Would jack johnson style work today

hard to tell, watched the film second by second, johnson picks up his front foot well before the punch lands, almost before its thrown, but his head is still there and the punch definatley lands on it. One of those fights where we'll never know the truth.

 

Johnson agrees to carry Ketchel who spotting an opening lets fly with his Sunday punch Johnson goes down film of this in slow motion seems to show Johnson is falling before the punch actually lands, be that as it may, immediately on arising Johnson kod Ketchel for 12 minutes.Johnson picks Ketchel up twice after stunning him in this fight, setting him on his feet and saying ,"whoa there Stanley where you going , me and you aint finished yet".

Johnson appears to be balanced here, immediately after koing Ketchel
.

This content is protected

Agreeing to carry a fighter is the exact opposite of ,"having fights fixed for you", no one but an imbecile would contend otherwise. Just as no one but an imbecile would down grade a near 36 years old fighter ,who had not boxed for over a year and a half for struggling to a draw with a younger bigger more powerful opponent , after being hampered with a broken arm from the 3rds onwards.

Posters might like to contrast this with Vitali Klitschko quiting with a shoulder injury whilst in front against the light hitting Chris Byrd.Klitschko was 28, 6 inches taller ,and around 40lbs heavier.
The premise that Johnson was not great because he did not score kos over some of his opponents totally ignores the fact that he often carried men , being content to outclass them rather than go for the kill, he did this against Ferguson , Monroe, Ketchel ,[until Stanley got ambitious],and he could have put others away a lot earlier if he had got down to business Jeffries,Burns, McVey and Flynn to name just some examples.

The bout with O Brien was a joke Johnson did no training for it because he well knew O Brien had to ko him to win,an impossible feat for the skillful but light hitting O Brien. Johnson was partying the night before into the early hours the fight was in Philadelphia for which O Brien was named two Philly papers gave Johnson a convincing win.
O Brien finished the 6 rounder with a cut eye and one closed Johnson was unmarked but breathing heavily and papers remarked on the spare tyre around his midriff.

Below Box recs take on it.

World Heavyweight Title was at risk because this was a no-decision bout. "Three or four times during the mix-ups, O'Brien was roughed to the floor, and once he got tangled in the ropes." (Philadelphia Inquirer). The Philadelphia Inquirer scored for Johnson. Wilkes-Barre Times Leader had O'Brien winning three rounds, with two even, and 5th round to Johnson (same report was printed in NY Sun and Washington Herald). The NY Times ruled it a draw. Wire reports in multiple newspapers (for example, San Francisco Call) had it a draw. Trenton Times reported that the referee stated he thought O'Brien the winner by a shade. The Sports editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer in May 23 issue wrote: "A half dozen writers, for instance, gave Johnson the credit of having won the bout, but no two of them agreed as to the distance by which he won, and if you read all these accounts you must have come to the conclusion that he won at any distance from a whisker to a city block. And it was the same with the able gentlemen who espoused the O'Brien cause. Some declared that he won all the way, and that but for his willingness to take the initiative there would have been no milling at all, while others gave him the decision solely for the splendid showing he made against such a tremendous physical handicap." The Philadelphia Item stated that O'Brien soundly out-boxed Johnson. All-in-all, it seems that the best choice would be to show it as a draw.
1908-12-26Tommy Burns

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

Sydney Stadium, Sydney, New South Wales, AustraliaWPTS1420
referee: Hugh McIntosh

A ringside report of the ONLY time Jeannete beat Johnson
,it makes it crystal clear that Johnson was in charge up to the controversial dsq.

JOHNSON BEATS JEANETTE
Negro Champion, However, Was Disqualified on an Alleged Foul
11/25/05-PHILADELPHIA LEDGER
After outclassing Joe Jeanette for a round and a half, Jack Johnson, The
Negro Heavyweight Champion of the World, lost the bout at the National
Athletic Club [Phila.] last night on an alleged foul.
Jeanette, after being thumped in lively fashion in the first round, assumed
a crouching pose in the secondround. He undertook to run in and clinch,
ducking a vicious right hand swing. Johnson ripped a right hand hook up for Jeanette's jaw. The latter dropped to the floor,writhing in apparent agony.
He claimed to have been struck a foul blow.
He was removed to the dressing room and the club physician substantiated
his claim. Johnson was promtly disqualified. Jeanettte professed to be in
great pain and lay in his dressing room in apparent agony. It is understood
that the police proposed to keep Johnson to keep Johnson, Jeanette and
the club official under surveillance.
​

Jack Johnson offered to defend his title against Luther McCarty in Canada ,Tommy Burns who was managing and promoting there [his main meal ticket was Arthur Pelkey,]refused to promote the fight as he wanted Pelkey to fight McCarty . Billy McCarney ,McCarty's manager was engaged in trying to fix up a fight with Johnson in Europe but took the Pelkey fight as a warm up for Johnson ,poor McCarty died and that was the end of that prospective defence.

