Whch other lineal heavyweight champions could Tommy Burns have beaten?

[janitor]

Who would he likley beat and who would he have a good chance against?

Opinions.

[Dempsey1238]

Marvin Hart, Jim Braddock, Rocky Marciano, and Joe Louis. Perhaps he can give Ali problems with his swarmer style.

[Seamus]

Realize that Tommy was a lightheavy at best but one blessed with excellent power and exceptional reach for his height. He beat some very good to great fighters. Allegedly he was sick in his bout against Johnson, weighing a very light 168 lbs. In the a P4P context, he was quite good, as a heavyweight, very overachieving.

[OLD FOGEY]

Who would he likley beat and who would he have a good chance against?

Opinions.

Well, he is better than Hart who was puffed up by his "victory" over Johnson which might have been an unfair decision.

Other than that, I can't think of anyone I would favor him over. Burns was negotiating to fight middleweight champion Tommy Ryan in 1906 for a title fight at 158. Ryan held out for the bout being set at 154. Burns did not think he could make that weight. As a favor to the promoter, Hart stepped in and offered to defend his heavyweight title against Burns. There is some doubt if Hart trained seriously. Burns was actually a modern middle or lightheavy at most. He would be at a severe physical disadvantage against most champions. I just don't see him beating Carnera, for example.

A good fighter, but lucky to be at the right time and place to become a heavyweight champion through a fluke.

[Loewe]

Hm, Spinks for sure. Perhaps Braddock and when Sharkey has an off-night him too. He beat Hart so he must count too. I think he also has a chance aginast Moorer. While Briggs isn´t very good the size advantage would be too much for Burns imo.
It´s often overlooked how good Burns was in p4p terms.

[TBooze]

Hm, Spinks for sure. Perhaps Braddock and when Sharkey has an off-night him too. He beat Hart so he must count too. I think he also has a chance aginast Moorer. While Briggs isn´t very good the size advantage would be too much for Burns imo.
It´s often overlooked how good Burns was in p4p terms.

The media of the time spun it well to make it seem Burns had a real chance against Johnson.

The truth is Burns was a big Middleweight who fought in an era where most of the white heavyweights would be little more than pick-em against me!

Burns made the most of his reign and made sure he got payed well to fight Jack. But he knew he stood little chance and to be fair was as brave as they come losing the bout with a Galveston Giant who pretty much toyed with him.

[SuzieQ49]

Marvin Hart, and maybe Bob Fitzimmons

[Ramon Rojo]

Marvin Hart, Jim Braddock, Rocky Marciano, and Joe Louis. Perhaps he can give Ali problems with his swarmer style.


:lol:


Joking i hope?


He'd be slaugtered by Louis or Marciano.

[Drew101]

Let's see...

Hart, Braddock,,Sharkey (on a good day), Spinks, Willard

Wouldn't rule out his chances against Corbett and Fitz, either.

[Ramon Rojo]

Braddock, Sharkey, Spinks



No, no, no.

[Seamus]

Well, he is better than Hart who was puffed up by his "victory" over Johnson which might have been an unfair decision.


No more a "victory" than some of Johnson's bouts. Back then, what went around came around in the regards to wins and losses. Certainly Hart did enough to warrant a win or draw. The fight was close according to newspaper accounts. I don't see a lot of begrudging in regards to Johnson's "victory", and a title victory no less, against Jim Johnson, what would surely be a KO today. Ultimately, we must face the fact that there were no all-inclusive regulatory bodies at the time and much was left to the influence of money and the whims of the powerful, if not downright chance. Thus, for me, a victory is just that.

[OLD FOGEY]

No more a "victory" than some of Johnson's bouts. Back then, what went around came around in the regards to wins and losses. Certainly Hart did enough to warrant a win or draw. The fight was close according to newspaper accounts. I don't see a lot of begrudging in regards to Johnson's "victory", and a title victory no less, against Jim Johnson, what would surely be a KO today. Ultimately, we must face the fact that there were no all-inclusive regulatory bodies at the time and much was left to the influence of money and the whims of the powerful, if not downright chance. Thus, for me, a victory is just that.

