Ernie Shavers/ THE END

stanpod · Post by **stanpod** » 05 Feb 2002, 12:13

record file indicates ERNIE SHAVERS LOST TO STAN JOHNSON 11-14-69 could this be true ???????????????????

WAS NOTORIOUS LOSER STAN JOHNSON A WINNER
IT INDICATES HE WAS UNDEFEATED AT THAT TIME
WAS STAN ONCE A BIG WINNER BEFORE HE STEPPED UP IN COMPETITION......???????

[ This Message was edited by: stanpod on 2002-02-05 16:17 ]

[ This Message was edited by: stanpod on 2002-02-05 16:19 ]

[ This Message was edited by: stanpod on 2002-03-25 03:36 ]

[ This Message was edited by: stanpod on 2002-03-25 03:38 ]

[ This Message was edited by: stanpod on 2002-04-02 02:15 ]

[ This Message was edited by: stanpod on 2002-04-03 03:19 ]

[ This Message was edited by: stanpod on 2002-04-05 16:14 ]

[ This Message was edited by: stanpod on 2002-04-05 16:16 ]

[ This Message was edited by: stanpod on 2002-04-25 03:46 ]

Tomato-Can · Post by **Tomato-Can** » 05 Feb 2002, 14:01

Yes Stan it is true. I saw that fight here in Seattle. Early in his career Stan (the animal) Johnson was an undersized heavyweight with a good record who looked alot like Fres Oquendo. He fought in the Seattle area often and beat most of the locals.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 05 Feb 2002, 23:08

This has been analyized to death. Search the old archives to see what has been discussed.

stanpod · Post by **stanpod** » 08 Feb 2002, 23:26

I HAVE THE AWNSER, FROM VERY GOOD SOURCES.
#1 my brother PETE POD' WORKED HIS FIRST PRO BOUT IN 87' WITH LOSER' GUY- STANLEY JOHNSON MILWAUKEE WI, GETTING KO'D BY KIM ODEM FEB.-17-1987. I WAS ON THE UNDERCARD !

pete says 'NO WAY' STANLEY JOHNSON BEAT ERNIE SHAVERS, EVER..ANYHOW ANYWAY.
AFTER PETE AND I TALKED TO VERY GOOD BOXING PEOPLE, SEAN CURTIN-ILLINOIS BOXING COMMISSIONER & HISTORIAN, ROBERT MITTELMAN-AGENT AND JACK COWEN- LONG TIME MATCH MAKER . THEY ALL SAID THEY ARE SURE.
THE STAN JOHNSON, STAN 'THE ANIMAL' JOHNSON aka. JACK MITCHELL WAS A GOOD FIGHTER WHO ONLY LOST 5 FIGHTS. SEAN CURTIN IS THE FOREMOST BOXING HISTORIAN WE KNOW AND HE IS POSITIVE. THIS WOOD MAKE STAN 'THE ANIMAL' JOHNSON 24-5-0 WITH 2 NC AND THE
LOSER' ( nice guy, but still a looser) STANLEY JOHNSON 2-33-0 . I AM SURE THIS IS THE AWNSER. ALL THESE GUYS, SEAN, ROBERT, PETE AND JACK KNOW FOR SURE. THIS MAKES ME SURE. THUS THE AWNSER FOR THE CHANGE IN RESULTS FROM 1981 ON ! IF NO ONE HAS ANY LOGICAL REPLEY I WOULD BE GLAD TO MAKE THE SPLIT SOON ON THEIR RECORDS.

STANPOD'

SORRY TOMATO CAN BUT THIS IS WHAT I AM TOLD!!!!!!!!

[ This Message was edited by: stanpod on 2002-02-09 03:28 ]

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 09 Feb 2002, 01:38

I e-mailed the Iowa commissioner and he gave me the birthday for Johnson of February 11, 1951. Someone from the Midwest has also stated that this is the same guy. The reason for the change of heart being that he went to prison (which I've seen in a article available on the net). Also Sean Curtin, the Illinois commissioner couldn't be entirely positive, seeing how Johnson hasn't fought by our records for 14 years in Illinois.

