Jack Johnsons resume, why I consider him a top 5 all time heavyweight

It was a private fight ,or if you like brawl ,it took place in a ring,Price was I believe in his early 40s,Ive no axe to grind or point to make about the fight ,Johnson was an old man ,so no credit to Price ,Im just repeating an article Ive read ,thats all.

 

No problem. I might be excessively skeptical about these "fights" which pop up decades after the fact and which were not listed at the time.
Any fights Johnson had in the 1930's mean nothing anyway.

 

I quite agree.

 

I would say Machen's chin was better than Johnson's. It might interst some to learn that one of Machen's cornerman worked with Jack Johnson.

Young was not tough guy. He was just hard to catch up to. It seems that these safety first counter punchers rarely make elite heavyweights.

 

On the Battling Johnson fight, Dan McKetrick was quoted by columnist Ed Sullivan as saying this in the March, 1930, issue of The Ring Magazine:

"Johnson, that night, was fighting Battling Jim Johnson, an American negro, who was all arms, like Elbows McFadden. In the second round Johnson let go with a hook. His forearm must have landed right on Battling Jim's elbow for Jack's arm was broken twice clean
". . . with his title at stake, Jack Johnson kept on fighting and earned a draw with one hand. When he got back to the dressing room, he fainted dead away from pain. The doctor who set the arm wouldn't believe Johnson had fought with it. 'It is not possible for a man to stand such pain,' he said."

I don't know how accurate McKetrick's recollection is, but it does call into question the view that Johnson was not injured early in the fight, and he does claim to have been at ringside and in the dressing room. It is certainly possible that a fall in the last round aggravated the injury.

 

We can't know for sure, but the report I posted didn't suggest Johnson was nursing an injury early in the fight. The crowd thinks the injury happened in round 10. There is some confusion on the scheduled distance of the fight. I think part of that has to do with the 10 round ending. In France, it was typical title fights to go longer than 10 rounds. It is my experience that when a paper says scheduled for 20 rounds, it is 20 scheduled for rounds. More than one source reports 20 rounds. The news reports the next day after the fight do not mention the scheduled distance of the fight, rather they give the description of what happened from start to finish.


I do beleive that Battling " Jim Johnson deserved to win this fight, and claim the title. There was a lot of talk that Jack Johnson was no longer the champion after this fight in news papers.


Speaking of Jim Johnson I want to point out that he was one of those fighters who was much better than his record indicates. Jim was built like a tank, and had some skills. I have the video of Jim Johnson vs Sam McVey in approximately 3.5 rounds of action in their Parris fight. My copy of the film runs at a very good speed. Jim Johnson seemed to be having his share of moments and at one point jarred McVey with a solid blow. The honors in the given footage is about even.

 

I notice that evidence counter to what you want to believe is just ignored. My observations:
1. If the fight was stopped early and called a draw, why didn't the newspaper account explicitly say that? This would be a critical fact.
2. Why should McKetrick lie for Johnson? He was Moran's manager and he is recalling the events 17 years later.
3. Your account does not mention Jack Johnson landing any effective blows with his left after the second. It said he "feinted" with his left.
4. What does a poor performance against Battling Johnson prove anyway? Johnson was 35 and had been laid off for 18 months and had had only one fight in three years. Sullivan, Corbett, Jeffries, Dempsey, and Tunney did not win a fight within years of their 35th year. Johnson was old, inactive, and going back.

 

It was a lousy fight. Not all news reads catch the details. What is known in the news reads was Jim was the better. By the way, Jim Johnson was in the lead on one judges score card, while the other two judges could not make up their minds. This has been requoted before. There was a debate as to who was champion after this fight! I beleive the match was scheduled for 20 rounds, and Johnson quit in 10.

Did McKetrick say he was at the fight or is he telling a second hand story? He did not say he was at the fight, and never used the word I.

In some rounds Johnson did not throw many punches. What the report does say is the crowd feels Johnson hurt his arm in the 10th, not the second. This is the key point.

This fight proves many things.

1 ) It was the first all black gloved heavyweight title fight. It proves Johnson could fight anyone he wanted to in France. It has already been psoted that Johnson had real offers for a lot of money to fight the best.

2 ) Jack Johnson vs Jim Johsnon was perhaps the worst call in a heavyweight title fight of all time, especially if it was a 20 round match. Most think Jim Johnson earned the decision. He was robbed of the lineal title.

3 ) While Johnson was 35, he was a pretty good older fighter. The news report also says he was in good shape. The thing to focus on was Jim Johnson was nothing special. This leads me to beleive that had Johnson fought a more talented fighter, he looses his title much sooner than he did.

4 ) Old champs losing to up and coming champs do not look bad. No one faults Louis for losing to Marciano, or Ali losing to Holmes. What we have here is a champ with something left having a title match vs a journeyman, and no doing well at all. This is a negative towards a legacy.

