Lets discuss Jack Johnson...

[Russell]

There's a lot more Dempsey and Louis discussion on these boards... but something about Johnson's always grabbed my attention. And hence I'm curious.

What exactly did he have going for him?

He was a master at the lost art of blocking shots in mid-air
with his gloves, right?

Unbelievably strong, bending Jeffrie's freakin' arms behind his back in the clinch when they fought.

Ranking wise, Fleischer had him at #1 all time. Charley Rose, #2. Goldman, #4.

Does their consistency in talking about his greatness say anything about the man? Was he really that great?

Thoughts, opinions?

What heavyweights do you give odds over him, if any?

[McGrain]

I'll give him a chance v anyone for the following reasons.

He's a spectacular ring general, great at getting a guy to fight his fight. Deadly from the neck up and wise to his opponents strengths.

He's impossible to spar for. You have to solve him "across the ring" if you see what I mean.

He's an extraordingary talent physiclaly with Ali like reactions.

Fearlessness.

I think Ali would be his worst nightmare, and I'd pick him to beat Johnson.

Lennox Lewis perhaps would be favourite going in.

Dempsey would be fascinating. The best offensive infighter v one of the best defencive infighters, perhaps the best, but I'd pick Johnson on the intangibles.

[Russell]

What make Johnson such a great defensive fighter?

And why would Ali be a nightmare for him?

[McGrain]

What make Johnson such a great defensive fighter?

Understanding what he had and how best to go about controlling him. Perhaps instinctve, I don't know. His reactions were pretty astonishing, and he had a wonderful, wonderful understanding of range and how to control it. That is very important.

Also offense. Johnson had pretty good power, timed his man and could switch defence to offense in a blink. Which makes your opponent much less keen to hit you!

And why would Ali be a nightmare for him?

He marginally better at all the things Johnson is good at I think. So he has a slightly quicker, as good at judging range. As to Johnson's advantages on the inside, they are pretty much annuled because peak Ali is quick enough to never have to go there. Johnson was more agile than generally given credit for, but he would look slow by Ali.

I see a wide, painful decision over 15 which would be pretty boring post round 10, unless Ali tried to get the KO (which he absolutley should not do...and if he did, things might get interesting again).

[Mendoza]

I'll give him a chance v anyone for the following reasons.

He's a spectacular ring general, great at getting a guy to fight his fight. Deadly from the neck up and wise to his opponents strengths.

He's impossible to spar for. You have to solve him "across the ring" if you see what I mean.

He's an extraordingary talent physiclaly with Ali like reactions.

Fearlessness.

I think Ali would be his worst nightmare, and I'd pick him to beat Johnson.

Lennox Lewis perhaps would be favourite going in.

Dempsey would be fascinating. The best offensive infighter v one of the best defencive infighters, perhaps the best, but I'd pick Johnson on the intangibles.

Legends aside, Jack Johnson is a misunderstood fighter. He had great defense for his era, but it was not the type of defense we see today. Johnson was a master clincher who could control the action vs opponents near his size or smaller, and whack them with punches in a clinch when the time was right. Johnson was something of a magician in there, a twist here and slight of hand there then BOOM, the uppercut lands. Johnson could block punches with an open glove, but his true defensive genius was his ability to anticipate punches, and read his opponents body language. This can not be taught in boxing. Either you have it or you don’t. Johnson was often a step ahead of his opponent and thanks to quick reflexes he could make a man miss despite several flaws in his defense.

These flaws in Johnson’s defense were a low guard, a somewhat stationary target, and little head movement. He never slipped many punches either, at least in his filmed fights. A skilled boxer could land on Johnson. Willard and Moran were not that skilled, or fast, yet they landed on the outside. If they could do it others could do it too.

If Johnson were around today, I do believe he was a good enough athlete to learn modern defensive techniques, however he could not clinch as much as he used to so one can only speculate if he would be better off defensively or not. I tend to believe his defense today for a heavyweight would be good, but not great.

[janitor]

When Al Kaufman challenged Jack Johnson for the heavyweight title he was considered to be the best white prospect of unseating him at the time. In the course of ten rounds he only managed to land two meaningfull punches on Johnson.

Now even if Kaufman was an extremely limited fighter technicaly this is an astounding performence for a heavyweight. It is a Mayweather Gatti type shut out.

Sadly with the quality of film of the period most of the subtlties of Johnsons defensive genius are probably lost forever.

