Johnson vs O'Brein. Who won? Here's the report.

[Mendoza]

Here's the news read. It appears O'Brein won two rounds ( 2 and 4 ), while Johnson only won one round ( 5 ). Rounds 1, 3 and 6 were even. Mayeb O'breien edged round three. Box Rec reports that the Trenton Times reported that the referee stated he thought o'Brien the winner by a shade. It sounds that way based on the read.

A few thoughts to ponder. O'brien was quick boxer mover type, and he had no issues landing on Johnson. Is Johnson defese really that special? I don't see much of it on flim unless he is clinching or fighting clumsy / much smaller fighters with limited reach like Flynn or Ketchel.

If a middle weight with a good jab could land on prime Jack Johnson, what would the better all time heavyweight do?

At the very least O'Brein deserved a re-match.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[dmt]

Clearly there is no doubt Johnson di not take it as seriously as he should have, but he did struggle with slick boxers. Other great fighters also met top notch light-heavies but with better results: Dempsey won 12 out of 15 rounds vs Gibbons, ko'd Levinsky and Carpeinter, Louis ko'd Conn and Lewis, Marciano beat Moore and Charles, both natural light-heavies, but well over the 175 lb limit. So these fighters did better vs light-heavies

[Marciano Frazier]

Here's the news read. It appears O'Brein won two rounds ( 2 and 4 ), while Johnson only won one round ( 5 ). Rounds 1, 3 and 6 were even. Mayeb O'breien edged round three. Box Rec reports that the Trenton Times reported that the referee stated he thought o'Brien the winner by a shade. It sounds that way based on the read.

A few thoughts to ponder. O'brien was quick boxer mover type, and he had no issues landing on Johnson. Is Johnson defese really that special? I don't see much of it on flim unless he is clinching or fighting clumsy / much smaller fighters with limited reach like Flynn or Ketchel.

If a middle weight with a good jab could land on prime Jack Johnson, what would the better all time heavyweight do?

At the very least O'Brein deserved a re-match.

[Only registered and activated users can see links] Boxrec also states that O'Brien was down in the first and fifth rounds- kind of an important bit of information to sweep under the table, don't you think? Anyway, the match was essentially an exhibition, where Johnson would only have lost the title if he'd been knocked out, as I recall. One can hardly watch a performance in a fight like that and think he can simply transpose it into a real, competitive world championship match.

Now, you're certainly bringing a lot of good information and resources to the table and are staying civil, but I've got to say, you seem to have come to an almost Revolver-like obsession with making as many threads as possible for the sole purpose of defaming Johnson.

[janitor]

If a middle weight with a good jab could land on prime Jack Johnson, what would the better all time heavyweight do?


If Johnson could turn up to a bout with a hangover and fight O'Brien on even terms knocking him down twice then what would he do to him if he actualy took the fight seriously.

Lets face it O'Brien was never going to get a more favourable set of circumstances.

[Mendoza]

Boxrec also states that O'Brien was down in the first and fifth rounds- kind of an important bit of information to sweep under the table, don't you think? Anyway, the match was essentially an exhibition, where Johnson would only have lost the title if he'd been knocked out, as I recall. One can hardly watch a performance in a fight like that and think he can simply transpose it into a real, competitive world championship match.


I have never heard that O'Brien was down twice. Was O'brein down in the first? This report does mention that. It does say he was down in the 5th.

[Marciano Frazier]

I have never heard that O'Brien was down twice. Was O'brein down in the first? This report does mention that. It does say he was down in the 5th. You just referred to what Boxrec says about Johnson-O'Brien- haven't you read it? Directly under the words "World Heavyweight Title" are the words "O'Brien down in the first and fifth."

[Mendoza]

You just referred to what Boxrec says about Johnson-O'Brien- haven't you read it? Directly under the words "World Heavyweight Title" are the words "O'Brien down in the first and fifth."

I missed that part on Box rec. I was focusing more on the news report, and the decision. Sometimes news reports can miss things. I have made a mental note that O'brien was down in the 1st according to Box rec.

Box rec also says this is a world title fight, not essentially an exhibition match as you stated. I think we both learned something new. Thanks.

[Marciano Frazier]

I missed that part on Box rec. I was focusing more on the news report, and the decision. Sometimes news reports can miss things. I have made a mental note that O'brien was down in the 1st according to Box rec.

Box rec also says this is a world title fight, not essentially an exhibition match as you stated. I think we both learned something new. Thanks. I said essentially an exhibition, in the sense that the title wasn't at stake unless Johnson was knocked out- in other words, it didn't too much matter if he made sure to win every second of every round, because it would count for anything unless he was knocked out.

[OLD FOGEY]

I have never heard that O'Brien was down twice. Was O'brein down in the first? This report does mention that. It does say he was down in the 5th.

Actually, it mentions that he was down twice in the first, once "rushed" off his feet, and the second "shoved" down. The report says in the text that O'Brien was badly hurt in the 4th and had to hold repeatedly for a minute, but the round by round never describes any of this.
It is interesting to see these old fight reports, and to hear the paper's opinion, but we would need a cross section of the press to draw any conclusion, and it would help if a couple of accounts were from the black press. In this fight, O'Brien is down at least twice, bloodied from the mouth, and suffers a bad cut over the eye, but supposedly comes out even.

[Langford]

I have always read that O'Brien was "felled" because Johnson was so much heavier than he was and it was due to leaning, not due to punching.
The overall newspaper consensus was that Johnson was lucky to get away with a draw.

This took place in Philadelphia, home of the "no decision rule". It is quite possible that had it been allowed to be scored, PJOB would have outpointed him.

In all fairness, Johnson knew that O'Brien could not hurt him, and there was absolutely no chance for a knockout, and that it would make him 5,000 dollars. Showed up hungover and fat. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it makes sense that PJOB's little pitty pat punches gave him points over Johnson.

I am surprised there wasn't more of an outcry for a more serious rematch. White America was hellbent on finding some kind of destructive KO artist to knock Johnson out, which fell right into Johnson's strong suit (in my mind like Ali vs Ali's destructive opponents) when maybe all they had to do was give little Jack O'Brien 15 rounds and a fairly good sized ring and hold it in a town that allowed decisions.

[OLD FOGEY]

I have always read that O'Brien was "felled" because Johnson was so much heavier than he was and it was due to leaning, not due to punching.
The overall newspaper consensus was that Johnson was lucky to get away with a draw.

This took place in Philadelphia, home of the "no decision rule". It is quite possible that had it been allowed to be scored, PJOB would have outpointed him.

In all fairness, Johnson knew that O'Brien could not hurt him, and there was absolutely no chance for a knockout, and that it would make him 5,000 dollars. Showed up hungover and fat. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it makes sense that PJOB's little pitty pat punches gave him points over Johnson.

I am surprised there wasn't more of an outcry for a more serious rematch. White America was hellbent on finding some kind of destructive KO artist to knock Johnson out, which fell right into Johnson's strong suit (in my mind like Ali vs Ali's destructive opponents) when maybe all they had to do was give little Jack O'Brien 15 rounds and a fairly good sized ring and hold it in a town that allowed decisions.

The fact that there was no clamour for a rematch might also tell you all you need to know. Johnson might not even have been training, if he can be believed on the matter, and in a serious fight I doubt if O'Brien gets the fight to the judges. Ketchel was better than O'Brien and actually knocked him out but O'Brien was saved by the bell.

The very newspaper report you just read explicitly describes the fifth round knockdown as from a punch.

