BoxRec

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Is this the dumbest post of 2011? I should think the spelling of, "sence," seals the deal.

Or it just be a typo, the same way I mis-spelt "you" and "Rickard".
Or maybe you're just to keen to pass judgment on others.
wise up.

Seamus wrote:Do a little research into who were the top 10 Heavyweights between 1908-1915, and see how many of them Jack Johnson fought during his title reign. And yet this guy still get's passed off as one of the greatest heavies of alltime.

There are countless tributes on the internet on Johnson's fighting style. I suggest you check them out.

raylawpc wrote:An opinion is just that; it is not a fact.

Correct and as such, all opinions should be considered evenly.
Not just committing to opinions with agree your own, then insulting the ones that don't agree with you.
Now, that in itself is the work of a first class prat.

I think you just topped your previous entry for the "dumbest post of 2011" award.

It wasnt a typo. Ive seen it more than once. How any typos have you claimed so far? LOL.

...goodnight...i'm not going to discuss dempsey vs. jeffries because that would belong on a jeffries/dempsey thread and this one is about jeffries and jack johnson.

secondly i'm getting more away from fantasy fights as there isn't really any way to offer more than an opinion on who would do what and why and after this happens a thirty post thread is filled with writers calling each other idiots. i will no doubt express an opinion myself from time to time but claim they are no more than just that.

dempsey/jeffries offers no strong arguments for either side...IN MY OPINION.

i do consider dempsey the dividing line between the "old timers" before him and modern boxing after, but that is for a different discussion.

now, my buddy.....i don't think it reflects well on any of us to make fun of another for bad spelling or grammar or other miscues in using the language. there are people on here from various backgrounds and i think it is unkind to use this as an attack on their intelligence....and you're too good of a guy to indulge in this.

But as poor as his spelling was, it was still the best part of some of his posts. Wheres a guy to aim?


I do agree Im unsure how Jeffries-Dempsey would turn out.

kal.majeed wrote: Note: In 1905, just one year later, Johnson suffers the only (non DQ) loss (PTS 20) that he will have for a decade - to future World HW champion Marvin Hart (29 years-old at the time); therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that if Hart (at the same age as Jeffries) can defeat Johnson via a 20 round decision, Jeffries can (at least) stop Johnson within that distance. A more intriguing match-up may actually be between Jeffries and Hart – at that time; this one (in 1905) fairly appears to be a “draw” (D 20)

?? Johnson-Hart was an awful decision and Jefferies would have eaten Marvin up.

To dempseyfire: Hello and thanks for the feedback; below are a couple of articles (one directly from this site) about the 1905 Hart vs. Johnson match:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Jack_ ... arvin_Hart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Hart

P.S.

In three decades of doing boxing research, I've heard (or read) every excuse in the book when a fighter loses - usually there is a rematch because of loud outcries and demand from the losing camp (and the boxer, of course). Where was the rematch (or even a demand for one)? Why did Johnson never fight Langford or Jeannette as a defending champion?

Here is a quote that is a favorite of mine:

"The world is full of obvious facts that no person by any chance ever observes."

- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle a.k.a. 'Sherlock Holmes'

Here is a personal belief of my own (no doubt influenced by Doyle):

"An opinion is a statement that cannot be proved – a fact is evidence that cannot be refuted."

With regards to a prime Jeffries vs. a prime Dempsey - that one is in my upcoming book (there are some obvious details that everyone misses when evaluating ANY cross era match-up)...

[quote="Crease"all opinions should be considered evenly.
Not just committing to opinions with agree your own, then insulting the ones that don't agree with you.[/quote]

raylawpc wrote:I think you just topped your previous entry for the "dumbest post of 2011" award.

View Confirmation Bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true

Read and learn, boy.

To Crease: Excellent post - that gets to the very heart of my work (I'm not making any specific remarks to or about anyone but just in general). My work is primarily about the origin and development of the Universe (sports is only a section) and how false statements and conclusions are made by individuals looking for THEIR answers/truth/reality verses THE answers/truth/reality (example below).

