Harold Johnson vs...

[Robinson]

Hey gents....at their best of course... but how do you imagine these matches
playing out ?

Each fight over 15 rounds...

Harold Johnson vs James J Corbett

Harold Johnson vs Jack Johnson

Harold Johnson vs Gene Tunney

Harold Johnson vs Jimmy Young

Harold Johnson vs Billy Conn

Harold Johnson vs Evander Holyfield


Thanks again guys...

[The Great John L]

Some pretty interesting matchups for the somewhat under-estimated Johnson.

Harold Johnson vs James J Corbett -- Pretty much a tossup, although I could see Johnson dropping JJ and taking a close decision.

Harold Johnson vs Jack Johnson -- JJohnson wins a comfortable decision using a good jab and a better clinch and hit strategy against HJ.

Harold Johnson vs Gene Tunney -- Tunney by wide UD. Just a bit quicker and a little more pop.

Harold Johnson vs Jimmy Young -- Johnson outworks Young in a close fight that has more action than most expected.

Harold Johnson vs Billy Conn -- Conn takes a wide UD. Conn's better combination punching make the difference.

Harold Johnson vs Evander Holyfield -- Johnson gets dropped early by a counter LH but recovers to go the distance and lose a close UD. Holy wins the early rounds, but Johnsons better conditioning allow him to finish strong and almost pull it out.

[Ambling Alp]

Some interesting fights.

Johnson-Corbett: Could go either way.
Harold Johnson-Jack Johnson: Jack by decision. (10-5)
Johnson-Tunney: Tunney by decision. (10-5)
Johnson-Young: Young in a close decison.
Johnson-Conn: Johnson in a close decision.
Johnson-Holyfield: If we are talking a heavyweight Holyfield, then Holyfield by TKO in something like round 10.

Johnson is up against some tough competition here. He was one of the Top 10 light heavyweights of all time. He seemed to do just everything well. He also did very well when he did fight as heavyweight and would be tough for any smaller heavyweight to beat.

[dempseyfire]

Re-visiting Johnson's record, he truly has an awesome and often overlooked resume. Rob is putting him in with some stiff comp here though:

Corbett: Truly hard to gauge. Over 12 I'll give it to Johnson, over 20 Corbett with the stamina advantage.

Johnson: Jack by UD with a KD of Harold later in the fight.

Johnson-Tunney: Tunney by UD in a hard fought battle . . .slicker and a better hitter than Pastrano

Johnson-Young: I like Johnson by UD, outworking Jimmy and landing the much sharper punches.

Johnson-Conn: An all-time great fight and matchup . . 50/50 either way, I really don't know who to choose here.

Johnson-Holyfield: I like Johnson here in the upset via the more consistent jab and superior overall skills but having to come back from a KD to pull it off in a very close SD.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Hey gents....at their best of course... but how do you imagine these matches
playing out ?

Each fight over 15 rounds...

Harold Johnson vs James J Corbett

Harold Johnson vs Jack Johnson

Harold Johnson vs Gene Tunney

Harold Johnson vs Jimmy Young

Harold Johnson vs Billy Conn

Harold Johnson vs Evander Holyfield


Thanks again guys...

He's lovely to watch, isn't he? Criminally under-estimated fighter :(

[ben geoghegan]

Harold Johnson vs James J Corbett
Johnson KO1
Harold Johnson vs Jack Johnson
Harold UD
Harold Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Tunney SD
Harold Johnson vs Jimmy Young
Young SD
Harold Johnson vs Billy Conn
draw
Harold Johnson vs Evander Holyfield
Holyfield TKO3

[Goodnight, Irene]

Is Johnson bringing a sledgehammer into the ring with him in his bout with Corbett in your mind's eye?

Bigger, meaner men failed to go anywhere close to taking out Corbett in one.

