Was Johnson Close to Defeat in the Flynn Rematch ...

Like a fine stew, I have kept the lid on this thread for days, waiting for all the necessary ingredients to emerge and meld into something far greater, far more delicious than their individual parts.

Today, I finally removed the lid and the aroma and taste did not disappoint.

C'e magnifique!

 

Its one thing for newspapermen to question Johnson's stamina in that day an age (although I would submit he had proven himself against bigger and better men than Flynn in fights as long as the longest bout Flynn ever fought on numerous occasions). But when we today dont have to rely on what a white reporter who has probably never seen more than a handful of Johnsons bouts (at most) and who may or may not have also believed that because he was black he had no heart, or couldnt take it to the body, or had an abnormally hard head, AND we can actually watch the full fight, it seems strange that someone would ignore what he knows and what he can see with his own eyes, and wonder out loud if Johnson was close to defeat in this fight. So yes, I question the sincerity of the post. Anyone with one eye and half a brain can see that Johnson fought Flynn in the 9th the same way he did in the first and that Flynn was a bloody mess, with blood smeared all over his face and body, and that Johnson has not a tinge of fear or doubt. When we know today that an older, fatter, Johnson went 26 rounds (winning something like 20) against a much bigger, fresher, stronger, and more durable opponent it seems strange to question out loud whether Jim Flynn was wearing him down. But to each his own I suppose. If you think that if you squint hard enough you can kinda maybe sorta see Johnson starting to tire, and the blood soaked Flynn coming on, more power to you.

When youve got writers like Sandy Griswold claiming Johnson was battered for nine rounds in the most critical article of the fight I think we can say with a certainty where his allegiances lay.

 

Cor, that's French aint it!

 

I suppose there is a slight chance Johnson might have drowned in Flynn's blood had the fight gone much further.

 

Did I ever mention my own opinion on this fight in this thread, or, more exactly, what the result would have been had it lasted longer? I don't think I did. Whatever criticism there is, it should be directed at Naughton, Andrews, Floto, etc. I simply quoted the opinions that disagreed with the majority. As any serious historian knows, one has to look for all opinions, even if he disagrees with them, before drawing his own conclusion. I don't have 2nd volume of Johnson's bio, but from Pollack's previous books I remember him doing exactly that, just listing all opinions he found and leaving it to the reader to decide what he thought was the most likely version.

 

I'm shocked we haven't heard the argument that it was Johnson's blood smeared all over Flynn and that we can't see it on Lil Arthur because of his skin tone and the archaic film quality.

 

Who has had a go at you?

 

Well Mendoza spotted a black eye on Johnson in the grainy black and white 1909 film of the Ketchel fight so there is still hope!

 

Many a boxing referee would disqualify a fighter who was trying to head-butt his opponent so many times as Fireman Jim Flynn did in his world heavyweight title bout with the reigning champion, Jack Johnson. In the footage that I have seen of the bout, Flynn seemed very ineffective and had a lot of trouble landing a meaningful blow. As result, I find it very hard to believe that Johnson was ever extended to any great degree at any time during the bout.

- Chuck Johnston

 

The truth is void to a select few posters when it comes to Jack Johnson.

Agreed, both fouled. Flynn was the worse of the two. Fouling was in Johnson's nature, beyond normal clinching. He went low in multiple fights, pinched biceps when he clinched, hit on the breaks, etc...

News reads, pretty much all say Johnson was in the lead, but the fight was just 20% over and had 35 more rounds to go. I think some posters here are not taking the multiple ringside reports at face value.

Johnson didn't seem to have the activity level to beat Marvin Hart in a 20 round match. He was badly in decline vs Jim Battling Johnson in a 10 round match. Had Jack vs. Battling Jim been 15 rounds, we have a new champion. And of course, Johnson faded from rounds 17-26 vs Williard.

Flynn's face was a mess, but history shows if Johnson is matched vs. a game guy with stamina, he might fade even if he was the better in the early rounds.

 

Unfortunately for your argument we also have Jim Flynn's history and he never once in his life proved that he could defeat or wear down even a "B" level heavyweight over a long fight much less an all time great. And in fact had shown that he could be worn down and knocked out by a pre-prime Jack Johnson in 11 rounds.

 

Johnson had not fought for 2 years when he turned Flynn's face into a bloody mess. Johnson was only dsq'd once on a debatable foul against Jeannette.
Johnson was known as a clean fighter and several referees mentioned this including Siler,Rickard, and Welch.
Johnson did not go low in multiple fights as we all are aware ,he was allowed to hit on breaks in thefights where they became a factor as in the Burns,Jeffries, and Flynn fights,he was only ever cautioned once for doing so against the pre- agreed rules, in the fight with Moran,in which Moran backhanded and used his head.
As long as posters take your track record into the equation all will be well.Three years after the Flynn fight, at the age of 37, in stifling humidity, being well overweight ,Johnson went over 75 minutes of fighting with a giant,and was in front at the time of the stoppage .Johnson at the age of 35, having been out of the ring for a year and a half went 10rounds fighting to a draw with Jim Johnson ,the champion was fighting with a broken arm,somehow you always forget to mention that.

Two years after the Flynn fight and being 14lbs over weight Johnson went 20rds to a decision win against Moran ,at 48 he won a 15rds decision in a fight, there was nothing wrong with his stamina.

Flynn told a reporter before the fight that if he was in danger of being stopped he would foul out.
Please show which fights Flynn proved his stamina?
You are attempting to make bricks without cement here,nothing unusual about that.
The fault is in you, but we know all that . Please carry on in this vein you are showing you true colours to the forum.

 

What fights was Flynn in that indicated he had great stamina? In which fights did he go 20rds? Did he show that he could go over 75 minutes in a ring in tropical humidity?
Johnson did and he was 37 at the time.
Did Flynn ever show he could go 15rd rds and win when he was in his late 40's? Johnson did.
Did Flynn go 20rds at the age of 36, being overweight and out of shape, yet still win? Johnson did.

 

The NY papers relied on AP wire service reports .
Ringside reports,especialy the French ones say Johnson finished the stronger in the Jim Johnson fight, and that he broke his arm in the third round which is when he virtually stopped using it.Many didn't claim otherwise, a few suggested it may have happened late in the fight when they fell over but Johnson was almost one- handed after the 3rd and this was remarked on,which would suggest that this is the round the injury took place in. Johnson was in bad condition for the Moran fight and no better in the Willard one, look at the pictures of him in them.Johnson was never in top shape again after the Jeffries fight.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?...077,4121117&dq=jack+johnson+jim+johnson&hl=en