Would Ingemar Johansson have have won the title

[Jack Dempsey]

Had he been facing someone other than Floyd Patterson that night in 1959???:think

[Manassa]

Depends who that person is. If it's Pete Radamachacherer, then yea, he would have won it. Sonny Liston? Not a chance.

[jhar26]

Had he been facing someone other than Floyd Patterson that night in 1959???:think
You mean Sonny Liston?:lol: Poor Ingemar.:patsch

[Lacyace]

Sonny Liston KO1

[Jack Dempsey]

Depends who that person is. If it's Pete Radamachacherer, then yea, he would have won it. Sonny Liston? Not a chance.

Ingo interests me, he is the oldest surviving HW champ, the last surviving white undisputed champ, and you hardly hear much about him these days, do people think that he only won the title because he faced Patterson that night and not someone else??

This is not a thread to disrespect Floyd by the way, who I think was a great champ, I just think that, like Manassa said, against a Liston there is no way he would have won the title. Did he get lucky in his opposition?

[ChrisPontius]

It would've been interesting to see him take on Liston. It would certainly be Liston's best opponent up untill Clay.

[janitor]

I think that he potentialy had the tools to beat any of the top heavyweights of the period between Marciano and Liston.

While Johansen was a limited fighter he had a short right hand on a par with Joe Louis's and was verry inteligent in the way that he deployed his primary weapon. He was verry sucesfull in concealing just how effective it was before he fought for the title. Machen and Patterson both walked unsuspectingly into his sunday best and went to sleep.

[amhlilhaus]

This is not a thread to disrespect Floyd by the way, who I think was a great champ, I just think that, like Manassa said, against a Liston there is no way he would have won the title. Did he get lucky in his opposition?

I disagree, patterson was not a great champ. ingo got lucky to face patterson, then look what happened in their rematches. the way the series went tells all you need to know about those two.

[Senya13]

Johansson looks a VERY POOR boxer vs Uber Bacilieri and Hein ten Hoff, and vs Machen he's not so good either, until the moment he catches careless Machen.

[janitor]

I disagree, patterson was not a great champ. ingo got lucky to face patterson, then look what happened in their rematches. the way the series went tells all you need to know about those two.

The question you have to ask is whether there was anybody apart from Patterson who he could not have beaten at the time. If not then he was a natural champion of the era.

[janitor]

Johansson looks a VERY POOR boxer vs Uber Bacilieri and Hein ten Hoff, and vs Machen he's not so good either, until the moment he catches careless Machen.

Johansen had a way of making careless opponents get caught with that short right hand. It might have been the only strong card he had but he knew how to play it verry well.

[Senya13]

It's not just the way he pretends to be, to trick someone or anything, it's the way he is. He is a VERY POOR BOXER, his skills were worse than average.

[janitor]

It's not just the way he pretends to be, to trick someone or anything, it's the way he is. He is a VERY POOR BOXER, his skills were worse than average.

I am not saying that he pretended to be a poor boxer to trick his oponents. I do think however that he concealed his best asets and thus employed them to devastating effect.

[red cobra]

I do admire the classic simplicity in which Johansson utilized a bit of trickery to lull both Machen and Patterson into not suspecting the big surprise right hand of his. In Machen's case, it all happened rather quickly, in the first round which turned out to be a nightmare for Machen, With Patterson, for the first two rounds, Ingo used an almost static strategy of just jabbing and pawing, and almost not even using the right at all, kind of just lulling Floyd to sleep and hypnotizing him with that flicking left, then suddenly springing the surprise in the third. Ingo was kind of like a "sit and wait" predator, like viper, or something, if I might use an analogy from the animal world. Just patiently jabbing away, and then with sudden lightning speed, throwing that straight right. Ingo was good at that one thing, and in a purist kind of way, he was very effective for a while. Whether he would have been as successful at winning the title against anyone but Floyd is an interesting questio. Maybe he was a one time only sort of phenomenom (obviously he was) but whoever he could lull into his classically simple trap he would have had a chance against. You could draw your own scenarios with several examples of champions of the past like Jack Sharkey, Jim Braddock, two of which come to mind as possible victims of Ingo. Dempsey and Tunney I rather doubt. Dempsey would have been too much animal for Ingo, and Tunney simply would have not let himself get caught, and would have clinically dissected Ingo along the way. He might have succeeded in rocking and even decking Joe Louis, but the payback would have beem quite devastating for the Swede. I doubt a prepared Charles or Walcott would have had any trouble with him either, and you know what Marciano would have done to him. As for the others.....

