jack johnson

[SevenStar]

Did anyone catch the pbs special on boxer jack johnson last night? It gave a good insight on the boxing world during the late 1800's - early 1900's.

[FuXnDajenariht]

it was an awesome documentary. best parts of course being the fight footage. he mauled burns and jeffries... geeez. it wasn't even a contest. shame he didn't get the credit he deserved but it was right after the civil war so whaddya expect. interesting style he had. do you think it would of worked in the modern ring?

part 2 is tonight by the way.

[norther practitioner]

For the time, the dude was jacked.. I didn't get to watch the whole thing though......

[Samurai Jack]

Yeah, that was a great story. I was disapointed with Jack London's racial intolerance. He wrote so empathetically about indigenous peoples I'd of thought he had more sympathy for the plight of the African-American.

Not too surprised at Johnson's treatment by the boxing establishment though. We are generally a stupid lot of the worst of society, after all. Plus, Johnson was HOOGE. You can't tell me those little white boxers weren't afraid to get in the ring with him. He musta outweighed Burns by fifty pounds, and he had at least four inches of reach on him. I liked watching Burns get mauled while shouting racist expletives. Johnson just smiled the whole time...

:eek:

[FuXnDajenariht]

lol yea... he didn't fake the funk. he was pimp too.. :D

[Pork Chop]

Caught the end of it; like the very end.
And then watched that James Earl Jones interview afterwards.
Really sad times about the madness that occured afterward.
Even listening to the little bit I caught, I've gotta agree with others I've seen online who've described the guy responsible for the docu as having an agenda.

I think Jim Jeffries got a pretty raw deal in the documentary as well as the fight. I mean the guy came out of a 6 year retirement, to drop over 100 pounds in like 6 months, to fight as a "great white hope", when he wasn't a racist. After losing, he makes a classy comment to praise Johnson and cement his legacy - only to be used as some kind of proof of the superiority of black athletes and be ignored when it comes to the unspoken assertion that all whites were racists.

I'm curious what they're going to say about Willard after the fight he drops JJ. I mean, they quoted Johnson as saying he was paranoid about how the black public would treat his legacy once he lost. What better way to escape black america "becoming like the French" than to say you threw the fight?

Otherwise, good docu. I love the old boxing footage. I'm going to try to catch tonite's episode if I'm home. Doing my best not to identify too much with the white folk of that time and take the portrayal too personally.

[GeneChing]

The fight footage was fantastic. I loved the way Johnson commanded the ring with a huge smile and punished his adversaries in as gentlemanly a manner as he could muster, given the circumstances.

I'm really looking forward to part two tonight (although it'll probably be grim). For more info, click Unforgivable Blackness: the Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson, directed by Ken Burns (http://www.pbs.org/unforgivableblackness/). Here's some boxing back-story (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=473) but it leaves off before Johnson.

[FuXnDajenariht]

so you dont think Jeffries was portrayed honestly? i agree that anyone coming off of a 6 year retirement is gonna get mauled. but he was a victim of cirumstances. when Jack won the title from Burns, sports writers claimed he technically didn't win it, because Jeffries retired undefeated. therefore Burn wasn't really the champion at all. it was all politics though.

what kinda agenda do you think the creator has? im interested in hearing about it. im not familiar with the boxing personalities back then.

[Pork Chop]

my comments on the agenda of ken burns stems from a discussion on the mma.tv (underground) boxing board. More than one person on that thread felt that burns tends to focus more on the racial issues of his documentary subjects, under the guise of cultural relevance; than a 100% accurate portrayal. that being said, i think he's a lot better than a lot of other documentary makers out there.

I also want to clarify that i'm not saying jack johnson wasn't the best heavyweight during his title reign. he clearly was. but beating a guy coming off a 6 year layoff and stripping 100 pounds doesn't say much about beating that guy in his prime.

I'm pretty happy he had a good run against "great white hopes". I think it did a lot to give minorities hope through some pretty whacked out times i this country's history.