1. Johnson did not win against Battling Johnson. It was a draw. And why would it be a KO today? Jack Johnson lasted the distance according to every source anyone has ever shown me to read. I would be interested in a primary source which states that this fight was stopped short of its scheduled distance. I have not seen one yet.

2. Okay. Fair point on Johnson-Hart--without film, who can tell. The referee made it clear coming in he was going to make a big deal of "aggressiveness". Johnson's style was simply not aggressive. Hart plodded forward, off the newspaper accounts, fairly ineffectively, but he met some peoples criteria of aggressiveness.

My problem with the Johnson-Hart fight is that almost all accounts come from sources at best unfriendly to Johnson and at worst racist. I would hesitate to get very worked up about Hart's victory under those circumstances without viewing the film.

Here's the papers in a nutshell:

San Francisco Chronicle--"On the score of aggressiveness, Hart was entitled to the verdict. On any other score, Johnson should have been favored."

San Francisco Bulletin--"Looking at it from a scientific angle, Johnson should have been declared the victor. It is true Hart did all the forcing and was ever on the aggressive, but his blows rarely landed on a vulnerable spot and he never had his opponent in distress."

San Francisco Examiner--Felt Johnson was better man, but fought passively, giving away rounds to the pressing Hart.

San Francisco Call--"At the end of twenty rounds, Referee Alex Groggins gave an entirely just decision in favor of Hart."

Obviously, Hart had his supporters, but I doubt if these opinions reflect unbiased observers.

[Seamus]

1. Johnson did not win against Battling Johnson. It was a draw. And why would it be a KO today? Jack Johnson lasted the distance according to every source anyone has ever shown me to read. I would be interested in a primary source which states that this fight was stopped short of its scheduled distance. I have not seen one yet.


I read the fight was supposed to be 15 or 20 rounds but was shortened to 10 when Johnson complained of his arm. I am trying to remember where I read this. If true, it would have been a ko to the likings of Vit K vs. Byrd. I will look for the source but I am a little out of it, on two vicodin awaiting some oral surgery. Hooray!

Otherwise, we seem to have read the same press regarding the Hart fight and it does not dissuade me from the veracity of a Hart victory. Neither does the perfunctory assumption that the entire world was racist and thus every sporting loss by a black athlete was intrinsically unfair. That's painting with too broad a brush for my tastes.

[Loewe]

Hm, Spinks for sure. Perhaps Braddock and when Sharkey has an off-night him too. He beat Hart so he must count too. I think he also has a chance aginast Moorer. While Briggs isn´t very good the size advantage would be too much for Burns imo.
It´s often overlooked how good Burns was in p4p terms.

Forgot to mention Rahman. He would beat Rahman but not McCall.

[Loewe]

San Francisco Examiner--Felt Johnson was better man, but fought passively, giving away rounds to the pressing Hart.

When I read that I thought it was about Hopkins-Taylor :lol:

[Loewe]

I read the fight was supposed to be 15 or 20 rounds but was shortened to 10 when Johnson complained of his arm. I am trying to remember where I read this. If true, it would have been a ko to the likings of Vit K vs. Byrd. I will look for the source but I am a little out of it, on two vicodin awaiting some oral surgery. Hooray!


That was discussed not too long ago in another thread and proven wrong.

[Seamus]

That was discussed not too long ago in another thread and proven wrong.

Cool. That's probably where I read it. Sorry, a bit out of it.

Still, here's the best description of the fight I have read...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Seems Johnson was given quite the benefit of doubt in this one. Moreso than Hart.

[Holmes' Jab]

Marvin Hart, and maybe Bob Fitzimmons


Yes and no.

He had a good chance against Willard and Neon Leon as others have aluded to.

[Ramon Rojo]

Burns would lose to every champion after Jack Dempsey.

[mattdonnellon]

Would he have an outside chance with Ingo? Maybe even Floyd?

[Ramon Rojo]

Would he have an outside chance with Ingo? Maybe even Floyd?

No. He was only 5'7. Ingo and Floyd would manhandle him.


