Jack Johnson - Let The Record Speak
Jack Johnson - Let The Record Speak
Jack Johnson fought only 5 men who weighed at least 180 and who had won 75% of their fights. Of those 5 fights he lost one, had one draw, beat Bob Fitzsimmons who was 44 years old, and beat James Jeffries who had not fought in 6 years and who lost over 100 pounds for the fight. His other victories were to "Black Bill", John Haines and Al Kaufman. During his career he was also knocked down by 2 middleweights: Langford and Ketchel. By contrast, Jack Dempsey fought 14 heavyweights who'd won 75% of their fights. He won 12 and lost twice at the end of his career to the same man: Tunney. It seems to me that if Johnson had gotten better opponents he'd only have lost to most of them. Am I missing something?
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Re: Jack Johnson - Let The Record Speak
I would recomend researching more about the man and his opponents then just going on boxrec and judging fighters you really do not know much about. First off, Johnson fought more opponents over 200 with winning records (I don't know about the 75% but with incomplete records of Johnson's early opponents and the fact that padding your record to get to 25-0 was unheard of in that day, it's a foolish way to judge competition) then you mentionfootwork wrote:Jack Johnson fought only 5 men who weighed at least 180 and who had won 75% of their fights. Of those 5 fights he lost one, had one draw, beat Bob Fitzsimmons who was 44 years old, and beat James Jeffries who had not fought in 6 years and who lost over 100 pounds for the fight. His other victories were to "Black Bill", John Haines and Al Kaufman. During his career he was also knocked down by 2 middleweights: Langford and Ketchel. By contrast, Jack Dempsey fought 14 heavyweights who'd won 75% of their fights. He won 12 and lost twice at the end of his career to the same man: Tunney. It seems to me that if Johnson had gotten better opponents he'd only have lost to most of them. Am I missing something?
Johnson beat Ed Martin, Haynes, Jeanette, and Mcvey early in his career, all top skilled fighters who are equal if not superior to any of Dempsey's pre title-fight opponents. The middleweight Langford you mention also not only knocked down, but knocked out men much bigger then Johnson.
You are not giving Jack a fair shake.
Please note that BOXREC does not have complete records for all of their fighters...and very few conclusive matches for the fighters who's career was a long time ago.
Many of the 0-0-0 fighters listed for Johnson may have actually been 20-8-10, but with no record listed on BOXREC.
Secondly, many many many fighters had dozens of No Contests listed and therefore may no be recorded on their record on this website.
Lastly, many of the men Johnson fought has losing records simply because the commissions were corrupt in many states back then and would not let black fighters win a particular match-up simply because of their skin color.
Unless there is a "C" listed next to a boxer's name on Boxrec, their records are not complete and set in stone.
Many of the 0-0-0 fighters listed for Johnson may have actually been 20-8-10, but with no record listed on BOXREC.
Secondly, many many many fighters had dozens of No Contests listed and therefore may no be recorded on their record on this website.
Lastly, many of the men Johnson fought has losing records simply because the commissions were corrupt in many states back then and would not let black fighters win a particular match-up simply because of their skin color.
Unless there is a "C" listed next to a boxer's name on Boxrec, their records are not complete and set in stone.
Johnson it seems by his record fought guys who were up and down all the time. Johnson probably had his up and downs, plus he had problems of racism and from what I read in the records is that the referee would just choose a winner at the end of the bout, so those referees could have been crooks too. But everybody loses matches even the great champs get knocked out to lesser opponents. The fact is back then every fighter fought 100s of fights and how many of them fights were they really performing at their best each time. Losing to those old guys didn't fase them its only now that a loss to champions have become a devastation. Back then they were getting beat alot. the boxers were probably a bunch of hard men who had mouths to feed, you don't get the poor like you used to so those guys may have had a alot more to fight for and more hungryer which probably led to them having more heart in certain fights then others. Forgive me if I'm talking bollocks lol
Simple "deduction", which we tend to forget about these days with 35 fight all-time greats, a #@%*ing insult to these old TRUE Champions and Contenders.
If you lost 50 fights in a 250 fight career, who cared! If you were still a top performer the money was coming in, and as has already been mentioned your competition was also 'fellow' top performers and Contenders. As one commentator put it "the days when Champions and 'leading' Contenders fought each other every night of the week", and that was boxing right up to the early 1950's.
Sad state today by comparison with 35 fights and hardly a TRUE Champion or Contender on your Resume', but hey, their all-time greats(???).
If you lost 50 fights in a 250 fight career, who cared! If you were still a top performer the money was coming in, and as has already been mentioned your competition was also 'fellow' top performers and Contenders. As one commentator put it "the days when Champions and 'leading' Contenders fought each other every night of the week", and that was boxing right up to the early 1950's.
Sad state today by comparison with 35 fights and hardly a TRUE Champion or Contender on your Resume', but hey, their all-time greats(???).