Page 1 of 1

Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 26 Dec 2009, 18:58
by Brutu
Here is a quick link to some of the surviving rounds of Johnson vrs Burns.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqelTqa0Iw

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 00:09
by granberry
Thanks a million for that.

The picture is much clearer than any I have seen of this fight.

Burns is just too much smaller.

Interestingly, Johnson doesn't jab. Burns was a big right hand puncher and Johnson probably didn't want to expose himself to Burns using his right hand counter over the jab.

Burns is still competitive in the 8th. By the 11th he is clearly going downhill.

Johnson looks to be in the greatest shape of his life.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 02:42
by Collins2000
granberry wrote:Thanks a million for that.

The picture is much clearer than any I have seen of this fight.

Burns is just too much smaller.

Interestingly, Johnson doesn't jab. Burns was a big right hand puncher and Johnson probably didn't want to expose himself to Burns using his right hand counter over the jab.

Burns is still competitive in the 8th. By the 11th he is clearly going downhill.

Johnson looks to be in the greatest shape of his life.
LOL. Thanks, genius.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 04:28
by granberry
Sicko collins follows me around boxrec.

What a useless existence sicko collins has.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 05:10
by Robinson
Merry Xmas lads.

I was only thinking that it was 101 years ago that Johnson and Burns fought here
in Australia.

Would have been an interesting event to go to, hardly a great match up as far
as evenly skilled athletes go. But a tremendous spectacle of such signifigance all
the same.

For all his faults and criticisms, atleast Burns gave Johnson a shot.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 09:43
by Seamus
Time to inject a little blasphemy.

A SuperMiddleweight made it into the 14th round against a Cruiserweight.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 14:25
by granberry
Seamus wrote:Time to inject a little blasphemy.

A SuperMiddleweight made it into the 14th round against a Cruiserweight.
Seamus,

Now tell us all about Ali losing his title to a novice who had only 7 professional fights.

Then tell us about Ali getting beaten up by overweight lightheavyweight Doug Jones.

Then tell us about Ali getting floored by a single left hook from 185 pound Henry Cooper.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 14:46
by BoxBuzz
granberry this is good! your last three statements are 66% accurate.

But The Doug Jones statement is in error. And with no mention of the non existent "extended" break for the Cooper KD as extra credit, you get a C+ for that contribution. improvement is noted!

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 14:52
by granberry
Pandering Ali shill buz is absolutely FRANTIC at the mention of Henry Cooper.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 14:54
by BoxBuzz
Frantic? I like the old grump.....he reminds me of a salty character right here on the board with his chronic self righteous wild and outrageous declarations.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 17:30
by granberry
Buz knows zero about boxing.

He has nothing to offer but useless posts which reveal he knows zero about boxing.

Keep the useless posts coming, buz.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 17:32
by ThatOne
Seeing the title I expected to learm something new about Jack Johnson; not much about him but a lot about Muhammad Ali.


I guess someone thinks all African American fighters are the same.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 19:33
by granberry
ThatOne wrote:Seeing the title I expected to learm something new about Jack Johnson; not much about him but a lot about Muhammad Ali.


I guess someone thinks all African American fighters are the same.
Anyone who was interested in boxing and knew how to look could learn endlessly from this terrific film.

But brainwashed Ali fans like buz and the One can get nothing out of that, as the One openly admits.

They collect their useless crap in the form of drivel written by boxing writers who never had a fight with their own sister,

and then breathlessly post the quotes from clueless media writers on boxrec.

That is as close to "boxing" as buz and the One will ever get.

The One should be commended for coming out and admitting he can get nothing out of this film

and that he is dependent on written material no matter how clueless the 'source.'

Notice that my post above where I started to point out what went on in the fight got a spastic reaction from the clueless here.

Such interest in the actual techniques of boxing is not wanted on sites like this where buz and the One post their redundant clueless Ali worship over and over.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 19:43
by Brutu
Ah man,this posting was to acknowledge that Jack Johnson won the HW crown 101 years ago,not end up in a squable
nothing to do with Johnson.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 19:57
by granberry
HERE IS MY POST FROM EARLIER:

Look at the reaction it got.
granberry wrote:Thanks a million for that.

The picture is much clearer than any I have seen of this fight.

Burns is just too much smaller.

Interestingly, Johnson doesn't jab. Burns was a big right hand puncher and Johnson probably didn't want to expose himself to Burns using his right hand counter over the jab.

Burns is still competitive in the 8th. By the 11th he is clearly going downhill.

Johnson looks to be in the greatest shape of his life.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 20:02
by Brutu
My question is how did BIGFIGHTS know which rounds the footage is from to put them in that order?
Educated guess based on newspaer round by round accounts?
I thought Tommy Burns actually looked fresher in the 11th round then some of the reported earlier rounds.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 21:17
by Collins2000
granberry wrote:HERE IS MY POST FROM EARLIER:

Look at the reaction it got.
granberry wrote:Thanks a million for that.

The picture is much clearer than any I have seen of this fight.

Burns is just too much smaller.

Interestingly, Johnson doesn't jab. Burns was a big right hand puncher and Johnson probably didn't want to expose himself to Burns using his right hand counter over the jab.

Burns is still competitive in the 8th. By the 11th he is clearly going downhill.

Johnson looks to be in the greatest shape of his life.

Your comments were pretty inane, mate.

For a guy who claims to be the oracle when it comes to boxing, I expected a bit more from you than just stating the bleeding obvious.

LOL

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 27 Dec 2009, 22:50
by Brutu
Sort of like Carl Froch taking on Vitili Klitschko as far as difference in size.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 28 Dec 2009, 03:59
by bollox
Some years ago there was a push to retrospectively wipe the charges etc from Jack's record. I thought it was a good idea until a great man reckoned it was better to leave it as is, as a testament to what he had to put up with :TU:

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 28 Dec 2009, 07:51
by BoxBuzz
granberry wrote:Buz knows zero about boxing.

He has nothing to offer but useless posts which reveal he knows zero about boxing.

Keep the useless posts coming, buz.
Cmon, I corrected your paper, gave you credit for being 3/4 correct....and you give me zero?

What's up with that granberry? Where's the love?

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 31 Dec 2009, 00:55
by Brutu
It is curious why round 7 is missing from this clip as that was the round Johnson knocked down
Burns for the second time in the fight.
Maybe its missing possibly due to Ken Burns staff ripping it off and sticking it in their documentary.

Re: Jack Johnson/101th anniversary

Posted: 31 Dec 2009, 03:48
by dempseyfire
Seamus wrote:Time to inject a little blasphemy.

A SuperMiddleweight made it into the 14th round against a Cruiserweight.
So a Joe Calzaghe couldn't last 14 rounds with Adamek?? If you think not you are sorely mistaken.

Burns usually weighed in the 170s but was light for the Johnson fight.