Peter Jackson vs jack Johnson

Except Fitzsimmons didn't, he called Jeffries the best he had seen,he also said Johnson could have stopped Jeffries whenever he wanted at Reno. I agree it would be a good fight but there is nothing on Jackson's record that points to him winning it.

 

1 ) Your wrong. Siler did ref both Jackson and Johnson. He also saw them live, and wrote about them in detail in his book. His opinion here rules.

2 ) Your wrong again, here are Corbett'r ratings:


Jim Corbett (circa 1925)

Heavyweight Champion of the World (1892-1897)

Quoted in: Gentlemen Jim Corbett: The Truth Behind a Boxing Legend, Patrick Myler (p. 190).


1-Peter Jackson, Jim Jeffries

3-Bob Fitzsimmons

4-John L. Sullivan

5-Frank Slavin, Jack Dempsey

7-Sam Langford

8-Jack Johnson

9-Jess Willard

10-Tom Sharkey, Harry Wills

12-Charlie Mitchell, Kid McCoy

14-Jake Kilrain


3 ) There are news papers that describe Jackson's style. He was a fast 1-2 type of fighter with power and skill. You can't see O'Brien out jab Johnson on film because there is no, but the papers said he did, so just accept the facts.

4 ) I find it very funny on how you attempt to degrade Jackson's completion, but fight tooth and nail defending Johnson's who has more suspect moments, and beat greener or older men for his best wins.

5 ) The tally stands from observers who saw them both saying Jackson was better. 2-0.

 

No I'm right! Siler refereed 212 fights none of which involved either Jackson or Johnson ,his last officiating as the third man was the Marvin Hart v Mike Shreck fight in 1907.
Here is the proof!

http://boxrec.com/en/referee/401553

Do you seriously think Corbett was objective about Johnson's abilities? Or that the fact that he has 4 men that he beat in that list is a coincidence?lol.

N.B.
Something that you should know ,but obviously don't,Siler died 6 months before Johnson won the title.He never saw any of his title defences or 35* of his 77 fights!LOL

* N.B. Two of these were in Australia and Siler was in the US!
How do you feel now champ?


Done some more research,[I recommend it!]

More fights of Johnson's that Siler did not see.
Hank Griffin 4-11-1901 California.Siler was in Chicago.
Joe Kennedy 7-3-1902 California.Siler was in Kentucky.
Frank Childs 21-10-1902 L.A. Siler was in Chicago.
Black Bill 16-4 1906 Penn.Siler was in Nevada
That's another 4, so 39 of Johnson's 77 fights that Siler did not see.

We do know Siler saw Johnson v Klondike on 6-4-1899 whenJohnson was21 and ,as Siler described him ,"he didnt have a thimbleful of victuals inside him" We also know Siler saw Johnson fight Marvin Hart in1905 a fight in which Johnson lost the decision which Siler described as "exceedingly strange," and referring to it in his book says ,"Hart got the decision".

 

I really like Jackson. But that's only based on reports I've read. I have Jackson as a borderline top 20 heavyweight and Johnson top 5. The Tracy Callis article which someone linked was a great read. It encouraged me to research Jackson further. However, I have Johnson by conclusive decision.

 

By taking this post seriously I am inadvertedly insulting you.You realise that?
Langford was half blind after the Fulton fight in1917 and, for the 4 fights with Tate which he in lost NWS,his age was.
1920.37
1921.38
1922.38
1922.39

 

You are correct,I left that one out,as you know their first fight was a draw. Tate won the NWS in their 2nd encounter
Jan25th 1917 Just prior to their 3rd fight on May 1st1917,Joe Woodman Langford's manager said," Sam wasn't in shape for their first two fights,you will see a different Langford for this one." Langford made the pace from the beginning, crowding Tate and marking him up with heavy jabs,in the 6th round he laid Tate completely out.
Hope this explains things?

N.B .I never suggested record was everything, but can you tell me what is more important or relevant when discussing/assessing a fighter of whom there is no footage?

 

[/QUOTE]
Now amended to 39 of his fights.

 

Did I give you the impression that record is everything? It is a good guide,or don't you think so??
Look at both of their resumes and tell me who you think should win based on what you see?

 

I don't consider Corbett an objective source.Siler, as I have proven did not see any of the mature Johnson's fights and missed several before he was champ we know for certain he saw just 2, one when Johnson was a half starved 20 year old so how much credence can we give his opinion?. Fitzsimmons rated Jeffries as number one, not Jackson ,so where does that leave you?