Did Jack Johnson participate in fixed fights?

[Ivich]

- - Well, extrapolating from my JJ autobio, he entered into near 2 dozen, maybe more ventures that were most profitable, including a couple years as a Wall street trader, so he was rolling in cash most of his adult life if we accept his autobio.

Still not the actual court reporter transcripts, but more here sugared with baseball.

Johnson was strapped for cash most of his career he spent money like water.
.Wall street trader LOL

[Willie Pep 229]

- - Well, extrapolating from my JJ autobio, he entered into near 2 dozen, maybe more ventures that were most profitable, including a couple years as a Wall street trader, so he was rolling in cash most of his adult life if we accept his autobio.

Still not the actual court reporter transcripts, but more here sugared with baseball.

Good article just wish it hadn't discredited itself by repeating the 105 degree heat story. It looks like lazy research.

The article claims the event happened in October 1910, the law went into effect in June 1910. That does not bode well for JJ.

Curious to see how the bio is going to make their argument.

But you know from our past posts I think very little of biographies as historical sources.

Everybody always claims the bio they read is by the best historian, while the other guy's bio is inferior. That's crap, we can't really kown that.

WARNING DIGRESSION: I have my own historical theory that Hannibal was actually a second rate genersl who defeated a succesion of really incompetent Roman politician/consul/generals, and the first time he ran up against an actual Roman general he got his butt kicked.

This is based on the realization that the earliest and only complete source we have regarding Hannibal's military prowess comes from a biography on Scipio Africanus, and it was his family who financed the biography. I.e. If Hannibal isn't a great general then Scipio isn't so great. Thus Hannibal had to become great.

Just a su****ion on my part but I never like biographies they are always motivated by an agenda and are always bias.

[Willow The Wisp]

Good article just wish it hadn't discredited itself by repeating the 105 degree heat story. It looks like lazy research.

The article claims the event happened in October 1910, the law went into effect in June 1910. That does not bode well for JJ.

Curious to see how the bio is going to make their argument.

But you know from our past posts I think very little of biographies as historical sources.

Everybody always claims the bio they read is by the best historian, while the other guy's bio is inferior. That's crap, we can't really kown that.

WARNING DIGRESSION: I have my own historical theory that Hannibal was actually a second rate genersl who defeated a succesion of really incompetent Roman politician/counsel/generals, and the first time he ran up against an actual Roman general he got his butt kicked.

This is based on the realization that the earliest and only complete source we have regarding Hannibal's military prowess comes from a biography on Scipio Africanus, and it was his family who financed the biography. I.e. If Hannibal isn't a great general then Scipio isn't so great. Thus Hannibal had to become great.

Just a su****ion on my part but I never like biographies they are always motivated by an agenda and are always bias.

There's an aweful lot of truth to this theory.

[GhostofDempsey]

Good article just wish it hadn't discredited itself by repeating the 105 degree heat story. It looks like lazy research.

The article claims the event happened in October 1910, the law went into effect in June 1910. That does not bode well for JJ.

Curious to see how the bio is going to make their argument.

But you know from our past posts I think very little of biographies as historical sources.

Everybody always claims the bio they read is by the best historian, while the other guy's bio is inferior. That's crap, we can't really kown that.

WARNING DIGRESSION: I have my own historical theory that Hannibal was actually a second rate genersl who defeated a succesion of really incompetent Roman politician/counsel/generals, and the first time he ran up against an actual Roman general he got his butt kicked.

This is based on the realization that the earliest and only complete source we have regarding Hannibal's military prowess comes from a biography on Scipio Africanus, and it was his family who financed the biography. I.e. If Hannibal isn't a great general then Scipio isn't so great. Thus Hannibal had to become great.

Just a su****ion on my part but I never like biographies they are always motivated by an agenda and are always bias.

That is one of my problems with news articles of the day. Journalism of the early 1900s was wrought with bribery, hyperbole, sensationalism, inaccuracies and outright lies to sell newspapers. Often times the articles sourced here don't even have a writer's name, how do we even know who wrote it and what their affiliations were? McKetrick often wrote his own articles in newspapers without disclosing his ties to a particular fighter. He also paid journalists off to write what he wanted written in papers. Most if not all promoters and managers did the same thing. Fighters often contradicted themselves in interviews or were outright misquoted. There wasn't a whole lot of context applied back then. Journalists could not easily be fact-checked as they are today. You could write damn near anything about a fighter, especially in some obscure newspaper and get away with it.

[QueensburyRules]

Good article just wish it hadn't discredited itself by repeating the 105 degree heat story. It looks like lazy research.

The article claims the event happened in October 1910, the law went into effect in June 1910. That does not bode well for JJ.

Curious to see how the bio is going to make their argument.

But you know from our past posts I think very little of biographies as historical sources.

Everybody always claims the bio they read is by the best historian, while the other guy's bio is inferior. That's crap, we can't really kown that.

WARNING DIGRESSION: I have my own historical theory that Hannibal was actually a second rate genersl who defeated a succesion of really incompetent Roman politician/counsel/generals, and the first time he ran up against an actual Roman general he got his butt kicked.

This is based on the realization that the earliest and only complete source we have regarding Hannibal's military prowess comes from a biography on Scipio Africanus, and it was his family who financed the biography. I.e. If Hannibal isn't a great general then Scipio isn't so great. Thus Hannibal had to become great.

Just a su****ion on my part but I never like biographies they are always motivated by an agenda and are always bias.

- - JJ denying everything.

***** and his black attorney general bombarded with pardon cries, uncountable thousands. Both being lawyers looked into the case to boot the case down the road. Have to think that they saw JJ convicted legally, but no matter, this the closest I've gotten to the trial transcripts I viewed over a decade ago, now buried in the google universe.


DL7REFPHTRHUDB45YN7MWVOVJQ.jpg

[Willie Pep 229]

- - JJ denying everything.

***** and his black attorney general bombarded with pardon cries, uncountable thousands. Both being lawyers looked into the case to boot the case down the road. Have to think that they saw JJ convicted legally, but no matter, this the closest I've gotten to the trial transcripts I viewed over a decade ago, now buried in the google universe.


DL7REFPHTRHUDB45YN7MWVOVJQ.jpg

I can't read that LOL Any chance there is a text copy available?

[QueensburyRules]

I can't read that LOL Any chance there is a text copy available?

- - Looks like the Accounting ledger for the trial that they charged JJ with paying: ie his fine.