BoxRec

I still cant believe that it is still being said and reported by so called boxing historians that
Stanely Ketchel,"double-crossed"Jack Johnson,
departed from a script and then tried to knock Jack Johnson out.
Its been well documented in other sources that Jack Johnson was actually rehearsing being knock down at Seal Rock in San Francisco for a full 10 days
to perfect the technique(under various circumstances) before the actual fight with Stanley Ketchel.
Ketchel knew nothing about it,but Johnson's manager George Little was in on it
Why?
They wanted to get ass's in seats at the movie houses to see Johnson get knocked down as well as trick Stanley Ketchel into being open for an uppercut.

So why is it on EVERY show on Jack Johnson,people keep perpetuating this myth?

Jack Johnson even admitted to pretending to be knocked down in his 1927 autobiography.
IN THE RING AND OUT(pp.195-196)

Brutu wrote:So why is it on EVERY show on Jack Johnson,people keep perpetuating this myth?

Jack Johnson even admitted to pretending to be knocked down in his 1927 autobiography.
IN THE RING AND OUT(pp.195-196)

Sadly, the sport is literally full of myths. This ain't the only, or the biggest, or even the longest-standing...

Brutu wrote:Its been well documented in other sources

Primary sources?

Senya13 wrote:

Brutu wrote:Its been well documented in other sources

Primary sources?

What are the Primary Sources?
What were the primary sources that said that Stanley Ketchel had agreed before the fight not to try and knock Jack Johnson out if Johnson agreed to take it easy on him and go the distance for the moving pictures?
Did you see Ketchel's face?
thats taking it"easy"on him?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Brutu wrote:So why is it on EVERY show on Jack Johnson,people keep perpetuating this myth?

Jack Johnson even admitted to pretending to be knocked down in his 1927 autobiography.
IN THE RING AND OUT(pp.195-196)

Sadly, the sport is literally full of myths. This ain't the only, or the biggest, or even the longest-standing...

Maybe ESPN Classic should do a special RINGSIDE show on debunking boxing myths instead of rehashing same old stuff.

Any historian should be aware of what a primary source is. A 1927 autobiography is not a primary source and cannot be relied upon too much.
Say, NY Evening World reporting signs of a fix being arranged the day before the McGovern-Gans fight had taken place, that's a good source.
If you had a next-day (or several days later, it is only important that it had to be reported before the fight had taken place) report of Johnson practicing being knocked down prior to Ketchel fight, that'd be good source too.

Senya13 wrote:A 1927 autobiography is not a primary source and cannot be relied upon too much.

Especially an autobiography written by Jack Johnson.

JJ is not alone. Like just several days ago I was looking up early Tom Sharkey fights in HI newspapers. And I recalled him telling the story of his life that was printed in one newspaper, and how he knocked one George Washington through the window and out. Turned out Sharkey was knocked out himself, according to primary source. Or Jack Dempsey with his story of being stopped by Jim Flynn. Etc.

Brutu wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Brutu wrote:So why is it on EVERY show on Jack Johnson,people keep perpetuating this myth?

Jack Johnson even admitted to pretending to be knocked down in his 1927 autobiography.
IN THE RING AND OUT(pp.195-196)

Sadly, the sport is literally full of myths. This ain't the only, or the biggest, or even the longest-standing...

Maybe ESPN Classic should do a special RINGSIDE show on debunking boxing myths instead of rehashing same old stuff.

Good idea, that.

Senya13 wrote:Any historian should be aware of what a primary source is. A 1927 autobiography is not a primary source and cannot be relied upon too much.
Say, NY Evening World reporting signs of a fix being arranged the day before the McGovern-Gans fight had taken place, that's a good source.
If you had a next-day (or several days later, it is only important that it had to be reported before the fight had taken place) report of Johnson practicing being knocked down prior to Ketchel fight, that'd be good source too.

Senya, you are back! Good.

Brutu wrote: Maybe ESPN Classic should do a special RINGSIDE show on debunking boxing myths instead of rehashing same old stuff.

Starring Bert Sugar?

Curiously Jack Johnson does not mention having been knocked down at all by Stanely Ketchel in his 1911 French memoirs,
MY LIFE AND BATTLES.(The chapter doesnt look finished to me,perhaps he did not complete it in time for publication in the French sporting magazine where it was originanly published in weekly installments).
He does write however in it that Sam Langford knocked him down,something he later disputed.