Floyd is classes above Burns.

[OLD FOGEY]

Cool. That's probably where I read it. Sorry, a bit out of it.

Still, here's the best description of the fight I have read...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Seems Johnson was given quite the benefit of doubt in this one. Moreso than Hart.

Yes, but most sources do agree that Johnson fought with a broken arm. If he did lose, it would have been because of a fluke injury.

I frankly don't see much of a comparision between this fight and Johnson-Hart. Johnson-Hart seems more like Walcott-Louis I.

[Seamus]

Yes, but most sources do agree that Johnson fought with a broken arm. If he did lose, it would have been because of a fluke injury.

I frankly don't see much of a comparision between this fight and Johnson-Hart. Johnson-Hart seems more like Walcott-Louis I.

I'm just commenting that many tend to bend over backwards to explain off Johnson's many less than stellar performances, which both fights represent. Meanwhile a guylike Hart doesn't even get respect when he WINS.

In regards to Jim Johnson, broken bones are certainly not uncommon in old time boxing and even seen sometimes in modern boxing. They are certainly cause for a KO. Furthermore, it seems as though the NYT commentator thought the injury occurred in the final and not third round. My point is that contemporary commentary on the fight suggests Johnson at the very least got a gift.

[Drew101]

Burns would lose to every champion after Jack Dempsey.

Nope.

The question is which champions could Burns beat.

Remember what a 5'6" Qawi did to Leon Spinks? Remember that Mickey Walker held Sharkey to a draw? Remember how inconsistant Braddock was?

Burns kayoed men who weight 190 or more, and did it routinely throuhout his reign. He hits hard enough, and boxes well enough to have at least a legitimate chance of winning in all of these match-ups.

[janitor]

Nope.

The question is which champions could Burns beat.

Remember what a 5'6" Qawi did to Leon Spinks? Remember that Mickey Walker held Sharkey to a draw? Remember how inconsistant Braddock was?

Burns kayoed men who weight 190 or more, and did it routinely throuhout his reign. He hits hard enough, and boxes well enough to have at least a legitimate chance of winning in all of these match-ups.

At last the plot starts to thicken.

[Mendoza]

1. Johnson did not win against Battling Johnson. It was a draw. And why would it be a KO today? Jack Johnson lasted the distance according to every source anyone has ever shown me to read. I would be interested in a primary source which states that this fight was stopped short of its scheduled distance. I have not seen one yet.

2. Okay. Fair point on Johnson-Hart--without film, who can tell. The referee made it clear coming in he was going to make a big deal of "aggressiveness". Johnson's style was simply not aggressive. Hart plodded forward, off the newspaper accounts, fairly ineffectively, but he met some peoples criteria of aggressiveness.

My problem with the Johnson-Hart fight is that almost all accounts come from sources at best unfriendly to Johnson and at worst racist. I would hesitate to get very worked up about Hart's victory under those circumstances without viewing the film.

Here's the papers in a nutshell:

San Francisco Chronicle--"On the score of aggressiveness, Hart was entitled to the verdict. On any other score, Johnson should have been favored."

San Francisco Bulletin--"Looking at it from a scientific angle, Johnson should have been declared the victor. It is true Hart did all the forcing and was ever on the aggressive, but his blows rarely landed on a vulnerable spot and he never had his opponent in distress."

San Francisco Examiner--Felt Johnson was better man, but fought passively, giving away rounds to the pressing Hart.

San Francisco Call--"At the end of twenty rounds, Referee Alex Groggins gave an entirely just decision in favor of Hart."

Obviously, Hart had his supporters, but I doubt if these opinions reflect unbiased observers.

Johnson was lucky to escape with a draw. He was hurt and on his way out. I posted the full review. The fight was scheduled to go 20. Battling should have been the new champ. The score cards at the time had Battling in the lead with one judge. The other judges had it even.

After the match, there was question on who the champ was in the USA and in France. Its true. The French were ready to crown the winner of Langford vs McVey or Jeanette vs Langford ( forget who ) the new champion.

As far as Hart vs Johnson goes regardless of who won, Johnson did not look good in a very high stakes fight.

