Joe Louis Vs Jack Johnson

[Bummy Davis]

Who wins it and how would it go.........

[mcvey]

Who wins it and how would it go.........
Tough pick ,I think,I will go for Johnson but he would be in jeopardy,all the time,I think Jack takes a dec.No strong argument with anyone pushing a different scenario though.

[robert ungurean]

I think Louis would take this comftorable.

[guilalah]

a) Jack time-machined into Joe's time: Louis a moderate favorite.

b) Joe time-machined into Jack's time: Louis a mild favorite.

c) Jack born into Joe's time: could go either way.

d) Joe born into Jack's time: Johnson a slight favorite.


If I didn't know what the scenario was, I'd favor Louis, but just a little.

[Flea Man]

Louis by K.O IMO. Different game.

[teeto]

Same, i favour Louis very slighlty. I think Johnson was brilliant

[he grant]

I like Johnson to nullify Louis, keep him off stride and possibly stop him late ...

[janitor]

I think that Johnson would have beaten Louis at any stage before Louis won the title and possibly after for the same reason that Schmeling did.

Perhaps as Louis refines his skills and shortens his piunches he ultimately develops his infighting skills to the point that he can take Johnsons game away.

I say Johnson takes the first fight and Louis takes the rematch.

[djanders]

I think that Johnson would have beaten Louis at any stage before Louis won the title and possibly after for the same reason that Schmeling did.

Perhaps as Louis refines his skills and shortens his piunches he ultimately develops his infighting skills to the point that he can take Johnsons game away.

I say Johnson takes the first fight and Louis takes the rematch.

I agree with everything you said, but I would add...and Louis takes the rubber match, to win the series. :D

[PowerPuncher]

Didn't Johnson supposedly tell Schmelling how to beat Louis? Johnson might have been too tricky and out think Louis in there, or Louis might catch up to him and force his fight on him, hard to pick

[groove]

i favour louis but it wouln't be easy to KO johnson.

[Bummy Davis]

I think Johnson is a good defensive fighter, fast hands and power but in my opinion Louis was the best power/combo puncher ever. You could make Joe look bad but a 6 punch combo could get almost anyone out of there. Also Louis had a tremendous jab. This fight could go 15 but I think Joe's power would get to Jack...still Johnson was a strong man and savy...2 different types of animal...like a lion vs a Crocidile

[mcvey]

i favour louis but it wouln't be easy to KO johnson.

Why not? According to Mendoza he had a "suspect chin".:patsch

[janitor]

Didn't Johnson supposedly tell Schmelling how to beat Louis? Johnson might have been too tricky and out think Louis in there, or Louis might catch up to him and force his fight on him, hard to pick

I think that it is an urban myth that Johnson advised Schmeling but he certainly predicted that he would win and how.

I think it is possible that Johnson could have given the young Louis the same problems as Schmeling did and pleanty more.

[McGrain]

I like Johnson in this fight. I think he's the wrong man.

[leverage]

johnson was great in his era, possibly any era in history. However, his opposition were primative fighters who rarely punched in combination. Joe louis was way different than anyone he ever faced. If there was ever a perfect puncher it was louis, and not only did he punch in combination, his blows were swift, accurate, and powerfull as well.

Not only that, but he was also immensly strong. Johnson would not have handled louis inside like he handled his opponents. Louis lifted opponents much larger than himself off their feet in clinches.

I'd pick louis to kayo johnson within 10 rounds. Johnsons defensive mastery was not proven against someone of louis calibre and his chin was also somewhat of an enigma. fighting louis in close would be a definite no-no and he would get caught. He might put louis down once but in the end it would be johnson who would be counted out.

[ChrisPontius]

Good points.

[he grant]

I really do not know where this definative conclusion that fighters never jabbed before the mid-1930's came from .. JamesdCorbett and Peter Jackson jabbed ... Sam McVea and Fred Fulton were know for their jab ... Johnson jabs at will in the Ketchel footage ... there is a dire scarcity of footage from the day to make these broad based generalizations ... the biggest difference was pace based on bout differences ... I appear to be in the minority but I disagree ...

[GPater11093]

i have always regarded fighters from before the 1920s primitave and would never be able to fight and beat a 'modern' fighter

however last night i was sparring a guy who was big and strong and boxed like the old bareknuckle type style. And it was very hard trust me any modern boxer would struggle.

[Ted Spoon]

There is not a harder fight for Joe Louis than Jack Johnson.

Starting with Louis' foundation of boxing he gives Johnson the first hand to mess with his delivery and countering. Johnson weaves an evil web from the outset with feinted jabs and sharp shuffling.

The quickness of Johnson; his ability to 'pounce' with his whole body to clutch n' smash with the uppercut would be a novel experience for the 'Bomber' - one which Johnson could control entire fights with against sluggers or men of well-taught striking ability.

The pace at which Louis fought would be equally obliged by Johnson who would happily work off the back foot and beg Louis' usually stolid composure to come out of its shell and eat a lead right - a shot which Louis was forever partial to.

The familiar combinations of Louis would likely not find their home as Johnson continues to fight super-safe, slapping down the 'range-finders' and peppering any well-observed 'resets'.

Ted Spoon believes Johnson has the antidote and add-on pack to confuse, outland and control the explosive Louis to a Unanimous Decision. Johnson was certainly not as vulnerable as some fans make out and he was rather adaptable himself when speaking of Louis' vaunted rematch record.

Out of the many tales Johnson told, when he claimed he knew exactly how to beat Louis, this fans ears pricked with good reason.

[ChrisPontius]

I really do not know where this definative conclusion that fighters never jabbed before the mid-1930's came from ..