[janitor]

These flaws in Johnson’s defense were a low guard, a somewhat stationary target, and little head movement. He never slipped many punches either, at least in his filmed fights.

Johnson was actualy prety nimble on his feet though he used footwork sparringly. Against the much smaller Tommy Burns he was able to easily outmanouver him using footwork.

I think he also used more head movment than the film suggests going by the testimony of oponents.

[mcvey]

I'll give him a chance v anyone for the following reasons.

He's a spectacular ring general, great at getting a guy to fight his fight. Deadly from the neck up and wise to his opponents strengths.

He's impossible to spar for. You have to solve him "across the ring" if you see what I mean.

He's an extraordingary talent physiclaly with Ali like reactions.

Fearlessness.

I think Ali would be his worst nightmare, and I'd pick him to beat Johnson.

Lennox Lewis perhaps would be favourite going in.

Dempsey would be fascinating. The best offensive infighter v one of the best defencive infighters, perhaps the best, but I'd pick Johnson on the intangibles.
Johnson,evaluated Dempsey as a great 4 round fighter,butsaid that after that he became just another hooker,maybe a bit harsh but ,his point was ,if you could weather his initial rush you could defuse him.

[ChrisPontius]

Johnson is a great heavyweight in terms of accomplishments, but if i asked "what heavyweights would you give odds over him, if any", i would say many.

Reason being that boxing in his day was completely different from what it was the 90 years following his time. He was a master in-fighter, wrestling, pushing his opponents around etc, but he showed very little outside fighting, jabbing, throwing 1-2's, keeping a distance and more important, he didn't have to deal with defending against it much either. Watch any of his fights and you'll notice that they are apart... one throws a punch, they fall in a clinch, they he pushes his opponent around, unleashes some uppercuts, they separate.... and start the process all over again. Holds his hands low and uses little to no combination punching: product of still present bareknuckle boxing/wrestling style and the lack of evolving into gloved boxing.


Under his own rules he'd be very hard to beat, but i think the majority of the champs post 20's would beat him from the outside rather easily because he's not adapted to that kind of game.

[janitor]

Under his own rules he'd be very hard to beat, but i think the majority of the champs post 20's would beat him from the outside rather easily because he's not adapted to that kind of game.

I suspect that the sample of footage we have dose not tell the whole story. His fights with Denver Ed Martin for example seem to have been outside afairs.

[mr. magoo]

Johnson was actualy prety nimble on his feet though he used footwork sparringly. Against the much smaller Tommy Burns he was able to easily outmanouver him using footwork.


Of course he did. It was a tremendous feat that he overcame the trials of facing a 5'7" 168 pound monster.

[janitor]

Of course he did. It was a tremendous feat that he overcame the trials of facing a 5'7" 168 pound monster.

Yes but the one advantage that we would expect the smaller Burns to have is speed. Johnson was faster.

[Mendoza]

Johnson was actualy prety nimble on his feet though he used footwork sparringly. Against the much smaller Tommy Burns he was able to easily outmanouver him using footwork.

I think he also used more head movment than the film suggests going by the testimony of oponents.

Since there are only a few fight films left on Johnson, it is possible he moved around a bit more than the films show. I agree with the poster who said the old films do not show the grace and subtlety of movements. This is true without a doubt. The thing is Johnson was no Ali in terms of footwork, but shared the same stylistic flaws that Ali had. Unlike Ali, Johnson was rather short for a heavyweight. Johnson was a shade over 6 feet tall, and not gifted with long arms either.

My point here is if Ali who was judged to be the fastest overall heavyweight in the 1960’s by some of the men familiar with the Johnson’s and Tunney’s of boxing could get walloped every now and then, then Johnson would get walloped too.

Unless of course Johnson changed his defensive guard, developed the ability to slip and duck punches, and implemented lateral movement. Unlike Ali or Tunney, Johnson did not have a rock of Gibraltar for a chin, so he would need these if's or projections to defeat a the better fighters in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's.

[salsanchezfan]

Johnson was also a master of understanding and utilizing the longer distances of fights in those days. He knew that with his cat-like reflexes, he could merely sit back, block, parry, and generally wait out a lot of more aggressive-minded fighters and then take charge once they tired. Made for pretty tepid watching, but there's no denying he was a real craftsman.

[McGrain]

Johnson was also a master of understanding and utilizing the longer distances of fights in those days. He knew that with his cat-like reflexes, he could merely sit back, block, parry, and generally wait out a lot of more aggressive-minded fighters and then take charge once they tired. Made for pretty tepid watching, but there's no denying he was a real craftsman.

