Interesting article concerning Jack Johnson.

[Willie Pep 229]

iQUOTE=Willie Pep 229;n31542995]

You don't think politics affects sports' historians.

Do you think that Ken Burns' "Unforgivable Blackness" was accurate ? Not shaped by the current prevailing social/racial termerament?

Ken Burns directed a documentary based almost verbatim on Geoffrey C Ward's book Unforgiveable Blackness.The problem with that book,if indeed it is a problem, is that it does not name many prime sources,Pollack's books give literally hundreds of conflicting first hand accounts.
Burns is to my mind the best documentarian alive, his work on The Dust Bowl The Civil War,Hemingway are top quality documentaries.My perception of him purely from his work and a couple of interviews, is that he is a ******* and probably votes ********,as would I if I lived in the US.Does this colour his judgement on subjects? Possibly.
Do Noam Chomsky's left politics colour his conclusions as well?If they does not still possess a brilliant mind ?
At the end of the day we are none of us perfect, and all subject to our own particular likes and dislikes.

Bottom Line Don't Judge A Book By Its Cover.
Read It Then Pass Judgement On It![/QUOTE]

Let's try that again. Somehow the above post got crossed.

Just for the sake of banter- I realize it's getting late at your end of the planet . . .

Always judge a book, first by its cover. It is not an end all, but a beginning.

Re biographies: I was made to read too many throughout my studies. Realized that they were more usful in understanding bias than events. I stopped reading them. Certainly I have missed some great works because of this behavior but in my opinion the bad out weights the good.

Here's a 'by the book cover' rule to follow. Never by a book, neither fiction or history, where the author's name is in a larger font than the book's title. The SOB wrote it for the money, and it is probably only a half effort. The publisher, published it for same.

[Willie Pep 229]

It did it again - sorry.

[Dr. Z]

Think so as so many do not understand his high tech skills and style. It’s understandable as one has to really do the work to fully comprehend.

We got it. He held super middleweight who didn't move in Ketchel and Burns, save Jack O'Brien who moved around well in a news draw and some felt O'brein won the fight vs Johnson in his prime..

He also held Flynn all day in a fight where Flynn was DQ'd. He held on to tried old Jim Jeffries too. He was in fact saved by the bell vs Jim Batting Johnson. Lucky for Jack this was only 10 rounds and it ended in a draw when one judge gave it to Balling Jim, the other two called it a draw! Of course when he finally fought a real heavyweight, with size the clinching didn't work.


Johnson avoided Langford, Jeannette, and Mcvey from champion to the time afterwords when he we wasn't champion. All those years. Did not fight Wills either. Johnson ducked them! Look it up or research it you'll find what I say is true.

But he sure could clinch the super small, those who lacked height, the old, and the not very good.

[Ivich]

Ken Burns directed a documentary based almost verbatim on Geoffrey C Ward's book Unforgiveable Blackness.The problem with that book,if indeed it is a problem, is that it does not name many prime sources,Pollack's books give literally hundreds of conflicting first hand accounts.
Burns is to my mind the best documentarian alive, his work on The Dust Bowl The Civil War,Hemingway are top quality documentaries.My perception of him purely from his work and a couple of interviews, is that he is a ******* and probably votes ********,as would I if I lived in the US.Does this colour his judgement on subjects? Possibly.
Do Noam Chomsky's left politics colour his conclusions as well?If they does not still possess a brilliant mind ?
At the end of the day we are none of us perfect, and all subject to our own particular likes and dislikes.

Bottom Line Don't Judge A Book By Its Cover.
Read It Then Pass Judgement On It!

Let's try that again. Somehow the above post got crossed.

Just for the sake of banter- I realize it's getting late at your end of the planet . . .

Always judge a book, first by its cover. It is not an end all, but a beginning.

Re biographies: I was made to read too many throughout my studies. Realized that they were more usful in understanding bias than events. I stopped reading them. Certainly I have missed some great works because of this behavior but in my opinion the bad out weights the good.

Here's a 'by the book cover' rule to follow. Never by a book, neither fiction or history, where the author's name is in a larger font than the book's title. The SOB wrote it for the money, and it is probably only a half effort. The publisher, published it for same.[/QUOTE]

Pollack is an Attorney.Boxing Judge, and Referee.I think you'll find his series of biographies on the heavyweight champion a labour of love not motivated by profit. You are making your mind up on things that you haven't seen.Certainly,if after reading a few chapters you realise the author is not objective, close the book and put it down.But to prejudge work you haven't read is nonsensical . Not late here only 8.30pm, time for my Friday night drink.

[billeau2]

Let's try that again. Somehow the above post got crossed.

Just for the sake of banter- I realize it's getting late at your end of the planet . . .

Always judge a book, first by its cover. It is not an end all, but a beginning.

Re biographies: I was made to read too many throughout my studies. Realized that they were more usful in understanding bias than events. I stopped reading them. Certainly I have missed some great works because of this behavior but in my opinion the bad out weights the good.

Here's a 'by the book cover' rule to follow. Never by a book, neither fiction or history, where the author's name is in a larger font than the book's title. The SOB wrote it for the money, and it is probably only a half effort. The publisher, published it for same.

