Jack Johsnon news reads. Battling Jim, MCvey, Jeanette, and Langford! [Archive]

Mendoza

10-09-2007, 07:15 AM

McGrain

10-09-2007, 07:19 AM

Cool read.

What's the skinny on the $50,000 for the Langford fight?

I'll look forward to reading your other links.

Mendoza

10-09-2007, 07:20 AM

Johnson vs Jeanette almost happened:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Mendoza

10-09-2007, 07:23 AM

Johnson vs Demspey? Almost! Some say the fight happened in Canada, though there is only one report, which could very well be a fake.

Here's the lead up to the match that might have been, which Dempsey was reported to win via TKO.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

More info. Another read:
JACK JOHNSON HERE, LOOKING HIS BEST; Ex-Champion Thinks He "Could Lick Dempsey"--To Spend Ten Days in Harlem.

July 23, 1921, Saturday

He admits that he is trying to come back, but to look at Jack Johnson you never could tell that he had passed his heyday. The big negro ex-champion arrived in New York yesterday aboard the Twentieth Century Limited from Chicago, looking more like 25 than the 40-odd years he acknowledges.

Mendoza

10-09-2007, 07:25 AM

JACK JOHNSON TO SIGN.; Champion Expects $100,000 for Bouts with Langford, McVey, and Flynn.

October 12, 1912, Saturday

CHICAGO, Oct. 11. -- Jack Johnson, champion heavyweight pugilist, announced here to-day that he exptets to sign articles to-morrow to fight Sam Langford and Sam McVey in Australia and Jim Flynn in Paris. Something in the neighborhood of $100,000 is involved in the three bouts contemplated by the champion.

Mendoza

10-09-2007, 07:30 AM

JACK JOHNSON SIGNS.; Negro to Get $50,000 for Bouts with Langford and McVey.

October 13, 1912, Sunday

CHICAGO, Oct. 12. -- Jack Johnson tonight announced that he had accepted the offer of $50,000 to fight Sam Langford and Sam McVey in Australia, made by Hugh D. McIntosh. He will leave Chicago on Oct. 25 for Australia and train there. He will fight Langford on Dec. 26

>>Link to be posted later by me.

dmt

10-09-2007, 08:05 AM

nice links Mendoza

mattdonnellon

10-09-2007, 08:25 AM

nice report on jim johnson bout. tnkx.

Luigi1985

10-09-2007, 08:32 AM

I have some news archives on some of Jack Johnson's clips. Did you know H.D. McIntosh, the famous promoter who put on Burns vs Johnson, offered $50,000 for Johnson to fight Langford, andr McVey, but Johnson did not take it? Jeanette's manger offered $30,000 for the match. So much for the theory that Johnson could make more money fighting the Flynn's, Ross', and Kaufman's of boxing. Johnson is quotes saying he will sign. In fact he did, but the fights did not happen.

Here is the fight review of Jack Johnson vs Battling Jim Johnson. This was history's first all black gloved heavyweight title fight. The true story is the fight was scheduled for 20 rounds, but Jack Johnson quit in the 10th frame. Also, the belt was in dispute after the fight. Read the review and decide for yourself who should have won.

Here's is news read from the New York Times. Enjoy. I plan on posting a few threads on old news reads here. Mostly on historical data that has been misunderstood by " internet " rumors.

Enjoy the reads. I hope the links work.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Great fight reports, Mendoza. I would like to know what posters like Clay II say now...

PowerPuncher

10-09-2007, 09:20 AM

Johnson is quotes saying he will sign. In fact he did, but the fights did not happen.
&oref=slogin ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

So he signed to the fights but they didnt happen? Sounds like the promoters couldnt get the purses together they promised

PowerPuncher

10-09-2007, 09:23 AM

Read the review and decide for yourself who should have won.
&oref=slogin ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

It seems like back then if you sustained an injury you could pull out without losing. In these days it sounds wrong but if that was the norm back then, than so be it.

You also have to question if the press themselves were biased against the unpopular champion

OLD FOGEY

10-09-2007, 10:26 AM

I have some news archives on some of Jack Johnson's clips. Did you know H.D. McIntosh, the famous promoter who put on Burns vs Johnson, offered $50,000 for Johnson to fight Langford, andr McVey, but Johnson did not take it? Jeanette's manger offered $30,000 for the match. So much for the theory that Johnson could make more money fighting the Flynn's, Ross', and Kaufman's of boxing. Johnson is quotes saying he will sign. In fact he did, but the fights did not happen.

Here is the fight review of Jack Johnson vs Battling Jim Johnson. This was history's first all black gloved heavyweight title fight. The true story is the fight was scheduled for 20 rounds, but Jack Johnson quit in the 10th frame. Also, the belt was in dispute after the fight. Read the review and decide for yourself who should have won.

Here's is news read from the New York Times. Enjoy. I plan on posting a few threads on old news reads here. Mostly on historical data that has been misunderstood by " internet " rumors.

Enjoy the reads. I hope the links work.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Very, very interesting. Johnson does not seem to have done much really after the Jeffries bout other than edge Moran. Maybe they felt a champion should not lose his belt on an injury, but the critics who say Johnson lucked out seem to have the better case. It certainly makes you question whether Johnson could have handled any of the black dynamite fighters after 1912 or so.
One question, though--I am confused about the scheduled length of the bout. Where exactly does it say it was for twenty rounds?

janitor

10-09-2007, 12:04 PM

Here is the fight review of Jack Johnson vs Battling Jim Johnson. This was history's first all black gloved heavyweight title fight. The true story is the fight was scheduled for 20 rounds, but Jack Johnson quit in the 10th frame. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

The article clearly states that the bout was scheduled for 10 rounds and that Johnson finished the bout.

janitor

10-09-2007, 12:18 PM

I have some news archives on some of Jack Johnson's clips. Did you know H.D. McIntosh, the famous promoter who put on Burns vs Johnson, offered $50,000 for Johnson to fight Langford, andr McVey, but Johnson did not take it? Jeanette's manger offered $30,000 for the match. So much for the theory that Johnson could make more money fighting the Flynn's, Ross', and Kaufman's of boxing. Johnson is quotes saying he will sign. In fact he did, but the fights did not happen.

