Jump to content

Talk:Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • As I know you know, the lead needs some expansion to adequately summarise the article.
Background to 18th-century prizefighting
  • "From 1786, just as Johnson was rising to prominence, there was increased support for the sport because of the interest shown in it by the Prince of Wales ...". Is that support from the public or from the toffs?
  • The source is equally vague, which is why I left it like that. I would imagine that it was the toffs but this would be OR/SYNTH based on an old university thesis I did, "Queen Victoria & The Invention of Tradition", & similar stuff. The hoi polloi really didn't "follow" the royals back then, except when collecting the horse manure, tugging forelocks etc. The source (ODNB) says: In 1786 the prince of Wales and his two brothers, the dukes of Kent and Clarence, began to take an active interest and pugilism became the fashion. - Sitush (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This follow a period of malaise which had in large part been due to corruption in the form of "fixing" the fights." Obviously needs to be fixed, but I'm uncertain what the opening "this" is referring to: the interest shown by the Prince of Wales or the increased (public?) support?
  • Popularity had declined as a result of numerous allegations of competitors throwing/fixing the fights. A lot of money was to be made by doing so because of the gambling side of things. But, again, whether that popularity refers to the toffs or the rabble is anyone's guess. My own guess is as above. I have trawled everything that I can find which has been published from the 1790s onwards about this period of boxing but have found no clearer picture. - Sitush (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... prepared to hit their opponent with either hand from the side of their bodies". I don't understand what that means.
  • They stood face-to-face, arms at their sides rather than raised in the style which we (usually) see today. Using that arms-down, face-on stance they then threw punches at each other from that position. It was a slug-fest, "enhanced" by the general belief that the fighters should not move from the spot that they stood on ("shift", as the terminology was at the time). It seems probable that the rounds usually ended when someone was knocked down, rather than being the timed rounds that we know today. However, that is not 100% certain from my reading & for this reason I omitted the information. Perrins (whom you will come to later in the article) knocked down one opponent something like 13 times in 10 minutes. - Sitush (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is messy. The source I used for those few sentences was Lynch, who spreads the information across three pages in bits and bobs. The specific piece regarding the stance actually says: "At that time prize-fighters stood square to each other with their hands level, ready to lead of with either. And in that position a man naturally fell over much easier than from the solid attitude of a few years later till the present time., which is a much better description than mine but I needed to avoid close paraphrasing etc.
Now we have a problem, though. It is one which I really should have picked up earlier and which doubtless you will do so yourself in due course. Later in the article there is some content from Pierce Egan which describes, inter alia, that Johnson had a poor guard. The guard in modern boxing is the arm you are holding up to defend against being hit and I cannot see how the term could have been any different back then (WP:OR again, however). If the arm is up to guard then they could not have been level ... Sometimes I wish I did not introduce information because it just creates problems, especially when there is little option but to rely on old sources! I'm not sure how to resolve this one, even though I am well aware that it is ok to present differing opinions from sources. I'll have a think. - Sitush (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "hands level" is what we've all seen in old films, hands held high and in line with each other, as opposed to one lower and more forward than the other as modern boxers do. The issue of "standing square" can only be similar if it's being linked to easier knock-downs, as standing with feet together rather than with one foot in front of the other as modern boxers tend to do, would be an inherently less stable base, nothing to do with where the hands are. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have been thinking about this on and off all day. It is the only logical explanation that I can come up with. I will attempt a rephrasing. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not happy about "the contestants stood facing each other and prepared to hit their opponent with either hand from the side of their bodies", as it makes no sense, and is inconsistent with both the image caption and the later comment about Johnson's poor guard. Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you must have been looking at an old version of the page. It now says, "The style of fighting was also very different to modern boxing; the contestants stood facing each other squarely with their feet together and their hands held level, rather than adopting the present-day stance of generally having one foot slightly in front of the other and similarly with the hands. Brute strength was the primary factor for success and knock-downs were frequent, this being a consequence of the instability inherent in the positioning of their feet." - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, must have been a caching problem. But now I'm unhappy about the phrase "and similarly with the hands" tagged on to the end of the first sentence. I'm wondering if we aren't getting a level of detail way beyond what is required in a background section, particularly as it clearly contradicts what can be seen in the associated image. Johnson very clearly has one foot in front of the other, and the position of his hands isn't as described. Our emphasis has to be on how Johnson fought (his poor guard has already been mentioned later), not on how other fighters generally squared up to each other in the 18th century. Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My intent with the bits relating to stance etc was that it introduces facets and terminology that are used later in the article: shifting, uncertainty of rules, short rounds etc. It was not boxing as we know it, but the arrival of Johnson was a turning point in that regard. His general style/technique etc, and in particular his defiance of the norms in the Perrins fight, really did herald a new age and the start of the transformation to the sport as it exists today. This is acknowledged by quite a few sources but in a way that is difficult to cite ("see pages 100-200" would probably be the outcome).
I am not happy with the tagged-on bit about the hands but do think that the general content could be useful. Am I making any sense here? - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are, so if we could resolve that bit about the hands then I'd be content. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked that section a bit (nobody but a fool would fight with his feet together), see if you're happy with it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! That is so much better. Give that man a beer. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just got one from the fridge. Thanks! Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Professional career
  • Johnson wasn't a professional when he had his first fight against Jack Jarvis.
  • Woah, good spot. I'll have to change the section heading. I'm not overly keen on "Fight career" because it sounds a little like tabloid journalism to me, but perhaps that is the best which can be done. - Sitush (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Early period
  • "Johnson subsequently declared himself champion and challenged all-comers". Champion of what? Champion of England?