[janitor]

I do admire the classic simplicity in which Johansson utilized a bit of trickery to lull both Machen and Patterson into not suspecting the big surprise right hand of his. In Machen's case, it all happened rather quickly, in the first round which turned out to be a nightmare for Machen, With Patterson, for the first two rounds, Ingo used an almost static strategy of just jabbing and pawing, and almost not even using the right at all, kind of just lulling Floyd to sleep and hypnotizing him with that flicking left, then suddenly springing the surprise in the third. Ingo was kind of like a "sit and wait" predator, like viper, or something, if I might use an analogy from the animal world. Just patiently jabbing away, and then with sudden lightning speed, throwing that straight right. Ingo was good at that one thing, and in a purist kind of way, he was very effective for a while.

This is a verry good analysis of Johansens strengths and weakneses.

Although he was technicaly limited I am will ing to say that he might have had the most efective right hand in the history of the heavyweight division. He played this one good hand verry effectively.

Once his opponents knew his strengths and started to fear that bingo right hand he became less efective.

[Senya13]

Machen came forward totally careless, in that situation any heavyweight with decent punch would have floored him, and it would tell nothing about punching power.
Johansson's jab was plain awful. In his early fights it was half-chopping move half-push, and he didn't improve it much further. The man was a complete disgrace to even fight for a title, even more so to actually win it. He's somewhere near Marvin Hart in class.

[MrMagic]

The only fighter he ever lost to was Patterson, whom.. according to the greatest of all times was the most technically adapt fighter he's faced.
Ingemar's boxing skills are vastly underrated on here, how did he do so good in the olympics with such POOR? boxing skills, c'mon.

[janitor]

[quote=Senya13]Machen came forward totally careless, in that situation any heavyweight with decent punch would have floored him, and it would tell nothing about punching power.


Machen had an all time great chin. Sonny Liston could not put Machen away in fifteen rounds and neither could Joe Frazier. That Johansen was able to catch him in the first round and take him out speaks volumes about his power.

Johansson's jab was plain awful. In his early fights it was half-chopping move half-push, and he didn't improve it much further.

Nobody is arguing that he had an all time jab.

The man was a complete disgrace to even fight for a title, even more so to actually win it.

He clearly earned the right to fight for the title in the ring and he would clearly have been a serious threat to any contemporary oponent put in front of him so I don't see what your problem is.


He's somewhere near Marvin Hart in class.


His resume is clearly much deeper than Marvin Harts and there is not enough film of Hart to say that he was better head to head so I don't see how you can conclude that.

[Senya13]

They are overrated by people who have seen nothing but Patterson and Machen fights. I've seen two his European fights, and his skills are just as I say - extremely poor. Defense, offense, movement, cleverness - all are either average or worse. John Ruiz compared to Johansson is like Mayweather compared to Gatti.

[Marciano Frazier]

Had he been facing someone other than Floyd Patterson that night in 1959???:think This is a little vague of a question, isn't it? If he'd been facing Joe Grim, Ed Strickland, or Marion Wilson, of course he would. Marvin Hart, Primo Carnera, Leon Spinks, Buster Douglas, Shannon Briggs or Hasim Rahman, then he probably would. If he'd been facing Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, then the odds are strongly against it. What were you trying to get at here?

[Senya13]

Machen had an all time great chin. Sonny Liston could not put Machen away in fifteen rounds and neither could Joe Frazier. That Johansen was able to catch him in the first round and take him out speaks volumes about his power.
Compare the way Machen boxed vs Liston and vs Johansson. That should tell you all you need to know.

Nobody is arguing that he had an all time jab.
He had one of the worst jabs I've seen not only of heavyweight champions, but of most average heavyweights.

He clearly earned the right to fight for the title in the ring and he would clearly have been a serious threat to any contemporary oponent put in front of him so I don't see what your problem is.
You are talking about Sonny Liston? I completely agree with you.

His resume is clearly much deeper than Marvin Harts and there is not enough film of Hart to say that he was better head to head so I don't see how you can conclude that.
Hart faced several times better opposition than Johansson. Had Ingemar somehow got to early 20th century, he'd be nothing more than a tomato can with the poor skills he had.

[janitor]

[quote=Senya13]They are overrated by people who have seen nothing but Patterson and Machen fights. I've seen two his European fights, and his skills are just as I say - extremely poor. Defense, offense, movement, cleverness - all are either average or worse.

There have been a lot of heavyweights who have been technicaly limited who have achieved a lot due to power and a simple but effective style. People look at the Patterson and Machen fights because these showcase what Ingo could do.

