I posted a review (Robert P. Lancaster) to amazon. http://www.amazon.com/In-Ring-With-...sr=8-1&keywords=in+the+ring+with+jack+johnson ---------- I wasn't able to find my posts to an earlier thread regarding apollack's book. Has that thread been deleted? If so, it's a loss, as there was some good discussion and enthusiastic plugs on that thread.
Yeah not sure why that excellent thread got deleted. Your posts were the most interesting to me, given that it was obvious that you were actually reading the book. Thanks so much for your kind review.
I just got mine in the mail and will post my thoughts. So far Im very happy with it. One correction though: The police never stopped the cameras rolling during the Johnson Burns fight ) I skipped ahead to that part. Thats been repeated over and over because Jim Jacobs said it but it never happened. Descriptions of the original film from both Australia and the United States make it clear the stoppage is shown and the post fight.
Yeah, I always thought that was bull. But that is what some claimed to explain why the existing footage ends. I think the entire fight was available, but eventually they edited out portions that were considered inflammatory, such as Burns getting dropped. I doubt the police would have climbed that scaffold to stop the cameras. The police were concerned with stopping the fight. However, I was somewhat equivocal in the book, owing to the claims. I said on page 670, "Most versions do not show the knockdowns, either because they were deleted for political and racial reasons, or because it just so happens that those were the portions of the films which disintegrated." On page 671 I said, "At that point, things were not looking good for Burns, so either the police stopped the cameras from rolling and then terminated the bout to save him from further punishment and the impending knockout, or the film exhibitors had the complete films but later edited out the ending so as to avoid inflaming racial passions." I think the latter is the more plausible. In fact, most fight films have been substantially and badly edited over the years, so that we are only left with small portions.
What a shame that excellent thread was deleted. I'm working my way through Hart at the moment. Am gonna' read that and Burns before I read Johnson (I have them all though)
I have a couple of my posts from the previous thread in my email. ---------- I'm about 135 pages into Pollack's 'In the Ring ... Johnson Part I' book. It's notable that, even when Johnson's attempts to move up in class got mixed results, people were still favorably impressed with his talent. The first loss to Klondike Haines is a good example. The fight was eventually (probably R. 6) stopped by police do to it's one-sidedness: Johnson wasn't actually being hurt, but had gassed after round 2, and was doing nothing but clinching. However, people were actually quite impressed by the fighting Johnson had done in the first couple rounds, and he got favorable reviews and word of mouth. People thought that he would be much better once he trained regularly, and the fight actually enhanced Johnson's reputation. Delaney, Jeffries trainer, seems to have taken an mild interest in Johnson during Johnson's early years on the west coast; he also said that Johnson and Jim Jeffries were the two most eager boxers for training that he had seen. It's interesting that Johnson was perceived as a big guy even when he was only a 170 pounder. (At the point I'm currently at -- Hank Griffin II, Frank Childs I -- Johnson is in the lower 180's). Griffin got the decision in his first fight with Johnson; most news account opined, and continued to hold in the following months, that a draw would have been more appropriate. Johnson-Griffin II and III were draws. Some felt that, in their third and last bout, Griffin had slightly the better, but not enough to merit a decision. Interestingly, some felt that the third bout had seen Griffin the more skilled and clever of the two. After his last fight with Johnson Griffin worked with Fitzsimmons in preparation for Bob's 1902 challenge of Jeffries. (Griffin thought Fitzsimmons the likely winner, which is interesting since Hank had faced Jeffries twice). Fitzsimmons said that Griffin was one of the most difficult people to hit that he'd been in the ring with. During these formative years Johnson was commonly noted to be a skilled infighter. Johnson was generally considered to have a good punch, though cautious about using it. It was felt that Johnson took little risk of receiving hard blows, or of expending himself in efforts to KO his opponent. However, there were fights here and there where Johnson fought aggressively. Johnson-Childs I was a disappointing fight. Childs was considered rugged and aggressive fighter with a hard punch. He was overweight, and was seen to smoke many cigars and drink much beer prior to the fight, all while being evasive as to the location of his training quarters. During their fight Childs offered almost no aggression. In round 12 Childs came out with his right arm hanging at his side, at which Johnson came at him aggressively. Child's corner tossed in the sponge. Child claimed he had injured his arm the previous day, and that his right elbow had dislocated in a clinch. Two doctors examined him after the fight and could find nothing wrong, and the promoter said Childs would not be paid if he could not in the next day show that he was indeed injured. The next day a doctorsreexamined his right arm and found the arm measured a quarter inch thicker just above the elbow than the