This sums it up well for me.

I would only add that Johnsons ability to block and counter made for a naturally reticent opponent. It's not easy punching when you've been missing and getting hit the whole time.

[salsanchezfan]

This sums it up well for me.

I would only add that Johnsons ability to block and counter made for a naturally reticent opponent. It's not easy punching when you've been missing and getting hit the whole time.


.............Good point; he was no featherfisted puncher, either.

[janitor]

The thing is Johnson was no Ali in terms of footwork, but shared the same stylistic flaws that Ali had.


Johnson did things diferently. He minimised footwork and used subtle movments to avoid blows. In his ability to use these tactics he might have been as much of a phenomenon as Ali.

[QUOTE]
Unlike Ali, Johnson was rather short for a heavyweight. Johnson was a shade over 6 feet tall, and not gifted with long arms either.


By the standards of his era he was average height and huge physicaly.


Unless of course Johnson changed his defensive guard, developed the ability to slip and duck punches, and implemented lateral movement.

Johnsons style worked well for him. There have been fighters who stood flat footed in front of their opponents who were almost unhitable.

Don't disrespect the low guard either. It takes more skill to pull it off but if you can the rewards are considerable.


Unlike Ali or Tunney, Johnson did not have a rock of Gibraltar for a chin, so he would need these if's or projections to defeat a the better fighters in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's.


I think Johnson had a prety good chin.

He was not knocked out over a period of fouteen years which included an extremely high level of activity. His knockouts all seem to come when he was either inexperienced or old.

[Muchmoore]

Yes but the one advantage that we would expect the smaller Burns to have is speed. Johnson was faster.

Burns was a skinny white guy and Johnson was a built 200 pound tall black fighter. He should of been faster as well.

[Mendoza]

Johnson did things diferently. He minimised footwork and used subtle movments to avoid blows. In his ability to use these tactics he might have been as much of a phenomenon as Ali.


Yes, but the guys he was matched against on film looked liked they had two left feet. Johnson did not move like Ali. This is a myth. And as I said before, even Ali with his movement skills was hit often by skilled fighters.

By the standards of his era he was average height and huge physicaly.

In his own era, yes, Johnson often had a weight advantage. However Johnson was a bit boxy, and did could not afford to put on much weight on without losing some speed and stamina. If Johnson were fighting today, he would be a small heavyweight.


I think Johnson had a prety good chin. He was not knocked out over a period of fouteen years which included an extremely high level of activity. His knockouts all seem to come when he was either inexperienced or old.

Chins are best rated when they are hit. With Johnson, if seems like the punchers who landed on him either hurt him or knocked him out. Johnson’s chin to me is average. Middleweight Stanely Ketchel badly hurt Johnson and knocked him down with the first solid punch he landed in the fight. Now good ol’ Stanley could hit, but he was no Tyson.

[janitor]

[quote=Mendoza]
Yes, but the guys he was matched against on film looked liked they had two left feet.


So dose Charlie Chaplin. It dosn't mean that he actualy walked like that.

Johnson did not move like Ali. This is a myth. And as I said before, even Ali with his movement skills was hit often by skilled fighters.

Ali relied solely on movment to avoid punishement while Johnson made extensive use of other methods like glove glocking and countering. It is not a good comparison.


In his own era, yes, Johnson often had a weight advantage. However Johnson was a bit boxy, and did could not afford to put on much weight on without losing some speed and stamina. If Johnson were fighting today, he would be a small heavyweight.


He would be about the size of Hollyfield when he won the title.


Chins are best rated when they are hit. With Johnson, if seems like the punchers who landed on him either hurt him or knocked him out. Johnson’s chin to me is average. Middleweight Stanely Ketchel badly hurt Johnson and knocked him down with the first solid punch he landed in the fight. Now good ol’ Stanley could hit, but he was no Tyson.


There is a big difference between being knocked down and knocked out. The fact that Johnson was not knocked out over a fifteen year period given his level of activity suggests that he had a servicable chin.

[Mendoza]

So dose Charlie Chaplin. It dosn't mean that he actualy walked like that.

