BoxRec

It sounds like baseball has evolved like boxing.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:It's clear that when Broughton is presented with facts he pretends they don't exist and claims they are biased.

If he knew anything about this era he'd know 6 round fights were actually much more common than fights scheduled over 10 rounds.

I don't think there is any evidence beyond Johnson's auto-bio (which to say is loose with facts is an understatement) that he ever played for the Giants. If you have any please present it.

--- The facts you present are viewed through fogged coke bottles. Without knowledge of the period, you won't know what your looking at.

I didn't complain about 6 rd fights, but the coloured title had a big measure of prestige and was a "big promotion" and as such was meant to emulate real titles whenever possible.

Apparently you don't understand how popular baseball was in those days. I first came across Johnson playing for the Philly Giants upon perusing Only The Ball Was White by Robert Peterson, one of the earliest forays into turn of the century black baseball. I checked the boxing records of Johnson and it all falls into place.

Obviously he wasn't a full time player, but Corbett, Jeffries, Sullivan, and many others made appearances in exhibition style baseball which is what the coloured teams were. All you urban hiphoppers and club crawlers don't understand the rural communities back then. When the teams came into town it was like the circus wrapped in the state fair type of event, plays, carny shows, boxing exhibitions.

The players were fluid, picking up and dropping off at hometowns and such. Major League baseball players were often picked up after the season for promotion and started forming their own touring teams that even played the coloured teams from time to time. Babe Ruth was famously suspended for putting too much time in his exhibition team instead of preseason training camp.

Some kid from the town could show up and practice or even play if he was good enough. That's how greats like Bob Gibson and such got started. Now you got to go through some dreary development program where most of the kids drop out from sheer boredom in the brutal quest for perfection.

That's all fine and good, but you still aren't providing any evidence. What is Peterson's source? That he was in Philadelphia during the summer months is not evidence in the slightest. I'm with Ray in saying that "it's possible" but Gran you'll have to do better than your crappy metaphors.

The sad part is your entire reference to Johnson's baseball playing was supposed to prove that the Ledger had an inherent bias in its fight coverage b/c Johnson may have been an infrequent player on their colored baseball team, which is complete bullshit in of itself.

But in 'Great White Hope' Jonson (James Earl Jones) dressed as
a baseball player to escape the white man.

what does any of this have to do with Luther McCarty?

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:It's clear that when Broughton is presented with facts he pretends they don't exist and claims they are biased.

If he knew anything about this era he'd know 6 round fights were actually much more common than fights scheduled over 10 rounds.

I don't think there is any evidence beyond Johnson's auto-bio (which to say is loose with facts is an understatement) that he ever played for the Giants. If you have any please present it.

--- The facts you present are viewed through fogged coke bottles. Without knowledge of the period, you won't know what your looking at.

I didn't complain about 6 rd fights, but the coloured title had a big measure of prestige and was a "big promotion" and as such was meant to emulate real titles whenever possible.

Apparently you don't understand how popular baseball was in those days. I first came across Johnson playing for the Philly Giants upon perusing Only The Ball Was White by Robert Peterson, one of the earliest forays into turn of the century black baseball. I checked the boxing records of Johnson and it all falls into place.

Obviously he wasn't a full time player, but Corbett, Jeffries, Sullivan, and many others made appearances in exhibition style baseball which is what the coloured teams were. All you urban hiphoppers and club crawlers don't understand the rural communities back then. When the teams came into town it was like the circus wrapped in the state fair type of event, plays, carny shows, boxing exhibitions.

The players were fluid, picking up and dropping off at hometowns and such. Major League baseball players were often picked up after the season for promotion and started forming their own touring teams that even played the coloured teams from time to time. Babe Ruth was famously suspended for putting too much time in his exhibition team instead of preseason training camp.

Some kid from the town could show up and practice or even play if he was good enough. That's how greats like Bob Gibson and such got started. Now you got to go through some dreary development program where most of the kids drop out from sheer boredom in the brutal quest for perfection.

Sadly, Peterson does not footnote to his sources.

I am still curious as to the alleged "bias" of the Ledger in favor of Johnson. Do you have any other news accounts of the two Johnson-Jeannette fights that dispute the accounts given by the Ledger reporter?

HomicideHenry wrote:what does any of this have to do with Luther McCarty?

Nothing, but its a good discussion.