[Langford]

The fact that there was no clamour for a rematch might also tell you all you need to know. Johnson might not even have been training, if he can be believed on the matter, and in a serious fight I doubt if O'Brien gets the fight to the judges. Ketchel was better than O'Brien and actually knocked him out but Jack was saved by the bell.

OF,

It tells me that when white America was looking for a possible candidate they were ignorant when it comes to finding a fighter who stylistically matched well against Johnson. O'Brien matched poorly with Ketchel, he matches quite well against Johnson and I see no reason why he wouldn't be a tougher fight than Ketchel against Johnson. Because Ketchel beats O'Brien and Johnson KO's Ketchel does not mean that Ketchel is automatically better for the job than Phily Jack. Ketchel had a lethal punch and was killer, PJOB was a slick darting type guy with no punch power. Ketchel would trade, PJOB would float and sting (ok, maybe not sting, but tap).

It is possible that Johnson would have caught O'Brien somewhere over the 15 the way Louis caught Conn, but it is also possible that O'Brien was smarter of his strengths than was Conn and could have evaded and scored his way to a UD.

[OLD FOGEY]

OF,

It tells me that when white America was looking for a possible candidate they were ignorant when it comes to finding a fighter who stylistically matched well against Johnson. O'Brien matched poorly with Ketchel, he matches quite well against Johnson and I see no reason why he wouldn't be a tougher fight than Ketchel against Johnson. Because Ketchel beats O'Brien and Johnson KO's Ketchel does not mean that Ketchel is automatically better for the job than Phily Jack. Ketchel had a lethal punch and was killer, PJOB was a slick darting type guy with no punch power. Ketchel would trade, PJOB would float and sting (ok, maybe not sting, but tap).

It is possible that Johnson would have caught O'Brien somewhere over the 15 the way Louis caught Conn, but it is also possible that O'Brien was smarter of his strengths than was Conn and could have evaded and scored his way to a UD.

No way I personally think O'Brien is that difficult an opponent. I do not agree with the sylistic arguement. Johnson probably hadn't trained for this fight at all, and O'Brien was still down at least twice, and badly bloodied. I have been reading on boxing since the fifties and I do not remember any articles back then implying O'Brien did all that well. This is something that comes up a hundred years after the fact and is probably somewhat due to spin.
There is, I suppose, the chance O'Brien would do what he did on film with Burns, just outright run away and not fight at all. Would white judges have then screwed Johnson? It is not out of the question.

[Mendoza]

I have always read that O'Brien was "felled" because Johnson was so much heavier than he was and it was due to leaning, not due to punching.
The overall newspaper consensus was that Johnson was lucky to get away with a draw.

This took place in Philadelphia, home of the "no decision rule". It is quite possible that had it been allowed to be scored, PJOB would have outpointed him.

In all fairness, Johnson knew that O'Brien could not hurt him, and there was absolutely no chance for a knockout, and that it would make him 5,000 dollars. Showed up hungover and fat. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it makes sense that PJOB's little pitty pat punches gave him points over Johnson.

I am surprised there wasn't more of an outcry for a more serious rematch. White America was hellbent on finding some kind of destructive KO artist to knock Johnson out, which fell right into Johnson's strong suit (in my mind like Ali vs Ali's destructive opponents) when maybe all they had to do was give little Jack O'Brien 15 rounds and a fairly good sized ring and hold it in a town that allowed decisions.

From the stuff I have seen, O’Brien was a shade better and Johnson was lucky to avoid the score cards. A decision could have cost him his title.

I'm not sure if O'Brien was down from punches or pushes in round one. His jabs bothered Johnson, and marked him up too. O'Brien's speed and defense made Johnson look bad. Johnson landed the harder blows and did hurt O'Brien. So the scoring comes down to do you give the fight to the guy who landed more punches and showed better defense, or the fighter who landed less punches, but harder punches?

Who won? Maybe there was not a clear cut winner. One telling point might be from Johnson’s lack of words. Johnson was the type to run his mouth and taunt. The paper said he did not have much to say about his performance excpet he flet he won.

A re-match would have been interesting.

[mcvey]

Here's the news read. It appears O'Brein won two rounds ( 2 and 4 ), while Johnson only won one round ( 5 ). Rounds 1, 3 and 6 were even. Mayeb O'breien edged round three. Box Rec reports that the Trenton Times reported that the referee stated he thought o'Brien the winner by a shade. It sounds that way based on the read.

A few thoughts to ponder. O'brien was quick boxer mover type, and he had no issues landing on Johnson. Is Johnson defese really that special? I don't see much of it on flim unless he is clinching or fighting clumsy / much smaller fighters with limited reach like Flynn or Ketchel.

If a middle weight with a good jab could land on prime Jack Johnson, what would the better all time heavyweight do?

At the very least O'Brein deserved a re-match.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
In a No Decision fight ,nobody wins,thats the point of it,unless a challenger can stop his opponent the fight is a no decision,get it? Various fighters took advantage of this rule to put on "exhibitions"Johnson fought Joe Jeanette several times under this rule ,their fights are reported as well choreagraphed sparring sessions ,both got a payday and no one was hurt,sometimes they really cut loose ,but the nodecision rule allowed Champions like Willard for example to take on challengers like Moran,keep him on the end of his pole like left and get a pay day.Lazy fighters like Johnson took the opportunity under this ruling to come in to fights out of shape ,he didt train for the O Brien fight and had been drinking the night before,its not a secret.Now you want to make another stick and say O Brien should have got the verdict in a nodecision fight?

[mcvey]

OF,

It tells me that when white America was looking for a possible candidate they were ignorant when it comes to finding a fighter who stylistically matched well against Johnson. O'Brien matched poorly with Ketchel, he matches quite well against Johnson and I see no reason why he wouldn't be a tougher fight than Ketchel against Johnson. Because Ketchel beats O'Brien and Johnson KO's Ketchel does not mean that Ketchel is automatically better for the job than Phily Jack. Ketchel had a lethal punch and was killer, PJOB was a slick darting type guy with no punch power. Ketchel would trade, PJOB would float and sting (ok, maybe not sting, but tap).

It is possible that Johnson would have caught O'Brien somewhere over the 15 the way Louis caught Conn, but it is also possible that O'Brien was smarter of his strengths than was Conn and could have evaded and scored his way to a UD.
Its also possible that in a proper fight ie one going to a decision Johnson would have come in in shape and done to OBrien what Ketchel did.

[Mendoza]

Now you want to make another stick and say O Brien should have got the verdict in a nodecision fight?

Question for McVey,

Do you think O'Brien deserved a re-match?

[mcvey]

Here's the news read. It appears O'Brein won two rounds ( 2 and 4 ), while Johnson only won one round ( 5 ). Rounds 1, 3 and 6 were even. Mayeb O'breien edged round three. Box Rec reports that the Trenton Times reported that the referee stated he thought o'Brien the winner by a shade. It sounds that way based on the read.

A few thoughts to ponder. O'brien was quick boxer mover type, and he had no issues landing on Johnson. Is Johnson defese really that special? I don't see much of it on flim unless he is clinching or fighting clumsy / much smaller fighters with limited reach like Flynn or Ketchel.

If a middle weight with a good jab could land on prime Jack Johnson, what would the better all time heavyweight do?