Bottom line, this is highly unusual stuff. This is boxing though anything is possible.

stanpod · Post by **stanpod** » 09 Feb 2002, 01:52

STANLEY JOHNSON THE LOSER
COMES WITH OPPONENT ALL THE TIME TO SMALL CHICAGO AREA SHOWS IF I OR MY BROTHERS SEE HIM WE WILL CONFRONT HIM.
BUT ALL OF THESE GUYS SAID THEY ARE POSITIVE
JACK COWEN AND SEAN CURTIN ESPECIALLY
THIS WAS AS OF YESTERDAY

AS THE GUY AT GAMBLERS ANONOYMOUS SAID

Y' WANNA BET ! just playing'
but I,M SURE....NO WAY THE ANIMAL -STAN AND STANLEY ARE THE SAME 100%
stanpod

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 09 Feb 2002, 02:42

Go ahead and ask him. I just wonder (going by your story) why a 35 year old fighter turns pro to be a lay down artist. He has from my understanding been behind bringing losers like Don Penelton, James Wilder, and Walter Cowans in to the sport, so it seems he could have had a repuation before.

Also, don't say things like I'm 100% positive. You seem to be under the impression that the people that help contribute to this site are a bunch of idiots compared to you and others. Trust me, that is not the case.

barry · Post by **barry** » 09 Feb 2002, 07:26

I went through some eighties "Ring" and found the following bouts for Stan Johnson. His residence is listed as Milwaukee in all the bouts unless otherwise noted. I was only looking for the listed residence in each bout, hence the lack of location and round numbers.

Stan Johnson
9/27/84 Spencer Chavis LK
11/2/84 Jim Finn LK
2/14/87 Frank Santini TKO
--Johnson's residence is listed as Paterson, NJ. The writer stated that Santini looked nothing like a boxer.
4/21/87 Rocky McCaleb LK
--States that Johnson is 2-16-0; all losses by knockout.
7/28/87 Jay Nelson LK
7/31/87 Gene Dyker LK
--Illinois permanetly retires Johnson in that state. Johnson residence is listed as Omaha, NE.
11/3/87 Jerry Halstead LK
--Johnson's record is listed as 19-9-1
11/27/87 Bobby Hitz LK
--After retiring Johnson a few months earlier, Illinois granted him a licsense after Hitz's scheduled opponent dropped out of the fight. Johnson was listed as being 36 years old.

delisa · Post by **delisa** » 09 Feb 2002, 15:17

Wimpy Halstead wrote me about Johnson -- he said Johnson looked to be in his 40s at that time. He recalls that this Johnson fought Shavers.

[ This Message was edited by: delisa on 2002-02-09 19:18 ]

stanpod · Post by **stanpod** » 09 Feb 2002, 18:32

first of all no one ever said, tried or ment to imply anthing derogatory about anyone else

Niether me or my brother ever use the term 100% UNLESS WE ARE SURE. PETE WILL SAY 99.9% many times when he should say 100%
pete worked many of Stanley J's fights and he is the one who spoke first to Sean Curtin, Sean is also very careful about saying he is sure. We asked him yesterday at a local amateur show and he said he was sure. HE (sean) EVEN TOLD PETE STAN JOHNSON, THE WINNER GUY HAD 5 LOSSES AND HE KNEW HIS FIRST AND LAST FIGHTS. THIS WAS WITHOUT A BOOK. PETE ASKED HIM THE QUESTION WHILE SEAN WAS IN THE RING WAITING FOR THE NEXT BOUT. HOW COULD MR. CURTIN KNOW LITTLE DETAILS LIKE THAT WITHOUT BEING SURE.

SEAN SAID NO WAY THE STAN (the animal) WAS A GOOD FIGHTER, STANLEY THE LOSER' IS JUST A GUY TRYING TO MAKE A FEW DOLLARS. JACK COWEN TOLD PETE THAT A WHILE BACK STANLEY J the opponent TRIED TO MAKE OFF LIKE HE WAS ONE IN THE SAME GUY. AND LATER CONFESSED HE WAS JUST PLAYING. WE THINK A LOT OF MOST OF THE PEOPLE ON THE WEB HERE . BUT WHEN YOU KNOW YOU KNOW AND WHEN YOU KNOW PEOPLE THAT ARE WALKING BOXING ENCYCLOPEDIA'S AND THEY SAY THEY ARE SURE 100% How can you not agree. Sorry but we are as certain as we can be. If someone has something else please let us know. But we are only trying to get it correct.

thanks much stan

and yes they would both be very close in age maybe within days. But that does not make them the same person.

