jack johnson vs wladimir klitschko [Archive]

rekcutnevets

10-31-2009, 08:29 PM

Posted by mr. magoo
Thread closed. Not quite, even though I agree with him. Good post Pontius, I'm picking Wlad myself. I just want to offer up something on Johnson's behalf.

Jack Johnson spotted Joe Louis' vulnerability a couple years before Schmeling took advantage of that opening. Johnson was actually training, and trying to get a shot at the then contender Louis.

Johnson may see that Wlad is somewhat vulnerable to an attack down the middle. Corrie Sander's straight left was something Wlad had no answer for. I still think that Wlad is vulnerable to a similar attack.

Johnson would have been 36 years old when Louis was born. I think Johnson may have had the right idea, but be physically incapable of executing his plan. I feel this may also be true against Wlad. Johnson would probably see the opening, but be too small to take advantage.

Jack Johnson was able to outbox the much larger Willard on his way to being stopped in the 26th round, a month before turning 37. I can't rule him out entirely.

Bummy Davis

10-31-2009, 08:35 PM

A diiferent type of Giant is Vlad..Great condition a monster like Jab which did not exsist in Johnsons day and a right hand left hook when he decides to let it go....Jonson on the recieving end of Vlads jab until Vlad drops the Boom

PetethePrince

10-31-2009, 08:42 PM

This is a terrible style matchup for Johnson. You need offense, pressure, or at least some sort of speed/attack to combat and beat Wlad. Johnson would probably get Koed toward the late stages of the fight.

mcvey

11-01-2009, 02:13 AM

Under modern (post-40's) boxing rules, i don't see Johnson winning even if he's the greater boxer. He never had to deal with much jabs, combination punching or outside work from his opponents, not to mention that 90% of his opponents scaled below 200lbs. Wlad has one of the best jabs AND right hands in history and has always been as a fish in the water against smaller, defensive boxers without top end power, which is what Johnson is.

Just a question Chris,Boxrec has 19 weights listed for Johnson's opponents,10 are below 200lbs and 9 are over ,have you got more info to make the claim that "90% of Johnson's opponents were under 200lbs".?

mcvey

11-01-2009, 03:29 PM

Well Chris?

janitor

11-01-2009, 03:33 PM

Just a question Chris,Boxrec has 19 weights listed for Johnson's opponents,10 are below 200lbs and 9 are over ,have you got more info to make the claim that "90% of Johnson's opponents were under 200lbs".?

Johnson is often criticised for fighting smaller fighters but he probably beat more top fighters over 200 lbs than any champion before the 70s. His career is esentialy one that turned on wins over 200lb+ fighters like Martin, McVean and Jeffries.

It is particularly worth noting that he beat some defensive fighters who were taller and rangier than him.

ChrisPontius

11-01-2009, 05:57 PM

Just a question Chris,Boxrec has 19 weights listed for Johnson's opponents,10 are below 200lbs and 9 are over ,have you got more info to make the claim that "90% of Johnson's opponents were under 200lbs".?

Of those 9 above 200lbs, 6 are journeymen or less that he faced when he was far past his best himself.

The other 3 are:

Jeffries (shot)
Moran (journeyman)
Ross (journeyman)

Not exactly a strong case.

mcvey

11-01-2009, 06:02 PM

Of those 9 above 200lbs, 6 are journeymen or less that he faced when he was far past his best himself.

The other 3 are:

Jeffries (shot)
Moran (journeyman)
Ross (journeyman)

Not exactly a strong case.

I would say Moran is a grade above most of Wlads opposition,and likely Ross too.
I take it you concede the technical argument that 90% of Johnson's opponents were not under 200lbs?
Though what that means exactly, I am not sure, for example ,Jeffries only fought ONE man of 200lbs[Ruhlin] until his aborative comeback against Johnson.

janitor

11-01-2009, 06:13 PM

ChrisPontius

11-01-2009, 06:15 PM

I would say Moran is a grade above most of Wlads opposition,and likely Ross too.
I take it you concede the technical argument that 90% of Johnson's ooponents were not under 200lbs?
Though what that means exactly, I am not sure, for example ,Jeffries only fought ONE man of 200lbs[Ruhlin] until his aborative comeback against Johnson.

We'll never know the real number, but most of Johnson's opponents were smaller than him and below 200 or 210lbs. Wlad doesn't have that luxury. Wlad was blasted out by Sanders, a limited, but hard hitting super heavyweight. Johnson was blasted out by Choynski, a hard hitting super middleweight.

And as such, Jeffries is just as, or probably even more unproven against 200+lbs heavyweights that are actually capable fighters, and not the Ed Dunkhorsts of the world.

As for Moran, a man who nearly lost as many as he won, sorry but he is a level below Wlad's opposition, unless you're talking about the guys he faced during his first years.

janitor

11-01-2009, 06:24 PM

[quote=ChrisPontius;5301660]We'll never know the real number, but most of Johnson's opponents were smaller than him and below 200 or 210lbs. Wlad doesn't have that luxury. Wlad was blasted out by Sanders, a limited, but hard hitting super heavyweight. Johnson was blasted out by Choynski, a hard hitting super middleweight.

Choynski had something that Sanders never had.

A resume.

The orthodoxy on this site seems to be that beating a big fighter who is cr4p is better than beating a small fighter who is a pound for pound legend.

And as such, Jeffries is just as, or probably even more unproven against 200+lbs heavyweights that are actually capable fighters, and not the Ed Dunkhorsts of the world.

What was available?

Gus Rhulin was the best challenger over 200 lbs at the time by a generous margin.

As for Moran, a man who nearly lost as many as he won, sorry but he is a level below Wlad's opposition, unless you're talking about the guys he faced during his first years.

You only have a fragment of Morans resume and it is basicaly his record at world level.

mcvey

11-01-2009, 06:30 PM

We'll never know the real number, but most of Johnson's opponents were smaller than him and below 200 or 210lbs. Wlad doesn't have that luxury. Wlad was blasted out by Sanders, a limited, but hard hitting super heavyweight. Johnson was blasted out by Choynski, a hard hitting super middleweight.

And as such, Jeffries is just as, or probably even more unproven against 200+lbs heavyweights that are actually capable fighters, and not the Ed Dunkhorsts of the world.

As for Moran, a man who nearly lost as many as he won, sorry but he is a level below Wlad's opposition, unless you're talking about the guys he faced during his first years.

Sanders, your "super heavyweights" best weight was likely under 220lbs if you trimmed the flab from his midsection,I don't think I would call him a super heavyweight myself.