[SuzieQ49]

I frankly don't see much of a comparision between this fight and Johnson-Hart. Johnson-Hart seems more like Walcott-Louis I.


did Jack Johnson score 2 knockdowns over hart? John Garfield was LIVE at the walcott-louis fight and even a big joe louis fan like him admitted it was a blatant robbery.

[OLD FOGEY]

Johnson was lucky to escape with a draw. He was hurt and on his way out. I posted the full review. The fight was scheduled to go 20. Battling should have been the new champ. The score cards at the time had Battling in the lead with one judge. The other judges had it even.

After the match, there was question on who the champ was in the USA and in France. Its true. The French were ready to crown the winner of Langford vs McVey or Jeanette vs Langford ( forget who ) the new champion.

As far as Hart vs Johnson goes regardless of who won, Johnson did not look good in a very high stakes fight.

"The fight was scheduled to go 20."

Give one primary source which says that. Certainly the New York Times report does not and it seems to me this is such a critical point, their report would be downright incompetent for not raising this vital issue.

[OLD FOGEY]

did Jack Johnson score 2 knockdowns over hart? John Garfield was LIVE at the walcott-louis fight and even a big joe louis fan like him admitted it was a blatant robbery.

My point is that comparing Johnson-Hart to a fight in which if Jack Johnson was in trouble it was due to a fluky injury seems most odd to me. The Johnson-Johnson fight compares more to Harry Greb's loss to Kid Graves.

There is certainly more evidence and more convincing evidence that the Walcott-Louis fight was a bad decision than that Johnson-Hart was. That does not automatically mean that the Johnson-Hart decision was a good one.

[MRBILL]

Burns? Not a good heavyweight.. Boxing was different back then... At 5' 7" tall, Burns was tubby / thick at 180 or so pounds..... Tommy Burns, if trained properly, would've been a lean 168 pounder... YES! A man without a division...... With a strict diet, he might have held down 160---for a while......

As a heavyweight champion, he was bad to marginal.... As a fighter in general, he was very good... Burns knew how to fight.... He just fought at a bad weight against much bigger men....

In reality, I see Burns losing to everyone.... Styles make fights.... Okay, Burns matches well with "Corbett & Fitzsimmons" before him... But, I'm not sure he could beat them dudes in a time machine....:blood

MR.BILL

[OLD FOGEY]

I'm just commenting that many tend to bend over backwards to explain off Johnson's many less than stellar performances, which both fights represent. Meanwhile a guylike Hart doesn't even get respect when he WINS.

In regards to Jim Johnson, broken bones are certainly not uncommon in old time boxing and even seen sometimes in modern boxing. They are certainly cause for a KO. Furthermore, it seems as though the NYT commentator thought the injury occurred in the final and not third round. My point is that contemporary commentary on the fight suggests Johnson at the very least got a gift.

"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."

[mattdonnellon]

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.

[mattdonnellon]

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.

[OLD FOGEY]

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.

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.

[MRBILL]

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

[mattdonnellon]

Yep, (glasses maybe?).

[Seamus]

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

[MRBILL]

Yep, (glasses maybe?).

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

[OLD FOGEY]

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.

"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.

[Senya13]

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.

[ChrisPontius]

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.

[mcvey]

"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."
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.

[Senya13]

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.

[mattdonnellon]

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.

[OLD FOGEY]

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.

[Seamus]

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 points to a courageous performance by Johnson to go at least five rounds with a broken arm to retain his title.

Yes, fighters get injured and often perform poorly afterwards. That is not a legitimate excuse, especially if your opponent caused the injury. By the sound of the NYT, Johnson was lucky to get the draw. He got a gift. The broken arm is irrelevant if Battling Jim caused it. Now, if Johnson entered the ring with it broken, that might be another story, but not entirely.

[Senya13]

Another report, from L'Humanite


JACK JOHNSON SUR LE RING
------
La chute d'une idole

Le match qui s'est disputé hier soír entre les deux Johnson n'a pas donné tout ce qu'il promettait et le public, quí était venu nombreux pour assister aux débuts parísiens du champion du monde a manifesté bruyamment son mécontentement.