Nobody dismises George Foremans win over Joe Frazier because he looks technicaly limited in his early fights.


John Ruiz compared to Johansson is like Mayweather compared to Gatti.


A somewhat extreme statement. Whatever they look like on film Johansen was above Ruiz's league.

[Senya13]

Primo Carnera, Buster Douglas, Shannon Briggs or Hasim Rahman
All these guys had better or MUCH better skills than Johansson, and more punching power.

[Jack Dempsey]

This is a little vague of a question, isn't it? If he'd been facing Joe Grim, Ed Strickland, or Marion Wilson, of course he would. Marvin Hart, Primo Carnera, Leon Spinks, Buster Douglas, Shannon Briggs or Hasim Rahman, then he probably would. If he'd been facing Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, then the odds are strongly against it. What were you trying to get at here?

Not too sure now,I was a bit drunk when I posted it:-(

[Marciano Frazier]

All these guys had better or MUCH better skills than Johansson, and more punching power. Um, no. It's debatable with some of them, but he was pretty clearly a smarter and more adept boxer than, say, Carnera, and a considerably harder hitter than a Leon Spinks or Buster Douglas.

[Senya13]

There have been a lot of heavyweights who have been technicaly limited who have achieved a lot due to power and a simple but effective style.
What power? The one he used to knock out Lloyd Barnett, Erik Jensen, Ansell Baba Adams, Aldo Pellegrini, Uber Bacilieri, Joe Bygraves, Hans Friedrich, Archie McBride? I'd bet my house that Lamar Clark would go through this opposition with a perfect record, all by KO.

People look at the Patterson and Machen fights because these showcase what Ingo could do.
What he could do in Machen fight? Use the fact that he was completely unknown and make Machen change his style to something unusual for him, throw any thoughts about defense out the window trying to achieve a quick KO?

Nobody dismises George Foremans win over Joe Frazier because he looks technicaly limited in his early fights.
Even young Foreman looked like a much better boxer than Johansson.

A somewhat extreme statement. Whatever they look like on film Johansen was above Ruiz's league.
Johansson is a tomato can compared to Ruiz. If they fought ten times, Ruiz would win all ten, most by KO.

[janitor]

[quote=Senya13]Compare the way Machen boxed vs Liston and vs Johansson. That should tell you all you need to know.


It is the same man with the same chin in both cases. Johansen was the only man to take Johansen out excluding his last fight and he did it in one round.

Joe Frazier threw everything but the kitchen sink at an elderly Machen in the first round of their fight and could not put him away.


He had one of the worst jabs I've seen not only of heavyweight champions, but of most average heavyweights.


OK so you don't rate his jab. I am not going to contradict you on this.


You are talking about Sonny Liston? I completely agree with you.


The point is that he beat Patterson and Folley. Based on these fights he would have been a considerable threat to Zora Folley Cleavland Williams or any of the top heavyweights of the day.

That makes him world class.

Hart faced several times better opposition than Johansson.

Who did Hart beat outside of Jack Johnson who he arguably lost to?


Had Ingemar somehow got to early 20th century, he'd be nothing more than a tomato can with the poor skills he had.


I think that he would have beaten some of the top fighters then as he did in his own era. Against the best in a strong era he would always have failed to get to the top.

However I think that in the period between Jeffries and Johnson while the colour bar was in operation he could have gone all the way. Why shouldnt he have beaten fighters like Hart, Root or Burns?

[Senya13]

Um, no. It's debatable with some of them, but he was pretty clearly a smarter and more adept boxer than, say, Carnera, and a considerably harder hitter than a Leon Spinks or Buster Douglas.
What smartness or adaptability have you seen in Patterson or Machen fights? He was as one-dimensional and primitive as they come. He looks even worse against mediocre European opposition. Carnera is showing more skills on film than Johansson in the 6 fights + 1 sparring I've seen of him.

[janitor]

[quote=Senya13]What power? The one he used to knock out Lloyd Barnett, Erik Jensen, Ansell Baba Adams, Aldo Pellegrini, Uber Bacilieri, Joe Bygraves, Hans Friedrich, Archie McBride? I'd bet my house that Lamar Clark would go through this opposition with a perfect record, all by KO.


Yes but then when he got to Eddie Machen he would loose and Patterson would not even bother to fight him.

The fact that Johansen iced Machen in one round while he took two all time great punchers the distence shows that he had top end power if nothing else.

Since you seem to think so little of his skills I wonder what you think got him as far as he got if not his power?


