Jack Johnson v Gene Tunney 15 rounds.

The fight took place in 1909.
Yes, that's over a decade before the example I provided.
Still, what I know of 1910s/20s - '30s boxing press fills me with scepticism that the 1909 crop were a clean bunch.
Maybe that's unfair.

Specifically for the 1909 era, I have shown none.
But human nature is the same across the board, and the working conditions and wages of press men pre-ww1 were no better than after.

Tex Rickard in the 1920s was either the absolute beginning of a corrupt relationship between the press and promoters or it was not.
I think not.

The press got on a crusade against boxing in the 1930s and 40s and especially the 1950s.

most corruption scandals and "clean up" campaigns happen after years, and decades, of the growth of that corruption.

Anything written in the newspapers cannot be trusted 100%.

If corruption around a certain type event has been alleged in detail at any time, even more caution should be shown. That's the way i look at it anyway.

Why would a report have to stick out like a sore thumb ?
It doesn't take much to write up a fight with a biased slant towards one fighter.

Yet almost the entire NY boxing press in the 1920s was in Tex Rickard's pocket (and who knows what else when they were out of town).
Yes, a later era.
But what makes you think the writers of 15 years prior would have been any less susceptible, as a whole.

Depends what you mean by "massive contradiction". It doesn't take much to slant a fight one way or the other.
There are always different takes.

And I don't know what 1850 has to do with it. You don't seem to accept my example of 1920s, which is far closer to 1909.

I do not know that this is true.
I would have to read every single report and have access to clear and complete footage of the fights to confirm or deny that statement.

Have you researched this area ?
The anecdotes and claims of press being paid off in all areas for much of the first half of the 20th century, not least in sports, is quite hefty.

In boxing, writers doubled up as 'press agents' and even had pieces of certain fighters. Several contenders have been managed by writers.
The relationship between boxing press and promoters is never 100% clean.

With this broad reasoning, isn't it fair to say that the press men were unreliable witnesses, especially in times before the check and balance of TV and film ?

Maybe it all started after 1909.

I've provided evidence or reasoning as to why I consider press men unreliable witnesses.
I expect there is evidence out there that will cover some of the questions you have but most of it will no doubt be circumstantial and anecdotal and wont specifically PROVE anything in your eyes.
That's fine.
I go with the conventional wisdom 'don't believe everything you read in the papers' and I also take heed when someone tells me a certain 'racket' is corrupt.

There's a possibility that the boxing press in 1909 were angels, but in 1920s they were almost all corrupted.
I concede that it is possible. But I don't see why it would be likely.

If I find anything else out that might answer your specific questions, I'll post it here. :good

 

This article might be of interest :


[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6ftIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jwINAAAAIBAJ&pg=3406,6366931&dq=jack+johnson+jack+o+brien&hl=en[/url]


From December 1907, a proposed bout between O'Brien (who had been ducking Johnson for years) and Johnson "in the near future" viewed with "suspicion" by "sporting men" (gamblers).
Alludes to O'Brien having recently notified "the gullible public" that "he would not indulge in "fakes" anymore" ... etc. etc.

I guess they put the idea of the match on hold for a while. (Until Johnson was champion and the "gullible public" would come flocking ?)

Of course, I know this isn't evidence under the strict standards of the historians here today, but surely it illustrates why some of these bouts should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I think it has a lot of relevance to the discussion of the "legitimatacy" of O'Brien v Johnson in 1909, considering the smell the the proposal of the same match (6-rounds, ND, Philly) caused a mere 18 month earlier.

Most damning is the implication that Jack O'Brien was known to indulge in "fakes" and forced to admit as much, as was Johnson known to have been involved in "***** ones".

This is what I mean when I say boxing wasn't really on the level in those days. And the "no decision" and "pre-arranged draws" and short bouts are probably the ones that should be taken with the biggest pinch of salt.

 

I don't dismiss them. I approach with caution.
In a fight I have not seen I don't make any firm statements as to what happened.

I would say it is impossible to know how much of the press was firmly in line defending against corruption, and how much had already been corrupted.
How on earth can I know ?

I'm not making that charge. But reports can be slanted towards a fighter.
I can call some light retreating jabs "swift hard jabs" in a report, subtly underplaying the opponent's moves, and overplaying the efforts of the man I am favouring.
Even honest writers do this, because they develop favourites, and lose a bit of objectivity.