You have to look at the time line here-

1912

Jun 21
Johnson indicted for smugling a diamond necklace.

Oct 11
Johnson signs to fight Langford and McVea in Australia

Oct 12
Johnson arested under the mann act (I believe McIntosh withdrew his offer following Johnson being charged)

1913

Jan 23
Johnson Jeanette close to being signed

May 14
Johnson convicted under the mann act (an offer now efectivley dead in the water)

I believe Johnson was also offered $30 000 to fight Sam McVea in Russia around this time.

In summary it cannot be said that any of these offers came under ideal circumstances. They all came late in Johnsons title reign and while he was subject to legal proceedings.

Mendoza

10-09-2007, 02:31 PM

You have to look at the time line here-

1912

Jun 21
Johnson indicted for smugling a diamond necklace.

Oct 11
Johnson signs to fight Langford and McVea in Australia

Oct 12
Johnson arested under the mann act (I believe McIntosh withdrew his offer following Johnson being charged)

1913

Jan 23
Johnson Jeanette close to being signed

May 14
Johnson convicted under the mann act (an offer now efectivley dead in the water)

I believe Johnson was also offered $30 000 to fight Sam McVea in Russia around this time.

In summary it cannot be said that any of these offers came under ideal circumstances. They all came late in Johnsons title reign and while he was subject to legal proceedings.

Janitor,

Lets be realistic here. Johnson could have fought anyone he wanted to in France, Australia, or Great Brittan.

Johnson fought Flynn in the USA in July, 1912. This means the USA was in play for Johnson.

Johnson fought Jim " battling " Johnson in France in December, 1913. Johnson could have fought Jeanette, Langford, or McVey in France or the other countires.

Without a doubt, the money was on the table for real title fights for Johnson, and he balked. H.D. Mcintoish, and the other mangers put the money up. These news paper clips show Johnson saying one thing, and doing another. It also shows that Johnson was willing to fight McVey, and the friend ship between the two had nothing to do with a fight happening.

As for the Battling Jim Johnson fight, the French papers say it was a 20 round match, and so does the Cyber boxing Zone.

Mendoza

10-09-2007, 02:37 PM

So he signed to the fights but they didnt happen? Sounds like the promoters couldnt get the purses together they promised

Not so. H.D. McCintoish was the same man who put the money up for Johnson vs Burns. H.D. McCintoish was very popular in Australia. Simply stated, the money was there for matches with Langford, Jeanette, and McVey. In fact Langford's manager made a very good offer to fight Johnson in England.

I think its time to accept the truth here. Johnson is lucky to have kept his title vs Jim Battling Johnson, and ducked big money matches with Langford, Jeanette, and McVey.

If you find any news articles of promoters failing to deliver, post it here. I have not seen it.

janitor

10-09-2007, 02:54 PM

[quote=Mendoza]Janitor,

Lets be realistic here. Johnson could have fought anyone he wanted to in France, Australia, or Great Brittan.

OK. I don't want it to be thought that I am a blind Johnson apologist here. As you will see from another curently active thread I am rather sceptical of his failure to fight the black dynamite crew.

I do however think that you are being a little cavalier in your analysis and in asigning motives to Johnson.

Johnson fought Jim " battling " Johnson in France in December, 1913. Johnson could have fought Jeanette, Langford, or McVey in France or the other countires.

A couple of observations have to be made.

A. Not many promotors would have been prepared to work with a fugative champion.

B. Johnson really had nothing except the title to suport him once in exile so he was probably more reluctant to risk it than previously.

Without a doubt, the money was on the table for real title fights for Johnson, and he balked. H.D. Mcintoish, and the other mangers put the money up. These news paper clips show Johnson saying one thing, and doing another. It also shows that Johnson was willing to fight McVey, and the friend ship between the two had nothing to do with a fight happening.

A. The Macintosh offer was put on the table the day before Johnson was arested and inprisoned pending trial under the mann act. He might have had other things on his mind at this point.

B. All these offers came late in Johnsons career when he was in visible decline. Would he necisarily have turned his nose up at such an offer after the Jeffries fight say?

As for the Battling Jim Johnson fight, the French papers say it was a 20 round match, and so does the Cyber boxing Zone.

I have seen acounts listing it as 20 and acounts listing it as 10. We have to tread carefully.

Mendoza

10-09-2007, 03:06 PM

C. M. Clay II

10-09-2007, 03:29 PM

I have some news archives on some of Jack Johnson's clips. Did you know H.D. McIntosh, the famous promoter who put on Burns vs Johnson, offered $50,000 for Johnson to fight Langford, andr McVey, but Johnson did not take it? Jeanette's manger offered $30,000 for the match. So much for the theory that Johnson could make more money fighting the Flynn's, Ross', and Kaufman's of boxing. Johnson is quotes saying he will sign. In fact he did, but the fights did not happen.

Here is the fight review of Jack Johnson vs Battling Jim Johnson. This was history's first all black gloved heavyweight title fight. The true story is the fight was scheduled for 20 rounds, but Jack Johnson quit in the 10th frame. Also, the belt was in dispute after the fight. Read the review and decide for yourself who should have won.

Here's is news read from the New York Times. Enjoy. I plan on posting a few threads on old news reads here. Mostly on historical data that has been misunderstood by " internet " rumors.

Enjoy the reads. I hope the links work.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

You're a little late. Everybody knows about the botched Langford fight.:huh

Mendoza

10-09-2007, 03:40 PM

You're a little late. Everybody knows about the botched Langford fight.:huh

There were at least two offers to fight Langford. Ar eyou aware of this C.M Clay? One by H.D. Macintoish, the other by Langford's manager in England. Based on Johnson's shaky perfoamces, I think Langford would win.

C. M. Clay II

10-09-2007, 04:24 PM

There were at least two offers to fight Langford. Ar eyou aware of this C.M Clay? One by H.D. Macintoish, the other by Langford's manager in England. Based on Johnson's shaky perfoamces, I think Langford would win.