What he could do in Machen fight? Use the fact that he was completely unknown and make Machen change his style to something unusual for him, throw any thoughts about defense out the window trying to achieve a quick KO?


But then he pulled off the same feat exactly against Floyd Patterson. This should make you take a closer look.


Even young Foreman looked like a much better boxer than Johansson.


I would have to disagree.


Johansson is a tomato can compared to Ruiz. If they fought ten times, Ruiz would win all ten, most by KO.


I am not convinced.

I think that Johansens best wins are much better than Ruiz's and I also think that the worst fighter Johansen lost to was better than Ruiz himself.

[janitor]

[quote=Senya13]What smartness or adaptability have you seen in Patterson or Machen fights? He was as one-dimensional and primitive as they come.

I wonder if Machen ant Patterson thought that while they were looking up at the ceeling.

I am not saying the guy was a technical genius but I do think there are a few subtlties that you are overlooking.

He looks even worse against mediocre European opposition. Carnera is showing more skills on film than Johansson in the 6 fights + 1 sparring I've seen of him.

I actualy agree here.

[Senya13]

It is the same man with the same chin in both cases. Johansen was the only man to take Johansen out excluding his last fight and he did it in one round.
If McCall had totally forgotten about defense and tried for a quick KO the same way as Machen, he'd at least get knocked down. Because no matter how good a chin is, if you don't think about defense at all, and come forward with head held straight up, no movement, no rolling, you will get timed and hit flush to the chin with punch you not prepared to. Against Liston Machen didn't forget about defense. Same as vs Frazier (who was never a KO puncher anyway).

OK so you don't rate his jab. I am not going to contradict you on this.
The thing is... if you have seen fighters who make a pro debut without an amateur career, the way how awkward their punches often are, you get an idea of what Johansson's jab looked like. I'm not kidding or exaggerating when I say it was half chopping-punch half-push.

Who did Hart beat outside of Jack Johnson who he arguably lost to?
I'm talking about opposition.

I think that he would have beaten some of the top fighters then as he did in his own era. Against the best in a strong era he would always have failed to get to the top.
Which of the better fighters Hart faced would Johansson beat?

[Marciano Frazier]

What smartness or adaptability have you seen in Patterson or Machen fights? He was as one-dimensional and primitive as they come. He looks even worse against mediocre European opposition. Carnera is showing more skills on film than Johansson in the 6 fights + 1 sparring I've seen of him.
Johansson was a smart strategical kind of guy. He didn't have a very broad variety of assets, but he knew just how to make the best use of the ones he did possess. Watch how, in the first Patterson fight, he holds back with the right hand and sticks almost entirely to the left, with only the very rare light right thrown in there, until Patterson isn't being cautious about it anymore(Patterson himself later recounted how he'd become convinced that Johansson's right hand was only a media invention), then takes him by surprise at the start of the third round and seals the win. He knew how to play possum, draw openings, and lull people into complacency quite effectively, and could execute a gameplan flawlessly.
His boxing is ugly and has holes in it, but he is economical, he keeps a pretty tight guard, and although his jab is obviously not a forceful or commanding punch, it serves him well as a measuring stick/pacemaker. The man was an Oympic finalist, dominant European champion, and world heavyweight champion to boot. He absolutely mopped the floor with the world's top two heavyweights back-to-back. Now, from the conversations I've had with you in the past, I get the impression that you think there were pretty much no competent boxers in history until the last 10 years or so, but surely you have to admit that he undeniably showed himself to be one of the absolute elite fighters of his own era, if nothing else.

[Senya13]

Yes but then when he got to Eddie Machen he would loose and Patterson would not even bother to fight him.

The fact that Machen iced Patterson in one round while he took two all time great punchers the distence shows that he had top end power if nothing else.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Have you confused some names here?

Since you seem to think so little of his skills I wonder what you think got him as far as he got if not his power?
Both Machen and Patterson were overconfident and not really familiar with Johansson's style. European fighters who have seen him prior to facing him, had more success vs him than Machen or Patterson 1st time, even though they are light years behind these two skillwise or ring-generalship-wise.

I think that Johansens best wins are much better than Ruiz's and I also think that the worst fighter Johansen lost to was better than Ruiz himself.
Ruiz split three fights with Holyfield who was just coming off two Lewis fights and would go on to beat Hasim Rahman. Johnson, Rahman, Oquendo were contenders. He got robbed vs Valuev, and lost a controversial decision to Chagaev. That's a lot more than what Johansson achieved in his career.

[janitor]

[quote=Senya13]I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Have you confused some names here?


Sure. I meant to say Johansen knocking out Machen.


