mcvey, I haven't implied you have, I just asked if you thought Jeannette was better in any department than Johnson? Johnson himself said he wouldnt care to meet to meet Jennette in a finish finish fight I don't think their series was that close. How would you expect it to be close when Jennette was an inexperienced pro. Take the 15 rd fight for example, Johnson had been a pro 9yrs and change, and in his 58th fight as a pro. Meanwhile Jennette, had only 18 pro fights and had never fought 15 rds and only in his 16th month as a pro. Why leave that out, I know, I know cos it would not be consistent with your storyline. All this information is readily available on Boxrec. Were you there, many including Pollack -"Johnson defends world 'colored' heavyweight title. Johnson 20lbs heavier. The local paper called it a draw, though it also said Johnson was the cleverer boxer and ring general and slightly outclassed Jeannette. Research done by Adam Pollack." Fights, of which Jeannette won one on ,a foul in a fight that didn't last a full two rounds,and he had conclusively lost the first round. Relevant fact ommitted Jennette was a 13 fight pro, Johnson 44 fights. Jennette 1yr as a pro, Johnson 9yrs as a pro. The best Jeannette could manage was a draw in one bout. Being dropped in several of the bouts doesn't appear they very competitive to me. I cant believe you are making something out of Johnson beating an inexperienced guy. Fight 1 3rds Jeannette dropped in each round so a conclusive win. relevant fact ommitted Jennette was 0-3 had been a pro only 5 months and change Johnson on the other hand was a pro 7 yrs and change and in his 39th pro fight. "Johnson - who attempted to knock out the first of two men on this card - dropped Jeannette three times in round 1, but after that his opponent stuck it out and gave as much as he took. In the end both the New York Evening World and the Washington Times declared it a very even fight. UPDATE: According to a consensus of the Philadelphia newspapers, Johnson won the bout. The Philadelphia Record and Philadelphia Evening Bulletin both awarded the bout to Johnson and the Philadelphia Inquirer account stated that "Johnson seemed unable to get to Jeannette with any of his blows effectively, although the New Yorker took the count more than once to gather his wits about him when the milling got a bit warm." Fight 2.Johnson wins the 1st rd easily but is dsq'd in the 2nd "According to the Philadelphia Item, Jeannette was winning the fight until he was fouled." Relevant fact- Jennette in his 14th fight, 1 yr as a pro, Johnson 45th fight and an 8yr pro Fight 3.6rds Jeannette is floored 4 times.Johnson had fought Young Peter Jackson 10rds the day before. Jennette 15th fight, 13 months as a pro, Johnson 47th fight and an 8yr pro Fight 4.Johnson described as having a big lead. in a 3rd fight, this is getting comical, "big lead indeed haha Fight 5.Neither fighter has an edge ,neither fighter tried to seriously hurt the other. Relevant fact: Johnson had been a pro 9yrs and change, and in his 58th fight as a pro. Meanwhile Jennette, had only 18 pro fights and had never fought 15 rds and only in his 16th month as a pro. Fight 6. Johnson is butted in rd 2 and suffers a bady cut eye, but wins. Johnson pro 8yrs and change and in his 56 fight, Jennette 21 fights as a pro and just under 2yrs as a pro Fight 7.A draw. Johnson 9yr pro, 58 pro fights, Jennette 22 fight 2yr pro. Since this person practiced 20 yrs he should know a 6 month -to- 2yr pro vs a ATG/HOF'r with 7-to-9 yrs experience should be no contest but apparently Jennette was getting better and better. Maybe if Johnson had fought him in 1909 things might've been different. What really amazes me is this series of fights with Jennette is being touted as a crowning achievement.
Yo Klompton! If you keep referring to a " public list " then post it here! Why not, it could be the best business decision you ever made? You are a business man who values money, Correct? LOL, I highly doubt you will....and I do not have your " Public list " Once again, it came from a collector who I will not name.....does it really bother you that much? Yep! But show us this " public list " Your move as always, yet you never move....CHECKMATE! PS: When I played I had a rating over 1550. Harley close to a master level, but pretty darn good
He clearly took a better punch than Johnson. He likely at least matched him on stamina and likely surpassed him in durability. Their fights became more competitive as Jeannette became more experienced. I am not saying he was better than Johnson but that he had different strengths and would create different match up challeges.
