Who Thinks Jack Johnson Could Step Out Of A Time Machine And Fight For A Belt?

[McGrain]

He was so cool, he probably wouldn't even be that surprised.

Anyway, the Johnson that was ready for Jeffreis - he gets out of a time machine and steps into the ring with, say, Chagaev and fight him?

If not, what do you think would need to be done with Johnson in terms of training and tune ups?

[Vincent Gottschalk]

I think Jack Johnson is over rated the guy held more then John Ruiz and he gets out classed by todays heavies Johnson, was just not busy enough. Look at old films his skill set while good at the time are crude by todays standard.:deal

[hopkinsfan07]

Johnson was great in his day but now days he wouldent be great he might win a few with toughness and will but that can only take you so far

Wladimir Klitschko ko 7

the rest UD

[hopkinsfan07]

I think Jack Johnson is over rated the guy held more then John Ruiz and he gets out classed by todays heavies Johnson, was just not busy enough. Look at old films his skill set while good at the time are crude by todays standard.:deal

you can judge it on todays standerds we have years and years of skills and styles and training tips and know how to help us but back then they had to do what they had to do

and the holding stuff is stupid if you did 20 rounds of pretty much non stop puncing you would get tired and need to hold

[hopkinsfan07]

[Only registered and activated users can see links] - look at his defence in this vid

[C. M. Clay II]

Typical answrs from guys who know nothing about Jack Johnson. :-(

Jack Johnson was a complete fighter who could fight any kind of style. I seen some of his fights where he did little holding and had good activity. Johnson also had very good footspeed, and could dart in and out of range pretty quickly. Johnson had a very good jab and could set up his offense on that as well as his defense. The reason why he fought some fights at a slow pace is because that was the pace his opponent was fighting. If his opponent set a fast pace, johnson could accomodate that situation as well.

Anyway, Johnson would pretty much clean out the division today. He would stop Wlad late, and beat all the other belt holders pretty easily, without modern training techniques.:good

[janitor]

He was so cool, he probably wouldn't even be that surprised.

Anyway, the Johnson that was ready for Jeffreis - he gets out of a time machine and steps into the ring with, say, Chagaev and fight him?

If not, what do you think would need to be done with Johnson in terms of training and tune ups?

Even in the scenario you have described the unprepared Johnson would give any of these guys a boxing lesson. He took a few fights with top opponents on the spot.

Now if I have a few months to educate him in the ways of his oponents then god help them.

[janitor]

Wladimir Klitschko ko 7


Not unless he learns to uppercut verry quickly he won't.

[ChrisPontius]

Johnson was great in his time, but will have to make a LOT of adaptations.

His style wouldn't work today, he jabbed little, i wonder if he knew how to deal with a jab (never seen him get jabbed at much) and the wrestling style won't be very effective either, especially with all the big guys around today.

[hopkinsfan07]

Not unless he learns to uppercut verry quickly he won't.

wlads hard jab would keep him away then a huge right hand would take him out

[hopkinsfan07]

wrestling style won't be very effective either, .

i disagree but not on the fact that it would or wouldent work

i dont think he is to blame for all the gragging i think 50-60% of the time it was tho other fighter starting the hold and wlad seems to hold quite a bit against hard hitters

plus john ruiz diddent do to bad with this way of fighting

[hopkinsfan07]

he made his name beating up on shitty white hopes and super middleweights. jack johnson sucks my insanely huge cock, wlad KTFO's johnson inside of a round.

im going to ignore you now

how old r u by the way becuse this sounds like an uneducated kid talking

[janitor]

wlads hard jab would keep him away then a huge right hand would take him out

Please.

Nobody is going to keep Johnson or any other all time great at range with just a jab. It is something that only happens to one dimensional fighters.

[janitor]

Johnson was great in his time, but will have to make a LOT of adaptations.

His style wouldn't work today, he jabbed little, i wonder if he knew how to deal with a jab (never seen him get jabbed at much) and the wrestling style won't be very effective either, especially with all the big guys around today.

Johnson was not just some prehistoric version of John Ruiz who wrestled with smaller fighters. It is unfortunate that most of his surviving film is against smaller fighters because it emphasises these aspects of his game.

Against much larger oponents he was up on his toes darting into and out of range and threw fast and acurate combinations. He was almost like a hybrid of Joe Louis and Gene Tunney.

[McGrain]

Johnson was great in his time, but will have to make a LOT of adaptations.

His style wouldn't work today, he jabbed little, i wonder if he knew how to deal with a jab (never seen him get jabbed at much) and the wrestling style won't be very effective either, especially with all the big guys around today.

I feel it's very possible that even without having time to study modern boxing, Johnson would find ways to have his opponent fight HIS fight, rather than the other way around.

I agree that a lot has changed. But the objectivce is still the same, no? The PHYSICAL TOOLS are still identical to the ones fighters used in Johnsons day - and Jack might just think his birthday has come early when a guy starts throwing a lot of punches at him, because of the huge number of countering opportunities.

I think Johnson is strong enough to wrestle with most of these bigger guys if he is strong enough to wrestle with Jim Jeffreis.

[McGrain]

He was almost like a hybrid of Joe Louis and Gene Tunney.


Bold!

[Mendoza]

Johnson was not just some prehistoric version of John Ruiz who wrestled with smaller fighters. It is unfortunate that most of his surviving film is against smaller fighters because it emphasises these aspects of his game.

Against much larger oponents he was up on his toes darting into and out of range and threw fast and acurate combinations. He was almost like a hybrid of Joe Louis and Gene Tunney.

Johnson was no Ruiz. Johnson had quick reflexes, good had speed and decent power. His problem was he wasn't very active, and proabably was not durable enough to take heavyweight bombs. I think Johnson is good enough to be one of the champions today, but I also think he'd lose his share and would not be viewed as the #1 heavyweight in the world today.

[hopkinsfan07]

3 of the champs arnt all that powerfull

[McGrain]

3 of the champs arnt all that powerfull

In addition Johnson was a defensive master who need not take a huge number of bombs.

He was also in with some pretty big punchers in his time.

[robert ungurean]

This is a tough call because of lack of good clear footage,so I have to also take into consideration what the old experts say who thought very highly of him.
On film the flaws I see in Johnson are very little jabbing,chin held high and only a wide slap for a left hook. But by the same token the man beat just about everyone put infront of him.
Fighting is fighting not a whole lot changes in that so I'll say yes he could step into any era and do very well.

[ChrisPontius]

Johnson was not just some prehistoric version of John Ruiz who wrestled with smaller fighters. It is unfortunate that most of his surviving film is against smaller fighters because it emphasises these aspects of his game.

Against much larger oponents he was up on his toes darting into and out of range and threw fast and acurate combinations. He was almost like a hybrid of Joe Louis and Gene Tunney.

In what fights have you seen him being a hybrid of Joe Louis and Gene Tunney?



Please.

Nobody is going to keep Johnson or any other all time great at range with just a jab. It is something that only happens to one dimensional fighters


Lewis pretty much shut Holyfield (a great) down with the jab when he choose to do so.


Wlad has a great, great jab. A master boxer like Byrd couldn't get around it and lost all 17 rounds. His jab is accurate, powerful and sets the right up perfectly.

I've never seen Johnson deal with a good jab, they didn't use jabs all that much back then because boxing was still coming off the bareknuckle style.


Johnson did most of his work in the clinches and by wrestling and throwing uppercuts. Most referees do not allow this and i think he'll be taken apart from a distance.

I do think he could beat the best middleweights, cruiserweights and lightheavies of the world though.

[Holmes' Jab]

Typical answrs from guys who know nothing about Jack Johnson. :-(

Jack Johnson was a complete fighter who could fight any kind of style. I seen some of his fights where he did little holding and had good activity. Johnson also had very good footspeed, and could dart in and out of range pretty quickly. Johnson had a very good jab and could set up his offense on that as well as his defense. The reason why he fought some fights at a slow pace is because that was the pace his opponent was fighting. If his opponent set a fast pace, johnson could accomodate that situation as well.

Anyway, Johnson would pretty much clean out the division today. He would stop Wlad late, and beat all the other belt holders pretty easily, without modern training techniques.:good

You're bang on the money with this post. Some excellent points- not many fighters in HW history nevermind the current era would have an easy night against Johnson, much the opposite in fact. The disrespect for the guy in this thread is unbelievable :-(

Johnson would likely beat many of the contenders in the current division with not much problem. The Klitchko brothers, Peter and Byrd could potentially give him tricky moments however I wouldn't make any of these guys favourite against a ring master as great as Johnson was.

[Rattler]

Lewis pretty much shut Holyfield (a great) down with the jab when he choose to do so.

You mean the same Evander Holyfield who knocked Riddick Bowe silly (well, sillier than normal) and couldn't come close to putting him away simply because he couldn't let his hands go? THAT Evander Holyfield who was years older when he fought Lewis?

Wlad has a great, great jab. A master boxer like Byrd couldn't get around it and lost all 17 rounds. His jab is accurate, powerful and sets the right up perfectly.

That's because Wlad could jab at will - Byrd couldn't threaten him with any power to make Wlad hesitent to keep the jab in his pocket.

I've never seen Johnson deal with a good jab, they didn't use jabs all that much back then because boxing was still coming off the bareknuckle style.

There's a lot we never got to see with Johnson - that's why the entirety of this thread is pure speculation. But we do know that Johnson wasn't a robot. He was a natural athlete and a smart boxing mind, so it's not inconceivable that he could find a way around Wlad's jab.

Johnson did most of his work in the clinches and by wrestling and throwing uppercuts. Most referees do not allow this and i think he'll be taken apart from a distance.

Because he would only fight in the clinches, right? No room for adaptation from Johnson?

I do think he could beat the best middleweights, cruiserweights and lightheavies of the world though.

Those divisions are as talent weak as the HW division.

[Holmes' Jab]

You mean the same Evander Holyfield who knocked Riddick Bowe silly (well, sillier than normal) and couldn't come close to putting him away simply because he couldn't let his hands go? THAT Evander Holyfield who was years older when he fought Lewis?



That's because Wlad could jab at will - Byrd couldn't threaten him with any power to make Wlad hesitent to keep the jab in his pocket.



There's a lot we never got to see with Johnson - that's why the entirety of this thread is pure speculation. But we do know that Johnson wasn't a robot. He was a natural athlete and a smart boxing mind, so it's not inconceivable that he could find a way around Wlad's jab.



Because he would only fight in the clinches, right? No room for adaptation from Johnson?



Those divisions are as talent weak as the HW division.

:clap:

[ChrisPontius]

You mean the same Evander Holyfield who knocked Riddick Bowe silly (well, sillier than normal) and couldn't come close to putting him away simply because he couldn't let his hands go? THAT Evander Holyfield who was years older when he fought Lewis?


No, but he was a great fighter nonetheless. Walcott was 37 when Marciano beat him, but it was still a win over a great fighter for Rocky.
Holyfield lost a step in speed and workrate but gained one in wisdom. That's how he beat Tyson.


That's because Wlad could jab at will - Byrd couldn't threaten him with any power to make Wlad hesitent to keep the jab in his pocket.


Partially true. But let's be honest here; it wasn't Byrds lack of power that stopped him from having succes, it was the fact that he couldn't land consistently enough on Klitschko. Otherwise he could've at least banked a few rounds, but he never did.
Wlad could jab at will because of the physical advantages he had over Byrd. And by that i don't just mean his size, but also the fact that he has very good footwork and speed despite his size. A guy like McCline is a lot easier to beat because he has size but not the athletic talent. Wlad has size and the athletic talent.

And if Byrd were to fight middles and lightheavies, he'd look a hell of a lot more powerful.


There's a lot we never got to see with Johnson - that's why the entirety of this thread is pure speculation. But we do know that Johnson wasn't a robot. He was a natural athlete and a smart boxing mind, so it's not inconceivable that he could find a way around Wlad's jab.


It's certainly not inconceivable. But i wouldn't put my money on it. The styles back then were completely different and modern fighters have had years to learn to deal with jabs from world class fighters. Johnson didn't.

If we were talking about Jeffries here, i could understand. Footage of him in his prime is shit and rare. But there are several filmed Johnson fights when he was in his prime and he never showed much outside fighting ability, even with the size advantages he enjoyed.


Because he would only fight in the clinches, right? No room for adaptation from Johnson?


I'm saying his best work would be taken away.

If it were the other way around, i.e. you were not allowed to fight at long range but only on the inside and in clinches, how much of a chance would you give Wlad against Johnson? Very little at best.

The point is that what his style was based on and where he did his best work would be taken away here.

[Jack]

Johnson was too static to avoid a piledriver jab from Wlad. He's eat them all day long.

And to answer the original post, if this Johnson had no time to adjust to the differece in the sport, he doesn't beat any top 10 heavweight or cruiserweight. Give him time to change his game to the rules and it's a different story.

Just out of interest, in which fights does Johnson show any combination punches? I really don't think I've seen any special combos.

[rekcutnevets]

No. Not out of a time machine. If he had access to what has changed about technique since he fought, and today's training and nutrition; I would give him the benefit of the doubt. That would take a couple of years to process, almost like moving from amateur to pro.

[Duodenum]

The reason we don't see Johnson getting jabbed at much was because of the way he stopped them before they got started. Jack would punch his right into his opponent's left bicep, whenever he initiated a jab towards Johnson, jamming the left into a painfully abrupt halt. In his day, he was one of the very few with the refexes necessary to do that. Jack had an extremely aggressive, proactive defense, reaching out to stymie an adversary's hands from getting shots off. He would smother his challengers on the inside, slipping his arms between theirs, and rip uppercuts within the clinches. In an era of endurance ironmen, he wore down other boxers with his wrestling ability. (Don't forget, he originally emerged as a dominate force in battle royales.)

