Was Harold Johnson undeserving...

I stand corrected .. K Cobra and Klompton are currently battling it out in another thread ..lol

 

A very compelling post!

 

No, I'm out. Klompton called me every name under the sun for a mistake he made in his own post and refused to apologize. He ignores the links that back up the things I said as if I never posted them, his logic is inconsistent and his arguments are shapeless, he builds "strawmen" instead of arguing the things I actually said. I don't have time for this guy anymore.

He accused Moore of patently ducking top dogs. I acknowledged Moore not facing Johnson a 6th time but asked who these other top dogs were? He has yet to make a case for anyone, despite going on and on about all these tougher challenges Moore should have took. Amusingly, I'm the one who introduced Hecht into the discussion.

I believe Klompton is knowledgeable as most here are, however he has it out for Archie Moore and is trying to squeeze blood from a stone. I don't believe he has the fights he claims he does or at the very least to the extent he does. If so, what a waste. Some of his comments on that matter are incredibly immature.

 

I don't see why Harold Johnson should remain #1 during 1955 to 1956. He was inactive.
Yolande Pompey was an okay choice as a challenger.

I think Johnson deserved another shot at Moore but clearly it was a couple of years later when the complaint became a legitimate one.

On those basic points, Kentucky Cobra is correct.
And klompton is correct to say Johnson was unjustly avoided (just a few years later than his claim).

That's my take. But what do I know ?

 

RING certainly didn't. They had Patterson as #1 and Pompey as #2. Which would mean with Patterson and Moore meeting for the HW title, Pompey was the most logical choice.

Here are the NBA quarterly ratings from 55 that our friend says don't exist:

[url]https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1338&dat=19550707&id=1_NXAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pvYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=933,1580544&hl=en[/url]

They had 1. Johnson 2. Patterson 3. Pompey...as the only three Outstanding Challengers. Johnson of course would not fight for another 19 months after this listing was published. lol

 

Yes, it seems pretty clear cut to me.
Harold Johnson in 1955 and 1956 is not an issue to beat Moore with.
Sometime later, yes. But in that period, it's not at all reasonable.

 

"the guy was poisoned by the mob"

Another jumping to an unsustainable conclusion post.

Why would "the mob" drug a fighter before a fight when it would obviously be found out and lead to all sorts of investigations. And how many bets were down on Johnson vs Mederos?

Johnson claimed it came from an orange, but a surviving piece of the orange yielded nothing on chemical analysis. Off Johnson's story he was given the orange in the afternoon. How would anyone know when or even if he would eat it? If the orange in fact was the source of the drug. Or if he did eat it, if he might not refuse to go on with the fight?

If the orange were poisoned, it is much more likely that it was a nut case who had it in for Johnson for probably crazy reasons than a mob conspiracy. But really there is no evidence to go on. The investigation found-

1--Johnson had a barbiturate in his system
2--A piece of the orange did not show any barbiturates
3--Johnson passed a lie detector test.
4--The probe never did uncover who drugged Johnson or how the drug was administered.

It seems Johnson took ASA tablets for a headache. Could they somehow have screwed up because someone had barbiturates around and gave him the wrong medication?

What Johnson was suspended for was for not informing the authorities before the fight that he was sick and not in condition to fight.

 

Just found an article from 61, that also takes Moore side against the NBA.

Also, Johnson quoted as saying he doesnt want to fight Moore. Will post later.

It just doesnt seem anybody wanted Johnson vs Moore 6 but the NBA, who officially stripped him for activity, not for refusing Johnson mandate. Im wandering if the alleged demand for this fight is hindsight embellishment.

 

Much has been made of home cooking (for Europeans, but not for Johnson who during this period fought only in America), but just a point. There just seems to be a home advantage in sports. For example in three of the four major American sports leagues these are the winning percentages of home teams-

NFL--58%
NBA--59%
NHL--57%

Now this home advantage is in leagues with standard playing surfaces and the same league officials who officiate both home and away games. Just having the home crowd, among other factors, seems to lead to a big advantage.

(baseball is 54% home field advantage, but as the home team has the advantage of batting last, and ballparks vary in their field dimensions, I wouldn't use baseball as a measure)

My conclusion would be that in boxing the home guy has a significant advantage independent of officials or "hometown" decisions.

 

Bernard Hopkins

Whether Moore matched Hopkins as a 40+ performer has nothing to do with anything on this thread.

I think a more pertinent issue is whether Moore accomplished more at light-heavy after 40 than Johnson did after 28.

Johnson fought nothing but journeymen at lhw from 1956 to 1960. Whatever is said of Moore's competition, they were higher rated. In 1961 Johnson finally met a top man in Eddie Cotton, but Cotton had already lost more decisively to Moore in 1957. Moore fought a draw with Pastrano (at heavy) but Johnson lost to Pastrano. If Johnson has any edge on the 40+ Moore at all, it would be his wins over Jones and Scholz in 1962, but these are counterbalanced by Moore's wins over Pompey, Anthony, Durelle, Rinaldi, and Ignacio (who beat Mina and Peralta).
And Moore was willing to go to London to fight Pompey. To go to Montreal to fight Durelle. And to go to Brazil to fight Ignacio.

 

Moore and Robinson

"These two fighters largely stagnated at the end as they looked for easier fights and in boxing terms they became less relevant."

Okay, but Moore was trying to arrange fights with Johansson and with Robinson. They didn't come off.

But what about Johnson? You totally ignore that his opposition from 1956 to 1960 is weaker than Moore's. What about his stagnation?

And of course he couldn't fight in Europe for "peanuts"

but could fight Ollie Wilson (10-12) at Fort Guard Hall in Hartford, and Johnny York (8-11-1) in Wahcomah Park, Pittsfield, Mass. Those must have been big paydays.

In fairness to Johnson, after his years of sitting on his number one ranking and "stagnating" to use your term, he did in fact go to Berlin to risk his title against Gustav Scholz, and later, when he had nothing to lose, went to Europe to fight Pekka Kokkonen and Lothar Stengel. Your "corrupt" Europeans gave Johnson the wins by decision in all three fights.

"have you seen the Mike Holt fight"

Yes. You leave the impression that Durelle lost or should have. What I see is Holt getting knocked down in the 8th, getting up and walking to a corner, with the ref grabbing him and apparently holding his gloves. Holt then drops into a squatting position by the ropes. Durelle slaps him with a punch that seemed merely to brush Holt. Holt then takes a count. I don't know if this was supposed to be one knockdown or two. If I were the ref, I would not have DQ'd Durelle, but would have penalized him a point. I don't know if Holt knew where he was. His behavior is strange. He takes a few more from Durelle after he gets up and then retires on his stool after the round. Durelle took punishment but Holt took more punishment.

There is also an interesting film of Gustav Scholz and Jesse Bowdry on youtube. Perhaps someone can bring it over.

 

You have brought up some good points in your last 3 posts.. Quote Klompton so he will respond!!

 

"I'm wondering if the alleged demand for this fight is hindsight embellishment."

You are right. The talk with Moore was for fights with Johansson or Robinson, or even Fullmer. There was no groundswell of support for Johnson because he simply was not fighting opponents who could keep him in the public eye.

I am looking forward to your post of that article.