Jack Johnson vs. Phil. Jack O'Brien - May 1909

Was hitting on the break legal in these contests?

If so, maybe it is a skill that modern fighters have no idea about and would really struggle with? If not, again, maybe the modern fighters might still struggle with the tactic, if an old time referee were used?

 

why give him a pass? he fought a shitty fight knowing he weren't gonna get knocked out. It was deplorable.

I'm saying that technically speaking, a 6 round fight means little to me.

 

Straight Queensberry rules allowed hitting in clinches and on breaks. That is where the phrase "Protect yourself at all times" came from. If the fighters wanted to modify the rules, they usually needed to negotiate it before the fight, and typically such a modification was announced to the crowd, or at least that was best practice, so that the folks knew if a fighter was being fouled or not. Sometimes crowds thought it was a modified rules with clean breaks fight, but it was not, so they might boo if someone got struck on the break. Hence you'll see reporters question why the crowd booed, and note that what the boxer did was perfectly legal. Generally referees favored straight rules, and did not have much sympathy for fighters who got hit during the fight, even on the break. Bottom line is it was a fight and a fighter needed to defend himself at all times, and if he could not, then tough luck. Sometimes they advertised clean breaks to satisfy the law, but wound up fighting straight rules anyhow.

 

Yes it was, he conned the paying public.
But, given the terms of the fight, perhaps they should have been a little less naive ?

 

no, as seamus said, it was advertised as a world title bout.

100 years on I can say it doesn't mean much when evaluating the guys career/skillset. but to those paying money, they'd every right to expect a better fight.

 

I'm trying to be friends here and play along.

His effort and or abilities in this fight do not fit the dominant and so hotly desired narrative here of Jack Johnson being an indomitable force. I am just trying to do my utmost to keep the narrative seamless and consistent.

 

His credentials to being a dominate force are certainly far and above that of Liston's.. that much we know.

 

your right, the way he performed in this fight does not fit with the picture portrayed by the day's media. I just don't put much credence in a 6 rounder, can't bring myself to do it.

Had O'Brien won 3 rounds and had 1 round even, would that make him the best hw in the world? I can't stomach that thought.

 

Don't be too quick to jump to conclusions about this fight. I'll have a great deal about it in my upcoming book on Jack Johnson. Lets just say there were many different perspectives on this one.

 

:good:good:good

 

Looking forward to it.

I'm starting to read another of yours this weekend.

 

I don't know how much weight you can put into this singular report.

There were press reports of a clear Johnson victory, others had it adraw and those who sided with O'Brien like this home town publishing would practically call it a victory for Jack.

 

The New York Times report was much the same for what it's worth.

 

Jack Johnson is known for taking his time with fighters and wearing them down in the longer term he did not win fights early very often. People tend to forget that Jack O Brien was good enough to be considered a former World Alphabet champion. Similar in standing probably to say, Hasim Rahman. Do those who criticise Johnson in this fight, also think criticise Wlad's performance against Hasim Rahman, which for all intensive purposes was a ND6 after 6 rounds.

 

what the absolute ****?

I must re-ask my previous question, are you high? :rofl