Reportedly, there is a film of Johnson's final significant victory over Pat Lester, a 15 round decision win in a Mexico bull ring, which was shot with a motorized motion picture camera. This footage supposedly displays the more subtle nuances of Jack's defensive movements, even in his late forties. (Actually, with over 100 matches of experience under his belt by then, a frame by frame computer enhanced DVD of this bout could be highly instructive. The records indicate that Johnson was about ten pounds lighter for Lester than he was for Willard, so he was probably in reasonably decent shape for this performance.)

If the championship distance of 15 rounds was restored, Jack would fit right in today. He had over half a dozen 20 round decision wins in his career, and virtually shutout modern sized (non-steroid enhanced) Jess Willard over that distance, completely neutralizing Willard's jab in the process.

Benny Leonard decreed that the best boxers were those who could take a punch, but didn't have to. Lil Artha' did have limited ability to sustain heavyweight punishment to the head and body, and I have seen precious little footage of him in a counterpunching situation. For some reason, I suspect he might be like Orlin Norris or Jimmy Young at their very best. He was generally loose and relaxed in the ring, so he wouldn't be too stressed by today's competition.

[Stonehands89]

The raw answer to the question is no, Johnson could not simply step out of a time machine and beat a quality modern HW champion. The reason is that his style was designed for a different time and different circumstances.

Johnson, who as Duo stated above, got his apprenticeship in battle royals, sought to outlast his opponents with minimal risk to himself. Fighting like that would bring success over 20+ rounds but in 12 or even 15, Johnson would drop a decision. He simply wasn't active enough. There is a movement to emphasize aggression and determination to win into the scoring system and this wouldn't help him. Johnson sought to make fools of his opponents by making them miss and frustrating them with clinches and wrestling.

However, I believe that Johnson would be able to adapt his style and eventually do quite well given time. The man was supremely intelligent and was doing things to psyche out his foes that Ali did a half century earlier and at far greater risk. He was also a physical marvel and and had the perfect mentality to be great at any time.

[Duodenum]

If Johnson were to step out of a time machine, he could promptly begin his training by being cast to perform waltzes in Dancing with the Stars. Points would be deducted from him for excessive holding, and he might well get disqualified in modern boxing for using the tactics he did. (In fact, Jack occasionally got into trouble for that conduct during his own era, so it's a virtual certainty he would today.)

To compete at a championship level today (without growth enhancing substances), Jack would probably need to ripped to shreds at 190-195 (as he was against Burns and Flynn), and box as a cruiserweight. That level of conditioning would be necessary for his body to be able to accomodate the demands of a contemporary workrate. At that weight, he might be able to sneak a HW Title win like the Spinks brothers were able to spring on surprised defenders, but I don't know that Jack would be anything more than a transitional champion, if that happened.

[UpWithEvil]

Anyone see the episode of the animated series, "The Boondocks", where Martin Luther King Jr. emerges from a coma in modern times? I see Johnson's emergence from the hypothetical time machine being similar - Johnson sitting on the couch transfixed by the jiggling buttocks on BET.

[Nemesis]

He was so cool, he probably wouldn't even be that surprised.

Anyway, the Johnson that was ready for Jeffreis - he gets out of a time machine and steps into the ring with, say, Chagaev and fight him?

If not, what do you think would need to be done with Johnson in terms of training and tune ups?

Jack Johnson would wipe the floor with all heavies to day IMO. He had a skill of reading his opponents and working out their weaknesses, provided he had ample footage to watch of an opponent, i dont see anyone of the hw's beating him

[Nemesis]

The reason we don't see Johnson getting jabbed at much was because of the way he stopped them before they got started. Jack would punch his right into his opponent's left bicep, whenever he initiated a jab towards Johnson, jamming the left into a painfully abrupt halt. In his day, he was one of the very few with the refexes necessary to do that. Jack had an extremely aggressive, proactive defense, reaching out to stymie an adversary's hands from getting shots off. He would smother his challengers on the inside, slipping his arms between theirs, and rip uppercuts within the clinches. In an era of endurance ironmen, he wore down other boxers with his wrestling ability. (Don't forget, he originally emerged as a dominate force in battle royales.)

Reportedly, there is a film of Johnson's final significant victory over Pat Lester, a 15 round decision win in a Mexico bull ring, which was shot with a motorized motion picture camera. This footage supposedly displays the more subtle nuances of Jack's defensive movements, even in his late forties. (Actually, with over 100 matches of experience under his belt by then, a frame by frame computer enhanced DVD of this bout could be highly instructive. The records indicate that Johnson was about ten pounds lighter for Lester than he was for Willard, so he was probably in reasonably decent shape for this performance.)

If the championship distance of 15 rounds was restored, Jack would fit right in today. He had over half a dozen 20 round decision wins in his career, and virtually shutout modern sized (non-steroid enhanced) Jess Willard over that distance, completely neutralizing Willard's jab in the process.

Benny Leonard decreed that the best boxers were those who could take a punch, but didn't have to. Lil Artha' did have limited ability to sustain heavyweight punishment to the head and body, and I have seen precious little footage of him in a counterpunching situation. For some reason, I suspect he might be like Orlin Norris or Jimmy Young at their very best. He was generally loose and relaxed in the ring, so he wouldn't be too stressed by today's competition.

great post :good

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]In what fights have you seen him being a hybrid of Joe Louis and Gene Tunney?


A lot of the footage of Johnson is more misleading than informative. You only have to look at film of Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton to see that footage of the period dose not reliably depict what is taking place. Reconstructing the style of Jack Johnson is a bit like trying to reconstruct a dinosaur from a partial skeleton and some fossil footprints. You have to look at all the footage available in real time and slow motion and cross reference it with contemporary accounts.

The footage that alows us to best interpret his style is the film of a 60+ year old Jack Johnson sparring with Joe Jeanette to raise money for war bonds. If you want to see him in action for real then the Willard fight is the best resource by virtue of the fact that it was filmed with the most advanced camera technology.

What we can discearn from the available footage is that Johnson was verry fast on his feet. Against the middleweights that you deride him for fighting he is clearly faster on his feet than them and consistently outmanouvers them. Against bigger fighters like Willard he is easily able to dart into and out of range. Film suggests that Johnson had handspeed similar to Larry Holmes and was a good combination puncher. He is clearly a huch better finisher than Holmes however and has more power.

A couple of contemporary testimonies.

"A combination of Jim Corbett and Joe Louis".


"As vicious as Dempsey but faster; smarter and more powerful than Louis".

(see McCallum 1975 p 17)

[ChrisPontius]

A lot of the footage of Johnson is more misleading than informative. You only have to look at film of Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton to see that footage of the period dose not reliably depict what is taking place. Reconstructing the style of Jack Johnson is a bit like trying to reconstruct a dinosaur from a partial skeleton and some fossil footprints. You have to look at all the footage available in real time and slow motion and cross reference it with contemporary accounts.

The footage that alows us to best interpret his style is the film of a 60+ year old Jack Johnson sparring with Joe Jeanette to raise money for war bonds. If you want to see him in action for real then the Willard fight is the best resource by virtue of the fact that it was filmed with the most advanced camera technology.

What we can discearn from the available footage is that Johnson was verry fast on his feet. Against the middleweights that you deride him for fighting he is clearly faster on his feet than them and consistently outmanouvers them. Against bigger fighters like Willard he is easily able to dart into and out of range. Film suggests that Johnson had handspeed similar to Larry Holmes and was a good combination puncher. He is clearly a huch better finisher than Holmes however and has more power.

Well, i find it rather weird that all the fights in his prime that are on film show nothing like a hybrid of Louis and Tunney, but in his unfilmed fights he magically did. I never see him nor his opponents utilise the jab or combinations much.

By the way, i'm not doubting his ability or greatness. But boxing has changed a lot in nearly 100 years of changes. You can't ignore that.


About the contemporary accounts, what do you expect? They had never seen anyone so big yet so skilled and they see it in the perspective of their time. How can they critize him for not using much combinations if no one used them? It's not like someone in the 30's would say "gee, it's boring here without television". You don't miss what you don't have. These are things you gotta take into account.

Boxing was still half wrestling back then.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]Well, i find it rather weird that all the fights in his prime that are on film show nothing like a hybrid of Louis and Tunney, but in his unfilmed fights he magically did.

It is there if you tease it out of the footage.


I never see him nor his opponents utilise the jab or combinations much.


Again. It might be worth your while to go back and look again.

About the contemporary accounts, what do you expect? They had never seen anyone so big yet so skilled and they see it in the perspective of their time.

Total nonsense.

In his fight for the coloured title against Denver Ed Martin he gave up significant height, weight and reach. The contemporary acounts describe the fight as a defensive masterclass on the part of both participants.

How can they critize him for not using much combinations if no one used them?

A. Sustained combination punching was used extensively years before Johnsons time. Joe Gans and perhaps even George Dixon employed it.

While I do not question your knowledge of boxing history I think that you perhaps could take a more in depth look at some early film and pick out more detail.

[ChrisPontius]

It is there if you tease it out of the footage.


Sorry but that sounds a bit like "seeing what you want to see" to me.




Again. It might be worth your while to go back and look again.


Alright, i will rewatch them soon.


Total nonsense.

In his fight for the coloured title against Denver Ed Martin he gave up significant height, weight and reach. The contemporary acounts describe the fight as a defensive masterclass on the part of both participants.


My point was that under the circumstances he was unique and well-skilled, but those circumstances no longer exist today.


A. Sustained combination punching was used extensively years before Johnsons time. Joe Gans and perhaps even George Dixon employed it.


Perhaps?

And those are smaller weights - they always develop faster than heavyweights.


While I do not question your knowledge of boxing history I think that you perhaps could take a more in depth look at some early film and pick out more detail.

No offense taken, i will admit that my knowlegde of boxing before the 20's is limited to having seen only Johnson, Willard and Dempsey fights and a few short other fights and sparring sessions on Youtube.

But from what i've seen, this is my judgement.
Little to no jabbing, a lot of wrestling and inside work and not many combinations.

[JimmyShimmy]

Noobs!

Jack Johnson was not just good for his time, Jack Johnson's talent and legacy is, and always will be, timeless.

Johnson was a 6,1, 200lbs man-mountain with 17" guns and a frightening mental strength. He had the kind of fighting experience and nose that could never be forged in the, '1-2, keep your hands up' generic gyms of today. He had a roller coaster journey of a life before he corned Burns and won the title, at which time he famously remarked; "Why, I'd forgotten more about boxing than Burns ever knew".

Johnson was a surgeon in the ring and a pioneer of the sport. He's not just a dude we look back at and go: "Oh yeah, he evolved a lot" - He did things that nobody else had ever done, before or since.

Johnson never made his rep off of beating the white hopes he loved to toy with, his rep came from his complete domination of the very talented and much avoided crop of Black fighters in his day.

During his career he tamed rushing, bull-like brutes (McVea, Burns), and out-manoeuvred tricky, speedy boxers (Denver Ed Smith, Frank Childs).

If Johnson was around today he'd take one look at the division, have a good laugh, and then smoke 'em all in a battle royal.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]Sorry but that sounds a bit like "seeing what you want to see" to me.


That is of course also something to guard against.


Alright, i will rewatch them soon.


Play them in slow motion and try to decipher the significance of every movment.


And those are smaller weights - they always develop faster than heavyweights.


They are taught by the same trainers and in some cases train heavyweights themselves.

Another consideration is the opinions of observers who saw Johnson and lived into the era of Louis and beyond. Some of them continued to rate Johnson right up there into the 70s.

[Duodenum]

[quote]A lot of the footage of Johnson is more misleading than informative. You only have to look at film of Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton to see that footage of the period dose not reliably depict what is taking place. Reconstructing the style of Jack Johnson is a bit like trying to reconstruct a dinosaur from a partial skeleton and some fossil footprints. You have to look at all the footage available in real time and slow motion and cross reference it with contemporary accounts.

The footage that alows us to best interpret his style is the film of a 60+ year old Jack Johnson sparring with Joe Jeanette to raise money for war bonds. If you want to see him in action for real then the Willard fight is the best resource by virtue of the fact that it was filmed with the most advanced camera technology.

What we can discearn from the available footage is that Johnson was verry fast on his feet. Against the middleweights that you deride him for fighting he is clearly faster on his feet than them and consistently outmanouvers them. Against bigger fighters like Willard he is easily able to dart into and out of range. Film suggests that Johnson had handspeed similar to Larry Holmes and was a good combination puncher. He is clearly a huch better finisher than Holmes however and has more power.In fact, we can readily observe this dramatic improvement in motion quality through the later films of Chaplin and Keaton themselves. (Check out Chaplin in 1940's, The Great Dictator, or Buster Keaton's appearance in 1966's, A Funny thing Happened on the way to the Forum.)

In the case of sports, the most glaring examples of contrast are with Babe Ruth and Jack Dempsey. At the time of their emergence as sports stars, motorized cameras were notoriously unreliable. Because they were so prone to malfunctioning, the only dependable method of exposing film was hand powered movie cameras. But by the late 1920's, motorized cameras which recorded live sound were finally overtaking the more primitive technology, so we can hear and see the actual sights and sounds of Ruth's live performances.

