Peter Jackson Vs Jack Johnson

[Grebfan9]

PETER JACKSON WAS A GREAT FIGHTER!!! HE HAD POWER, BOXING
SKILLS AND GREAT STAMINA.

WE ALL KNOW ABOUT JACK JOHNSON'S GREAT SKILLS. QUESTION
IS - COULD JOHNSON BEAT JACKSON IN A 45 ROUND FIGHT???

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS MATCHUP????



Grebfan9
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[apollack]

I favor Jackson. Johnson might have had a bit better one punch power, but Jackson was better in every other area.

[janitor]

I favor Jackson. Johnson might have had a bit better one punch power, but Jackson was better in every other area.

An interesting viewpoint. I get the idea that Jackson might have been a bit like a larger Gene Tunney.

[Luigi1985]

Jackson was such a complete boxer, fast on his feet, tricky, perfectly paced his shots, very good jab, etc., I would seriously favour him to outbox Johnson...

[Mendoza]

Jackson was such a complete boxer, fast on his feet, tricky, perfectly paced his shots, very good jab, etc., I would seriously favour him to outbox Johnson...

I too would favor Jackson. Style wise Jackson was very quick and fast. He threw the type fo quick & straight punhces ( Like O'brein but with more power and range ) that would likely land on Johsnon.

The best style to defeat Jackson was an action oriented puncher. Jackson had such a fight vs Frank Slavin. Slavin was something of an early version of Jack Dempsey.

Slavin had a good amount of power, size and speed in his era. Slavin put away Kilrain much faster than Sullvian did, and crushed a very tough and scrappy Mick Dooley in 1. Sullivan could have fought Slavin. The editor of the Police Gazette, Richard Fox gave his magazine belt to Slavin when Sullivan failed to meet him.

At any rate, Jackson vs Salvain is a rare prime vs prime match. Here is the report which will shed light on Jackson's ability in the ring. Slavin was undefeated at 30-0-5 when he meet Jackson.



[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Luigi1985]

I too would favor Jackson. Style wise Jackson was very quick and fast. He threw the type fo quick & straight punhces ( Like O'brein but with more power and range ) that would likely land on Johsnon.

The best style to defeat Jackson was an action oriented puncher. Jackson had such a fight vs Frank Slavin. Slavin was something of an early version of Jack Dempsey.

Slavin had a good amount of power, size and speed in his era. Slavin put away Kilrain much faster than Sullvian did, and crushed a very tough and scrappy Mick Dooley in 1. Sullivan could have fought Slavin. The editor of the Police Gazette, Richard Fox gave his magazine belt to Slavin when Sullivan failed to meet him.

At any rate, Jackson vs Salvain is a rare prime vs prime match. Here is the report which will shed light on Jackson's ability in the ring. Slavin was undefeated at 30-0-5 when he meet Jackson.



[Only registered and activated users can see links]


I completely agree with you, thanks for the link! :thumbsup Good to have you here, Mendoza!

Ah, btw, Mendoza, just out of curiosity, which boxing historians do you like/ respect the most and which not?

[amhlilhaus]

can anyone post the jackson-slavin report? my adobe doesn't work!!!

[LeonMcS]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Hes the champ of Australia so he must win! Pictured is a book I found in a secondhand bookshop buried away up the back. Best $3 I ever spent!