Whch other lineal heavyweight champions could Tommy Burns have beaten?

"a guy like Hart doesn't even get respect when he wins"

I disagree. Chris Pontius is currently working on a consensus top 100 and Hart is in the sixties. It certainly isn't because of any of his other fights.

"it seems as though the NYT commentator thought the injury occurred in the final and not third round"

But does he know? Dan McKetrick, who was in Johnson's corner said in the Ring Magazine March 1930 issue that Johnson broke his arm in the second round and was in intense pain for the rest of the fight.

McKetrick claimed to be in Johnson's dressing room and described the scene thusly:

"When he got back to the dressing room, Johnson fainted dead away. The doctor who set the arm wouldn't believe Johnson had fought with it. 'It is not possible for a man to stand such pain,' he said."

 

This is an old argument and i intend to look up the french and British papers to put it to bed. I HAVE seen a primary source that listed the fight as a 20 rounder(a USA paper of 19th December) but i believe this to be an error. I have never seen a next day report that said the fight was called off early. people weren't dumb in 1913 Europe, you know. Johnson was crap(both!) and Jack would have lost if it went much further and the crowd booed the affair feeling it was a fix.

 

BTW to be fair to Mendoza, dispite his over-zealous persual of this fight as a kink in Johnson's legacy, the French public and boxing people had many who considered Langford's win(the next day?) v's Jeannette, as a World title fight.
I can't prove it but I think the Johnson fight was just a money affair for both the fighters and means little in a pragmatic world. You needed money in 1913 Paris to party.

 

I find it most unlikely that any report of this fight would not have raised a royal stink about it being stopped early to save the champion.

I will be waiting with interest for the result of your research.

 

Am I missing something? The "Burns-Johnson" fight was held in Austraila on December 26, 1908..... The Police stopped the bout somewhere around the 14th round as Burns was taking a beating by Johnson...:huh

MR.BILL

 

Yep, (glasses maybe?).

 

Wow. One guy. I stand corrected. My point is that when you bring up the Hart-Johnson affair, the kneejerk reaction is "ohh.. robbery", often repeated with such conviction you would think said commentator was at ringside.

I will take the New York Times reporter over the guy working Johnson's corner. It's called objectivity.

Plus, what does it matter when the arm was broken. If a broken bone causes the end to the fight and it's your bone, you lose. No freak natured thing about it. I can think of many similar incidences in fights. I've even seen it live. Now, if it was a scheduled 10-rounder, it still sounds like he lost, but again, I don't hear the rabble over that I do over the Hart fight.

 

WTF?:smoke

Where we at here? "Burns-Johnson" was the day after Christmas in 1908 down in Austraila.... Paris, France, was indeed later on.... Those fights in Europe were just "Run-For-The-Money" type fights....:tired

MR.BILL

 

"Wow. One guy."

One guy is the meaning of consensus?

"if a broken bone causes the end to the fight and it's your bone, you lose."

Yes, but the point I am making is that no one provides strong evidence that the broken bone caused the end of the fight. The New York Times article does not imply that. If you have such evidence, provide it. The fight seems to have gone the scheduled distance.

Dan McKetrick was not working Johnson's corner. He was Frank Moran's manager and was sitting at Johnson's corner, or so he claimed. All I would say is that there is conflicting evidence. McKetrick does claim inside knowledge. The two versions are not mutually exclusive. The bone could have been cracked early and then broken completely when the two men fell in the 10th. I notice the reporter says that Johnson feinted with the left, but did he hit with it?

"I don't hear the rabble I do over the Hart fight."

Well, this is a 35 year old champion who has fought only once over the last three years because of legal troubles. Whatever one thinks of this fight, he bounced back to beat Frank Moran and outpoint Willard badly for 20 rounds. Johnson had beaten almost everyone who was anyone in the heavyweight division for over ten years and would continue to win fights well into his mid-forties against decent opposition. Many of the most respected experts of the time considered him the best of his time. His poor performance in the Battling Johnson fight in which even the New York Times reports a physician confirmed a broken arm does appear to be a fluke. If he had lost the title this way, so what? I don't think it would lower his historical standing.

As for Hart, his victory over Johnson seems a fluke in the other way. Hart's record is pocked with defeats, such as the ko loss to George Gardner, that make me doubt his quality. There was scant interest in seeing him challenge Jeffries even after he upset Johnson. He won recognition as champion by beating a former lightheavy champion who had also been badly beaten by Gardner. He lost the title to Tommy Burns in his first defense after negotiations for Burns to fight for the middleweight title had fallen through. He faded quickly from the title picture. Ringside opinion was split on the justice of his win over Johnson, but my take is, fair or not, it is one of the more fluky upsets in heavyweight history.

 

Anybody speaks French here?


Jack Johnson contre Jim Johnson
------
MATCH NULL

Le nègre jaune Jack Johnson, l’ironique et splendide vainqueur de Jim Jeffries, rencontrait, au Premierland, le massif, puissant et courageux nègre noir Jim Johnson. Et Jack Johnson dont on attendait une victoire facile, écrasante, supérieure, a fait match nul avec ce Jim qu’on considérait comme un adversaire trop facile.

Le « match nul » est encore une décision heureuse pour Jack, car si durant les cinq premières reprises il eut sur Jim, paralysé d’appréhension, un avantage net, à partir de la sixième reprise il perdit la direction du combat, n’attaqua plus et perdit une à une toutes les reprises et, surtout et de loin la dernière.