As for Jack Dempsey, there are plenty of copies of his 1940 exhibition performance with Cowboy Luttrell (refereed by Nat Fleischer), and we can witness Dempsey's authentic fluidity of motion, complete with live synchronized sound, rather than the staccato jerking seen on the Willard footage.

I have mentioned this previously, but at the 1939 Chicago World's Fair, live color televison was publicly demonstrated for the first time, just 20 years after Dempsey/Willard. At that same event, Dempsey boxed one of his final exhibitions. What conclusions might we arrive at about Jack's skills and fluency, if we were to see and hear his performance in living color and sound?

Another mitigating factor with early motion picture film is the transfer to videotape, which has usually preceded yet another from tape to DVD. Videotape generally runs at a speed of 12 frames per second, as opposed to 24 frames per second for movie film. So to view a historic match on videotape or DVD originally shot with early manual film technology, is like missing half of the action. If the folks at ESPN who now own the Jacobs/Cayton fight film library had any sense, they'd perform a frame by frame computer enhancement of landmark movie footage, and transfer it directly to DVD for sale to the general public. (It may be some time before services like youtube will be able to transmit that level of clarity on-line.) I know I'd be digging into my wallet to see a direct film-to-DVD computer enhanced transfer of Dempsey/Willard, or Canzoneri/Ambers I. (They could also think about enhancing and synchronizing the radio broadcast of some of Dempsey's matches with the footage, synthesizing them into an intriguing presentation.)

[ChrisPontius]

Play them in slow motion and try to decipher the significance of every movement.

I will, but you hardly need slow-motion to see a jab or a combination.




They are taught by the same trainers and in some cases train heavyweights themselves.


Heavyweights have always been less skilled than the smaller fighters, regardless of trainers.


Another consideration is the opinions of observers who saw Johnson and lived into the era of Louis and beyond. Some of them continued to rate Johnson right up there into the 70s.

Like i said, i'm not rating Johnson low. But there have been a lot of changes in the sport since then. These are things that don't matter for ATG rankings, but they do matter if you think about head to head matchups.

Also something to consider is that humans form their personal preferences (music, favorite fighter, etc) between the age of 17 and 25. Research has shown this. Everyone has some bias and it's usually formed during that life period. Do you think it's a coincidence that a guy like Revolver in his 40's has Ali, Duran and Holmes as absolute all time favorites?

[janitor]

Also something to consider is that humans form their personal preferences (music, favorite fighter, etc) between the age of 17 and 25. Research has shown this. Everyone has some bias and it's usually formed during that life period. Do you think it's a coincidence that a guy like Revolver in his 40's has Ali, Duran and Holmes as absolute all time favorites?

There is of course an element of that (though I suspect that Revolver was considerably younger than 40). The same aplies to boxing techniques. People do not only favour the fighters of their youth but also the methods that were prevelant in their youth.

I think that to completely dismiss all these people as sentimental would be as far off the mark as to unquestioningly acept their opinions. Where there are historical biases in observers, contradictions will quickly emerge between them and there will always be sombody in the mix who calls it like it is.

I do not think that changes in boxing technique have always been for the better. I also think that a lot of things get lost and have to be re learned periodicaly.

Finaly I think that certain atributes of a boxer are timeless and irrespective of era. If you show a cerebral fighter from any era footage of the curent heavyweight beltholders they will see their technical limitations and find pleanty to work with.

[JIm Broughton]

A fighter with Jack Johnson's physical gifts would do well in any era but I agree with some of the posts that say he would have to make adjustments to his style to better compete with todays HW's. In Johnson's day, HW's did do alot of holding/clinching/walking in the clinch etc.. Maybe this was because matches in those days were often scheduled for 20 rounds or more so pacing was more important. Also there were no air conditioned arenas so fights often took place outside under a hot sun. Whatever the reason(s) I think it's fair to say that in today's fast paced world of instant gratification and rampant impatience, Johnson's style would not go over well. People today just would'nt appreciate Johnson's skills, vast as they were. With today's 12 round bouts, Johnson would have to kick it up a notch and get busy sooner or get booed out of the joint or even disqualified. If he can adjust however, I think he would do quite well in this or any era.

[janitor]

With today's 12 round bouts, Johnson would have to kick it up a notch and get busy sooner or get booed out of the joint or even disqualified. If he can adjust however, I think he would do quite well in this or any era.

I think that those who use the Johnson having to adjust argument overplay their hand a little.

Johnson fought no small number of 10 round bouts. A 12 round distence would not be alien and strange to him.

[mcvey]

Johnson was great in his time, but will have to make a LOT of adaptations.

His style wouldn't work today, he jabbed little, i wonder if he knew how to deal with a jab (never seen him get jabbed at much) and the wrestling style won't be very effective either, especially with all the big guys around today.
JOhnson ,at 37 didnthave any trouble avoiding 6 6 1/4 Willards jab for the first 15rds,and he was certainly comparable in size to todays heavies.

[mcvey]

The reason we don't see Johnson getting jabbed at much was because of the way he stopped them before they got started. Jack would punch his right into his opponent's left bicep, whenever he initiated a jab towards Johnson, jamming the left into a painfully abrupt halt. In his day, he was one of the very few with the refexes necessary to do that. Jack had an extremely aggressive, proactive defense, reaching out to stymie an adversary's hands from getting shots off. He would smother his challengers on the inside, slipping his arms between theirs, and rip uppercuts within the clinches. In an era of endurance ironmen, he wore down other boxers with his wrestling ability. (Don't forget, he originally emerged as a dominate force in battle royales.)

Reportedly, there is a film of Johnson's final significant victory over Pat Lester, a 15 round decision win in a Mexico bull ring, which was shot with a motorized motion picture camera. This footage supposedly displays the more subtle nuances of Jack's defensive movements, even in his late forties. (Actually, with over 100 matches of experience under his belt by then, a frame by frame computer enhanced DVD of this bout could be highly instructive. The records indicate that Johnson was about ten pounds lighter for Lester than he was for Willard, so he was probably in reasonably decent shape for this performance.)

If the championship distance of 15 rounds was restored, Jack would fit right in today. He had over half a dozen 20 round decision wins in his career, and virtually shutout modern sized (non-steroid enhanced) Jess Willard over that distance, completely neutralizing Willard's jab in the process.

Benny Leonard decreed that the best boxers were those who could take a punch, but didn't have to. Lil Artha' did have limited ability to sustain heavyweight punishment to the head and body, and I have seen precious little footage of him in a counterpunching situation. For some reason, I suspect he might be like Orlin Norris or Jimmy Young at their very best. He was generally loose and relaxed in the ring, so he wouldn't be too stressed by today's competition.
Excellent post!

[Boilermaker]

I really dont see how Johnson could do anything but be spectacular, straight off the time machine. Unlike todays fighters, he would have no fear of the Don King Factor. The politics of earning the title fight are nothing to what he faced. Physically, Johnson might not be a super heavy but he matches up well still. The worst he could possibly be would be a combination of Chris Byrd and John Ruiz, but with a big punch. And both those guys were world champions. Imagine him Toying with the fat middleweight contender James Toney the same way that he did with Burnsl and others. Old Holyfield would have far less chance than old Jeffries. I see the massively big Klitchsko dropping to the one punch knockout the same way that Ketchell did, as soon as he annoys jack and knocks him down. Vitali might be an intersting chance to pull a willard but sadly, he wouldnt have the 60 rounds to wear him down, so jack could conceivably survive until his 50s or later. I mean if Larry Holmes was competive that long, why not jack, who was arguably far more dominant in his prime.

In reality, i see Jack creating a massive stir, chasing every abc belt holder around the globe until they defend, and knocking out every half decent challenger who tries to claim the rigged mandatory spot. He d then probably knock out the MMA fighters or whatever they are because they dare to try to suggest they are better than him and then hed melt his alph belts into one and sit on his title until the political correct politicians eventually find some law to put him in jail just like those of his own time.

[janitor]

His style wouldn't work today, he jabbed little, i wonder if he knew how to deal with a jab (never seen him get jabbed at much)

Incidentaly Jack Johnson like both Joe Gans and George Dixon before him utilized a strategy based primarily on alowing an oponent to throw a jab first and then countering off it.

This is exactly the strategy that Max Schmeling used to defeat Joe Louis. When Johnson said that Louis was a sucker for a right hand it was a verry valid criticism in terms of his own era.

Those who think that a good jab is the key to defeating Johnson might just be verry misguided.

[Duodenum]

Incidentaly Jack Johnson like both Joe Gans and George Dixon before him utilized a strategy based primarily on alowing an oponent to throw a jab first and then countering off it.

This is exactly the strategy that Max Schmeling used to defeat Joe Louis. When Johnson said that Louis was a sucker for a right hand it was a verry valid criticism in terms of his own era.

Those who think that a good jab is the key to defeating Johnson might just be verry misguided.In fact, Johnson may have gone on public record as picking Schmeling to win before he matched Louis. Nat Fleischer reported that Johnson told him how Louis went off-balance as he delivered his jab, and would be susceptible to a counter right. (I'd have to dig out my copy of 50 Years at Ringside to recover precisely what Fleischer quoted Johnson as telling him, but I'm sure plenty of you already have more immediate access to Fleischer's autobiography.)

[Sizzle]

In fact, Johnson may have gone on public record as picking Schmeling to win before he matched Louis. Nat Fleischer reported that Johnson told him how Louis went off-balance as he delivered his jab, and would be susceptible to a counter right. (I'd have to dig out my copy of 50 Years at Ringside to recover precisely what Fleischer quoted Johnson as telling him, but I'm sure plenty of you already have more immediate access to Fleischer's autobiography.)

Yeh, in unforgivable blackness they touch upon Jack Johnsons offer to train Joe Louis, which Joe Louis turned down to preserve his "squeaky clean" reputation.

Jack Johnson then went on to predict Schmeling would defeat Joe Louis, and outlined just how.

I find it difficult to fathom people watching Jack Johnson on film and not being impressed - He's the real deal. Fleishcher saw pretty much every significant boxing event from 1899 onwards and rates Johnson as the best heavyweight ahead of Ali.

I'm wondering what footage the detractors have actually watched?

Boxing has evolved to some extent to include the jab as a more frequent auxilliary weapon, but Jack Dempsey suggested in his book this was to the detriment of the effectiveness of the jab - Because it's potentially a damaging weapon when used correctly, not merely a means to score and keep the opponent off balance. There are two sides to the coin.

[Duodenum]

Yeh, in unforgivable blackness they touch upon Jack Johnsons offer to train Joe Louis, which Joe Louis turned down to preserve his "squeaky clean" reputation.

Jack Johnson then went on to predict Schmeling would defeat Joe Louis, and outlined just how.

I find it difficult to fathom people watching Jack Johnson on film and not being impressed - He's the real deal. Fleishcher saw pretty much every significant boxing event from 1899 onwards and rates Johnson as the best heavyweight ahead of Ali.

I'm wondering what footage the detractors have actually watched?

Boxing has evolved to some extent to include the jab as a more frequent auxilliary weapon, but Jack Dempsey suggested in his book this was to the detriment of the effectiveness of the jab - Because it's potentially a damaging weapon when used correctly, not merely a means to score and keep the opponent off balance. There are two sides to the coin.Well, Sizzle, if they're viewing footage on youtube, or other internet services, they are missing a great deal of detail, like a clip of Johnson pounding Flynn with several consecutive jabs in rapid succession. (Only a frame by frame viewing of the movie film would reveal this clearly.)

[UpWithEvil]

He d then probably knock out the MMA fighters or whatever they are because they dare to try to suggest they are better than him

Fedor Emelianenko d Jack Johnson, R1, 2:10

[Boilermaker]

Fedor Emelianenko d Jack Johnson, R1, 2:10

Another Great White Hope. :patsch

[cross_trainer]

Fedor Emelianenko d Jack Johnson, R1, 2:10

Johnson did win a boxer vs. wrestler encounter, although it may have been fixed. Nevertheless, Fedor soundly defeats him. Might be interesting while it lasts, especially if Fedor elects to keep it standing or can't take Johnson down immediately.

[UpWithEvil]

Johnson has about as much chance of stopping Fedor's takedown as he does of growing a second head.

Another Great White Hope.
Quinton Jackson d. Jack Johnson, R1, 4:30, via "whoop that ass"

C'mon, Fedor walked away from THIS:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

60 seconds later he had that guy begging for mercy. Jack Johnson would poop his purple pants if he had to fight Fedor.

[hopkinsfan07]

Well, Sizzle, if they're viewing footage on youtube, or other internet services, they are missing a great deal of detail, like a clip of Johnson pounding Flynn with several consecutive jabs in rapid succession. (Only a frame by frame viewing of the movie film would reveal this clearly.)

i agree with this :good

[Jack]

Those who think that a good jab is the key to defeating Johnson might just be verry misguided.I think there is a fair argument to be made that Johnson couldn't handle a modern jab. Let's not forget that that punch has evolved more than any other. Johnson faced it against people like Jess Willard, who I don't think had a capable modern jab.

Johnson didn't face any fighter with a piledriver jab like Wladimir Klitschko, Mercer or Holmes, so it's hard to say how well he would do.

[cross_trainer]

Johnson has about as much chance of stopping Fedor's takedown as he does of growing a second head.


Quinton Jackson d. Jack Johnson, R1, 4:30, via "whoop that ass"

C'mon, Fedor walked away from THIS:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

60 seconds later he had that guy begging for mercy. Jack Johnson would poop his purple pants if he had to fight Fedor.

