BoxRec

Robinson wrote:Well they have in my minds eye !!!

Now get to it.

Nah, I'm not your guy for that. I don't do hypothetical match-ups between fighters from different eras, especially guys separated by 100 years.

Now, if you want to talk about fights that could have happened but didn't - e.g. Leonard v. Walker for Walker's welterweight title in late 1924 - I'm your guy!!

Hypothetical matches is what makes boxing so...well...easy to argue :P

but I agree it is damned hard to do.

Jack Johnson saw a photo of Jim Corbett in his boxing stance in Nat Fleischer's office and went into a long discussion of how important the stance is.

Then Johnson said of Corbett, "He was the most beautiuful boxer there ever was."

I find that interesting, since Corbett was as nasty as possible to Johnson at the time of the Jeffries-Johnson fight.

Robinson wrote:Ok...
how about Jones vs Corbett, Jeffries, Choynski and/or Johnson

How about Franklin D. Roosevelt running against Andrew Jackson

or Thomas Jefferson running against Dwight D. Eisenhower

or William Howard Taft running against John Adams?

raylawpc wrote:Granberry, since I've been on this board I've tried to see things from your point of view, but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.

While Granberry was at the Library of Congress, unsuccessfully attempting to validate his nonsense, Frank Balatzar was managing & training a couple world title contenders, guys who REALLY CAN fight, as can Mr. Balatzar, and those who have made history right along side him.

Granberry is boxing website moron, he gets great pleasure trying to teach history to those who truly know it, and/or have lived it. he truth is, he wants history to be "his version" of the history, depending on which story serves his purpose. There are a variety of ways that individuals such as Gran can get help. The sad part is, they don't want help. The only hope for Gran is to go out and do that thing he has not experienced in eons, even though it's something a guy like he will have to pay for. Gran, you have potential, but your attitude is what keeps you from finding common ground here, get laid amigo, and the world will suddenly become a wonderful place again.

As for the boxing, don't worry pal, we'll school you! Now go out and get laid, and when your finished, just come back and try again. Don't let me down, you have potential, report back after you take care of that little matter and we'll check your progress.

-Ricardo

How about Franklin D. Roosevelt running against Andrew Jackson

or Thomas Jefferson running against Dwight D. Eisenhower

or William Howard Taft running against John Adams?

Roosevelt by landslide over Jackson.

Jefferson edges Eisenhower.

Adams comfortably over Taft.

Rick Farris wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Granberry, since I've been on this board I've tried to see things from your point of view, but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.

While Granberry was at the Library of Congress, unsuccessfully attempting to validate his nonsense, Frank Balatzar was managing & training a couple world title contenders, guys who REALLY CAN fight, as can Mr. Balatzar, and those who have made history right along side him.

Granberry is boxing website moron, he gets great pleasure trying to teach history to those who truly know it, and/or have lived it. he truth is, he wants history to be "his version" of the history, depending on which story serves his purpose. There are a variety of ways that individuals such as Gran can get help. The sad part is, they don't want help. The only hope for Gran is to go out and do that thing he has not experienced in eons, even though it's something a guy like he will have to pay for. Gran, you have potential, but your attitude is what keeps you from finding common ground here, get laid amigo, and the world will suddenly become a wonderful place again.

As for the boxing, don't worry pal, we'll school you! Now go out and get laid, and when your finished, just come back and try again. Don't let me down, you have potential, report back after you take care of that little matter and we'll check your progress.

-Ricardo

Ricardo,

Harold Johnson, Georgie Benton, Wesley Mouzon were always very interested in what I had to say on the subject.

You west coast hotshots are so puffed with your own boxing experience that you think you have a right to demand that ONLY YOU have a right to discuss the subject.

The real world doesn't work like that, my friend.

Now go back and get together on the private pm's with your and kikbalt's mentor, collins,

and get your next instructions.

LOL

Its funny that you should mention that about Johnson on Corbett...he seemed to respect previous fighters, in a way that showed he was himself real fan of the sport.

The Jack London, Corbett, Sullivan, etc racial slurs thrown at Johnson is sad to read about especially considering it was not frowned upon at the time.

Robinson, I looked for a few contemporaneous comments about the fighters we discussed. A good source is W. W. Naughton’s Kings of the Queensbury Realm (1902), because he normally includes short, pithy comments on the style of various fighters. He writes of Corbett:

“James J. Corbett was undoubtedly the greatest natural boxer, for a heavy weight, the world ever produced.

. . .

In foot work Corbett had absolutely no equal. He was in and out, like a will-o’-the-wisp, and was seemingly no more susceptible of fatigue than a rubber ball. He gave an opponent no peace, and many an aspiring pugilist told the writer in the old days, that being jabbed by Corbett’s gloves was preferable almost to the weariness superinduced by trying to keep time with the rapid play of Corbett’s arms when Jim began feinting.” Page 82-83.

Naughton doesn’t supply a description of Choynski. A biography of Choynski appears in the California Historical Quarterly, and it quotes the San Francisco Chronicle that “[o]ld-timers claim that Joe was the sharpest hitter of all time. Not the hardest, understand, for Joe was little more than a middleweight. But he could put every ounce of his 172 pounds behind a precision punch that had been prepared through rounds of maneuvering his opponent.” “San Francisco’s Fighting Jew,” California Historical Quarterly (Winter 1974) at page 341. Jeffries wrote that Choynski “had big shoulders and light legs. He was very fast on his feet and could time his punches perfectly.” My Life and Battles (1910) at p. 25. He said Choynski “moved in an out like a shadow,” and “was . . . clever at ducking.” However, a San Francisco Chronicle account of Choynski’s bout with Jeffries says that Joe was sometimes “reckless” earlier in his career. (He did not display any recklessness against Jeffries, it wrote.) San Francisco Chronicle, 12/1/1897 at page 12. Jeffries wrote that Choynski hit him harder with a single punch than any other opponent.