sorry , sorry , sorry
but 100% IS STILL OUR NUMBER

YOURS IN BOXINGS

THE POD'S

[ This Message was edited by: stanpod on 2002-02-09 22:34 ]

delisa · Post by **delisa** » 09 Feb 2002, 18:46

A Stan Johnson was quoted in regard to a Laila Ali opponent -- not sure if this guy was the SJ we talking about --

"Tonight's opponent, Ms. Marjorie Jones of Wisconsin, is, according to her brother/trainer Stan Johnson, "a 48-year-old ex-prostitute, ex-drug addict, and ex-convict." When Jones enters the ring here in "tinsel town" it must be the biggest moment of what undoubtedly was a difficult life, a grand moment of recovery, empowerment and expectation. "

AND this article talks about Stan Johnson -- including photo

http://www.citypages.com/databank/21/10 ... le8824.asp

THe article includes the following:

"In 1993 Johnson made the news in his home state of Wisconsin after pleading guilty to two counts of forgery for signing a doctor's name on one of his fighter's medical forms (at the time he was already on probation for an armed robbery conviction). In 1998 he was banned by the North Dakota State Athletic Commission after a boxer he'd supplied for a bout was found to have fought under an assumed name (a classic bit of chicanery that Johnson himself indulged in over the years). Now 48, Johnson still boxes occasionally, usually when one of his fighters doesn't make the gig. Mostly, though, he supplies guys like Peterson with low-rent opponents. "

Finally, here is his listing from the Federal suspension list --

Johnson, Stan (WI003168) IA 09/20/01 retired by IA

Of course this is 4 days PRIOR to his last fight according to BOXREC so that is another mystery!

Let's go you Columbo's -- let's nail this one!

[ This Message was edited by: delisa on 2002-02-09 22:51 ]

[ This Message was edited by: delisa on 2002-02-09 22:54 ]

[ This Message was edited by: delisa on 2002-02-09 22:57 ]

[ This Message was edited by: delisa on 2002-02-09 23:01 ]

barry · Post by **barry** » 09 Feb 2002, 19:20

>BUT WHEN YOU KNOW YOU KNOW AND WHEN YOU KNOW PEOPLE THAT ARE WALKING BOXING ENCYCLOPEDIA'S AND THEY SAY THEY ARE SURE 100% How can you not agree<

Richard Fox, Thomas Andrews, and Nat Fleischer all made mistakes. It's human to make mistakes. I think that what Matt was getting around to was not to rely on someones word, but instead find the facts through newspapers, or other publications that might mention details about a certain fact. Nearly all of the results that I read last night sounded to me like the same person. Unfortunately, Ring mag did not cover Wisconsin very well during the 80s, so several bouts never appeared and I do not have any resources for newspapers of that time. I'll go through the 1970s and 1980s mags that I have and look for articles other than just results for Stan Johnson tonight and see what turns up.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 09 Feb 2002, 19:22

Either way, the change should not be made till we can confirm that their are two different fighers.

It's tedious to sepearte fighters to begin with, and it wouldn't suprise me six months down the line that someone would come around and say that they were one fighter, and ask that they be combined again. Why not find out the truth before moving in haste?

Basically if there are two fighters, we need to find out more about the Stan Johnson of the 70's, and see if there is something that differentiates him from the Stan Johnson that runs the loser gym in Milwaukee. It doesn't matter that 70's Stan Johnson could fight. Dominick Monaco could fight during the 70's, that didn't stop him from returning in the late 80's as a loser.

[ This Message was edited by: tegenm on 2002-02-09 23:24 ]

stanpod · Post by **stanpod** » 10 Feb 2002, 00:53

THIS IS PETE POD' WITH brother stan
I AGREE 100% that there are 2 stan Johnsons
stan the winner and stanley the losser !
My close friends call me the % man because I put a % on everything. e.g. there is always a 1% chance even a sure person can be wrong.
But because of the sources, and fights of Stanley (the traveling midwest guy) Johnson that I have worked as the referee,I am 100% sure they are two different boxers! HOPE NO ONE IS OFFENDED BUT. YOU CAN TAKE IT TO THE BANK. PETEE-POD----------ILLINOIS--------

stanpod · Post by **stanpod** » 12 Feb 2002, 12:25

ONE ADDITIONAL NOTE*
I just found some old ring record books I was looking for. 1978, 1979 and 1982.