With the same quality film, Chaplin seems much smoother then the Flynn’s, or Burns of the world. While I do think the older films have deterioiated over the years, if you watch them closely you can get a good gauge of how the fighters moved. If the film runs too fast or too slow, one can time three minutes, and make the action fit. Just to clarify, I do believe Johnson had good movement skills. We we may differ if how good. I do not believe Johnson’s movement skills were on par with the Corbett’s, Tunney’s, Walcott’s or Ali’s of boxing regardless of how good or bad the film quality is. Even if the film is bad, one can tell Johnson was rather stationary with a low guard. This type of defense when not in a clinch is an open invitation to get hit.

Ali relied solely on movment to avoid punishement while Johnson made extensive use of other methods like glove glocking and countering. It is not a good comparison.

Ali had much quicker feet, was taller and lighting quick reflexes. In Muhamed’s prime he was hard to catch with one punch, and nearly impossible to catch with two connects in a row. Of coruse when Ali stopped moving, he could be hit due to his low guard, and unorthodox method of pulling backwards from punches.

He would be about the size of Hollyfield when he won the title.

We agree here.


There is a big difference between being knocked down and knocked out. The fact that Johnson was not knocked out over a fifteen year period given his level of activity suggests that he had a servicable chin.

Or the fact that he fought smaller men, journey man, or older X champions has something to do with it not being stopped in a 15 year period. While this statement is impressive on the surface, its not entirely true. Jack Johnson’s match with Battling’ Jim Johnson should be a TKO loss in the books, not a draw. And middle weight Ketchel had Johnson hurt on the first solid punch he landed in an otherwise dull fight.

[Mendoza]

So dose Charlie Chaplin. It dosn't mean that he actualy walked like that.

With the same quality film, Chaplin seems much smoother then the Flynn’s, or Burns of the world. While I do think the older films have deterioiated over the years, if you watch them closely you can get a good gauge of how the fighters moved. If the film runs too fast or too slow, one can time three minutes, and make the action fit. Just to clarify, I do believe Johnson had good movement skills. We we may differ if how good. I do not believe Johnson’s movement skills were on par with the Corbett’s, Tunney’s, Walcott’s or Ali’s of boxing regardless of how good or bad the film quality is. Even if the film is bad, one can tell Johnson was rather stationary with a low guard. This type of defense when not in a clinch is an open invitation to get hit.

Ali relied solely on movment to avoid punishement while Johnson made extensive use of other methods like glove glocking and countering. It is not a good comparison.

Ali had much quicker feet, was taller and lighting quick reflexes. In Muhamed’s prime he was hard to catch with one punch, and nearly impossible to catch with two connects in a row. Of coruse when Ali stopped moving, he could be hit due to his low guard, and unorthodox method of pulling backwards from punches.

He would be about the size of Hollyfield when he won the title.

We agree here.


There is a big difference between being knocked down and knocked out. The fact that Johnson was not knocked out over a fifteen year period given his level of activity suggests that he had a servicable chin.

Or the fact that he fought smaller men, journey man, or older X champions has something to do with it not being stopped in a 15 year period. While this statement is impressive on the surface, its not entirely true. Jack Johnson’s match with Battling’ Jim Johnson should be a TKO loss in the books, not a draw. And middle weight Ketchel had Johnson hurt on the first solid punch he landed in an otherwise dull fight.

[janitor]

[quote=Mendoza]
With the same quality film, Chaplin seems much smoother then the Flynn’s, or Burns of the world.


Firstly you need to put your text in a lighter colour because it is not visible against the black background.

To be fair Chaplin is more Dempsey era.

While I do think the older films have deterioiated over the years, if you watch them closely you can get a good gauge of how the fighters moved. If the film runs too fast or too slow, one can time three minutes, and make the action fit.

It is not that simple. The timing is not consistent from one minute to the next in these old films. They are little more than magic lantern shows.

Just to clarify, I do believe Johnson had good movement skills. We we may differ if how good. I do not believe Johnson’s movement skills were on par with the Corbett’s, Tunney’s, Walcott’s or Ali’s of boxing

Neither do I


one can tell Johnson was rather stationary with a low guard. This type of defense when not in a clinch is an open invitation to get hit.


Not necisarily. A lot of fighters throughout history have employed a flat footed stance using head movment to avoid punishment. Jimmy Wilde is a good example.

Boxing manualy of the early 1900s recomend a low guard to defend against body shots which were much more efective with the smaller gloves.

Or the fact that he fought smaller men, journey man, or older X champions has something to do with it not being stopped in a 15 year period.

Between wining the coloured title from Denver Ed Martin and the oficial title from Tommy Burns Johnson had an incredible schedule. Look at the frequency with which he fought against world class fighters trying to force a title fight.

