Jack Johnson v Harry Wills ?

Here's Otto Floto's opinion about Gunboat Smith shortly after his win over Willard:
"Next we have Gunboat Smith. A good, willing fighter with a wallop and not the least conception of the fighter's art. So far as science is concerned G. B. might as well seek knowledge of Queensberry methods in darkest Africa. He knows nothing more than to put up his hands and slug. Fortunately to date he has outslugged his opponents, who never knew any more about boxing than he did himself."

 

Rematch with Langford.

Jack Malaney reporting for the Boston Journal:
"In the face of the fact that Smith not only stayed twelve rounds, but won a victory over Langford, when they met before, his showing last night was mighty poor. He wasn't any more formidable as an opponent to Langford than a lot of lesser known white heavyweights have been. He didn't do half as well against Sam as Colin Bell did recently.
The left jab which helped so much to get him the award before was brought into play early. Judging from the way he used it last night, it could hardly be called a jab. It is simply his left arm extended out straight, with his fingers, rather than his first, landing on the objective point."

A correspondent reporting the bout for Pawtucket (RI) Evening Times:
"Smith was hopelessly beaten from the start. He looked worse against Langford than did Porky Flynn a year ago and the only thing that can be said is that he died game. The bell saved him from a knockout in the second round and though defeat stared him in the face he stood up before Langford's fire until knocked senseless.
Last November Smith outpointed Langford in 12 rounds at the Atlas A. A., but it was a different Smith and a far different Langford who fought last night. Smith has gone back several miles in the last twelvemonth and he had about as much chance with the black terror as a barge has against a battleship. The negro in the first bout was out of condition and roly poly. Last night he was in perfect shape, shifty, quick as a cat and with back and arms so stripped of superfluous flesh that his corded muscles stood out in ominously bold relief."

P.S. Other reporters disagreed with Langford being in good shape, he was clearly overweight.

 

Reports of Langford-Smith 1 can be seen in my blog - http://senya13.blogspot.ru/2012/01/1913-11-17-gunboat-smith-w-pts12-sam.html

 

"I think you are struggling here."

I am? When I kneel down for any reason and then have to get back to my feet on my old, arthritic knees, that is struggling. This is a fun exchange of viewpoints.

"McVey was not a teenager when he suffered his worst defeat to Johnson."

According to boxrec, Sam McVea was born on 5-17-1884. He fought Jack Johnson on

2-26-1903 when McVea was 18 years and about 9 months old

10-27-1903 when McVea was 19 years and about 5 months old

4-24-1904 when McVea was 19 years and about 11 months old

That makes him a teenager in America as we don't consider a youngster out of his teens until he reaches his 20th birthday.

In fairness, McVea was considered a top heavyweight and mentioned as a possible opponent for Jeffries. It makes one wonder about the quality of the heavyweight division in the 1903 and 1904 period.

"Martin was washed up at 21?"

You have a fair point here. Washed up is a very strong term, and I admit too strong. But let's look closely at what happened to Martin.

Martin was born on 9-10-1881

He ran off good wins in 1901 and 1902. He defeated Bob Armstrong on 7-25-1902 when he was still only 20 years old. He fought Armstrong again on 12-11-1902 in a fight boxrec lists as a newspaper victory despite Martin suffering six knockdowns. Johnson then beat him in 20 on 2-5-1903.

On 6-10-1903, when still 21, he was knocked out in 3 by Armstrong, a defeat I would think removed him as any kind of serious contender.

on 9-15-1903, five days past his 22nd birthday, he was stopped in one round by McVea.

He did rebound to later outpoint McVea, but I think was past it as a serious contender. By 1906, when he turned 25, he was being stopped twice by McVea and being completely "washed up" is probably a fair assessment.

I stick with viewing Fulton as a much more formidable contender over a far longer period.

"I don't consider Langford a true heavyweight"

When he was the colored heavyweight champion? What would this say about holding that title, and what does it say about guys like Martin and Childs back at the turn of the century? Most experts have always considered Langford by far the more formidable fighter.

"Johnson was 20 lbs below his optimal weight."

So. You give his weight as 187 which makes him a heavyweight. Some sources list 192 as his weight when he won the title. Langford was in the 150's in 1906 which makes him a middleweight. This is just playing games with words and weights and to me "optimal" means nothing at all in this context.

"You asked how many big, strong, young heavyweights Johnson faced?"

No I didn't. You brought that issue up. All I have said is that I'm more impressed with the big men Wills defeated.

"Wills never defeated Joe Jeannette"

Not by an official decision, but boxrec lists him as getting the newspaper decision on 10-20-1919. I will beat you to the punch by conceding this victory means nothing as Jeannette was 41. I still hold that Wills' victories over Langford and McVea starting in 1915 are more impressive than Johnson's wins over a middleweight Langford and a teenaged McVea.

I think I'll take a nap now after struggling so much.

 

Edward Morbius is holding his own.

 

Very engrossing debate to read.