I am fully aware of the $100,000 gate to fight Langford, and also the McVey & Jeanette fights. However, when Johnson got into legal trouble, the promoters cancelld the fight in order to avoid any trouble.

janitor

10-09-2007, 05:57 PM

[quote=Mendoza]Janitor,

Promoters will work with anyone. If one venue is out, there are always others.

It is good that we share a cynical view of promotors.

Even so working with a fugitive champion is a tough mark for them.

Johnson was champ from 1908-1915. He had plenty of time, opportunities, and big money offers to fight the best out there. Fights with Langford, Jeanette, McVey, and Smith could have been made.

Again I am forced into the role of devils advocate:smooch

The big money offers to fight the black dynamite crew only came when he was past his best and involved in various trials.

Johnson did not turn himself in until much later. From 1908-1921,

He stood trials in 1912/13 and spent time in jail over this period.

Grebfan9

10-09-2007, 10:59 PM

Hi Mendoza,

Though I am a fan of Johnsons, I agree that the fight with Jim
Johnson should have been a TKO win for Battling Jim. Jack could
not continue due to an injured arm.

Further, it seems like Johnson chose to avoid Langford, because
for a while, Langford was coming on strong and KOing lots
of fighters, whereas Johnson was slowly declining. I think that
Johnson was aware that he was no longer was at the top of his game,
so he fought guys like Frank Moran, tough fighters but not of the
calibre of a Sam Langford or Joe Jeannette. Even Gunboat Smith
would have been a tougher choice than say Moran.

Grebfan9
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

There were at least two offers to fight Langford. Ar eyou aware of this C.M Clay? One by H.D. Macintoish, the other by Langford's manager in England. Based on Johnson's shaky perfoamces, I think Langford would win.

mcvey

10-10-2007, 06:03 AM

Janitor,

Promoters will work with anyone. If one venue is out, there are always others.

Johnson was champ from 1908-1915. He had plenty of time, opportunities, and big money offers to fight the best out there. Fights with Langford, Jeanette, McVey, and Smith could have been made. Re-matches with O'Brien and Jim Johnson could have also been made. These were the fights that could have defined Johnson as a champion.

The bottom line ( As I have said before ) is Johnson chose soft touches for title defenses. He was lucky to draw vs O'Brien, and Jim Johnson. IMO, Jim Johnson won that fight.

Johnson also barely got by Moran. The fight could have been called a draw from what I have seen; though I do beleive Johnson was just a shade better.

Johnson did not turn himself in until much later. From 1908-1921, Johnson fought at least once a year, save the years 1911 and 1917. Though Johnson was convicted under the Mann Act law, he never had any legal problems for fleeing the country when out on a bond, smuggling charges, or numerous traffic related tickets. I have read that an estimated 10,000 people were arrested on Mann Act charges.
I see that stick is out again.I knew where this was going from the first post,had a little bet with myself.The O Brien fight was a no decision 6 rounder,to win this fight OBrien would have had to stop Johnson ,since he was allmost totally devoid of power this was extremely unlikely,knowing this Johnson didnt train for the fight ,it was a bore Johnson grinned and postured and OBrien ran,luck had nothing to do with it.If a better contender than Jim Johnson had ben in there with Jack that night in paris Johnson would probably have lost his title ,a Gun Boat Smith or a Langford would likely have beaten him on his showing that night ,but then he would probably have been in better shape against a more dangerous opponent.Johnson ,after the Flynn fight was going down hill his dissolute lifestyle and troubles with the law affected his focus, some of his problems ,you could say he brought on himself,,he could have kept in shape ,he could have and should have fought the black challengers as |Champion,though he did beat quite a few when he was a challenger,something the white Champions beforehim largely managed to avoid doing.Johnson wasnt prepared to risk his crown against the best Black men ,in that he followed a well established precedent ,you can say as a Black man he had a moral obligation to aid ,and support his fellow "brothers",but moral s werent Johnsons strong point,Jack Johnson didnt fight for Black equality ,he fought for Jack Johnson,In 12 Years ,and 25 defences Joe Louis fought 2 black challengers ,one was a light heavyweight ,blind in 1 eye,the other ,an old walcott was so lightly regarded the fight was first promoted as an exhibition,I dont hear anyone crying about that,and dont tell me there werent better challengers among the black fighters than Harry Thomas ,Jack Roper,Gus Dorazio etc,Why not just say I dont rate Jack Johnson ,he is very overated ,his reign stinks he fought nobody and let it go at that,instead of making tortous threads to denigrate the man,you can research papers that will report Jeffries couldnt get his face out of the way of a ljab ,and only won his fight by durability and strength but you wont convert the guys that think James J was the nearest thing to Superman so why try?I think some one like Ali would have crucified Jeffries,but I have no interest or desire in trying to persuade Jeffries fan s round to my opinion.

PowerPuncher

10-10-2007, 06:07 AM

I see that stick is out again.I knew where this was going from the first post,had a little bet with myself.The O Brien fight was a no decision 6 rounder,to win this fight OBrien would have had to stop Johnson ,since he was allmost totally devoid of power this was extremely unlikely,knowing this Johnson didnt train for the fight ,it was a bore Johnson grinned and postured and OBrien ran,luck had nothing to do with it.If a better contender than Jim Johnson had ben in there with Jack that night in paris Johnson would probably have lost his title ,a Gun Boat Smith or a Langford would likely have beaten him on his showing that night ,but then he would probably have been in better shape against a more dangerous opponent.Johnson ,after the Flynn fight was going down hill his dissolute lifestyle and troubles with the law affected his focus, some of his problems ,you could say he brought on himself,,he could have kept in shape ,he could have and should have fought the black challengers as |Champion,though he did beat quite a few when he was a challenger,something the white Champions beforehim largely managed to avoid doing.Johnson wasnt prepared to risk his crown against the best Black men ,in that he followed a well established precedent ,you can say as a Black man he had a moral obligation to aid ,and support his fellow "brothers",but moral s werent Johnsons strong point,Jack Johnson didnt fight for Black equality ,he fought for Jack Johnson,In 12 Years ,and 25 defences Joe Louis fought 2 black challengers ,one was a light heavyweight ,blind in 1 eye,the other ,an old walcott was so lightly regarded the fight was first promoted as an exhibition,I dont hear anyone crying about that,and dont tell me there werent better challengers among the black fighters than Harry Thomas ,Jack Roper,Gus Dorazio etc,Why not just say I dont rate Jack Johnson ,he is very overated ,his reign stinks he fought nobody and let it go at that,instead of making tortous threads to denigrate the man,you can research papers that will report Jeffries couldnt get his face out of the way of a ljab ,and only won his fight by durability and strength but you wont convert the guys that think James J was the nearest thing to Superman so why try?I think some one like Ali would have crucified Jeffries,but I have no interest or desire in trying to persuade Jeffries fan s round to my opinion.