While this statement is impressive on the surface, its not entirely true. Jack Johnson’s match with Battling’ Jim Johnson should be a TKO loss in the books, not a draw.

Some sources suggest that the fight was only scheduled for ten rounds in the first place which would mean that Johnson retained his title legitimately.


And middle weight Ketchel had Johnson hurt on the first solid punch he landed in an otherwise dull fight.


Remember that Ketchel blasted out heavyweight contender Dan Flyn in a couple of rounds.

[Mendoza]

Firstly you need to put your text in a lighter colour because it is not visible against the black background. To be fair Chaplin is more Dempsey era.


I don’t know why the text color changed here. Sorry about that. I sometimes have posting issues with this forum. You brought up Chaplin indicating he doesn’t look as smooth on some of the older films. I think the point is interesting and valid. I looked Chaplin up on the web. His first film was 1914 while Johnson was champ. He was also targeted for the Mann act.

It is not that simple. The timing is not consistent from one minute to the next in these old films. They are little more than magic lantern shows.

I agree. They are what they are. I can still pick up a fighters style, and this dates to films pre 1900.

Not necisarily. A lot of fighters throughout history have employed a flat footed stance using head movment to avoid punishment. Jimmy Wilde is a good example.

Wilde was a completely different fighter. He was far more dynamic than Johnson was in the ring, and loved to let his hands go with little fear of the incoming.

Boxing manualy of the early 1900s recomend a low guard to defend against body shots which were much more efective with the smaller gloves.

I’d like to see that manual, as I am unfamiliar with it. The best way to defend against body shots is to keep the elbows in close near the ribs, then lower your elbows a bit when the body shot is throw.

Between wining the coloured title from Denver Ed Martin and the oficial title from Tommy Burns Johnson had an incredible schedule. Look at the frequency with which he fought against world class fighters trying to force a title fight.

Martin was a string bean who could not take a punch. He was Ko’d freqnetley. The Burns victory was a good one for Johnson, the trouble is Burns was ill with a fever and at a low weight. Burns was forced to fight ill if he wanted to get paid. Johnson defended his title often enough. He also avoided the best competition, both black and white. It is easy to keep busy and make title defenses vs lesser talents. See Larry Holmes.

Some sources suggest that the fight was only scheduled for ten rounds in the first place which would mean that Johnson retained his title legitimately.

The fight was scheduled for 20 rounds. I have read the primary reports. The final verdict was in question after Johnson retired. One judge had the fight for Battling Jim Johnson, who was the Ross Purity of his day. The other two had it a draw. The correct ruling if one fighter retires from an injury inside the distance is a TKO loss.

Remember that Ketchel blasted out heavyweight contender Dan Flyn in a couple of rounds.

Ketchel had good power for a middle weight, but he would not register as a ture heavyweight puncher. My point is if Ketchel could hurt Johnson with the first solid blow he landed in the fight then what would a larger and harder puncher do?

[janitor]

[quote=Mendoza]
You brought up Chaplin indicating he doesn’t look as smooth on some of the older films. I think the point is interesting and valid. I looked Chaplin up on the web. His first film was 1914 while Johnson was champ. He was also targeted for the Mann act.


Interesting


I agree. They are what they are. I can still pick up a fighters style, and this dates to films pre 1900.


Sure. You might miss some of the subtlties though.


Wilde was a completely different fighter. He was far more dynamic than Johnson was in the ring, and loved to let his hands go with little fear of the incoming.


The point is that there have been a lot of sucesfull flat footed defensive fighters. Johnson is not uneique in this regard.

Young Griffo was a flat footed type and virtualy unhitable.

Martin was a string bean who could not take a punch. He was Ko’d freqnetley.

Martin was something of a glass cannon but he was feared. Sharkey and Ruhlin wanted no part of him. He handeled Ruhlin easily in sparring.

If Jack Johnson had never been born we would be talking about whether Jeffries ducked Martin.


Johnson defended his title often enough. He also avoided the best competition, both black and white. It is easy to keep busy and make title defenses vs lesser talents. See Larry Holmes.


I dont rate Johnson on the basis of his lacklustre title reign. I rate him due to his incredible run as coloured champion.

Look at Johnsons career from the Gardiner fight to the Jeffries fight.

The fight was scheduled for 20 rounds. I have read the primary reports. The final verdict was in question after Johnson retired.

I heard contemporary acounts that say the fight was scheduled for both 10 and 20 rounds.

