Tunney Versus jack Johnson who wins and why

[Dr. Z]

Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
- - U first with a list of prime heavyweight contenders he beat. We know Burns and we know he ducked that lucrative rematch.

Stay tuned, boys, this gonna get good!!!

You said he had a poor record against prime fighters. That's for you to prove.

So what was his record against these prime fighters. Don't try to shift your argument to me. It's your argument and now you seem shy.

He asked you first for a list of prime contenders heavyweight contenders beat. Go ahead and list who he fought at heavyweights at their prime. The list will be a short one. It shouldn't be hard a request. I would argue the heavyweight contenders that Johnson lost to were better than the prime heavyweight contenders hat he beat!

Willard, Hart, Choynski and Griffin, were to fighters he lost to...at least the names ones and not all of them were in their prime.

Ouch.


PS: I listed four heavyweights near their prime which he lost to! I proved his point. Now you are up. Name the prime heavyweights that he beat.

[Ivich]

He didn’t win anything, and he was far more experienced. Like I said, watch them double standards or we will have to boast of Cotton’s KO win over Wills.

Ross beat Cotton 3 times read Box Rec they were NWS which means the consensus of newspaper reports is the accepted winner,In their first three fights Ross got that consensus and consequently those verdicts,Cotton won the consensus of the votes for their 4 th fight and therefore is the consensus winner.No double standards by me involved whatsoever, just honesty which seems to enrage you? Cotton beat Wills no problem with the result.
Once again you are arguing a point I haven't contested!

[Ivich]

- - Matters more that he fought an obvious mop up fight and retired avoiding All Fighters Matter that included Wills.

Thats irrelevant to the point he has made.

[GhostofDempsey]

Ross beat Cotton 3 times read Box Rec they were NWS which means the consensus of newspaper reports is the accepted winner,In their first three fights Ross got that consensus and consequently those verdicts,Cotton won the consensus of the votes for their 4 th fight and therefore is the consensus winner.No double standards by me involved whatsoever, just honesty which seems to enrage you? Cotton beat Wills no problem with the result.
Once again you are arguing a point I haven't contested!

He did not beat him three times. In the third and final contest between them newspapers said Cotton clearly won. I showed it to you. Ross was not much more than a journeyman at best. 35-23-15 is not the record of a world beater.

[Willow The Wisp]

Hmmm. Looks like it might be Jack Johnson bashing season reading through some of these posts. How uninformed. 1. People were tougher in Johnson's time than they are today. Doing skull crushers and bench press reps and competition in "Tough Mudder" will not overcome the organic ruggedness that woking in the mills, farms and lumber camps of 115 years ago got you to. Not even close.
2. Johnson was the most famous African American in the world in his time, and he single handedly exploded the myths about white supremacy. Boxing was by FAR the most widely known about pro sport on earth in 1908.
3. What these facts imply in combination is that Johnson could beat every man in the world when he held the title, not simply the few he did beat, under the only rules that historically matter. Any soldier, cop, farmer, martial artist, strongman, coal miner, cowboy, mountain man, sailor, wrestler or tailor, from anywhere on earth. No mythical exceptions. There was nobody in the category of having the gifts nessisary to beat Johnson who would fail to be enticed by the riches such a victory would bring them, in exchange for their meager wages doing equally dangerious jobs. They disqualified themselves, every last one of them, because they knew they didn't have what it would take. And such a person, who would willingly relegate themselves to such comparatively low existence, would fold up like a beach chair anyway.
Posters attempting to measure Johnson by scrolling BoxRec are missing the bigger picture.

[Ivich]

He did not beat him three times. In the third and final contest between them newspapers said Cotton clearly won. I showed it to you. Ross was not much more than a journeyman at best. 35-23-15 is not the record of a world beater.

I posted Boxrecs contemporary reports and I told you they fought FOUR TIMES and that Ross won the FIRST THREE FIGHTS and Cotton won the FOURTH AND LAST FIGHT
There fights took place on
1st 27th Sep 1910
2nd 30th Jan 1911
3rd 4th Nov1911
4th 6th Jan 1912
Now either you're ******, or you can't count?
I never said or suggested Ross was ever a world beater ,yet again you are arguing against points that have not been made! Do you have learning disabilities?

[Ivich]

- - U first with a list of prime heavyweight contenders he beat. We know Burns and we know he ducked that lucrative rematch.

Stay tuned, boys, this gonna get good!!!

Burns did not win a single round againstJohnson who would have paid to see a rematch?

Given it was a one sided slaughter how would a second fight be lucrative? If it had been a viable fight, why would Johnson had ducked a rematch?
Please explain this?
If you refer to a rematch with Langford post a verified offer for $30,000 to fight Langford that Johnson refused.

[JAB5239]

Considering Burns could have ignored JJ and had it gone unchallenged - I think he owed Burns a rematch (a last big payday). Especially since you agree it wouldn't have been a tough fight.

As always we, you and I, once again disagree on the premise of the game. To you it's professional boxing and all the contemporary definitions that conjures, i.e. you always want to define boxing as a 'sport.' I say it's not. I say it was prize fighting and there were contemporaneous traditions, protocols, and politics that affected every fight.

He owed Burns the respect of a rematch, one last payday. No Tommy Burns and we wouldn't t be talking JJ today.

Burns made the honorable choice to fight him. That doesn't mean he deserved a rematch. The fight wasn't competitive at all. As you say, it prize fighting. What was in it for Johnson that he couldn't achieve with a new challenge?

Now I will say that I would of had no problem had Johnson given him a rematch and payday. I agree with you that Burns didn't have to give JJ the opportunity and it would have been a nice gesture to return that opportunity. But given how the first fight went I don't think he owed him a rematch. Just my two cents.

[JAB5239]

- - Burns was the aggressor. If not for him, there would be no points to score and you don't know what the score was.

Only thing whitewashed was you.

You're an idiot.

Jack London, the famous novelist, was in Sydney covering the fight for the New York Herald. He wrote: "The fight? There was no fight. No Armenian massacre could compare with the hopeless slaughter that took place today.

[Dr. Z]

Burns did not win a single round againstJohnson who would have paid to see a rematch?

Given it was a one sided slaughter how would a second fight be lucrative? If it had been a viable fight, why would Johnson had ducked a rematch?
Please explain this?
If you refer to a rematch with Langford post a verified offer for $30,000 to fight Langford that Johnson refused.

This is your typical lie. Burns did not win a single round against Johnson??? 1 ) See round three. 2 ) Show me a source that says Johnson won all the round! The Burns book clearly give round three to Burns. Do I need to show it to you again? Your dishonesty is sicking. Aren't masons supposed to be honest?