Actual film of them fighting, for a start.

[mcvey]

Actual film of them fighting, for a start.
Did you not see Johnson jabbing against Ketchel?

[mcvey]

There is not a harder fight for Joe Louis than Jack Johnson.

Starting with Louis' foundation of boxing he gives Johnson the first hand to mess with his delivery and countering. Johnson weaves an evil web from the outset with feinted jabs and sharp shuffling.

The quickness of Johnson; his ability to 'pounce' with his whole body to clutch n' smash with the uppercut would be a novel experience for the 'Bomber' - one which Johnson could control entire fights with against sluggers or men of well-taught striking ability.

The pace at which Louis fought would be equally obliged by Johnson who would happily work off the back foot and beg Louis' usually stolid composure to come out of its shell and eat a lead right - a shot which Louis was forever partial to.

The familiar combinations of Louis would likely not find their home as Johnson continues to fight super-safe, slapping down the 'range-finders' and peppering any well-observed 'resets'.

Ted Spoon believes Johnson has the antidote and add-on pack to confuse, outland and control the explosive Louis to a Unanimous Decision. Johnson was certainly not as vulnerable as some fans make out and he was rather adaptable himself when speaking of Louis' vaunted rematch record.

Out of the many tales Johnson told, when he claimed he knew exactly how to beat Louis, this fans ears pricked with good reason.

Good post! Nice to hear from you!

[guilalah]

Although I, on balance, favored Joe "a little", it is true that: 1) you have a master feinter against a guy who likes to counter; 2) an alltime mid-range boxer-puncher against maybe the greatest heavyweight ever for eliminating the mid-range.

[he grant]

It's ridiculous ... there is so little footage out there yet many base an entire generations worth on it .. as if a jab and combination punching never existed before 1930 ... it s a joke.

[ChrisPontius]

Did you not see Johnson jabbing against Ketchel?

I was talking about Johnson's opponents. Most of the opponents he dealt with were unskilled, wild swinging bar room brawlers who were much smaller than him. Just watch the tape. The exception is Langford, but he wasn't even a middleweight. Joe Louis is a whole different kettle of fish.

[mcvey]

I was talking about Johnson's opponents. Most of the opponents he dealt with were unskilled, wild swinging bar room brawlers who were much smaller than him. Just watch the tape. The exception is Langford, but he wasn't even a middleweight. Joe Louis is a whole different kettle of fish.
Do you class Joe Jeanette as an unskilled wild swinging bar room brawler ?
Likewise George Gardner and O Brien?
Was Burns unskilled?

[Mendoza]

I was talking about Johnson's opponents. Most of the opponents he dealt with were unskilled, wild swinging bar room brawlers who were much smaller than him. Just watch the tape. The exception is Langford, but he wasn't even a middleweight. Joe Louis is a whole different kettle of fish.

This is mostly true. Having said that I can see Johnson giving Louis some trouble because Louis had problems being bulled around in clinches, did not like to be crowded, and was there to be hit.

But in the end, Louis offensive prowess would find its mark, and he would TKO Johnson.

[flamengo]

A left jab?? Almost a dream for the men of the time of Johnson. A Pawing Left was more in play.

[mcvey]

This is mostly true. Having said that I can see Johnson giving Louis some trouble because Louis had problems being bulled around in clinches, did not like to be crowded, and was there to be hit.

But in the end, Louis offensive prowess would find its mark, and he would TKO Johnson.

This ending is an entirely possible scenario,but not for the reasons you cited.
1 Louis was very strong and had NO PROBLEMS manhandling very big men like Simon,Baer,Carnera.
NOBODY BULLED HIM AROUND IN THE CLINCHES.
2Johnson was NOT a crowder ,he liked to sit back and counter off the back foot,and rarely took the initiative."defence allways wins in the end ,if its good enough" J J.
Johnson may have had problems countering Louis comparatively fast hands ,and accurate combos,and he would certainly have to up his work rate considerably, to cope with the more modern style of fighting.
Louis had the power to get anyone out of there ,but boxers troubled him especially those utilising fast foot work.
Training footage shows Johnson to be quick on his feet ,but generally he appears to have fought flat footed,would he be there for Louis' hooks and crosses ? Could he avoid the majority of them?
If he couldnt it is very plausible that Joe catches up with him sometime late in the fight.
I picked Johnson ,but no one has a cake walk against Louis.
Stylistically I think Dempsey swarms all over Louis taking him out inside 3 rounds,,but I think Johnson handles Dempsey easier than he does Louis.

Styles make fights!

[WBC]

A close one but i would say Louis. Johnson was a great boxer but he never fought anyone who could punch like Lewis or anyone near his calibre. Louis would land some clever angle shots and put toghether some combos and give Johnson a nightmare. I would go for a KO for Lewis before the 10th.

[Ted Stickles]

Louis all the way its a no brainer....Louis was smart that he knew when he couldnt Ko someone he would box there ears off....While Johnson was a great fighter he never fought someone of Louis's pedigree

[ChrisPontius]

Do you class Joe Jeanette as an unskilled wild swinging bar room brawler ?
Likewise George Gardner and O Brien?
Was Burns unskilled?


I've never seen clean film of Jeannette during his prime, but in any rate, Johnson never beat him in his prime.

Was Burns unskilled? Look at the film.Do you honestly believe that he lasts more than a few rounds against Joe Louis?

sHqelTqa0Iw

[punchy]

I have always favoured Johnson in a match up

[he grant]

How about adding in Johnson's agenda in his fights ... he had Burn's dropped hard twice in the first round and made a concious decision to carry him and punish him ..