Et cependant, dès son apparition sur le ring, le nègre jaune fit une impression considérable. Bien découplé, d'une structure remarquable, semblable en tous points à celle de cet autre nègre célèbre, Major Taylor, on eut, dès le début, le sentíment qu'il ne ferait qu'une bouchée de son adversaire.

Qaund je relis les notes prises au cours du match, je suis étonné de la différence qui existe entre les premiers rounds et les derniers. A la fin de la première reprise, Jack avait un gros avantage. Bien en garde, son poing gauche en avant, il dominait de sa haute taille son adversaire qui se tenait en garde basse.

Pendant quatre rounds, le champion du monde mena la danse, frappant où et quand il voulait, se contentant de montrer, aux ripostes de son adversaires, son large « sourire doré ».

Puis aux reprises suivantes ce fut au tour de Jim de faire le forcing sans que son concurrent fît grand chose pour l'arrêter et ce fut ainsi jusqu'a la fin où le match nul fut proclamé.

Le public fut ensuite informé que Jack Johnson s'était cassé le bras gauche au cours du combat.

[mattdonnellon]

Jack Johnson in the ring.
The fall of an idol.
(Paraphraseing in my poor French translation.)
A lot of the crowd were dissatisfied with the champion.
Johnson looked well at the start.
There was a big difference between the first and second halves of the fight.
Jack dominated the first with his movement , his guard and his left.
The next four rounds were similiar. However for the remainder of the tour Jim did the work and so at the finish a draw was declared.
After the contest it was announced that Jack had broken his left arm during the fight.
I think that is the ghist of it but I'm sure Chris(or anyone can do better).
BTW there is a nice photo of Jack, Jim, Sam and Joe (heads)in that paper.

[PowerPuncher]

Another report, from L'Humanite


JACK JOHNSON SUR LE RING
------
La chute d'une idole

Le match qui s'est disputé hier soír entre les deux Johnson n'a pas donné tout ce qu'il promettait et le public, quí était venu nombreux pour assister aux débuts parísiens du champion du monde a manifesté bruyamment son mécontentement.

Et cependant, dès son apparition sur le ring, le nègre jaune fit une impression considérable. Bien découplé, d'une structure remarquable, semblable en tous points à celle de cet autre nègre célèbre, Major Taylor, on eut, dès le début, le sentíment qu'il ne ferait qu'une bouchée de son adversaire.

Qaund je relis les notes prises au cours du match, je suis étonné de la différence qui existe entre les premiers rounds et les derniers. A la fin de la première reprise, Jack avait un gros avantage. Bien en garde, son poing gauche en avant, il dominait de sa haute taille son adversaire qui se tenait en garde basse.

Pendant quatre rounds, le champion du monde mena la danse, frappant où et quand il voulait, se contentant de montrer, aux ripostes de son adversaires, son large « sourire doré ».

Puis aux reprises suivantes ce fut au tour de Jim de faire le forcing sans que son concurrent fît grand chose pour l'arrêter et ce fut ainsi jusqu'a la fin où le match nul fut proclamé.

Le public fut ensuite informé que Jack Johnson s'était cassé le bras gauche au cours du combat.

Another continuation, from THE Humanite
JACK JOHNSON ON THE RING ------. The fall of an idol
The game that disputed itself yesterday soír between the two Johnson did not give all that it promised and the public, quí had come numerous to attend the at the beginning of parísiens of the champion of the world showed noisily his discontent.
And nevertheless, as early as his apparition on the ring, the yellow black made an impression considerable. Well proportioned, of a remarkable, similar structure in all points to the one of this black other celebrates, Officer Taylor, one had, as early as the beginning, the sentíment that it would do only a mouthful of his opponent.
Qaund I reread the taken grades during the game, I am astonished difference that exists between the first round one and the last ones. At the end of the first return, Jack had a big advantage. Well in guard, his left fist forward, it dominated of his high size his opponent that was held in low guard.
During four round, the world champion took the dance, striking where and when it wanted, being satisfied to show, to the retort of his opponents, his wide one "to smile gilded".
Then to the following returns this was at the turn of Jim to do the forcing without that his competitor fact big thing to stop it and this was thus even has the end where the game no one was proclaimed.
The public next was informed that Jack Johnson had broken its left arm during the fight.