He was down an awful lot in fights,compared to Johnson,whether that is because his defence was nowhere near as good is difficult to say.Stamina/durability/taking a punch are 3 sides of the same coin,imo. So that would be just one quality imo. Jeannette was a very hard man to stop ,of that there is no doubt but he wasn't hard to floor.Johnson was an underated puncher but not a dynamite one, yet he dropped Jeannette multiple times ,so did McVey,neither could floor Johnson. Obviously Jeannette improved , I believe Johnson did too! Their last fight was in November 1906, 2 years later Johnson was the Champion, the added confidence that brought him should have improved him wouldn't you say? In passing, may I say I find your points reasonable and considered and a pleasure to address.
"mcvey, O wah, wah, "whyse ebbiboddi always pickin' on me", wah! YOU'VE DONE THIS WHINING DENIAL ACT BEFORE WHEN YOU WILL NOT ADMIT THAT MAYBE JUST MAYBE YOU MIGHT BE WRONG. YOU MISS THE POINT. LET ME 'SPLAIN IT AGAIN. 1-I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK OF JENNETTE 100YRS LATER. HE WAS A FIGHTER WHO DESERVES RESPECT AND WHO A 100YRS AGO WAS HIGHLY THOUGHT OF. 2-HERE'S WHAT I POSTED, "HIS CONTEMPORARIES THOUGHT WELL OF HIM" 3-CONTEMPORARIES-YOU DO KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS DONT YOU? PEOPLE WWHO ACTUALLY SEEN HIM FIGHT AND KNEW HIM PERSONALLY. 4-I POSTED VARIOUS QUOTES FROM HIS CONTEMPORARIES, INCLUDING JOHNSON, MCVEA, AND LANGFORD. 5-YOU KEEP BRINGING UP JACK "CLUTCH N GRAB" JOHNSON BEATING AN INEXPERIENCED FIGHTER. LIKE IT WAS A MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENT. 6-WHEN YOU LAID OUT THESE FIGHTS. I REPLIED WITH RELEVANT FACTS. WHICH YOU HAVE FAILED TO INCLUDE OR RESPOND TO. 7-YOU HOUNDED ME ON YOUR QUESTION ON THE JENNETTE THREAD, EVEN AFTER YOU GOT AN ANSWER MULTIPLE TIMES. I GAVE YOU AN ANSWER YOU DIDNT SEEM TO LIKE. THIS IS A FORUM WHERE BOXING IS DISCUSSED AND DIFFERENT POV'S SHARED. 8-OMG HOW MANY THREADS HAVE YOU RUINED???? 9-I AM NOT CHASING YOU, LET ME EXPLAIN TO SOMEBODY WHO SHOULD KNOW. I REPLY TO WHATEVER THREAD OR POST I FIND TO BE INTERESTING AND WHERE RELEVANT FACTS ARE "CONVENIENTLY' LEFT OUT. 10-ADDRESS THOSE POSTS- YOU SEEM TO BE ALWAYS IN DENIAL IF SOMEBODY POINTS OUT SOMETHING YOU ARE CLAIMING IS NOT NECESSARILY SO, COS YOU SEEM TO POST THINGS THAT FAVOR YOUR POST. 11-I GAVE YOU PLENTY OF EXAMPLES OF YOU BEING IN DENIAL. 12-HERE IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE, I HAVE STATED THAT JOHNSON FOUGHT AN INEXPERIENCED FIGHTER, AND HAVE POSTED RELEVANT FACTS THAT YOU SEEM TO LEAVE OUT TO MAKE YOUR POINT. SO WHY USE THE SERIES OF FIGHT 'TWEEN JENNETTE N JOHNSON, AS A SHIELD AND KEEP BRINGING IT UP. JENNETTE WAS INEXPERIENCED AND NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY OR ARTICLE YOU POST YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THAT, AND THAT IS THE TRUTH. ADDRESS THAT. 13-FOR A GUY WHO PRACTICED FOR 20YRS YOU SEEM NOT TO UNDERSTAND. WHEN AN INEXPERIENCED GUY FIGHTS A VASTLY MORE EXPERIENCED GUY, WHO WAS AN ATG, THE FIGHTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CLOSE. SO BY YOU ARGUING THAT FIGHTS WERENT CLOSE, IS REALLY A "DUH" MOMENT, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CLOSE COS OF THE DIFFERENCE IN EXPERIENCE. 14-EXPECT A RESPONSE, WHEN YOU KEEP BRINGING UP JOHNSON'S SERIES WITH JENNETTE AND STATING LIKE IT MEANS SOMETHING, THAT THEY WERENT CLOSE IS A DUMB STATEMENT, THEY SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN CLOSE. WHY KEEP BRINGING IT UP AS IF IT WAS A HALLMARK OF JOHNSON'S CAREER?
