Yes , same age as the Heavyweight Champion at 31. Luke McKernan . Hi there. I'm a film historian, specialising in early and non-fiction film, with an equal interest in new media and digital futures - and all points in between. I'm also Lead Curator, Moving Image at the British Library. file . According to this gentleman, the Jack Johnson v Ben Taylor fight 31st July 1908 ,, in the UK was filmed.
O Brien was the undefeated Light Heavyweight Champion when he fought Johnson. He was 31 years old, same age as Johnson , and would go on to beat Flynn,and Schreck.He was pretty good in 6 rounders having beaten Schreck,Choynski,and drawn with Hart.[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQFoxxAeywg[/ame] This was a 20 round draw in 1906 ,3 years before he fought Johnson.It can be seen that Burns had as much difficulty catching O Brien ,as Johnson is reputed to have done. Jim Jeffries is the referee he was later asked who he thought was better ,and he said O Brien!
Why? There are two boxers in the ring, not just the champion. Why wouldn't the other boxers qualifications to fight for the title have anything to do with whether a contest is viewed as being for a title?
Johnson best filmed performance is Burns. Who says Johnson's best weight was 208? As for Burns, he was at low weight for this fight, and ill. If anyhting Burns needed extra weight in this fight. Instead he came in at his lowest weight in a long time. So you like the Cyber Boxing Zone, eh? Tell me then, what was the duration in the Johnson vs. Johnson fight according to them.
Right, you do it often. You are a guy who claims he always roots for the better man, and you also claim to have a 139 IQ. Nice work. Let's stay on the subject here, shall we?
So you are comparing a 6 round match to one that scheduled for 20 or more? Come on now, if the pace was only 6 rounds, Jeffries and Fitzsimmons fight differently. As it was Fitz, who might have loaded his gloves was taken out when Jeffries decided it was time to press it. Besides, Fitz was far better than O'Brien was in terms of accomplishments in the ring, and a much better pound for pound fighter. Over Langford, Jeanette, and Mcvey in 1909? I think not. O'Brien did not have much left in 1909. Indeed Ketchel clocked him, then he lost two 6 rounds decisions to a Al Kaufman and those fight took place less than a year after O'Brien meet Johnson. This leads me to believe O'Brien who had tons of fights was on the decline when he meet Johnson.
Johnson's best filmed performance is a matter of opinion,some might say his total domination of Jeffries. You have been repeatedly asked by various posters to back up your claims with a primary source you have not done so . I corrected you on Johnson's weight for the Willard fight and your stupid assertion that Jack Dillon was a viable opponent for him .You did not reply I didn't expect you to, admitting you are wrong is anathema to you. I have had three P M's this week, from posters laughing at your outlandish claims ,you are a joke, and the only one, not getting the punch line is yourself. I gave you two posts from the CyberZone, saying Burns best weight was 174-175 which makes your claim of him being 15 pounds underweight total nonsense. You are in a deep hole stop digging ,you moron atsch This content is protected
If O'brien somehow Ko'd Johnson, do you think he is the next heavyweight champ? I do. My definition is anytime the lineal champion is in the ring in a non exhibition match, his title is on the line. Box rec says this is a world title match. I sure others would agree. Is that enough for you? Read what I posted again. More than one paper / reproter thought O'brien was the better. The fact that O'brien who would get creamed by Ketchel and out boxed by the likes of Kaufman post Johnson suggests he was on the decline..yet that was enough to make things close vs a prime Jack Johnson? Use any paper you wish. The fact that O'Brien was competitive here does not enhance Johnson's legacy. Quite the reverse. That is my point.
This is the last time I will correct you on my IQ ,which you originally referred to.It was 135 not 139. Next Rainman:good
this is heating up! at least those of us (like myself) that don't know the era well (other than ken burns film) are getting to learn a lot on both sides of the argument
J.J. fought during an erratic era... STILL! I love this champ and his career, as well as his legacy... He was great... I rank him in my top-5 ATG list of heavy champs... He was odd and special... His overall competition was fine... I wish Hollywood would do a modern feature film of his life story in boxing, etc... MR.BILLhat
In terms of boxing achievement, the win over Jeffries proved very little. But in terms of social and political relevance, it was probably the most important and most anticipated boxing match in history. By the way, Johnson has never been a KO artist, An analogy acn probably be drawn of his style to that of Floyd or Whitaker in the sense that they could not KO fighters that are KOed by much lesser fighters.
You produced NO primary source to support this, nor can it be found in either of the two acknowledged most authorative biographies of Johnson.Papa Jack, and Unforgivable Blackness . I have footage of Burns sparring with Al Kaufmann, 9 days prior to facing Johnson ,he looks in fine shape and drops Kaufmann. This content is protected Johnson sparring with Sam Langford and toying with Jeffries. This content is protected