HomicideHenry wrote: . . . and despite Tracy Callis record on CyberBoxingZone of him, the historical society here has evidence of McCarty fighting as an amatuer up until 1912, though BoxRec and the CBZ shows he was a pro in 1911.

To help get us back on track, Hank . . . what evidence?

McCarty lived here in Sidney, Ohio for a time, and up until his death his career was chronicled by the papers. The historical society has it down that in August of 1911 [excuse me not 1912] Luther McCarty boxed a man by the name of Harry Hollinger, a resident of Sidney also, and was knocked out in early in the fight by Hollinger. It is, of course juding by the CBZ records and BoxRec records, to have been an amatuer bout else wouldnt it have been on McCarty's record otherwise? McCarty soon after skipped town, and then became famous while battling it out in the West with the other white hopes, and became their superior.

BoxRec and CBZ is wrong however. He had amatuer bouts inbetween his pro bouts. Between the knockout he suffered at the hands of Hollinger, to fighting under the name of Walter Monahan, he mixed it up as an amateur.

http://www.shelbycountyhistory.org/schs ... sporta.htm

Here, this article was written in 1996, and is from the Historical Society. Check out page 2.

According to CBZ and BoxRec, McCarty by that time had a pro record of 4-0-2 (4), before he lost to Hollinger [the fight, amateur/exhibition or not is unmentioned].

According to the Historical Society, however, the career of McCarty (his debut against Watt Adams) didnt happen until AFTER his kayo loss to Hollinger. CBZ and BoxRec both list the Adams fight to have happened in January of 1911, some seven months before the Hollinger fight.

My guess, people either got McCarty mixed up with a man actually named Walter Monahan, mixed up the dates, or unfortunately have confused amateur bouts as pro bouts. If the latter be the case, then McCarty's record is far more superior than one thought, that with less bouts than originally thought, he easily dominated the white hopes of his time, in less time than he's given credit for.

OR...there is one other possibility...that the fight with Hollinger was a professional bout, and Harry Hollinger is a forgotten fighter, who defeated the great McCarty when he was a prospect. The Historical Society does show that when Luther became champion, that Hollinger was willing, eager even, to fight McCarty again, saying that he was easy pickings the first time.

1911
Jan 7 Watt Adams Culbertson, Mt KO 2
Mar 15 Jake Fullerton Calgary, Alta, Can D
Joe Reid Calgary, Alta, Can SCH
-This bout was scheduled but cancelled
Doc Flynn Calgary, Alta, Can SCH
-This bout was scheduled but cancelled
Apr 14 an unnamed opponent East Calgary, Alta, Can D 8
-Reports vary - "KO" - "Draw" - "Lost By Foul";
Reports vary - 4 rounds, 6 rounds, 8 rounds;
Some sources report "Joe Grim" on 4/17/11;
Some sources report 4/04/11
Jun 9 Al Withers Fargo, ND KO 13
Jul 4 Al Withers Fargo, ND KO 8
Oct 7 Tommy Crawford Fargo, ND KO 1
Nov 30 Jack Heinen South Bend, In KO 3
Dec 6 Joe Cox Springfield, Mo KO 6
Dec 18 Jeff Clark Springfield, Mo ND 10
-Some sources report 1/11/12
Dec 28 Harry Wuest Springfield, Mo ND 10

It is possible, considering the Historical Society's date for the Hollinger fight, that McCarty was in Ohio at that time, as Southbend, Indiana is not too far from Sidney, give or take 75-100 miles.

HomicideHenry wrote:http://www.shelbycountyhistory.org/schs ... sporta.htm

Here, this article was written in 1996, and is from the Historical Society. Check out page 2.

Very interesting stuff Henry Thanks for the link!

raylawpc wrote:I have the actual newspaper accounts of the Johnson-Hart fight from the San Francisco Examiner, the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Call. I haven’t looked at those accounts in several months, and don’t have them handy (they’re at home; I’m at work), but as I recall:

1. None of the newspapers described the bout as “ dreary.” The reports from ringside made it sound like a good fight.
2. The accounts indicated that Johnson landed the sharper blows throughout and had a clear edge over the first ten rounds, but he faded down the stretch. Hart was able to land more and more as the fight progressed and Johnson tired.
3. Alex Greggains, the referee, warned Johnson before the fight that if Johnson used a punch and clutch strategy, he would hold that against Johnson in rendering his decision. He did as he promised, as the accounts are unanimous that Hart made the fight by pressing Johnson. It's also interesting that none of the newspapers chastized Greggains for the decision.
4. All three newspapers expressed their opinion that, based on the fighters’ performance, neither deserved a shot at Jim Jeffries’ title.

