Jack Johnson Film : Is he the greatest heavyweight ?

[Quixall]

I have just watched a great film about the life and fighting career of Jack Johnson that came out a few years back. It was absolutely fascinating to watch, though very disturbing aswell. I have always been curious about Johnson and never thought you could depict much from those early motion pictures that captured his films. Because of this i have always thought that it was impossible to debate how good a fighter he was, to judge his opponents, let alone judge him against today's fighters.

After watching this film i thought it would be interesting to see what people thought of him as a fighter and whether they could place him in the pantheon of heavyweight champions of the last 100 years. There will always be differences that cannot be compared, from the rules, the amount of rounds, to any possible ranking system, types of glove, to the different fighting styles used, but these differences aside, it should be possible to appraise Johnson's career and rank him alongside other fighters.

I would imagine that not much information can be gathered about his opponents, apart from the likes of Burns, Corbett, Jeffries and Willard. Most of Johnson's opponents looked much smaller than he did and looked more street brawlers than anything resembling the art of pugulism. However, a large part of this appearence must have been down to the sheer size and skill of Johnson who almost seemed to go through these fights with ease, often smiling and making comments to agitate the crowd.

Johnson was undefeated untill he fought Willard at the age of 37, having held the title for many years and had started boxing at the age of 16, which is some record. In his prime no-one could touch him, literally and in my opinion he has to go down as one of the very best heavyweight fighters of all time. In the end time catches up with all fighters, but evn in his 60's he put on shows against younger fighters who struggled to lay a glove on him. A fascinating man, great fighter and a legend in boxing.

What do you guys think ?

Ps If you want to watch the film it is on you tube in two parts :

This is part one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqvjG9z2 ... re=related

[Glyn Leach]

Thanks for this, always interested in Johnson material, fascinating figure. Unfortunately I don't think any amount of second or third hand knowledge let alone examination of records will tell us exactly how good he was by our standards today, but it's something I'll always wonder about.

[Quixall]

Thanks for this, always interested in Johnson material, fascinating figure. Unfortunately I don't think any amount of second or third hand knowledge let alone examination of records will tell us exactly how good he was by our standards today, but it's something I'll always wonder about.

What would have given us an idea, is if he had fought Dempsey after he had took the title off Willard. When Johnson was released from prison he wanted to fight Dempsey at the age of 43 and Dempsey didn't want to fight him apparently. I see Dempsey as the beginning of the "modern" day fighters, because in some ways he is closer to Louis than Johnson who seems to be from a competely different era. Like you say Glyn it's very very hard to place him, but he must have been very good.

[tonyevs]

He was one of the best of his generation. Maybe even the best for some time.
The confusing thing is with Johnson - is the lies he spread about concerning various fights he previously had.

The Langford, Ketchel and most obvious .. Willard.

He was never one to be trusted on his word alone. Much like Ali, the myth gets taken for truth all too often.

[slapbangwhallop]

My ould fella told me he used to love feeding on OAPs and pork-stuffed middleweights.

Personally I have no opinion.

[Quixall]

My ould fella told me he used to love feeding on OAPs and pork-stuffed middleweights.

Personally I have no opinion.

Well i think they all did that at some point in the early days. The only recognised middleweight i knew he fought was Ketchel, but the limit was around 175lbs i think and anyone above that could fight Johnson. I don't doubt he fought some turkeys and those that were much smaller, but he remained undefeated in his time and he also fought a lot of tough black fighters of the era that no-one gave recognition to, but were perhaps better than the likes of Burns, Corbett and Jeffries et al.

[exittored]

I'm a massive Jack Johnson fan and in terms of the circumstances he became champion and had to defend he certainly has to be seen as a Top 3 Heavyweight of all time, I'd personally put him number 2 behind Ali.

1) Best all round Heavyweight Champion: Ali
2) Biggest balls Heavyweight Champion: Johnson
3) Best Heavyweight Champion: Louis

[Tomasino]

Where did you get the idea he was undefeated when he fought Willard?

[Quixall]

Where did you get the idea he was undefeated when he fought Willard?

It's how it reads..............

I said he remained undefeated until he fought Willard, having held the "title" for many years. I mean't as the heavyweight world champion. I was just pointing out that he had a good reign as chmpion and was essentially getting on in years when he lost it to Willard.

