Peter Jackson vs jack Johnson

Your wasting you time. I asked McVey twice who felt Johnson was better who also saw Jackson in his prime.

I posted two names, Siler and Corbett. So what does he do? Go BoxRecing on a era he really does not know much about and question Jackson' competition!

The Slavin and Corbett that Jackson fought are better than ANY of Johnson's best wins, which Mcvey and I tend to agree was little Tommy Burns, all 5'7" 168 pounds of him.

 

Although this question was asked to Ice, I'll ring in.

1 ) Those who saw him in the era when he was in his prime should be primary on judging a fighter that is not on film. In this case both Siler and Corbett say Jackson was better. I have yet to see one name of a person who saw them both saying Johnson was better.

2 ) Quality of opposition beaten and faced.

3 ) Titles won, and was he avoided. Jackson was the British champion, a big title back then, but he was good enough to be ducked by John L Sullivan. That should tell us something.

 

No response from you on my informing you that Siler never saw any of Johnson's title fights,in fact he never saw 39 of his 77 fights or him in action in his prime! In fact we only know for sure that he saw 2of his fights, one when he was a half starved 20 year old !
Neither do we know what fights of Jackson's Siler saw.

N.B.Jackson was never the British Champion as I've told you before, he wasn't even eligible to fight for it neither was Slavin. Neither held it or fought for it.
They fought for the newly created . British Commonwealth and Empire Title.
There was NO British Champion until 1906 when Gunner Moir won the first one!OOPS!
Jackson's only top win is over Slavin ,that is 1. undeniable and 2. unarguable!

There is more dross on Jackson's record than just about any fighter you can think of!

101fights 42 wins 5 losses,3 draws only29 ko's!ko% 35%!

Where is this power?
Twenty seven of his opponents had never boxed before!
A further 20 had losing records!
That's 47 of his 101 fights against nobodies! Nearly half!
Do you now admit that Siler NEVER refereed either Jackson or Johnson?
An acknowledgement would be a courtesy!
You are one stupid person!

 

Ho hum,

You see, you have to keep moving the goals posts back. Its a weakness of yours. I asked who saw them both, and you do this because your down 2-0....

Siler died a few months before Johnson vs Burns, so of course he didn't see any of Johnson's lineal title fights, but he was a ref for Johnson and saw him outside of the ring many times! Siler was the 3rd man in the ring over 200+ confirmed times and was a writer on boxing before Sullivan vs Corbett! He knew this business as well as anyone from 1870-1908. He was also a former bare knuckle guy.

Stop acting like his opinion of who was better between Jackson and Johnson doesn't matter. It does, and his book written in 1907 spells it out. You might want to read it one day! DUH.

Secondarily it well noted that many older records are incomplete. If you were close to a historian you'd understand the records of late 19 century fighters are very incomplete.

 

I posted Siler's entire refereeing record neither Jackson or Johnson are on it!

Stop with the barefaced lying!
I've read Siler's book. I have posted not only Jackson's entire record but the two Australian champions that preceded him!
Now read this.
Jackson has 25 stoppage wins ,2 of them were on an injury ,one ,[Cardiff was an injured arm,]
another ,[Godfrey,] was as a result of a head collision with either the wall or floor, that leaves 23 ,of these 11 were against men who had never boxed before, and another 5 were against men with losing records,that's 16 out of his 23 over nobodies!
Add the two injury retirements and you have 18 so now that 18 out of 23 stoppages over nobodies / 2 injured .
Jackson has 2 note- worthy stoppages over Frank Slavin ,and Jack McAuliffe.
In contrast Johnson has 36 ko's out of 76 fights for a 46ko% and included in them are :
Flynn
McVey
Lang
Kennedy
Childs
Butler
Jeffries
Burns
Klondike
Fitzsimmons
Martin
No comparison as far as quality goes!
Still not prepared to admit Siler never refereed either Jackson or Johnson? You do know his entire refereeing record is on Box rec and I posted it!
Here it is again ! Now go through it and show me which fights of either Jackson or Johnson Siler refereed!

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

WAITING FOR YOUR REPLY!!!
You complete NONSENSE!

 

McVey,

1. Time precludes me from replying to your good post about the champions who preceded Jackson. Please bump the thread if i havent replied properly in the next month or so.