night previous. He opined Childs may have been injured, and Childs was paid. Interestingly, some saw Johnson-Childs[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]I[/FONT] as an attempt to bouild up Denver Martin as a legitimate threat to Jeffries title; that is, they hoped the winner of Johnson-Childs would gain enough notoriety that, if fed to and defeated by Martin, they would enhance Martin's repute and bring pressure on Jeffries to drop the color-line. Of his prison stint with Choynski, Johnson said he learned more from Joe than in all his previous boxing experience. They were released when a second grand jury would not indict. Had they gone to trial, the penalty for illegal prize fighting in Texas was 2-5 years. Johnson, though taller, was of comparable pounds to Choynski when they fought. There's a picture of Johnson and Choynski being released from prison, and I must say that, though not tall in stature, Joe seriously fills out the chest and shoulders of his coat. --------- This is a partial draft of a later post: About thirty pages to go. Johnson has won the championship from Burns. Johnson, Sam Fitzpatrick (Johnson's manager) and Hugh McIntosh (promoter) all later said that Burns behaved towards Johnson in an extremely threatening and offensive manner at a meeting 4 days prior to the bout. (The meeting was to settle who would referee the bout -- McIntosh was selected). I will say, Burns did show himself to be durable and dead game in the title fight. There was diverse opinion as to whether Burns could have gone the distance if there had been no (police) stoppage (15th round). This somewhat suprised me, as footable, and apollacks principal amalgamated news account, gives the impression the slaughter had commenced. However, many there (including McIntosh the referee) thought Burns could have lasted, and many said that just after the fight and the next day Burns seemed in suprisingly good shape. However, there were others who emphatically believed that Burns would be KO'd at any moment. Maybe there isn't so much contradiction between these accounts as is apparent on the surface. The sorts of damage which beats a person up and disables him for days, and the sort which renders a person temporarily incoherent and defenseless, is not always the same, and these kinds of damage can come in different proportion. Interestingly, p. 653 quotes Johson as saying, after the fight, "I've got to fight Sam Langford at the National Sporting Club in London on Derby night. That match is arranged." Johnson was especially praised for his infighting. Apollack summarizes the Sydney Morning Herald to the effect that those at Johnson-Burns who'd never seen Tommy before would have thought him without knowledge regarding infighting, while those Aussies who had seen Burns against Squires considered Burns a master of infighting. It seemed to me yet again the case that it was very difficult for a fighter to look good against Johnson.
I just recently watched the Ken Burns documentary 'Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson' for the first time finally. It's nice that that is totally free to watch for Amazon prime members as part of the American lives series. Anyways, what did you think about that documentary? Book sounds really interesting might have to check it out sometime.
The Invisible Blackness film is fine , but does not give anything in the way of primary sourced references. Pollack's book is crammed with contemporary sourced references, usually several for each incident.It is thorough and exhaustive in its attention to detail and truth.Highly recommended.:good
McGrain sent this link to me, when someyears ago I had started a thread trying to determine the pedigree of the statement attributed to Jeffries, "I never could have whipped Johnson at my best ...." This content is protected It appears to be a news paper article 5 days after the Reno fight, citing a San Francisco source. I can't tell which newspaper this clip comes from. I hope Pollack's Johnson sequel will be able to determine the source (literary) of this quote.
I posted a response to this but for some reason its disappeared or been deleted. Essentially my point was that I dont believe these films were purposely edited, either for racial reasons or otherwise. The reason the knockdown clip exists outside of the common version of this film is because it comes from a different source. These films were mass produced so there wasnt just one film floating around. Like the Willard-Johnson film I restored some versions have footage that isnt found in other versions. As these films were shown, and reshown, the portions of the film which got the most replay value (knockdowns, knockouts, etc) also got the most wear and tear, breaks, etc. As those portions became damaged they cut and spliced. This accounts for the numerous films we have where one second two fighters are boxing and the film then cuts to one fighter laying on the canvas being counted without ever showing the KD. Combined with the natural deterioration of the nitrate stocks and you have the poor condition of the films we are left with.
Perhaps you are correct. Sounds like a solid theory. However, isn't it interesting that the films of Johnson getting knocked out by willard seem to have been preserved very well. I still think it is pretty odd that given the number of knockdowns Johnson scored over Burns that they seem to have disappeared from most existing versions. I've only seen a very short clip of Johnson decking burns in unforgivable blackness. However there were several knockdowns.