I haven’t found any short descriptions of Johnson, but there are enough films of him available that you can probably form your own opinion.

I hope this helps.

There is one film of Choynski, sparring with Jeffries before the Johnson fight.

Choynski's career is long over by that time.

Choynski spars with long pants on. His knees are bent in his stance and he appears very light on his legs, ready to spring back or forward momentarily.

For anyone interested, here is the YOUTUBE version of the clip to which Granberry refers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsB3O0JnBjI

Choynski had painfully scrawny legs.

When Ken Burns showed a photo of Choynski in mentioning that Choynski knocked Jack Johnson out,

Ken Burns cropped the Choynski photo he used so that it only showed Choynski from the waist up.

LOL

JOE CHOYNSKI

Young picture, is my guess.

JOE CHOYSNKI and JACK JOHNSON in jail together,

after Choynski knocked out Johnson and they were then arrested for fighting,

It seems to clear to me that Choynski was a big influence on Johnson. The loss, and the friendship and lessons he derived from Chonski straight after the fight.

It seems sad to me that Choynski would abandon what was no doubt a friendship, seemingly caught up in the racial ugliness of the 1910 farce of white and black.

Robinson, I think you are being a bit hard on Joe. Choynski was invited to Jeffries camp in April 1910 to help train him. Joe was Sam Berger's brother-in-law, and Sam was Jeffries' manager at the time.

I have gone through hundreds of articles about the Jeffries-Johnson fight, and I do not recall Choynski saying anything derogatory about Johnson. He was hired to train Jeffries (who was also a friend) by his brother-in-law, and he did. There is nothing in the historical record to indicate any racial animosity on Choynski's part toward Johnson.

raylawpc wrote:Robinson, I think you are being a bit hard on Joe. Choynski was invited to Jeffries camp in April 1910 to help train him. Joe was Sam Berger's brother-in-law, and Sam was Jeffries' manager at the time.

I have gone through hundreds of articles about the Jeffries-Johnson fight, and I do not recall Choynski saying anything derogatory about Johnson. He was hired to train Jeffries (who was also a friend) by his brother-in-law, and he did. There is nothing in the historical record to indicate any racial animosity on Choynski's part toward Johnson.

That was definitely one of the most confused posts I ever read, but I didn't think it was worth trying to answer.

Robinson is applying an Australian politically correct piece of propaganda regarding the US he read somewhere and somehow in his confusion connecting it to Choynski.

The post read like something a second year college student would say trying to please his leftwing professor.

Hahaha hardly...


Its something I picked up from an awesome documentary film maker, that was recomended by you on this forum Granberry...:)

I would 'recommend' Ken Burns for incompetence, presumptuousness, and agenda-driven politically correct garbage.

granberry wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Robinson, I think you are being a bit hard on Joe. Choynski was invited to Jeffries camp in April 1910 to help train him. Joe was Sam Berger's brother-in-law, and Sam was Jeffries' manager at the time.

I have gone through hundreds of articles about the Jeffries-Johnson fight, and I do not recall Choynski saying anything derogatory about Johnson. He was hired to train Jeffries (who was also a friend) by his brother-in-law, and he did. There is nothing in the historical record to indicate any racial animosity on Choynski's part toward Johnson.

That was definitely one of the most confused posts I ever read, but I didn't think it was worth trying to answer.

Robinson is applying an Australian politically correct piece of propaganda regarding the US he read somewhere and somehow in his confusion connecting it to Choynski.

The post read like something a second year college student would say trying to please his leftwing professor.

Gran, always remember . . .

It's nice to feel important, but it's important to be nice. Repeat 50 times, and try harder! You can do it!


And to Ray, thanks for your informative posts. Reality deserves some balance.


-Rick Farris

granberry wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Robinson, I think you are being a bit hard on Joe. Choynski was invited to Jeffries camp in April 1910 to help train him. Joe was Sam Berger's brother-in-law, and Sam was Jeffries' manager at the time.

I have gone through hundreds of articles about the Jeffries-Johnson fight, and I do not recall Choynski saying anything derogatory about Johnson. He was hired to train Jeffries (who was also a friend) by his brother-in-law, and he did. There is nothing in the historical record to indicate any racial animosity on Choynski's part toward Johnson.

That was definitely one of the most confused posts I ever read, but I didn't think it was worth trying to answer.

Robinson is applying an Australian politically correct piece of propaganda regarding the US he read somewhere and somehow in his confusion connecting it to Choynski.

The post read like something a second year college student would say trying to please his leftwing professor.

The post was directed to Robinson, but I will try to remember you are on these threads as well. In the future, I will use shorter sentences and try to keep my words to two syllables so that you can understand.

I have seen film of the entire Jones/Clay fight. Clay won comfortably on points, the crowd booed Clay because he did not fulfil his "prediction" of stopping Jones in four rounds.

Jones later got a shot at Ernie Terrell's WBA heavyweight title and lost. The ringside writers would probably have been drunk. In the 1960s no reporter worth calling himself one was sober after 4.00pm.

granberry wrote:I would 'recommend' Ken Burns for incompetence, presumptuousness, and agenda-driven politically correct garbage.

I guess this means Gran "recommends" Ken Burns??? So everybody here is in agreement, VIVA Ken Burns!!! Personally, I don't care, just stopped in to interfere where I don't belong. LOL!

Adios,

Ricardo

Uncle Gran,

Im not that juvenille am I....