He carried Ketchel and flattened him the second he was double crossed.

Amazing how Jeanette was 26 years old when he first fought Johnson but we are to believe he was a two year fighter ... what a joke. What was he doing till he was 25, accounting ? Obviously the man had years of unrecorded bouts ...

Whatever ...

Johnson, like Tyson and Jones Jr., remains a very polarizing figure who most do not look at rationally ...

[Bummy Davis]

What was Burns 5"7 and 170 lbs......may be up there in lb 4 lb sense ....Johnson was a great fighter and not a small man....Credit to Burns in the heart department, he was a blown up welter but a tough.....Louis is a different story here...still I think the fight goes late with louis stopping Johnson 10- 15

[he grant]

Did Burns ever fight welter in his prime ? I always thought at least he was a Qwai sized light heavy ... he obviously fought at heavy for the $ and was good enough to do so ..

He was very fast, cagey, strong and hard hitting, not to mention tough and very well conditioned ...great chin as well ..

[Mendoza]

How about adding in Johnson's agenda in his fights ... he had Burn's dropped hard twice in the first round and made a concious decision to carry him and punish him ..

He carried Ketchel and flattened him the second he was double crossed.

Amazing how Jeanette was 26 years old when he first fought Johnson but we are to believe he was a two year fighter ... what a joke. What was he doing till he was 25, accounting ? Obviously the man had years of unrecorded bouts ...

Whatever ...

Johnson, like Tyson and Jones Jr., remains a very polarizing figure who most do not look at rationally ...

HE,

Jeanette took up boxing late. I think he worked on docks before trying out boxing. It is highly unlikely you will find Jeanette's early fights that are not documented.

Like many who started boxing late with no amateur experience, Jeanette struggled early. He was pretty much a .500 fighter when he first meet Johnson.

As I have said before, wins over Jeanette, Langford, and McVey look great on a resume, BUT Jeanette was green as grass and .500 fighter, Langford was but 156 pounds, and McVey was a teenager when Johnson defeated him.

When Johnson met talented mature fighters who were not 156 pounds, not .500 fighters, and not teenagers, he struggled a lot. See the Choynski, Griffin, Klondike and Hart fights.

[Bummy Davis]

HE,

Jeanette took up boxing late. I think he worked on docks before trying out boxing. It is highly unlikely you will find Jeanette's early fights that are not documented.

Like many who started boxing late with no amateur experience, Jeanette struggled early. He was pretty much a .500 fighter when he first meet Johnson.

As I have said before, wins over Jeanette, Langford, and McVey look great on a resume, BUT Jeanette was green as grass and .500 fighter, Langford was but 156 pounds, and McVey was a teenager when Johnson defeated him.

When Johnson met talented mature fighters who were not 156 pounds, not .500 fighters, and not teenagers, he struggled a lot. See the Choynski, Griffin, Klondike and Hart fights.


interesting point, however Choynski was a puncher and Hart must have been a tough son of a gun.....Johnson emerged on top of the heep and was one of the better fighters of his day...I just dont think he ever fought anyone close to the 2 fisted 6 punch/combo/powerpunching of lOUIS

[mcvey]

I've never seen clean film of Jeannette during his prime, but in any rate, Johnson never beat him in his prime.

Was Burns unskilled? Look at the film.Do you honestly believe that he lasts more than a few rounds against Joe Louis?

sHqelTqa0Iw
Why dont you show the fight with Bill Squires?
That will give a better illustration of Burns boxing ability.
The last time Johnson beat Jeanette was in 1906 ,Jeanette was nearly 27 years old and had just kod Langford in 8 rds.

[mcvey]

HE,

Jeanette took up boxing late. I think he worked on docks before trying out boxing. It is highly unlikely you will find Jeanette's early fights that are not documented.

Like many who started boxing late with no amateur experience, Jeanette struggled early. He was pretty much a .500 fighter when he first meet Johnson.

As I have said before, wins over Jeanette, Langford, and McVey look great on a resume, BUT Jeanette was green as grass and .500 fighter, Langford was but 156 pounds, and McVey was a teenager when Johnson defeated him.

When Johnson met talented mature fighters who were not 156 pounds, not .500 fighters, and not teenagers, he struggled a lot. See the Choynski, Griffin, Klondike and Hart fights.

"Green as grass"? The last time Johnson beat Jeanette was in 1906 ,Jeanette's previous fight had been an 8 round ko over Sam Langford,Jeanette was nearly 27 years old.
Mcvey was a teenager ,JUST! he was one month short of 20 when
Johnson koed him in 20 rds, to add to his 2 , 20 round dec wins over him when he was 19.
Which fight did Johnson struggle in when he was in his prime? He was undefeated for 10 years.PLEASE DONT REGURGITATE THE O BRIEN WALTZ.

[Mendoza]

"Green as grass"? The last time Johnson beat Jeanette was in 1906 ,Jeanette's previous fight had been an 8 round ko over Sam Langford,Jeanette was nearly 27 years old.
Mcvey was a teenager ,JUST! he was one month short of 20 when
Johnson koed him in 20 rds, to add to his 2 , 20 round dec wins over him when he was 19.
Which fight did Johnson struggle in when he was in his prime? He was undefeated for 10 years.PLEASE DONT REGURGITATE THE O BRIEN WALTZ.

Jeanette took up boxing late. He was most certainly a novice and one with a .500 record when he meet Johnson in the series.

McVey was a teenager. There are no heavyweights at their best when they are teenagers. In fact, most all time greats would lose as teenagers to solid veteran types as they are just not ready. And the Johnson Mcvey meet was a teenager.