At the very least O'Brein deserved a re-match.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
O Brien couldnt beat Burns when he was in his prime ,now past his prime being kod twice by a middleweight you think he beats Johnson who won every round against Burns and played with Ketchel? Johnson was on a guarantee of 5000$ for the fight and thats all he was concerned with .Randy Roberts on the "fight","he entered the ring overweight ,and in poor condtion. Rumours spread that he had been drinking the night before ,and on the day of the fight.It was an uninspired fight.O Briens attack was timid,and Johnsons defenceand counterattack consisted mostly of laughter.He smiled ,he wavedto the crowd ,and made no attempt tohide the purpose ofhis presence ,he was there for the 5000$ gaurantee and nothing more."

[Mendoza]

O Brien couldnt beat Burns when he was in his prime ,now past his prime being kod twice by a middleweight you think he beats Johnson who won every round against Burns and played with Ketchel? Johnson was on a guarantee of 5000$ for the fight and thats all he was concerned with .Randy Roberts on the "fight","he entered the ring overweight ,and in poor condtion. Rumours spread that he had been drinking the night before ,and on the day of the fight.It was an uninspired fight.O Briens attack was timid,and Johnsons defenceand counterattack consisted mostly of laughter.He smiled ,he wavedto the crowd ,and made no attempt tohide the purpose ofhis presence ,he was there for the 5000$ gaurantee and nothing more."


Leaving the rumors out of the conversation, O'brien in fact had a win over a healthy Burns, beat a fresher version of Fitzsimmons, beat Young Peter Jackson, beat Mike Schreck and beat many of the same lesser fighters ( Jeffords, Butler, Black Bill, and others ) that Johnson fought.

In addition, O'Brien drew with Hart who beat Johnson, and defeated Choynski who knocked Johnson out. I'd say O'Brien's resume was very good.

Once again, I ask you an easy question to answer. Should Johnson have given O'brien a re-match or not.

[mcvey]

Question for McVey,

Do you think O'Brien deserved a re-match?
No ,the accounts I read statye his approach to the fight was "timid",this was against a palpably undertrained Johnson,OBrien couldnt beat Burns when he was in his prime ,what makes you think that ,past his prime he had a realistic chance with Johnson? Honestly I cant see it in all seriousness.

[mcvey]

Clearly there is no doubt Johnson di not take it as seriously as he should have, but he did struggle with slick boxers. Other great fighters also met top notch light-heavies but with better results: Dempsey won 12 out of 15 rounds vs Gibbons, ko'd Levinsky and Carpeinter, Louis ko'd Conn and Lewis, Marciano beat Moore and Charles, both natural light-heavies, but well over the 175 lb limit. So these fighters did better vs light-heavies
Which slick boxer do you think Johnson struggled with?

[Mendoza]

No ,the accounts I read statye his approach to the fight was "timid",this was against a palpably undertrained Johnson,OBrien couldnt beat Burns when he was in his prime ,what makes you think that ,past his prime he had a realistic chance with Johnson? Honestly I cant see it in all seriousness.

Maybe the fact that he landed jabs with ease and made Johnson looked bad. A re-match should have been made within 6 months. Johnson wasn't an active fighter by nature. He liked to clinch and punch.

O'brien would not let him clinch him, and threw more punches. I have seen O'Brien move for a full 20 rounds on flim. This is a good match up. Johnson didn't KO many class guys, and he would have to catch up to O'brein which woudl be harder as the rounds rolled on..

Stylewise, this is not an easy fight for Johnson, and in reality the performance of the 6 round match proves it.

I see you don;t want to comment on O'brein beating Choynski and drawing with Hart when Johnson lost to both of them. If you compare O'Brien's and Johnson's common opponets, up to 1909, its close enough. A re-match was in order. I wonder why we did not see one.

PS: O'Brein KO'd Kaufmann. Johnson took Kaufmann the distance.

[mcvey]

Boxrec also states that O'Brien was down in the first and fifth rounds- kind of an important bit of information to sweep under the table, don't you think? Anyway, the match was essentially an exhibition, where Johnson would only have lost the title if he'd been knocked out, as I recall. One can hardly watch a performance in a fight like that and think he can simply transpose it into a real, competitive world championship match.

Now, you're certainly bringing a lot of good information and resources to the table and are staying civil, but I've got to say, you seem to have come to an almost Revolver-like obsession with making as many threads as possible for the sole purpose of defaming Johnson.
Im not the only one to notice this trend then?
In all honesty the man is entitled to like and dislike any fighter he chooses,but its getting obsessive now,I happen to think Jack Johnson was a great fighter,shitty human being probably but there you are,its just my laymans opinion,Im cool with anyone who diasgrees ,after all what would be the point of a forum if we all had the same opinion?

[Mendoza]

Which slick boxer do you think Johnson struggled with?

Which Slick boxer did Johnson fight? O'Brien for one. Jeff Clark was a slick contender.

Clark beat Jeanette, McCarty, Dixie Kid, Livensky, Battling Jim Johnson, and others while Johnson was champion. No title shot for him either.

[janitor]

what would be the point of a forum if we all had the same opinion?

Amazingly there are people who seem to want to convert everybody to their own opinion and then presumably shut the forum down because it no longer has a purpouse.

Not saying Mendoza is one but there are some people who are only here to confront people with diferent opinions.

[mcvey]

Leaving the rumors out of the conversation, O'brien in fact had a win over a healthy Burns, beat a fresher version of Fitzsimmons, beat Young Peter Jackson, beat Mike Schreck and beat many of the same lesser fighters ( Jeffords, Butler, Black Bill, and others ) that Johnson fought.

In addition, O'Brien drew with Hart who beat Johnson, and defeated Choynski who knocked Johnson out. I'd say O'Brien's resume was very good.

Once again, I ask you an easy question to answer. Should Johnson have given O'brien a re-match or not.
Lets take your points.
"OBrien had a win over a healthy Burns. UNTRUE,he drew with Burns in1906,and lost in 20rds to him in 1907.
"Obrien beat a fresher Fitz" OBrien beat Fitz by a tko in13 rds in1905 to win the LH title. I n1907 Johnson kod Fitz in 2rds ,and never claimed any credit for it,nor should he as Fitz was born in1862! Which means he was 45 when OBrien beat him over 13 rounds ,and 47 when Johnson beat him in2 rounds,what is your point here exactly?
Young Peter Jackson kod OBrien with a legitimate punch coming out of a clinch ,this was in 2 rounds ,the crowd cheered ,but after Jackson left the ring the referee awarded a foul to OBrien,this account is on Box rec.
OBriens resume you mentoined?
he wins theLH title from a 45 year old man who takes him13 rounds is kod twice by a middle weight held to draws by Welterweights I dont see a great resume.
Immediatelt prior to the Johnson fight OBrien fought Ketchel,in the last round of a no decision fight he is kod ,the bell saved him from a ko defeat . Immediately after fighting Johnson in a NO DECISION 6 rounder,remember now NO DECISION,OBrien meets Ketchel again and is laid out in 3 rounds!
Now ask your self why Johnson should have given him a title fight.

[mcvey]

Which Slick boxer did Johnson fight? O'Brien for one. Jeff Clark was a slick contender.