2. You ask which Australians competed with Americans when they went over there. Off the cuff and without giving any thought at all. Peter Jackson himself beat the top contenders. Fitzsimmons seemed to go half okay. Goddard was in the 4 when he fought there. Creedon did okay. Mysterious Billy smith was okay. Paddy Slavin was a good fighter. Which aussie fighters did John L Sullivan or Corbett beat to indicate that they might be a better class than the Aussies? Corbett vs Jackson was the closest to a unification fight we saw and it ended in a draw. Jackson vs McVey from memory would have been close to a unification fight and prime Jackson won. Fitz obviously blitzed the competition at middle and later heavy. He wasnt really a heavyweight factor in Australia and certainly would have been long odds to beat the likes of Jackson, Slavin, Lees and Goddard. He probably did improve from his middleweight prime, but he may not have. A modern fighter has 4 belts to chase. That means if they beat the 4th best fighter in the world they are a title holder. In the older times, The US, UK, Australian and perhaps the Coloured belt are a similar situation. This is why i say that the Australian title is the equivalent of a modern title. Jackson, for the record, won 3 of those 4 belts and drew with the eventual holder of the 4th, just prior to him winning his title, all whilest going on a about a 10 year winning streak. This entitles him to a pretty high ranking.

3. You are talking a lot about debutants. Records simply were not kept in these times. Newspapers did not record results of most fights. If there was no print media or sound clips that existed, and you just discovered a copy of Tunney vs Greb I, would you say that Tunney was crap because he lost to a debutante?

 

I'm away to Bergamo Sunday morning, back Wed night, so I'll bump this B.

 

Bump.

 

Bump.

 

Here is a good account of a Jackson v Lees barfight. And an account of the Jackson v Lynch DQ win to Jackson.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/120308544?searchTerm=tom lees&searchLimits=

Lynch who is described as a giant irishman is the prime example of the many incomplete records. According to Boxrec, his first three fights were George La Blanche, Peter Jackson and Peter Maher. All losses admittedly, but hard to believe a debutant would score three such opponents in his first three matches.

Incidentally, Boxrec has some awesome and growing records for fighters of this period. I dont know how accurate some of these are, but Bill Farnan's record is starting to look a lot more like you would think a fighter of his stature might look. Peter Jackson and Bob Fitzsimmons, both seem to have had some "newspaper decision losses" early on in their career. Mick Dooley by the way is one of the most underated fighers of this period.

by the way, did you know that (according to this article at least) that the belt that Jackson and Tom Lees fought for was actually 160 years old!
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/121174971?searchTerm=tom lees life story&searchLimits=

This next article contains an interesting quote from Jim Corbett about Peter Jackson being the cleverest fighter and also WF Corbett describes him as being the cleverest coloured fighter including Johnson and Gans. There is also a pretty good description of the World Title Scenario just before Sullivan fought Corbett. It shows why many of the australian And English papers considered him the world Champion. He beat the Australian Champion (Lees) The English Champion (Jem Smith) and the Coloured Champion (Godfrey). Sullivan (despite previously claiming the colour bar) also signed to fight Jackson at the California Athletic Club. Yet soon after signing, Sullivan reneged on the deal. The Jackson MCauliffe fight (one of Jacksons best wins) has an interesting back story.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/120300993?searchTerm=tom lees life story&searchLimits=

Here is a decent piece on Jackson. It shows what different times they were though. When he went to a place near Missoula, there was a Fort with 4 coloured fighters, who were stationed there to protect the locals from Indian Scalping! Also it is interesting to show how hard it is for boxrec to paint a picture of some of the lesser known fighters. "shorty" Kincaid is painted as a debutante on boxrec. There is nothing here of his record, but this article mentions him as a 6' 4 inch bruiser!

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/120303863?searchTerm=tom lees life story&searchLimits=

here is a little discussion on Peter jackson's exhibitions with Larry Foley and William MIller.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...m=wf corbett jackson chapter xi&searchLimits=

 

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...Term=wf corbett jackson chapter&searchLimits=

That one contains a quote from Bob Fitzsimmons who acknowledges that he himself was never in the same class as Peter Jackson and neither were the great modern coloured fighters, presumably Johnson, langford and maybe Wills.

 

Thanks for posting .I need to get some sleep up tomorrow at3.0am.

 

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...Term=wf corbett jackson chapter&searchLimits=

There is some really good discussion about Peter Jackson's technique. I found it interesting that he didnt drop his lead hand to counter the body shot, which suggests a high guard was probably part of his arsenal? This is interesting on the concept of the sport always evolving which was still a question even back then.

Also an interesting comment from Corbett who thought 10 Jack Johnson's would not stand a chance against a gorilla!

 

This one has a little bit of info about the Aussie "invasion" of the USA and names several fighters who were as successful in USA as they were in Australia. This supports the rough parity argument i raised earlier and supports the idea that at this time an Aussie title was on par with say a current WBO title.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...Term=wf corbett jackson chapter&searchLimits=

Also, here is a full link to the book which is mentioned in that article which talks about the influence of the Australian style on the American scene back then. Chapter V is on point for this discussion.


https://archive.org/details/kingsqueensberr00nauggoog