Was McCaffrey-Sullivan a bad decision?

6 rounds were fought, as was scheduled and advertised in advance. The referee made no official decision at the end of the fight, no disqualification or anything. The claim of it being a 6-round draw was based on Sullivan supposedly striking out the "for scientific points" part in the articles of agreement, but as the referee couldn't get confirmation of this in time, and as the authorities prohibited anything but an exhibition 6-round bout, with no slugging or knocking out, he decided it in favor of Sullivan on points on Sept. 1.

 

Nothing further from you Mendoza?
Why am I not surprised?atsch

 

John L. Sullivan: The Career of the First Gloved Heavyweight Champion addresses this fight in great detail and uses three local primary sources, in addition to others. The chapter is called Mystery of the Seven-Round Decision. There was, and based on what I've read in this thread, still is, a great deal of confusion about this fight. The local Cincinnati sources, where the fight took place, do a lot better job of covering this fight and explaining what happened than do sources out of New York. Check it out.

I will answer the thread's question: Was it a bad decision? No, it was not. At least not based on what I have read.

 

The horse's mouth has spoken.:good

 

The book didn't use Peter Donahue's report for NY World and Amos Cummings' for NY Sun, though. It was kind of amusing to read Cummings' report, written in what would become a typical NY Sun style of reporting the big fights, when Mandigo and Hanna were the sporting editors.

 

Judging by your post count and overzealous infatuation with Johnson, I would say you do.

By the way Mr. Spell check, its progress, not " progess "

The good news for you is I am a busy man these days, and can't post as often as I'd like. So stop your childish celebration if I don't reply back within same day.

 

How about you address these points .

1.The NY Times did NOT have a reporter present, they relied on an AP report.

2.Unforgivable Blackness does NOT say Jack Johnson was lucky to get a draw.
I posted Ward's full account of the fight verbatim.

I ALSO POSTED THAT IT WAS THE CHALLENGER WHO WAS BLOWING HARD AT THE FINAL BELL

3. The French Federation had already stripped Johnson of his title BEFORE he fought Battling Jim because he was a convicted felon in the US . It had NOTHING to do with the fight.
They recognized the Langford Jeannette fight the next night, as for the vacant title and, inside a month stripped Langford ,and recognized Johnson again.

IT WASNT LONG AGO YOU TRIED TO CLAIM THIS WAS A
20 ROUNDS FIGHT, REDUCED TO 10 BECAUSE OF THE CHAMPION'S INJURY.

THAT WAS PROVED TO BE ABSOLUTE RUBBISH WHEN THREE NEWSPAPERS OF THE DAY WERE PRODUCED BY POSTERS.

YOU NEVER ADMITTED THEN YOU WERE WRONG AND YOU HAVEN'T NOW.

THATS THREE LIES YOU HAVE REPEATED ONCE AGAIN, AND THREE LIES I HAVE REFUTED.

ANY MORE COMMENT?

CAN YOU NOT BRING YOURSELF TO ADMIT YOU ARE 100% WRONG ON THIS SUBJECT?

WHAT A MISERABLE EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING YOU ARE.

 

Jheeeze Mcvey, give it a rest will ya. The way you post towards Mendoza would suggest people actually pay attention to his posts in the first place :tong

 

I hate a liar. Especially one with no shame about it.

This content is protected

 

Then you hate yourself MCvey, because a lair you most certainly are.

You contiune to ***** at reports you don't like. I will have to check out what Ward said about the Johnson vs Johnson fight myself. Do you have the page number, and did you quote in full context? Can't take your word for it.

But I am correct, the French did strip Johnson.

 

Liar? you cant even spell it ,you moron.

I've posted Ward's account of this fight three times on this forum.

Chapter 11 Entitled "The Fugitive", page 354.

Get someone to read it to you .You illiterate arsehole. And, once its been read ,and explained to you ,come back here and apologise for lying.

No you are NOT correct you said the French stripped Johnson because of his fight with Battling Jim Johnson this is a total lie , which I pointed out.

They stripped him because he was a convicted criminal in his own country and was on the run.
They stripped him nearly a month before the Johnson fight,and the night after Johnson defended against Battling Jim ,Langford and Jeannette fought for their version of the vacant world title.

Three weeks later the French stripped Langford and reinstated Johnson.

Now get this chapter read to you ,come back, and admit you were 100% WRONG.
THAT WILL BE A FIRST.

 

Mcvey,

Unlike yourself, I have other things and simply do not have the bandwidth to reply back to your drivel every time.

The French Stripped Johnson. I am correct. I could care less about the exact date, his efforts there were very poor and he was rightly booed for it in two fights.

I do not own UB, but I will read the Johnson vs. Johnson part. I have a hunch once again you are ignoring part of what was written or simply did not see it.

 

No you don't own it ,but you freely refer to it and quote from it though you've never even read it you buffoon .
YOU SAID THE FRENCH STRIPPED JOHNSON BECAUSE OF THE POOR FIGHT WITH BATTLING JIM .I PROVED THIS FALSE.JACK JOHNSON WAS BOOED FOR HIS FIGHT WITH BATTLING JIM BECAUSE THE AUDIENCE WERE UNAWARE HE HAD BROKEN HIS ARM IN THE THIRD ROUND ,YOU CRETIN.STILL WAITING FOR AN ADMISION FROM YOU THAT YOU ARE 100% WRONG.

Do you trace the letters and move your lips with the words when you try to read?
WHAT A PATHETIC MORON YOU ARE.atsch

 

Mendoza

I see you found time to post a new thread , but not to come here and admit you were wrong. WANKER!