But as dumb as it would've been to say that white boxers are superior, had jeffries landed a lucky shot and dropped Johnson; i feel similarly about those maintaining the reverse- and there's definitely that vibe coming from the pro-Johnson camp. You can see it from Johnson himself when he says later that he threw the fight with Willard.

Part of boxing is getting back up, and whether it was the other guy's left hook or his promoter's checkbook, the other guy kept you from getting up- yah lost. Trying to claim that it didn't count because you took money to stay down is pretty disrespectful to the other guy.

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Lodge/6525/JJJ.htm

has some interesting info; but I disagree with some of the "in his prime" claims to his invincibility.
Jim Jeffries fought a fight he couldn't win and lost- but was at least big enough to admit who the better man was.
Even still, looking at the pics of him in his younger days, he was a different fighter than the man that stepped in there with Johnson.

[tug]

Yeah, part 2 is on tonight!!

Western boxing sure was different back then. Did anyone notice little things like his stance, the way he held his hand while punching, and the "pull-back instead of side-to-side" thing?

All in all, very interesting and informative. I'm also obsessed with anything history related I can get my hands on, so it was good to have this little insight into the world of yesterday.

And Ken Burns' stuff just keeps getting better~!

[Pork Chop]

Just got done watching Ep 2 and I gotta give credit where credit's due.

While I didn't quite understand the point of including that bit about the movie (founding of a nation?); there was a lot that i liked.

I thought the way they handled the Willard thing was the right way. Much respect to Burns for not taking the "easy" road on that story.

The Dempsey angle was only half the story I believe- though I wouldn't call this a fault in Burns' research. Dempsey disagreed with both his handler Kearns and his promoter Rickard. The other 2 wanted him to fight meaningless exhibition fights for big money; while he waited for big paydays against ideal legitimate contenders.
Dempsey, on the other hand, would've rather stayed busier.

If Johnson had come out that day instead of Willard, to face Dempsey, I'm not sure I could see that fight going much differently.
Willard had a ridiculous chin- he survived a broken jaw, 2 broken ribs, and 7 knockdowns against Dempsey.

The story about Joe Louis was surprising and sad; though I guess I can understand Johnson taking his shot if the guy's promotion was built around separating himself from Jack. Joe Louis was another hero of mine though, so it's hard to hear the bad stuff about a legend.

Yeah, the style back then was definitely different.
I didn't notice a lot of head movement in those clips.
Footwork was generally flat footed, with not much bend in the knees unless someone went into a crouched stance (ie not much bobbing and weaving).

Johnson's "hands wide" defense actually remind me of the stuff I've seen and read about hung fut: present the weak side and an open centerline, but it's only a trap for the counter. I'm sure one of the hung fut guys from the board will tell me I'm completely wrong and uneducated about hung fut- and they'll probably be right hehe; but that's the impression I got.

I think a lot has been lost over the years in the subject of boxing defensively: more involved defensive strategies abandoned in favor of evasion and "just not being there".

Okay, i've typed too much.
GREAT DOCUMENTARY.
Liked it much more this time around.
Gonna buy it soon as it comes out on DVD.

[SevenStar]

I'm gonna buy it too. I noticed the same differences in tactics. And did you all notice the headbutts? I wonder exactly when the change in tactics began though - when they showed the clips of louis, he looked more like a modern day boxer - his style was different than any of the others shown in the documentary.

[Pork Chop]

I've also got a Dempsey docu video.
Between the 2 docus I'll practically have a Willard docu. lol
Dempsey fought a lot more like the boxers from the Marciano/Lamotta era; with head movement and actual bend in the knee- albeit a slower pace (except for the willard fight) than someone like Sugar Ray.
Now that I think of it, he mighta fought a bit like Duran.

