In the Ring: Marvin Hart .. Real facts on Johnson fight

Correct information is allways welcome ,even when it dilutes one's argument.

Thats what this site is about, imo.

 

There is an article, written by Graham Huston which mentions McVey and Johnson as prospective challengers for Jeffries.It also says that McVey was the betting favourite in the second Johnson fight.
The link is .sports espn.go.com

 

Strange how people like Tom Sharkey,and Jim Corbett ,rate Jack Johnson the greatest defensive fighter of all time.:huh
Strange how Nat Fleischer rated Johnson the greatest heavyweight of all time.:huh
Strange how Eddie Futch rated Johnson no2, just behind Louis ,and in front of Ali.:huh
Strange how George Godfrey who fought Sharkey,Carnera,and Langford[ x3 ] rated Johnson the greatest ever :huh
Strange how Gilbert Odd, Uk's greatest ring historian rated Johnson no 1 .:huh

"Curiouser and Curiouser said Alice"

 

Been Box rec hunting lately? Are those are the only fights out there. Hmmm, no mention of the Langford or Jeanette matches in a reply quote. Typical of you!

You might want to check your dates Sherlock. So Jack Johnson and Jim battling Johnson fought in 1915? FALSE, try 1913, and if you read reports, they say Jim was the better. In addition the French were so outraged at this decision, they wanted to strip Jack Johnson. Fact.

I see your usually strategy to to stay out of the topic, and list other fighters such as Jeffreys as some sort of deflection strategy. How weak.

Clearly Jeff Clark would have been better than some of Johnson's title defenses. Period. Disagree, and you're a fool.

 

It is easy to correct Mcvey on this topic as he is blinded by infatuation. Thanks for the sources.

 

#
If you have solid information that there are other fights for these boxers let's have it .Otherwise, we go on what we have.
Reports on the Johnson v Johnson fight vary tremendously.
The French were outraged at the poor fight actually.

My point is Clark would not be a given ,as a better opponent than Johnson's others, prior to Willard, as you asserted so definitely.
Also,as I think I demonstrated, it is by no means sure that Clark was a better fighter than Jim Johnson, as their comparative records show.
ps I gave the right date earlier for the Johnson v Johnson fights ,and stated it was two years earlier, if that's the best you can do to find fault its rather pitiful, like the rest of your argument.
N.B. as you corrected my date I have underlined your three mistakes in four sentences

[url]

This content is protected

[/url]​

Johnson’s long left plainly bothered Langford in the early rounds, and a few right handed swings which he received around the body wised the Boston Tar Baby up to the fact that Johnson was not such a soft mark as he was represented to be. It was a whirlwind bout, and though repeaters as a rule do not pan out well, this is one who which every person who saw it would like to see over again.
This is an account of Jim Johnson's return fight with Langford.



[url]

This content is protected

[/url]
Battling Jim Johnson .

 

Jack Johnson, hiding from his challengers. [url]

This content is protected

[/url]

 

I have yet to see you posy a fight report on Jack Johnson vs. Jim battling Johnson. I have, and those who read it conclude Jim Battling was the better. Anyone reading this who would like the fight report can ask for it here. There is also a debate as to the scheduled rounds. Some sources say 20, so if Jack Quit in 10, it should be a TKO loss.

You focus on Clarke's in-experience, but the fact is Johnson gave colored title shots to guys who had far less.

Clark was absolutely better than Kaufman, Ross, Flynn, and Jim Johnson. Take a look at who he beat. Without a doubt, Clark would have been a worthy challenger for a title opponent for Jack Johnson. I can post fight reports on Clark. I have the feeling you haven't read much on Clark, yet you went out of your way make opinions.

Finally, I think its clear you make plenty of errors when using Wikipedia or Box Rec as an attempted counter point when the facts do not coincide to your rooting interests. You do the same thing on books from title to time. Regurgitating information is not the same as research.

 

Did Rainman type this for you?
I have never posied a fight report, how would you do it?
Johnson defended the Coloured heavyweight title 16 times, in 5 years, among his challengers were,
Jeanette x5
Langford
Childs
McVey x3
Martin
Felix.
In addition to this,he had previously beaten Klondike, and Childs which cost Childs his claim as title holder.
Can you think of a challenger Johnson SHOULD have fought instead of those he DID for this title ?
We have all seen newspapers, with the headlines describing a 10 ROUND FIGHT it was posted on here and the argument was settled irrevocably.

ps If there are errors in information from Wikipedia and Boxrec they would ,by definition,be their errors, not mine would they not?
You certainly have persistence,I'll give you that.

Are you familiar with the old Frank Sinatra song ," High Hopes" ?
There is a line ,that goes "Once there was a silly old ram ,thought he'd punch a hole in a dam,anyone knows a ram can't punch a hole in a dam".

" He kept butting that dam".

See you later,Ram.:rofl

[url]

This content is protected

[/url]
[url]

This content is protected

[/url]
[url]

This content is protected

[/url]
[url]

This content is protected

[/url]
[url]

This content is protected

[/url]

This content is protected

This content is protected

[url]

This content is protected

[/url]​

 

I think Rainman knows how to separate his paragraphs, McVey does not.

 

Pity he can't spell.:rofl

"These are definitely not my shorts"

"Quantas never crashed"

" Uh oh ".

This content is protected

Jack with cane, and tight trousers,according to Mendoza that means he is a pimp .atsch

 

Newspaper talk .