Pollack is an Attorney.Boxing Judge, and Referee.I think you'll find his series of biographies on the heavyweight champion a labour of love not motivated by profit. You are making your mind up on things that you haven't seen.Certainly,if after reading a few chapters you realise the author is not objective, close the book and put it down.But to prejudge work you haven't read is nonsensical . Not late here only 8.30pm, time for my Friday night drink.[/QUOTE]

Great points... You run into these issues with translations as well. I translated Buddhist Text Ancient Chinese/Japanese works. The more literal the translation the more chance they missed something lol. Not that these are all bad... they are a great way to start. But we seldom think how much what we transcribe is social contextual as opposed to literal. So take a concept like "****oJutsu" which is an older name for the art of using the fingers to strike vital points and soft muscle tissue... However the text themselves, talk about the art being about "using one finger to unbalance a whole enemy" etc...

At the end of the day people are complex beings and unless a biography is written for children, if it is useful it should not try to simplify complex issues for the sake of doing a service to the famous individual. One of my favorite biographies is a very well written biography about james braddock, it is written for a child like audience, and it works! Because there are aspects of braddock that are truly "Cinderella like" lol.

[Dr. Z]

Think so as so many do not understand his high tech skills and style. It’s understandable as one has to really do the work to fully comprehend.

What so high tech about clinching shorter and lighter men, especially those without in-fighting ability? Hitting while holding isn'y high tech, it's a foul. They style isn't hi-tech today, it would get a fighter docked points, and DQ'd. Besides Johnson didn't do it vs real heavyweights who beat him. Hart was too active and Willard too strong and in his prime.

[QueensburyRules]

You don't think politics affects sports' historians.

Do you think that Ken Burns' "Unforgivable Blackness" was accurate ? Not shaped by the current prevailing social/racial termerament?

- - We discussed this ad infinitum on Cyber Boxing and mostly gave him high marks. This was pre*** riots and CRT fiction, but post trauma of 911/Iraq War Fraud.

The title may be seen as incendiary, but that was really it with JJ being unforgivable during those days. Beat up and past prime, he pretty much operated the same as before with less $$$ and profile dogging him and ended raising War Funds with a Jeannette exhibition.

[Ivich]

To those who compare Johnson to John Ruiz. Here is a contemporary article that tells the tale. Johnson controlled opponents by blocking/tapping/parrying at their elbows in terms of body punches. A very high skill technique.

Ruiz of course did nothing but hold his opponents. A low skill strategy.

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...1912&proxtext=

It amuses me that one poster takes exception to your description of Johnson but absolutely worships Wladimir Clinchko who gave a disgraceful exhibition against smaller Povetkin, laying all over him,at times forcing him to the floor.

For the record it was custom for boxers back in that era to mutually agree to hit in the clinches or not ,once this was established before hand the referee officiated accordingly.
Tommy Burns later said he regretted opting for hitting in the clinches with Johnson , [he was considered an excellent infighter,] because he hadn't realized how strong Johnson was.
The footage of the fight shows Johnson manhandling Tommy when he wants and uppercutting the **** out of him with his free hand.
He did the same thing with the 227lbs Jeffries walking him backwards into corners while talking to Jeffries seconds and ripping uppercuts into him, again Jeffries chose hitting in the clinches,and why wouldn't he? He was the bigger man and renowned for his strength.
In his two brief outings with Patterson you can see Liston hitting with his free hand , whaling away at Patterson's body, as Floyd desperately tries to contain him inside ,but failing because of Sonny's superior strength .

[QueensburyRules]

It amuses me that one poster takes exception to your description of Johnson but absolutely worships Wladimir Clinchko who gave a disgraceful exhibition against smaller Povetkin, laying all over him,at times forcing him to the floor.

For the record it was custom for boxers back in that era to mutually agree to hit in the clinches or not ,once this was established before hand the referee officiated accordingly.
Tommy Burns later said he regretted opting for hitting in the clinches with Johnson , [he was considered an excellent infighter,] because he hadn't realized how strong Johnson was.
The footage of the fight shows Johnson manhandling Tommy when he wants and uppercutting the **** out of him with his free hand.
He did the same thing with the 225lbs Jeffries walking him backwards into corners while talking to Jeffries seconds and ripping uppercuts into him, again Jeffries chose hitting in the clinches,and why wouldn't he? He was the bigger man and renowned for his strength.
In his two brief outings with Patterson you can see Liston hitting with his free hand , whaling away at Patterson's body, as Floyd desperately tries to contain him inside ,but failing because of Sonny's superior strength .

- - Flung Pov around the ring like a rag doll in between knocking him down in hostile Moscow all while Russia and Ukraine were busy in the early stages of their on going war.

Braver, more dominant performance than legends like Ali ever mustered. JJ best performance on video is Willard and he got iced for his efforts.

Yer welcome...

[Dr. Z]

- - Flung Pov around the ring like a rag doll in between knocking him down in hostile Moscow all while Russia and Ukraine were busy in the early stages of their on going war.

Braver, more dominant performance than legends like Ali ever mustered. JJ best performance on video is Willard and he got iced for his efforts.

Yer welcome...

The surviving film which has many rounds shown shows Willard doing and winning rounds way before the knockdown. Johnson is the better on the inside Willard the better on the outside. Too much focus is on round 26th round and Johnson fake claim he took a dive. Round 25 shows Willard had Johnson hurting badly for a body shot. He wasn't acting these. He was hit, tried to cinch Willard to break his fall, and flat out his back under a hot ring mat. He wasn't faking that time either. He was counted out. If you haven't seen the other rounds shown, you should. Johnson power worked only on super middle weight types, short men, and old and tired men. Willard who lacked skill in general however was neither.