An exercise is logic:

Person A is given a 50 pound barbell to lift and they can barely lift it to knee high.

Is it not a logical conclusion that they cannot lift a 60 or certainly a 70 pound barbell nearly as high?

Is it not a logical conclusion that they can highly likely lift a 40 or certainly a 30 pound barbell to (at least) waist high?

Can these logical conclusions not be reasonably made without person A even attempting those additional feats?

This is basically what I am doing – making logical conclusions based upon undisputed factual evidence.

DELETE

kal.majeed wrote:To dempseyfire: Hello and thanks for the feedback; below are a couple of articles (one directly from this site) about the 1905 Hart vs. Johnson match:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Jack_ ... arvin_Hart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Hart

P.S.

In three decades of doing boxing research, I've heard (or read) every excuse in the book when a fighter loses - usually there is a rematch because of loud outcries and demand from the losing camp (and the boxer, of course). Where was the rematch (or even a demand for one)
..

For someone who has done boxing research for 30 years, you just sent me to the write-up of the fight on boxrec (yes, I've read that thank you) and to Marvin Hart's Wikipedia page ( :?? )
If one actually reads the round by round descriptions of the matchup, it is clear that based on objective scoring of a boxing match, Johnson won more rounds than Hart (by a considerable margin) and thus should have been given the fight, but that the referee's own admitted bias towards the 'aggressor' in a matchup ensured that Hart, who had gotten countered silly all night but always came forward and did do best in the last 4 rounds, got the decision. Add in the fact the referee told Johnson to be the aggresor and Johnson, in typical fashion, did what he wanted to do and boxed and countered.

No-one demanded a rematch b/c the fight was boring and such was the low opinion of Hart, that no-one even thought Johnson needed a rematch to prove anything.The fact that no papers clamored for a rematch with Hart after Johnson won the title actually helps support the viewpoint that most thought Hart did not 'beat' Johnson when they fought.

To dempseyfire: Hello again. On Hart's Wiki page, it states "Hart, nicknamed 'The Louisville Plumber' because of his former trade, gained considerable prominence after a 1905 win over future champion Jack Johnson...". Also, on the bottom of the Wiki page is a link to Cyber Boxing Zone where is states, "Hart's most impressive wins came in 1905 - against Jack Johnson in San Francisco and Jack Root in Reno."

In neither notation does it state a controversial or undeserved decision and where exactly are you reading the round by round descriptions (does it have the punch stats)? Whose account is this? You are making statements without any proof. Remember, the match-up is about Jeffries and Johnson (in 1904/1905).

Anyway, can you answer this one - HW marvel Hank Griffin's first (recorded) stoppage loss (KO 14) is at the hands of Jim Jeffries (in 1896); five years later (and well past his prime) Griffin defeats Jack Johnson (PTS 20); two subsequent bouts (1 month and 7 months later) are both declared draws (D15 and D20).

If Johnson cannot defeat an old (but obviously still great) top heavyweight that Jeffries kayos five/six years earlier, how can he possibly defeat a (champion) in Jeffries (in 1905 or earlier)? Also, recall the Joe Choynski stoppage loss in 1901 (Choynski KO 3 Johnson) – four years prior (in 1897) a younger and more formidable Joe does his best to earn a “draw” (D 20) against Jeffries.

kal.majeed wrote:To dempseyfire: Hello again. On Hart's Wiki page, it states "Hart, nicknamed 'The Louisville Plumber' because of his former trade, gained considerable prominence after a 1905 win over future champion Jack Johnson...". Also, on the bottom of the Wiki page is a link to Cyber Boxing Zone where is states, "Hart's most impressive wins came in 1905 - against Jack Johnson in San Francisco and Jack Root in Reno."