One judge had the fight for Battling Jim Johnson, who was the Ross Purity of his day. The other two had it a draw.

I would not call Jim Johnson the Ross Purity of his day. He fought a smart fight against Sam McVea neutralizing his left hook and held him to a draw once.


The correct ruling if one fighter retires from an injury inside the distance is a TKO loss.


You don't know what the terms of the contract were.

You got some incredible terms in fight contracts of this period like fighter A would loose and forfeit his purse unless he scored a knockout.

There were contracts under which Tex Cobb would have beaten Larry Holmes.


Ketchel had good power for a middle weight, but he would not register as a ture heavyweight puncher. My point is if Ketchel could hurt Johnson with the first solid blow he landed in the fight then what would a larger and harder puncher do?


Most great fighters get dumped on their but by sombody not fit to lace their boxing gloves up at some point in their careers.

[timmers612]

Johnsons weight on the back foot, hand blocking style wouldn't have won many fights against the greats in the modern era. Though he could move smoothly on his feet like a big cat, he also was a bit clumsy when launching into an attack as he had to shift all his weight off of his back foot. Unlike one writer here I think he would have a very good go with Ali as his defence would have stopped many of Alis jabs, etc.

[Dempsey1238]

I belive Burns show good foot work in the Moirs fight. Now get film of him sparing and he is jumping all over the place lol.

[JIm Broughton]

If Johnson could make some adjustments defensively then he would have some success against a modern style HW offense. ChrisPontious makes some good observations regarding this. Johnson probably never faced a fighter like Ali or Holmes or a young Holyfield, Good sized HW's who could box, move and throw plenty of combinations, not one easily timed punch then clinch which was common in Johnson's day. Sure Johnson could block a single jab easily but what about a double or triple jab followed by a right hand-left hook combo? For this type of attack Johnson would have to adapt his defensive strategy. With his natural ability and reflexes I'm sure he could but I'm also sure that he would have to in order to compete with that type of fighter.

[Mendoza]

If Johnson could make some adjustments defensively then he would have some success against a modern style HW offense. ChrisPontious makes some good observations regarding this. Johnson probably never faced a fighter like Ali or Holmes or a young Holyfield, Good sized HW's who could box, move and throw plenty of combinations, not one easily timed punch then clinch which was common in Johnson's day. Sure Johnson could block a single jab easily but what about a double or triple jab followed by a right hand-left hook combo? For this type of attack Johnson would have to adapt his defensive strategy. With his natural ability and reflexes I'm sure he could but I'm also sure that he would have to in order to compete with that type of fighter.

Well said. The jab is a punch that has evolved over the years. If you read the accounts of Johnson vs O’Brien, it says Johnson had trouble dealing with O’Brien’ speed and skill. O’Brien was a feather fisted, but very skilled middle weight to light heavyweight. The fight between the two was ruled a draw, but O’Brien certainly made a prime Jack Johnson look bad. I have seen O’Brien on film. He’s not Ali, Holmes, Corbett or Tunney. If O’brien hand fients and quick strait punches could find their mark on Johnson, the better heavyweights after O’Brien who were bigger, hit harder, and had more range could do the same.

Although Johnson was past his prime vs Willard, the film quality is decent enough. The low punch output Willard, who was never a speed demon had no problem landing straight shots from a distance on Johnson’s vaunted glove defense. Did Age have something to do with this? Sure, but the myth that Johnson would catch Ali’s jab like Willie Mayes catches a baseball is fantasy. Johnson caught nada vs O’Brien.

[Mendoza]

If Johnson could make some adjustments defensively then he would have some success against a modern style HW offense. ChrisPontious makes some good observations regarding this. Johnson probably never faced a fighter like Ali or Holmes or a young Holyfield, Good sized HW's who could box, move and throw plenty of combinations, not one easily timed punch then clinch which was common in Johnson's day. Sure Johnson could block a single jab easily but what about a double or triple jab followed by a right hand-left hook combo? For this type of attack Johnson would have to adapt his defensive strategy. With his natural ability and reflexes I'm sure he could but I'm also sure that he would have to in order to compete with that type of fighter.

Well said. The jab is a punch that has evolved over the years. If you read the accounts of Johnson vs O’Brien, it says Johnson had trouble dealing with O’Brien’ speed and skill. O’Brien was a feather fisted, but very skilled middle weight to light heavyweight. The fight between the two was ruled a draw, but O’Brien certainly made a prime Jack Johnson look bad. I have seen O’Brien on film. He’s not Ali, Holmes, Corbett or Tunney. If O’brien hand fients and quick strait punches could find their mark on Johnson, the better heavyweights after O’Brien who were bigger, hit harder, and had more range could do the same. One can only ponder.

