THE GREATEST OF ALL BOXERS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Issue 1308, 20 May 1915, Page 28

THE GREATEST OF ALL BOXERS.

“Bob” Fitzsimmons and not “Jack” Johnson is the greatest of all boxers, is the belief of George Dawson, veteran boxing instructor of the Chicago Athletic Association, and onetime ligthweight champion of Aus•‘I never have shared the hysteria over Johnson’s greatness,” remarked Dawson after one of his pupils had said the negro champion outclassed other men who had held the title. “Do not make the mistake that I underrate him, however, for he has brought some money to me. I was one of the few who believed Jeffries did not have a chance with the negro, and I won plenty of wagers on the occasion. I did not bet on the MoranJohnson contest, for, although I was quite certain Johnson had gone back, I had no idea what sort of boxer Moran was.

“The first time I ever saw Johnson in action was in California in 1902. I was training Fitzsimmons at the time for his second bout with Jeffries, and we were short of a good sparr.ng partner. Johnson was matched to box 20 rounds with Hank Griffin, a big negro ‘trial horse,’ and I suggested to ‘Bob’ that we engage the winner of this contest. ‘Bob’ consented, and I went to watch the two coloured men box.

“Johnson at that time was almost, if not qu.te, as good as he ever was in his career. He had youth and vigour, and in those days there was more than one good white man who was giving him as wide a berth as champions did a few years later. The Johnson-Griffin contest ended in a draw, but Griffin looked to me like far the superior man, and I engaged him to work with ‘Bob.’

“Now, ‘Bob’ was on the decline at that time. He was an old man when he got his first chance at the championship, and three years before this time had been knocked out by Jef-

fries. But Griffin, although I considered him John’s superior, and other judges considered him at least his equal, was the veriest plaything in old Bob’s hands. Fitz used to maul him around, outbox him and outslug him at his own pleasure. While Johnson may have improved considerably after this I never could conceive of his improving to an extent to put him on a plane with Fitzsimmons.

“Of course, Johnson was a wonderful defensive boxer, and probably always will be. But I don’t consider a man a great fighter just because he can keep from getting beaten. That’s the reason I never thought Jim Jeffries a wonder. He never was an aggressive fighter, and most of his battles were won by letting the other fellow wear himself out fighting him. It is the same with Johnson. In none of the fights in which I have seen him has Johnson been aggressive. I doubt if he ever had an equal on the defensive, but that is only half of the game. Fitzsimmons was equally good at defence and offence.

“If Johnson were the greatest fighter in th e world he never has shown any marked ability in disposing of his opponents. He was about at the zenith of his career when he won the championship from Tommy Burns, while Burns probably was one of the weakest men who ever held the title. Yet Johnson couldn’t knock Burns out; he scored a technical knockout to his credit merely because the Australian police did not want to let Burns receive any more punishment.

“Two y ears later Johnson took on the shell of Jeffries, a man even a fair second-ratei’ of the present day probably could have beaten. But Jeffries stayed 15 rounds with Jack before he was put away. I have heard it argued that Johnson was merely playing with Jeff in the bout, and could have finished it in half the time had he chosen to do so. But I

fail to see any ground for such belief. Johnson is inordinately egotistical, and I think if he could have beaten Jim with one punch h e would have done so. There was no possible financial reason for his letting Jeff stay, either, for Johnson had already disposed of his interest in the moving pictures, and could not have cared much whether or not they were a success or a failure.”