[ben geoghegan]

HJ fought the bigger better competition so he went the distance a lot. Before you offer up Jeffries, remember Corbett was KO'ed by him twice. HJ went the distance with Ezzard Charles, Doug Jones and Nino Valdes. He put down Archie Moore. When he fought boxers his size his KO rate goes way up. The greatest supporting evidence is the footage of both. Corbett's antiquated defensive wares would leave him open for the KO early KO

[Robinson]

I see Harold stopping Corbett. I do not find that too hard to swallow.
Harold had serious skills, good accuracy and was clean punching.

[Ambling Alp]

Johnson scored 32 knockouts in 87 fights. Thats about only about 37%. Most of those ko's were against lightheavyweights. The only heavyweight of any note that he stopped was the glassjawed Bob Satterfield, and he only was able to do that once in 3 fights.

He only had 3 knockouts in the first round in his entire career.

Corbett was never knocked out in the first round. The earliest was in the 10th and that was when he he was 36, coming off a 3 year layoff and was against James Jeffries.

Johnson was a great boxer, but didn't have great power and usually his big wins were by decision.
In boxing, almost anything is possible. However, if you want to consider what is the most likely, you have to look at the relevant factors.

He would have a decent chance of winning a decision against Corbett.
His chances of knocking Corbett would have slim.
The chances of him knocking out Corbett in the 1st round would have been very, very remote.

[dempseyfire]

HJ fought the bigger better competition so he went the distance a lot. Before you offer up Jeffries, remember Corbett was KO'ed by him twice. HJ went the distance with Ezzard Charles, Doug Jones and Nino Valdes. He put down Archie Moore. When he fought boxers his size his KO rate goes way up. The greatest supporting evidence is the footage of both. Corbett's antiquated defensive wares would leave him open for the KO early KO

If Corbett's defense was antiquated what was Ali's . . .devolutionary?

Going the distance with Charles and Valdez does NOT mean you are lasting with Jefferies.

Over 12-15 rounds maybe Johnson wins a decision. But he ain't knocking out Corbett, who went 60 rounds with the great Peter Jackson.

[Robinson]

In this hypothetical Johnson manages to win a TKO over
Corbett. His clean accurate shots take their toll.

A fight against Johnson would not be the clinch fest that
Jackson and Corbett shared.

[ben geoghegan]

I don't see any debate about it. Anyone who is honest with himself judging the footage of Corbett and Harold Johnson admits that it's no contest. Also Peter Jackson fought Corbett with a bad ankle. And Corbett didn't even beat him. People bring up the 61 round fight to credit Corbett but its not a fight he won. Corbett refused to lead in the fight. Jackson was a world class fighter and Corbett received some credit because he was a local fighter who went four hours in his hometown with Jackson. If someone gets so much credit for going that long to a no contest, then that must make Jackson the greatest of all time by far. Corbett's fame off that fight came more for surviving against someone with Jackson's reputation. Joe Goddard's draw was more substantial and he did more work in 20 mins than Corbett did in four hours. Larry Donald would go 61 rounds today too if they let it go on.

[Goodnight, Irene]

It's flying in the face of all logic to expect a first-round KO of Corbett by Johnson. Bottom line on this one --- it's so overwhelmingly stupid, it's not even worthy of a discussion.

[Ambling Alp]

No doubt the first round KO prediction is ridiculaus.

There is little evidence on tape is that supports the notion that Corbett was bad. There is only a few minutes that is known to exist and it is of very poor quality.

Corbett's style seems a bit unusual but he certainly doesn't look bad. You can see glimpses of the footwork that he was known for.
Besides you can make anyone look bad if you only look at a couple minutes of their entire career. If all you saw was of Harold Johnson getting knocked out in a fight (which did happen to him a few times) then you wouldn't think he was that good either.

The 61 round fight with Jackson is being used against Corbett? Seriously? Wow. You obviously have to have good stamina to do that. Just try holding your hands up for 4 hours. Peter Jackson can't knockout Corbett in that long of period of time but Harold Johnson would have easily?

[dempseyfire]

No doubt the first round KO prediction is ridiculaus.

There is little evidence on tape is that supports the notion that Corbett was bad. There is only a few minutes that is known to exist and it is of very poor quality.