Both Machen and Patterson were overconfident and not really familiar with Johansson's style. European fighters who have seen him prior to facing him, had more success vs him than Machen or Patterson 1st time, even though they are light years behind these two skillwise or ring-generalship-wise.


There is something in this. Patterson was warned about Johansens right hand but decided that the rumours were exagerated.

I have already said that Johansen did not do as well once his secret weapon whar known.

Ruiz split three fights with Holyfield who was just coming off two Lewis fights and would go on to beat Hasim Rahman. Johnson, Rahman, Oquendo were contenders. He got robbed vs Valuev, and lost a controversial decision to Chagaev. That's a lot more than what Johansson achieved in his career.

In terms of depth but not in terms of quality. The Hollyfield that Ruiz fought would have lost to both Patterson and Machen. So would Ramhan in my opinion.

[janitor]

[quote=Senya13]If McCall had totally forgotten about defense and tried for a quick KO the same way as Machen, he'd at least get knocked down.

I doubt it.

Because no matter how good a chin is, if you don't think about defense at all, and come forward with head held straight up, no movement, no rolling, you will get timed and hit flush to the chin with punch you not prepared to.

You are making Machen sound teribly stupid here.

He did something which he knew would alow an average puncher to knock him out?

It is not just about hiting sombody clean it is also about timing and delivery.


The thing is... if you have seen fighters who make a pro debut without an amateur career, the way how awkward their punches often are, you get an idea of what Johansson's jab looked like. I'm not kidding or exaggerating when I say it was half chopping-punch half-push.


For the lat time. Yes his jab was poor. He only used it as a range finder anyway.


I'm talking about opposition.


Joe Grim lost to some prety good oposition. Dose that make him better than Johansen?


Which of the better fighters Hart faced would Johansson beat?


Which can you catagoricaly say he would not beat apart from Johnson?

[red cobra]

Machen came forward totally careless, in that situation any heavyweight with decent punch would have floored him, and it would tell nothing about punching power.
Johansson's jab was plain awful. In his early fights it was half-chopping move half-push, and he didn't improve it much further. The man was a complete disgrace to even fight for a title, even more so to actually win it. He's somewhere near Marvin Hart in class.
Once again, Johansson is too harshly under rated by you. Machen went 10 rounds with Liston and was never again blown out in his career like he was against the Swede. No one is saying that he's an elite fighter, or even a very good one because he WAS so limited, but he was very good within his limitations, and had a certain cleverness in lulling his opponents, particularly his two most celebrated opponents to sleep before suddenly springing that right of his. A fighter like Earnie Shavers may have had prodigious power in that right hand of his, but he was nowhere near as capable as Ingo in delivering, or springing the trap on his opponents as Johansson. Another fighter that had power, and an effective way of using it, again with a right hand, was Max Schmeling. Ingo has to be given credit for that at least. His jab was not classically beautiful as an Ali, Holmes, or Liston, but what it was used for, was to find the range, and serve to hypnotize an opponent into forgetting about the "Toonder and Lightning" right. Ingo's peak was past when the secret of the right was found out, and after Patterson nearly decapitated him in their 1960 rematch. Ingo was never the same again after that punch. But before that, he was quite good at using what little he had in his game and I maintain that the ko of Machen was as devastating a performance as I've ever seen, and no excuses about it either, as Machen was a tough nut for anyone to crack, as Liston and Frazier would find out. There's a subtle middle ground of criticism regarding Ingemar Johansson and his place among the heavyweight champions and that means being realistic and not placing him at or near the top, and also not classing at the bottom either with the examples you mentioned. And by the way, 1958-59 Ingemar Johansson blows away John Ruiz in a mismatch equal to the Tua disaster, and I give Ruiz alot of credit for what he's accomplished in his career, and cut him far more slack than most people do.

[Senya13]

Watch how, in the first Patterson fight, he holds back with the right hand and sticks almost entirely to the left, with only the very rare light right thrown in there,
You are calling that smartness? I'm calling that awareness of one's poor handspeed and average timing and thus not wasting much energy trying to throw a punch that you know you would miss from distance. That's a very common one-dimensional tactics of many big, but primitive punchers.

He knew how to play possum, draw openings, and lull people into complacency quite effectively, and could execute a gameplan flawlessly.
People who knew about his right hand, had no problems whatsoever with it, making it completely useless, and making him look as bad fighter and ring-general as he actually was.