Seamus

11-01-2009, 07:37 PM

[quote]

Choynski had something that Sanders never had.

A resume.

The orthodoxy on this site seems to be that beating a big fighter who is cr4p is better than beating a small fighter who is a pound for pound legend.

No, some of us are enlightened enough to recognize yesteryear's supermiddleweights who masquaraded as heavies would not last a round with today's rolly polly big men.

mcvey

11-01-2009, 07:45 PM

[quote=janitor;5301722]

No, some of us are enlightened enough to recognize yesteryear's supermiddleweights who masquaraded as heavies would not last a round with today's rolly polly big men.

Given your statement.
How would you account for Choynsky conceding 52 lbs to Jeffries and getting a 20rds draw?

Seamus

11-01-2009, 08:43 PM

[quote=Seamus;5302156]

Given your statement.
How would you account for Choynsky conceding 52 lbs to Jeffries and getting a 20rds draw?

Jeffries wasn't that good. A big athletic guy who struggle mightily with small, crude guys who wouldn't rate at HW a few decades later. Jeffries impressed his contemporaries with his size and athleticism, both of which would be unimpressive in this day and age.

ChrisPontius

11-02-2009, 04:14 AM

Why would you as a student of the era think that either Moran or Ross was a journeyman?

Because they had a shitload of losses to almost every top guy they faced and some none-top opponents.

Choynski had something that Sanders never had.

A resume.

The orthodoxy on this site seems to be that beating a big fighter who is cr4p is better than beating a small fighter who is a pound for pound legend.

Great for him that he had a resume, but since heavyweights grew bigger, the "dangerous middleweight puncher" has gone instinct. And it does say something about the heavyweights who had to deal with TALENT of their own size, compared to Johnson and Jeffries who stood alone in a division of smaller talented, and big untalented men.

What was available?

Gus Rhulin was the best challenger over 200 lbs at the time by a generous margin.

Which goes to show you how dreadful the talent above 200lbs was back then, and would be for another two decades.

You only have a fragment of Morans resume and it is basicaly his record at world level.

Yes, and it's shit.

Sanders, your "super heavyweights" best weight was likely under 220lbs if you trimmed the flab from his midsection,I don't think I would call him a super heavyweight myself.

Sanders is 6'4 and was in good shape at 225lbs against Wlad.

How would it look if Wlad was lambasted in 3 rounds by Joe Calzaghe or Mikkel Kessler? The criticism wouldn't stop and you know it.

p.s. I'm not Mendoza. Bringing derogatory remarks (or rightful criticism, if you will) about Jeffries into to the discussion does not anger me.

mcvey

11-02-2009, 04:40 AM

Because they had a shitload of losses to almost every top guy they faced and some none-top opponents.

Great for him that he had a resume, but since heavyweights grew bigger, the "dangerous middleweight puncher" has gone instinct. And it does say something about the heavyweights who had to deal with TALENT of their own size, compared to Johnson and Jeffries who stood alone in a division of smaller talented, and big untalented men.

Which goes to show you how dreadful the talent above 200lbs was back then, and would be for another two decades.

Yes, and it's shit.

Sanders is 6'4 and was in good shape at 225lbs against Wlad.

How would it look if Wlad was lambasted in 3 rounds by Joe Calzaghe or Mikkel Kessler? The criticism wouldn't stop and you know it.

p.s. I'm not Mendoza. Bringing derogatory remarks (or rightful criticism, if you will) about Jeffries into to the discussion does not anger me.
Not trying to anger you Chris,and not being derogatory to Jeffries.Let me try another tack,how do you account for built up middles like Toney and Byrd having such success against modern day super heavies?

Genesis

11-02-2009, 05:28 AM

At least Choynski was an ellite fighter at the time, Sanders, despite being a "super-Heavyweight" never had no decent wins prior to Wlad or after beating Wlad. Choynski gave Jeffries a good fight, even the granite chinned 6'2" 220 pound Jeffries said Choynski was a hard hitter.

I even think a prime Jeffries beats Wlad. Jeffries had better stamina than Wlad, a better chin than Wlad, a solid body attack and would catch up with him.

Mendoza

11-02-2009, 05:39 AM

you need more than a jab to beat johnson, johnson beats wlad in a UD

O'Brein out jabbed Johnson. Lucky for Wlad he has an all time right hand, a deadly left hook, tremendous size, tremendous power, and top end hand speed.

The fact that Johnson fights safety first doesn't help his chances here. This fight is a mis-match. Wlad via KO.

Mendoza

11-02-2009, 05:43 AM

[quote=Seamus;5302156]

Given your statement.
How would you account for Choynsky conceding 52 lbs to Jeffries and getting a 20rds draw?

Choysnki was the " name " fighter going in to this match. He was also in his prime. Jeffries was a novice. Jeffries according to his book to fisted Jeff, floored Chiynski three times, and had him on the run and on defense most of the second half of the right. Somehow I knew you throw Jeffries in this thread. If Johnson had trouble taking Choynski's power shots, wait until Wald hits him.

ChrisPontius

11-02-2009, 06:03 AM

Not trying to anger you Chris,and not being derogatory to Jeffries.Let me try another tack,how do you account for built up middles like Toney and Byrd having such success against modern day super heavies?

Fair enough.

As for your question: they didn't.

Byrd:
Got outclassed by both Klitschko's, but won once on an injury. A paper win but he was far behind on all scorecards having won only two or three rounds after the 9th. Against Wlad he didn't win a single round in two fights. Ibeabuchi knocked him out. To be fair, he did beat Golota, even if it was close and Golota was past his best. He also beat McCline, but these are cases of a very good small man beating a mediocre big man. Watch a very good small man against a very good big man in his fights with the Klitschko's. Chris also schooled Tua, but at 5'9 i'd hardly say he's a superheavyweight. Still, that was a master performance.

Toney:
His record against ranked heavies is 1-1-1-1. Hardly impressive, especially when you consider the lone win was against a 42 year old Holyfield who was struggling with a shoulder injury at that time. Lost twice to Peter, avoided both Klitschko's - was offered a gift title shot in 2004 by Vitali and in 2005 by Wlad, respectively, but turned them down, while repeating racist bullshit and how he'd beat them both in one night.

Genesis

11-02-2009, 06:06 AM

I don't know why some guys claim "Johnson v Wlad" is a mismatch.

Wlad's fight with Sanders was a mismatch, but it was Sanders who made it mismatch, not Wlad.