In neither notation does it state a controversial or undeserved decision and where exactly are you reading the round by round descriptions (does it have the punch stats)? Whose account is this? You are making statements without any proof. Remember, the match-up is about Jeffries and Johnson (in 1904/1905).

Anyway, can you answer this one - HW marvel Hank Griffin's first (recorded) stoppage loss (KO 14) is at the hands of Jim Jeffries (in 1896); five years later (and well past his prime) Griffin defeats Jack Johnson (PTS 20); two subsequent bouts (1 month and 7 months later) are both declared draws (D15 and D20).

If Johnson cannot defeat an old (but obviously still great) top heavyweight that Jeffries kayos five/six years earlier, how can he possibly defeat a (champion) in Jeffries (in 1905 or earlier)? Also, recall the Joe Choynski stoppage loss in 1901 (Choynski KO 3 Johnson) – four years prior (in 1897) a younger and more formidable Joe does his best to earn a “draw” (D 20) against Jeffries.

Does it have punch stats? I've posted the article here before from the Trenton Times, you can look it up using the search function.

The fact that the CBZ page and Wikipedia simply state the result that Hart won means abolutely nothing whatsoever.

Hank Griffin has nothing to do with Hart-Jefferies, and on what basis are you stating Griffin was 'way past his prime' in 1901? He was 31 years old and hd just fought Martin for the black HW championship.

Johnson was incredibly green vs Choynski and that fight also has no bearing on how Jefferies-Johnson results.

Yes Mr. dempseyfire, I was making a joke with the punch stat request (glad you found that humorous - that was the intent).

Based on this reference, Griffin was way past his prime:

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/HankGriffin.htm

The Griffin bouts (loss and draws for Johnson) are for a Jeffries/Johnson match and not with Hart.

Also, if you look at this link with Ray Leonard (under the 'Super Fight' section), it gives the close punch stats (landed), the fact that the decision was controversial and the request for a rematch from the Hagler camp (denied by the Leonard camp) - just for a general reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Ray_Leonard

Jack Johnson was coming off a TKO 14 win (in 1900) over the formidable Klondike (the first boxer to stop Johnson); therefore, Johnson was not 'green'.

Also, Choynski was coming off his 7th career stoppage loss (most recent to Barbados Joe Walcott in 1901) - a younger and upcoming Johnson should have easily handled a man that a welterweight had just stopped (Walcott TKO 7 Choynski).

Since it seemed like you were taking my statements the wrong way, I thought it wise to make you laugh (even if at me); remember, I'm an author hoping to attract customers and referrals - I have no reason whatsoever to offend or attack anyone...

By the way, who is your all-time favorite boxer (and why) and what are maybe one or two 'Fantasy Fights' that you would pay big bucks to see (if time travel were possible)??

kal.majeed wrote:Yes Mr. dempseyfire, I was making a joke with the punch stat request (glad you found that humorous - that was the intent).

Based on this reference, Griffin was way past his prime:

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/HankGriffin.htm

The Griffin bouts (loss and draws for Johnson) are for a Jeffries/Johnson match and not with Hart.

Also, if you look at this link with Ray Leonard (under the 'Super Fight' section), it gives the close punch stats (landed), the fact that the decision was controversial and the request for a rematch from the Hagler camp (denied by the Leonard camp) - just for a general reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Ray_Leonard

Jack Johnson was coming off a TKO 14 win (in 1900) over the formidable Klondike (the first boxer to stop Johnson); therefore, Johnson was not 'green'.

Also, Choynski was coming off his 7th career stoppage loss (most recent to Barbados Joe Walcott in 1901) - a younger and upcoming Johnson should have easily handled a man that a welterweight had just stopped (Walcott TKO 7 Choynski).

Since it seemed like you were taking my statements the wrong way, I thought it wise to make you laugh (even if at me); remember, I'm an author hoping to attract customers and referrals - I have no reason whatsoever to offend or attack anyone...

By the way, who is your all-time favorite boxer (and why) and what are maybe one or two 'Fantasy Fights' that you would pay big bucks to see (if time travel were possible)??