Although Johnson was past his prime vs Willard, the film quality is decent enough. The low punch output Willard, who was never a speed demon had no problem landing straight shots from a distance on Johnson’s vaunted glove defense. Did Age have something to do with this? Yes, and no.

One poster said Johnson would catch Ali’s jab like Willie Mayes catches a baseball. This is a poetic fantasy. In the filmed fights I have on Johnson, he gets a swollen eye from Burns, nearly Ko’d from middle weight Ketchel, cut from an old and slow Jim Jeffries, hit often from a mere contender in Moran who nearly won the fight, and Ko’d by perhaps the slowest champion in Willard. Where is this vaunted defense? I say it’s mostly in the clinches. When Johnson clinched, he was too strong for the smaller fighters he defended his title against, save Willard who had about 5” and 25 pounds on him.

[janitor]

Well said. The jab is a punch that has evolved over the years.

I have to beg to differ. In point of fact the jab is the punch that Johnson was most adept at countering.

[QUOTE]If you read the accounts of Johnson vs O’Brien, it says Johnson had trouble dealing with O’Brien’ speed and skill.

The main thing Johnson had trouble with in that fight was the botle of whisky he had downed the previous night and the fact that he had done literaly no training in the run up to it.

You really have to ask why O'Brien was not able to better capitalize on such an oportunity.

[Rattler]

Before Jackie Robinson and Althea Gibson or other black athletes who are remembered for beginning the end of segregation in the world of sports.... there was Jack Johnson.

Unlike Robinson or Gibson though, Johnson didn't conduct himself - or act in a manner condusive to - in a way that appealed to the open minded members of the white establishment; so that even though he "proved" that a black could be a great HW champion, his behavior was so scandalous that it wasn't until Joe Louis that the perception of blacks in boxing started to change, as it regards the natural ability of blacks to be great fighters at the highest level.

[Mendoza]

I have to beg to differ. In point of fact the jab is the punch that Johnson was most adept at countering.

Can you show me on which filmed fight where Johnson countered a jab. Names pro favor.

The main thing Johnson had trouble with in that fight was the botle of whisky he had downed the previous night and the fact that he had done literaly no training in the run up to it. You really have to ask why O'Brien was not able to better capitalize on such an oportunity.

You offer too many excuses for Johnson. O’Brien did capitalize on his chance. He got the better of the fight according to some. The fight was ruled a ND or if you prefer a draw. If Johnson wanted to clear up this blemish on his record, he gives O’Brien a re-match. That did not happen.

[Russell]

Ketchel nearly KO'ing Johnson is simplifying things greatly.

Neither was taking the fight seriously as per what was pre-arranged. Then Ketchel sucker shotted Johnson out of nowhere.

[Lampley]

Johnson is a tough one to gauge, because he'd have been forced to make so many adjustments to compete in the modern era. I suspect that today's jumbo heavies would make his life very difficult, because he was a methodical, grinder of a fighter, and that personality trait is the same whether you're talking 1907 or 2007.

On the other hand, he was much more able to adapt than the existing films indicate, at least if the various testimonies can be believed. But I'd certainly favor Ali over him, and Lewis as well.

I wish Johnson had fought Langford one more time, once Sam had gained weight. If you read Unforgiveable Blackness (a must-read if you're interested in Johnson, or the plight of the black fighter generally during that era), it's implied that Johnson had more respect/fear for Langford than anyone else he faced. The fact that those two engaged in a freestyle brawl or two adds to the lore.

[JIm Broughton]

I agree with ChrisPontious in his assesment of Johnson. There was'nt much combination punching back in Johnson's day so Jack's style was well suited for the times. Against a more modern type of HW like an Ali or Holmes, Jack would have to tweak his defense abit. The punches would be coming in bunches and fast as well, not one at a time and telegraphed either. Johnson could block the first punch but could he block the 2nd, 3rd and 4th one as well? Could he handle a double jab follwed by a straight right/left hook combo from a big fast man like Ali or Holmes or a prime Holyfield? Boxing was pretty much in it's infancy in Johnson's day and there were'nt as many good quality big men as there were in say Ali's time. Boxing back then was'nt that far removed from the bare knuckle era. It was still evolving so a man like Johnson was head and shoulders above the rest. I don't think that would be the case today. More quality big men. Still with his natural ability and talent, Jack could do very well with a little "upgrade" in technique.

