Not in the detail you seem to be alluding to. All I've read is that Izzy won off the jab i.e outboxed him. What more was there to it?
There isnt, thats what happened. But Im sure our friend here will try to invent a conspiracy for why Jannazzo was able to beat him and it wont include anything having to do with Jannazzo's ability.
Search on this forum there's a thread called Cocoa Kid A Mystery No More. On that thread is a serialised documentary on the life and career of Cocoa Kid called Just Watch Mah Smoke. I'd you have a couple of hours read through it.
I have no theories whatsoever. I don't have any kind of emotional investment in Cocoa Kid or Izzy Janazzo. All I really wanna do is discuss which boxers people would pick to outbox him.
On a slightly tangential note, how do you go about getting a picture of a fight when there are dramatically different news reports? A specific example would be Mike Gibbons. Some fights are claimed by one paper an easy victory and by others a close fight he lost. How do you decipher the deviations?
That's one of my main concerns also. Maybe a certain sportswriter likes an action fighter regardless of how good ( Or bad) that action fighter is. Or Back in those days, most major cities were like their own country, with local sports writers and judges showing their favoritism to home town fighters. Boxers of those era's that were true "Super stars" may have gotten a fair shake in any city/ country but if you wasn't, it was very easy to give the fighter of your city or country win, though it wasn't the case.
I try to get all reports and generally try to find either a consensus or a majority. If the picture is really cloudy as you suggest all you can do is give voice to all opinions and walk away with the possibility that you will never know if fighter A or fight B won the fight. Some fights just naturally have a wide variance in opinion and that happens today in fights we can all watch. But to your example the most puzzling case Ive seen is Gibbons-McFarland. There was a ridiculously wide range of opinions for that fight yet most of that fight exists on film and Gibbons appears to myself to have dominated it. That fight and the newspaper reports of it I admit are a puzzle but in my experience its the exception not the rule. We have plenty of films that we can compare to fight reports and the pretty accurate within what we would consider the usual difference of opinion in a few rounds that again you see even today among writers or even people on this forum. Are we all always going to agree on every round? No. But we usually agree on the ultimate outcome. It was no different back then.