I’ll look at the accounts again tonight and if there is anything interesting to add (or if my recollection was incorrect about anything), I’ll post it.

I don’t have a scanner with which to post these articles. Sorry.

I looked at my copies of the articles, and wanted to add a couple of comments:

1. It was more than a good fight. W. W. Naughton, writing for the Examiner, called it "an extremely busy 20 rounds." The Chronicle called it "twenty rounds of the fiercest sort of milling."

2. The Chronicle summed it up best when it said, "Hart was ther aggressor at all times and Johnson was clever but unwilling." In short, Hart never quit pressing, while Johnson fought in spurts.

3. All three papers indicated the verdict was fair, given Hart's aggression and Johnson's reluctance to fight in other than spurts. The Call called it "an entirely just decision." According to the Call, Jabez White, who had signed that day to fight Jimmy Britt, was in attendance and said Hart was "certainly entitled to the decision."

4. Referee Greggains told the Examiner, "I gave the decision to Hart because he was the aggressor and carried the fighting all the way. The damage to Hart's face was done by a few jabs. Hart blocked the majority of the colored man's blows. I always give the gamest and most agressive man the decision." His statement to the Chronicle was longer, but in the same vein.

If you want to read the stories you can find them at
San Francisco Chronicle, 3/29/1905 p. 8
San Francisco Call, 3/29/1905 p. 10
SanFrancisco Examiner, 3/29/1905 p. 8.

I have seen the Examiner's account. Do the others have any rd by rd descriptions? Going by the Trenton Times rd by rd, it appears Johnson deserved at least 12 of 20 rounds. Yes, Gregarrins made it known to Johnson that his cautious counterpunching style would count against him and he did it anyway. But does that mean the decision was just? I don't think so. Even today many fans seem to favor aggressive fighters in scoring even if its ineffective aggression. Back at the turn of the century, many writers painted white fighters as being more 'game' and black fighters being more cowardly/'yellow' which to me looking through the obvious racism translates to being more scientific. Of course, there were crude black sluggers and scientific defensive white boxers, but understanding that perception of thinking at the time I think is important when viewing the opinion of some white writers that the more aggressive but ineffective Hart deserved the decision.

dempseyfire wrote: That's all fine and good, but you still aren't providing any evidence. What is Peterson's source?

--- My dear chap, if Broughton tells you to hitch a wagon to a skeeter, hitch'er up Jack!

My copy is the 1999 amended version where Peterson lists a single source, SABR Negro League Committee findings. Baseball is as one might imagine, the HOLY GRAIL of sports statistics and the home of Newton/Einstein type of SABR statistical innovators as Bill James, Pete Palmer, and thousands of historians. These guys are without peer with noted professional statisticians and scientists as members. Noted evolutionist and science historian Stephan Gould was a proponent and wrote a tribute baseball book in the style of Bill James from Gould's perspective. Everything filtered with the finest toothed comb imaginable.

Now, as far as Hart/Johnson goes, my point stands. He didn't show his class and the results were mixed, but most reports indicate that Johnson was warned by the ref to fight more and he didn't. There's also the specter of Hart marking up with some blood mentioned that I read about, that some automatically assume to have been the loser. Boxrec used to have a new source indicating the ref thought Hart landed the hardest blows and carried the fight. From the description, it sounds like Hart had a very busy style in the manner of Moran, who Johnson surprisingly choses to trade with, perhaps remembering Hart is my take.

Seeing as Johnson had an excellent record, claiming racial bias in this particular case a bit unseemly given he did have some vocal supporters such as the Police Gazette championing his cause. It fits in to a lazy attitude many have that Johnson was the perfect fighter but always laid back so as to disguise his true talent and threw fights so as to not scare off future fights. Now maybe in his heyday Sam Langford had to make a few concessions given the savage run he made through the division after his fight against Johnson, but Johnson himself seems to have been booed a lot for his spoiling style is what I get from his career. This was well before the money, the trappings and the white women.