Corbett's style seems a bit unusual but he certainly doesn't look bad. You can see glimpses of the footwork that he was known for.
Besides you can make anyone look bad if you only look at a couple minutes of their entire career. If all you saw was of Harold Johnson getting knocked out in a fight (which did happen to him a few times) then you wouldn't think he was that good either.

The 61 round fight with Jackson is being used against Corbett? Seriously? Wow. You obviously have to have good stamina to do that. Just try holding your hands up for 4 hours. Peter Jackson can't knockout Corbett in that long of period of time but Harold Johnson would have easily?

People look at the Peter Courtney 'exhibition' and say Corbett was crap. That "fight" was . .literally . . .a joke. Both fighters were throwing crazy shit and laughing at the same time, it was not a true exibition, it was two fighters having a laugh in front of Thomas Edison . . simply looking at what exists of the Fitz fight shows that Jim did not fight that way in a real fight, and I think he looks good vs Fitz . . .double and triple left jabs, good footwork, combinations. The Jackson fight, which was split in opinion among who got the better of it overall, to say it was just him lasting with Jackson is simply not true. It was a highly competitive affair and the first 20 rounds were fought at a good fast pace.

[Robinson]

I dont think anyone takes the courtney-corbett exhibition to serious.

Sadly we do not have that much footage of Corbett or any of the
distant past greats.

But FROM what we can see of Corbett you can make some conclusions
plus from his record also.

Now...what makes many believe he was soo much more from what you
can not see. ?

Once again I have mentioned this in many other threads re- Long matches
other sports compressed their time limits (MMA, wrestling etc) to make it
harder and more intense. Why would boxing be any different...

Longest MMA fight went for 3hr 45mins....it was a boring guard fest where
nothing happened.

Longest wrestling match went for nearly 12 hours !!! in 1912 Olympic Games
it was a test of will and endurance but many wrestlers found the shorter
time limits harder as they were more intense and explosive and forced action
and not stalling from the athletes.

Yet how is boxing different ?

From nearly all accounts of these long boxing matches they are described as
clinch fests....

The accounts of the Corbett-Jackson fight make it sound like the spectators
were dis interested and bored.

[Robinson]

Corbett was however ahead of his time and did alot of things that
we take for granted today, and in Harold Johnsons era that were
not done by Corbett's contemporaries.

[BoxBuzz]

Harold Johnson was truly a great. He sneaks by Ezzard Charles (Very Hard to do) And manages 1 win in 5 tries with Archie Moore. As great a KO artist as Archie was he only managed to KO Johnson once, and only in there last go-round.

[Robinson]

And Johnson fought more fights in his first three years than Corbett
in his entire career.

[Goodnight, Irene]

None of which addresses how Corbett fails to make it out of round one.

[BoxBuzz]

IMHO Moore beats Corbett. So....Johnson beating Corbett is not the stuff of a delusional mind. However to proclaim a first round KO for Johnson? I wonder how much of your money you'd be willing to part with if the event were cosmically made to manifest. My guess? Not a lot of your money would actually be put in the hands of the ethereal bookie.

It's about as random of a call against the odds as I've heard conjured. Johnson was neither a devastating puncher or a remarkably fast starter. Corbett was not glass jawed, or one to throw caution to the wind, and in the first round I doubt he would be lulled into a sleepy "non cerebral" moment.

It seems a bit too "Rod Serling" of an outcome to seriously invest money or thought into.

[ben geoghegan]

I don't like being insulted for my opinion "Goodnight Irene". If this isn't worth replying to, then don't.

[BoxBuzz]

I hope you don't imagine I was being insulting, some of the more creative opinions are the ones that are the most fun to engage. Hey it's all subjective and thus food for debate. I suppose controversial opinions will often generate an "edge" by the respondents. Just keep a thick skin and expect equal "conjecture" from others.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I don't like being insulted for my opinion "Goodnight Irene". If this isn't worth replying to, then don't.

Done

I erred in even addressing it, in truth. It won't happen again. Point to make, though --- I didn't call you an idiot, I said your opinion was idiotic. I do not consider them the same thing by necessity.