Interesting post but try to use paragraphs or no one will read it (I wasnt going to bother)

PowerPuncher

10-10-2007, 06:09 AM

Anyone who thinks Johnson would turn down a $100,000 payday regardless of the challenger then they are in cloud cucko land.

mcvey

10-10-2007, 06:21 AM

Interesting post but try to use paragraphs or no one will read it (I wasnt going to bother)
Whats a paragraph? Power puncher? Perhaps I should have prepared better? Probably my points arent precise or persuasive enough.Personally I prefer to plod along pretending I put up good posts. My plebian phraseology,has put a partial perversion on my perspective,please permit me to proffer my profound apologies to your proffered pedantic post.

Only joking ,I write as I talk in bursts,its a common fault of mine. PPPPPP !

Mendoza

10-10-2007, 06:26 AM

Whats a paragraph? Power puncher? Perhaps I should have prepared better? Probably my points arent precise or persuasive enough.Personally I prefer to plod along pretending I put up good posts. My plebian phraseology,has put a partial perversion on my perspective,please permit me to proffer my profound apologies to your proffered pedantic post.

Only joking ,I write as I talk in bursts,its a common fault of mine. PPPPPP !
I'll be happy to help McVey out. He basically agrees with what I have been saying about Jack Johnson being over rated, lucky to win some fights, and avoiding the best competition despite some big time purse offers as champion. We agree here.

Where we might disagree is how much Johnson's wins over 156 pound Langford, a very in-experienced Jeanette, or a teenaged and green McVey really mean. Jeanette despite sporting a record below, at, or slightly above .500 was nearly even with Johnson when the two mixed it.

Then he says Joe Louis never faced many black contenders, and Ali whips Jeffries.

Mendoza

10-10-2007, 06:36 AM

Anyone who thinks Johnson would turn down a $100,000 payday regardless of the challenger then they are in cloud cucko land.

Johnson loved money. He once blew $20,000 in one night, which was an obscene amount of money in those days. If you read the stuff I post Power Puncher, you will note what I say is pretty much spot on, and backed by news paper accounts. To deny multiple news paper accounts to suit an agenda seems like your reading from cloud cuckoo. Either that or the facts, and truths simply do not coenciding with your rooting interests. I think it’s the later as most of your posts are good.

The bottom line is Johnson had a real chance to fatten his bank accounts. All he had to do was take one of many offers to fight McVey, Jeanette, or Langford as champion. Histroy shows us he did not. Case closed.

mattdonnellon

10-10-2007, 07:01 AM

Johnsons reign as champion was dire but for the record I can find multiple listings of the Jim Johnson fight as a ten rounder prior to the contest and only one listing it as a twenty-rounder. I feel it is safe to assume it was a ten so JJ stayed the distance. As to the validity of the decision i cannot say except to point out that some reports were derisory of the effords of both men and felt they were "stalling",

dmt

10-10-2007, 08:27 AM

what's the debate when Johnson himself admitted he did not want to risk his title vs Langford?

janitor

10-10-2007, 09:00 AM

what's the debate when Johnson himself admitted he did not want to risk his title vs Langford?

The debate from my point of view is whether Johnson was soley responsible for these fights not taking place or whether there were other factors.

Personaly I dont think the issue is as straightforward as some make it out to be.

mcvey

10-10-2007, 12:11 PM

I'll be happy to help McVey out. He basically agrees with what I have been saying about Jack Johnson being over rated, lucky to win some fights, and avoiding the best competition despite some big time purse offers as champion. We agree here.

Where we might disagree is how much Johnson's wins over 156 pound Langford, a very in-experienced Jeanette, or a teenaged and green McVey really mean. Jeanette despite sporting a record below, at, or slightly above .500 was nearly even with Johnson when the two mixed it.

Then he says Joe Louis never faced many black contenders, and Ali whips Jeffries.
I dont agree Johnson was overated ,I think he is the second best heavyweight of all time.The only fight I can see a case for Johnson being lucky in is perhaps the Jim Johnson fight,Ive seen the fight described as scheduled for ten and twenty rounds so there is some confusion there.
A prime Johnson beats Sullivan ,Corbett,Fitz,Jeffries,Hart,Langford Jeanette ,Mcvey,Smith or anyone else before Dempseys reign.
Ithink Jack whips Dempsey,Marciano,Tunney,Liston and Holmes,Tyson ,Lewis,but loses to Ali.
Ive held the view that Jack Johnson was the greatest Heavywieght of all time right up until I watched Ali ko Foreman ,on closed circuit in Leicester Square London,then I changed to Ali as my number 1.
Mendoza we are further apart than ever,Ive agreed that Johnson should have fought the top black challengers of his reign,so should Louis have ,Holmes my number 5 heavweight should have fought Page Thomas ,Witherspoon and Williams again,Tunney should have fought Sharkey but the Gob drawing with Heeney got him off that one ,Tunney could have fought Godfrey but chose not to,Schmeling actually turned down a fight with Champ Baer,you can go on and on.You arent coming up with anything NEW!

KSmith9116

10-10-2007, 12:43 PM

Welcome back Dr. Z

dmt

10-10-2007, 12:51 PM

i don't entirely blame Johnson since the politics of the day caused problems for both Johnson and Dempsey, but to an extent they can be responsible for it. However many fail to realise the politics.