Haynes was a decent fighter but nothing more than a gatekeeper level opponent. Johnson had been fighting strictly in Galveston before going up to Chicago, malnourished, and losing to Klondike in 1899. The fact he was able to beat Haynes doesn't mean he wasn't still a very green fighter who'd had no amateur career and was learning as he fought professional.

I don't mean to 'attack' you, but I did have issue with your comment about "making logical conclusions based on factual evidence" and then linking to wikipedia pages. if there was some rule that any Wikipedia bio about a boxer had to point out every controversial decision they were involved in, it would make sense. But since there is none of that by any means, they are a completly invalid source. I don't see how your use of these pages as proving anything is logical at all.

And your logic that "boxer A beat C, and C beat B, so A must beat B" just doesn't ring true throughout boxing history either, plus the timelines matter.

OK Mr. dempseyfire: By the way, is that your top fighter? The HW champion Dempsey or the MW champion Dempsey or is the name some other reference? You didn’t list your ‘Fantasy Fights’ either - I just want to make sure I have all the vital references and it appears that you are a prime candidate to refer to...

Also, if Johnson were ‘green’ when he was stopped by Choynski in 1901, lost and drew with Griffin in 1901/1902 and then the Hart drama in 1905, how could he possibly compete with Jeffries during that time?

Yes, the Wiki references are not substantive (but it does help to make a basis) – primarily, I use actual fight results for “making logical conclusions based on factual evidence” – such as with the Griffin and Choynski fight examples.

Very true that boxing is not ‘transitive’ (to use a geometry term) but when much older and worn down fighters are able to stop, defeat and draw with someone who is being compared with a current, undefeated and formidable champion, it weakens ones’ case that he (Johnson) can defeat a defending champion in Jeffries.

For example: In a modern era (general) case, Michael Moorer is barely able to defeat (MD 12) a worn down and medically ill Holyfield in 1994 and is stopped (KO 10) by an old Foreman later that same year. Can anyone seriously make a case that if he fought Bowe or Lewis or even Mercer or McCall – prime and formidable fighters at that time – that Moorer could win?

kal.majeed wrote:OK Mr. dempseyfire: By the way, is that your top fighter? The HW champion Dempsey or the MW champion Dempsey or is the name some other reference? You didn’t list your ‘Fantasy Fights’ either - I just want to make sure I have all the vital references and it appears that you are a prime candidate to refer to...

Also, if Johnson were ‘green’ when he was stopped by Choynski in 1901, lost and drew with Griffin in 1901/1902 and then the Hart drama in 1905, how could he possibly compete with Jeffries during that time?

Yes, the Wiki references are not substantive (but it does help to make a basis) – primarily, I use actual fight results for “making logical conclusions based on factual evidence” – such as with the Griffin and Choynski fight examples.

Very true that boxing is not ‘transitive’ (to use a geometry term) but when much older and worn down fighters are able to stop, defeat and draw with someone who is being compared with a current, undefeated and formidable champion, it weakens ones’ case that he (Johnson) can defeat a defending champion in Jeffries.

For example: In a modern era (general) case, Michael Moorer is barely able to defeat (MD 12) a worn down and medically ill Holyfield in 1994 and is stopped (KO 10) by an old Foreman later that same year. Can anyone seriously make a case that if he fought Bowe or Lewis or even Mercer or McCall – prime and formidable fighters at that time – that Moorer could win?

Yes, because a few years can make a huge difference in a fighter's career. The Choynski and Grffin fights were big learning experiences for Johnson and he showed it by having a great run the rest of his career. Would not a lot of people favor a 21 year old Tyson over several greats but not the 19 year old Tyson? . . Big difference.

And the CBZ site makes no reference to where that comment came from or how Griffin was well past his best by then . . looking at the record proves otherwise and the limited accounts of Griffin I've seen never said he was washed up by the turn of the 19th century.