I dont think its odd at all. The vast majority of the Johnson-Burns fight is gone. That film ran about an hour give or take. Now about 1/4 of the original films exists. That isnt a conspiracy its just the state of all films in general. If there was a conspiracy to keep the public from seeing Burns beaten then why was it shown in its entirety wherever it was initially exhibited, both here, in europe, and in Australia? That defeats the purpose. If there was some massive conspiracy to keep the public from seeing Johnson embarrass a white fighter I think they would have edited his dominations of beloved fighters like Ketchel or Jeffries as opposed the Burns who wasnt nearly as popular (and who many didnt even consider champion). That kind of reminds me of the people who think there was some conspiracy to destroy all of Harry Greb's films. In reality we are missing as many films from this era as we have and the vast majority of what we have is incomplete. There was no conspiracy to destroy Jeffries-Sharkey, half of Fitzsimmons-Corbett, Burns-Squires 2, Nelson-Wolgast (which we have less than half of). Its just the state of these films. Below is a list of films that were made but which no longer exist (as far as we know). It has nothing to do with conspiracy and everything to do with a lack of preservation. Al Corbett Vs Red Chapman Archie Bradley Vs Harry Stone Arthur Pelkey Vs. Luther McCarty Battling Nelson Vs Terry McGovern Battling Nelson Vs Dick Hyland Benny Bass Vs Harry Blitman Benny Bass Vs Red Chapman Bill Squires Vs. Mike Williams Billy Conn Vs. Tony Zale Billy Papke Vs Georges Bernard Billy Papke Vs Jim Sullivan Billy Wells Vs Bandsman Blake Bob Fitzsimmons Vs Gus Ruhlin Bob Fitzsimmons Vs Jack O'Brien Carl Morris Vs Mike Schreck Danny Frush Vs Johnny Kilbane Eddie McGoorty Vs Dave Smith Fernand Quendreux Vs Astier Frank Klaus Vs Marcel Moreau Frank Moran Vs Billy Wells Frankie Genaro Vs Bushy Graham Fred Fulton Vs Carl Morris Fred Fulton Vs Charlie Weinert Freddie Welsh Vs Jack Daniels Freddie Welsh Vs Willie Ritchie Georges Carpentier Vs Billy Wells Georges Carpentier Vs George Gunther Georges Carpentier Vs Gunboat Smith Georges Carpentier Vs Jim Sullivan Georges Carpentier Vs Joe Jeanette Gunboat Smith Vs Arthur Pelkey Gunner Moir Vs Tiger Smith Harry Greb Vs Tommy Gibbons Harry Greb Vs Ted Moore Harry Greb Vs Mickey Walker Harry Wills Vs Jack Sharkey Henry Armstrong Vs. Lew Jenkins Hughie Mehegen Vs Matt Wells Jack Delaney Vs Tony Marullo Jack Dempsey Vs Fred Fulton jack Dempsey Vs Carl Morris Jack Johnson exhibition while in prison Jack Johnson Vs Bob Roper Jack Sharkey Vs. Jimmy Maloney 2 Jim Coffey Vs Jim Flynn Jim Corbett Vs Jim Jeffries Jim Corbett Vs Kid McCoy (not sure if this is the staged fight they did before a back drop or the real one) Jim Jeffries Vs Bob Fitzsimmons (The lighting was too bad to make the film commercially successful) Jimmy Britt Vs Johnny Summers Jimmy Clabby Vs Frank Logan Jimmy Slattery Vs Jack Lynch Jimmy Slattery Vs Jack Burke Joe Bonds Vs Dick O'Brien Joe Louis Vs Lou Nova Johnny Kilbane Vs George Chaney Johnny Risko Vs Victorio Campollo Kid McCoy Vs Peter Maher Luis Firpo Vs Sailor Maxted Luis Firpo Vs Jack McAuliffe Luther McCarty Vs Al Palzer Marcel Cerdan Vs. Holman Williams Maxie Rosenbloom Vs Leo Kelly 1 Maxie Rosenbloom Vs Leo Kelly 2 Maxie Rosenbloom Vs George Simpson Mickey Walker Vs Dave Shade Mike Gibbons Vs Soldier Bartfield Mike Gibbons Vs Young Ahearn Packey McFarland Vs Matt Wells Paul Berlenbach Vs Mike McTigue Paul Berlenbach Vs Young Stribling Pedlar Palmer Vs Dick Burge Pete Latzo Vs Joe Dundee Ray Bronson Vs Sid Sullivan Rocky Kansas Vs Jimmy Goodrich Saint Didier Vs Joe Gans (not that Joe Gans) Ruby Goldstein Vs Tony Vaccarelli Sam Langford Vs Iron Hague Sam Langford Vs Jack Lester Sam Langford Vs Sam McVea Paris 1911 Sam Langford Vs Sam McVea Sydney 1912 Stanislaus Loayza Vs Phil McGraw Ted Kid Lewis Vs Marcel Thomas Terry McGovern Vs George Dixon Terry McGovern Vs Young Corbett Tiger Flowers Vs Ray Neuman Tom Heeney Vs Otto Von Porat Tom Sharkey Vs Kid McCoy Tommy Burns Vs Bill Squires 2 Willie Lewis Vs Jack Costello (Im fairly certain I have some of this but I cant confirm who Lewis is fighting as I dont know what Costello looks like) Young Griffo VS Battling Charles Barnett Young Griffo V Campbell Young Kloby Vs Eddie Shevlin 1 and 2 1918 Interallied Boxing Tournament Jimmy Wilde Vs Digger Evans Cal Delany Vs E. J. Swinnerton Augie Ratner Vs S. I. Fullerton Bomb. Billy Wells Vs. Joe Beckett Mike O'Dowd Vs Sgt W. Ring Eddie Coulon Vs Peakes Johnny Basham Vs Tierney Pal Moore Vs Jimmy Wilde Bomb. Billy Wells Vs Eddie McGoorty Joe Beckett Vs R. G. Stephenson Mike O'Dowd Vs Dick SMith