[mattdonnellon]

Powerpuncher, I love your translation!
"the end where the game no one was proclaimed." Sounds like a draw.
Mendoza, we need you.

[mattdonnellon]

Yes, fighters get injured and often perform poorly afterwards. That is not a legitimate excuse, especially if your opponent caused the injury. By the sound of the NYT, Johnson was lucky to get the draw. He got a gift. The broken arm is irrelevant if Battling Jim caused it. Now, if Johnson entered the ring with it broken, that might be another story, but not entirely.
Why would you be interested in a NYT report(probably a wire) when you have a next day report from the scene by LaFigaro(the NYT of Paris)
What was, was.

[he grant]

Hart, Carnera, possibly steal a decision over Baer, Braddock, Johannsson, Leon Spinks, Bonecrusher Smith ... at least a shot against any ...

[mattdonnellon]

He Grant thanks, forgot what this thread was about.
Would Burns beat any guy under 5-9? Now thats a question. Quai, Thompson,
what height was Bivins? Greb? more?

[OLD FOGEY]

Yes, fighters get injured and often perform poorly afterwards. That is not a legitimate excuse, especially if your opponent caused the injury. By the sound of the NYT, Johnson was lucky to get the draw. He got a gift. The broken arm is irrelevant if Battling Jim caused it. Now, if Johnson entered the ring with it broken, that might be another story, but not entirely.

Everyone is of course entitled to their own viewpoint on something like this. I disagree that something as fluky as a broken arm altering a fight really tells us anything about the two fighters involved. Facial injuries or rib injuries due to poor defense and being a "bleeder" is different, but broken arms are so rare I don't see them meaning much.

Interestingly, the ordinary Battling Johnson, who went 19-32 according to boxrec with only 14 ko's in 73 fights, was the beneficiary of broken arms against probably the two best fighters of his era, Jack Johnson and Harry Wills. Battling Johnson does not appear to have been a very good fighter and certainly not an unusually heavy hitter. I have to think these fights were flukes.

[janitor]

Yes, fighters get injured and often perform poorly afterwards. That is not a legitimate excuse, especially if your opponent caused the injury. By the sound of the NYT, Johnson was lucky to get the draw. He got a gift. The broken arm is irrelevant if Battling Jim caused it. Now, if Johnson entered the ring with it broken, that might be another story, but not entirely.

Two observations.

1. Johnson seems to have injured his arm in an earlier wrestling bout which might have lead to the injury.

2. You talk about Johnson getting a gift draw without having looked at the contract. It might have been stipulated in the contract that a draw would be rendered if both fighters lasted the distance. That was quite common in those days.

[Seamus]

Two observations.

1. Johnson seems to have injured his arm in an earlier wrestling bout which might have lead to the injury.



I have heard tale of this but only from Johnson apologists so I take no heed. The fact that most sources credit the injury from the fights means Battlin' Jim had the better of the action for me.


2. You talk about Johnson getting a gift draw without having looked at the contract. It might have been stipulated in the contract that a draw would be rendered if both fighters lasted the distance. That was quite common in those days.

This means nothing unless you can verify this was an ND fight.

Just another straw on the back of Johnson being an all-time stupendous fighter. He had a lot of lackluster nights regarding which his supporters continue to contort logic to impress us it was either part of Jack's great plan of subterfuge or "The Man's" plan to keep Johnson down. I don't buy it either way. He was better than most of his contemporaries on most nights but not so much better that he could not get caught and caught often enough to prove he was not heads and shoulders above those he of his era.