At least you " got it " that Langford was but 156 pounds. A far cry from the 170-200 pound heavyweight terror he would mature into in later years.

Which fight did Johnson struggle in his prime? That depends on how you define prime. Using Johnson own words he says Hart whipped him in his prime. O'Brien made Johnson struggled via out jabbing him in a close 6 round contest while Johnson was champion. And Johnson most certainly struggled in his fight with Jim Battling Johnson.

I listed THREE fights from 1905-1913 where Johnson struggled. I could add in a 4th if you want to consider getting floored by a middle weight.

If you want to read the news reports, I can post them here. The stuff I have are either reports after the fight happened, ( O'Brien, Jim Johnson ) or Johnson's own words ( Hart ).

[mcvey]

Jeanette took up boxing late. He was most certainly a novice and one with a .500 record when he meet Johnson in the series.

McVey was a teenager. There are no heavyweights at their best when they are teenagers. In fact, most all time greats would lose as teenagers to solid veteran types as they are just not ready. And the Johnson Mcvey meet was a teenager.

At least you " got it " that Langford was but 156 pounds. A far cry from the 170-200 pound heavyweight terror he would mature into in later years.

Which fight did Johnson struggle in his prime? That depends on how you define prime. Using Johnson own words he says Hart whipped him in his prime. O'Brien made Johnson struggled via out jabbing him in a close 6 round contest while Johnson was champion. And Johnson most certainly struggled in his fight with Jim Battling Johnson.

I listed THREE fights from 1905-1913 where Johnson struggled. I could add in a 4th if you want to consider getting floored by a middle weight.

If you want to read the news reports, I can post them here. The stuff I have are either reports after the fight happened, ( O'Brien, Jim Johnson ) or Johnson's own words ( Hart ).
I bet those news reports are pretty tattered and thin by now ,you whip them out at every opportunity don't you?:lol:
News reports of those times were highy susceptible to bias ,depending on who was writing the story,eg Box recs info on the OBrien NO DEC with Johnson, where there are wildly differing accounts of the same fight.
It's hilarious how you readily beleive a quote from Johnson such as "Hart beat me",yet dismiss those where he says" I had no trouble with Jeffries at all I was his superior in every department", or the Ketchel one "he double crossed me I handed him what he deserved",If you beleive one quote, surely you must believe them all? It's called" taking the rough with the smooth":lol:
PERSONALLY I WOULD BE VERY WARY OF GIVING CREDENCE TO ANY THING JOHNSON SAID ,HE CHANGED HIS OPINION LIKE THE WIND,IN ONE BOOK HE SAID THE REFEREE GOT THE TWO FIGHTERS MIXED UP AND POINTED TO THE WRONG MAN, DESPITE HART BEING WHITE!
If a man goes 10 years without defeat I think we can take it he is reasonably good!
I see you did not respond to my reply to your previous post about Johnson's chances against Louis.I think your appraisal of Louis against big men was totally off the mark ,and it surprised me .

[Mendoza]

Mendoza says: Jeanette took up boxing late. He was most certainly a novice and one with a .500 record when he meet Johnson in the series.

McVey was a teenager. There are no heavyweights at their best when they are teenagers. In fact, most all time greats would lose as teenagers to solid veteran types as they are just not ready. And the Johnson Mcvey meet was a teenager.

At least you " got it " that Langford was but 156 pounds. A far cry from the 170-200 pound heavyweight terror he would mature into in later years.

Which fight did Johnson struggle in his prime? That depends on how you define prime. Using Johnson own words he says Hart whipped him in his prime. O'Brien made Johnson struggled via out jabbing him in a close 6 round contest while Johnson was champion. And Johnson most certainly struggled in his fight with Jim Battling Johnson.

I listed THREE fights from 1905-1913 where Johnson struggled. I could add in a 4th if you want to consider getting floored by a middle weight.

If you want to read the news reports, I can post them here. The stuff I have are either reports after the fight happened, ( O'Brien, Jim Johnson ) or Johnson's own words ( Hart ).


Mcvey says: I bet those news reports are pretty tattered and thin by now ,you whip them out at every opportunity don't you?:lol:
News reports of those times were highy susceptible to bias ,depending on who was writing the story,eg Box recs info on the OBrien NO DEC with Johnson, where there are wildly differing accounts of the same fight.


I read a few reports on Johnson vs O'Brien, and they all say Johnson STRUGGLED.:lol: Also, since you mentioned Box Rec, their report says O'Brien was the better by a shade. How can say Johnson did not struggle vs O'brien???:patsch.

Show me one report that said Johnson won easy vs O'brien. :deal



McVey says: It's hilarious how you readily beleive a quote from Johnson such as "Hart beat me",yet dismiss those where he says" I had no trouble with Jeffries at all I was his superior in every department", or the Ketchel one "he double crossed me I handed him what he deserved",If you beleive one quote, surely you must believe them all? It's called" taking the rough with the smooth":lol:

PERSONALLY I WOULD BE VERY WARY OF GIVING CREDENCE TO ANY THING JOHNSON SAID ,HE CHANGED HIS OPINION LIKE THE WIND,IN ONE BOOK HE SAID THE REFEREE GOT THE TWO FIGHTERS MIXED UP AND POINTED TO THE WRONG MAN, DESPITE HART BEING WHITE!
If a man goes 10 years without defeat I think we can take it he is reasonably good!