Again, after early KO losses, Johnson got more defensive and uses his size and strength attributes to that end and perhaps is practicing early panto type actions in the ring for effect. Let's also remember the liberal betting that goes on during the rounds, so any laying back on the action is much more likely explained by that motivation where a superior fighter like Johnson can supplement ring earnings with a well timed bet on himself placed by an associate.

Had Johnson faced the contenders I've mentioned, most all in the HOF and undefeated against Johnson's self selected challengers, we'd have better footage of the era and I've no doubt much different results. He didn't, and that's a stain on him IMO.

Things turning around as Langford/Jeannette fight in France listed as a world title fight now, so I have some historical support apparently as it seems too obvious for anyone who bothers to scratch the mottled veneer of boxing history.

dempseyfire wrote:I have seen the Examiner's account. Do the others have any rd by rd descriptions? Going by the Trenton Times rd by rd, it appears Johnson deserved at least 12 of 20 rounds. Yes, Gregarrins made it known to Johnson that his cautious counterpunching style would count against him and he did it anyway. But does that mean the decision was just? I don't think so. Even today many fans seem to favor aggressive fighters in scoring even if its ineffective aggression. Back at the turn of the century, many writers painted white fighters as being more 'game' and black fighters being more cowardly/'yellow' which to me looking through the obvious racism translates to being more scientific. Of course, there were crude black sluggers and scientific defensive white boxers, but understanding that perception of thinking at the time I think is important when viewing the opinion of some white writers that the more aggressive but ineffective Hart deserved the decision.

Both the Call and Chronicle have round-by-round descriptions, as well. The round-by-round descriptions in the Chronicle and Examiner make it appear a close fight. The Call round by round seemed to favor Hart.

The most objective account seems to come from the Chronicle. It noted that the decision was "immensely popular" with the crowd, and attributed some of the enthusiasm to racism. Yet it also noted:

". . .But even then, casting aside all favoritism, a big majority of those present felt that Hart had won and was justly entitled to the decision. . .

"Few decisions have been given in the history of pugilism that have not had their dissenters. Those who did not agree with Greggains last night based their argument on the assertion that Johnson had shown pronounced superiority over Hart in all stages: that, if there was nothing else, his clean hitting should have entitled him to the verdict. The Hart faction answered this with the statement that Hart had forced the fighting all the way, and that if he had not done this there would have been no fighting to speak of.

"While admitting that Johnson was far the cleverer of the two, it still seems that there is a deal of justice in this view . . .

"To put the thing briefly the way it appeared to a man who had no interest one way or the other - only a desire to see fair play and to have the better fighter win - on the score of aggressiveness Hart was entitled to the verdict. On any other score Johnson should have been the favored one. This is a thing that will be argued on the street corners for days."

The point, I think, is that the local papers make it clear it was not the blatant robbery Johnson always claimed. Hart put up a good fight, and all the account show he landed on Johnson, perhaps more than any other opponent to that time. It was a very good fight, and Hart may, indeed, have deserved the verdict.

raylawpc wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:I have seen the Examiner's account. Do the others have any rd by rd descriptions? Going by the Trenton Times rd by rd, it appears Johnson deserved at least 12 of 20 rounds. Yes, Gregarrins made it known to Johnson that his cautious counterpunching style would count against him and he did it anyway. But does that mean the decision was just? I don't think so. Even today many fans seem to favor aggressive fighters in scoring even if its ineffective aggression. Back at the turn of the century, many writers painted white fighters as being more 'game' and black fighters being more cowardly/'yellow' which to me looking through the obvious racism translates to being more scientific. Of course, there were crude black sluggers and scientific defensive white boxers, but understanding that perception of thinking at the time I think is important when viewing the opinion of some white writers that the more aggressive but ineffective Hart deserved the decision.

Both the Call and Chronicle have round-by-round descriptions, as well. The round-by-round descriptions in the Chronicle and Examiner make it appear a close fight. The Call round by round seemed to favor Hart.

The most objective account seems to come from the Chronicle. It noted that the decision was "immensely popular" with the crowd, and attributed some of the enthusiasm to racism. Yet it also noted:

". . .But even then, casting aside all favoritism, a big majority of those present felt that Hart had won and was justly entitled to the decision. . .

