Jack Johnson v Gene Tunney 15 rounds.

Well buddy, you're right it is fallacious to do so… and yet, it's almost as much as trying to conflate a fat, unmotivated Johnson drawing a 6 round fight, to a prime Johnson and how it would look over 15 or more…

 

M, respectfully, Fitz never "crushed " Phil. Jack O'Brien. In 1905 O'Brien
tko'd Fitz in rd 13,after O'Brien won a 6rd decision over Fitz in 1904...
Of course the great Ruby Robert was in his earl forties in both bouts...

 

I dont think anyone from the darkness of the 21st century is giving an alternative report of the fight. rockysplitnose expressed some disbelief at the idea of Johnson being troubled by O'brien. Almost everyone else agrees that Johnson must have been loafing through a 6-round no decision to pick up some spending money. Reporters can embellish certain aspects of crappy fights for a variety of possible reasons. I dont disbelieve or believe but I wouldn't take press men reports of this event as watertight evidence -especially the minor details. For example, I would have to see Jack Johnson's face "reddened" before I believed it.

From what I've seen on film Johnson looked to be toying with Burns and Ketchel. I reckon he could do the same with O'Brien. From reading of the era lots of dangerous fighters (especially blacks) had to agree not to knock their opponents out for them to get fights. Lots of sham stuff went on. Likely Johnson v O'Brien was a sack of turd - for some strange reason we are talking about it.



Johnson v Tunney 15 rounds. Now that would be a tough competitive. fight.

 

The outcome would really be determind on rule sets of each eras.

Boxing was not really the same sport by the 20's vs Johnson around 1900.

Both are great, top boxers, but who's ever fights under there rule set would have the edge.

 

I don't think Johnson was under instructions to not KO O'Brien. According to reports, Johnson did try to push the issue but was met with O'Brien's flurries. And if you look at Ketchell and Burns, we are talking about entirely different styles from O'Brien. A true heavyweight toying with two middles who are intent to rough it up is decidedly different than one handling a mobile fast combo puncher.

And, no, let's not over-inflate the relevance of this one result, tho I think in it, we find a kernel of the style that would most defuse Johnson. Carrying out over 15 rounds is an entirely different matter.

 

Jack Blackburn always consided this matchup a joke as far as Genes chances.
Somtimes coventional wisdom is the way to go.

 

Seamus - the fact that you referred to Philadelphia Jack as a fast "combination puncher" just illustrates the absolute embellishment that people add to things- O'Brien was NOT IN ANY WAY a combination puncher!!?? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard!!??? Did you take from the O'Brien-Burns fight that he was a combination puncher??? How you came to that conclusion is utterly beyond me?? I'm wondering if you've ever even seen the fight??? This is where the problem lies with simply taking things people say as read - as illustrated by your description people do say things that are flat out wrong

 

We have seen many here that say O'Brien got the better of a prime Jack Johnson. I have also posted Johnson vs Gunboat Smith, and Smith floored Johnson, who got up dazed to where his manager halted the action! How are these lies. You just gave me an idea for a new thread. See ya pal.

 

I've posted two reports of the Johnson/ O Brien fight this week,I suggest you get someone to read them to you.

Smith put Johnson halfway through the ropes, he did not floor him.
My Source? Edward Gunboat Smith ,1972.
Come back with a,
PRIMARY SOURCE, MENDACITY.

 

Other reports posted here say O'Brien was the better you dolt! Smith also said Johnson never forgot that punch! And the NY Times reports illustrates what happened. Johnson was floored, and rose up dazed to the point where his manger halted the action! Why post something from 1972 when 1909 reports are out there?

You just can't live with the facts that Johnson had trouble. Perhaps someone should mail you a patch of grass form Johnson's grave so you can to continue the hero worship. I think you've earned it.

 

When it comes to the truth ,[something to which you are a complete stranger, ]I will take the word of the man who not only was there at the time, but actually delivered the punch ,over an AP report unnatributed, and written in NewYork, [the incident happened in California].

PRIMARY SOURCES PLEASE? Whoever is typing your posts needs some work on his spelling Rainman,

 

I think it's fair to say burns was the best lhw in the world at the time johnson dominated him.

Now obviously tunney is a level above burns but a victory over the best in a weight division should count for something.

Could tunney stay at range here? He managed it against a faded jack dempsey but against a prime jack johnson it would be a tough ask.

I don't see tunney throwing punches in bunches here so johnson should be able to comfortably parry and counter.

When tunney sees his strategy on the outside isn't working he'll have no choice but to try to move in on jack which will mean he takes more risks and leaves himself open for some of the best uppercuts in the divisions history.

Tunney would be comfortably outweighed here and any time he does get his shots off in range, he will find himself covered in the cement blanket.

This is an extremely tough ask and I don't see tunney having a great stylistic chance here.

 

I don't think O'Brien won the first match ... Fitz did knock him down and after a slow start come on very strong ... I'm not sure if it was a no decision but the prevailing opinion after the first match was the ageless Fitz did it again ...

 

Look , with all respect to all this is a very interesting match up .. one of the biggest reasons is that Tunney was a near over achiever, always at his best, focused, in top condition and giving it his all while Johnson was an enigma .. a very complex man fighting in a ridiculous era and as someone who has deeply studied his career I say that the sociological impact of that era deeply effected the man's behavior ... he was sometimes focused, sometimes defiant, sometimes spiteful, sometimes angry, sometimes furious, sometimes over confident , sometimes terribly stubborn and sometimes highly efficient ..

By all accounts he took the O'Brien fight as a joke. Drunk, out of shape, to judge him by it in any way other than his defiance and immaturity is selective reasoning ..He clearly misread something about the Hart fight like the possibly of a fair decision. Again, by all accounts he should have won a lopsided decision but was jobbed ...This being said through out Jack's career he was an inconsistent fighter as well as one who often fought just enough to win and not an ounce more ... he knew the risks he was taking as a prize fighter, the punches, the wear and tear on the body and knew he was not some slave ( remember he was the son of a salve for God's sake) thrown into a pit to fight for "Mastur" till he was spent and disgarded like garbage .. he was going to do it his way, period ..so the biggest question in this thread is what Jack Johnson will show up because few ever knew on any given night ...

When you get to the best Johnson to me he was a hybrid of Chris Byrd/Pernell Whitaker and Bernard Hopkins ... very hard to hit, very intelligent, very strong, capable of badly hurting a man but not an elite puncher (note how Johnson unloaded on Willard and never truly hurt him while Dempsey crushed him) but also one who for the most part calculated his punches on a risk / reward basis ... rarely throwing caution to the wind .. my question is if he would be capable of making a Tunney or an Ali fight his fight or would he be forced to battle at a pace he was not capable of maitaining efficiently ... just not sure ..

What I do know is that is it is impossible to truly anaylize Jack Johnson the fighter without studying Jack Johnson the man and his era .. no one had to put up with more because he was the first and his will, intellect and ultimate defiance had many ripples that impacted him inside and outside of the ring ... in another era with just a bit of wind to his back he very well might have been even more exceptional ...

 

The burns fight has more relevance than the o'brien one imo.

A 6 round fight means very very little and whilst it is interesting to note the result on a resume, it does nothing to show who the superior man is unless it ends in knockout.