In the end the bottom line is the lagacy of fighters like Johnson and Dempsey will always be incomplete without meeting their best challengers, Dempsey(Wills, Langford when he was a contender) and Johnson (Jeannette, Langford and McVea)

janitor

10-10-2007, 01:01 PM

PowerPuncher

10-10-2007, 02:02 PM

Johnson loved money. He once blew $20,000 in one night, which was an obscene amount of money in those days. If you read the stuff I post Power Puncher, you will note what I say is pretty much spot on, and backed by news paper accounts. To deny multiple news paper accounts to suit an agenda seems like your reading from cloud cuckoo. Either that or the facts, and truths simply do not coenciding with your rooting interests. I think it’s the later as most of your posts are good.

The bottom line is Johnson had a real chance to fatten his bank accounts. All he had to do was take one of many offers to fight McVey, Jeanette, or Langford as champion. Histroy shows us he did not. Case closed.

I'm not ignoring the newspaper reports. I'm questioning the details of the offers. Fights don't get made for many reasons.

The real questions are:

How much was Johnson on per fight? If it was significantly below $100k (ie 20k) then I see it very unlikely he'd turn down a Langford he already beat comfotably. If he was already on $100k per fight to fight anyone, then there is no reason to fight a harder fight for the same amount of money.

How genuine were these offers?

How long were these offers on the table for? (some may have been withdrawn when Johnson faced legal problems)

Would contractual stipulations did the fight contracts contain?

My initialy point stands - if Johnson was offered a record high payday to fight someone he'd already beaten comprehensively - he'd take it.

mcvey

10-10-2007, 02:02 PM

Welcome back Dr. Z
On tje money!

mcvey

10-10-2007, 02:02 PM

Welcome back Dr. Z
On the money.!

mattdonnellon

10-10-2007, 07:16 PM

the Jim Johnson fight I have seen multiple accounts stating, BEFORE the fight, to be scheduled fot ten. I have seen only one instant prior to the contest stating it was for 20. However just looking at his title reign, it really was crap. J J was once quoted as saying he had 5 worthwhile challangers, Willard, Smith, Ross (yes, Ross) Langford and I'm damned if I can recall the fifth.

Mendoza

10-10-2007, 08:47 PM

PowerPuncherI'm not ignoring the newspaper reports. I'm questioning the details of the offers. Fights don't get made for many reasons.

The real questions are:

How much was Johnson on per fight? If it was significantly below $100k (ie 20k) then I see it very unlikely he'd turn down a Langford he already beat comfotably. If he was already on $100k per fight to fight anyone, then there is no reason to fight a harder fight for the same amount of money.

Johnson could make more money for sure on Langford, Jeanette, and McVey than the Flynn's, Ross' and Kaufman's of boxing. I assure you the purse offering for Johnson were at least double, and in all likely hood at least 4x or more the amount he was making for the easy title defenses vs the Jim Johnson's and Jim Flynn's of boxing.

How genuine were these offers?

They were offers. They same as others. If the offers were not genuine, Johnson would have used that as an excuse and the press would have said, Johnson signs $100,000 to meet Langford and McVey, but the deal falls through!!! I see no such articles. I never read that any big fight vs Langford, Jeanette, or McVey vs Johnson feel through due to lack of funds. Johnson simply gave the best competition the cold shoulder and fought lesser fighters for less money.

How long were these offers on the table for? (some may have been withdrawn when Johnson faced legal problems)

Once again, Johnson could fight anyone he wanted to in France, England, and Australia. As I pointed out, Flynn fight was in late 1912, and that one took place in the USA. Johnson had plenty of time to fight the best.

Would contractual stipulations did the fight contracts contain?

The news papers showed the money involved. As for stipulations, Johnson was steering ht championship ship. He would have commanded a higher percentage of the purses.

My initialy point stands - if Johnson was offered a record high payday to fight someone he'd already beaten comprehensively - he'd take it.

This is unadulterated BS. You don’t have a point here. How much do you think Johnson made vs Flynn, Ross, or Kauffman? Though I don't have the financial amounts that Johnson made in these fights, I would tend to beleive one $50,000 fight with Langford, McVey or Jeanette would net him more than the three fights of the lesser " white hopes " that Johnson fought. Read the clippings I posted here. The amounts of money Johnson had on the table here were huge. The 100K deal from H.D. McIntoish would trump Johnson’s earning vs Jeffries.

Mendoza

10-10-2007, 09:06 PM

I dont agree Johnson was overated ,I think he is the second best heavyweight of all time.The only fight I can see a case for Johnson being lucky in is perhaps the Jim Johnson fight,Ive seen the fight described as scheduled for ten and twenty rounds so there is some confusion there.
A prime Johnson beats Sullivan ,Corbett,Fitz,Jeffries,Hart,Langford Jeanette ,Mcvey,Smith or anyone else before Dempseys reign.
Ithink Jack whips Dempsey,Marciano,Tunney,Liston and Holmes,Tyson ,Lewis,but loses to Ali.
Ive held the view that Jack Johnson was the greatest Heavywieght of all time right up until I watched Ali ko Foreman ,on closed circuit in Leicester Square London,then I changed to Ali as my number 1.
Mendoza we are further apart than ever,Ive agreed that Johnson should have fought the top black challengers of his reign,so should Louis have ,Holmes my number 5 heavweight should have fought Page Thomas ,Witherspoon and Williams again,Tunney should have fought Sharkey but the Gob drawing with Heeney got him off that one ,Tunney could have fought Godfrey but chose not to,Schmeling actually turned down a fight with Champ Baer,you can go on and on.You arent coming up with anything NEW!

Your opinion is your opinion. I just see it as an all heart opinion that lacks objectivity.

Let's suppose for a moment if Ali, Foreman, Marciano, Holmes or anyone else you mentioned was Ko'd by a light heavy, quit twice in the ring, lost to mere contenders, was knocked down by a middle weight, got DQ'd by goin low when the going got rough, drew or went the distance with many journeyman and as champion ducked the best five contenders out there! This man is #2? If so, I say OVER RATED.