The sophisticated clinch-fighting and more frequent boxer/wrestler matches of that period lead me to wonder whether Johnson might do better than we think in MMA. Consider how recent boxer/wrestler bouts turned out compared to the boxer/wrestler bouts in the turn of the century (Jeffries-Roeber, Fitz-Roeber, Sullivan-Muldoon, and Johnson-bunch of French wrestlers). The boxers were more successful then than they are now.

[Mike South]

I think he could, but 90% of the guys on this forum would cuss him out daily for holding or for not taking chances in the ring or for fighting easy opposition, and the remaining 10% would say that he'd never win a belt because he's too small.

[Coast]

I really dont see how Johnson could do anything but be spectacular, straight off the time machine. Unlike todays fighters, he would have no fear of the Don King Factor. The politics of earning the title fight are nothing to what he faced. Physically, Johnson might not be a super heavy but he matches up well still. The worst he could possibly be would be a combination of Chris Byrd and John Ruiz, but with a big punch. And both those guys were world champions. Imagine him Toying with the fat middleweight contender James Toney the same way that he did with Burnsl and others. Old Holyfield would have far less chance than old Jeffries. I see the massively big Klitchsko dropping to the one punch knockout the same way that Ketchell did, as soon as he annoys jack and knocks him down. Vitali might be an intersting chance to pull a willard but sadly, he wouldnt have the 60 rounds to wear him down, so jack could conceivably survive until his 50s or later. I mean if Larry Holmes was competive that long, why not jack, who was arguably far more dominant in his prime.

In reality, i see Jack creating a massive stir, chasing every abc belt holder around the globe until they defend, and knocking out every half decent challenger who tries to claim the rigged mandatory spot. He d then probably knock out the MMA fighters or whatever they are because they dare to try to suggest they are better than him and then hed melt his alph belts into one and sit on his title until the political correct politicians eventually find some law to put him in jail just like those of his own time.

Amen Brother!

After dominating boxing and MMA, he'd have to move on to basketball and football, since the press always says that's where the Real Heavyweight champions are.

First he'd put on the purple trunks and a wife beater shirt (you are what you wear) and top Wilt's 100 pt. game. In football he could use his fast footwork, incredible reflexes and strength to run all over the NFL.

All he'd need is a leather helmet and a wool sweater.

[Only registered and activated users can see links](football).gif

[UpWithEvil]

Jack Johnson was a truly great fighter, and the true greats will always be competitive in any era. Johnson's boxing techniques were optimized for the rules and allowances of his era, however, and he wouldn't be as successful in any other era as he was in his own, given our hypothetical Wayback Machine.

Heck, one of Johnson's most effective infighting techniques - grabbing his opponent's wrist or elbow in a clinch (forcing his opponents to concentrate on something other than protecting their faces) is physically impossible with modern equipment, not even considering its illegality.

[Mendoza]

I think there is a fair argument to be made that Johnson couldn't handle a modern jab. Let's not forget that that punch has evolved more than any other. Johnson faced it against people like Jess Willard, who I don't think had a capable modern jab.

Johnson didn't face any fighter with a piledriver jab like Wladimir Klitschko, Mercer or Holmes, so it's hard to say how well he would do.

When you’re fighting older or much smaller white hopes, a fighter can get away with low hands and pulling straight back. In these fights, Johnson's fundamental flaws of having a low guard, remaining stationary for long periods of time and pulling straight back worked. Yet against Jess Willard landed a good amount of punches from the outside. Willard was never much a of a boxer, and was one of the slower heavyweight champions. But he was much bigger and had greater reach. Johnson could not rely on his old tactics. If Willard could exploit these flaws, fighters like Klitschko, Mercer, or Holmes would have field days.

The irony is most boxing historians are well versed on Johnson the man, but completely miss understand Johnson’s style in the ring. Johnson was a much better in-fighter than out fighter on all of his films. But he clinched a lot and didn’t throw many punches. Such a formula combined with his technical flaws on defense would spell disaster. The question to ask here is could Johnson adapt to modern boxing? I beleive he could since he was a great athlete, but if a supper middle weight could knock him out and Ketchel could hurt him and put him down, a modern heavyweight puncher would likely do even worse.

[janitor]

I think there is a fair argument to be made that Johnson couldn't handle a modern jab. Let's not forget that that punch has evolved more than any other. Johnson faced it against people like Jess Willard, who I don't think had a capable modern jab.

Johnson didn't face any fighter with a piledriver jab like Wladimir Klitschko, Mercer or Holmes, so it's hard to say how well he would do.

The jab has been thrown exactly the same way since the begining of time. Do you think that one day some bright spark said-

"I know I will just use the jab as my primary weapon"

And thus a new era began?

[Sizzle]

The jab has been thrown exactly the same way since the begining of time. Do you think that one day some bright spark said-

"I know I will just use the jab as my primary weapon"

And thus a new era began?

How the mechanics of a punch can "evolve" is beyond me.

Apparently Johnson could defend against the early 1900's jabs, but would be mystified by Klitshko's "modern" jab. I'm presuming our poster believes Klitschko has had an explosive rocket fuel delivery system and homing device built into his left arm?

[janitor]

In these fights, Johnson's fundamental flaws of having a low guard, remaining stationary for long periods of time and pulling straight back worked.

What makes you think that these are flaws?

Getting hit in the solar plexus with a 4oz glove would be like being hit with a ballpeen hamer. The low guard simply relects this.

Do you think that some bright spark had the idea of holding his hands a bit higher one day and thus a new era was born?

Being economical with footwork is a good idea if you have to last 45 rounds.

These tactics are not primitive they are more adaptations to a diferent set of circumstances.

[McGrain]

What makes you think that these are flaws?

Getting hit in the solar plexus with a 4oz glove would be like being hit with a ballpeen hamer. The low guard simply relects this.

Do you think that some bright spark had the idea of holding his hands a bit higher one day and thus a new era was born?

Being economical with footwork is a good idea if you have to last 45 rounds.

These tactics are not primitive they are more adaptations to a diferent set of circumstances.


What a very excellent post.

10/10

[janitor]

What a very excellent post.

10/10

Thanks.

[Sizzle]

When you’re fighting older or much smaller white hopes, a fighter can get away with low hands and pulling straight back. In these fights, Johnson's fundamental flaws of having a low guard, remaining stationary for long periods of time and pulling straight back worked. Yet against Jess Willard landed a good amount of punches from the outside. Willard was never much a of a boxer, and was one of the slower heavyweight champions. But he was much bigger and had greater reach. Johnson could not rely on his old tactics. If Willard could exploit these flaws, fighters like Klitschko, Mercer, or Holmes would have field days.

The irony is most boxing historians are well versed on Johnson the man, but completely miss understand Johnson’s style in the ring. Johnson was a much better in-fighter than out fighter on all of his films. But he clinched a lot and didn’t throw many punches. Such a formula combined with his technical flaws on defense would spell disaster. The question to ask here is could Johnson adapt to modern boxing? I beleive he could since he was a great athlete, but if a supper middle weight could knock him out and Ketchel could hurt him and put him down, a modern heavyweight puncher would likely do even worse.

Modern heavyweights aren't well-conditioned enough to keep their hands up consistently, like say Juan Diaz or Winky Wright. Nor are they well conditioned enough to use the ring (and movement) effectively, like say Mayweather or Freitas.

To criticize these "fundamental flaws" in Johnson is a little strange to me. He was excellent at parrying punches (see his fight Vs Moran), so obviously he was doing something right with regards to avoiding being hit, even if his hand placement wasn't "conventional".

You think Willard "exploited flaws"? The only flaw Willard exploited was in the treatment of Johnson the man, which saw him kicked out his own country and depressed. He was in horrible condition going into the fight and still beat Willard over the first 20 rounds - His downfall was his conditioning. And I believe 20 rounds would be the downfall of ANY modern heavyweight.

Oh and pulling straight back from straight punches is not textbook but tends to work for fighters with exceptional reflexes, old or modern.

[Sizzle]

What makes you think that these are flaws?

Getting hit in the solar plexus with a 4oz glove would be like being hit with a ballpeen hamer. The low guard simply relects this.

Do you think that some bright spark had the idea of holding his hands a bit higher one day and thus a new era was born?

Being economical with footwork is a good idea if you have to last 45 rounds.

These tactics are not primitive they are more adaptations to a diferent set of circumstances.

Yes, very good points.

[punchy]

Johnson would have done well in any era, he just had the talent.

[mcvey]

What a very excellent post.

10/10
very astute comments!

[Jack]

The jab has been thrown exactly the same way since the begining of time. Do you think that one day some bright spark said-

"I know I will just use the jab as my primary weapon"

And thus a new era began?How the mechanics of a punch can "evolve" is beyond me.

Apparently Johnson could defend against the early 1900's jabs, but would be mystified by Klitshko's "modern" jab. I'm presuming our poster believes Klitschko has had an explosive rocket fuel delivery system and homing device built into his left arm?
If you don't believe the jab has change with time, give me a few examples of boxers with good modern jabs, in Johnson's era. Lets cut out all the pathetic Williard ones, eh? Strong, offensively dominating jabs.

There simply isn't a boxer whose jab could compete with someone like Holmes'.

The style is based too much off the back foot for it even to be contemplated.

[Sizzle]

If you don't believe the jab has change with time, give me a few examples of boxers with good modern jabs, in Johnson's era. Lets cut out all the pathetic Williard ones, eh? Strong, offensively dominating jabs.

There simply isn't a boxer whose jab could compete with someone like Holmes'.

The style is based too much off the back foot for it even to be contemplated.

Dempsey said a thud reverberated very loudly as Joe Gans stepped into his jab (referred to as the falling step by Dempsey when describing the mechanics of a punch), giving it immense power. He stepped forward and launched the jab before his foot landed loudly on the ring surface.

Can you explain for me how this is jabbing off of the backfoot?

Fundamentally the jab hasn't changed, although it is used more extensively as an auxilliary weapon nowadays, to set up stronger punches, keep opponents off balance etc etc.

[janitor]

[quote=Jack]If you don't believe the jab has change with time, give me a few examples of boxers with good modern jabs, in Johnson's era. Lets cut out all the pathetic Williard ones, eh? Strong, offensively dominating jabs.


If you look at any boxing manual from 1900 onwards you will see that the jab was executed in the same way then as it is today. Jack Johnson used his jab to dominate the Fireman Flyn fight for example.


There simply isn't a boxer whose jab could compete with someone like Holmes'.


Certainly the jab tended not to be used as much but the potential to use it was always there. Perhaps it was used less because it was the primary punch which counterpunchers used to counter in this period.

[janitor]

I hapen to think that Jack Johnson would match up verry well against Wladamir Klitschko incidentaly.

If I told him that he had to fight this big athletic oponent whose primary weapon was his jab he would say-

"No problem. The jab is the punch that will make me best able to counter with my right. Everytime he throws that jab he is going to be open to a counter."

If I then told him that this big athletic fighter did not have much of an uppercut he would think that all his christmases had come at once3.

[prime]

It is unfair to envision Johnson forced to emerge from the time machine and enter the ring as is against competition 100 years later. We have built on the legacy of the past; past greats jolted out of time machines would not know what the heck is going on.

Given time to prepare for his opponent, Jack Johnson would reign supreme because he mastered the fundamentals of offense and defense; that is, he was a complete performer with the tools to adapt for victory. He fought often en route to the title. He had huge strength and could hang with any heavy. And his confidence and psychology were second to none.

Time does not make greatness fade. Johnson was great because he transcended the circumstances of his time. And a great knows how to win. These guys fighting today are the best around now, but have hardly transcended much of anything yet.

[Seamus]

I hapen to think that Jack Johnson would match up verry well against Wladamir Klitschko incidentaly.

This is a joke, right?

[janitor]

This is a joke, right?

Hell no.

[Seamus]

I just don't see a small heavyweight who feasted on middleweights offering anything effective against an athletic giant who is well trained to use his assets of height and power. That swatting/parrying type defense of Johnson used against 170lb'ers would have no effect against Wlad's jab. Jack would probably just get his hands pulverized. I don't suspect Johnson- fresh out of the mythical time machine- would last two rounds.

Just my opinion.

[janitor]

I just don't see a small heavyweight who feasted on middleweights offering anything effective against an athletic giant who is well trained to use his assets of height and power. That swatting/parrying type defense of Johnson used against 170lb'ers would have no effect against Wlad's jab. Jack would probably just get his hands pulverized. I don't suspect Johnson- fresh out of the mythical time machine- would last two rounds.

Just my opinion.

Johnson did not just fight middleweights. He fought a lot of bigger fighters as well. He seems to have employed a verry diferent style against them and to have shut them out as convincingly as the middleweights.

He has been verry unlucky in the selection of his fights that have survived on film.

As for Johnson being a small heavyweight he was a chisled 208 lbs for the Jeffries fight. Certainly as big as Evander Holyfield when he beat Riddick Bowe.

The crucial difference is that Johnson had power.

[Seamus]

208 is very small in this day and age. Only a juiced Holy could make that weight even come near working. Still, when faced against a somewhat chubby- undermotivated Bowe- he came up short.

The big guys Johnson fought were not of the caliber-skillwise- that exists today and most had pretty horrible records. Again, it was a different time, records meant different things and the concept of skill was more closely wedded to 19th century fighting, a completely different bag. There was not the level of training there is today.

In the power department, it is Wlad- who has something like 39 KO's in 45 fights against comparative goliaths, who is far and above superior. Far bigger, far stronger. He was throwing around Brewster- a big man- like a rag doll.