In fact, every fight Wlad has lost (by stoppage) was against a guy everyone thought he would beat comfortably.

Johnson is better skill wise than Wlad by a traditionalists view. Wlad sometimes paws the jab and doesn't keep his gloves up (what defenders want to say about Johnson). Sometimes like against 6'1" Sergi Igbramov, his right-hand was non-existant, he didn't even want to throw it. Wlad also mostly fights to preserve energy and plays with his weaker shorter fighters while people want to critize Johnson for doing the same.

Johnson win over Jeffries is better than anything Wlad has done. Yes Jeffries was past it, but he was still strong and went 15 rounds before being dropped. If the fight was today Jeffries would have been decisioned after 12 rounds.

The Jeffries that Johnson fought was better than every fighter that Wlad has beaten. If anyone disputes this, then name one fighter that has a greater or on par legacy that Wlad has beaten? That Jeffries would probably rough up the timid Wlad.

Mendoza

11-02-2009, 06:08 AM

Fair enough.

As for your question: they didn't.

Byrd:
Got outclassed by both Klitschko's, but won once on an injury. A paper win but he was far behind on all scorecards having won only two or three rounds after the 9th. Against Wlad he didn't win a single round in two fights. Ibeabuchi knocked him out. To be fair, he did beat Golota, even if it was close and Golota was past his best. He also beat McCline, but these are cases of a very good small man beating a mediocre big man. Watch a very good small man against a very good big man in his fights with the Klitschko's. Chris also schooled Tua, but at 5'9 i'd hardly say he's a superheavyweight. Still, that was a master performance.

Toney:
His record against ranked heavies is 1-1-1-1. Hardly impressive, especially when you consider the lone win was against a 42 year old Holyfield who was struggling with a shoulder injury at that time. Lost twice to Peter, avoided both Klitschko's - was offered a gift title shot in 2004 by Vitali and in 2005 by Wlad, respectively, but turned them down, while repeating racist bullshit and how he'd beat them both in one night.

Nails it. One small thing to add. Byrd said Vitali, who tore his shoulder in round three was harder to fight than Wlad was.

Unforgiven

11-02-2009, 06:14 AM

I voted draw because this would be the most dreary dull fight ever, with neither deserving the win.

I find some of the comments about Johnson laughable though - "he never had to deal with any jabs" ........ how can anyone actually claim that ?Who knows what styles his opponents fought. Very few of Johnson's fights were filmed. Very few of Johnson's opponents' fights exist on film anywhere.
And, yes, the "jab" or straight left lead was a mainstay of many fighter's repetoires in those days.

Unforgiven

11-02-2009, 06:18 AM

Fair enough.

As for your question: they didn't.

Byrd:
Got outclassed by both Klitschko's, but won once on an injury. A paper win but he was far behind on all scorecards having won only two or three rounds after the 9th. Against Wlad he didn't win a single round in two fights. Ibeabuchi knocked him out. To be fair, he did beat Golota, even if it was close and Golota was past his best. He also beat McCline, but these are cases of a very good small man beating a mediocre big man. Watch a very good small man against a very good big man in his fights with the Klitschko's. Chris also schooled Tua, but at 5'9 i'd hardly say he's a superheavyweight. Still, that was a master performance.

Toney:
His record against ranked heavies is 1-1-1-1. Hardly impressive, especially when you consider the lone win was against a 42 year old Holyfield who was struggling with a shoulder injury at that time. Lost twice to Peter, avoided both Klitschko's - was offered a gift title shot in 2004 by Vitali and in 2005 by Wlad, respectively, but turned them down, while repeating racist bullshit and how he'd beat them both in one night.

True. But most of the "natural" and big heavyweights of the last 10 years have equally shitty credentials.

mcvey

11-02-2009, 06:40 AM

[quote=mcvey;5302200]

Choysnki was the " name " fighter going in to this match. He was also in his prime. Jeffries was a novice. Jeffries according to his book to fisted Jeff, floored Chiynski three times, and had him on the run and on defense most of the second half of the right. Somehow I knew you throw Jeffries in this thread. If Johnson had trouble taking Choynski's power shots, wait until Wald hits him.
I actually brought Jeffries into the thread,and purely because he was the first of the big heavyweights,not to derogate him in any way.
Jeffries was indeed a novice,and Choynsky a very experienced fighter.
As to how many times Choynsky was floored , I would not place any faith in Fullerton's book it is a paen of hero worship and full of bollocks ,like the drugged tea excuse for Jeffries losing to Johnson. [ Jeffries did not write it , he made some comments that Fullerton included without any checking] . Hopefully Pollack's book will be more even handed.

Unforgiven

11-02-2009, 06:45 AM

If Johnson had trouble taking Choynski's power shots, wait until Wald hits him.

That's the problem - I fear we will be waiting a long time. Wlad takes ages to unleash his power shots at the best of times. Against a spoiler like Johnson we're in for a boring stagnant bout (I refuse to describe it as a "fight").

Mr Butt

11-02-2009, 06:49 AM

must admit when i thought of this match-up i thought stinker, i was tempted to name harry gibbs as ref and insert a double DQ option as i could see mr gibbs chucking them both out afrter a few warnings for lack of action

anarci

11-02-2009, 07:39 AM

I am very well knowledged in the sweet science,but to me this thread is crazy, any smart boxing mind knows the dirrrence in this syle of HTH matchup. For his era Jack is way above klitchko, Hth i think you all know the outcome, I dont thinik any of the threads that compare turn of the century fighters against modern day fighters is right. As far as heavys go Liston was the first great heavey to compete with todays . I love Louis but im not sure how his chin would hold up today.

round15

11-02-2009, 12:49 PM

Jack Johnson was way ahead of his time. Into his late thirties and early forties, the guy would still visit Stillman's gym, take on the best prospect and give him a complete schooling while other's watched in amazement.

Physically, Wlad has the advantages over Johnson. However, Johnson was one of the smartest and craftiest fighters of all time, and there's a reason why he's universally ranked within the top five of most GOAT heavyweight lists, sometimes #1. Neither Klitschko has cracked those rankings IMO, and I'd put my money on Jack Johnson over 15rounds to cleverly out-box Wlad. Definitely the danger is there, but if Chris Byrd's lightweight punches can give the Klitschko's trouble, there's no reason Jack Johnson punch arsenal wouldn't do the same if not more damage.

janitor

11-02-2009, 01:05 PM

[quote=ChrisPontius;5303963]Because they had a shitload of losses to almost every top guy they faced and some none-top opponents.