In the 78 and 79 they have pictures for some of the fighters unfortunately none of STAN JOHNSON but the 1978 issue does list "THE ANIMAL" (JACK MITCHELL) from his real home
Seattle Washington, just another clue in the seperation of The winner Stan, aka Jack, vs. STAN 'the opponent'Johnson

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 12 Feb 2002, 12:33

He of course could have moved. What needs to be identified, is the whereabouts of Stan Johnson of the 70's (if he is in fact different); along with details about him.

stanpod · Post by **stanpod** » 17 Feb 2002, 11:26

Please see JOHNSON vs. JOHNSON editors section. Stan, Milwaukee-Johnson admits he is not "The Animal" !

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 17 Feb 2002, 13:03

What is this, classified information or something?
How about posting it here so us non-editors who've been following the plot can read it as well!

stanpod · Post by **stanpod** » 17 Feb 2002, 14:04

Sorry, I put it in the editors section first.
I wanted the other editors to see it right away and see if any doubting Thomases had a reply. I my brother Pete (the referee) and a friend, John Nocita (the lawyer/former fighter) were at a pro/am show in Janesville Wisconsin last night. We saw Stan 'the opponent' Johnson and asked him about STAN'JACK MITCHELL' THE ANIMAL' JOHNSON. He laughed and he said why not try to get by as him. "It got me a couple of more fights". Stan 'the opponent' said he started fighting in about 1968 and that most of his fights were not on the records. He said he got paydays with guys like Randell 'Tex' Cobb and Leon Spinks, both because of the wins on the books that were the other Stan Johnsons. This Stan, lets call him Stanley of Milwaukee, was as he says just doing what anyone else whould do. "Can you blame me?" he said as he laughed. WELL THATS THAT. I WOULD NOT EXPECT ANY ONE WOULD WANT MORE THAN HEARING IT STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH.
MAYBE IN THIS CASE OF STANLEY 'the opponent' Johnson we should say straight from the JACKASS'S MOUTH !!!!!!!

[ This Message was edited by: stanpod on 2002-02-17 18:09 ]

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 17 Feb 2002, 14:32

Cool. Good work Stan.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 17 Feb 2002, 14:34

Matt Tegen, come on down! Your plate of crow awaits you (extra large helping). HeHeHeHe!!

Grey · Post by **Grey** » 17 Feb 2002, 14:40

Did he have a gerri curl?

_________________
Still waiting for Vaughn Bean to take the heavyweight title...

[ This Message was edited by: Grey on 2002-02-17 22:24 ]

stanpod · Post by **stanpod** » 17 Feb 2002, 15:31

MILWAUKEE STAN, HAD ON THE SAME OL' HAT THAT HE HAS WORN FOR YEARS.
LIKE A NAVY OFFICERS HAT. A DINGY OL' HAT.
HE DOES KIND OF HAVE GERRI CURLS COMIN OUT THE SIDES.
SAME OL' STANLEY . SO THE RESULT of
JOHNSON vs. JOHNSON -
its THE ANIMAL by KO.....

stanpod · Post by **stanpod** » 17 Feb 2002, 15:44

HEY GREY,
KEEP WAITING FOR VAUGHN BEAN TO WIN THE TITLE- AND WAITING AND WAITING.
VAUGHN A VERY GOOD FIGHTER AND HE'S GOT CLOUT. HE GETS RANKED UP THERE IN THE RATINGS OVER AND OVER. I HAVE MET HIM A COUPLE OF TIMES, HE FOUGHT AS AN AMATEUR vs. A FRIEND FROM THE GYM.
HEAVYWEIGHT GEORGE MILOSAVLJEVIC.
A CLOSE BOUT. GEORGE COULD HAVE BEEN GOOD BUT DID NOT HAVE DESIRE OR CLOUT.
THERE ARE THREE THINGS IN LIFE EVERYONE NEEDS TO MAKE IT TO THE TOP.

YOU HAVE TO BE GOOD, KNOW SOMEONE (same as clout) AND GET A BREAK. THE GUYS WHO HAVE ONE OR TWO. DO O.K. BUT YOU NEED ALL THREE TO MAKE IT TO THE TOP.
SO MAYBE VAUGHN BEAN COULD GET A BREAK AND WIN A CLOSE FIGHT IF HE GETS ANOTHER CHANCE, BUT I DOUBT IT.

Sorry,

but my guess is you will keep waiting.

Tomato-Can · Post by **Tomato-Can** » 17 Feb 2002, 21:44

Stan....I still have one question. When are you going to separate them?