His boxing is ugly and has holes in it, but he is economical, he keeps a pretty tight guard,
That's a usual European style of defense. If you have seen such fighters against actual skillful boxers, you'd be aware of how easily penetratable it is.

although his jab is obviously not a forceful or commanding punch, it serves him well as a measuring stick/pacemaker.
It's because he needs to show at least some activity, he doesn't want to get disqualified for not fighting again. So no choice but to use whatever poor punch he has. He's not measuring anything up, he just paws with it to keep himself busy, is all.

The man was an Oympic finalist, dominant European champion, and world heavyweight champion to boot.
Peter Rademaher was a good amateur too. Dominant European champion? You mean Cavicchi, Cooper and Erskine show dominance? European heavyweight competition was extremely poor during that time, where guys like fat awkward Weiland or "new Paulo Uzcudun" Urtain could become titlists. Johansson claiming the world title for one fight was a fluke, and a disgrace to heavyweight history.

Now, from the conversations I've had with you in the past, I get the impression that you think there were pretty much no competent boxers in history until the last 10 years or so
What are you talking about? Do I need to post my All-Time P4P Top 10 again, so you can count how many modern fighters in it, or I need to name my favorite fighters, like Joe Gans, Benny Leonard, Barney Ross, Kid Gavilan, Jim Jeffries, Ted Lewis, Joey Giardello, etc etc?

[Marciano Frazier]

[quote]



[quote] You are making Machen sound teribly stupid here.

He did something which he knew would alow an average puncher to knock him out?
Yes, this argument is truly bizarre. Machen, a well-schooled elite-level boxer who has never been down or stopped before and has the ring savvy to subsequently go the distance with some of the most dangerous hitters alive, while facing the undefeated, top 10-ranked European heavyweight champion, suddenly decides to do something which is apparently flagrant ring suicide? What would prompt such a decision? Why is his record not littered with one-round knockout losses to journeymen?

Besides which, this description of the fight is just plain wrong. Watch the film. Machen's hands are certainly up, he's poised to block/parry and is in more or less a classic boxing pose at the moment before the knockdown. It appears to me that Johansson just shoots in a fast, hard, short right over the top and levels him. I think it will appear that way to most any other viewer as well.

[Senya13]

You are making Machen sound teribly stupid here.
Overconfident fighters sometimes do silly things. There were plenty of upsets of that kind in history. Fights like Al McCoy KO1 George Chip, Al Singer KO1 Sammy Mandell, Al Davis KO1 Bob Montgomery, Young Corbett KO2 Terry McGovern, Terry McGovern KO1 Pedlar Palmer, Michael Nunn KO1 Sumbu Kalambay, Antonio Tarver KO2 Roy Jones Jr, etc.

Joe Grim lost to some prety good oposition. Dose that make him better than Johansen?
That'll have him have better opposition than Johansson, something I have said from the very beginning.

Which can you catagoricaly say he would not beat apart from Johnson?
I'd like you to voice your picks.

[ChrisPontius]

IWhile Johansen was a limited fighter he had a short right hand on a par with Joe Louis's and was verry inteligent in the way that he deployed his primary weapon.

I will go a step further and say that his right hand may well have been a bit better than Louis'. Of course there are all sorts of right hands: right hands that come from counter punching positions and often via traps (Schmeling, Walcott), 'normal' right hands (Holmes, Lewis, Louis), unorthodox, hard to predict right hands (Marciano, Tyson) and the unpredictable and hard to see ones, like Johansson and recently W. Klitschko.

Johansson was not the complete package, but there's no denying in the effectiveness of what he did had, and how he used it.

[Senya13]

Once again, Johansson is too harshly under rated by you.
I might be harsh on him, because I really think his IBHOF induction was quite possibly the worst choice of all they have made. But my harshness is based on careful watching of 6 his fights + 1 sparring, plus reading of some contemporary sources. I guess some people will defend even Joe Grim if I called him a completely terrible fighter, and start attributing him with skills he never had.

Machen went 10 rounds with Liston and was never again blown out in his career like he was against the Swede.
That only shows overconfidence of both Machen himself and of his trainer (which is a weird thing, as Al Silvani was a great trainer coming out of Stillman's).

No one is saying that he's an elite fighter, or even a very good one because he WAS so limited, but he was very good within his limitations, and had a certain cleverness in lulling his opponents, particularly his two most celebrated opponents to sleep before suddenly springing that right of his.
Level of "cleverness" of such tactics is very low. It is used by most one-handed punchers with medium-to-low aggressiveness.

A fighter like Earnie Shavers may have had prodigious power in that right hand of his, but he was nowhere near as capable as Ingo in delivering, or springing the trap on his opponents as Johansson.
Shavers' right hand was very well known, and thus it was more difficult task for him to trick an opponent and make him overconfident.