Anyway, instead of picking holes, why don't you comment on where you rate him lol

[Glyn Leach]

Thanks for this, always interested in Johnson material, fascinating figure. Unfortunately I don't think any amount of second or third hand knowledge let alone examination of records will tell us exactly how good he was by our standards today, but it's something I'll always wonder about.

What would have given us an idea, is if he had fought Dempsey after he had took the title off Willard. When Johnson was released from prison he wanted to fight Dempsey at the age of 43 and Dempsey didn't want to fight him apparently. I see Dempsey as the beginning of the "modern" day fighters, because in some ways he is closer to Louis than Johnson who seems to be from a competely different era. Like you say Glyn it's very very hard to place him, but he must have been very good.

That would have been ideal, Dempsey is probably the first heavyweight champion we can reasonably claim to have 'first hand' knowledge of, although even the majority of his career was not filmed. From what observers at the time say, in their respective primes they would have been a great match of styles too.

When considering Johnson I always remember the opinion of Nat Fleischer, the founder and former editor of Ring magazine. He covered all the heavyweight champions from ringside from Johnson through to the Ali and Frazier era. Fleischer ranked Johnson and Jim Jeffries as the best heavyweights he'd ever seen. It's possible he was looking at the past through rose-tinted spectacles, but that's still a big statement to make considering he lived through the Dempsey, Louis and Marciano eras. He did appear to have a very good working relationship with Johnson, which might have clouded his judgement. Maybe not though, sadly - and I mean it literally - we'll never know for sure.

[Jeff Thomas]

From the footage I've seen , not very highly- very strong but totally un coordinated, poor defence etc etc... The game was very different back then

[Quixall]

From the footage I've seen , not very highly- very strong but totally un coordinated, poor defence etc etc... The game was very different back then

I'm suprised you say poor defence Jeff, because that was one of the things he was noted for at the time. Johnson could go 20 rounds or more and not be marked up in any way. If you take the Jeffries fight, ohnson was not marked at all, yet Jeffries had a broken nose, cuts, both eyes were swollen and he was covered in blood and this from a guy who had not lost before he faced Johnson, admitedly though six years after he initially retired for the first time. Also, Johnson fought in his older years in halls and different shows, were fighters couldn't lay a hand on him.

[Quixall]

Thanks for this, always interested in Johnson material, fascinating figure. Unfortunately I don't think any amount of second or third hand knowledge let alone examination of records will tell us exactly how good he was by our standards today, but it's something I'll always wonder about.

What would have given us an idea, is if he had fought Dempsey after he had took the title off Willard. When Johnson was released from prison he wanted to fight Dempsey at the age of 43 and Dempsey didn't want to fight him apparently. I see Dempsey as the beginning of the "modern" day fighters, because in some ways he is closer to Louis than Johnson who seems to be from a competely different era. Like you say Glyn it's very very hard to place him, but he must have been very good.

That would have been ideal, Dempsey is probably the first heavyweight champion we can reasonably claim to have 'first hand' knowledge of, although even the majority of his career was not filmed. From what observers at the time say, in their respective primes they would have been a great match of styles too.

When considering Johnson I always remember the opinion of Nat Fleischer, the founder and former editor of Ring magazine. He covered all the heavyweight champions from ringside from Johnson through to the Ali and Frazier era. Fleischer ranked Johnson and Jim Jeffries as the best heavyweights he'd ever seen. It's possible he was looking at the past through rose-tinted spectacles, but that's still a big statement to make considering he lived through the Dempsey, Louis and Marciano eras. He did appear to have a very good working relationship with Johnson, which might have clouded his judgement. Maybe not though, sadly - and I mean it literally - we'll never know for sure.

I'm suprised that Dempsey didn't take the fight, but after what happenned in the Jeffries fight or it's aftermath, maybe Dempsey thought it wasn't worth the possible trouble it could have caused. It's interesting what Fleischer had to say, though as you point out it's perhaps reminisced with a sense of nostalgia and sepia vision for the old days. I always remember Mike Tyson talking to Harry Carpenter about Jack Johnson when he was very young, as Mike has always been a student of the game and he was very complimentary about Johnson, but stated that he wouldn't have been able to deal with the size of current heavyweights, their speed or combination punches.