While Moran and Ross were not great fighters they were certainly not journeymen.

Moran was quite highly regarded at the time and was one of the better white hopes. He was clearly a contender.

Ross is sort of the Andrew Gollota of that period. He was beating the living tarr out of Marvin Hart but managed to loose the fight on a foul.

Great for him that he had a resume, but since heavyweights grew bigger, the "dangerous middleweight puncher" has gone instinct.

Personaly I would rather see sombody beat a great smaller fighter than a crap bigger one. I would regard a win over Joe Choynski as being better than a win over Kevin McBride for example.

The nearest equivalent to Joe Choynski in recent years would be sombody like Roy Jones. Of course with modern roids a former middlewight like Jones can come in at 193 lbs.

And it does say something about the heavyweights who had to deal with TALENT of their own size, compared to Johnson and Jeffries who stood alone in a division of smaller talented, and big untalented men.

That is not entirely fair.

Johnson won the coloured heavyweight title from Denver Ed Martin who was bigger and rangier than him and a noted technician. Johnson was often the smaller man in his key fights.

Which goes to show you how dreadful the talent above 200lbs was back then, and would be for another two decades.

You are speaking about a verry long period in a single breath.

While there were not many big heavyweights around when Jeffries was champion there were a whoile shed load while Johnson was coming up through the rankings.

mr. magoo

11-02-2009, 02:05 PM

round15

11-02-2009, 04:40 PM

Basically it goes like this. Johnson's legacy was something to behold. But, legacies cannot always be transcended into head to head abilities when comparing fighters across different eras. If legacies were the be all end all, then Sigmund Freud would be more equipped to provide phsycho therapy to a troubled youth today than a modern therapist. Yeah its fantastic that Johnson had both the claim of holding the coloured and lineal world titles while fighting the best around....Now, let's place him an era where he wouldn't be a cruiserweight fighting middleweights, but rather a cruiserweight stepping up to fight HEAVYWEIGHTS. He'd also be fighting guys who began very young in the amatuers, had better training conditions and all the advanatages of the modern era...

This is how head to head fantasy matchups need to be analyzed, and not just by comparing who had the shinier badge on paper..

Nice analogy Mr. Magoo.

You are absolutely right in a sense that Jack Johnson would be a mere cruiserweight in size against todays heavies, especially the Klitschko Brothers, Valuev and even Arreola to a degree.

To give Jack Johnson some weight in terms of his legacy, I'd bet that his boxing skillset is twice, perhaps even thrice the skillset of any of the modern heavyweights today. Feinting, parrying, rolling and hooking, side uppercuts and jabbing off the hook are boxing techniques that are rarely used to today that would certainly his cause against the Klitschkos. Maybe those techniques are irrelevant today as some have argued in different threads.

Muscle for muscle, I don't honestly think there's anyone that can compare to the Klitschkos and Valuev right now, and this is one of the areas from a physiological standpoint that Jack Johnson would lose in head to head matchups. The skills are there to beat both Wlad and Vitaly, but sizewise is a different story altogether.

janitor

11-02-2009, 05:03 PM

You are absolutely right in a sense that Jack Johnson would be amere cruiserweight in size against todays heavies, especially the Klitschko Brothers, Valuev and even Arreola to a degree.

To be fair though Johnson was a lean 208 lbs for the Jeffries fight. That is almost exactly what Evander Holyfield weighed when he fought Riddick Bowe the first time and without the benefits of any modern suplements.

Mendoza

11-03-2009, 05:55 AM

Nice analogy Mr. Magoo.

You are absolutely right in a sense that Jack Johnson would be a mere cruiserweight in size against todays heavies, especially the Klitschko Brothers, Valuev and even Arreola to a degree.

To give Jack Johnson some weight in terms of his legacy, I'd bet that his boxing skillset is twice, perhaps even thrice the skillset of any of the modern heavyweights today. Feinting, parrying, rolling and hooking, side uppercuts and jabbing off the hook are boxing techniques that are rarely used to today that would certainly his cause against the Klitschkos. Maybe those techniques are irrelevant today as some have argued in different threads.

Muscle for muscle, I don't honestly think there's anyone that can compare to the Klitschkos and Valuev right now, and this is one of the areas from a physiological standpoint that Jack Johnson would lose in head to head matchups. The skills are there to beat both Wlad and Vitaly, but sizewise is a different story altogether.

The cruiser weights who move up often give up a lot of size, and need to be extra strong in the durability department to cope with the best punchers.

I have also noted that even a top defensive cruiser weight defense tends to disappear when he's matched vs a much bigger opponent with skills and speed.

mcvey

11-03-2009, 06:07 AM

The cruiser weights who move up often give up a lot of size, and need to be extra strong in the durability department to cope with the best punchers.

I have also noted that even a top defensive cruiser weight defense tends to disappear when he's matched vs a much bigger opponent with skills and speed.

Juan Carlos Gomez?

mr. magoo

11-03-2009, 09:50 AM

Nice analogy Mr. Magoo.

You are absolutely right in a sense that Jack Johnson would be a mere cruiserweight in size against todays heavies, especially the Klitschko Brothers, Valuev and even Arreola to a degree.

To give Jack Johnson some weight in terms of his legacy, I'd bet that his boxing skillset is twice, perhaps even thrice the skillset of any of the modern heavyweights today. Feinting, parrying, rolling and hooking, side uppercuts and jabbing off the hook are boxing techniques that are rarely used to today that would certainly his cause against the Klitschkos. Maybe those techniques are irrelevant today as some have argued in different threads.

Muscle for muscle, I don't honestly think there's anyone that can compare to the Klitschkos and Valuev right now, and this is one of the areas from a physiological standpoint that Jack Johnson would lose in head to head matchups. The skills are there to beat both Wlad and Vitaly, but sizewise is a different story altogether.

The problem that I have with Jack Johnson's style is that it was a strategy which rewarded him for being the bigger and stronger man. Johnson's technique utilized a lot of holding, wrestling and the wearing down of his opponents. That's fine if you're a 6'1" 205 lb man figting 5'9", 168 lb guys, or even larger men who are washed up. It does not bode well however, when facing prime athletes who are 4-6 inches taller, outweigh you by 30 or more lbs, are stronger, and are more professionally trained. It's also unlikely that Johnson would even have an opportunity to apply such tactics given that Wladimir Klitschko is a fighter who uses his reach and outside boxing tactics rather well, and has a punch that's probably greater than any power Johnson ever felt...