L’assistance déçue n’a pas goùté la beauté particulière de cette rencontre, au cours de laquelle celui qui avait, dans un style magnifique, conquis contre Tommy Burns et conservé contre Jim Jeffries le titre de champion du monde, s’efforça, aprés trois ans d’imprudente inaction athlétique, de faire revivre d’un seul coup tout un glorieux passé. Et je ne pus, lorsque vers la septième reprise, je lus, sur la face décomposée de Jack Johnson, l’angoisse de la défaite, m’empêcher de penser aux minutes douloureuses par lesquelles passa Jim Jeffries, dont toute la blanche Amérique attendait avec anxiété la victoire sur le nègre détesté, quand il se sentit vaincu, à la merci de celui qu’il avait appelé « le chien jaune ! »

Ce ne fut pas de la belle boxe – et, cependant, tant que Jack – au corps splendidement proportionné – fut souple et vif sur ses jambes, il fit de fort jolies choses ; il a notamment de remarquables attaques du gauche, un doublé spécial très rapide, presque imparable, qu’accompagne, dans le « clinch » qui suit, un uppercut court et redoutable.

Mais Jack n’avait pas encore retrouvé sa forme, et un boxeur, quelle que soit sa valeur, ne répare pas trois années passées hors du ring.

Et puis il faut ajouter que Jack Johnson fut à la cinquième reprise victime de sa colère. Sur un violent swing du droit de Jim, il se fâchait, partait en force par un swing du gauche au flanc, rencontrait le coude de son rival, sur lequel il se fracturait le radius. Dès lors il ne pouvait plus boxer que d’un point, le droit, et par suite dut n’opposer à son énorme adversaire qu’un jeu défensif.

Il s’y employa avec courage, et cependant que la victoire s’éloignait, et que Jim, la sentant venir à lui, redoublait d’audace et d’impétuosité, Jack renoncait à son sourire et son visage trahissait une émouvante angoisse et une pénible tristesse, car le public – féroce – accablait alors d’imprécations celui qu’il était venu acclamer.

Ce fut sinon un beau match, du moins un combat sincère, tout à fait sincère. Et cette constatation était suffisante pour que l’assistance se montrât moins sévère, et plus juste dans ses manifestations.

 

My french is a bit rusty, but with extended help of a dictionary this is my take on what the article says:

"The negro Johnson, who defeated Jeffries, in Premierland awaited the courageous and strong negro Jim Johnson. However, compared to Jim [Jeffries], this should be an easy opponent.

The <draw> is a decision that Jack should be happy with, who during the first five rounds was having his way with Jim, but from the 6th started losing direction and did not attack any more.

Johnson had a nice style with which he conquered Burns and defended the title against Jeffries, but now tried to recover from three years of inactivity and look as good as he did. But by the 7th round, Johnson's broken face read defeat, which reminded me of the last minutes that Jeffries spent in the ring with Johnson, when all of White America wanted him to beat the hated negro, who was called <the yellow dog> !


It wasn't beautiful boxing, but Johnson, with a splendid proportionate upper body, was swift on his feet and quick with his left, which he could double up very fast, often accompanied by <the clinch>, and a frightening uppercut.

But Jack had not recovered from the lay off, and no matter the value of a boxer - no one repairs three years of ring rust.


In the 5th round, Johnson got mad as a violent right swing from Jim met the elbow of his rival [the left is also noted, but i think they're refererring to the left side of Johnson], fracturing the radius. From that point on, Jim's enormous rival had to play defensive.

Jim got busy and encouraged, but felt victory slip away, so he doubled his audacity, while Jack's smile betrayed in the sense that he was hiding a major disstress. The public became wild towards the end. [i'm missing half of what's being said in this paragraph]


It was not a beautiful match, but at least sincere combat, completely sincere. And this observation was sufficient."


Again, take it with a grain of salt, but one thing is clear: according to the article, Johnson hurts his arm in the 5th by blocking a right or left, wild swing and since then had to fight defensively, while seeming to have an easy time during the first five.

At no point was there any mention of Johnson retiring from the fight or the fight distance being shortened. It was said that the draw was a good decision for Jack, however. What confuses me a bit is that twice it's being mentioned that Johnson was out of the ring for three years and had some ring rust, but at the same time, his speed and fluidity are praised.

 

Mendoza won't beleive that.Interesting that the fight was CONFIRMED as a TEN ROUNDER.Which suggests that Johnson was not saved by the fight being shortened.I broke my wrist in four places in a fight once ,it didnt really register how bad it was till after wards,the next morning was pretty grim though.

 

Thanks for translation, I don't know French at all. The above piece was from Le Figaro. I think there was something in L'Humanite about this fight as well, and large articles about Langford's fight next day too.

 

Well done, Senya. I was about to post the following!


"Jim v Jack Johnson in Paris.Translation Needed!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of controversy has existed over the Battling Jim Johnson-Jack Johnson fight in Paris on the 19th December, 1913, vis-a-vis was it a legit title fight, a fake, scheduled for 10 or twenty, who won it, etc. I have a transcript of a report in French from the next day from the leading French paper "La Figaro" but my French is weak. Anyone out there care to translate and put this matter to bed?"

A bit from the day before the fight that absolutedly confirms the 10 round duration;
"Jack Johnson...un combat un dix reprises de trois minuies contre le nergo Jim Johnson." LaFigaro, Dec.19th, 1913.
Clearly 10(dix) rounds(reprises) of three(trois) minutes.

 

Thank you Senya, Chris, and mattdonnellon.

The day of the fight quote from LaFigaro does seen to lay to rest the premature stoppage argument, and the description of the fight indicates that the injury was the critical factor in getting Johnson in trouble.

I think the evidence so far points to a courageous performance by Johnson to go at least five rounds with a broken arm to retain his title.