I am not saying it was done. But it might have been done. And it might have been done by more than one writer.

I'm not making any allegation about reporting of the earlier era other than I am not putting my trust 100% in press men.
That's what i have been saying. I cannnot consider them as reliable witnesses in that every detail they say is how I, and others, would see it.

Yes, I agree.
I am saying theat the possibility remains that corruption was at least some way along the dodgy road, enough to view the words of reporters with some scepticism.

There are many degrees between 'isolated cases' and 'endemic'.
And it would not develop evenly in all geographical areas anyway.

I don't know if it has ever been exposed or not. I haven't spent years researching the subject of possible corruption in boxing reporting in 1909 !
If it happened it might well have been relatively small-time stuff. It is of niche interest to put it mildly.
Boxing and American sports from the 1920s is far more embedded and romanticized in the conciousness than earlier stuff.

You might be right but I don't know if anyone has really researched it.

I trust reports to a large extent, just not 100%

Who got banned ?

 

It is evidence that Johnson and O'Brien were suspected of planning a sham fight. It is evidence that they were 'known' as having done so previously.

18 months later the exact fight happens.

Whether the fight was a fake or not, I cannot say because I haven't seen it.
Even with Liston-Ali fights we have all seen we can argue over whether one or both of those fights were fake. It's not always easy to tell.


Yes, I agree, the writer of that article takes a stand against corruption and fake fights, but boxers were getting away those types of contests at the time. And we have no idea how much of the boxing press consistently took the same stand and were incorruptible, OR even if they had a ****ing clue what they were looking at anyway.
I simply dont know. I dont know how anyone in the 21st century could claim to know.

 

Ok, I stand corrected.
The implication or suspicion that Johnson had been involved in some strange business is present in the article.
Also the claim that O'Brien, a known faker, had suddenly agreed to fight a man he had been ducking for years, implies that there may be an agreement.

"Postfight, fakes were ruthlessly exposed" : Some were but how do you know all fakes were exposed ? Or even that all the press were clued up enough to spot a good fake ?

Well, they made money and moved on and fought another fake fight somewhere else, got paid, and moved on .... I would call that getting away with it.
Also, 100 years later people are on this forum are talking up O'Brien's record and credentials with absolutely no mention of him being a known faker !
Which of his fights were fakes ?
Which of them were definitely not ?

 

This is what I call getting away with him being a faker.

When historians are citing his wins-losses numbers, his resume of names, and his overall record, as evidence of his quality, without ANY mention that he was known (and admitted?) to be involved in sham fights, then he's defintely gotten away with it.

It's best to take records and reports with a pinch of salt.

That's why rockysplitnose's method made sense to me. He used his own eyes and assessed that O'brien wasn't good enough to trouble Johnson. Sure, that's a flawed method too, but it what we as boxing spectators do all the time.

 

Well, the article seemed to suggest that O'Brien had taken part in fakes, plural. How many fakes is enough ? If he took part in two, then he got away with far too much, I would say.

Boxing was/is a business.
Not every fight was a full-on "on the level" fight, these guys were trying to make money. They didn't have to bust each other up every time out.
In the days when news travelled slow, or didn't travel much at all, of course they could string out a few fake fights across the country.
It's common knowledge that guys like Langford often had to make assurances not to knock the opponent out, so he could get fights. They went through the motions with each other.

I would be just as cautious about the reports of specific alleged fake fights as I am with the reports of allegedly legit ones.

But when O'brien himself is said to have promised the public he would no longer engage in fake fights, something's got to be amiss.

 

As I read it O'Brien promised "no more fakes" suggesting the public were tired of repeat offending.
BUT that might well be a mis-reading of the story.
I would find it hard to believe he "indulged in" a fake world title fight but no other fights.
It is possible of course.

I said I dont trust them 100%. I don't hold them up as reliable witnesses, and quote what they say happened in the fight as if I had seen the fight with my own eyes.
You keep trying to caricature that as something else. Yet you've actually agreed on the point that reports are not a fool-proof replacement for footage.

If you notice, I don't make any claims to know what did or didn't happen in Johnson v O'brien like in the same way I might do with Johnson v Ketchel.
I don't think the world is missing anything if I don't offer a 'composite blow-by-blow report' of a fight I have never seen.


BTW, What did the immediate post-fight reports of the "fake" Burns-O'brien read like ?