I believe this fight to be a mismatch.

Above Deck

11-03-2009, 11:37 AM

Johnson would win this one on his ear.

Far too smart, wins on the outside - or in..

Id give Wlad no chance at all...

janitor

11-03-2009, 07:05 PM

The problem that I have with Jack Johnson's style is that it was a strategy which rewarded him for being the bigger and stronger man. Johnson's technique utilized a lot of holding, wrestling and the wearing down of his opponents. That's fine if you're a 6'1" 205 lb man figting 5'9", 168 lb guys, or even larger men who are washed up.

But the reality is that Johnson fought a lot of bigger oponents who were at the top of their game.

Just check the record.

Johnson had the misfortune that most of his filmed fights were against smaller oponents.

The reality is that he probably fought more world level fighters over 200 lbs than any champion before the 70s with the possible exception of Louis.

Boilermaker

11-03-2009, 09:02 PM

mr. magoo

11-03-2009, 09:31 PM

But the reality is that Johnson fought a lot of bigger oponents who were at the top of their game.

Just check the record.

Johnson had the misfortune that most of his filmed fights were against smaller oponents.

The reality is that he probably fought more world level fighters over 200 lbs than any champion before the 70s with the possible exception of Louis.

Who were his best opponents though? There is no denying that Johnson's legacy was bolstered on the shoulders of beating much smaller men who were more highly regarded than the larger fighters of the time... What percentage of his fights came against larger heavyweights, and were any of them even remotely on the level of a Klitschko?

mr. magoo

11-03-2009, 09:52 PM

Having thought about this, (other than the punchers chance), i dont see how Wlad can win this one. He has stamina problems (i am not sure why because he looks in good condition unlike most modern fighters probably it is his size mainly causing the difficulties). The way he gets around this is to jab and hit from a distance and clinch in close. The problem he has with johnson is that johnson is trained for the clinch. Even though Wlad is bigger and who knows maybe even stronger, he will badly wear out from Johnsons work in the clinches. Johnson will grab his biceps, tuck his head in close and prevent Wlad from striking effectively. Plus, he will land the uppercut while they are wrestling in the clinches and this will shake up Wlad and eventually wear him down. Even if Wlad can use his power to overcome Johnson in the clinches, it will tire him out badly and i can see him struggling for air and feeling everything that Johnson lands on him. Something not too dissimilar to what he looked like at the end of the Brewster fight.

Wlad showed some stamina problems in the Brewster fight as well as on a few other select occasions, but he has shown that he is more than capable of going at least 12 rounds and being effective for a full evening. We have to take this whole " well guys at the turn of the century were battling it out for 45 rounds " thing with a grain of salt.. Johnson spent a great deal of time in the ring clinching, holding and wrestling much smaller opponents, and throwing few punches. Its not like Johnson fought men like Hart, Langford, Godfrey, and Burns with the same type of high activity volume that Ali fought Frazier with.. I don't think its very realistic to think that Johnson is just going to "cling" to the much larger and probably stronger Klitschko for an unlimited amount of rounds, until he wears out and drops. And we can forget about Johnson pulling a Corrie Sanders, as he clearly did not have the power, size, handspeed nor style to acheive an early KO.

Wlad has a sizeable reach, good ring generalship, and outside fighting ability to keep jack at bay. He also has a punch that may very conceivably be harder than anything Jack's ever been hit with, and even if it isn't, he at least has the ability to deliver it a lot more often than anyone else Johnson's faced. I don't see Wlad having to work very hard to keep Johnson to a minimal threat either. Jack had a 39% KO ratio against mainly sub-200 lb men who were under six feet and quite often took him many rounds.. When Johnson finally finished them, it was mainly due to exhaustion from having to wrestle with a bigger man, as opposed to being hit with real power. Jack would not have this luxury against Klitschko. There is an old adage that the smaller guy usually has to work harder. Now place Johnson in the shoes of someone like Tommy Burns and see how he handles it.

Boilermaker

11-03-2009, 10:10 PM

Wlad showed some stamina problems in the Brewster fight as well as on a few other select occasions, but he has shown that he is more than capable of going at least 12 rounds and being effective for a full evening. We have to take this whole " well guys at the turn of the century were battling it out for 45 rounds " thing with a grain of salt.. Johnson spent a great deal of time in the ring clinching, holding and wrestling much smaller opponents, and throwing few punches. Its not like Johnson fought men like Hart, Langford, Godfrey, and Burns with the same type of high activity volume that Ali fought Frazier with.. I don't think its very realistic to think that Johnson is just going to "cling" to the much larger and probably stronger Klitschko for an unlimited amount of rounds, until he wears out and drops. And we can forget about Johnson pulling a Corrie Sanders, as he clearly did not have the power, size, handspeed nor style to acheive an early KO.

Wlad has a sizeable reach, good ring generalship, and outside fighting ability to keep jack at bay. He also has a punch that may very conceivably be harder than anything Jack's ever been hit with, and even if it isn't, he at least has the ability to deliver it a lot more often than anyone else Johnson's faced. I don't see Wlad having to work very hard to keep Johnson to a minimal threat either. Jack had a 39% KO ratio against mainly sub-200 lb men who were under six feet and quite often took him many rounds.. When Johnson finally finished them, it was mainly due to exhaustion from having to wrestle with a bigger man, as opposed to being hit with real power. Jack would not have this luxury against Klitschko. There is an old adage that the smaller guy usually has to work harder. Now place Johnson in the shoes of someone like Tommy Burns and see how he handles it.

You say that Jack wont spend much time clinching and wrestling Wlad, but with due respect, why wouldnt he? That was his style. He never changed for anyone else, why now. Plus, Wlad himself likes to clinch, so i dont see how wrestling does not play its part here, if we assume a liberal ref, which is only fair. My point is that Vlad will tyre from this wrestling. He just isnt trained for it. Even if he is able to assert a strength advantage, he still has to land on Jack. that is near impossible when Jack ties up arms and gets his head tucked in close. Wlad prefers to land long hooks jabs and crosses, but he will not be use to having to work in close to unload his short punches and he also wont be use to getting hit while he is clinching. No matter how much of an advantage he has, Johnson will stick to his game plan (he certainly wont try to fight Wlad at long range for obvious reasons). This means that Wlad must get tired. Of course Johnson will tire also, so it isnt one sided, but no more than he is use to. I agree that Wlad may hit as hard or harder than johnson was ever hit and to be honest i can see a knock down or two (and there is still the punchers chance) but i dont think that there is any doubt that Wlad has stamina concerns and Johnson will capitalise on this.