"Few decisions have been given in the history of pugilism that have not had their dissenters. Those who did not agree with Greggains last night based their argument on the assertion that Johnson had shown pronounced superiority over Hart in all stages: that, if there was nothing else, his clean hitting should have entitled him to the verdict. The Hart faction answered this with the statement that Hart had forced the fighting all the way, and that if he had not done this there would have been no fighting to speak of.

"While admitting that Johnson was far the cleverer of the two, it still seems that there is a deal of justice in this view . . .

"To put the thing briefly the way it appeared to a man who had no interest one way or the other - only a desire to see fair play and to have the better fighter win - on the score of aggressiveness Hart was entitled to the verdict. On any other score Johnson should have been the favored one. This is a thing that will be argued on the street corners for days."

The point, I think, is that the local papers make it clear it was not the blatant robbery Johnson always claimed. Hart put up a good fight, and all the account show he landed on Johnson, perhaps more than any other opponent to that time. It was a very good fight, and Hart may, indeed, have deserved the verdict.

Thanks. It does appear to me, that if scored under a modern 10 point must system, Johnson would've been the likely victor. But hell, we still have these arguments a la Oscar-Tito to this day, so without clear quality footage to review I guess we'll never know . . .

Robinson wrote:It sounds like baseball has evolved like boxing.

Except that boxing has almost no significant development programs anymore except in a few large cities. In past decades there were boxing gyms on nearly every street corner of most US cities. Boxing is in more of a de-evolutionary cycle.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

dempseyfire wrote: That's all fine and good, but you still aren't providing any evidence. What is Peterson's source?

--- My dear chap, if Broughton tells you to hitch a wagon to a skeeter, hitch'er up Jack!

My copy is the 1999 amended version where Peterson lists a single source, SABR Negro League Committee findings. Baseball is as one might imagine, the HOLY GRAIL of sports statistics and the home of Newton/Einstein type of SABR statistical innovators as Bill James, Pete Palmer, and thousands of historians. These guys are without peer with noted professional statisticians and scientists as members. Noted evolutionist and science historian Stephan Gould was a proponent and wrote a tribute baseball book in the style of Bill James from Gould's perspective. Everything filtered with the finest toothed comb imaginable.

Now, as far as Hart/Johnson goes, my point stands. He didn't show his class and the results were mixed, but most reports indicate that Johnson was warned by the ref to fight more and he didn't. There's also the specter of Hart marking up with some blood mentioned that I read about, that some automatically assume to have been the loser. Boxrec used to have a new source indicating the ref thought Hart landed the hardest blows and carried the fight. From the description, it sounds like Hart had a very busy style in the manner of Moran, who Johnson surprisingly choses to trade with, perhaps remembering Hart is my take.

Seeing as Johnson had an excellent record, claiming racial bias in this particular case a bit unseemly given he did have some vocal supporters such as the Police Gazette championing his cause. It fits in to a lazy attitude many have that Johnson was the perfect fighter but always laid back so as to disguise his true talent and threw fights so as to not scare off future fights. Now maybe in his heyday Sam Langford had to make a few concessions given the savage run he made through the division after his fight against Johnson, but Johnson himself seems to have been booed a lot for his spoiling style is what I get from his career. This was well before the money, the trappings and the white women.

Again, after early KO losses, Johnson got more defensive and uses his size and strength attributes to that end and perhaps is practicing early panto type actions in the ring for effect. Let's also remember the liberal betting that goes on during the rounds, so any laying back on the action is much more likely explained by that motivation where a superior fighter like Johnson can supplement ring earnings with a well timed bet on himself placed by an associate.

Had Johnson faced the contenders I've mentioned, most all in the HOF and undefeated against Johnson's self selected challengers, we'd have better footage of the era and I've no doubt much different results. He didn't, and that's a stain on him IMO.

Things turning around as Langford/Jeannette fight in France listed as a world title fight now, so I have some historical support apparently as it seems too obvious for anyone who bothers to scratch the mottled veneer of boxing history.

Personally, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Ledger was biased, in Johnson's favor, in its reports of Johnson's fights with Jeannette. You've claimed that the Johnson-Hart fight was "dreary," yet that clearly wasn't the case.