Clark beat Jeanette, McCarty, Dixie Kid, Livensky, Battling Jim Johnson, and others while Johnson was champion. No title shot for him either.
Question . Why do you keep claiming NO DECISION fights as wins for people?
for example."Clark beat Jeanette,McCarty,Dixie KId ,Levinsky, and Battling Jim Johnson" NO HE DIDNT These were all NO DECISION fights.You are trying to build up Clark as an opponent that Johnson ducke d while Champion ,ok lets look at his resume from 1908 to1915,the time that Johnson was reigning Champion. In 1908 A year before Johnson won the title Clark lost 2 fights to Dixie Kid. Aman who 4 years before when he was in his prime had been a WELTERWEIGHT!.His next biggest fight was in1910when he was kod in 2 rounds by Sam Langford,in 1911 he is held to a draw by middle weight Frank Mantell.Clark never beat Jeanette,JIm Johnson,or Levinsky ,and in 1915 ,Johnson s last year as Champion ,Clark wasbeaten by Sam Mcvey in 10 rounds,why should Johnson have given him a title shot?

[Grebfan9]

I think that it comes down to this - Johnson was the type of fighter
that liked his opponent to come bulling in. Jack would either jab
the hell out of the guy OR pummel the fighter with his great uppercut
in close. Johnson was very strong at inside fighting. Yes, he held and
hit, but so did most of the fighters back then. It was allowed or
overlooked by the refs.

Jim Flynn and Al Kaufman were MADE for Johnson. They moved forward and he picked them apart. O'brien had the style to give Jack fits. Darting in and out, and using speed and footwork.

Johnson had to somewhat change his style and become the aggressor
against Willard, since Willard had so much reach on him.

Willard was not a good type of opponent for Jack. Gunboat Smith
also could bang, had a decent jab, and was about 6' 1".
So, Gunboat had a style that also was not good for Jack. Only
thing is that Gunboat was KOED several times when he has still
young/in his prime, so lack of durability might have been a problem
for Gunboat. Though Gunboat beat Langford in their FIRST fight,
Langford destroyed Gunboat in their second fight. Still, stylewise,
Gunboat would probably have given Jack a good fight.

Jack was dropped by Phillip Piersenn in an exhibition fight. Does
anyone have any info on Piersenn?

Jack would have probably easily beaten all of the other "White
Hopes", with the exception of Luther McCarty. Had McCarty
not met with tragedy, I feel that a Johnson-McCarty fight
would have been something!!! Though by the time that McCarty
was experienced enough to fight Johnson, Jack would have been
about the same age that he was when he lost to Willard.

Heres my take on the type of fighter that could take Jack;
1) Needs a good chin or else a good defense, cause Jack was
quick and threw great jabs.
2) Better have good stamina, cause its not likely that Jack will
be taken out early.
3) Good jab essential. Straight punches work way better against
a good defensive fighter. The wild swinging guys were eaten up
by Johnson.

Willard had all of these attributes. Gunboat Smith had a good jab
and stamina, though I'm not convinced that he was all that durable.



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

[Mendoza]

mcvey Lets take your points.
"OBrien had a win over a healthy Burns. UNTRUE,he drew with Burns in1906,and lost in 20rds to him in 1907.

Untrue? Says you! O'brein beat Burns when he had 23 wins, 1 loss and 4 draws in 1904!


"Obrien beat a fresher Fitz" OBrien beat Fitz by a tko in13 rds in1905 to win the LH title. I n1907 Johnson kod Fitz in 2rds ,and never claimed any credit for it,nor should he as Fitz was born in1862! Which means he was 45 when OBrien beat him over 13 rounds ,and 47 when Johnson beat him in2 rounds,what is your point here exactly?

My point was O'brein beat a much better version of Fitz. You can not say any different.


Young Peter Jackson kod OBrien with a legitimate punch coming out of a clinch ,this was in 2 rounds ,the crowd cheered ,but after Jackson left the ring the referee awarded a foul to OBrien,this account is on Box rec.
OBriens resume you mentoined?

And O'Brein beat Young Peter Jackson in a 10 round fight too.


he wins theLH title from a 45 year old man who takes him13 rounds is kod twice by a middle weight held to draws by Welterweights I dont see a great resume.

I think your math is off by about three years.... and O'brein deserved a re-match.

[OLD FOGEY]

Maybe the fact that he landed jabs with ease and made Johnson looked bad. A re-match should have been made within 6 months. Johnson wasn't an active fighter by nature. He liked to clinch and punch.

O'brien would not let him clinch him, and threw more punches. I have seen O'Brien move for a full 20 rounds on flim. This is a good match up. Johnson didn't KO many class guys, and he would have to catch up to O'brein which woudl be harder as the rounds rolled on..

Stylewise, this is not an easy fight for Johnson, and in reality the performance of the 6 round match proves it.

I see you don;t want to comment on O'brein beating Choynski and drawing with Hart when Johnson lost to both of them. If you compare O'Brien's and Johnson's common opponets, up to 1909, its close enough. A re-match was in order. I wonder why we did not see one.

PS: O'Brein KO'd Kaufmann. Johnson took Kaufmann the distance.

"PS: O'Brien KO'd Kaufman. Johnson took Kaufman the distance."

This is the type of remark that looks like piling on against Johnson. We have had post after post dismissing Johnson's wins over the 19 year old McVea, a fighter who had beaten world class fighters in Martin and Carter. Now the 19 year old Kaufman, in his 6th (or perhaps only 2nd) professional fight against a veteran of at least 140 fights is stopped in 17 rounds by O'Brien and a big deal is made of it. Kaufman went on to win 15 straight over the next four years before fighting Johnson, including wins over Jack Twin Sullivan, Olympic champion Sam Berger, Mike Shreck, who beat Burns and ko'd Hart twice, Fireman Jim Flynn, and Jim Barry. Johnson did go the "distance" with Kaufman but the distance was 10 rounds. In his next fight, Kaufman defeated O'Brien.

[Mendoza]

Mcvey Question . Why do you keep claiming NO DECISION fights as wins for people?

Did I say it was an offical win? NO, but fighters do get the better of each other in no-decison bouts.


for example."Clark beat Jeanette,McCarty,Dixie KId ,Levinsky, and Battling Jim Johnson" NO HE DIDNT These were all NO DECISION fights.You are trying to build up Clark as an opponent that Johnson ducke d while Champion ,ok lets look at his resume from 1908 to1915,the time that Johnson was reigning Champion. In 1908 A year before Johnson won the title Clark lost 2 fights to Dixie Kid. Aman who 4 years before when he was in his prime had been a WELTERWEIGHT!.His next biggest fight was in1910when he was kod in 2 rounds by Sam Langford,in 1911 he is held to a draw by middle weight Frank Mantell.Clark never beat Jeanette,JIm Johnson,or Levinsky ,and in 1915 ,Johnson s last year as Champion ,Clark wasbeaten by Sam Mcvey in 10 rounds,why should Johnson have given him a title shot?

Once again, a ND just means there is no official decision; it does not mean that one fighter can not best another.

Clark got the better of Sam Langford in 1914 in no decision fight!

He got the better of Jeanette in 1912!

Clark got the better of both Levinsky and McCarty in 1911!

Clark got the better of Jim Johnson in 1910. We all know what Jim did to Jack in their 1913 fight.

Seriously McVey, it is easy to see that Clark was fighting and beating far better competition than Johnson while Johnson is champion. Would you agree, or will you choose to skip the question? I predict the later.

Clarks record from Dec 1908 to April 1915 is very impressive.

IMO, Jeff Clark was better than Ross, Kaufman, and Flynn for sure. Yet the slick boxer never got a title shot from Johnson, while the other ones who could not box a lick did. Hmmmmmmm........