In early 1944 one of Jack Johnson's former sparring partners, Denver Jack O'Keeefe wrote a letter to a newspaper,
telling all about it.He also claimed that Jack Johnson had practiced the same technique with Gun Boat Smith before the fight.
There is a newspaper article about this dated Febuary 1944 over at google newspaper archives.
If you go back even earlier to 0ctober.12.1909,there is a NY Times article concerning Jack Johnson having been knocked down
by Gun Boat Smith during a 4 round boxing exhibition.Johnson was reportly knocked down at near the end of the fourth round coming out of a clinch by a right hand.

donnellon wrote:Senya, you are back! Good.

Verified the date (1888-04-03) for Peter Maher-Robert Hair bout last week. Alas, didn't find anything else useful for Maher during my quick search.

Well when you have boxing drunks... i mean writers telling the same
stories over and over again.
Those that do not watch the sport, but merely read it get it in their
minds as to what the truth is.

In any case, boxing has a lot of falsehoods that have become
truth. Who would know with that era of boxing and Jack Johnson.

In any case, the result is still the same.

Johnson KO Ketchell.

Re: Johnson-Smith
The stories about that knockdown were confusing. Some called it a slip. For sure, it wasn't an exhibition, Gunboat Smith became Johnson's sparring partner prior to that (after he had been Ketchell's sparring partner as well).

Even back in 1909 some of the people who saw the fight in the movie houses thought Johnson's kd by Ketchel
looked suspicious.
In 1944 the movie KINGS OF THE RING was released and people had a chance to see a compilation of a lot of the old fights films
that had been previously banned in the past decades ,Dempsey-Firpo,Tunney etc.
Thats what prompted Denver Jack O'Keefe to write the letter to the editor.
Jack Johnson was asked if the kd was legit,he was quoted as saying,
"He hit me hard enough to knock me down".

Senya13 wrote:JJ is not alone. Like just several days ago I was looking up early Tom Sharkey fights in HI newspapers. And I recalled him telling the story of his life that was printed in one newspaper, and how he knocked one George Washington through the window and out. Turned out Sharkey was knocked out himself, according to primary source. Or Jack Dempsey with his story of being stopped by Jim Flynn. Etc.

Just because it may have been written in a newspaper does not mean it is accurate or even true.
Its been proven a lot of newspapers writers do not even attend the events they were hired to cover.
back then waking up drunk in a brothel etc,l)
Also even today a lot of newspaper writers use their newspaper as an agenda(NY Times etc),
"the ends justify the means",
especially the corrupted media these days.
If MSNBC reported that there was a fly on the wall, I would not believe them.

Robinson wrote:Well when you have boxing drunks... i mean writers telling the same
stories over and over again.
Those that do not watch the sport, but merely read it get it in their
minds as to what the truth is.

In any case, boxing has a lot of falsehoods that have become
truth. Who would know with that era of boxing and Jack Johnson.

In any case, the result is still the same.

Johnson KO Ketchell.

Kym! Are you suggesting Bert is a smelly old piss head who is merely acting out a boring part? I couldn't have put it better myself!

If you talking about that Sharkey bout - I'll always take primary source over what the loser (according to primary source) said many years later. If you mean Dempsey-Flynn, I have at least four different next-day reports of it, Dempsey clearly was knocked out cold, no 3 KD's or his brother throwing up the sponge.

An autobiography cannot be relied on 100% but surely it is as worthy a piece of documentary evidence as newspaper story? Aren't they both secondary sources?

Larry Holmes later claimed that he was misquoted in his own published autobiography.
When he refered to Butterbean in the book as "just a "Big Fat Slob impersonating a fighter".
I dunno,sounds like Holmes talkin.

Ezzard wrote:An autobiography cannot be relied on 100% but surely it is as worthy a piece of documentary evidence as newspaper story? Aren't they both secondary sources?

What would be considered a Primary Source any way?
A signed afadaved?

In this particular case.
Newspaper article written at the time (it may be same day, or several days distance, while the memory about it is still fresh) of the event (being described by it) has taken place - primary source.
Autobiography that is written long time after described events - secondary source. Unless the autobiography is to large degree based on a diary/diaries, then it can be considered primary source too.