Let's turn the question on its head; if Wlad got into a time machine and floated back to 1905 he would have held the title until the 20's.

[Boilermaker]

208 is very small in this day and age. Only a juiced Holy could make that weight even come near working. Still, when faced against a somewhat chubby- undermotivated Bowe- he came up short.



It is quite common throughout history that when the talent pool dilutes, the tall, limited but strong heavys come to the fore. That is really what has happened since about the 80s.



The big guys Johnson fought were not of the caliber-skillwise- that exists today and most had pretty horrible records. Again, it was a different time, records meant different things and the concept of skill was more closely wedded to 19th century fighting, a completely different bag. There was not the level of training there is today.



Are you serious? Not the same level of training? I can only hope that this is an acknowledgment, that training in todays times have vastly deteriorated (as common sense would suggest it should) due to a variety of factors including: Boxing is no longer mainstream to the sam extent, times are not as tough, sparring conditions need to be more controlled etc.

By the way, records certainly did mean something different. Back then even the contenders had to fight the top contenders and former champs regularly had to fight the best contenders just to get a shot. When was the last time a champion or challenger actually fought the best contender available. Has any modern boxer ever done it on more than say 2 occassions? Lewis is the only recent one that springs to mind.
In the power department, it is Wlad- who has something like 39 KO's in 45 fights against comparative goliaths, who is far and above superior. Far bigger, far stronger. He was throwing around Brewster- a big man- like a rag doll.

Let's turn the question on its head; if Wlad got into a time machine and floated back to 1905 he would have held the title until the 20's.[/quote]

[Seamus]

So the talent pool has been diluted since the 80's? So, for what, 20 years or roughly 20% of the modern era? If we take into consideration, the war years (I, II and Korean), plus the rest of the Joe Louis' career not included by WWII, that's something like 40% of the history of modern boxing. And might you be the same sort of lad to lead me to believe that Ali v Spinks, Dunn, Evangelista, Cooper or Norton III was part of the greatest era? Or perhaps Holmes winning string of defences v Zanon, Jones, Parkinson Ali, LeDoux, Coke Spinks or Scott was the greatest era?

Boxing may no longer be the mainstream, working class American domain but it has numerically more fans than it did in its heyday of the 50's -70's. You just find them in Latin America, Eastern and Western Europe and increasingly Southeast Asia. In the "Golden Epoch" these regions were largely shut out, including Eastern Europe's inability to even compete.

I guess it all depends on what stream you live in when you say mainstream.

[Boilermaker]

So the talent pool has been diluted since the 80's? So, for what, 20 years or roughly 20% of the modern era? If we take into consideration, the war years (I, II and Korean), plus the rest of the Joe Louis' career not included by WWII, that's something like 40% of the history of modern boxing. And might you be the same sort of lad to lead me to believe that Ali v Spinks, Dunn, Evangelista, Cooper or Norton III was part of the greatest era? Or perhaps Holmes winning string of defences v Zanon, Jones, Parkinson Ali, LeDoux, Coke Spinks or Scott was the greatest era?



It has started to become noticeable around the 80s and certainly is getting much worse in the 90s. Wasnt the 50s or so the peak time? As other sports have professionalised, not just the likes of basketball baseball football etc but what former amateur sports like running swimming etc, plus welfare programs and scholarships have become far more wideflung. There are simply more viable options and alternatives around now, and boxing does not have the advantages it used to have. Sure it is still big, and manyof the modern fighters would still compete in the older days, maybe some would even dominate but there is no denying that the talent pool today is not what it was 50 or even 100 years ago.



Boxing may no longer be the mainstream, working class American domain but it has numerically more fans than it did in its heyday of the 50's -70's. You just find them in Latin America, Eastern and Western Europe and increasingly Southeast Asia. In the "Golden Epoch" these regions were largely shut out, including Eastern Europe's inability to even compete.


Fans maybe (though i doubt it), competitors definitely not (though i am open to change ifyou have statistics which say otherwise). You raise an interesting point. Certainly, it does look like the Eastern Europeans will dominate. It really is a shame that we rarely got to see the best eastern europeans or cubans in the past.


I guess it all depends on what stream you live in when you say mainstream.

If we were comparing the Russian fighters (for example) to the russian old timers, you would have a much better point.

[janitor]

Let's turn the question on its head; if Wlad got into a time machine and floated back to 1905 he would have held the title until the 20's.

He might never have been more than a footnote.

It took everything that Wlad is acused of being deficient in to get to the top in this era.

[Seamus]

He might never have been more than a footnote.


i know was no match for Willard, Hart, Choynski and Burns. They would have wiped the floor with him

[Ramon Rojo]

I hapen to think that Jack Johnson would match up verry well against Wladamir Klitschko incidentaly.


Klitschko would KO Johnson in the early rounds

[Ramon Rojo]

i know was no match for Willard, Hart, Choynski and Burns. They would have wiped the floor with him

:lol:

You´re a comedian!

[janitor]

Klitschko would KO Johnson in the early rounds

Based on what?

[janitor]

i know was no match for Willard, Hart, Choynski and Burns. They would have wiped the floor with him

You know ironicaly at least two of the fighters you listed would pose a verry serious threat to him.

There are fighters like Purity, Sanders and Brewster in every era.

[McGrain]

Anyway, he could have.

[dmt]

No, Calzaghe ko 1 Johnson

[mr. magoo]

Perhaps if he were to mug someone for a belt that they just purchased in the parking lot of Carson Peire Scott, then the answer is yes.

[janitor]

Perhaps if he were to mug someone for a belt that they just purchased in the parking lot of Carson Peire Scott, then the answer is yes.

Lets be honest here.

Some of the curent belt holders are little bettter than the white hopes that Johnson is criticised for defending his title against.

[Woddy]

Lets be honest here.

Some of the curent belt holders are little bettter than the white hopes that Johnson is criticised for defending his title against.

Of course,

Johnson would walk right through Klitschko, Maskaev, Chagaev, Ibragimov, and Valuev like they weren't even there.

Its a no brainer right?

[MagnificentMatt]

Exactly. I have no problem picking old timers over modern fighters, i have a problem picking jack johnson over anyone.


Wlad KO 1
Chagaev KO 8
Ibragimov UD
Maskaev UD

Problem is Jack Johnson is like.. an OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD timer. Sonny Liston is an old timer..

[McGrain]

Valuev doesn't have a belt.

There is a weird satisfaction in speculating how he would do with all the different fighters through the ages though isn't there?

[janitor]

Of course,

Johnson would walk right through Klitschko, Maskaev, Chagaev, Ibragimov, and Valuev like they weren't even there.

Its a no brainer right?

Only some of them.

[ChrisPontius]

Based on what?

Based on the fact that Johnson couldn't even throw a jab! Someone with a semi-bareknuckle style like everyone of his time would get obliterated under modern rules.
Same thing would happen if you would put current fighters under their rules.

[True Writer]

I am not really a fan of putting in heavyweights from the eraly days with the current crop, but I'd give Johnson a great chance against any them maybe Wlads size and power would be to much but Wlad glass jaw would give Johnson a real shout.

[janitor]

Based on the fact that Johnson couldn't even throw a jab!

I think you need to go back and watch some of his fights.

[McGrain]

Based on the fact that Johnson couldn't even throw a jab!.

Let's agree that Johnson wasn't a modern fighter.

Hatton hardly ever uses the jab, and when he does it tends to be a filler. He doesn't use it as the defencive weapon it's become in modern boxing, there's none of this "behind the jab" stuff (which is what I presume you are worrying about) and he is a pressure fighter. Johnson could work as a counter-puncher, never use the jab and probably be successful. His problem would be finding the correct way to counter the jab, not lacking a great one. I think he could find his way.

[janitor]

Let's agree that Johnson wasn't a modern fighter.

Hatton hardly ever uses the jab, and when he does it tends to be a filler. He doesn't use it as the defencive weapon it's become in modern boxing, there's none of this "behind the jab" stuff (which is what I presume you are worrying about) and he is a pressure fighter. Johnson could work as a counter-puncher, never use the jab and probably be successful. His problem would be finding the correct way to counter the jab, not lacking a great one. I think he could find his way.

Johnson used his jab extensively when it suited him.

Dose anybody ever consider that reliance on the jab in modern boxers might actualy be a weakness?

[McGrain]

Johnson used his jab extensively when it suited him.

I've heard it said - if you read my post you'll see I never actually say otherwise!

Dose anybody ever consider that reliance on the jab in modern boxers might actualy be a weakness?

Possible, I think it can be a technical weakness sometimes in a fighter lacking in imagination, but for that type of fighter tha jab is a god-send anyway. I think it may be a weakness, but it is one that fighters will only be made to pay for, directly, on rare rare occasions.

EDIT: What I mean is, when the jab is wrong, it isn't wrong by much, unlike, say, the lead left hook.

[Amsterdam]

Not me.

[McGrain]

Not me.

You know how CHJ supplies "assumed resume" for Calzaghe? I kind of assumed this would be your answer.

How far ahead/behind does your vision of era domination go? What I mean is, can a fighter from 1930 be expected to compete with a fighter from 1940? Or does it take longer for the past fighter to be totally overhauled?

[Bummy Davis]

Thats like taking Emelia Ernhart back in time to fly a new style plane...Hey it would be easier, Give Johnson some time in the gym, sparring to adjust a bit for almost 100 years of change and he would handle himself fine and be a presence

[Sizzle]

Johnson used his jab extensively when it suited him.

Dose anybody ever consider that reliance on the jab in modern boxers might actualy be a weakness?

No.

[janitor]

No.

I think that is about as much thought as some people have given the matter.

[Sizzle]

I think that is about as much thought as some people have given the matter.

Care to elaborate on the topic?

I don't see how using/relying on the jab works to the detriment of a fighter, but feel free to convince me otherwise.

From an excitement point of view I can see where you're coming from, but in terms of developing an EFFECTIVE fighting style you'll need to present your case.

[ChrisPontius]

I think you need to go back and watch some of his fights.
I've seen all of his filmed fights and in NONE of them he jabs or is being jabbed at constistently.



Let's agree that Johnson wasn't a modern fighter.

Hatton hardly ever uses the jab, and when he does it tends to be a filler. He doesn't use it as the defencive weapon it's become in modern boxing, there's none of this "behind the jab" stuff (which is what I presume you are worrying about) and he is a pressure fighter. Johnson could work as a counter-puncher, never use the jab and probably be successful. His problem would be finding the correct way to counter the jab, not lacking a great one. I think he could find his way.


Hatton is an agressive in-fighter, Johnson is a defensive, wrestling fighter. Johnson is everything but a pressure fighter in fact, so i don't really see the comparison. He'd find himself in a world of trouble when not only is he jabbed at consistently for the first time, but the opponent is actually a heavyweight who has 30 pounds on him instead of a middleweight who he has 40 pounds on.

[McGrain]

Hatton is an agressive in-fighter, Johnson is a defensive, wrestling fighter. Johnson is everything but a pressure fighter in fact, so i don't really see the comparison. He'd find himself in a world of trouble when not only is he jabbed at consistently for the first time, but the opponent is actually a heavyweight who has 30 pounds on him instead of a middleweight who he has 40 pounds on.

A pressure fighter needs a jab against a great mover more than a counter-puncher needs a jab against an aggressive opponent. That is obvious. The comparison was to show how Johnson IF he has no jab whatsoever can be seen to hold an advantage over a very successful modern fighter like Hatton.

The way you talk, you would think Johnson LEAPS in to wrestle. He counters his opponenets action, especially a larger one.

[Luigi1985]

I've seen all of his filmed fights and in NONE of them he jabs or is being jabbed at constistently.


Hatton is an agressive in-fighter, Johnson is a defensive, wrestling fighter. Johnson is everything but a pressure fighter in fact, so i don't really see the comparison. He'd find himself in a world of trouble when not only is he jabbed at consistently for the first time, but the opponent is actually a heavyweight who has 30 pounds on him instead of a middleweight who he has 40 pounds on.


I have to agree, it would be interesting to see how Johnson fights a big man with skills...

[Bill Butcher]

The HWTs of today are quite bad IMO & Johnson was the best of his time so yes he could be champ today I believe.

Give him 3 days to get used to the gloves, spar & take in the new rules etc & we would probably have a new champ but you really dont know, 1909 was a long time ago.

[jaywilton]

Jack Johnson would win a fight today if Tommy Burns also stepped into a time machine and fought him again.

[McGrain]

Jack Johnson would win a fight today if Tommy Burns also stepped into a time machine and fought him again.

:lol:

[janitor]

Care to elaborate on the topic?

I don't see how using/relying on the jab works to the detriment of a fighter, but feel free to convince me otherwise.

From an excitement point of view I can see where you're coming from, but in terms of developing an EFFECTIVE fighting style you'll need to present your case.

The jab is a great tool but a fighter who relies on it too heavily is a one dimensional fighter.

There have been fighters throughout history whose main game plan was to counter off the jab. If you go into a fight with a jab fest plan with one of them then you are toast.

The jab might be a safety first punch but it is the worst punch to get countered on. We are talking sunday right hand for breakfast.

[ChrisPontius]

And how often did Johnson throw the STRAIGHT right hand? How often did he wait for his opponent to get a punch off, blocked/slipped it and threw a counter right hand? Very rarely.

[janitor]

And how often did Johnson throw the STRAIGHT right hand? How often did he wait for his opponent to get a punch off, blocked/slipped it and threw a counter right hand? Very rarely.