Mendoza says: It is clear Johnson was an self centered ego manic. These types will often exaggerate the facts or lie to make themselves look good. Yet he says Hart won. There is no doubt that Johnson also struggled with Hart. :deal

Also, I see you aren't touching the Jim Johnson match with a ten foot pole, as Johnson struggled here too.:deal As usual this is a case of you either being ignorant to the facts, or biased to the point where the truth does not matter. If you follow the predictable pattern, you'll resort to personal attacks soon. :D



McVey says: I see you did not respond to my reply to your previous post about Johnson's chances against Louis.I think your appraisal of Louis against big men was totally off the mark ,and it surprised me .[


I said I think Johnson could give Louis some trouble on styles, but Louis' accuracy and combination punching make him my projected winner via TKO.

[he grant]

Man you two are linked like Ali and Frazier ...

[mcvey]

Man you two are linked like Ali and Frazier ...
Not really, I give Mendoza respect on any other subject .
Any thing that has Johnson or Jeffries involved.ZERO CREDIBILTY.:good

[he grant]

Lol !

[Mendoza]

Man you two are linked like Ali and Frazier ...

I would not say that. Ali and Frazier were closely matched. Objective readers who value dates and facts that are confirmed by either film or next day reports will side with me.

[mcvey]

I would not say that. Ali and Frazier were closely matched. Objective readers who value dates and facts that are confirmed by either film or next day reports will side with me.
If you think so why dont you have a poll? :good
ps. I'm surprised you can spell objective,since objectivity is a quality singularly lacking in your posts , when you are on your hobby horses Johnson and Jeffries.

[Mendoza]

If you think so why dont you have a poll? :good
ps. I'm surprised you can spell objective,since objectivity is a quality singularly lacking in your posts , when you are on your hobby horses Johnson and Jeffries.

Your claim that Johnson did not struggle in his prime for 10 years is bogus. Would you like me to post a thread titled, “ Did Johnson struggle from 1904-1914? “ It will not be a poll. Posters can read the fight reports, and make a decision for themselves.

[mcvey]

Your claim that Johnson did not struggle in his prime for 10 years is bogus. Would you like me to post a thread titled, “ Did Johnson struggle from 1904-1914? “ It will not be a poll. Posters can read the fight reports, and make a decision for themselves.

As you wish .
While your about it, why don't you put up one about Johnson's "suspect chin"? :lol:

[SuzieQ49]

Amazing how Jeanette was 26 years old when he first fought Johnson but we are to believe he was a two year fighter ... what a joke. What was he doing till he was 25, accounting ? Obviously the man had years of unrecorded bouts ...

I agree HEgrant


He was very fast, cagey, strong and hard hitting, not to mention tough and very well conditioned ...great chin as well ..


I disagree! Burns was not fast, certainly nowhere near the level of Stanley Ketchel like handspeed. He hit hard, but once he stepped up in competition....his power suddenly became non existent, while when ketchel stepped up in class he continued to score devastating kayos. I posted a thread where ketchel did FAR BETTER against burns competition than burns did himself.

[SuzieQ49]

Like many who started boxing late with no amateur experience, Jeanette struggled early. He was pretty much a .500 fighter when he first meet Johnson.


Jeanette stopped Sam Langford in 8 rounds, prior to Johnson winning a 15 round decision over him. This shows us jeanette was highly dangerous in mid 1906 when Johnson was beating him.

[SuzieQ49]

Why dont you show the fight with Bill Squires?
That will give a better illustration of Burns boxing ability.


Squires was D level at best. I doubt he would have lasted past the 1st 10 seconds against Stanley Ketchel.


McVey was a teenager.

Mcvea was coming off a knockout victory over colored heavyweight champion and top contender Denver Ed Martin. Martin knocked out Hank Griffin and easily outpointed Bob Armstrong. This is a signifigant win for a "Teenage" Mcvea.


There are no heavyweights at their best when they are teenagers.

Mike Tyson?

[Mendoza]

Jeanette stopped Sam Langford in 8 rounds, prior to Johnson winning a 15 round decision over him. This shows us jeanette was highly dangerous in mid 1906 when Johnson was beating him.


Sam Langford was not a world-beater at heavy in 1905-1906. Indeed, he lost to the likes of a 12-7 Larry Temple in 1905 before facing a much bigger Jeanette.

Johnson beat a 156 pound Langford, who in fact lost his next fight via TKO to a much smaller Young Peter Jackson.

When Jeanette first meet Johnson, Jeanette’s known record was 0-3 with a KO loss.

In the last meeting between Johnson and Jeanette, Jeanette known record was 8-8. In other words, he was a .500 fighter at best and a 0-3 fighter at worst. The logical conclusion here is Johnson took advantage of an in-experienced Jeanette.

[OLD FOGEY]

I really do not know where this definative conclusion that fighters never jabbed before the mid-1930's came from .. JamesdCorbett and Peter Jackson jabbed ... Sam McVea and Fred Fulton were know for their jab ... Johnson jabs at will in the Ketchel footage ... there is a dire scarcity of footage from the day to make these broad based generalizations ... the biggest difference was pace based on bout differences ... I appear to be in the minority but I disagree ...


Blame it on Jim Jacobs.

Jacobs had a collection of over 6000 filmed fights and by far the largest collection of pre-1920's fights.

This is a quote from BERT SUGAR'S FIGHT GAME, Sept 2000, issue. Page 56. This is a reprint from a late 1960's interview:

"The best that can be said about the old-time fighters is that they were the best of their time.
"By old-timers, I'm referring to the fighters who competed in the 1920's and before. Jack Dempsey for me is the bridge between the old and new eras in boxing.
"In any case, when I look at the films of the old-timers there is a complete absence of combination punching. Combination punching, as you probably know, is a series of four or five punches calculated to hit certain parts of the body. It's effective because you can miss the first three punches and knock out the man with the fourth. Sugar Ray Robinson was great at that . . . Sugar Ray made it very graphic to modern fighters just how important combination punching was. Yet the old-timers just didn't do it. That doesn't mean they didn't flurry, that is throw a humber of consecutive punches, but it wasn't as calculated as it was later.
"Another thing about fighters up to the 1920's, the left jab was nonexistent. These fighters are supposed to be the greatest of all time, but they did not employ the most basic of boxing rudiments."