I appreciate this posting as not enough film exists to give a clear view of Jennette. For those not willing to consider what his contempories including Blackburn thought of him and how they compared him to fighters up to Louis, they disqualify themselves as seriously looking at boxing history.
Thanks T, I love it when mickey V, totally ignores that Johnson beat a way inexperienced guy and continues to post the Johnson - Jennette series as a great accomplishment by Johnson, it wasnt.
Who is unwilling to consider contemporary quotes on Jeannette? At no time during this debate have I said Jeannette was prime when he fought Johnson. At no time have I said Johnson's wins over Jeannette were major wins for Johnson. What I have done is replied to H.E . Grant, an excellent poster who puts his point rationally and politely, believes the Johnson v Jeannette series was close, I believe the contemporary accounts of those fights ,and I've read about 60 of them now , show that Johnson was the dominant fighter in them . The subject of the thread,the ONLY subject is. Whom if any of the following does Joe Jeannette beat over 15rds? Jack Dempsey Joe Louis Jack Johnson All fights to be when the fighters are PRIME Unfortunately one poster does not want to answer that question despite being invited to do so 4 times, he is only concerned with hysterically leaping to the defence of Jeannette's reputation ,a reputation that I have not attacked. What I said regarding Jeannette was, in my opinion he was slightly overated,I'll enlarge on that because my position has not been understood,[you could say willfully misunderstood but that would assume the stridently vociferous screamer shadowing me actually grasped the point of the thread in the first place and it 's far from clear to me that he did.] I do not think Jeannette was on a par with Johnson for defence or offense Neither when they fought, nor later when BOTH had improved. I believe their results against common opponents show that Johnson was Jeannette's superior. I consider and its only my opinion,that Langford was clearly superior to Jeannette ,and that between Jeannette and McVey,[ whom Johnson dominated 3 times out of 3 ,]there was no more than a gnats c*ck as far as talent and ability. So perhaps we can return to the subject of the thread? Whom of these three over 15rds does Jeannette beat, all fights when prime? Maybe you would care to answer my question?
FALSE, Ted Spoon did tell people he as seen it. I know this because he PM'd me on the topic after it flames up here when you said you saw it, but did not realize it was Langford vs. someone else! You do not know what your watching... I don't know if your ignorant to the facts or forgetful. Maybe both. And agenda drive ta boot. Fitz vs Ruhlin WAS filmed. You welched out of the bet. The bet was it was filmed, not how, when or by whom. Klompton can post his " public list " if he wants to prove something. I doubt he will even though its " public "
According to Box rec, Jeannete who had no amateur experience had only won 10 of his first 21 fights, yet he was getting close to where Johnson was in a short amount of time. HE Grant. is correct, Jeannette had a better chin by a mile, and I also think better stamina, heart, and power.
It's hard to compare who was better at what because each fought differently. Johnson was more defensively sound, Jeannette was more durable, Johnson had a better uppercut, Jeanette had a better jab and footwork. I don't see a reasonable dispute to who was more durable, I think that goes to Jeanette without question and like Johnson was more defensive. Jeannette did beat Johnson when Jeanette was VERY inexperienced and still had more physical developing to do and even in the other bouts he was troublesome for Johnson. Something Johnson himself admitted on multiple occasions at multiple different times. If they fought in a series of bouts in their primes, they trade wins and losses.