[mcvey]

This is a thread about Tommy Burns ,right?
I seem to recall he fought in Dublin once, can't remember what happened.:rofl :rofl :rofl

[MRBILL]

Noah Brusso a.k.a. Tommy Burns (1881-1955) died of a heart attack just shy of age 74.... Fought as a pro boxer for 20 years from 1900 to 1920..... Apparently died broke and was buried in an unmarked grave in Canada. A few years after his death, a fundraiser was held to get the deceased Tommy Burns a headstone..... WTF is up with that? A guy of Burns' stature should not be buried in an unmarked grave due to lack of funding... That's bogus....:bart

MR.BILL

EXTRA:

Canada's government should have paid for the damn stone in the first place...

[mattdonnellon]

This is a thread about Tommy Burns ,right?
I seem to recall he fought in Dublin once, can't remember what happened.:rofl :rofl :rofl
Wait a minute and a half and I'll tell you...

[mcvey]

Wait a minute and a half and I'll tell you...
Excellent!:good :good :good .ps Only joking Seamus.

[Seamus]

Everyone is of course entitled to their own viewpoint on something like this. I disagree that something as fluky as a broken arm altering a fight really tells us anything about the two fighters involved.

It tells us everything. Boxing is not an accumulation of the predictable and explainable but a drama of the unpredictable and the unexplainable.

Vitali Klitchko beats the shit out of Byrd for 9 rounds and suffers a separated shoulder. Fluky? No, it's Life. Byrd wins fair and square. How many fighters have I seen knocked downed only to suffer ACL, MCL injuries or broken ankles? At least a dozen live! That is not a fluke. That is the price of getting in the ring.

[MRBILL]

Burns was stocky, but short..... He really doesn't fair well with "Modern" heavies at all............ Burns, fighting between 170 to 190, has a chance against anyone...... Tommy Burns was a talented athlete of the early 20th century... Peace...

MR.BILL

[OLD FOGEY]

It tells us everything. Boxing is not an accumulation of the predictable and explainable but a drama of the unpredictable and the unexplainable.

Vitali Klitchko beats the shit out of Byrd for 9 rounds and suffers a separated shoulder. Fluky? No, it's Life. Byrd wins fair and square. How many fighters have I seen knocked downed only to suffer ACL, MCL injuries or broken ankles? At least a dozen live! That is not a fluke. That is the price of getting in the ring.

Byrd won fair and square, but it doesn't really tell me he is better than Vitali.

How much money would you have put on Byrd in a rematch?

I have seen a great many fights and broken ankles are pretty rare and fluky also.

[Loewe]

Noah Brusso a.k.a. Tommy Burns (1881-1955) died of a heart attack just shy of age 74.... Fought as a pro boxer for 20 years from 1900 to 1920..... Apparently died broke and was buried in an unmarked grave in Canada. A few years after his death, a fundraiser was held to get the deceased Tommy Burns a headstone..... WTF is up with that? A guy of Burns' stature should not be buried in an unmarked grave due to lack of funding... That's bogus....:bart

MR.BILL

EXTRA:

Canada's government should have paid for the damn stone in the first place...

Look up what happened with Langford after his boxing career and you will have tears in your eyes.

[MRBILL]

Look up what happened with Langford after his boxing career and you will have tears in your eyes.

I heard Sam Langford wound up blind and broke.... I'm not sure how he died or what the "People" did with his body, but I'm sure it wasn't pretty....:|

MR.BILL

[janitor]

I heard Sam Langford wound up blind and broke.... I'm not sure how he died or what the "People" did with his body, but I'm sure it wasn't pretty....:|

MR.BILL

Little was heard of him for years prompting a journalist to track him down. He was found blind and living in terible squalour.

A fund was put together to help him by the mayor of the city he lived in. Contributors included Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey and Fritzie Zivic.

[MRBILL]

Folks, it sucks about these stories, etc... However, that is life.... I know all too well how hard reality hits..... Look, in truth, MOST folks like to live-it-up and enjoy themselves while the goin' is good.... MOST folks don't like to sit on cash-flow and stay home and watch the tube sippin' a Pepsi with popcorn.... Peole like to hit the show / club for adult entertainment.... I sure as hell do.... Well, same thing for these old-time athletes and actors in show-biz.... However, once these folks grow old and stale, and find out their careers' are going in the crapper, and the money well is drying up, they find themselves screwed over later in life.... I hate seeing a former rich / popular star of some kind living in a small apartment and using the bus for transportation when they are 70 years old..... SEE "Bela Lugosi" and "Laurel & Hardy" for that matter.. Christ, look at Joe Louis..... That's bullshit for that to happen.... BUT! That's life....