On Jack Johnson:

"Jack Johnson, instead of avoiding punches by slipping and feinting, would catch the punches with his gloves, making it virtually impossible to counterpunch. Another shortcoming of Johnson's, he had no left jab. I've got eight of his fights in my film collection and he's yet to throw a jab."

The reporter brings up Jim Jeffries:

"I have four of his fights on film. Jeffries was very slow, very awkward, lethargic. He couldn't win the open Golden Gloves today."

And Dempsey:

"Dempsey fought round one like the fight was scheduled for one round. Before him, boxing didn't have the accelerated action it often did after Dempsey. If I showed you Jack Johnson and Jim Jeffries, you'd see a lot of menacing movements, unoccompanied by punches.
"Dempsey was also the first heavyweight champion to employ the left hook. Fighters of other divisions had used the left hook, but no heavyweight had. And he was the first heavyweight champ who bobbed and weaved. That was a most radical innovation among heavyweights. Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Johnson, Jeffries, Willard, and Burns. None of them did it. They fought at a slow, methodical pace."

[OLD FOGEY]

My own reaction to what Jacobs says:

1. Combination punching--largely accurate

2. Jabbing--most old-timers do not throw many jabs or try to control an opponent with the jab

3. Johnson--He feints, but how he would deal with combination punching and a strong jabber with his hands down so low is an open question.

4. Jeffries--over the top criticism. I don't think he was that bad. Not slow for such a big man.

5. Dempsey's accelerated pace--right on.

6. Dempsey's bob and weave--yes

7. No left hooks--??????. Unless he has some sort of technical definition of left hook, I don't know what he is talking about. He might be talking of the wide left of the Dempsey or Frazier type, but Fitz, Jeffries, and Johnson definitely throw left hooks on film.

[OLD FOGEY]

Jeanette took up boxing late. He was most certainly a novice and one with a .500 record when he meet Johnson in the series.

McVey was a teenager. There are no heavyweights at their best when they are teenagers. In fact, most all time greats would lose as teenagers to solid veteran types as they are just not ready. And the Johnson Mcvey meet was a teenager.

At least you " got it " that Langford was but 156 pounds. A far cry from the 170-200 pound heavyweight terror he would mature into in later years.

Which fight did Johnson struggle in his prime? That depends on how you define prime. Using Johnson own words he says Hart whipped him in his prime. O'Brien made Johnson struggled via out jabbing him in a close 6 round contest while Johnson was champion. And Johnson most certainly struggled in his fight with Jim Battling Johnson.

I listed THREE fights from 1905-1913 where Johnson struggled. I could add in a 4th if you want to consider getting floored by a middle weight.

If you want to read the news reports, I can post them here. The stuff I have are either reports after the fight happened, ( O'Brien, Jim Johnson ) or Johnson's own words ( Hart ).

1. Dwelling on the exhibition with O'Brien and the fight with Battling Johnson actually weakens your argument. Jack Johnson was handling Battling Johnson easily until he broke an arm. How many fighters look good fighting with a broken arm? This type of argument puts you in the position of using every broken arrow in the quiver in an effort to discredit Johnson.

2. That said, you have a point that can't be completely rebutted. Johnson's resume sounds awesome on paper--Jeffries, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Ketchel, McVey, Jeannette, Burns--but does not stand up that well to scrutiny. Jeff had been off for six years and was 35. Fitz was 44 and hadn't won a major bout in 4 years. Ketchel and Langford were middles. McVey a teenager. Jeannette green. Langford, Jeannette, and McVey were years from their peaks as heavies. Jeff and Fitz way over the hill. Ketchel small. Burns was in his prime, but smallish and ordinary.

I think it is fair to ask what was Johnson's most impressive win and how impressive was it?

[apollack]

I'd pick Louis by KO over Johnson.

[kmcc505]

Joe Louis was a machine. I pick him but you never really know with all timers like these guys. Still, I have Louis number one fat HW for a reason.

[Bummy Davis]

1. Dwelling on the exhibition with O'Brien and the fight with Battling Johnson actually weakens your argument. Jack Johnson was handling Battling Johnson easily until he broke an arm. How many fighters look good fighting with a broken arm? This type of argument puts you in the position of using every broken arrow in the quiver in an effort to discredit Johnson.

2. That said, you have a point that can't be completely rebutted. Johnson's resume sounds awesome on paper--Jeffries, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Ketchel, McVey, Jeannette, Burns--but does not stand up that well to scrutiny. Jeff had been off for six years and was 35. Fitz was 44 and hadn't won a major bout in 4 years. Ketchel and Langford were middles. McVey a teenager. Jeannette green. Langford, Jeannette, and McVey were years from their peaks as heavies. Jeff and Fitz way over the hill. Ketchel small. Burns was in his prime, but smallish and ordinary.

I think it is fair to ask what was Johnson's most impressive win and how impressive was it?

Very Strong points

[ChrisPontius]

Blame it on Jim Jacobs.

Jacobs had a collection of over 6000 filmed fights and by far the largest collection of pre-1920's fights.