[Langford]

From a style point of view you have to admit that you have Johnson standing there, with a speed that is not captured on film, (you can tell that he's fast because he can back straight back, most fighters would be followed and caught off the back foot, which is why they circle, Johnson was quick) and like Ali DEFENSIVELY ORIENTATED, in other words, he does his best when you come after him...if he has to press the fight he is not as good. See Ali vs. Young.

Who is going to be the easier opponent? Frank Moran, coming in slow but with a rock hard punch, that stands no chance of landing, or a smaller more agile guy who works angles, and has to learn to box because there is no punch there? O'Brien is not going to stand there and trade. Johnson would have to go after him when O'Brien was not moving in.
No, I am afraid that stylewise, PJOB is a bad match up for Jack Johnson. Its the style that has to be taken into effect. Not saying OBrien would win, but it would be a tougher match up than Ketchel, Burns, who fought as small men with great punches. That is a recipe for disaster against big men with bigger punches. You have to know how to fight as a small man. PJOB knew how to do this. There is more to this fight than just Johnson showed up drunk.

[OLD FOGEY]

From a style point of view you have to admit that you have Johnson standing there, with a speed that is not captured on film, (you can tell that he's fast because he can back straight back, most fighters would be followed and caught off the back foot, which is why they circle, Johnson was quick) and like Ali DEFENSIVELY ORIENTATED, in other words, he does his best when you come after him...if he has to press the fight he is not as good. See Ali vs. Young.

Who is going to be the easier opponent? Frank Moran, coming in slow but with a rock hard punch, that stands no chance of landing, or a smaller more agile guy who works angles, and has to learn to box because there is no punch there? O'Brien is not going to stand there and trade. Johnson would have to go after him when O'Brien was not moving in.
No, I am afraid that stylewise, PJOB is a bad match up for Jack Johnson. Its the style that has to be taken into effect. Not saying OBrien would win, but it would be a tougher match up than Ketchel, Burns, who fought as small men with great punches. That is a recipe for disaster against big men with bigger punches. You have to know how to fight as a small man. PJOB knew how to do this. There is more to this fight than just Johnson showed up drunk.

Except that O'Brien was 5' 10" and 160 lb. A quick big man like Johnson will be able to reach him often. Remember, O'Brien is basically a middleweight, and not a young one either. Ketchell knocked him out and Kaufman defeated him in 1910.

[mcvey]

From a style point of view you have to admit that you have Johnson standing there, with a speed that is not captured on film, (you can tell that he's fast because he can back straight back, most fighters would be followed and caught off the back foot, which is why they circle, Johnson was quick) and like Ali DEFENSIVELY ORIENTATED, in other words, he does his best when you come after him...if he has to press the fight he is not as good. See Ali vs. Young.

Who is going to be the easier opponent? Frank Moran, coming in slow but with a rock hard punch, that stands no chance of landing, or a smaller more agile guy who works angles, and has to learn to box because there is no punch there? O'Brien is not going to stand there and trade. Johnson would have to go after him when O'Brien was not moving in.
No, I am afraid that stylewise, PJOB is a bad match up for Jack Johnson. Its the style that has to be taken into effect. Not saying OBrien would win, but it would be a tougher match up than Ketchel, Burns, who fought as small men with great punches. That is a recipe for disaster against big men with bigger punches. You have to know how to fight as a small man. PJOB knew how to do this. There is more to this fight than just Johnson showed up drunk.
ONE MONTH AFTER THE JOHNSON FIGHT,IN HIS VERY NEXT FIGHT IN FACT,OBRIEN WAS KOD IN THREE ROUNDS BY KETCHEL,MENDOZA SAYS OBRIENSHOULD HAVE HAD A REMATCH WITH JOHNSON,DO YOU THINK HE DESERVED ONE AFTER BEING KOD BY KETCHEL? REMEMBER THIS WAS THE SECOND TIME KETCHEL HAD TURNED THE TRICK HE KOD OBRIEN IN THE CLOSING SECONDS OF THEIR FIRST FIGHT.OBRIEN WHEN HE WAS IN HIS PRIME COULDNT BEAT BURNS ,NOW AT 3I WITH TWO KOS AGAINST HIM FROM A MIDDLEWEIGHT DO YOU THINK HE COULD BEAT A MAN WHO PLAYED WITH BOTH BURNS AND KETCHEL? I LEAVE IT FOR YOU TO DECIDE.

[mcvey]

Did I say it was an offical win? NO, but fighters do get the better of each other in no-decison bouts.



Once again, a ND just means there is no official decision; it does not mean that one fighter can not best another.

Clark got the better of Sam Langford in 1914 in no decision fight!

He got the better of Jeanette in 1912!

Clark got the better of both Levinsky and McCarty in 1911!

Clark got the better of Jim Johnson in 1910. We all know what Jim did to Jack in their 1913 fight.

Seriously McVey, it is easy to see that Clark was fighting and beating far better competition than Johnson while Johnson is champion. Would you agree, or will you choose to skip the question? I predict the later.

Clarks record from Dec 1908 to April 1915 is very impressive.

IMO, Jeff Clark was better than Ross, Kaufman, and Flynn for sure. Yet the slick boxer never got a title shot from Johnson, while the other ones who could not box a lick did. Hmmmmmmm........
You say Clark had the better of these no decision fights,who else ?
Jeff Clark has no wins on his resume between 1909 and 1915,Johnsons reign ,to entitle him to a shot at the title.Ive looked at Clarks record and see nothing to justify a title shot,he wasnt some early version of Charley Burley.Langford kod clark in 2 rounds in 1911,the middle of Johnsons title reign.

[Mendoza]

Except that O'Brien was 5' 10" and 160 lb. A quick big man like Johnson will be able to reach him often. Remember, O'Brien is basically a middleweight, and not a young one either. Ketchell knocked him out and Kaufman defeated him in 1910.
O'brein is listed at 5'10" 1/2, about 160-165 pounds. This means he was taller than Burns, Ketchel, and Flynn, and had more speed and mobility than anyone Johnson fought. O'Brien's reach was about even with Johnson’s. The reach is the key since O'brien relies on the jab.

While he could not punch much, O'brien had great speed, skills and defense. Enough to win a fight with Johnson on points if he isn't knocked out.

Johnson was not a chase you down / high out put puncher on film, and in most cases Johnson did not score a knockout vs class opponents. Johnson was an in-fighter more than an out fighter. His trouble in this fight would be catching up to O'brien to in-fight. O'Brein could box and move for 20 rounds. He would not let Johnson clinch him.

You could say that O'brein was past his best by 1910. You could also say that a past his best O'brien made Johnson look bad. It works both ways.

I think if a re-match was ordered in 1909, this would be a very intersting fight.

[mcvey]

O'brein is listed at 5'10" 1/2, about 160-165 pounds. This means he was taller than Burns, Ketchel, and Flynn, and had more speed and mobility than anyone Johnson fought. O'Brien's reach was about even with Johnson’s. The reach is the key since O'brien relies on the jab.

While he could not punch much, O'brien had great speed, skills and defense. Enough to win a fight with Johnson on points if he isn't knocked out.

Johnson was not a chase you down / high out put puncher on film, and in most cases Johnson did not score a knockout vs class opponents. Johnson was an in-fighter more than an out fighter. His trouble in this fight would be catching up to O'brien to in-fight. O'Brein could box and move for 20 rounds. He would not let Johnson clinch him.

You could say that O'brein was past his best by 1910. You could also say that a past his best O'brien made Johnson look bad. It works both ways.

I think if a re-match was ordered in 1909, this would be a very intersting fight.
One question,hand on heart ,both in shape,who wins?