Choynski did not knock Johnson unconscious he was in a sitting position but could rise before ten.Again easily verifiable for anyone who really wants the truth.

Jeff Clark did not turn pro until 1908 , the year Johnson won the title, he would not have been a match for Johnson during Johnson's reign. He was beaten three times in 1909 by welterweight Dixie Kid.drew with middleweight Frank Mantell in 1910, kd in 2 rds by Langford in 1910, drew with Kid Cotton, Johnson's sparring partner in1913 carried by Joe Jeannette until the referee lost patience and declared the fight a no contest in 1913.
No one would seriously have suggested putting him in with the champion ,during Johnson's reign.
No doubt if Johnson had defended against him and subsequently played with him, the poster whose main mission in life it to derogate Johnson would be telling all and sundry how Johnson picked on a smaller greener fighter.

You should be aware you are debating with a poster who has a pathological hatred of Jack Johnson, so much so ,that he repeats the same lies over and over again in an effort to convert others to his warped way of thinking.

No amount of verified and proven contradiction will stop him from returning with the same old bull**** ad nauseum.
He will produce no verifiable sources to back up his lies , he has repeated them so many times,and had them refuted just as many times , that he probably believes them himself now. I won't engage with him directly, he is a total waste of time and space.

 

Based upon the film which I've watch frame by frame since the 70s and the comments from Smith I feel the kd was faked.

 

The fights I've seen involving Jeanette and Mcvey don't give me any confidence that they could do anything with Johnson. Johnson was considered head and shoulders better than these two (as well as Langford) and I believe that was an accurate determination. Certainly Langford was impressive but who knows if he could do better than he did with Johnson in his prime.

 

i'm not disagreeing with you exactly, i'd lean towards a fix 2, but if you'r ketchell why take the punishment(cant have been fun fighting jj @160) for 11 rounds, that KD and KO could have been played out much earlier.

 

Gunboat Smith gave a lengthy interview back in the 60s I believe where he stated the kd was a fake but I forget any other details he shared aside from this. I think the idea was to go the distance since Ketchel realized it was a mismatch so although Stanley was taking a level of punishment he was not being koed. But who knows? I've watched that kd in slow motion, frame by frame and it just does not look right. JJ sees the punch coming and is slipping to the canvas before it lands. Does this mean he was faking the KD or just making last second movements to avoid a hard blow? Again who knows. I just combine what. See with Smiths comments since he was there and it then points to only one conclusion.

 

Apollack's forthcoming book on Jack Johnson will no doubt be the definitive benchmark for those wishing to learn about this man. The amount of exhaustive research he undertakes on his books is mindboggling.I can't wait for the book to come out.

 

No doubt Langford improved after the fight with Johnson , equally certain is the fact that Johnson improved . Smaller, shorter men do not have a very good record against Johnson. Johnson did not ko Langford but he floored him twice for very long 9 counts , broke his nose and cut him over both eyes.Langford admitted that Johnson"handed me a real beating".
This is easily verifiable.

 

Ketchel and Johnson rehearsed the script in Barney Curley's hotel room . Ketchel said he did not think he could pull his punches and Johnson is supposed to have said do what you can.. Johnson is the faster of the two and jabs Ketchel whenever he wants to, he has to grab him a couple of times and hold him up when he unintentionally hits him too hard.Its easily spotted on the film, only a moron would contend that Johnson is going full out in the footage.

 

Ketchel was 170.5lbs for the Johnson fight.

 

my mistake, just said the mw limit, still not gonna be fun tho.

I never said johnson was going full out, we were talking about the KD, you a smart guy but you should learn to read before cussing people, you are a moron yourself.

edit **** you, i h8 being called stupid, especially when you a **** who cant read

 

I did not call you anything. You've lost your temper for nothing.
ps I think you meant you're, instead of " you a",calm down dear.

 

no problem, i respect you and what you learned about boxing, like i said i dont like being called stupid

totally irrelevant but i meant exactly what i wrote, you a is perfectly understandable, not the queen's english, but you not the queen.

edit, you quoted me and then said anyone who thinks this is a moron, i'd say it looks like calling me stupid.

 

I was indirectly referring to Mendoza whom I do not reply directly to.
Totally understandable but not gramatically correct,I would not have mentioned it if you had not said I could not read, if I was as pissed off as you ,I would have replied "maybe not, but I can write"
No not the Queen ,but English.

Just a misunderstanding that is of no importance.

 

The most important question is not how old they were, or how many of their fights are recorded in the fragment that is boxrec.

It is what their standing was in the division at the time.

Now in the cases of Langford and Jeanette, there is indeed a strong case for saying that these were not career defining wins, but McVea clearly was a very highly rated contender, if not the most highly rated contender at the time.