This is a quote from BERT SUGAR'S FIGHT GAME, Sept 2000, issue. Page 56. This is a reprint from a late 1960's interview:

"The best that can be said about the old-time fighters is that they were the best of their time.
"By old-timers, I'm referring to the fighters who competed in the 1920's and before. Jack Dempsey for me is the bridge between the old and new eras in boxing.
"In any case, when I look at the films of the old-timers there is a complete absence of combination punching. Combination punching, as you probably know, is a series of four or five punches calculated to hit certain parts of the body. It's effective because you can miss the first three punches and knock out the man with the fourth. Sugar Ray Robinson was great at that . . . Sugar Ray made it very graphic to modern fighters just how important combination punching was. Yet the old-timers just didn't do it. That doesn't mean they didn't flurry, that is throw a humber of consecutive punches, but it wasn't as calculated as it was later.
"Another thing about fighters up to the 1920's, the left jab was nonexistent. These fighters are supposed to be the greatest of all time, but they did not employ the most basic of boxing rudiments."

On Jack Johnson:

"Jack Johnson, instead of avoiding punches by slipping and feinting, would catch the punches with his gloves, making it virtually impossible to counterpunch. Another shortcoming of Johnson's, he had no left jab. I've got eight of his fights in my film collection and he's yet to throw a jab."

The reporter brings up Jim Jeffries:

"I have four of his fights on film. Jeffries was very slow, very awkward, lethargic. He couldn't win the open Golden Gloves today."

And Dempsey:

"Dempsey fought round one like the fight was scheduled for one round. Before him, boxing didn't have the accelerated action it often did after Dempsey. If I showed you Jack Johnson and Jim Jeffries, you'd see a lot of menacing movements, unoccompanied by punches.
"Dempsey was also the first heavyweight champion to employ the left hook. Fighters of other divisions had used the left hook, but no heavyweight had. And he was the first heavyweight champ who bobbed and weaved. That was a most radical innovation among heavyweights. Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Johnson, Jeffries, Willard, and Burns. None of them did it. They fought at a slow, methodical pace."


Very interesting article! I wonder what the reaction was to it in the 60's. I'm guessing it went largely unnoticed, mostly because no-one could see it for themselves, and because people want to maintain their images of former legends.

Johnson is the only heavyweight who can be seen throwing a jab, but .. how do i say, it's almost like he throws it accidentally. He never tries to control a fight with the jab. The same goes for the left hook. Every now and then you see one, but you'd almost think like they're improvising punches at random, without applying it to a gameplan. Part of that may be to the loooong, long bouts (comments on pace spot on) and part because they came from the bareknuckle era and they spent more than half the time wrestling in the clinches.

[dmt]

i dont think the "experts" in the 1960s would want to listen to this even though alot of it is true. Great article old fogey

I will say however that the fighters before 1930s can look more awkward then they were due to poor film speed. One cannot entirely judge those fighters on the film available

[mcvey]

1. Dwelling on the exhibition with O'Brien and the fight with Battling Johnson actually weakens your argument. Jack Johnson was handling Battling Johnson easily until he broke an arm. How many fighters look good fighting with a broken arm? This type of argument puts you in the position of using every broken arrow in the quiver in an effort to discredit Johnson.

2. That said, you have a point that can't be completely rebutted. Johnson's resume sounds awesome on paper--Jeffries, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Ketchel, McVey, Jeannette, Burns--but does not stand up that well to scrutiny. Jeff had been off for six years and was 35. Fitz was 44 and hadn't won a major bout in 4 years. Ketchel and Langford were middles. McVey a teenager. Jeannette green. Langford, Jeannette, and McVey were years from their peaks as heavies. Jeff and Fitz way over the hill. Ketchel small. Burns was in his prime, but smallish and ordinary.

I think it is fair to ask what was Johnson's most impressive win and how impressive was it?

I'm not going to try and tell you that Jeanette and Mcvey were at their absolute peaks,but Mcvey was only a month short of 20, so while still technically a teenager he was not some 17/ 18 year old.
Jeanette was short of his very best but when he fought Johnson in 1906 he was 27 years old and had had 21 fights,stopping Langford in his previous match,so he wasn't some callow youth.I agree Jeff and Fitz were way over the hill and uncharacteristically Johnson claimed no credit for his ko of Fitz .By the same token, the same could be said for Johnson when after 26rds Willard kod him when Johnson was 37.
Cyberzone says this about some of Johnson's victims.
Denver Ed Smith= strong ,shifty with a stiff punch.
Sam Mcvey= big ,powerful.
Jim Johnson = tall strong.
Joe Jeanete= dangerous inside puncher.

Klondike = strong muscular fighter ,who could hit hard.
Joe Choynsky = hit hard with each fist.
Joe Butler= box or punch.
Ive only concentrated on their power because it is Johnson's durability that is in question.
We also have Frank Moran and his right hand Mary Ann.
A young Sam Langford, not yet at his prime but a veteran of 56 fights when he met Johnson.
Willard had a dangerous right hand but it took him 26 rds to get Johnson out of there, who was possibly exhausted at that point.
I think Johnson fought his share of punchers in those 64 fights he went without being kod.

In the two ko losses before he reached his prime Johnson was some 25 / 30 lbs lighter than the 208 lbs champion he would become.It works both ways doesn't it?

[Mendoza]

Old Fogey says: the fight with Battling Johnson actually weakens your argument. Jack Johnson was handling Battling Johnson easily until he broke an arm. How many fighters look good fighting with a broken arm? This type of argument puts you in the position of using every broken arrow in the quiver in an effort to discredit Johnson.

