Jack Johnson v Ezzard Charles 15rds?

I'm sure that is true. But an abscence of reporting is not equal to something not happening. I am asking you what you think of these reports? Why are you so utterly determined to dismiss them?

No. It takes time and I can't be bothered. We agree that some of the press reports mention Johnson looking out of shape and some mention him looking tired. In this thread we have the New York Times report.

We agree that Johnson weighing 205 is fine.

Now, do you accept that he could be weighing 205 without training for the fight at all? Do you accept that weight isn't a total definition of shape?

are you trying to imply that you've answered mine? Off the top of my head i've asked:

Which historians identify Johnson-Johnson as a twenty round fight? No answer.

Did they share with you their primary sources? What were they? No answer.

Are you saying that Johnson rolled out of bed for this six rounder? No answer.

Do you think the press were lying when they labelled Johnson tired/out of shape? No answer.

Do you think it is at all possible that Johnson was out of shape? No answer.

But I will answer your questions anyway.

I don't know. Some of the fight reports I've read for Johnson-O'Brien have him tired after a couple of rounds. I have no way of knowing how much he was drinking around each respective fight and how much training he did. So i'm unsure.

I do know that it is perfectly possible for a man to be in better shape at 220 than 205.

I did not say he gassed. I've never said that. I say that some press reports label him looking tired. That's all i've said.

 

But you don't dispute the main point in the debate? We've agreed that press labelled him tired in the fight? Why so pedantic. Very well.

The New York Times: "Johnson looked tired in the fourth round."

The Times Dispatch: "Johnson was not in good condition."

Points Daily Journal: "Johnson appeared slow on his feet, and appeared not to be in the best conidtion."

Referee McGuigan, quoted in The Bakersfield Californian: "Johnson looked tired."

Jack O'Brien lol in The Telegraph-Herald: "I was better against Johnson because I was in better condition."

Bakersfield Californian: "Johnson looked a bit bulky around the middle."

Finally, The St.John Sun, from before the fight:

"Of the two, O'Brien seems to have done the more conscientious work...Johnson has taken on some flesh."

So you got what you wanted, how do you feel about it? Do you still refuse to accept that Johson was tired after several rounds of fighting? Do you still think the press and referee are lying? Do you still think Johnson looked tired because of "O'Brien's style" and that it is not possible that Johnson was out of shape, inspite of reports in the Times and New York Times? Why are you so determined to pretend it isn't true? Tell me why this litany of evidence doesn't spell complete disaster for your ridiculous argument?

What an incredible waste of my time.

Incredible. So in your world weight is the total definition of shape and multiple reports to the contrary don't persuade you of even the slimmest possibility that Johnson was out of shape.

No.

Are you saying that you are in correspondence with Mike DeLisa over this issue and that he has told you that this was a twenty round fight?

Or, is it the case that you've seen the fight labelled a 20 round fight on this site and are now trying to claim that this is researched and confirmed by DeLisa because of that?

I am going to contact Mike over this issue if you say that he has done this research - I have done this research too and found nothing. I would prefer not to make a fool out my myself and waste his time, so if you could be explicit as possible in your reply please. Again:

You've repeatedly claimed that you are in private correspondence with two historians who have assured you that Johnson-Johnson was scheduled for twenty rounds. Is Mike DeLisa one of these historians? Who is the other one? If it is not Mike, who is it?

Can you reproduce it here? Can you link it? Can you speak French or was it translated for you? If so, who translated it?

And you have now seen multiple reports indicating Johnson was tired or out of shape, including the referee. Does this make you reconsider your inexplicably rock solid position?

I did answer your question, in some detail actually.

1) I believe it is possible for a man to be out of shape at his best fighting weight. This is not disputable. SHAPE IS NOT ABOUT WEIGHT. It is a single indicator and one you are absolutely desperate to cling to here.

2) I believe it is possible for a man to be out of shape in his prime. SHAPE IS NOT ABOUT THE STAGE OF YOUR CAREER YOU ARE AT. It is about the training you have put in and the lifestyle you are leading.

3) What does his fighting in a six round match have to do with it? He was either in shape or not in shape. If he was not in shape he would be more likely to tire during the fight. Would he not?


I don't know if he was in better or worse shape for these fights you are asking me about. I am not particularly interested in those fights. I'm interested in primary reports form the days around the fight. These label Johnson "out of shape" and "tired."

Do you think maybe he was out of shape and tired?

 

That means that the referee, and numerous eye-witnesses ring-side, considered Johnson looked tired and/or out of shape.

No, Mendoza, I don't say that, I say that multiple sources from the day say that.

Again, you haven't answered anything I asked for you. Do you believe there is any possibility based upon the evidence you've insisted I present that Johnson was tired?

If not, why do you think multiple newspapers, before and after the fight, remarked upon his condition? Why do you think the referee said he was tired? Because of his style? That seems to be your answer, but I can't believe it.

I am not confusing anything; i've reported to you, as you requested, that a newspaper before the fight said he had "taken on flesh". Is this what you are referring to?

That's fine; before I do though, could you answer these questions? I've asked them of you multiple times now and you seem to be ducking?

1) Who are the historians you have been corresponding with who claim primary evidence of a 20 round fight? You've mentioned Mike and Chuck? Can you please make this clear?

2) Can you reproduce or link elements of the French primary source you claim to have been shown by these historians?

I don't know Mendoza. I have no way to know without digging up detailed fight reports on the training details of the Willard and Moran fights. Currently I am rendered incapable of answering this question "yes" or "no" based upon my knowledge of his condition and the training he put in for those fights.

I know that multiple primary resources label Johnson tired and/or out of shape for the O'Brien fight.

I am not playing an "angle". What do you even mean? I'm interested in the truth. The truth has been revealed to you and still, this bizarre resistance.

I think this is absolutely crazy patter. If Johnson was in horrific shape for these fights you seem to think are so important, he could still be out of shape and tired after a couple of rounds against O'Brien, which is all I am asking you about. It makes absolutely no difference what shape he was in for Willard at all.

What's the relevance?



And why did you demand I go to all the trouble of picking out these primary sources just to ignore them? "What does all that mean???" you say. Plenty to you, you practically begged for them.

Waste of my time.