5 ) Johnson had no interest giving re-matches as champion to other fighters who apparently either drew or got the better of him. This is another negative toward his legacy. Most champions try to avenge their dubious draws or losses. Not Jack Johnson. In those days, there was not mandatory ordered fights. The champion picked who he fought, and that was that. Most champions seeked out the biggest money fights vs the best talents, give or take 1 miss. Johnson had several ducks.

 

1. If the fight was stopped short of the scheduled distance, this is an extremely important fact. Why was it not mentioned explicitly in the news story? I would say the reasonable implication is that it was a ten round fight.

2. McKetrick said he was present, comments on the pain on Johnson's face after the second round and claims to have overheard Johnson telling his cornermen that he had broken his arm. He also seems to be claiming he was in the dressing room after the fight. And again, why should he lie for Johnson?

3. Even if he lost the title in this fight, he was 35 and well on the way down, much older than most of the other champs of the pre-modern era, and there seems to be no doubt he did suffer a severe injury. Johnson wasted his best years as a contender while Jeff and the others looked the other way. We can only speculate how many defenses Jeff would have made if he had only gotten a shot at the title in 1903 or 1904.

4. Actually, your newspaper account says that the Battling Johnson fight was a warm up for a defense against Moran, and then that Johnson was apparently expected to defend against the winner of the Langford-Jeannette fight. The broken arm put everything on hold.

 

because the fight took place in France, and we have a USA paper. I have not seen a conflicting report on the length of any heavyweight title match. There is a high probability this was a 20 round match because the French papers, who were there say so.

No, McKetrick did not say he was present in what you posted. He simply told a story. If he said I saw it or I was there, it is a big difference. I'm not sure if McKetrick was at the fight or not.

Judging on Johnson's ring results vs experienced fighters with a heavyweight resume, he loses badly. If you can't defeat Hart, Griffin, or Choynski you have little chance vs Jeffries. This is another thread.

This is a good point. I would point out that Moran never fought in France until 1914, and was busy fighting in the USA in 1912, and 1913.

Also, Moran lost to McCarty in 1913 and Gunboat Smith in 1912. Johnson did not fight either Smith or McCarty. He selected a guy who lost to them both in 1912 and 1913. Why? Well McCarty did not live long enough, but Smith deserves the shot over Moran for sure in 1914..

The important thing about the new read I posted is, it shows Johnson was lucky to escape with his title.

 

1. I will say again and again--it would be a singularly important fact if this fight was terminated short of the scheduled distance. The reporter would be incompetent if he did not mention such a fact in his story. The implication of his silence is that the fight was in fact scheduled for 10 rounds.

2. McKetrick--was Moran's manager--I would expect him to be present at the Jack Johnson-Battling Johnson fight if for no other reason than to scout Jack Johnson. This whole account starts with Ed Sullivan quoting a man at an early Carnera fight:

"I hope," sneered a ringsider, "that Carnera shows more heart than Johnson showed while he was fighting."
The dapper fellow sitting next to him turned on him.
"Say, listen, Mister," he barked, "don't let anyone tell you Johnson didn't have plenty of heart. He proved it to me one night in Paris, France, and proved it so convincingly I never questioned his courage again.
"Johnson that night was fighting Battling Jim Johnson, an American negro, who was all arms like Elbows McFadden. In the second round Johnson let go with a hook. His forearm must have landed right on Battling Jim's elbow for Jack's arm was broken twice clean.
"When he back to the corner, he was pale as your shirt-front. 'I've broke my arm,' he said. 'Don't touch it, it hurts something awful.'
"With his title at stake, Jack Johnson kept on fighting and earned a draw with one hand. When he got back to the dressing room, he fainted dead away from pain. The doctor who set the arm wouldn't believe Johnson had fought with it. 'It is not possible for a man to stand such pain,' he said.
"So never think Jack Johnson didn't have heart aplenty."
The dapper man relaxed. He was Dan McKetrick, the American who introduced boxing to France.

Well, there is the whole thing. Is it plausible Moran's manager was at ringside? Yes. Likely, in fact. Did he exaggerate his recounting? Who knows, but again, why would he lie for Johnson?

3. My point about Jeffries had nothing to do with whether Johnson could have beaten him or not. I was just asking what Jeff's championship reign would have looked like if he had been forced to wait until 1903 or 1904 to get a shot at the title.

4. It is nice to know that Johnson had no chance with Jeffries, but it is also interesting that Ben Benjamin of the SF Chronicle reported in August of 1903 that sources close to Jeffries had told him that Jeff would drop the color line for McVey, but never for Johnson. Billy Delaney in 1910 made no secret of his belief that Jeff was afraid of Johnson. I don't know, but what I do know is that despite all the bad blood between himself and Johnson, Jeff refused to fight Johnson while he was champion. Johnson was always eager to fight Jeffries.