If an oponent wanted to try a jab fest with him then that is what he would do.

Trying to fight Max Schmeling using the jab as a primary weapon would be a seriously dumb plan for example.

[janitor]

Jack Johnson would win a fight today if Tommy Burns also stepped into a time machine and fought him again.

Burns would be a multi division champ today. He could potentialy win belts from super middle to cruiser and perhaps beyond.

[Ted Spoon]

And how often did Johnson throw the STRAIGHT right hand? How often did he wait for his opponent to get a punch off, blocked/slipped it and threw a counter right hand? Very rarely.

Before you make up your mind about such unknown quantities you must ask yourself how much of Jack Johnson have you seen? Ted Spoon can comfortably confirm that not even 10% of Johnson's prime is on film.

[ChrisPontius]

Before you make up your mind about such unknown quantities you must ask yourself how much of Jack Johnson have you seen? Ted Spoon can comfortably confirm that not even 10% of Johnson's prime is on film.

There are fights of him over a nearly-10 years period. While Tyson tried to fight on his toes in the amatures a few times and Foreman changed style completely after 20 years, i highly doubt that Johnson changed style so much between 1900 and 1906. Why would he leave these prominent weapons (jabs, straight right hands, counter punching) for some reason at home during that period?
Why do none of his opponents consistently use those techniques either? Boxing was still mutating from bareknuckled to gloved form and as a consequence, not all techniques had fully been developed yet.

Johson was great in his own time, no doubt about it, and should rank high based on accomplishements. But head-to-head, he's just not equipped to fight modern fighters. And by "modern", i mean post-30's. Just like modern fighters would drown if they had to fight under Johnsons rules.

[Ted Spoon]

There are fights of him over a nearly-10 years period. While Tyson tried to fight on his toes in the amatures a few times and Foreman changed style completely after 20 years, i highly doubt that Johnson changed style so much between 1900 and 1906. Why would he leave these prominent weapons (jabs, straight right hands, counter punching) for some reason at home during that period?
Why do none of his opponents consistently use those techniques either? Boxing was still mutating from bareknuckled to gloved form and as a consequence, not all techniques had fully been developed yet.

Johson was great in his own time, no doubt about it, and should rank high based on accomplishements. But head-to-head, he's just not equipped to fight modern fighters. And by "modern", i mean post-30's. Just like modern fighters would drown if they had to fight under Johnsons rules.

Take away just couple of key fights for other greats and it would change our perspective accordingly, don't underestimate the lack of material.

1900-1906 was a huge developmental period for Johnson - that encompasses from being under-fed and essentially a tumble weed in the wind, to prime condition and well into his mission.

[ChrisPontius]

Sure, but the point is that we saw his fights after his 1900-1906 developement. I doubt that he was jabbing and throwing counter right hands in 1900 but thought "nah, this is useless" and went back to his throw-a-punch...clinch...do-damage style that we saw.

[JIm Broughton]

Clinching with middleweights like Burns(yes he was a middlweight with a few extra pounds on him) and Ketchel and a completely shot weight drained Jeffries is'nt the same as getting in the ring with the likes of Klitschko or Lewis or Holmes or Ali. Boxing has evolved in the past 100 years. Old techniques are dropped in favor of newer proven methods of fighting. The emergence of true combination punching and the emphasis on jabbing are two examples of the modern style of fighting that were nearly nonexistent in Johnson's day and the size of todays athletes simply cannot be ignored. The old timers were tough as nails, no doubt about it but they were pioneers still making adaptations to thier respective sports. Do we really think that football teams from the 40's 50's and 60's could compete with todays NFLers? Or that basketball teams from the 50's could compete with todays NBAers? I think we all know the answer to that don't we? I think the same holds true for boxers, particularly the HWs. A middleweight is still 160lbs but a HW is no longer 180-200lbs and roughly 6 feet tall. Nor are they plodding giants whose punches come 1 at a time and can be clocked with a sundial. Ali forever changed the rules when it comes to HWs. Many(but not all ) of todays(from Ali's time on)HWs can box, move and punch. Much more so than the big boys back in Johnson's time. For Jack to compete today he would have to tweak his technique a bit and make the most of his natural athletic ability. I think a few adaptations here and there and he would be fine(less holding...would'nt work with today's rules and todays big boys and more jabbing and combination punching...only 12 rounds not 45...need to pick up the pace a bit) and could conceivably contend for one of the many HW titles out there(a shame). If he does'nt then he gets the living s--- beat out of him...or disqualified or both.

[Langford]

I more or less have always felt that if you took greats from past eras, put them in a gym and locked them away for 6-12 months they would all be able to not only compete by dominate. They probably have more than a couple of pieces of intelligence that have been wasted on the way, too.

whether or not he could jump out of the time machine and do it, I am not so sure. It would be like Johnson getting behind the wheel of a modern sports car, an adjustment, but not long before he would be saying "I like this" and he would soon be getting speeding tickets.

But I give modern champs just as much of a culture shock if they were to go back in time and fight during the johnson era. The look on their faces when
their trainer would say to them
"okay champ, you're through 17 rounds only 23 more to go" would be priceless.

[Seamus]

No topic has better illuminated the delusional opinions of the posters on this board.

Johnson-out of time machine- wouldn't be ranked in the top-20 with his style and stature.

Sometimes I wonder if any on here have ever boxed a round in their lives.

[Mike South]

He was so cool, he probably wouldn't even be that surprised.

Anyway, the Johnson that was ready for Jeffreis - he gets out of a time machine and steps into the ring with, say, Chagaev and fight him?

If not, what do you think would need to be done with Johnson in terms of training and tune ups?

I think Johnson could step out of a time machine and compete today - the question is: who would want to see him fight?

[Sizzle]

No topic has better illuminated the delusional opinions of the posters on this board.

Johnson-out of time machine- wouldn't be ranked in the top-20 with his style and stature.

Sometimes I wonder if any on here have ever boxed a round in their lives.

Just out of interest, are you implying Johnson is limited in todays day and age as a heavyweight, or altogether, i.e., P4P?

What I'm saying is lets say he fought at cruiserweight, which I think is a decent weight for him (200lbs)

Not top20 in your opinion?

[Sizzle]

I think Johnson could step out of a time machine and compete today - the question is: who would want to see him fight?

Everyone apart from the diehard religious morons who have an ethical problem with transporting fighters through time.

[Seamus]

Just out of interest, are you implying Johnson is limited in todays day and age as a heavyweight, or altogether, i.e., P4P?

What I'm saying is lets say he fought at cruiserweight, which I think is a decent weight for him (200lbs)

Not top20 in your opinion?

I just think he would need to have been groomed with today's technique and style. Otherwise, he appears to have the tools.

I have a great deal of respect for Johnson as an innovator, a hard-ass, and a guy who withstood a great amount of social pressure. It's really unbelievable he did what he did in his day and age.

At cruiserweight, with some tune-ups and sparring with modern boxers, he would probably wipe the slate clean.

[mochabuzz]

I think Johnson could compete with current HW champs. He was big enough and experienced enough to compete with any of the current HW champs (except for Vlad) But his success would be limited b/c once he realized he could get all the white women he wanted he would stop training hard and lose to some chump like Maskaev. Johnson is one of my favorite champs b/c he went against the establishment... Publically and privately Jack was Muhammad Ali before Muhammad Ali!

[radianttwilight]

Johnson would get DQ'd if he fought for a modern HW belt.

If he didn't get DQ'd, he would be humiliated.

Of course, the third alternative is that the ref lets him get away with bullshit...he could "Johnny Ruiz" his way to a HW title.

Jack Johnson was a hell of a fighter, and with some work he could definately be competitive in today's division - but NOT stepping right out of a time machine.

[Dempsey1238]

I more or less have always felt that if you took greats from past eras, put them in a gym and locked them away for 6-12 months they would all be able to not only compete by dominate. They probably have more than a couple of pieces of intelligence that have been wasted on the way, too.

whether or not he could jump out of the time machine and do it, I am not so sure. It would be like Johnson getting behind the wheel of a modern sports car, an adjustment, but not long before he would be saying "I like this" and he would soon be getting speeding tickets.

But I give modern champs just as much of a culture shock if they were to go back in time and fight during the johnson era. The look on their faces when
their trainer would say to them
"okay champ, you're through 17 rounds only 23 more to go" would be priceless.

Well Johnson I feel would loved the new sportsters of today. He was getting speeded ticktets in the 1900's lol. He was addition to speed of a car. (Which killed him of couse) Instand of going 60 or 70, he go 100 or 120 miles per hour is all.

[jaywilton]

Janitor;I wouldn't hire Tommy Burns as a bouncer against 168 pound drunks.Going by the films,I don't think Johnson was that good.Even if the Williard fight was a fakeroo,I doubt Johnson could've beaten Dempsey.The first "modern heavyweight" was Gene Tunney;I think he could be competitive against cruiserweights.

[RoccoMarciano]

I think the guy would be, at least, competitive in any era. Of course he may have to learn this or that regarding the era he finds himself in, but once learned he'd be successful. He had too much natural boxing talent to fail.

[janitor]

Janitor;I wouldn't hire Tommy Burns as a bouncer against 168 pound drunks.Going by the films,I don't think Johnson was that good.Even if the Williard fight was a fakeroo,I doubt Johnson could've beaten Dempsey.The first "modern heavyweight" was Gene Tunney;I think he could be competitive against cruiserweights.

I have a film of Tommy Burns skiping rope where he levitates for several seconds.

That should tell you all you want to know about how reliable the film of this period was.

As for Gene Tunney being the first modern heavyweight he honestly brought nothing new to the game. He was little more than a carbon coppy of Mike Gibbons. Indeed I have never encountered any contemporary source suggesting that tunney had turned a corner stylisticaly. You hear it about fighters like Jim Corbett and Terry McGovern but not Tunney.

[Seamus]

I have a film of Tommy Burns skiping rope where he levitates for several seconds.
S

Does he also bend spoons or merely fly so fast that the earth reverves its axis?

[janitor]

S

Does he also bend spoons or merely fly so fast that the earth reverves its axis?

In practice it is a problem with the timing of the film or missing frames.

You have to apreciate that some of these early films are little more than magic lantern shows.

[jaywilton]

I have a film of Tommy Burns skiping rope where he levitates for several seconds.

That should tell you all you want to know about how reliable the film of this period was.

As for Gene Tunney being the first modern heavyweight he honestly brought nothing new to the game. He was little more than a carbon coppy of Mike Gibbons. Indeed I have never encountered any contemporary source suggesting that tunney had turned a corner stylisticaly. You hear it about fighters like Jim Corbett and Terry McGovern but not Tunney.
Janitor,you win by kayo;I can't beat the levitation trick.

[Mendoza]

Mendoza says:


When you’re fighting older or much smaller white hopes, a fighter can get away with low hands and pulling straight back. In these fights, Johnson's fundamental flaws of having a low guard, remaining stationary for long periods of time and pulling straight back worked. Yet against Jess Willard landed a good amount of punches from the outside. Willard was never much a of a boxer, and was one of the slower heavyweight champions. But he was much bigger and had greater reach. Johnson could not rely on his old tactics. If Willard could exploit these flaws, fighters like Klitschko, Mercer, or Holmes would have field days.

The irony is most boxing historians are well versed on Johnson the man, but completely miss understand Johnson’s style in the ring. Johnson was a much better in-fighter than out fighter on all of his films. But he clinched a lot and didn’t throw many punches. Such a formula combined with his technical flaws on defense would spell disaster. The question to ask here is could Johnson adapt to modern boxing? I beleive he could since he was a great athlete, but if a supper middle weight could knock him out and Ketchel could hurt him and put him down, a modern heavyweight puncher would likely do even worse.


Modern heavyweights aren't well-conditioned enough to keep their hands up consistently, like say Juan Diaz or Winky Wright. Nor are they well conditioned enough to use the ring (and movement) effectively, like say Mayweather or Freitas.

To criticize these "fundamental flaws" in Johnson is a little strange to me. He was excellent at parrying punches (see his fight Vs Moran), so obviously he was doing something right with regards to avoiding being hit, even if his hand placement wasn't "conventional".

You think Willard "exploited flaws"? The only flaw Willard exploited was in the treatment of Johnson the man, which saw him kicked out his own country and depressed. He was in horrible condition going into the fight and still beat Willard over the first 20 rounds - His downfall was his conditioning. And I believe 20 rounds would be the downfall of ANY modern heavyweight.

Oh and pulling straight back from straight punches is not textbook but tends to work for fighters with exceptional reflexes, old or modern.


Sizzle,

Parrying shots works best against wide shots. Modern fighters are much better at straight punches such as jabs or crosses. Those types of punches are tough to parry. When Moran and Willard threw straight punches with modest speed and technique, they landed on Johnson quite a bit. By the way the Johnson vs Moran fight was very close, and Willard took over from rounds 15 to finish.

All the flaws I mentioned on Johnson are there to be seen on film. Suspect chin, low punch out put, low guard, and a relatively stationary stance. Johnson’s style was cautious, and while he could hit, he really did not have a big puncher’s chance.

When you tally it all up, Johnson would need to re-tool his game and clinch a lot less ( or he would be warned and docked points ) and throw many more punches if he wants to win rounds under a modern scoring system. This is not debatable.

I think Johnson could re-tool his game because he was a top athlete, but at the same time, you can't fix a suspect chin, and I strongly suspect Johnson picked the style he did because it was the best way to protect his chin.