I've read that Jim Corbett could also box like a modern boxer.
Bob Fitzsimmons was supposed to be the technique master of his era- I believe Jeffries beat him btw - but I'm not 100% sure how Fitz faught. If I have seen any footage; it was very brief, he does a lot of the old fashioned poses in the still photos I've seen, which isn't promising.

Ironically, that mma.tv thread stated that dempsey was the first "modern" champion- that he was the first to use a style more like they use these days.

EDIT: Didn't notice too many of the headbutts; but a whoooole lot of clinching and holding & hitting (dirty boxing).

[WanderingMonk]

Originally posted by BMore Banga
Just got done watching Ep 2 and I gotta give credit where credit's due.

While I didn't quite understand the point of including that bit about the movie (founding of a nation?); there was a lot that i liked.


I thought the "movie" was used to showed that the establishment especially the political establishment was basically anti-black at the time (wilson and nine supreme court justices, etc were present at the showing). So, when Johnson got too big, the establishment went after him.

Burn showed that Johnson was brought down first by a court case (for violating a law which was protrayed as if it was passed specifically targeting Johnson). The "movie" showing the establishment was against him reinforce the talk about how the law seem to be passed specifically against Johnson.

I was listening to it on my speaker while doing other work, so this might not be accurate.

[GeneChing]

Birth of a Nation is a disturbing film, if you've ever seen it, but important to understand that period of America. Keep in mind that Burn's film was titled Unforgivable Blackness, so the main thrust of it was about racism. It's easy for us to just look at it as being about boxing; it betrays our martial myopia, but I think Burns was afer something much bigger and more important.

I felt part two wasn't as interesting as part one. The fall could have been summed up in an hour instead of two, given that Johnson had already died by just after the halfway point. The rest, the connection to Ali, etc. seemd a bit superfluous to me, and somewhat detratcted from what had been presented earlier. Still, it was a very interesting work on several levels.

The evolution of fighting tactics in the ring is fascinating to me. Unfortunately, we only have about a century of footage. The rest is just speculation, really. I wonder if martial artists will look back at our games now and be so struck by the diffferences...

[Pork Chop]

I agree that you can't tell Johnson's story without going into racism and explaining the social conditions of the time.
It just got to the point that it was n* this and n* that...
The amount of time spent covering that disturbing movie was a bit over the top.
This is not a serious complaint against the film, more an expression of personal preference.

I wish I caught the first episode in its entirity; think I'd have preferred seeing more boxing footage.

I think the Ali connection & the stuff after his death was more of a segway to the movie- which played immediately after the documentary.

Aside from video footage I think you can learn a lot from the courses and texts produced by the boxers of each era. I believe there's some James Figg stuff floating around somewhere, pretty sure Mendoza's stuff appears in at least oce source, and I'd be surprised if Sullivan had nothing. There's also some hand to hand from some German texts going back almost 1000 years. Although some of the texts may be shallow, you can still get a general idea for their strategy and training methodology.

BTW Gene that boxing history article's real nice; it's similar to the Bob Mee book, but in a much more clear and concise presentation. Thanks

[jun_erh]

I think joe Luis and Sonny Liston have been given somewhat short thrift in boxing history. They are like the guys who came between Ali and jack Johnson is many peoples minds. But no doubt Johnson was the ****. The footage was dope and he changed alot of peoples perceptins abut blacks as having the "yellow streak" and so forth. hahaha

[tug]

Ironically, I caught "The Great White Hope" with James Earl Jones this past weekend. If I had not seen Burns' docu, I wouldn't have known what I was looking at. If "Unforgivable Blackness" is anywhere near truly historical (I'm sure it is, given KB's rep), then TGWH is a wonderful representation of the struggle that was all too prevalent for African-Americans at the time.

[Pork Chop]

The dvd's already available, picked it up last friday.
Finally saw the first half too.
One of the songs on the docu "God moves on the water" by blind lemon johnson has been in my head a while because of it- I have a copy of it on a 3 disk southern blues comp so i been listening to it a lot.