Jack Johnson v Gene Tunney 15 rounds.

You are painting with an extremely broad brush by assuming every witness was co-opted to such an extreme by bias that their renditions of said events are unreliable. They are far more reliable as witnesses given the fact they were present at the even than revisionist, agenda-driven supposition one hundred years later by a non-witness.

If this is to be denied, it really represents the final swoon of this board in terms of logic. If it is really all about agenda, there are far more compelling subjects to follow and certainly more persuading proponents.

 

Not past his prime, but fat and in poor condition ,as a ringside report states.

Johnson was out on the **** the night before he fought O Brien, nobody's fault but his own .

Let us say he was in his prime, but emphatically not in prime condition for this 6 rounder.

O Brien was marked up with an eye closed and cut about the face, Johnson was puffing like a whale but unmarked.

O Brien went to the floor several times to avoid punishment.

Perhaps it is significant that there was zero call for a rematch?

This content is protected

The crux of the matter is ,can we objectively use Johnson's performance against O Brien in a 6rds no dec as a reliable yardstick as to how he would perform in a proper decision ,championship contest ,against Tunney?

I say NO. Therefore it is irrelevant.imo.

 

Though I generally agree with most of your points, I have to nit-pick.

Johnson's face was redened by O'Brien's punches, so he was marked, not cut.

O'Brien was at the end of his career when he fought Johnson. He had two decent victories and half a dozen losses in the 9 fights left in his career.

In regards to your conclusion, I do disagree. I think we can draw some basis for an argument than fast feet and fast combo's emphasizing the jab can fluster Johnson and do much to defuse his offense. However, declining feather-fisted middleweights are not the ones to enact this approach over more than 6 rounds.

 

This content is protected

O Brien was on the slide yes, but he was hardly old , in fact he was only two months older than Johnson. As I've said I have no problem with anyone picking Tunney,[ I myself have not made a pick,] but to do so on the basis of what Johnson did against O Brien in a 6 rounds no decision fight which he could not lose ,unless he was kod,[ hardly likely given O Brien's lack of power], is to build a house on shifting sand.

On Johnson's supposed susceptibilty to a good left jabber.Johnson fought with success against fast shifty jabbers such as Griffin, Butler,Gardner,and Jeannette.


Tunney's lack of a lengthy resume against heavyweights , makes it extremely hard to form an opinion as to how he would do against Johnson.

Tunney had his work cut out to draw with a green, 20 years old Loughran, who was conceding him 10lbs.

Tunney was probably faster afoot than Johnson, I would think Johnson was stronger and hit harder, he was also appreciably bigger.


What if Johnson took the centre of the ring, and did not follow Tunney around ?
How would that play out? I don't know.

If Tunney took the initiative, I think Johnson would feed off that and counter him.

If Tunney elected to fight a running battle, stabbing out an occasional jab who would gain ascendancy? Again, I don't know, I do know I think Tunney is largely unproven at heavyweight.

Johnson is not.

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...sort=relevance&sort=relevance&sort=relevance&

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...2&page=3&page=4&page=5&page=6&page=7&index=19

sort=relevance&rows=20&searchType=basic&state=&date2=1909&proxtext=++++++jack+o+brien&y=18&x=17&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=2&page=3&page=4&page=5&page=6&page=7&index=2

 

Spot on.

And to think Fitz at age 41 destroyed a more prime verison of O'Brien. Remember if its Jeffries fighting Fitz, Mcvey will say Fitz was old!

Yet Fitz crushing O'Brien in 6 rounds post Jeffries at age 41, while Johnson in his prime as champion had to settle for a draw / ND?

 

Many reports suggest O'Brien, who was a feather fisted super middle got the better. So we have O'Brien doing this, and in the same year GunBoat Smith knocking Johnson silly in a 4 round ex match.

Gee I wonder why there was no re-match? The same can be said for Jim Battling Johnson who was robbed of a win over Jack in France. Forget the ruling of a draw. Once again, no re-match???

Johnson fans who offer multiple excuses ( Mcvey, Mcvey, and Mcvey ) can than their lucky stars these matches are not on flim.

 

Prime verison? is that a variation of your venison which you used to post?:huh Does it combine with supper middleweights?


N. B. A year after Fitz stopped O Brien, O Brien returned the compliment.

When Fitz beat O Brien he had been in action just 8 months previously.


Both times Fitz fought Jeffries, he had been retired for two years ,spot the difference?

You haven't quite grasped the concept of NO DECISION as it applies to boxing ,have you?

Despite repeated explanations, you just cannot understand that a no decision bout, is just that,a no decision fight, no one is ,"settling for a draw" there is, NO DECISION RENDERED.atsch

 

Mcvey, you're a real dumb ass. Fitz came back from the first Jeffries loss with KO wins over Sharkey and Ruhlin. Hardly an inactive fighter. The good news for you is I am too busy these days, so the others here will keep you in check when you try to bend or twist the facts.

No re-matches for O'Brien or Jim Johnson does not make Johnson look better. The reverse is ture.

 

Both these are ------ PROVEN LIES.FROM A PROVEN LIAR.

 

I'm still wondering why people keep conflating the O'Brien fight and its relevance to a Tunney vs. Johnson fight? Johnson was fat.. unmotivated i.e. hardly a prime peak Johnson... AND AND it was a 6 round fight... That tells us a little more than nothing about how a 15 round fight would go, cause ya know, it was only 6 rounds....

 

I am not sure exactly what you mean about agendas etc. But I stand by the statement that the press men are unreliable witnesses. They embellished stuff, invented stuff, copied reports for fights they never even saw, took money of managers and promoters and bookmakers. They are not thinking about the sanctity of historical research 100 years into the future.
Yes I agree none of us here are in a better position. We are left in the dark. That might bother some people here but I can live with it.

 

They are more reliable than the supposition of 21st century commentators, who are speaking purely from their own bias without having any first hand subjective experience of the events.

I just give more credence to next day fight reports than the imaginings that every sub-par Johnson performance was the result of The Great Chain of Being conspiring against deflate his legacy...