As for pulling straight back on defense, it works if you're on the outside, and have quick reflexes, but the prerequisite is you have to be much taller than your opponent. Otherwise, you're going to get caught. As you punch up, a fighter losses range, and as you lean back, a fighter can increase the distance. Its simple science. At 6'1", this type of defense will not work vs skilled guy that is taller or longer armed than Johnson was. But agaisnt 5'9" Ketchel or 5'7" Burns, it worked like a charm.

[Sizzle]

Sizzle,

Parrying shots works best against wide shots. Modern fighters are much better at straight punches such as jabs or crosses. Those types of punches are tough to parry. When Moran and Willard threw straight punches with modest speed and technique, they landed on Johnson quite a bit. By the way the Johnson vs Moran fight was very close, and Willard took over from rounds 15 to finish.

All the flaws I mentioned on Johnson are there to be seen on film. Suspect chin, low punch out put, low guard, and a relatively stationary stance. Johnson’s style was cautious, and while he could hit, he really did not have a big puncher’s chance.

When you tally it all up, Johnson would need to re-tool his game and clinch a lot less ( or he would be warned and docked points ) and throw many more punches if he wants to win rounds under a modern scoring system. This is not debatable.

I think Johnson could re-tool his game because he was a top athlete, but at the same time, you can't fix a suspect chin, and I strongly suspect Johnson picked the style he did because it was the best way to protect his chin.

As for pulling straight back on defense, it works if you're on the outside, and have quick reflexes, but the prerequisite is you have to be much taller than your opponent. Otherwise, you're going to get caught. As you punch up, a fighter losses range, and as you lean back, a fighter can increase the distance. Its simple science. At 6'1", this type of defense will not work vs skilled guy that is taller or longer armed than Johnson was. But agaisnt 5'9" Ketchel or 5'7" Burns, it worked like a charm.

It's pretty well documented you're a Johnson hater and that everything he did was wrong, and everyone he fought sucked or was too small, or beat him easily despite the official decision.

I disagree with most of what you wrote, except the part about Johnson being a top athlete. Especially the last part about having to be taller than your opponent to pull straight back from a punch - Roy Jones pulled straight back from punches very effectively.

Straight punches are tougher to parry, but very easy to slip compared to looping power punches.

[Mendoza]

It's pretty well documented you're a Johnson hater and that everything he did was wrong, and everyone he fought sucked or was too small, or beat him easily despite the official decision.

I disagree with most of what you wrote, except the part about Johnson being a top athlete. Especially the last part about having to be taller than your opponent to pull straight back from a punch - Roy Jones pulled straight back from punches very effectively.

Straight punches are tougher to parry, but very easy to slip compared to looping power punches.

It’s pretty well documented that I back my stuff up. I have studied boxing history on film, books and new paper re-views. I also understand the technical side of boxing. When Johnson did well I give him props. When he did not do well, some offer excuses. I tell it like it is. This does not make me a hater. It’s called honesty.

The taller fighter can get away with leaning back to avoid punches from a much shorter / shorter armed fighter. Ask a trainer, or better yet watch some boxing. You'll see.

Yes, straight punches are tougher to parry. Johnson did not face any good straight punchers on film and the instances where he actually slipped a straight punch on film are far and few between. If you watch the 20 rounds between Moran and Johnson, you will note Moran, who was nothing special has the better of the action from the outside, and Johnson has the better of the action from the inside. Johnson defense from the outside is technically flawed for the reasons I stated.

[Sizzle]

It’s pretty well documented that I back my stuff up. I have studied boxing history on film, books and new paper re-views. I also understand the technical side of boxing. When Johnson did well I give him props. When he did not do well, some offer excuses. I tell it like it is. This does not make me a hater. It’s called honesty.

The taller fighter can get away with leaning back to avoid punches from a much shorter / shorter armed fighter. Ask a trainer, or better yet watch some boxing. You'll see.

Yes, straight punches are tougher to parry. Johnson did not face any good straight punchers on film and the instances where he actually slipped a straight punch on film are far and few between. If you watch the 20 rounds between Moran and Johnson, you will note Moran, who was nothing special has the better of the action from the outside, and Johnson has the better of the action from the inside. Johnson defense from the outside is technically flawed for the reasons I stated.

It's never technically sound to lean straight back from punches, whether you are tall or short, as you compromise your balance. Slipping side to side gives you a much greater opportunity to counter, and defend the next punch. However, some great fighters got away with doing this often - Jones Jnr was one of them, and he was often the shorter fighter.

No you don't tell it like it is. You may (or may not) know what you're talking about but your biases with Jack Johnson cloud your judgement, which effects your credibility. The likes of McVey have handed you your ass in such arguments and illuminated the fact that you have some sort of overt dislike or subconscious hatred for Jack Johnson, whatever the case is.

Deny it all you like, you may not even neccessarily be aware of it, but every poster that has read your arguments with McVey is.

It's not quite on the level of redrooster-Ray Leonard but you're gaining on him.

[Mendoza]

It's never technically sound to lean straight back from punches, whether you are tall or short, as you compromise your balance. Slipping side to side gives you a much greater opportunity to counter, and defend the next punch. However, some great fighters got away with doing this often - Jones Jnr was one of them, and he was often the shorter fighter.

No you don't tell it like it is. You may (or may not) know what you're talking about but your biases with Jack Johnson cloud your judgement, which effects your credibility. The likes of McVey have handed you your ass in such arguments and illuminated the fact that you have some sort of overt dislike or subconscious hatred for Jack Johnson, whatever the case is.

Deny it all you like, you may not even neccessarily be aware of it, but every poster that has read your arguments with McVey is.

It's not quite on the level of redrooster-Ray Leonard but you're gaining on him.


I don't stick my nose in thread with posters who disagree with you, but rest assured McVey has not handed me my rear, and by refering to him as " the likes of McVey " it seems that your talking down to him. Mcvey has a man crush on Johnson. In other threads he and I tend to agree.

I tell it like it is. There's your difference. In fact, the more objective posters here see my points when I say Johnson is over rated. I don't just say it. I give real reasons as to why.

No, it is not technically sound to lean back from punches, BUT if your much taller and longer than the other guy, you can get away with it, more so that if your much shorter than the other guy. Johnson on film was able to get out of range vs the 5'7" Burns, 5'9" Flynn, and 5'9" Ketchel, but could not vs the 6'1" Moran and and 6'6" Willard. In additon, a guy near his height who acutaly had some skills in Jack O'Brien landed plenty on Johsnon from the outside.


The title of this thread is, “ Who Thinks Jack Johnson Could Step Out Of A Time Machine And Fight For A Belt? “ In this era, guys are bigger, stronger, taller, and throw more jabs and straight punches per round, hence a shorter fighter like Johnson would be today, would not be as good on defense without a major adjustment. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

Your Roy Jones point is noted, but let's get real, Jones was much quicker than Johnson is on film with his hands and his feet. Jones has a higher guard, and far more lateral movement in comparison to Jack Johnson. Roy Jones punch out put is also much higher than Johnson’s. Fighters feared Roy Jones offense, speed, accuracy, and countering ability, which is why many fighters didn't press Jones until they learned he had a suspect chin.

Back to my point. I wonder if you have seen the same amount of film on Johnson as I have. If you have, can you please point out in which fight and what rounds Johnson actually slipped or ducked punches? I've seen Johnson stumble and lose his balance as much as he made guys miss on flim. Somehow I think this; along with my other spot on points in this thread that best describe what happened on film will remain un-challenged. If you want respect, don't play the hater card as an out. Instead, engage in a debate. I'll be here to repsond to debates.

[mcvey]

Janitor,you win by kayo;I can't beat the levitation trick.
Thats allways his ace in the hole! The old levitating story,still undefeated .!

[Seamus]

I have to agree with assessment of Mendoza here. Johnson would be lacking stacked against modern heavies. I prefer to consider him a pioneer and a great based on fighting the available fighters of his day.

[Sizzle]

I don't stick my nose in thread with posters who disagree with you, but rest assured McVey has not handed me my rear, and by refering to him as " the likes of McVey " it seems that your talking down to him. Mcvey has a man crush on Johnson. In other threads he and I tend to agree.

I tell it like it is. There's your difference. In fact, the more objective posters here see my points when I say Johnson is over rated. I don't just say it. I give real reasons as to why.

No, it is not technically sound to lean back from punches, BUT if your much taller and longer than the other guy, you can get away with it, more so that if your much shorter than the other guy. Johnson on film was able to get out of range vs the 5'7" Burns, 5'9" Flynn, and 5'9" Ketchel, but could not vs the 6'1" Moran and and 6'6" Willard. In additon, a guy near his height who acutaly had some skills in Jack O'Brien landed plenty on Johsnon from the outside.


The title of this thread is, “ Who Thinks Jack Johnson Could Step Out Of A Time Machine And Fight For A Belt? “ In this era, guys are bigger, stronger, taller, and throw more jabs and straight punches per round, hence a shorter fighter like Johnson would be today, would not be as good on defense without a major adjustment. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

Your Roy Jones point is noted, but let's get real, Jones was much quicker than Johnson is on film with his hands and his feet. Jones has a higher guard, and far more lateral movement in comparison to Jack Johnson. Roy Jones punch out put is also much higher than Johnson’s. Fighters feared Roy Jones offense, speed, accuracy, and countering ability, which is why many fighters didn't press Jones until they learned he had a suspect chin.

Back to my point. I wonder if you have seen the same amount of film on Johnson as I have. If you have, can you please point out in which fight and what rounds Johnson actually slipped or ducked punches? I've seen Johnson stumble and lose his balance as much as he made guys miss on flim. Somehow I think this; along with my other spot on points in this thread that best describe what happened on film will remain un-challenged. If you want respect, don't play the hater card as an out. Instead, engage in a debate. I'll be here to repsond to debates.

I am absolutely not talking down to McVey. McVey and Old Fogey are probably the two posters on this forum whom I respect most, how can you come to the conclusion I'm talking down to him? When I say "The likes of" I'm pointing out he's not the only one thats illuminated your hatred of Jack Johnson by highlighting the inconsistencies in your arguments.

McVey does not have a mancrush on Johnson, his points have all been reasonable and well thought out. You have every right to believe Johnson was overrated, but some of your reasoning gave me the impression you WANT him to be overrated - Why, I don't know, but clearly the same standards don't apply to all fighters - ND's turning into losses, random bar fight claims are apparently gospel truth when it came to Johnson-Jeffries yet you disregard first hand sparring accounts etc etc.

So Jones looks to react quicker on film than Johnson? You think that may have something to do with the quality of the footage?

Obviously I haven't seen the amount of Jack Johnson footage you have, you appear to be a dedicated historian, it's a shame you can't view it without tinted spectacles though.

[Mendoza]

I am absolutely not talking down to McVey. McVey and Old Fogey are probably the two posters on this forum whom I respect most, how can you come to the conclusion I'm talking down to him? When I say "The likes of" I'm pointing out he's not the only one thats illuminated your hatred of Jack Johnson by highlighting the inconsistencies in your arguments.

McVey does not have a mancrush on Johnson, his points have all been reasonable and well thought out. You have every right to believe Johnson was overrated, but some of your reasoning gave me the impression you WANT him to be overrated - Why, I don't know, but clearly the same standards don't apply to all fighters - ND's turning into losses, random bar fight claims are apparently gospel truth when it came to Johnson-Jeffries yet you disregard first hand sparring accounts etc etc.

So Jones looks to react quicker on film than Johnson? You think that may have something to do with the quality of the footage?

Obviously I haven't seen the amount of Jack Johnson footage you have, you appear to be a dedicated historian, it's a shame you can't view it without tinted spectacles though.

Sizzle,

I have the ability to break film down, describe the action, count the blows landed in slow motion ect.... Even if the film is horrible and not smooth, things like activity, and blows landed can easily be seen. I'll tell you what, pick a Johnson fight, and I see if I have time to do just that. Be for warmed that I will tell it like it is.

As for Johnson struggles with O'Brien and Jim Johnson, The news paper reads suggest that O’Brien was even or slightly ahead, and Jim Johnson was flat out robbed. This has nothing to do with me being biased at all. Could you imagine the press today if say Wlad Kltischko was out boxed to a stand still by a middle, floored by a middle, and saved from a loss vs a heavyweight journeyman in a fight that was ruled a dubious draw? The press would be all over him. It’s not even debatable. It seems some old timers are bullet proof to cross examination of film and new paper reads. IMO, that should not be the case, but with some historians it is. In fact some historians hardly mention these fights to prop up Johnson, which is a bit of an injustice to the fighters who did well against him.

The bottom line is this. I had these conversations with Historians who have “Graduated” from message board talk, and after I present my points, they tend to agree with me. The thing is, some historians feel in order to be in the club, you have to be willing to accept certain things as givens, and to examine them and find out they are not true means they subject themselves to peer pressure.


As far as Johnson goes on defnese, all the flaws I poitned out are there to be seen on flim.

[Boilermaker]

Sizzle,

I have the ability to break film down, describe the action, count the blows landed in slow motion ect.... Even if the film is horrible and not smooth, things like activity, and blows landed can easily be seen. I'll tell you what, pick a Johnson fight, and I see if I have time to do just that. Be for warmed that I will tell it like it is.


i would be very intersted to see punch outputs for Johnson v Jeffries (so far as film allows).

[Mendoza]

i would be very intersted to see punch outputs for Johnson v Jeffries (so far as film allows).

I'll see what I can do. Maybe on Monday I will have time for a punch stat.

