .

You just fold your tent and slip away when the spotlight is focused on you, and posters ask for sources to back up your threads.

Its not only nonsensical, it's a waste of time for others to engage with you because you just disappear when the heat is turned up.

As I pointed out previously , Mee writing in the Independent nearly a century after the event,without researched facts to show is NOT a primary source.
People might retain a modicum of respect for you if you could bring yourself to admit you've nothing whatsoever to make these claims on. atsch

Chuch Johnston will no doubt make his own mind up on this subject, he is an intelligent poster and,if he is in any doubt regarding the respective merits of our posts, he has only to trawl through your previous output and read your long history of character assassination of Johnson.

Why don't you spend the time you waste propagating this crap taking a spelling course?:yep

No researched sources to quote from Mendoza ?
There's a surprise!