Why Is Jack Johnson Given Credit For Beating Jeffries

Exactly. If Johnson struggled vs. Hart, he would be no match for Jeffries in 1905-1906. Though it gets no press, Jeffries staged his own boxing come back try out for a comeback in 1909 with VanCourt ( An Los Angles bases boxing guy ), and Jeffries looked horrible.

I doubt many here have seen the multiple rounds footage of Jeffries vs. Johnson, but the fight was close enough until about round 11 when Jeffries began to fade. Johnson only went in for the ending after Jeffries could not hold his hands up in round 14.

Documentary type like Ken Burns will have you believe Johnson defeating Jeffries was like Ali defeating Foreman. More along the lines of Holmes defeating Ali.

 

He was on his feet when he was stopped by tko against Klondike,in1900.
Kod in 1901 by Choynsky a terrific puncher,he then went another 14years without being stopped at the age of 37 after 26rds,then another 11years before being stopped at the age of 46.

Smith did not ko Johnson,he put him through the ropes,you can read Smith's own account of the sparring session in Heller's," In This Corner".
He had a broken radius bone against Johnson, at no time did Battling Jim have him on the floor.
Willard wore him down , and it took him 26rds to do it.there were no knockdowns prior to the finish.

A year after drawing with an injured Johnson ,Battling Jim drew with Jeanette

There a questions surrounding the Ketchel fight,but ,assuming it was on the level,Ketchel twice kod Jack O Brien, though he was once saved by the bell.

O Brien, in 188 fights was stopped 4 times ,once by a novice 220lbs guy he was taking liberties with, once by Langford, once by Ketchel ,and once by Young Peter Jackson . The only ones to acheive a count out against him were Ketchel, and Limerick the 220lbs heavyweight.So, if the Ketchel /Johnson fight was on the level it would appear that Ketchel has sufficient power to drop allmost anyone.

The reason Johnson was a cautious defensive minded fighter was ABILITY.What Chance would 5 foot 7 in Langford have had if he stayed off from his opponents ?
Sam did not possess Johnson's boxing ability.

Harry Wills was knocked spark out several times , once by Johnson sparring partner Kid Cotton , was he chinny?

 

Dont ask me bud, theres plenty of ironic moments in boxing I'll never understand. Johnson gets credit, but Willard doesnt. Dempsey's called a draft dodger, but Willard more than went out of his way to avoid WW1 claiming he was too big and joined a traveling circus for $100,000 while he was champ. But u never hear draft dodger talk about Willard.

 

Read NY Times coverage of the Johnson/Johnson bout ...
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9806E1D6103FE633A25753C2A9649D946296D6CF

KO'ed by Klondike.
KO'ed by Chonski. Out Cold
Flattened by Smith to the degree that his manager stopped the sparring. Down and out. Could not continue.
Decked by Ketchel
Out on his feet v.s. Jim Johnson
Flattened by Willard ... out cold ..

I happen to be a huge Johnson fan but let's deal with facts ... he was a cautious, safety first guy , like Jones and Hopkins. His chin was not granite. He went all the years without losses because of his other skills and by not fighting the best fighters after 1910 ...

 

He was tkod by Klondike on his feet at the time of the stoppage ,not "flattened and did not get up", deal with that fact.
He was kod by Choynsky whom he ,Jeffries, and Corbett named as the heaviest hitter they ever faced.
READ Smith's account of the sparring session.
He fought Johnson with a broken arm
Flattened by Willard when past his best at age 37 after 26 rds.
Jonson's style of fighting had Jack **** to do with his chin.
76 fights without being stopped in all those years ,were they all non punchers?
After losing the title at 37 he went another 11 years before being stopped, when he was 46 ,and he retired in that one ,and was never down.
I never said Johnson was a Chuvalo ,but he was hardly chinny, there is a poster on here who has a mania for Johnson and will glibly state he was deficient in just about all areas of the game .Chin ,power,courage,skills you name it.Add to that he was, white slaver, ***** master,pimp ,and general antichrist.
Plenty of opinions on little Arthur with objectivity being singulalry absent in most of them.