For some reason people think that it is crazy to clinch and wrestle a bigger and more powerful opponent. NOthing could be further from the truth. Clinching wears them down, prevents them from landing big and is generally the best method for an outgunned fighter to use. For living proof, look at the success of Ruiz, and Johnson is on another level to Ruiz. In all honesty, the clinching style probably gives johnson a better chance than strikers such as Dempsey or (dare is say it) Joe louis, purely from a stylistic point of view anyway.

mr. magoo

11-03-2009, 10:49 PM

=Boilermaker;5317481]You say that Jack wont spend much time clinching and wrestling Wlad, but with due respect, why wouldnt he? That was his style. He never changed for anyone else, why now.

No, this was what I said below:

Mr. Magoo -I don't think that its very REALISTIC that Johnson is just going to cling to Wlad for an unlimited amount of rounds until he wears out and drops.

Meaning, I don't think this strategy will work. I have no doubt about Johnson trying to initiate it though. It was the only thing he knew. He just never knew a fighter like Wlad.

Plus, Wlad himself likes to clinch, so i dont see how wrestling does not play its part here, if we assume a liberal ref, which is only fair. My point is that Vlad will tyre from this wrestling.

There is a difference between using a clinche to stop an attack on the way in, ( which Wlad does ), and using holding techniques on a constant basis to try and over power and wear down your adversary ( which Johnson does. ) And no, I don't think that Johnson's tactics will work for reasons which I've already covered.

He just isnt trained for it. Even if he is able to assert a strength advantage, he still has to land on Jack. that is near impossible when Jack ties up arms and gets his head tucked in close. Wlad prefers to land long hooks jabs and crosses, but he will not be use to having to work in close to unload his short punches and he also wont be use to getting hit while he is clinching.

I really don't think Johnson is going to be able to tie up Wlad the way that he did men like Burns, Langford and some of the others. The techniques are there, but the physical tools are not.. I also disagree that his defense will be totally impervious to Wlad's outside attacks. His Jab is almost as good, or let's at least say " comparable" to Larry Holmes', and he has plenty of force behind it. He's also improved his footwork tremendously, and even if he lands on Johnson's guard, you can rest assured that it won't feel like getting hit by a middleweight.

No matter how much of an advantage he has, Johnson will stick to his game plan (he certainly wont try to fight Wlad at long range for obvious reasons). This means that Wlad must get tired. Of course Johnson will tire also, so it isnt one sided, but no more than he is use to. I agree that Wlad may hit as hard or harder than johnson was ever hit and to be honest i can see a knock down or two (and there is still the punchers chance) but i dont think that there is any doubt that Wlad has stamina concerns and Johnson will capitalise on this.

Fair enough.

For some reason people think that it is crazy to clinch and wrestle a bigger and more powerful opponent. NOthing could be further from the truth. Clinching wears them down, prevents them from landing big and is generally the best method for an outgunned fighter to use. For living proof, look at the success of Ruiz, and Johnson is on another level to Ruiz. In all honesty, the clinching style probably gives johnson a better chance than strikers such as Dempsey or (dare is say it) Joe louis, purely from a stylistic point of view anyway.

In all fairness, John Ruiz was not overly accustomed to fighting middleweight or light heavyweight sized fighters the way that Johnson was, and incidentally, when he did, one of those " outside strikers" utilized his boxing game to make him look rather silly.

Boilermaker

11-03-2009, 11:52 PM

No, this was what I said below:

Meaning, I don't think this strategy will work. I have no doubt about Johnson trying to initiate it though. It was the only thing he knew. He just never knew a fighter like Wlad.

ok.

There is a difference between using a clinche to stop an attack on the way in, ( which Wlad does ), and using holding techniques on a constant basis to try and over power and wear down your adversary ( which Johnson does. ) And no, I don't think that Johnson's tactics will work for reasons which I've already covered.

I really don't think Johnson is going to be able to tie up Wlad the way that he did men like Burns, Langford and some of the others. The techniques are there, but the physical tools are not.. I also disagree that his defense will be totally impervious to Wlad's outside attacks. His Jab is almost as good, or let's at least say " comparable" to Larry Holmes', and he has plenty of force behind it. He's also improved his footwork tremendously, and even if he lands on Johnson's guard, you can rest assured that it won't feel like getting hit by a middleweight.

I do agree that Vlad has improved, and once we see him finish his career (passing or failing more tests) and see where some of his oponents end up, i think it will be easier to pick. He does has a good jab. Though contrary to popular opinion, the jab is not that unusual for johnson to deal with. Willard is not as far removed from Vlad as people seem to think, though i agree that offensively,Wlad does ask more questions and did have probably a faster and harder jab. It is conceiverable though that Willard at 230 plus pounds and just as big as Wlad hit every bit as hard. Unlike Vlad his uppercut actually killed a person! Willard Ko d old Jack, but it certainly wasnt from the first punch landed. I think it only fair to consider that Vlad would need to land quite a bit before he put Jack away.

In all fairness, John Ruiz was not overly accustomed to fighting middleweight or light heavyweight sized fighters the way that Johnson was, and incidentally, when he did, one of those " outside strikers" utilized his boxing game to make him look rather silly.

I am not sure what you are referring to here. Do you mean the Tua fight? Because as i understand, Ruiz didnt employ the bearhug and punch tactics until after the Tua fight.

Or did you mean Jones Jr where Ruiz was outboxed and made to look rather silly (oops). Well i think we can both agree that Johnson beats Ruiz? And stylistically i dont think Jones or Vlad are alike. I am in a minority here, but i actually wouldnt mind seeing Ruiz against a klitchsko brother.
In fairness to johnson, while he fought and dominated some middleweights, he also fought plenty of big fighters also. Willard Jeffries fliynn kauffman Moran and ross were all decent sized heavyweights, certainly above the light heavy limit. This is not including his pre title big heavyweights.

Mendoza

11-04-2009, 05:30 AM

Boilermaker says: You say that Jack wont spend much time clinching and wrestling Wlad, but with due respect, why wouldnt he? That was his style. He never changed for anyone else, why now.

I did not see Johnson clinching or wrestling as often vs. Willard. Besides Wlad has a very active jab and moves his feet much better in comparison to Willard. There is little clinching in a Wlad fight unless he wants it.