[Old bones Ian]

fighting styles were so different then, its impossible to say. He was the best at his time, and was for quite a few years. So for me if he was around nowadays and was trained by modern standerds then he would of been world class, so he has a claim of being the best.

Anyone else heard the story that Johnson was turned down for 1st class tickets on the Titanic, they offered him 2nd or 3rd class. but he turned them down.

[Jon Saxon]

not a chance in hell could on of these old skoolers live with a modern elite fighter.
Size & technique is a major area where they fall down.

As much as I hate to say it, either Klit KO 1.

[Tomasino]

Where did you get the idea he was undefeated when he fought Willard?

It's how it reads..............

I said he remained undefeated until he fought Willard, having held the "title" for many years. I mean't as the heavyweight world champion. I was just pointing out that he had a good reign as chmpion and was essentially getting on in years when he lost it to Willard.

Anyway, instead of picking holes, why don't you comment on where you rate him lol

It's a bit misleading that's all and I wondered if it had colored your thoughts on where you rated him.

I have only seen some poor footage of him fighting, he seemed to have a lazy fencing style, he was beaten by many smaller men, like Marvin Hart and Joe Choynski. It's hard to say, but I don't think he would have lived with Louis, Holmes or Ali. He did fight 20 founders early in his career so must have been fit and conditioned but its fair to say fights were fought at a slower pace compared to modern era boxing. I rate guys like Greb, Tunney, very highly and have not seen any footage of Greb bar sparring with Philly Jack Obrien, a lightheavy who fought a draw with Johnson. He was rated by Nat Fliescher as one the the great lightheavy champs. Jack Obrien later publicly stated that most of his fights were fixed.

Therefore its hard to rank guys from that era for me. He was highly rated in his day and beat some great fighters and was a huge inspiration to millions of folk who had it really tough. An icon.

[Jeff Thomas]

From the footage I've seen , not very highly- very strong but totally un coordinated, poor defence etc etc... The game was very different back then

I'm suprised you say poor defence Jeff, because that was one of the things he was noted for at the time. Johnson could go 20 rounds or more and not be marked up in any way. If you take the Jeffries fight, ohnson was not marked at all, yet Jeffries had a broken nose, cuts, both eyes were swollen and he was covered in blood and this from a guy who had not lost before he faced Johnson, admitedly though six years after he initially retired for the first time. Also, Johnson fought in his older years in halls and different shows, were fighters couldn't lay a hand on him.

Quixall. Comparitively I mean. Think I was been a bit harsh. An all time legend but not anywhere near refined enough to comepte today.

These old time debates are always good fun and I thought i'd take the harsh modernist approach this time.

[Glyn Leach]

The first thing that comes to mind when watching this excellent documentary (which I'd recommend anyone to do when they have the time, it's very very good - similar to the series The Civil War in style) is that no way would Johnson be allowed to fight like that today, so it's impossible to rate him.

Johnson's style was based on spoiling and countering. He grabbed, pushed, mauled whenever he could, and then launched fast handed attacks, hitting on the break whenever he could. He appeared to be accurate and cunning, and very strong. But today's referees would be taking points off him right left and centre - and rightly so, it's not boxing as we know it (Jim). It's effective fighting. But I don't think it would be very effective today.

[Ezzard]

Glyn, you make him sound a bit like Hopkins or Ward.

Obviously he'd have to adapt but much of how those guys fought was derived from the rules and equipment.

45 round fights. Small gloves. Worse hand injuries.

Just like the best of today would adapt to the rules back then so Johnson would be a special fighter today.

[Glyn Leach]

Glyn, you make him sound a bit like Hopkins or Ward.

Obviously he'd have to adapt but much of how those guys fought was derived from the rules and equipment.

45 round fights. Small gloves. Worse hand injuries.

Just like the best of today would adapt to the rules back then so Johnson would be a special fighter today.

In terms of attitude, Hopkins is a good call Ezzard, good point re how Johnson, if born in the modern era, would have adapted his game to fit. I think you're probably right, he had a winning mentality.

[T.M.K]

Obviously he'd have to adapt but much of how those guys fought was derived from the rules and equipment.