  • Egan and other English writers variously use "Champion" and "Champion of England". O'Hara, from the US, calls him Champion of the World (the 14th such, IIRC). My suspicion is that there was in fact no official version of either of these titles but rather "bragging rights". - Sitush (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{ Done, as best I can. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At that time the holder of title of champion was in dispute ...". This needs to be rewritten and clarified once the championship question above resolved.
 Done, as best I can. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The summer scheduling of the bout, which took place on 6 June 1786, was not good and little support was apparent." In what way was it "not good"? Does "little support was apparent" mean that there weren't many spectators?
  • I agree entirely. The points are explained earlier in the article but this sentence is somewhat disconnected from them. I will rewrite it. Gist: the toffs are not in London during the summer months, therefore the spectators were relatively few (and this also probably impacts on the fighters' earnings, since they seemed usually to share the gate money - but I do not know if that was the case on this occasion). - Sitush (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(There had been accusations that the fight was fixed). I think that parenthetical comments like this are best relegated to notes, as they otherwise tend to disrupt the narrative flow.
  • I have attempted to resolve by rephrasing the relevant sentences. However, you may consider the result to be clumsy & so I will not mark as done just yet. - Sitush (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honours
  • This section is obviously too short to stand alone.
 Done and added year of induction. Lead still needs expansion. - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Life after boxing
  • "Similarly, for Hooper when he fought George Maddox at Sydenham Common on 10 February 1794 and for Tom "Paddington" Jones at Blackheath on 10 May 1794." Not sure I understand this, what's similar?
 Done - he was also second for ... - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He lost to Elias Spray some time prior to the Spray's 1805 fight against Joseph Bourkes ...". Is there something missing there, or has that "the" just crept in?
 Done - ha! Yes, someone might have seen that as being akin to Phil "The Power" Taylor in darts. It was a creep, now removed. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidation
  • "Dennis Brailsford, writing in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and in contradiction to more contemporary accounts, appears to believe that this fight occurred before the one against Fry; he calls Johnson's opponent Will Ward, which was another name under which Warr fought." Why does this say that Brailsford appears to believe that, as opposed to that he does? In whose opinion is there some doubt as to what Brailsford believes? I'd say in general as well that this is exactly the kind of parenthetical comment that ought to be relegated to a note, as it disrupts the flow. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct on both points. I really need to get into the mindset where I see footnotes as more than just auto-generated lists of inline citations. Treat them, indeed, as I would if I were writing a dissertation etc again. I think that the "appears to" is a hangover from a time when I couldn't believe that he was so out of sync with the information contained in so many near contemporary sources etc. I recall digging around some of his other works to verify that he was in fact an ok source (I know that ODNB is, and obviously they think that he is, but ...). Anyway, I'll fix it. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My very strong preference is to separate the notes and the citations as I've done, hopefully with your approval. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I watched you doing that just before I nipped out. I thought it was really neat stuff. I've learned a few things from this exercise but that is top of my list. I shall be having a play with the idea. Also, the ODNB template, which I did not realise existed. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've probably pushed you a bit during this review, but it's been with the best of intentions, to help you improve this article. Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you have not pushed me. There are just some things that I really am crap at. Writing leads is one of them. Most of the other stuff is quite simply Doing The Right Thing. If anyone objects to that then they should not submit to a GAN. Tbh, with all the hassle I get dealing with Indian caste articles, this is an absolute doddle. - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comments
  • You have made many useful corrections to my grammar and phrasing etc, which are all much appreciated ... but I have a query about one. The first sentence of one of the Consolidation paragraphs now says, "Following this fight there was a hiatus, with no challengers coming forward for to challenge Johnson". I'm not too keen on challengers/challenge in the same sentence. It seems to jar a little. How about "Following this fight there was a hiatus, with no-one coming forward for to challenge Johnson ..." ? - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more concerned about the "for to challenge", but I've rewritten that sentence as "Following this fight there was a hiatus, with no challengers coming forward until the Irish champion Michael Ryan took an interest", which seems a little more succinct. Malleus Fatuorum 17:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrapping up
  • Looking through the article again, about the only thing I'm a little bit uncomfortable about now is that much of the opening couple of paragraphs in the Background section is a word-for-word copy of what's in the Isaac Perrins article, and perhaps others, I haven't looked. Is it really necessary to repeat the same material? Could the (rather length) quotation be dropped at least? We need to stay focused on Johnson in this article, and not get carried away with writing a history of prizefighting. Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created Perrins and pretty much wrote this until your involvement, since I started from the ground up. There is content that has been copied over from Perrins, complete with attribution in the edit summaries to maintain the CC-BY-SA/GFDL etc. I am looking at maybe knocking off (knocking out?!) another couple of articles on 18C boxers fairly soon. If I can get, say, James Figg or Jack Broughton up to GA + another one (Slack, perhaps) then there will definitely be enough to support a completely separate article on the background to 18C boxing, because I'll pick up more information along the way & the fighters will represented a spread across the period. At that point, I thought that I would start cutting back some of the Background sections in this and in Perrins. For someone who knew nothing at all about prize-fighting two months ago, I'm picking up quite a bit.
However, if you'd rather see it gone from one or other of the articles now then just do it. I could grab it from the history and dump it into my sandbox for later use.
I need to revisit Perrins anyway, in the light of some of the things which I have learned here. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of suggesting a separate article on 18th-century prizefighting, which seems the obvious solution, but I didn't want to over-burden you; I am though pleased to hear that it's something you're considering. So far as this article is concerned, it clearly now meets the GA criteria in my opinion, and I therefore think that we can close this review. Congratulations on a nice job. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Johnson_(bareknuckle_boxer)/GA1&oldid=430573925"