Plus, Wlad himself likes to clinch, so i dont see how wrestling does not play its part here, if we assume a liberal ref, which is only fair. My point is that Vlad will tyre from this wrestling. He just isnt trained for it. Even if he is able to assert a strength advantage, he still has to land on Jack. that is near impossible when Jack ties up arms and gets his head tucked in close.

Johnson gets hit plenty of film from guys like Moran. If a good jabber like O'brien could land his jab, I reckon Wlad could do the same. The one solid punch Ketchel landed floored Johnson and clearly stung him a bit to the point where he had to roll over and brace himself to get up. You can't get away with a low guard, uneven punch out put and sometimes a stationary stance vs a much taller and longer skilled boxer with a high punch out put.

mcvey

11-04-2009, 05:50 AM

I did not see Johnson clinching or wrestling as often vs. Willard. Besides Wlad has a very active jab and moves his feet much better in comparison to Willard. There is little clinching in a Wlad fight unless he wants it.

Johnson gets hit plenty of film from guys like Moran. If a good jabber like O'brien could land his jab, I reckon Wlad could do the same. The one solid punch Ketchel landed floored Johnson and clearly stung him a bit to the point where he had to roll over and brace himself to get up. You can't get away with a low guard, uneven punch out put and sometimes a stationary stance vs a much taller and longer skilled boxer with a high punch out put.

You are entitled to put your views,but a question,given that Moran had a dangerous right hand wallop [Mary Ann] ,31 kos in 35 wins , and that you state Moran hit Johnson plenty, and in a 20 rd fight .
Given that Johnson scaled 221lbs for that fight, at least 13 lbs over his optimum weight.
Given that you say Johnson had a weak chin.
.How come Moran, at no time had Johnson in any danger of being knocked down or even staggered him?
On the film , you can see Moran land his pet punch ,Johnson ,steps back ,grins, and applauds him.
How do you account for this?

Mendoza

11-04-2009, 06:05 AM

You are entitled to put your views,but a question,given that Moran had a dangerous right hand wallop [Mary Ann] ,31 kos in 35 wins , and that you state Moran hit Johnson plenty, and in a 20 rd fight .
Given that Johnson scaled 221lbs for that fight, at least 13 lbs over his optimum weight.
Given that you say Johnson had a weak chin.
.How come Moran, at no time had Johnson in any danger of being knocked down or even staggered him?
On the film , you can see Moran land his pet punch ,Johnson ,steps back ,grins, and applauds him.
How do you account for this?

Moran had a dangerous right hand wallop? Really? Who did he stop prior to meeting Johnson? Most of the best " white hopes " Moran fought either beat him or went the distance with him. Moran's Ko's came from easy opposition. Check the record and you'll see. Go ahead show me a top fighter Moran stopped prior to Johnson. This ought to be a hoot.

The reason Moran was picked by Johnson is because he want the distance with the same people Johnson had already fought, while losing to better white hopes in McCarty and Gunboat Smith.

Also, lets stop fact bending here. Moran was 21-6-2 when he meet Johnson. That does not sound too impressive to me, In fact it was not. Moran's carrer KO Ratio is 44.93%.

I have seen the almost all of the 20 rounds of Johnson vs Moran, have you? I think not. Moran lands his share on Johnson's vaunted defense, and he was nothing special. Not even Johnson's pinching of the biceps could prevent Moran from getting the better on the outside. Again, I urge you to watch the films. Johnson did his best work on inside, and barely edged this fight.

Moran would not be in the top ten today.

mcvey

11-04-2009, 06:16 AM

Moran had a dangerous right hand wallop? Really? Who did he stop prior to meeting Johnson? Most of the best " white hopes " Moran fought either beat him or went the distance with him. Moran's Ko's came from easy opposition. Check the record and you'll see. Go ahead show me a top fighter Moran stopped prior to Johnson. This ought to be a hoot.

The reason Moran was picked by Johnson is because he want the distance with the same people Johnson had already fought, while losing to better white hopes in McCarty and Gunboat Smith.

Also, lets stop fact bending here. Moran was 21-6-2 when he meet Johnson. That does not sound too impressive to me, In fact it was not. Moran's carrer KO Ratio is 44.93%.

I have seen the almost all of the 20 rounds of Johnson vs Moran, have you? I think not. Moran lands his share on Johnson's vaunted defense, and he was nothing special. Not even Johnson's pinching of the biceps could prevent Moran from getting the better on the outside. Again, I urge you to watch the films. Johnson did his best work on inside, and barely edged this fight.

Moran would not be in the top ten today.

If you refuse to accept that Moran was a hard right hand puncher , this debate can go nowhere.
Who did Ron Lyle ko?
Who did Mac Foster ko?
Who did Earnie Shavers ko ,for that matter? Not punchers?
I have told you before ,I have seen the Moran Johnson fight.
You did not answer my question about why Moran could not hurt Johnson ,so I think this is finished.
By the way you don't pinch the biceps you grasp them and apply pressure ,likewise over the tendons in the upper forearms.

Mendoza

11-04-2009, 06:30 AM

Mendoza says : Moran had a dangerous right hand wallop? Really? Who did he stop prior to meeting Johnson? Most of the best " white hopes " Moran fought either beat him or went the distance with him. Moran's Ko's came from easy opposition. Check the record and you'll see. Go ahead show me a top fighter Moran stopped prior to Johnson. This ought to be a hoot.

The reason Moran was picked by Johnson is because he want the distance with the same people Johnson had already fought, while losing to better white hopes in McCarty and Gunboat Smith.

Also, lets stop fact bending here. Moran was 21-6-2 when he meet Johnson. That does not sound too impressive to me, In fact it was not. Moran's carrer KO Ratio is 44.93%.

I have seen the almost all of the 20 rounds of Johnson vs Moran, have you? I think not. Moran lands his share on Johnson's vaunted defense, and he was nothing special. Not even Johnson's pinching of the biceps could prevent Moran from getting the better on the outside. Again, I urge you to watch the films. Johnson did his best work on inside, and barely edged this fight.

Moran would not be in the top ten today.

If you refuse to accept that Moran was a hard right hand puncher , this debate can go nowhere.
Who did Ron Lyle ko?
Who did Mac Foster ko?
Who did Earnie Shavers ko ,for that matter? Not punchers?
I have told you before ,I have seen the Moran Johnson fight.
You did not answer my question about why Moran could not hurt Johnson ,so I think this is finished.
By the way you don't pinch the biceps you grasp them and apply pressure ,likewise over the tendons in the upper forearms.