5. Moran had lost to Smith back in 1912, and McCarty in 1913, but McCarty was dead and Moran had shot to the top of the heap with an impressive ko of the huge Al Palzer, considered one of the toughest of the white hopes. Moran was a bigger man than Smith and he had a bigger punch and would prove it over the years with ko's of Wells, Coffey, Cowler, Geyer, Goddard, and Beckett. While a good case could be made for Smith, by 1914 and beyond, Moran was the more dangerous opponent.

 

Because that is the name you formerly posted under, right?

Only my wife would be offended by that

I ran into the same issue with the 10000 character limit--I guess we are both a bit winded. But truthfully after a while with that format you can no longer responded to responses and so forth.

The onus is on all of us to be responsible in what we report and not take bits and pieces and interpret them as something they are not and then state it is the "truth".

I would repectfully say that IMO your posts are aimed knocking down the legacy of Jack Johnson--and I do not think your hypothesis' are valid.

You may have, I am not sure, but I haven't seen you write post after post about how Jack Dempsey's legacy should be "this or that" for fighting only six times in seven years, or for avoiding his number one challenger throughout his entire reign, nor do I see post after post of you attempting to discredit Jeffries for avoiding Johnson. I think it is fairly transparent to all who read these posts that you have a mighty big chip on your shoulder in reference to Johnson--if others on the board think I am off base, please do say so.

No offense intended, but I have attempted to debate with you in a ressonable manner and you repeat the same tired mantras. You talk abotu shedding light on things but you are attempting to do so with half baked info. I think it has been argued pretty well on this thread and others that the Jack Johnson-Jim Johnson fight was most likely scheduled for only ten rounds, yet in light of the reports posted by other, you continue to cling to the theory that it was a 20 rounder. How do debate someone who is blinded by their own want?

[/quote]

I think we all welcome them

 

Moran didnt lose to McCarty.it was a no decision,claiming another win to suit your agenda again Dr?McCarty had a nodecision fight with Farnk Moran in April 1913,over 10rounds,in May of that year ,on the 15th to be exact he had a4rnd exhibition with Fred Fulton ,9 days later ,on the 24 th he fought Arthur Pelkey and was fatally kod in 1 rnd.That doesnt give Johnson much time after McCarty fought Moran ,to arrange a match ,and fight him does it,less than three weeks in fact! Yet you say Johnson avoided him and took on Moran instead ,Ive told you before Dr ,your blind hatred is making you make ludicrous colaims without any rationality or common sensec behind them ,you are embarassing yourself,take up another interest,how about wrestling?

 

We have been over this before McClueless. Smith not only got the better of Moran, he also got the better of Langford and Willard in fights! In addition he had Johnson down and hurt in a sparring session. I posted the Johnson vs Smith report. Johnson’s manager had to cut the round short because Jack was down, and got up dazed. Otherwise it’s a likely KO. The fact that Johnson picked the guys Smith beat takes some luster off celluloid superstar.

Just to review, Smith got the better of

Moran in 1912
Willard in 1913
Flynn in 1913
Ross in 1913
Langford in 1913

Smith should have been selected as a title opponent before Moran or Willard. Duckage, thy name is Johnson….

 

Welcome back.

And this includes yourself. If you have information, this is a fine forum to share it. I get the feeling some people here ( Not saying you ) might have some information, but choose not to post it because it won't make Johnson look good.

Johnson legacy is being the first black linear gloved champion, and being a hall of fame fighter. I just think he is over rated in the ring, and have a mountain of evidence that suggests he was not a good champion. I have never seen any great champion have such a poor title run, struggle vs non-elite level guys, and duck the best 5-6 fighters out there while champion. Have you? Do you agree with this statement? Yes or no. If you say Yes, then Johnson is not an all tim etop 5 great. If you say no, then we can have an intersting conversation.

Wrong again. I think Jeffries might have given Johnson a title shot if he defeated Hart, and the money was right. It would have to be a lot of money, on par with what Burns received in 1908 to fight Johnson. History shows us that in prize fighting, ever man has a price.

I also beleive Dempsey should have fought Wills, though there seems to some politics going on that prevented a signed match from happening. And those politcs came from Johnson's negative title reign.

If you are attempting to undermine the facts, news reads, and conclusions that I post here by saying I have a chip on my shoulder, I view that as a lame attempt to discredit the truth. Anyone could play that card. I hope your better than that and do not need to play that card or switch topics which seems to be your early strategy. Having said that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Now, if you want to talk pure boxing on what I am saying, it could be interesting. Rest assured if you come up with some good stuff, I'll be the firs tone to say it, and will not call you a hater, or a attempt to take the conversation off on tangents because the information you giving me is too strong.

And I posted, as well as another that the match has a 20 round schedule. What would it mean to you if this was a 20 round match? Would it make me right, and convince you that Jim Johnson was robbed? Tell me what you think without graying the issue, and I will do my best to come up with more evidence to show you that it was in fact scheduled for 20 rounds.