When do you think Johnson prime years were, and why would the #2 all time heavy have that much trouble in his prime years? Let's assume that Johnson's prime years were from 1908-1912. Why did he have trouble with O'Briens', Ketchel's, and Jim Johnson’s of boxing? The best heavyweight champions would romp these guys. You're #2 all time guy in his prime had his hands full, and in truth should have lost at least one of these fights.

Could you imagie if Ali, or Holmes had the exact same results from fighters the size, skill, and caliber of a past his best O'Brien, a middle weight in Ketchel who knocked him down, and a career journeyamn heavyweight in Jim Johnson? I 'd drop them down several nothces, but that's just me being objective.

mcvey

10-11-2007, 06:35 AM

No thats just you being objectionable!:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

Mendoza

10-11-2007, 06:50 AM

No thats just you being objectionable!:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

The gift of logic, reason, and objectivity on Jack Johnson eludes you my friend. If you want to engage in a debate on what I said about any all time top 5 heavyweight's ranking tumbling if they lost to, had trouble beating, or drew with the guys Johnson fought, go for it!

Guys like Ali, Foreman, Louis, Dempsey, Holmes, Tyson, and Lewis in their peak years would destroy the same competition Johnson fought with shocking ease. But if they had the same results, critics would correctly question them.

If you want this debate, go for it. I suspect you will avoid it as if it were the reincarnation of the bubonic plague. I think know my points are to strong, but you just can’t say it / admit it.

There may come a time when I need to borrow your rose colored glasses. Can I borrow them if I need them?

mcvey

10-11-2007, 06:55 AM

The gift of logic, reason, and objectivity on Jack Johnson eludes you my friend. If you want to engage in a debate on what I said about any all time top 5 heavyweight's ranking tumbling if they lost to, had trouble beating, or drew with the guys Johnson fought, go for it!

Guys like Ali, Foreman, Louis, Dempsey, Holmes, Tyson, and Lewis in their peak years would destroy the same competition Johnson fought with shocking ease. But if they had the same results, critics would correctly question them.

If you want this debate, go for it. I suspect you will avoid it as if it were the reincarnation of the bubonic plague. I think know my points are to strong, but you just can’t say it / admit it.

There may come a time when I need to borrow your rose colored glasses. Can I borrow them if I need them?
You dont need glasses you need a white stick.

To beat Johnson with.

And to stick up Jeffries arse and raise him higher and higher.

Mendoza

10-11-2007, 07:13 AM

You dont need glasses you need a white stick.

To beat Johnson with.

And to stick up Jeffries arse and raise him higher and higher.

If I really wanted to raise Jeffries up higher and higher, I speak of Johnson in unrealistic misty eyed terms they way you do. This way Jeffries lost to superior all time #2 heavyweight. Does this make sense to you McVey?

But I am objective, and I don't think Johnson was anywhere near that good. I have shown the board why rather convincingly. As for Ali, he’s my #1 too. We have that in common! However, I do think Ali was lucky to win some of his fights, and I examine them with the same objectivity. See how easy that is? Just take off those glasses, watch the films, read news clippings, study the ages and experience level of when the fights happened and embrace the truth. It's not too hard.

Liking a fighter and fairly ranking him are two different things. For example, I think Aurto Gatti is one of the most exciting fighters of our generation. Yet Aurto wasn't an all time great in my book. I like him a lot, but remain reasonable about his chances vs the best.

Grebfan9

10-11-2007, 07:24 AM

Hi Mendoza,

You make a great point - Example, many boxing fans like
Rocky Graziano, though I don't think that he belongs in the top
5 middleweight category.

BTW, if Jack Johnson fought HARRY WILLS instead of Willard,
1) Do you think that Wills (in 1915) would have been experienced
enough at that point to beat Johnson?;
2) As far as styles go, would a big strong good boxing heayweight
like Wills be the type of fighter to beat Jack?

I think that Gunboat Smith might have really extended Jack, say if
they fought in 1913/1914.

Grebfan9
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

If I really wanted to raise Jeffries up higher and higher, I speak of Johnson in unrealistic misty eyed terms they way you do. This way Jeffries lost to superior all time #2 heavyweight. Does this make sense to you McVey?

But I am objective, and I don't think Johnson was anywhere near that good. I have shown the board why rather convincingly. As for Ali, he’s my #1 too. We have that in common! However, I do think Ali was lucky to win some of his fights, and I examine them with the same objectivity. See how easy that is? Just take off those glasses, watch the films, read news clippings, study the ages and experience level of when the fights happened and embrace the truth. It's not too hard.

Liking a fighter and fairly ranking him are two different things. For example, I think Aurto Gatti is one of the most exciting fighters of our generation. Yet Aurto wasn't an all time great in my book. I like him a lot, but remain reasonable about his chances vs the best.

mcvey

10-11-2007, 07:34 AM

If I really wanted to raise Jeffries up higher and higher, I speak of Johnson in unrealistic misty eyed terms they way you do. This way Jeffries lost to superior all time #2 heavyweight. Does this make sense to you McVey?

But I am objective, and I don't think Johnson was anywhere near that good. I have shown the board why rather convincingly. As for Ali, he’s my #1 too. We have that in common! However, I do think Ali was lucky to win some of his fights, and I examine them with the same objectivity. See how easy that is? Just take off those glasses, watch the films, read news clippings, study the ages and experience level of when the fights happened and embrace the truth. It's not too hard.