 

Correct. The facts are the facts. I have disagreed with Mcvey on Jack Johnson quite a bit. I'll never understand why he can't take news reads at face value. Sometimes Mcvey disagrees with Johnson's own words in books. Other times he will quote " In this corner ", which has its share of errors.

I have read that Hart hurt Johnson with a body shot,and changed the course of the fight. I have also read that Jenaette, who was but a .500 novice, hurt Johnson in round one, then Johnson landed a mean low blow and was DQ'd in round two.

There are at least four contenders from 1908-1915 who were more formidable than the men Johnson fought in title matches. Langford, Smith, Jeanette, and McVey. You could argue Clark, or McCarty as well.

 

Didn't Jack Johnson weigh around 168 pounds when he fought Choynski?

 

You have just said Johnson would be no match for Jeffries in 1905-1906.
That statement disqualifies you from further debate on this subject.
Not only could you not apply impartiality ,you could not spell it.

You are now implying the Jeffries ,v Johnson fight was close, when everyone knows it was not.Time for you to mention the" drugged tea" that Jeffries took just before entering the ring.
This thread is not here for you to tear down Jack Johnson for the millionth time

The thread is the credit Johnson should be given,[or nor given], for his win over Jeffries, out of courtesy to the poster ,we should revert to the topic.

 

Opinion and facts can differ. You ignore many facts on Johnson, and sometimes try to spin them. I form my opinion on the ring results, news reads, and film. The good news is I'm not going to grind you on this topic anymore. You'll never change perspective, and I am a bit short on time to post these days.

When discussing a potential Jeffries vs. Johnson match while Jeffries was champion from 1899-1905, I prefer to look at the facts, common opponents and such.

Jeffries would roll Hart....Johnson looses to him. Jeffries floors Griffin multiple times when he was champ in an easy 4 round affair....Johnson lost the series to Hank Griffin. In fact Johnson could not defeat Griffin in three tires. Jeffries blasts Munore out in two rounds. Johnson takes a fatter and out of shape Munore the distance. Jeffries blasts out Mexican Everett early, Johnson take a more shop worn venison 20 rounds. A novice Jeffries floors Choysnki 3 times, but draws. Choynski Ko's Johnson in three. I see a large difference here vs. common opponents, don't you?

Even in 1910 Jeanette said the only way Johnson wins is if Jeffries has balls and chains on his feet and hands. Langford felt Johnson had no shot. Of course they were basing their opinion on the fighter Jeffries was as champion, not the washed up shell who entered the ring in 1910.

 

You stated that 1905-1906 Jack Johnson would have no chance with Jim Jeffries, this statement is patently absurd.

 

Well JOhnson won the world title on 26 December 1908, so I think he can probably be forgiven for not defending against Any of those guys in 1908!

What happened in 1908 (I have no idea if this thread will help or hinder your position until it finishes).

Let us remember, that Johnson at this time is the coloured champion, and has beaten Langford Jeanette and McVey quite a bit and they are really ranked a fair way behind Johnson on any fair rating at this point in time.

