If Johnson and Jeffries had fought close to their primes...

I couldnt care less who your friends are ,I'm just thankful I'm not one of them.Ive given you an alternate version of the dsq from a local ringside reporter ,you have provided an AP report from someone who was not present.

A short- fused fan boy with no proof to back up his claims and no brain to debate them.

 

..

 

The only reason you got into the war was because you were attacked at Pearl Harbour, you were quite happy to make a fortune from us with Lend Lease prior to that.



You embarrass yourself, and waste my time.

 

..

 

Hey there boys ... you both know a ton on the topic, just share a different view ... can anyone offer a point regarding my question on the Johnson-Hart-Burns triangle other that the basic a vs b vs c angle ?

 

The bloke is a nut job, I remember him having a similar meltdown on the CBZ. :good

 

I don't know much and this clown knows **** all. How old is he 12?

 

On the Hart thing, he was much stronger than Tommy so harder to man-handle, he also was more durable and hit hard enough to keep Jack honest. Add in Greggains laissez faire judging and Johnson's improvement before the Burns fight and it's maybe half an explanation.

 

I'm with you now, on CBZ he said the FBI got involved , someone disagreed with him , he also said the guy was a "homo", and posted his e mail address .

Very mature .as you say a "nut job"

 

That's him!

 

I read an old article somewhere (I didn't keep the link, unfortunately), which said that Johnson, having accepted a bizarre clause in the contract which stated that he needed to knock Hart out to get the winner's end of the purse, may have punched himself out in an uncharacteristic attempt to finish the fight in the 9th and 10th rounds. That was why Hart was able to outwork him in the second half and do enough to get the referee's decision.

 

Thank you. I know you didn't say that , just my bad phrasing.

The local paper ,the Philadelphia Ledger seems very dubious that a foul was commited at all.If It was, I can't see why it would be intentional as most papers gave Johnson the opening round.
Good old Joe Jeannette accused Johnson of deliberately fouling him repeatedly because he was in trouble, but then he never said a positive word about Jack all the time he breathed air. Jeannette butted Johnson in one of their fights opening a gash over his eye,Joe never mentioned that.

It makes me laugh when idiots refer to Johnson "forgetting about his old friends". Jeannette and Langford were never friends of his. Jeannette positively disliked him, and Langford hated his guts. I wonder if that looney " Jennette" will be back on here screaming insults?

 

I once did a cross comparison of the "Big 4" and McVey and Jeanette came out on the low end of the totem pole in regards to their records. Johnson came out ahead of everyone. One thing that strikes me about this supposed iron man, like a lot of supposed iron men (Tua, McCall, Chuvalo) he could be boring as **** and look to either just survive or just do enough to win. Hes an interesting guy but not my cup of tea. He may have been better than McVey (debatable) but he wasnt better than Langford or Johnson. For all of this talk by the Jeanette author and the Jeanette website owner that Johnson ducked Jeanette, I dont see where Jeanette ever proved himself a top contender for Johnson. Certainly not over Langford and when it really came down to brass tacks in 1913 and he had the opportunity to claim a portion of the title and give credence to the idea that he should be considered a challenger he got absolutely hammered by Langford. Like I said, Jeanette would not be the basket I put all my eggs in when discussing who Johnson should have defended against.