Liking a fighter and fairly ranking him are two different things. For example, I think Aurto Gatti is one of the most exciting fighters of our generation. Yet Aurto wasn't an all time great in my book. I like him a lot, but remain reasonable about his chances vs the best.
I dont "like " Jack Johnson,I think he was a pretty objectionable human being,he beat women,was extrememly vain,dishonest,untrustworthy,and could be cruel,I rate him as I do because thats where I think he belongs,Fleischer rated him higher!,and before you attack him again ,remember ,he put Jeffries at no 2,so if you make a cas for old Nat being biased ,you are tearing down your god,old bigoted Jeff,who bet$5000,on Fitz at odds of 10/6 to beat himself in their first fight,on the grounds he was covering "allbets"..Stop cherry picking incidents,anyone can make a case ,being selective about a fighters career,Ali gets beat by a fighter with only 7 pro bouts,knocked down by a cruiserweight ,Cooper,and a journeyman ,Wepner.Louis is kd by a fat out of shape bartender twice,Galento,hurt by a LH who didnt have ko power at 175,Conn.Jeffries is beaten black and blue by a man who hadnt had a fight in 2 years who was 37 and7 pounds above Middleweight,,Holmes just scraped by comparative novices like Witherspoon and Williams,Dempsey was taken the decision by a fat Sailor who couldnt punch ,not once but several times ,Meehan.Isolate bouts from any fighters resume and you can spin the bottle in your favourite direction.Joe Frazier beat ONE ATG,and that guy was back from over 3 years out of the ring ,with only 18 rounds of boxing under his belt,you can go on for ever,dont you get tired? Sing another song.

Mendoza

10-11-2007, 08:12 AM

I dont "like " Jack Johnson,I think he was a pretty objectionable human being,he beat women,was extrememly vain,dishonest,untrustworthy,and could be cruel,I rate him as I do because thats where I think he belongs,Fleischer rated him higher!,and before you attack him again ,remember ,he put Jeffries at no 2,so if you make a cas for old Nat being biased ,you are tearing down your god,old bigoted Jeff,who bet$5000,on Fitz at odds of 10/6 to beat himself in their first fight,on the grounds he was covering "allbets"..Stop cherry picking incidents,anyone can make a case ,being selective about a fighters career,Ali gets beat by a fighter with only 7 pro bouts,knocked down by a cruiserweight ,Cooper,and a journeyman ,Wepner.Louis is kd by a fat out of shape bartender twice,Galento,hurt by a LH who didnt have ko power at 175,Conn.Jeffries is beaten black and blue by a man who hadnt had a fight in 2 years who was 37 and7 pounds above Middleweight,,Holmes just scraped by comparative novices like Witherspoon and Williams,Dempsey was taken the decision by a fat Sailor who couldnt punch ,not once but several times ,Meehan.Isolate bouts from any fighters resume and you can spin the bottle in your favourite direction.Joe Frazier beat ONE ATG,and that guy was back from over 3 years out of the ring ,with only 18 rounds of boxing under his belt,you can go on for ever,dont you get tired? Sing another song.
Nat and Jack were friends. Friends tend to over rate friends. I always laugh when they ask a trainer to or manager to rate his fighters. Is this the crutch you using?

I suppose if you think Nat is spot, on that Fitzsimmons is your #3 all time heavyweight too. And Corbett is what, #5?! Jeffries is 4-0, 4 KO's vs two of Nat's all time top five heavies. No other man on the list can come close to saying that. Johnson old beat the shell of Jeffries, and since Nat and Jack had an Ali and Cosell writer and fighter type of relationship, this must be Nat's friendly justification of why Johnson was the best. Just a hunch. Nat also said Jeffries beat the best competition.

And by the way, Fitz and Corbett are not in my top 15. I am objective. Try it sometime.

As to Grebfan's comment, yeah, Wills probably beats Johnson in 1915. It would not matter because Wills was probably too risky for Johnson to fight. Willard wasn't much of a boxer. He was big and slow, which is why Johnson probably risked the fight. Willard in my opinion was the most formidable fighter Johnson gave a title shot to. Oh, and the fight is completely mis understood. Johnson was not up 25-0 before getting knocked out. The fight was close to even. It was a tale of two fights. Johnson in control until round 15 or so, then Willard took command from rounds 16 to finish. Maybe Willard one 1-2 early rounds, and Johnson won 1-2 late rounds. Try reading the full round by round sometime or watching the near full fight. Other bogus claims about this fight were the heat was 105? Really? The weather archives don't say that. And Johnson’s dive claim is hilarious too. Just like his claim of injuring his arm in round three vs Jim Johnson, when the entire crowd saw the injury in round ten!

Other foot notes: Corbett did not do well vs Jeffries in the second fight. You are wrong.

Witherpsoon is 5x the fighter of the lesser fighters who gave Johnson trouble.

Ali and Dempsey had some issues, but they had far less than Johnson.

School is out. I have work to do. Up next for you is paragraph formation, then some more news reads. :)

mcvey

10-11-2007, 08:39 AM

Nat and Jack were friends. Friends tend to over rate friends. I always laugh when they ask a trainer to or manager to rate his fighters. Is this the crutch you using?

I suppose if you think Nat is spot, on that Fitzsimmons is your #3 all time heavyweight too. And Corbett is what, #5?! Jeffries is 4-0, 4 KO's vs two of Nat's all time top five heavies. No other man on the list can come close to saying that. Johnson old beat the shell of Jeffries, and since Nat and Jack had an Ali and Cosell writer and fighter type of relationship, this must be Nat's friendly justification of why Johnson was the best. Just a hunch. Nat also said Jeffries beat the best competition.

And by the way, Fitz and Corbett are not in my top 15. I am objective. Try it sometime.

As to Grebfan's comment, yeah, Wills probably beats Johnson in 1915. It would not matter because Wills was probably too risky for Johnson to fight. Willard wasn't much of a boxer. He was big and slow, which is why Johnson probably risked the fight. Willard in my opinion was the most formidable fighter Johnson gave a title shot to. Oh, and the fight is completely mis understood. Johnson was not up 25-0 before getting knocked out. The fight was close to even. It was a tale of two fights. Johnson in control until round 15 or so, then Willard took command from rounds 16 to finish. Maybe Willard one 1-2 early rounds, and Johnson won 1-2 late rounds. Try reading the full round by round sometime or watching the near full fight. Other bogus claims about this fight were the heat was 105? Really? The weather archives don't say that. And Johnson’s dive claim is hilarious too. Just like his claim of injuring his arm in round three vs Jim Johnson, when the entire crowd saw the injury in round ten!

Other foot notes: Corbett did not do well vs Jeffries in the second fight. You are wrong.

Witherpsoon is 5x the fighter of the lesser fighters who gave Johnson trouble.

Ali and Dempsey had some issues, but they had far less than Johnson.