Another fighter that had power, and an effective way of using it, again with a right hand, was Max Schmeling.
Schmeling's right hand was overrated. Joe Blackburn said about it very well in his interview.

His jab was to find the range, and serve to hypnotize an opponent into forgetting about the "Toonder and Lightning" right.
You are trying to give meaning to one-dimensional primitiveness.

But before that, he was quite good at using what little he had in his game
He was at peak for two fights against opponents who had little clue about his style and came very overconfident?

And by the way, 1958-59 Ingemar Johansson blows away John Ruiz in a mismatch equal to the Tua disaster, and I give Ruiz alot of credit for what he's accomplished in his career, and cut him far more slack than most people do.
Ruiz has showed MUCH BETTER skills than Johansson ever showed. Give Ruiz a word about right hand, and there's only one way who's going to be the winner - John Ruiz. People call him primitive, well, had you watched Johansson more attentively, you will know what real primitiveness is.

[Senya13]

Besides which, this description of the fight is just plain wrong. Watch the film. Machen's hands are certainly up, he's poised to block/parry and is in more or less a classic boxing pose at the moment before the knockdown. It appears to me that Johansson just shoots in a fast, hard, short right over the top and levels him. I think it will appear that way to most any other viewer as well.
What was Machen's usual style? What is my description of him having completely changed it for this particular fight, wrong in?

[Senya13]

I will go a step further and say that his right hand may well have been a bit better than Louis'.
:nut

[Marciano Frazier]

You are calling that smartness? I'm calling that awareness of one's poor handspeed and average timing and thus not wasting much energy trying to throw a punch that you know you would miss from distance. That's a very common one-dimensional tactics of many big, but primitive punchers.
First, whatever you want to call it, it worked, did it not? Second, no, I haven't often seen this sort of strategy executed as well as Johansson did it. And third, it wasn't the only strategy he was capable of implementing.

People who knew about his right hand, had no problems whatsoever with it, making it completely useless, and making him look as bad fighter and ring-general as he actually was.
Um, no, they didn't. His European opponents obviously knew about his right hand, and he still handily beat them, stopping most of them as well. Patterson obviously knew about it after the first fight, and he was still nearly knocked out by it- down twice in a round with the three-knockdown rule in effect, in fact- in their third fight.

I'm curious- if you think Johansson's boxing skills were below average, like those of a fighter just turning pro with no amateur experience, and that his right hand was "completely useless" against people who knew about it, how exactly do you think he did these things?

Peter Rademaher was a good amateur too.
That's because he had good boxing skill.

Dominant European champion?
Yes, how silly of me. He did only beat pretty much every name European heavyweight of that era.

European heavyweight competition was extremely poor during that time, where guys like fat awkward Weiland or "new Paulo Uzcudun" Urtain could become titlists.
It's becoming increasingly clear that you just think that pretty much every heavyweight era prior to 1990 was extremely poor.

Johansson claiming the world title for one fight was a fluke, and a disgrace to heavyweight history.


What are you talking about? Do I need to post my All-Time P4P Top 10 again, so you can count how many modern fighters in it, or I need to name my favorite fighters, like Joe Gans, Benny Leonard, Barney Ross, Kid Gavilan, Jim Jeffries, Ted Lewis, Joey Giardello, etc etc?
Perhaps I should have been more specific to the heavyweight division. Regardless, you certainly do make your rounds on this forum by attempting to diminish the status of various old-time fighters, especially heavyweights. Countless times you condescendingly describe world-elite heavyweights from the 1910s through '70s as being incompetent and poor, and you seem to have little to say about the likes of most any heavyweight champ from Dempsey to Ali other than that they were overrated and not good at most anything you can think of.

[Senya13]

I haven't often seen this sort of strategy executed as well as Johansson did it.
Because people with good power are usually more known than Johansson was to Machen or Patterson?

And third, it wasn't the only strategy he was capable of implementing.
And what was his other strategy?


His European opponents obviously knew about his right hand, and he still handily beat them, stopping most of them as well.
Most of them - perhaps, but for a true puncher he had too many fights vs poor opposition that lasted the distance.

I'm curious- if you think Johansson's boxing skills were below average, like those of a fighter just turning pro with no amateur experience
My original statements were separated, please don't put them together, ripping them out of context.

and that his right hand was "completely useless" against people who knew about it, how exactly do you think he did these things?
It could be made completely useless. From report about Brian London fight that lasted all 12 rounds: "He (Johansson) concentrated on his left jab to pile up points, and never landed his famous right hand."