[Holmes' Jab]

Johnson was also a master of understanding and utilizing the longer distances of fights in those days. He knew that with his cat-like reflexes, he could merely sit back, block, parry, and generally wait out a lot of more aggressive-minded fighters and then take charge once they tired. Made for pretty tepid watching, but there's no denying he was a real craftsman.

I'd very much agree with these summaries along with a certain proportion of what McGrain stated in his initial post. I rate Johnson at about #9 All-Time overall, although I'd argue he'd rank higher as a head-to-head force. Here's my stylistic summary (using personal list of Top 15 Heavyweights):

I'd favour Johnson to beat:

Marciano
Dempsey
Patterson
Jeffries

50/50 fight:

Foreman
Holyfield
Frazier
Bowe
Liston

I'd tip the following to beat Johnson*:

Ali
Tyson
Louis
Lewis
Holmes



*Although few would have an easy night in doing so. Thoughts?

[C. M. Clay II]

A skilled boxer could land on Johnson. Willard and Moran were not that skilled, or fast, yet they landed on the outside. If they could do it others could do it too.

Yeah, sure. Pick fights when Johnson was shot to prove a point, great strategy.:lol:

[Mendoza]

A skilled boxer could land on Johnson. Willard and Moran were not that skilled, or fast, yet they landed on the outside. If they could do it others could do it too.
Yeah, sure. Pick fights when Johnson was shot to prove a point, great strategy.:lol:
Did you miss my points? A quick re-hash.

How about Choynski, Griffin, and Hart. All three beat Jack Johnson.:lol::lol::lol:

Or how about O'brien according to the papers and articles I posted getting the better of a prime Johnson? Or Jack Johnson getting lucky to get a draw vs Jim Johnson:lol::lol::lol:

Or Johnson flat out ducking and turning down $50,000 offers to fight the best competition out there.:lol::lol::lol:

Or the crude Ketchel flooring Johnson to the point where he had to brace himself to get up?

Now please insert your excuses because Jack Johnson was not " shot " in any of these fights. He simply was not that good.

[joe33]

I remember a old bbc boxing video,of a young tyson watching the old greats,and what shocked me was,tyson laughed at the footage of johnson,said he was awful,and would be KOed by all of the heavys that came after him,so make of that what you will,i was kind of suprised(he did though seem to adore dempsey which i guess he kind of copied)

[Grebfan9]

Johnson's chin was NOT that sturdy. Choynski flattened him and
he was floored and badly hurt by Philip Piersenn in an exhibition
match. He also took alot of punishment in his fights with Hank
Griffin. Great fighter with a so-so chin.



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

[Mendoza]

Johnson's chin was NOT that sturdy. Choynski flattened him and
he was floored and badly hurt by Philip Piersenn in an exhibition
match. He also took alot of punishment in his fights with Hank
Griffin. Great fighter with a so-so chin.


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

I never heard of Phillip Piersen. Who was he?

I have heard of the GunBoat Smith match exibtion match. Gunboat had Johnson down and badly dazzed to the point where his manager had to jump in and save him from a KO.

[Sizzle]

Against Jess Willard, a grossly out of shape Jack Johnson looked like the closest thing I've seen to a heavyweight version of Floyd Mayweather.

He kept his guard low, made Willard shoot out the jab and used his reflexes to evade the punch, and launch a counterpunch/combination in return.

He was a master of using distance/range as a defensive weapon, much like Mayweather.

Willard outmuscled Johnson on the inside, but Johnson was still dominant here.

He clearly won the boxing match, although he lost the endurance contest.

Most of his other fights showcase his superb infighting abilities against fighters of smaller stature, but his dominance even in these situations should not be ignored (in many ways the smaller fighter has advantages on the inside), nor should the lack of footage of Johnson against larger opponents.

[mattdonnellon]

I'm pretty sure the JimJohnson-Jack Johnson decision was rendered by one offical, the referee.

[Mendoza]

I'm pretty sure the JimJohnson-Jack Johnson decision was rendered by one offical, the referee.

I am sure it was by three judges, which of coruse the promoter ( ahem Jack Johnson ) picked. One judge gave the fight to Jim " battling " Johnson, the other two were not sure what to do, and rulled it a draw.

After the fight there was debate as to who the champion was.