45 round fights. Small gloves. Worse hand injuries.

Just like the best of today would adapt to the rules back then so Johnson would be a special fighter today.

Exactly. Well put.

"T.M.K"


ps: When comparing all Heavyweight champions we have to not just rate size-for-size and era-for-era, but also as to how they would all adapt to different times they lived in. It's ridiculous to compare a prime Jack Johnsons vs a prime Vitali Klitschko like for like because of course we'd expect Vitali to win...... but era for era evens it out a LOT, if not well into Johnson's favour.

pps: I've rated Johnson in the top ten ever for my adult life, his position can go from 10-2 depending on criteria and my own mood, but I always think he'd have lost to Ali, think he's on even terms with the likes of Louis & Holmes, and would have handled the Dempsey's and Marciano's with a nasty grin on his face.

[Quixall]

Watching the fights, the first thing that i noticed was the lack of a jab and the first guy who seemed to have something comparable to the modern day jab was Gene Tunney. As people have said, the vast majority of the punches were uppercuts and big overhand rights and lefts, mixed in with a lot of grappling and occasional bursts of speed punches. anothing thing missing was the body punch, which would have been very effective in those days. The fight with Jeffries looked so one sided and made Jeffries look an absolute nobody, but he was seen as the best of his day pre the Johnson fight.

Making comparisons is always going to be difficult, dealing with big guys like Holmes, Foreman, Lewis, the Klitschko's would have been very difficult and Johnson would perhaps have been a cruiserweight and the nearest to him as an example of size would have perhaps been Holyfield. If you put Johnson and his style up against a prime Holmes, Ali, Lewis etc, then he would have stood little or no chance of winning, but if you take Johnson's ability to make himself one of the best fighters of his day back then and mastering old techniques, then i'm sure he could have mastered the new techniques and done very well.

[Jon Saxon]

Glyn, you make him sound a bit like Hopkins or Ward.

Obviously he'd have to adapt but much of how those guys fought was derived from the rules and equipment.

45 round fights. Small gloves. Worse hand injuries.

Just like the best of today would adapt to the rules back then so Johnson would be a special fighter today.

Yeah? dont think do, maybe at CW.

[Quixall]

Watching the fights, the first thing that i noticed was the lack of a jab and the first guy who seemed to have something comparable to the modern day jab was Gene Tunney. As people have said, the vast majority of the punches were uppercuts and big overhand rights and lefts, mixed in with a lot of grappling and occasional bursts of speed punches. anothing thing missing was the body punch, which would have been very effective in those days. The fight with Jeffries looked so one sided and made Jeffries look an absolute nobody, but he was seen as the best of his day pre the Johnson fight.

Making comparisons is always going to be difficult, dealing with big guys like Holmes, Foreman, Lewis, the Klitschko's would have been very difficult and Johnson would perhaps have been a cruiserweight and the nearest to him as an example of size would have perhaps been Holyfield. If you put Johnson and his style up against a prime Holmes, Ali, Lewis etc, then he would have stood little or no chance of winning, but if you take Johnson's ability to make himself one of the best fighters of his day back then and mastering old techniques, then i'm sure he could have mastered the new techniques and done very well.

James J. is generally viewed as the first guy to really master the use of the left lead. Tunney talked about how JJ taught him the finer arts of movement and leading off the left during a few newspaper columns.

That's interesting, but from those films it was only Tunney that stood out in terms of having an effect jab. As i get more involved in the sport i am looking more to the old guys and learning more about fighting techniques.

[Jon Saxon]

Nah these old geezers look awful when you see the fights.
You can only compare era for era and they were good in thier own but would not stand a chance today.

Holyfield would have beat seven shades of shit outa someone like Johnson.
Vitali would have chased Ali out of the ring.
Lewis would have Ko'ed Louis in one.
Tyson KO's Frazer in one.
The chinny Tommy Morrison would have koe'd the cruiserweight Rocky Marciano.
Roy Jones chins the WW Robinson in 9
James Toney schools Harry Greb.
Tommy Hearns one punch ko's the hard chinned Jake Lamotta in 2 the same as he did Duran.

There! I have pissed all over your sacred cows with the hard truth.

Ah nostalgia just isn't what it used to be eh?