[Mendoza]

One question,hand on heart ,both in shape,who wins?

Where and when? From 1901-1905, maybe O'brein wins. From 1909-1910, I'll take Johnson assuming he's in reasonable shape.


My main point is there should have been a re-match. There was none. I certainly think O'brien was capable of winning a decision six months after the 6 round affairs between the two.



Suppose this fight never happened and some one suggesated O'brien in 1909 would Johnson an even fight. You would not believe it. Yet it happened.

By not giving O’brien and Jim Johnson re-matches, Jack Johnson has two smears in on his record in his prime years.

[mcvey]

Where and when? From 1901-1905, maybe O'brein wins. From 1909-1910, I'll take Johnson assuming he's in reasonable shape.


My main point is there should have been a re-match. There was none. I certainly think O'brien was capable of winning a decision six months after the 6 round affairs between the two.



Suppose this fight never happened and some one suggesated O'brien in 1909 would Johnson an even fight. You would not believe it. Yet it happened.

By not giving O’brien and Jim Johnson re-matches, Jack Johnson has two smears in on his record in his prime years.
Two points how do you know OBrien was faster,and had more mobility than Burns ,who was clearly his master?Given that OBrien was kod in his next fight after meeting Johnson,and this only a month later,how does he merit a rematch,particularly as he was kod by a middle weight,the same middleweight that Johnson played with before kayoing him? Your argument doesnt make sense does it?Lets put it another way,Joe Louis fights an exhibition against ,sayJoey Maxim,Louis enters the ring undertrained but still drops Maxim twice,in Maxims next fight,a month later he is kod by Robinson, a middle weight,does Maxim then deserve a title shot against Louis?

[mcvey]

Two points how do you know OBrien was faster,and had more mobility than Burns ,who was clearly his master?Given that OBrien was kod in his next fight after meeting Johnson,and this only a month later,how does he merit a rematch,particularly as he was kod by a middle weight,the same middleweight that Johnson played with before kayoing him? Your argument doesnt make sense does it?Lets put it another way,Joe Louis fights an exhibition against ,sayJoey Maxim,Louis enters the ring undertrained but still drops Maxim twice,in Maxims next fight,a month later he is kod by Robinson, a middle weight,does Maxim then deserve a title shot against Louis?
"O Brien was capable of winning a decision 6 months after the 6 round affair between the two",OBrien wasnt capable of even lasting 3 rounds against a MIDDLEWEIGHT in his next fight! He was KOD<and carried back to his corner ,SPARK OUT!

[C. M. Clay II]

If Johnson could turn up to a bout with a hangover and fight O'Brien on even terms knocking him down twice then what would he do to him if he actualy took the fight seriously.

Lets face it O'Brien was never going to get a more favourable set of circumstances.

I think this says it all.:good

[Langford]

ONE MONTH AFTER THE JOHNSON FIGHT,IN HIS VERY NEXT FIGHT IN FACT,OBRIEN WAS KOD IN THREE ROUNDS BY KETCHEL,MENDOZA SAYS OBRIENSHOULD HAVE HAD A REMATCH WITH JOHNSON,DO YOU THINK HE DESERVED ONE AFTER BEING KOD BY KETCHEL? REMEMBER THIS WAS THE SECOND TIME KETCHEL HAD TURNED THE TRICK HE KOD OBRIEN IN THE CLOSING SECONDS OF THEIR FIRST FIGHT.OBRIEN WHEN HE WAS IN HIS PRIME COULDNT BEAT BURNS ,NOW AT 3I WITH TWO KOS AGAINST HIM FROM A MIDDLEWEIGHT DO YOU THINK HE COULD BEAT A MAN WHO PLAYED WITH BOTH BURNS AND KETCHEL? I LEAVE IT FOR YOU TO DECIDE.

Hey McVey

If you asked me out of Ketchel, Burns, or O'Brien who would have the best chance of beating Jack Johnson, I would pick O'Brien. Because of style reasonings. The fact that O'Brien was beat by Burns and Ketchel does not mean that he would not do better against Johnson than those two.

Look at Billy Conn and look at John Henry Lewis, for example. Both Louis victims. Look at how Lewis was a KO 1 and Conn could have concieveably taken a decison from Louis. I would equate Conn with O'Brien and I would equate Lewis more with Ketchel.

Now Ketchel had a huge middleweight punch. It is possible that he could have knocked out any middleweight placed in front of him. But you can't bring your punch up with you. What you would want is a guy who could dart in and out, be elusive, and make the most of someone who fought defensively and Johnson was a great defensive fighter.

In order for Johnson to beat O'Brien he is going to have to be the offensive force in that matchup. Because O'Brien is not going to charge him to try and take him out. He is going to move in, tap, tap, tap, and move out.
Johnson would have to try and catch him when he came in, or move in after him while he was on the retreat. Like Ali in the Young fight. And like Ali, another defensive mastermind, Johnson was not as good going after you as he was letting you miss, letting you lead and then making you pay.
Johnson made his opponents pay dearly, but they had to be agressive towards him. You try and punch me, I will block, I will counter with an uppercut whilie you're in range. Give Johnson a big slow moving guy with a big punch, and he will neutralize you and counter.

Also remember that in 06, Burns second defense was against O'Brien and it was a draw. Many thought that Burns had won, but O'Brien had papers that supported him, too. The third fight (OBrien had beat Burns in first) O'Brien was unpreparred for. He was under the impression that Burns was going to be taking a dive. Now I am not vouching for O'Brien's character and I do not know why there was this "understanding" but O'Brien did not train for the rematch and only found out before hand that the fix was not in.

Burns could do one thing very, very well. And that was mentally destroy a fighter. He was probably one of the most mentally savvy of all heavyweight champions. If possible, he would anger, upset, or trick any opponent who was in front of him. He let O'Brien think that it was a dive until right before. And then told him the fight was on. Of course Burns had been training all along and PJOB was screwed.

Now Ketchel was a bad matchup for O'Brien. Ketchel would pursue and pursue and come in wild and agressive. It's like a crazed soldier with a machine gun coming up against a tank in his fight against Johnson.
Against O'Brien he could do this, though.

The whole A beats B and B beats C does not mean that A beats C. It is something that I think the Johnson haters missed out on. I am not saying that O'Brien would win, but he would have been a much smarter choice than Ketchel, Kaufman, Ross, Flynn or ring rusted Jeffries. And like all things Johnson, White America may have hated him, but they blew every single chance they had of disposing of him in the ring.

Johnson was so intelligent, he outsmarted an entire country who wanted to see him defeated and he did it the same way that he beat his ring opponents, by capitalizing on their inexperience, their agressiveness, and misguided sense of being superior.

[Mendoza]

Two points how do you know OBrien was faster,and had more mobility than Burns ,who was clearly his master?Given that OBrien was kod in his next fight after meeting Johnson,and this only a month later,how does he merit a rematch,particularly as he was kod by a middle weight,the same middleweight that Johnson played with before kayoing him? Your argument doesnt make sense does it?Lets put it another way,Joe Louis fights an exhibition against ,sayJoey Maxim,Louis enters the ring undertrained but still drops Maxim twice,in Maxims next fight,a month later he is kod by Robinson, a middle weight,does Maxim then deserve a title shot against Louis?