So I think I'll need a bit more before I'll hook up my wagon to that skeeter.

dempseyfire wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:I have seen the Examiner's account. Do the others have any rd by rd descriptions? Going by the Trenton Times rd by rd, it appears Johnson deserved at least 12 of 20 rounds. Yes, Gregarrins made it known to Johnson that his cautious counterpunching style would count against him and he did it anyway. But does that mean the decision was just? I don't think so. Even today many fans seem to favor aggressive fighters in scoring even if its ineffective aggression. Back at the turn of the century, many writers painted white fighters as being more 'game' and black fighters being more cowardly/'yellow' which to me looking through the obvious racism translates to being more scientific. Of course, there were crude black sluggers and scientific defensive white boxers, but understanding that perception of thinking at the time I think is important when viewing the opinion of some white writers that the more aggressive but ineffective Hart deserved the decision.

Both the Call and Chronicle have round-by-round descriptions, as well. The round-by-round descriptions in the Chronicle and Examiner make it appear a close fight. The Call round by round seemed to favor Hart.

The most objective account seems to come from the Chronicle. It noted that the decision was "immensely popular" with the crowd, and attributed some of the enthusiasm to racism. Yet it also noted:

". . .But even then, casting aside all favoritism, a big majority of those present felt that Hart had won and was justly entitled to the decision. . .

"Few decisions have been given in the history of pugilism that have not had their dissenters. Those who did not agree with Greggains last night based their argument on the assertion that Johnson had shown pronounced superiority over Hart in all stages: that, if there was nothing else, his clean hitting should have entitled him to the verdict. The Hart faction answered this with the statement that Hart had forced the fighting all the way, and that if he had not done this there would have been no fighting to speak of.

"While admitting that Johnson was far the cleverer of the two, it still seems that there is a deal of justice in this view . . .

"To put the thing briefly the way it appeared to a man who had no interest one way or the other - only a desire to see fair play and to have the better fighter win - on the score of aggressiveness Hart was entitled to the verdict. On any other score Johnson should have been the favored one. This is a thing that will be argued on the street corners for days."

The point, I think, is that the local papers make it clear it was not the blatant robbery Johnson always claimed. Hart put up a good fight, and all the account show he landed on Johnson, perhaps more than any other opponent to that time. It was a very good fight, and Hart may, indeed, have deserved the verdict.

Thanks. It does appear to me, that if scored under a modern 10 point must system, Johnson would've been the likely victor. But hell, we still have these arguments a la Oscar-Tito to this day, so without clear quality footage to review I guess we'll never know . . .

But they weren't fighting under the 10-point must system, and aggressiveness counted for a lot in those days.

raylawpc wrote:
Personally, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Ledger was biased, in Johnson's favor, in its reports of Johnson's fights with Jeannette. You've claimed that the Johnson-Hart fight was "dreary," yet that clearly wasn't the case.

So I think I'll need a bit more before I'll hook up my wagon to that skeeter.

--- The tabloid headlines smack of favoritism:

JOHNSON BEATS JEANETTE
Negro Champion, However, Was Disqualified on an Alleged Foul
11/25/05-PHILADELPHIA LEDGER
After outclassing Joe Jeanette for a round and a half, Jack Johnson, The
Negro Heavyweight Champion of the World, lost the bout at the National
Athletic Club [Phila.] last night on an alleged foul.
Jeanette, after being thumped in lively fashion in the first round, assumed
a crouching pose in the secondround. He undertook to run in and clinch,
ducking a vicious right hand swing. Johnson ripped a right hand hook up for Jeanette's jaw. The latter dropped to the floor,writhing in apparent agony.
He claimed to have been struck a foul blow.
He was removed to the dressing room and the club physician substantiated
his claim. Johnson was promtly disqualified. Jeanettte professed to be in
great pain and lay in his dressing room in apparent agony. It is understood
that the police proposed to keep Johnson to keep Johnson, Jeanette and
the club officialunder surveillance.


Sure sounds like a rematch was in order!! So there was one!

JACK JOHNSON BEATS JEANETTE
Heavyweights Box Six Fast Rounds At National Club
12/2/05-Philadelphia Ledger
Jack Johnson defeated Joe Jeanette in six fast rounds at the National
Athletic Club last night. Jeanette was forced to take the count once in
the fifth round and three times in the sixth round.