[Boilermaker]

bump.

Any luck finding time yet Mendoza?

[Senya13]

Johnson-Jeffries fight video only has 7 full rounds (including 1st and 15th, I didn't match the ones in between against written reports to find out which rounds they were as they are not numbered on video), or there more complete version too?

[North Star]

I think Jack Johnson could be a top contender and a potential heavyweight champion today. He was a very intelligent fighter and would learn the skills required to compete in our time.

[Mendoza]

bump.

Any luck finding time yet Mendoza?

I have not had time to watch it again. Its on my to do's.

[Sonny's jab]

As for Johnson struggles with O'Brien and Jim Johnson, The news paper reads suggest that O’Brien was even or slightly ahead, and Jim Johnson was flat out robbed. This has nothing to do with me being biased at all. Could you imagine the press today if say Wlad Kltischko was out boxed to a stand still by a middle, floored by a middle, and saved from a loss vs a heavyweight journeyman in a fight that was ruled a dubious draw? .

Jack Johnson was apparently horribly out of shape against Phil. Jack O'Brien and Battling Jim Johnson.
Jim Johnson fight was 1913 and by that time Jack Johnson was a 35 year old mostly inactive fighter who had been partying in Paris.
It's like judging Ali off the Evangelista and Leon Spinks fights.

I'm not excusing Johnson - his lack of conditioning and poor showings against mediocre fighters IN TITLE FIGHTS is valid criticism against his legacy.
But obviously his reputation is built on earlier performances.

The O'Brien fight was 6 ROUNDS NO DECISION and Johnson was clearly out of shape.
Basically, in a 6 Round ND fight O'Brien would have had to KO Johnson to be regarded as champion.
Even if he had won all six rounds clearly it is doubtful whether anyone would be championing him - calling for a 20 round rematch, yes, but seriously saying O'Brien was champ, no.
That's why and how Johnson afforded looking bad against O'Brien.
Things were arranged differently then. Today we have unambiguous title fights (all 12 rounds) and we have DECISIONS. If someone explained to Wlad Klitschko that his next "fight" was no decision against a guy who couldn't knock him out, so all he had to do was show up and last six rounds, and that there were to be no live TV cameras present, and that the sanctioning bodies weren't interested, maybe he'd turn up out of shape and just play around and look so awful that a middleweight or light-heavy goes even with him.

You have to look at the context of these things.

[Mendoza]

Sonny's jab Jack Johnson was apparently horribly out of shape against Phil. Jack O'Brien and Battling Jim Johnson.

Jim Johnson fight was 1913 and by that time Jack Johnson was a 35 year old mostly inactive fighter who had been partying in Paris.

Johnson was not in bad shape for the Jim Johnson match. He was a tad over weight vs O'brien, but a six round match does not test stamina.

If someone explained to Wlad Klitschko that his next "fight" was no decision against a guy who couldn't knock him out, so all he had to do was show up and last six rounds, and that there were to be no live TV cameras present, and that the sanctioning bodies weren't interested, maybe he'd turn up out of shape and just play around and look so awful that a middleweight or light-heavy goes even with him.

Here is where we differ. Wlad would not lose a round to either O'brien or Jim Johnson. He would easily dominate the action. What we have here is the heavyweight champion of the world in Jack Johnson being embarrassed by a 160ish pound fighter who was near the end of his career in O'Brien, and being saved by a decision to make a fight he lost into a draw vs a good journeyman in Jim Johnson

You have to look at the context of these things.

Agreed, and it doesn't look good for Johnson. Also, might some of Johnson opponents also have excuses too? I think so. How much time did O’Brien and Jim Johnson have to prepare for the title shots? Jack Johnson called the shots. He said where, and when. There are too many games here. When the heavyweight champion enters the ring in a non-exbibition prize fight, his title is on the line. We should go by the film, ring results, and reports.

[Sonny's jab]

Johnson was not in bad shape for the Jim Johnson match. He was a tad over weight vs O'brien, but a six round match does not test stamina.
.

I think he was old and out-of-shape constantly by the time he faced Jim Johnson. It's his first fight in 18 months, he's 35 years old, and he's living high life in Paris.
This is not the same hungry Johnson as 1908.

As for O'Brien, it's not about stamina. If he hasn't trained then EVERYTHING is off.
As I've explained the circumstances of these 6 round no decision bouts afforded Johnson to treat it like a sparring session. All he has to do is not get knocked out, and there is no suggestion that O'Brien was ever close to doing it.
On the other hand, O'Brien was KNOCKED DOWN TWICE.


Here is where we differ. Wlad would not lose a round to either O'brien or Jim Johnson. He would easily dominate the action. What we have here is the heavyweight champion of the world in Jack Johnson being embarrassed by a 160ish pound fighter who was near the end of his career in O'Brien, and being saved by a decision to make a fight he lost into a draw vs a good journeyman in Jim Johnson

You can say "Wlad would do this", "Wlad would do that" but you DONT KNOW.
All we can say is what they do in their own time, and WHY they do it.
I've explained WHY Johnson may not have impressed versus O'Brien. He did what he needed to do.
If you want to pretend that we can judge what happens in a 6 round no decison bout in 1909 with the same standards as we judge present-day title fights then that's up to you.
Maybe you can explain how modern day judges would award a 6 round bout to the guy who hit the deck in the 1st and 5th rounds ?
It's silly to supplant one set of circumstances into another era where almost everything that caused the circumstances is not applicable.



Agreed, and it doesn't look good for Johnson. Also, might some of Johnson opponents also have excuses too? I think so. How much time did O’Brien and Jim Johnson have to prepare for the title shots? Jack Johnson called the shots. He said where, and when. There are too many games here. When the heavyweight champion enters the ring in a non-exbibition prize fight, his title is on the line. We should go by the film, ring results, and reports



Obviously O'Brien should have been more motivated to put forth a good effort against Johnson than Johnson was motivated to do against him.
As I have explained, Johnson couldn't lose the championship unless he gets KO'd' !
That's the rules.
Johnson did what he had to do, under the circumstances. His title WAS on the line, and O'Brien knew that only a KO would make him champion. So what's the problem ?

As for your distinction of a "non-exhibition prize fight" it was NOT clear cut in those days.
During this time when boxing was illegal, they even distinguished between a "prize fight" and a "boxing match" and the NO DECISION thing needs to be studied in its historical context too.
What's the definition of an "exhibition" anyway ? Is there a legal or commercial definition ?

Boxing was completely different in those days. Some times the local mayor or whoever would inform the organizers they wanted a civilized "boxing match" and if it got out of hand (too violent, too one-sided) they'll all be jailed.
Other times bouts were allowed to go 45 brutal rounds.

This is the historical context. If Johnson, or Langford, or any great fighter of the time "sparred" on almost even terms with some local guy in some unknown town in an "official" fight it wasn't necessarily a BAD thing.

[Seamus]

I have to go with Mendoza on this one. Johnson's social legacy (important as it is) tends to shade his boxing legacy, and fawning bio's like Ken Burns' load don't help much. Johnson had lapses in his career which would be inexcusable twenty years later, let alone under the harsh appraisal of the modern era.

[Sonny's jab]

I have to go with Mendoza on this one. Johnson's social legacy (important as it is) tends to shade his boxing legacy, and fawning bio's like Ken Burns' load don't help much. Johnson had lapses in his career which would be inexcusable twenty years later, let alone under the harsh appraisal of the modern era.

I have no problem with agreeing that Johnson had lapses, and perhaps too many for them not to affect his legacy considerably.

But I think distinctions should be made between the best of Johnson and the worst of Johnson.

And the testimony of many contemporaries who thought him at his best considerably superior to all his peers needs to be taken seriously.

Also, criticising him from a viewpoint as if he were fighting under the boxing media spotlight as it exists in 2007 is nonsensical.

[Mendoza]

I have no problem with agreeing that Johnson had lapses, and perhaps too many for them not to affect his legacy considerably.

But I think distinctions should be made between the best of Johnson and the worst of Johnson.

And the testimony of many contemporaries who thought him at his best considerably superior to all his peers needs to be taken seriously.

Also, criticising him from a viewpoint as if he were fighting under the boxing media spotlight as it exists in 2007 is nonsensical.

I disagree wholehearted. If another champion today had the same types of lapses that Johnson had, combined with a horrible title run, he would be ripped by the press, and mocked on the internet. No modern fighter could be called " Great " under Johnson's circumstances as boxer in the ring.

The question is you brought up is interesting. What was the best of Johnson, and did that version of Johnson ever beat a great heavyweight in his prime or near prime?

[Sonny's jab]

The question is you brought up is interesting. What was the best of Johnson, and did that version of Johnson ever beat a great heavyweight in his prime or near prime?

The best of Johnson was in several fights from about 1905 to 1910.
Sure, he had a few crap fights among that time frame but he was usually miles superior to his opposition even while not getting out of first gear. He was in-shape and whether he deserved his reputation of invincibility or not, it must have come from somewhere.

I will concede that he didn't beat a prime or near-prime great heavyweight, but the same can be said of Holmes, Tyson, perhaps even Joe Louis.

[Mendoza]

The best of Johnson was in several fights from about 1905 to 1910.
Sure, he had a few crap fights among that time frame but he was usually miles superior to his opposition even while not getting out of first gear. He was in-shape and whether he deserved his reputation of invincibility or not, it must have come from somewhere.

I will concede that he didn't beat a prime or near-prime great heavyweight, but the same can be said of Holmes, Tyson, perhaps even Joe Louis.

If Johnson's best was from 1905-1910, he looks vulnerable to me. During your version of his best 5 years Johnson to Marvin Hart, Fouled out via low blow on Jeanette, Drew with Billy Dunning ( who was he? ), looked bad in a 6 rounder with O'Brien, and was floored by Middle Weight Ketchel. How could one view a prime version of Johnson’s up and down performances as a dominating fighter?
I just don’t see it. I do think Johnson had good wins from 1905-1910.

Burns, Langford, and Lang come to mind. But we all know Burns was ill, and Langford was but 156 pounds, so the wins over Burns and Langfrod when examined look a bit less impressive.

Tyson, Holmes, and Louis never had this many bad resutls in their prime years.

[ChrisPontius]

"Johnson more powerful than Louis" :lol: . That goes to show you what happens when people rate on memory and heart instead of film. What a joke.

[janitor]

"Johnson more powerful than Louis" :lol: . That goes to show you what happens when people rate on memory and heart instead of film. What a joke.

It might not be as far from the truth as you might think. Johnson clearly had considerable power when he chose to turn offensive.

[round15]

Jack Johnson could probably come out of a time machine in his prime and beat every heavyweight today. The only era where I see him running into a bit of trouble is the 1970's, with Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Shavers and Holmes. He'd out box Ali, Holmes, Foreman and Shavers, but might have a bit of trouble handling the pressure of Frazier and Norton. Tyson would almost qualify as the same type of threat Frazier was, but he didn't have nowhere near the endurance of Frazier. Marciano would provide a tough challenge as well but he wasn't fast enough and wouldn't have enough pressure to sustain a significant attack. As for Joe Louis, Johnson already knew his weakness well before Schmeling did and would probably knock Louis out late or win a close decision. Everyone knows Dempsey chickened out of a fight with an aging Johnson, which is the black mark on his title reign.

IMO, Jack Johnson was the smartest and the best defensive heavyweight of all time and he could attack with ferocity as well. He fought in an era when endurance was the key to winning fights, going 15 rounds or more constantly.

[Seamus]

Jack Johnson could probably come out of a time machine in his prime and beat every heavyweight today. IMO, Jack Johnson was the smartest and the best defensive heavyweight of all time and he could attack with ferocity as well. He fought in an era when endurance was the key to winning fights, going 15 rounds or more constantly.

Ha!

You know there is a writer's strike in the US. They could use some good comedy talent.

[McGrain]

Ha!

You know there is a writer's strike in the US. They could use some good comedy talent.


That's...not a great rebuttle.

[ChrisPontius]

It might not be as far from the truth as you might think. Johnson clearly had considerable power when he chose to turn offensive.
He had good power - though it obviously looked better because he outweighed most of his opponents by 20-30 pounds. But he's not even close to being the class of Louis when it comes to power.


And the fact that a contemporary writer thought so is just another piece in the endless string of evidence of how incredibly uninformed the people who wrote about him were. They didn't have the ring records, films and a perspective on modern gloved boxing that we have.

[Seamus]

That's...not a great rebuttle.

Because the contention that Jack Johnson, with what are by today's standards neaderthal skills and limited physical tools, could dent the heavyweight scene does not even merit a well-thought response.

Don't get me wrong, Johnson was a great old-timey fighter who looked like a genius of technique with his slapping blocks and rolling fists. For his time, he was a great innovator and technician.

However, even against the largely undersized barroom brawlers of his day, he had his share of trouble. I could recite the list of questionable performances which riddled his record, but I'm a bit wearied of the excuses constantly floated by his worshippers. He really gets an unheard of leway for bad performances (Chonyski, Hart, Ketchell, Johnson... et. al.). I will guarantee you one thing were Johnson here today, he would be scrutinized correctly for once. I certainly don't think Lennox Lewis would have been allowed to feast on Jeff Harding and Julian Jackson during his reign.

About 90% of the threads on this board seem to devolve into the same shrill arguments between those who believe the fighters of yesteryear (and the more yester the better) were Bunyan-esque supermen and those who roundly discount their every, grainy effort on stilted celluloid. While I believe the truth lies somewhere in between, I really don't need to hear rabble which argues the contradistinction.