I know O'brien was much faster than Burns. I have the 50 minute O’Brien vs Burns fight, which is a near full 20 rounds of action. O'brien was a quick a a cat. The thing is Burns had excellent stamina and a chasing type of style in this fight, which is why he won the decision. The series between O’brien and Burns is 1-1-1. Johnson had more of a stationary type of style, which is why the speedy O’brien peppered him with jabs.

While Ketchel did Ko O'brein next, he also floored Johnson too. You could say Ketchel did what Johnson could not vs the same guy and it would be fact.

Who hit harder, Ketchel or Johnson?

[mcvey]

Hey McVey

If you asked me out of Ketchel, Burns, or O'Brien who would have the best chance of beating Jack Johnson, I would pick O'Brien. Because of style reasonings. The fact that O'Brien was beat by Burns and Ketchel does not mean that he would not do better against Johnson than those two.

Look at Billy Conn and look at John Henry Lewis, for example. Both Louis victims. Look at how Lewis was a KO 1 and Conn could have concieveably taken a decison from Louis. I would equate Conn with O'Brien and I would equate Lewis more with Ketchel.

Now Ketchel had a huge middleweight punch. It is possible that he could have knocked out any middleweight placed in front of him. But you can't bring your punch up with you. What you would want is a guy who could dart in and out, be elusive, and make the most of someone who fought defensively and Johnson was a great defensive fighter.

In order for Johnson to beat O'Brien he is going to have to be the offensive force in that matchup. Because O'Brien is not going to charge him to try and take him out. He is going to move in, tap, tap, tap, and move out.
Johnson would have to try and catch him when he came in, or move in after him while he was on the retreat. Like Ali in the Young fight. And like Ali, another defensive mastermind, Johnson was not as good going after you as he was letting you miss, letting you lead and then making you pay.
Johnson made his opponents pay dearly, but they had to be agressive towards him. You try and punch me, I will block, I will counter with an uppercut whilie you're in range. Give Johnson a big slow moving guy with a big punch, and he will neutralize you and counter.

Also remember that in 06, Burns second defense was against O'Brien and it was a draw. Many thought that Burns had won, but O'Brien had papers that supported him, too. The third fight (OBrien had beat Burns in first) O'Brien was unpreparred for. He was under the impression that Burns was going to be taking a dive. Now I am not vouching for O'Brien's character and I do not know why there was this "understanding" but O'Brien did not train for the rematch and only found out before hand that the fix was not in.

Burns could do one thing very, very well. And that was mentally destroy a fighter. He was probably one of the most mentally savvy of all heavyweight champions. If possible, he would anger, upset, or trick any opponent who was in front of him. He let O'Brien think that it was a dive until right before. And then told him the fight was on. Of course Burns had been training all along and PJOB was screwed.

Now Ketchel was a bad matchup for O'Brien. Ketchel would pursue and pursue and come in wild and agressive. It's like a crazed soldier with a machine gun coming up against a tank in his fight against Johnson.
Against O'Brien he could do this, though.

The whole A beats B and B beats C does not mean that A beats C. It is something that I think the Johnson haters missed out on. I am not saying that O'Brien would win, but he would have been a much smarter choice than Ketchel, Kaufman, Ross, Flynn or ring rusted Jeffries. And like all things Johnson, White America may have hated him, but they blew every single chance they had of disposing of him in the ring.

Johnson was so intelligent, he outsmarted an entire country who wanted to see him defeated and he did it the same way that he beat his ring opponents, by capitalizing on their inexperience, their agressiveness, and misguided sense of being superior.
Look ,we both agree ,styles make fights,but at the time he fought johnson PJB was on the downslide ,he had been kod in his previous fight ,being saved by the bell,and would be kod in his next fight in 3 rounds.
the rest of PJB,s career shows us 3 nodecs,1 ,against Jim Flynn was very close by all accounts ,the other 2 were against nobodies,PJB has just 1 win on his record ,after meeting Johnson ,and 2 ko defeats .PJBs soel win was over Mike Schreck,now what do you see in PJBs resume at this stage of his career to make a title fight justified? I dont think a prime OBrien could beat Johnson ,and Im convinced that the 31 yearold version who was twice kod by a midle weight and by langford ,who weighed about 170 for their fight ,had no realistic chance against Johnson.
Why do you think O Brien was a better boxer than Johnson ?which victories ,have convinced you of this? This is a man who won the LH title from a 45 yearold relic ,and never defended it had 1 win over a young Tommy Burns ,who for that fight weighed inside the middle weight limit,was subsequently proven to be inferior to Burns and Ketchel ,won and lost ,by ko .against Al Kaufman who Johnson carried ,after breaking his nose in the first round,was kod by welter weight Dixie Kid ,but was awarded the win in a fixed fight,and also lost twice to the the Dixie Kid ,who was 4 years past his best weight.OBrien for me is the most overated fighter of that time,he was harmlessly clever ,had no power ,and ran like a thief ,against Burns and Johnson.IMO he wouldnt have gone 6 rounds with Ray Robinson .let alone beat Johnson in his prime.

[mcvey]

I know O'brien was much faster than Burns. I have the 50 minute O’Brien vs Burns fight, which is a near full 20 rounds of action. O'brien was a quick a a cat. The thing is Burns had excellent stamina and a chasing type of style in this fight, which is why he won the decision. The series between O’brien and Burns is 1-1-1. Johnson had more of a stationary type of style, which is why the speedy O’brien peppered him with jabs.

While Ketchel did Ko O'brein next, he also floored Johnson too. You could say Ketchel did what Johnson could not vs the same guy and it would be fact.

Who hit harder, Ketchel or Johnson?
How many rounds did O Brien win in that fight ? You saw the fight he ran all night,thats why Burns won.If OBrien runs away from Johnson all night ,how many rounds would he win?
Are you serious ,about your question ,who hit harder Ketchel or Johnson? If you are you have just lost any remaining vestige of credibilty you may have had.

[Dempsey1238]

I belive O' Brein was on the way out when Ketchal ko him.

[Langford]

McVey

If you were to build a fighter to go up against Johnson would you:

1. Pick a guy who Johnson would have to make an effort to attack
2. Pick a guy that came straight at Johnson and into his defense?

1. A guy with knockout power with very little chance of landing
2. A guy who put punches together and knew he had to build up points?

1. someone who was fast on the backfoot or
2. someone who was willing to trade?

1. A ring vet with hard won ring knowledge
2. A green opponent who Johnson was smarter than

It makes no difference whom O'Brien lost to if they did not fight the same as Johnson did...if you believe that styles make fights.
Ketchel and Burns were very good little men who fought as big men. Little men who fight like big men get into trouble when they fight against real big men.
O'Brien was a little dude who did not pretend that he was something else.

Most everyone who say the Johnson vs. O'Brien fight said O'Brien did his fair share of making Johnson look bad. Even though Johnson was out of shape and perhaps hungover (which was not all that rare) there are few instances where Johnson looked bad. Style comes into play here too, man.

I am not saying that Johnson was the worse boxer or the worse heavyweight.
That would be silly. I am saying that I would give O'Brien a much better chance of doing well against Johnson than any other of the white hopes that he fought throughout his reign because of styles. Kaufman, Flynn, Ross, six years out of it Jeff, Moran, these are fights that Johnson wins with his eyes closed every time.

[mcvey]

McVey

If you were to build a fighter to go up against Johnson would you:

1. Pick a guy who Johnson would have to make an effort to attack
2. Pick a guy that came straight at Johnson and into his defense?

1. A guy with knockout power with very little chance of landing
2. A guy who put punches together and knew he had to build up points?