01/16/06
Jack Johnson,; the colored heiavyweight.
who challenged Jim Jeffries at
different times, made his New York debut
in the ring ;in a three-round bout
at the Sharkey A. C. Monday night
with Joe Jeanette, and the negro Johnson,
as usual, showed his skill as, a
boxer and had no trouble In outpointing
Jeanette.

Obviously Johnson didn't win in the first example, and adding up the described action from all 3 fights, it was 100% Johnson all the way with no mention of what Jeannette was doing other than getting punched up. Seeing as Jeannette won all 112 victories after his first two meetings with Johnson and was on a 4 win streak with 2 KOs with 2 wins over recent 2x Johnson coloured title challenger Black Bill, at the DQ, it smacks at favoritism.

Jeannette was improving by the day and had to have been very strong, competitive and game to start off against the well experienced comp he started with.

I've read reports of Johnson/Hart being a stinker and feel no need to spend my days endlessly attributing every thing I've read. Jeffries reportedly witnessed the bout and was disgusted as he was set to fight the winner it's "alleged."

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

raylawpc wrote:
Personally, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Ledger was biased, in Johnson's favor, in its reports of Johnson's fights with Jeannette. You've claimed that the Johnson-Hart fight was "dreary," yet that clearly wasn't the case.

So I think I'll need a bit more before I'll hook up my wagon to that skeeter.

--- The tabloid headlines smack of favoritism:

JOHNSON BEATS JEANETTE
Negro Champion, However, Was Disqualified on an Alleged Foul
11/25/05-PHILADELPHIA LEDGER
After outclassing Joe Jeanette for a round and a half, Jack Johnson, The
Negro Heavyweight Champion of the World, lost the bout at the National
Athletic Club [Phila.] last night on an alleged foul.
Jeanette, after being thumped in lively fashion in the first round, assumed
a crouching pose in the secondround. He undertook to run in and clinch,
ducking a vicious right hand swing. Johnson ripped a right hand hook up for Jeanette's jaw. The latter dropped to the floor,writhing in apparent agony.
He claimed to have been struck a foul blow.
He was removed to the dressing room and the club physician substantiated
his claim. Johnson was promtly disqualified. Jeanettte professed to be in
great pain and lay in his dressing room in apparent agony. It is understood
that the police proposed to keep Johnson to keep Johnson, Jeanette and
the club officialunder surveillance.


Sure sounds like a rematch was in order!! So there was one!

JACK JOHNSON BEATS JEANETTE
Heavyweights Box Six Fast Rounds At National Club
12/2/05-Philadelphia Ledger
Jack Johnson defeated Joe Jeanette in six fast rounds at the National
Athletic Club last night. Jeanette was forced to take the count once in
the fifth round and three times in the sixth round.

01/16/06
Jack Johnson,; the colored heiavyweight.
who challenged Jim Jeffries at
different times, made his New York debut
in the ring ;in a three-round bout
at the Sharkey A. C. Monday night
with Joe Jeanette, and the negro Johnson,
as usual, showed his skill as, a
boxer and had no trouble In outpointing
Jeanette.

Obviously Johnson didn't win in the first example, and adding up the described action from all 3 fights, it was 100% Johnson all the way with no mention of what Jeannette was doing other than getting punched up. Seeing as Jeannette won all 112 victories after his first two meetings with Johnson and was on a 4 win streak with 2 KOs with 2 wins over recent 2x Johnson coloured title challenger Black Bill, at the DQ, it smacks at favoritism.

Jeannette was improving by the day and had to have been very strong, competitive and game to start off against the well experienced comp he started with.

I've read reports of Johnson/Hart being a stinker and feel no need to spend my days endlessly attributing every thing I've read. Jeffries reportedly witnessed the bout and was disgusted as he was set to fight the winner it's "alleged."

Unless you have other reports from Philadelphia that say Jeannette did anything other than take a whipping from Johnson, I'll pass on hooking my wagon to that particular skeeter of yours . . .

Your reports of Jeffries presence at the Hart-Johnson fight are wrong. On March 28, 1905, Jeffries was in New York City performing the title role in Davey Crockett at the American Theater, and lodging comfortably with his wife Frieda at the Hotel Navarre. My source? The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 3/27/1905 p. 8, publishing a report from its sister paper in New York, the New York World.

I reckon my announcement of a missing fight McCarty had doesnt compare to Jack Johnson's "career" as a baseball player....

What career?

Johnson carries him as long as he wants. UD