Good to hear from you OLD FOGEY. Did you ever read Jack Johnson vs. Jim " battling " Johnson? News reads suggest Jim was ahead. Jack was not handling him easy. What news report says this? The reports I read said Jim was the better, making the fight, and hurt Jack Johnson. When Jack quit, the judges did not know what to do. One gave the fight to Jim Johnson, the other two called it a bogus draw. The decision smelled so bad France wanted to strip Johnson of his title and give it to the winner of Langford vs Jeanette!

In addition since Jack quit in a 20 round bout according to the well re-searched Cyber Boxing Zone, Jim should have won via TKO. Read this news read below, then comment if you think Jack Johnson won the fight.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Old fogey says: 2. That said, you have a point that can't be completely rebutted. Johnson's resume sounds awesome on paper--Jeffries, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Ketchel, McVey, Jeannette, Burns--but does not stand up that well to scrutiny. Jeff had been off for six years and was 35. Fitz was 44 and hadn't won a major bout in 4 years. Ketchel and Langford were middles. McVey a teenager. Jeannette green. Langford, Jeannette, and McVey were years from their peaks as heavies. Jeff and Fitz way over the hill. Ketchel small. Burns was in his prime, but smallish and ordinary.

I think it is fair to ask what was Johnson's most impressive win and how impressive was it?


I agree with all of your points on the second post, including Burns, who was ill and at 168 pounds being his best filmed performance.

[Mendoza]

mcvey I'm not going to try and tell you that Jeanette and Mcvey were at their absolute peaks,but Mcvey was only a month short of 20, so while still technically a teenager he was not some 17/ 18 year old.


A TEENAGER. Sam McVey would get a lot better...

Jeanette was short of his very best but when he fought Johnson in 1906 he was 27 years old and had had 21 fights,stopping Langford in his previous match,so he wasn't some callow youth.

Jeanatte was FAR from his best. He had a losing record when he fought Johnson, and a .500 record at when they last meet.. When Jeanette was at his peak, he was much better than a .500 fighter.



Cyberzone says this about some of Johnson's victims.
Denver Ed Smith= strong ,shifty with a stiff punch.
Sam Mcvey= big ,powerful.
Jim Johnson = tall strong.
Joe Jeanete= dangerous inside puncher.
Klondike = strong muscular fighter ,who could hit hard.
Joe Choynsky = hit hard with each fist.
Joe Butler= box or punch.


And they are talking about the fighters at thier best, not when they were teenagers, 156 pounds and fighting at heavyweight, or .500 fighters! By the way the same web site will also tell you that Denver Ed Smith could not take a punch.

[mcvey]

A TEENAGER. Sam McVey would get a lot better...



Jeanatte was FAR from his best. He had a losing record when he fought Johnson, and a .500 record at when they last meet.. When Jeanette was at his peak, he was much better than a .500 fighter.




And they are talking about the fighters at thier best, not when they were teenagers, 156 pounds and fighting at heavyweight, or .500 fighters! By the way the same web site will also tell you that Denver Ed Smith could not take a punch.
If you took the trouble to read my post ,you will see that I concentrated on their power,not other abilities.
Using the words teenagers implies more than one.Jeanettte was 27,and had just kod Langford.
Langford was 156 lbs ,but Johnson was 185,so BOTH men were over 20 lbs below their optimum weight, and Langford had more fights under his belt.
I never suggested that Langford was prime ,but neither was Johnson.

[Mendoza]

If you took the trouble to read my post ,you will see that I concentrated on their power,not other abilities.
Using the words teenagers implies more than one.Jeanettte was 27,and had just kod Langford.
Langford was 156 lbs ,but Johnson was 185,so BOTH men were over 20 lbs below their optimum weight, and Langford had more fights under his belt.
I never suggested that Langford was prime ,but neither was Johnson.

You should focus on experience too. Sam had next to none at heavyweight. McVey had some, but he was a teenager. Jeanette have very little experience, and a losing or .500 record.

Face facts Mcvey, Johnson took advantage of the very light ( Langford ), Green/ in-expediences ( Jeanette ) and very young ( the teen aged McVey )

Yet in the entire series of 10+ fights, Johnson scored but one stoppage win and it was in round 20 when the teen aged McVey was gassed.

Focusing on a statement that reflects on a fighters prime prowess is completely out of context for Johnson in the fights with McVey, Jeanette and Langford.

Finally, there is a huge difference between 156 and 185, than 176 and 205.

Jr middle weight seldom beat cruiser weights. There is a much greater chance for a light heavyweight beating a small heavyweight.

[mcvey]

You should focus on experience too. Sam had next to none at heavyweight. McVey had some, but he was a teenager. Jeanette have very little experience, and a losing or .500 record.

Face facts Mcvey, Johnson took advantage of the very light ( Langford ), Green/ in-expediences ( Jeanette ) and very young ( the teen aged McVey )

Yet in the entire series of 10+ fights, Johnson scored but one stoppage win and it was in round 20 when the teen aged McVey was gassed.

Focusing on a statement that reflects on a fighters prime prowess is completely out of context for Johnson in the fights with McVey, Jeanette and Langford.

Finally, there is a huge difference between 156 and 185, than 176 and 205.

Jr middle weight seldom beat cruiser weights. There is a much greater chance for a light heavyweight beating a small heavyweight.

Ive never thought of Johnson as a ko artist the fact that he only stopped one of them does not surpise me at all.
To be honest my post was intended to continue from my thread about Johnson's chin,I inadvertedly posted it in the Louis Johnson section , thats why I concentrated on the power of Johnson's opponents,after seeing Old Fogey's post I though mine could sit there without being out of place.
Langford had 56 fights when he met Johnson experience is experience whatever division you are in.Johnson had less fights than Langford when they met .