Yes, how silly of me. He did only beat pretty much every name European heavyweight of that era.
The level of heavyweights in Europe was as "high" as some US state's championship. If you look through some Ring magazines of that time, they often printed European ratings, looking at it makes me laugh.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you just think that pretty much every heavyweight era prior to 1990 was extremely poor.
Ring magazine described Weiland in his fight vs Urtain the following way:
"Weiland had been decked in each of the first three heats and displayed about as much skill, mobility and science as an elephant learning to play the harp." Yet this "elephant" actually started to turn the fight around in the 5th and 6th rounds, slowing Urtain down and weakening him.

Perhaps I should have been more specific to the heavyweight division. Regardless, you certainly do make your rounds on this forum by attempting to diminish the status of various old-time fighters, especially heavyweights.
Do I need to put my all-time heavyweight Top 10 here and we will count how many of them fought in the last 10 years?

Countless times you condescendingly describe world-elite heavyweights from the 1910s through '70s as being incompetent and poor, and you seem to have little to say about the likes of most any heavyweight champ from Dempsey to Ali other than that they were overrated and not good at most anything you can think of.
First, you are placing words (incompetent and poor) in my mouth which I didn't say. Second, if you paid attention to when I usually am criticizing those heavyweights, and how exactly, you will notice that I do that after someone else with pink-glasses on starts describing them as some kind of supermen, with no significant flaws, each and everyone as skillful as can possibly be for their abilities, cutting through all opposition like a hot knife through butter and never having a slightest problem in doing so. Which I, of course, cannot ignore, as such things often contradict facts.

[red cobra]

I will go a step further and say that his right hand may well have been a bit better than Louis'. Of course there are all sorts of right hands: right hands that come from counter punching positions and often via traps (Schmeling, Walcott), 'normal' right hands (Holmes, Lewis, Louis), unorthodox, hard to predict right hands (Marciano, Tyson) and the unpredictable and hard to see ones, like Johansson and recently W. Klitschko.

Johansson was not the complete package, but there's no denying in the effectiveness of what he did had, and how he used it.
Very interesting and obscure topic about different kind of right hands. There are outright right hand bombers like Max Baer and Earnie Shavers, who loaded up full force and didn't bother to disguise their bombs, and the counter right hand bomber like Max Schmeling, who may have pulled the power a little on his right so that he could gain on speed and accuracy of delivery. Johansson's right hand falls in between the two poles somewhat. I'm sure that the same can also be said about the range of left hook bombers too.

[janitor]

[quote=Senya13]Overconfident fighters sometimes do silly things. There were plenty of upsets of that kind in history. Fights like Al McCoy KO1 George Chip, Al Singer KO1 Sammy Mandell, Al Davis KO1 Bob Montgomery, Young Corbett KO2 Terry McGovern, Terry McGovern KO1 Pedlar Palmer, Michael Nunn KO1 Sumbu Kalambay, Antonio Tarver KO2 Roy Jones Jr, etc.


I think that it is a grosley sweeping generalization to chalk all these fight outcomes up to overconfidence. Many of them are due to other factors or a range of factors. I verry much doubt that Pedlar Palmer had any reason to be overconfident against Terry McGovern or Roy Jones against Antonio Tarver second time round.


I'd like you to voice your picks.


Personaly I would make Johansen even money or better against everybody Marvin Hart fought apart from Jack Johnson.

[OLD FOGEY]

What power? The one he used to knock out Lloyd Barnett, Erik Jensen, Ansell Baba Adams, Aldo Pellegrini, Uber Bacilieri, Joe Bygraves, Hans Friedrich, Archie McBride? I'd bet my house that Lamar Clark would go through this opposition with a perfect record, all by KO.


What he could do in Machen fight? Use the fact that he was completely unknown and make Machen change his style to something unusual for him, throw any thoughts about defense out the window trying to achieve a quick KO?


Even young Foreman looked like a much better boxer than Johansson.


Johansson is a tomato can compared to Ruiz. If they fought ten times, Ruiz would win all ten, most by KO.

Who did Lamar Clark fight and defeat that leads you to think he would be a likely winner over Joe Bygraves, Lloyd Barnett, or Archie McBride, or any of the others you listed? Clark never beat anyone close to these men.
Your equating of Clark with Johansson is beyond bizarre.

As for the Machen fight, why was a man who was European champion and had been a top ten boxer for three years unknown? That is nuts.

If you think Foreman is the better boxer--fine. But Foreman is an ackwowledged all time great.