1. someone who was fast on the backfoot or
2. someone who was willing to trade?

1. A ring vet with hard won ring knowledge
2. A green opponent who Johnson was smarter than

It makes no difference whom O'Brien lost to if they did not fight the same as Johnson did...if you believe that styles make fights.
Ketchel and Burns were very good little men who fought as big men. Little men who fight like big men get into trouble when they fight against real big men.
O'Brien was a little dude who did not pretend that he was something else.

Most everyone who say the Johnson vs. O'Brien fight said O'Brien did his fair share of making Johnson look bad. Even though Johnson was out of shape and perhaps hungover (which was not all that rare) there are few instances where Johnson looked bad. Style comes into play here too, man.

I am not saying that Johnson was the worse boxer or the worse heavyweight.
That would be silly. I am saying that I would give O'Brien a much better chance of doing well against Johnson than any other of the white hopes that he fought throughout his reign because of styles. Kaufman, Flynn, Ross, six years out of it Jeff, Moran, these are fights that Johnson wins with his eyes closed every time.
I think we are at cross purposes here the original theme put forward by Mendoza was that Johnson dicked a return with OBrien,who by his performance in their no dec 6 rounder deserved a rerurn match.Do you agree so far?My argument was that OBriens subsequent performances inccluding being kod in3 rounds only a month later ,and only winning one more fight in his career eliminated him from consideration as a contender.Do you agree or disagree?
Nowif you want to talk about stylistic advantages ,or the lack of them ,ok.Mendoza says that OBriens fast jab scored points against Johnson ,and that his mobile footwork would have given Johnson problems,is that an accurate asseessment so far? I say Johnson in his prime would have beaten a prime O Brien,,so lets talk prime to prime now ,not the overthe hill OObrien that Johnson loafed around with ,who mendoza said should have got a draw <Ive several accounts that say he ran like a rabbit ,while Johnson laughed and grinned at the disgruntled crowd,no matter.For OBrine to beat Johnsonhe has to come to him to score with his jab,he can box off the back foot agreed but he has to get in punching range to land his left .Johnson is bigger better defensively imo,after all he was never kod in his prime ,whereas Obrien was kod several times ,and by men lighter than himself.when Obrien gets in punching range ,what is Johnson going to be doing? You seem to have this picture of Johnson as a static statue who doesnt move,its true against tear in fighters ,he waited to counter them with ripping uppercuts ,but watch him in training ,on Utube,he can move allright,he has fast hands and more importantly fast feet,on u tube you cansee him as a middle aged chubby guy ,"conducting " watch him move,Jack Blackburn said Johnson would beat Louis because he was a mover,against runners he could move when he wanted.OBrien had no power ,agreed? so he has to win on points,does he out box Johnson ?I dont see it Johnson whether you like him or not,and theres agreat deal to dislike ,is conceded bty many to be the greatest defensive fighter of all time,what does Obrien ,even in his prime bring to the table to win this match?

[Mendoza]

I think we are at cross purposes here the original theme put forward by Mendoza was that Johnson dicked a return with OBrien,who by his performance in their no dec 6 rounder deserved a rerurn match.Do you agree so far?My argument was that OBriens subsequent performances inccluding being kod in3 rounds only a month later ,and only winning one more fight in his career eliminated him from consideration as a contender.Do you agree or disagree?
That is hindsight. O'brien was a hot commodity after a close fight with Johnson. If Johnson wanted to clear up a poor showing, he gives the re-match. O’Brien was never a " white hope " type. He could fight. I beleive the term white hope is completely mis-understood. Johnson simply gave " hopes " title shots that were not threating to him. They could be white or black, small or old...but were never a prime or near prime top 5 ranked heavyweight with ability.

After O'brien gave Johnson trouble, Johnson did not seek a re-match. I think this is the key thing to focus on here. Styles make fights, and O’brien proved his could get results from a prime Jack Johnson.

We can't look into the future and eliminate a fighter from a re-match or title shot. For example Hart defeated Johnson, and Burns defeated Hart....so why should Burns face Johnson? Burns could have claimed I have already beaten Hart. Of Course Burns took a big money fight for $30,000.00 to meet Johnson. When the money was up for big money fights vs live bodies, Johnson did not agree to terms.

[mcvey]

That is hindsight. O'brien was a hot commodity after a close fight with Johnson. If Johnson wanted to clear up a poor showing, he gives the re-match. O’Brien was never a " white hope " type. He could fight. I beleive the term white hope is completely mis-understood. Johnson simply gave " hopes " title shots that were not threating to him. They could be white or black, small or old...but were never a prime or near prime top 5 ranked heavyweight with ability.

After O'brien gave Johnson trouble, Johnson did not seek a re-match. I think this is the key thing to focus on here. Styles make fights, and O’brien proved his could get results from a prime Jack Johnson.

We can't look into the future and eliminate a fighter from a re-match or title shot. For example Hart defeated Johnson, and Burns defeated Hart....so why should Burns face Johnson? Burns could have claimed I have already beaten Hart. Of Course Burns took a big money fight for $30,000.00 to meet Johnson. When the money was up for big money fights vs live bodies, Johnson did not agree to terms.
One month after fighting Johnson in a fight which the crowd booed heartily ,OBrien was kod by a middleweight in3 rounds,that would have killed any demand for a return wouldnt it? Obrien wasnt a hot commodity,he wasa past his best LH who had never been a crowd pleaser in his prime,Im not suggesting that Obrien was totally to blame for the fiasco of a fight thatthe public saw ,Johnson as Champion should have at least put on the substance of a show ,but he took advantage of the circumstances which the fight was fought in to come in out of shape and fought accordingly,he nevr worried about pleasing the fans .Now given that Obrien was kod in 3rounds ,and I mean kod he was carried back to his corner,by a middle weight ,only 1 month after their fight why do you think there would have been a demand for a rematch? the crowd that saw their fight booed the fighters for not producing any action,Im not looking into the future here it was 4 weeks laterthat OBrien was sparked out by Ketchel making any prospect of a rematch dead in the water,,have you any reports of public demand for a rematch?

[mcvey]

One month after fighting Johnson in a fight which the crowd booed heartily ,OBrien was kod by a middleweight in3 rounds,that would have killed any demand for a return wouldnt it? Obrien wasnt a hot commodity,he wasa past his best LH who had never been a crowd pleaser in his prime,Im not suggesting that Obrien was totally to blame for the fiasco of a fight thatthe public saw ,Johnson as Champion should have at least put on the substance of a show ,but he took advantage of the circumstances which the fight was fought in to come in out of shape and fought accordingly,he nevr worried about pleasing the fans .Now given that Obrien was kod in 3rounds ,and I mean kod he was carried back to his corner,by a middle weight ,only 1 month after their fight why do you think there would have been a demand for a rematch? the crowd that saw their fight booed the fighters for not producing any action,Im not looking into the future here it was 4 weeks laterthat OBrien was sparked out by Ketchel making any prospect of a rematch dead in the water,,have you any reports of public demand for a rematch?
Im sorry Dr Mendoza ,youve been laying that stick on so much ,I think you just broke it.

[Mendoza]

Im sorry Dr Mendoza ,youve been laying that stick on so much ,I think you just broke it.

Bumping your own stuff right after you post it? This is odd. There are no degrees here. The learning process never ends. A farmer once said, “ If you hit my stubborn horse in the head with a stick, eventually he’ll get the message “. Sometimes people can be stubborn. The stick you refer to has plenty of tids bits of information left.