Don't really have "one" favorite but yes Jack Dempsey is one. Also really like Joe Louis, Archie Moore, Barney Ross, Joe Frazier, Mike McCallum, Juan Manuel Marquez etc. Skill plus guts usually wins me over.

Fantasy fight: Frazier-Marciano would be worth the price of 100 tickets.

I'd favor Moorer over Mercer & McCall. Though not by much.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'd favor Moorer over Mercer & McCall. Though not by much.

Agree to a word.

To dempseyfire (and others that joined in): Thanks for the feedback and input but I've got to go now (lots of work to do). I guess (Mr. dempseyfire) that we can agree that a 1910 Johnson will (TKO 15) a 1910 Jeffries, right (LOL)!?! Nice chat, bye for now...

Kal

I think Johnson would have beaten Jeffries even in his prime. Too skilled, too defensively sound and too determined.

And before you start criticizing my opinion, I built a time machine in the shed last night, went back to the time, made the match, watched the fight (which Johnson won) and then went back in time again the next day and erased all proof of it.

dempseyfire wrote:

kal.majeed wrote:To dempseyfire: Hello again. On Hart's Wiki page, it states "Hart, nicknamed 'The Louisville Plumber' because of his former trade, gained considerable prominence after a 1905 win over future champion Jack Johnson...". Also, on the bottom of the Wiki page is a link to Cyber Boxing Zone where is states, "Hart's most impressive wins came in 1905 - against Jack Johnson in San Francisco and Jack Root in Reno."

In neither notation does it state a controversial or undeserved decision and where exactly are you reading the round by round descriptions (does it have the punch stats)? Whose account is this? You are making statements without any proof. Remember, the match-up is about Jeffries and Johnson (in 1904/1905).

Anyway, can you answer this one - HW marvel Hank Griffin's first (recorded) stoppage loss (KO 14) is at the hands of Jim Jeffries (in 1896); five years later (and well past his prime) Griffin defeats Jack Johnson (PTS 20); two subsequent bouts (1 month and 7 months later) are both declared draws (D15 and D20).

If Johnson cannot defeat an old (but obviously still great) top heavyweight that Jeffries kayos five/six years earlier, how can he possibly defeat a (champion) in Jeffries (in 1905 or earlier)? Also, recall the Joe Choynski stoppage loss in 1901 (Choynski KO 3 Johnson) – four years prior (in 1897) a younger and more formidable Joe does his best to earn a “draw” (D 20) against Jeffries.

Does it have punch stats? I've posted the article here before from the Trenton Times, you can look it up using the search function.

The fact that the CBZ page and Wikipedia simply state the result that Hart won means abolutely nothing whatsoever.

Hank Griffin has nothing to do with Hart-Jefferies, and on what basis are you stating Griffin was 'way past his prime' in 1901? He was 31 years old and hd just fought Martin for the black HW championship.

Johnson was incredibly green vs Choynski and that fight also has no bearing on how Jefferies-Johnson results.

Dempsey, you probably should read the ringside accounts of the Johnson-Hart fight in the San Francisco Examiner, the San Francisco Call, and the San Francisco Chronicle before you form a definitive opinion. All three agreed with the referee's verdict. The bottom-line of these accounts was that Johnson was the more skilled fighter and landed more punches, but Hart outhustled and outworked him over the 20 rounds and landed the harder and more effective punches. The only controversy over the decision arose outside of San Francisco, where the experts who didn't see the fight figured Johnson must have been robbed (i.e., George Siler's write-up in the Chicago Tribune), since he was considered the superior fighter.

We've had this convo before. The round by rounds still point to a deserved Johnson victory and I don't see how Hart landed the harder punches if Jack was unmarked and Hart's face was a bloody mask. The crowd didn't mind the decision partly b/c of racism and the fact that crowds usually get behind the aggresor in fights, regardless of whether it's effective or not. Hart could hardly land anything on Johnson and I fail to see why someone should get a victory just by coming forward.