Johnson Says There Was No" Arrangement "For Ketchel Fight

Any moment of less than super-heroic performance by Lil' Arthur must be explained away not as an aberration but by exterior reasoning which can only be offered Johnson or his legion of apologists.

 

So, the apologists' blinders go as far as to deny what is empirically obvious to any viewer of the film, that Johnson did not block the knockdown punch with his glove, which means he was again a maker of fibs. But that is no surprise to anyone who read his story of throwing the fight against Willard, in all it's conjured details. What is also not a surprise is that his flock attends to every failing of his boxing ability and inaccuracy of his recollection with the most acute contortions of logic and interpretation witnessed this side of the Vatican.

Bravo. The script has been played well.

 

I really don't see how anybody could view that punch as landing solidily enough to cause the knockdown it did. Johnson appears to already be falling before it lands.

 

All we do know is Ketchel threw a punch, Johnson went down. He got up and immediately knocked out Ketchel. The rest is theory and conjecture and speculation. But there is some evidence from the film, as well as what others said and suspected, and what Johnson later said, that gives the indication that there was something a bit off about that fight. Johnson was either carrying Ketchel, or toying with him, or torturing him, or methodically and carefully breaking him, depending on how you want to interpret it. It was never easy to entirely peg what Johnson was doing. Whatever he did, he did because he wanted to, and it worked for him. Johnson could have been off balance when he was ducking and the punch landed and knocked him down, but it was more of an off balance knockdown He may have actually been caught hard by a punch he did not expect. After all, Ketchel was known as a true puncher. Or he intentionally went down to make the films more valuable, or to lure Ketchel into a trap. Either way, he obviously knew he wasn't hurt that bad, or not hurt at all, and was able to capitalize on a moment that he expected Ketchel to be careless, and therefore, he took that moment to nail Ketchel as he advanced. And those were some brutal fast blows, too.

 

Who cares what Johnson said. He tells a pack of lies so often, its hard to take what he says at face value.


I agree with you. The knockdown looks genuine. I also would add that Johnson had to roll over and brace himself to get up. When he attacked, he fell over, perhaps because he did not have his balance back from the knockdown.

 

LOL, the film show no blocking by Johnson's glove. Do you actually watch any of the films? Apparently not as you think Kessler out jabbed Clazaghe.

 

Because four keyboard jockeys on a message board think something is so, it is written in stone? Seriously? How many knockdowns have we witnessed that seem irregular but are never questioned? The classic knockdown punch to the point of the jaw is probably the rarest occurrence in the sport. Many times it is the glancing blow, or in this case a blow that appears hit the back of the head, that does the damage. And upon replay the neophyte always comments, "That didn't look so bad."

Notice how Johnson fights, stepping back continually as Ketchel moves to the attack, moving his back foot first, then his lead. Between these steps, Johnson is in a very wide stance, a bit off-balance, which is exactly where Ketchel catches him. Entirely plausible in any contest except one which includes Johnson.

Why is that Johnson's opponents carry a double-onus to prove their success against him, no matter how limited or fleeting? All results to the positive must be twice proven, first in the ring and then, impossibly so, before the court of his inquisitors. Such desperate rejoinders are why I love posting about Johnson. His champions are the most hysterical lot to be found and provide endless hilarity.