School is out. I have work to do. Up next for you is paragraph formation, then some more news reads. :)
Jack didnt win a round against Willard ,Jess is suprememly underated,he would have whipped any of those before him,especially James Jackson jefries ,who would be at the end of his telegraph pole of a jab befor succombing,bloodied and battered to Willards mighty right uppercut.Everyone knows Jeffries carried both Corbett and Fitz ,to give the punters a show,he could have put them away anytime he wanted to.Ketchel after dropping Johnson took it easy ,as per their agreement,Johnson wouldnt have dared take on the "Michigan Assassin "in a "real fight".Langford in his fight with Johnson fell down twice without taking punches ,hit himself on the nose ,breaking it,cut his own eyebrows,and took it easy ,to build up his black "brother"Johnson,of whom he was inordinately fond.Jack Obrien won every one of the 6 rounds against Johnson,who ran away,if OBrien hadnt had 2 broken hands he would have kod Johnson.
There was nothing wrong with Johnsons arm against Jim Johnson ,he was getting the shit kicked out of him ,Jack was allways yellow he proved it by refusing to fight Jimmy Wilde Johnson got a gift decision against Frank Moran,he bribed referee Carpentier with the promise of a title shot ,which he then reneged on,[you cant trust them blacks].Tommy Burns was wunning against Johnson but began to drown in Johnsons blood and had to retire.
Joe Jeanette and Sam Mcvey were 12 ,and 14 respectively when they fought Johnson ,and both should have got at least a draw.
Bob FItzsimmons was really only 25 and in the best shape of his life when he met Jeffries,he had also ben training with mackie Silverstone and had bulked up to 220lb,plus growing another 4 inches,he also wore armour plated gloves against Jeff but not onlty couldnt hurt him Jeff didnt have a mark on him after the fight.Jack Johnson was really a White man ,thats why he wouldnt give the Black challengers a chance,his real name was Al Jolson ,and using his wonderful abilities of disguise,he went on to make a name for himself as a Black face singer,his greatest hit being "Jeff ,Jeff,Jeffries Good bye,Jeff,Jeff Jeffries ,dont cry,watch for my left watch for my right,you better watch both Jeff you gonna get a whipping tonight!"
Thats OBJECTIVITY! Now will that shut you up?

PowerPuncher

10-11-2007, 08:44 AM

:lol: @ Mcvey

janitor

10-11-2007, 10:19 AM

The gift of logic, reason, and objectivity on Jack Johnson eludes you my friend. If you want to engage in a debate on what I said about any all time top 5 heavyweight's ranking tumbling if they lost to, had trouble beating, or drew with the guys Johnson fought, go for it!

Guys like Ali, Foreman, Louis, Dempsey, Holmes, Tyson, and Lewis in their peak years would destroy the same competition Johnson fought with shocking ease. But if they had the same results, critics would correctly question them.

If you want this debate, go for it. I suspect you will avoid it as if it were the reincarnation of the bubonic plague. I think know my points are to strong, but you just can’t say it / admit it.

There may come a time when I need to borrow your rose colored glasses. Can I borrow them if I need them?

I think you are missing the point here.

Johnsons main body of work on which he is rated as an all time great runs from the George Gardiner fight to the Jim Jeffries fight. You would be verry hard put to find a heavyweight who beat a better body of oposition than this or was more consistent against it. Of particular note is the period when Johnson held the coloured heavyweight title in which his schedule was verry impresive.

Grebfan9

10-11-2007, 07:39 PM

Hey Mendoza,

Thanks for the reply on Johnson-Wills. I agree with you on the
great points that you have made regarding Johnson. I also
think that the Willard KO was legitimate. I don't think that
Jack had the sturdiest of chins. Joe Choynski flattened him
with one left hook, and Ketchel dropped him. Guys like Al
Kaufman and Jim Flynn were VERY limited in their abilities.

I think that Sam Langford would have been tough when Johnson
was approaching his mid-thirties. Look at Langford's record of
KOing guys like Gunboat Smith and a bunch of the other White
Hopes. There were a few other Black fighters besides Langford
and Jeannette that were tough and could have given Jack a
tough time.

Grebfan9
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

Nat and Jack were friends. Friends tend to over rate friends. I always laugh when they ask a trainer to or manager to rate his fighters. Is this the crutch you using?

I suppose if you think Nat is spot, on that Fitzsimmons is your #3 all time heavyweight too. And Corbett is what, #5?! Jeffries is 4-0, 4 KO's vs two of Nat's all time top five heavies. No other man on the list can come close to saying that. Johnson old beat the shell of Jeffries, and since Nat and Jack had an Ali and Cosell writer and fighter type of relationship, this must be Nat's friendly justification of why Johnson was the best. Just a hunch. Nat also said Jeffries beat the best competition.

And by the way, Fitz and Corbett are not in my top 15. I am objective. Try it sometime.

As to Grebfan's comment, yeah, Wills probably beats Johnson in 1915. It would not matter because Wills was probably too risky for Johnson to fight. Willard wasn't much of a boxer. He was big and slow, which is why Johnson probably risked the fight. Willard in my opinion was the most formidable fighter Johnson gave a title shot to. Oh, and the fight is completely mis understood. Johnson was not up 25-0 before getting knocked out. The fight was close to even. It was a tale of two fights. Johnson in control until round 15 or so, then Willard took command from rounds 16 to finish. Maybe Willard one 1-2 early rounds, and Johnson won 1-2 late rounds. Try reading the full round by round sometime or watching the near full fight. Other bogus claims about this fight were the heat was 105? Really? The weather archives don't say that. And Johnson’s dive claim is hilarious too. Just like his claim of injuring his arm in round three vs Jim Johnson, when the entire crowd saw the injury in round ten!

Other foot notes: Corbett did not do well vs Jeffries in the second fight. You are wrong.

Witherpsoon is 5x the fighter of the lesser fighters who gave Johnson trouble.

Ali and Dempsey had some issues, but they had far less than Johnson.

School is out. I have work to do. Up next for you is paragraph formation, then some more news reads. :)

mcvey

10-12-2007, 08:39 AM