MR.BILL:patsch

[janitor]

Folks, it sucks about these stories, etc... However, that is life.... I know all too well how hard reality hits..... Look, in truth, MOST folks like to live-it-up and enjoy themselves while the goin' is good.... MOST folks don't like to sit on cash-flow and stay home and watch the tube sippin' a Pepsi with popcorn.... Peole like to hit the show / club for adult entertainment.... I sure as hell do.... Well, same thing for these old-time athletes and actors in show-biz.... However, once these folks grow old and stale, and find out their careers' are going in the crapper, and the money well is drying up, they find themselves screwed over later in life.... I hate seeing a former rich / popular star of some kind living in a small apartment and using the bus for transportation when they are 70 years old..... SEE "Bela Lugosi" and "Laurel & Hardy" for that matter.. Christ, look at Joe Louis..... That's bullshit for that to happen.... BUT! That's life....

MR.BILL:patsch

Your point is taken.

I will make the observation that some of these lost sould were more responsible for their problems than others.

[Mendoza]

Powerpuncher, I love your translation!
"the end where the game no one was proclaimed." Sounds like a draw.
Mendoza, we need you.

It was a robbery, not a draw. Jim Battling deserved to win the fight, the trouble was it was Jack Johnson's show. The news read is below.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Seamus]

Byrd won fair and square, but it doesn't really tell me he is better than Vitali.

How much money would you have put on Byrd in a rematch?

I have seen a great many fights and broken ankles are pretty rare and fluky also.

I've seen at least 4 I can think of, severely sprained if not broken. My favorite was King Ipitan getting his ankle broken after David Tua hit him in the chin. More often, you see screwed up knees after a fall or knockdown.

And, no, I wouldn't have put a dime on Byrd in the rematch.

[Seamus]

It was a robbery, not a draw. Jim Battling deserved to win the fight, the trouble was it was Jack Johnson's show. The news read is below.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

This closer to my point... and again farther away from the subject of this thread.

[Mendoza]

This closer to my point... and again farther away from the subject of this thread.

Another poster asked for my reply regarding Jack Johnson vs Battling.

Back to the topic at hand. I have seen some of Burns vs Squires, and O'Brien. vs men his size, Burns is a real attack dog type of fighter in the ring. The trouble for Burns in this thread is he was the shortest heavyweight champ of all time, and one of the lightest.

[MRBILL]

Another poster asked for my reply regarding Jack Johnson vs Battling.

Back to the topic at hand. I have seen some of Burns vs Squires, and O'Brien. vs men his size, Burns is a real attack dog type of fighter in the ring. The trouble for Burns in this thread is he was the shortest heavyweight champ of all time, and one of the lightest.


Burns at 5' 7" tall takes the cake there... Weight wise, I suppose Ol' Bob Fitzsimmons was the lightest at roughly 178 or so pounds.?.?:D :D

MR.BILL

[OLD FOGEY]

It was a robbery, not a draw. Jim Battling deserved to win the fight, the trouble was it was Jack Johnson's show. The news read is below.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

1. The evidence from the French papers posted on this thread strongly indicates that this fight was scheduled for 10 rounds, despite the endlessly repeated argument that it was stopped prematurely.

2. The NY Times is entitled to their opinion, but it is only their opinion. The French papers describe a bout in which Johnson was winning easily for the first five rounds until injured. The man who had the responsibility for calling the decision, the referee, called it a draw.

3. You can make of this fight vis-a-vis Johnson's historical ranking what you will. My take--a 35 year old Johnson fought a second-rater who was probably not among his top thirty opponents. He was winning easily until injured. I consider this a fluke fight which tells us next to nothing about Johnson as an ATG, except that he had the courage to finish the fight with a broken arm.