Let's not spin off into tangents. You do this all to often. Unlike Lyle or Shavers, we saw their power on film. This is not the case with Moran in his filmed fights. To compare Moran as a puncher with Shavers or Lyle is stretching beyond the point of objective credibility.You asked me about Moran's power and I set the record straight.

My point is Moran was not a big puncher, and his KO's came from weak opposition for the most part. I backed that up with facts, and you won't even go to show me an impressive KO win for Moran prior to meeting Johnson. I also showed you that Moran's Ko's percentage for his career is 44.93%.

I don't think Moran hit harder than Ketchel. In fact Battling Johnson impressed me more on film as a puncher as he made Mcvey wince from blows. Moran landed his share on Jack Johnson form boxing, not slugging. The applaud punch you refer to was hardly a big shot. I think you need to see it again.

I urge you to look at Moran's record with honesty and objectively and watch the films. He was not a big puncher.

Holmes' Jab

11-04-2009, 07:13 AM

Johnson wins via mid-late round TKO.

mcvey

11-04-2009, 09:30 AM

Let's not spin off into tangents. You do this all to often. Unlike Lyle or Shavers, we saw their power on film. This is not the case with Moran in his filmed fights. To compare Moran as a puncher with Shavers or Lyle is stretching beyond the point of objective credibility.You asked me about Moran's power and I set the record straight.

My point is Moran was not a big puncher, and his KO's came from weak opposition for the most part. I backed that up with facts, and you won't even go to show me an impressive KO win for Moran prior to meeting Johnson. I also showed you that Moran's Ko's percentage for his career is 44.93%.

I don't think Moran hit harder than Ketchel. In fact Battling Johnson impressed me more on film as a puncher as he made Mcvey wince from blows. Moran landed his share on Jack Johnson form boxing, not slugging. The applaud punch you refer to was hardly a big shot. I think you need to see it again.

I urge you to look at Moran's record with honesty and objectively and watch the films. He was not a big puncher.
You set no record straight you said Moran was not a hard right hand puncher ,and to reinforce this you said his kos were over weaker opposition,isnt that the case with everyone?
I cited the names I did ,to illustrate that several recognized big punchers ,had the vast majority of their kos over second tier opponents.
How many filmed fights of Moran are there to judge his power on?
About with Willard who had a top chin and was in safety first mode ,as it was a no decision fight,and Johnson , you judge Moran's power on this?
You have never seen Jim Jeffries ko any one, yet you confidently predict he was a top notch puncher,I dont think there is any point in continuing with this.

mr. magoo

11-04-2009, 09:42 AM

ok.

[quote]Or did you mean Jones Jr where Ruiz was outboxed and made to look rather silly (oops).

Yes, that was the one.

Well i think we can both agree that Johnson beats Ruiz?

Yes, but you made the initial comparison, and I wanted to point out that unlike Johnson, Ruiz spent most of his career fighting larger heavyweights, was KO'd on fewer occasions, and yes even fell victom to a man who launched an outside boxing attack - the type that you labled as being ineffective against the sort of fighters that Johnson and Ruiz are.

And stylistically i dont think Jones or Vlad are alike.

Nor do I. Jones used his speed, footwork and combinations to outpoint Ruiz, whereas I can see Wlad using his reach and stellar jab to the same.. In either case, I think both men are capable of beating Ruiz from the outside, and possibly Johnson as well.

I am in a minority here, but i actually wouldnt mind seeing Ruiz against a klitchsko brother.

If you're willing to sit through that snooze fest, then I'll by the beer.:cheers

In fairness to johnson, while he fought and dominated some middleweights, he also fought plenty of big fighters also. Willard Jeffries fliynn kauffman Moran and ross were all decent sized heavyweights, certainly above the light heavy limit. This is not including his pre title big heavyweights.

Very true, but I think we can both agree that some of those heavyweights need to be looked at a little closer. Jeffries hadn't stepped in a boxing ring in 6 years prior to facing Johnson. Willard was a monster among men, but was he really both a technician and athlete on the level of Wladimir Klitschko? And Johnson lost that fight ( albeit way past his best. ) Jim Flynn was 5'10, 193 lbs at the time of his fight with Johnson, Al kauffman was 6'1", 190, while Moran was 6'1", 203. These dimensions hardly compare to a man who stands 6'7", weighs 240 lbs, with every inch of his body sclulpted in muscle and who uses these tools effectively.

Mendoza

11-04-2009, 07:38 PM

You set no record straight you said Moran was not a hard right hand puncher ,and to reinforce this you said his kos were over weaker opposition,isnt that the case with everyone?
I cited the names I did ,to illustrate that several recognized big punchers ,had the vast majority of their kos over second tier opponents.
How many filmed fights of Moran are there to judge his power on?
About with Willard who had a top chin and was in safety first mode ,as it was a no decision fight,and Johnson , you judge Moran's power on this?
You have never seen Jim Jeffries ko any one, yet you confidently predict he was a top notch puncher,I dont think there is any point in continuing with this.

Yes, I set the record straight that Moran has a career KO percentage of 44.9%, and stopped no one of note prior to meeting Johnson. :deal

I also stated he took the better fighters the distance or lost. Moran was not a big puncher.:deal

I also stated that Moran's power does not impress on film in both of his filmed fights.:deal

Essentially Moran was a fringe contender type ( record backs this up ) who lost to a few white hopes, and only got a title shot because the better fighters were denied the opportunity to fight for Johnson's crown. Yet Moran was very competitive with a slightly past his prime and over weight Johnson.

Just because someone has a nickname doesn't make him great.

And you're wrong again, I have seen Jeffries stop an opponent.

Stevie G

11-05-2009, 07:30 AM

Johnson was the better more skilled fighter,but he'd have problems with Vladimir's size advantages. Putting my neck out here,but I'll say Johnson on a split one.

mcvey

11-05-2009, 10:16 AM

Yes, I set the record straight that Moran has a career KO percentage of 44.9%, and stopped no one of note prior to meeting Johnson. :deal

I also stated he took the better fighters the distance or lost. Moran was not a big puncher.:deal

I also stated that Moran's power does not impress on film in both of his filmed fights.:deal

Essentially Moran was a fringe contender type ( record backs this up ) who lost to a few white hopes, and only got a title shot because the better fighters were denied the opportunity to fight for Johnson's crown. Yet Moran was very competitive with a slightly past his prime and over weight Johnson.

Just because someone has a nickname doesn't make him great.

And you're wrong again, I have seen Jeffries stop an opponent.

Was it a middle , or supermiddleweight?