Langford in 1908, Has just come off a draw with Jeanette, who Johnson had already beaten. He had a good year, with his win over Fireman Jim Flynn the standout, but it should be noted that this is just two years after he was battered from pillar to post by Johnson and Flynn had already been KOd by Johnson and the man Johnson defended the title against, Kaufman. In 1909 Langford continued his good run, although he did only draw with former Johnson victim JOhn "Sandy" Ferguson. Not really enough to think that he could reverse his one sided thrashing to JOhnson. In 1910, Langford continued his good run, this time his win included Jeff Clarke. A good result (although clearly this must have ended Clarkes hopes as a live challenger, as you alluded to earlier). Interestingly, in this run Langford did beat World Title challenger Jim Flynn (again) and did beat Jeanette who was one of the best fighters in the world by this time also, but tellingly, he had a draw with outclassed Johnson victim Stanly Ketchell and also a draw with Jim Johnson (rather interesting this result. Anyone have any newspaper reports?). 1911 is an interesting year. The good streak continues, but a win over Jeanette is followed by a loss to McVey. So it is clear that as at 1911, McVey was the leading coloured contender over Langford. Langford though would come back and assert dominance in 1912 by beating and even ko ing McVey. 1913 is an interesting year. There is the drawn title match with Colin Bell (where does he sit as potential challengers?) but more importantly, there is a loss to Denver Ed Smith. This would appear to take away Langfords credibility as a title challenger at this point 1914 is an interesting year for Langford. He has three fights with none other than Jim Johnson, who had just drawn with a badly out of shape Johnson. In 3 more attempts, he still cant force a decision. In fact, it is not until 1916 that Langford gets his first win over Jim Johnson. They have roughly a dozen fights and langford gets one decision and a KO win over an older Johnson well after the JOhnson johnson fight so why is it that Johnson was not deserving of a fight? So to summarise langford, He is has a small window in 1910 where he should have been a good chance and in 1912 after he asserted dominance over mcVey, until his loss to Denver Ed Smith. 1910 was when Johnson defended against Jeffries. I think we can both forgive him for that, cant we? Johnson didnt fight in 1911, (he got married and his wife committed suicide. Again, i think he deserves a bit of a rest and a break doesnt he?). he took a tuneup with a low risk but high paying challenger in flynn in 1912.

Before he could get back into the swing of things, he was arrested and harassed out of the USA and did not fight again until the 1913 fight with Johnson. Obviously, in hindsight we would all have loved a Langford fight, but he was not the outstanding clear challenger that many seem to think today. Given his record against Johnson, Jim Johnson was arguably as good a challenger as Langford anyway.

When I get time, i will look at McVey and the others in the same detail.

 

You keep quoting on the Klondike fight like you have the footage. Everything I read said he got hit and stayed down. That's a KO to me.

YOu agree he was iced by Choynski, an a pretty old one at that.

He broke his arm in the final round against Johnson when they fell in the ring. The early break was a myth like Ali v.s. Norton to excuse a poor performance. Still, as the coverage said, he was out on his feet.

I am not saying he was not a great fighter. I am a huge Johnson fan. I am saying he did not have a great chin and he did not. To me he ws more of a Lewis type, not an egg like Wlad ... he excelled as long as he did because he knew how to protect it like a Jones or a Benny Leonard ... quite possibly why he often took zero risks and fought so conservatively ...

 

The fight with Klondike.
"Johnson ,who was underfed ,was described as nearly starved",when he entered the ring,but for the first few rounds,he outboxed Klondike.Then he started to weaken under Klondike's body attack.In the fifth round Johnson decided he had fought enough and abrubtly quit".
Klondike did not even floor Johnson.

Please show all these reports to the contrary.

The Jim Johnson fight.
You have no proof that the break to Johnson's arm occurred in the last round,and no basis for stating it so emphatically ,that it might have, was just a theory ventured by some , a conclusion reached because of a momentary tumble by both fighters.
Why you take the NY Times report of this fight as gospel is beyond me,, they had NO reporter present AT THE FIGHT, WHICH WAS HELD IN THE MONMARTRE SECTION OF PARIS.

 

I don't think there's any point in bringing up Johnson's early career losses nor the loss against Willard. I don't think his chin failed him there, his stamina did, understandably at 37 years of age and after 26 rounds of fighting.

There are those who believe that the punch Ketchel knocked down Johnson with never even landed solidly.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMZQUCVrN6I[/ame]

4:13

 

A solid win over an All-Time Great is always a big win but it is odd that Johnson was always given credit as if he had beaten a man prime for prime but Willard beat an Old Man. Willard also gets it on the other end inhis loss to Dempsey. I think of all the victorys over ex-greats the Jeffries has the best case 6 yrs off, lost 100lbs at the age of 36 with no tune-up fight.

Johnson was great in his day but his fight against Jeffries is no measurment of how they would have done prime for prime.