Jack Johnson

[Ezzard]

A lot of people like to say how Johnson’s style of fighting doesn’t translate to the modern ring. But it seems to me that Mayweather and Hopkins have used and adapted Johnson’s style and made it hugely successful in the last decade.

I think Johnson probably gets underrated. I know he tied up the title…and like many guys back then his reign was not as impressive as his run to the title. But his ‘World Coloured Title’ would be a legitimate belt in today’s world.

Johnson had great skill and athleticism…and he was a big man for his day…

His wins against

McVea x3
Jeanette x5
Langford

That’s 9 wins against formidable opposition. Arguments will come up about how those guys weren’t quite at their peak etc… But they are still some of the greatest victories in the history of the division.

Then there are the wins against solid fighters

Ferguson (multiple)
Young Peter Jackson
Denver Ed martin (multiple)

Then the title defences…

It’s an outstanding record.

The knockdown against Ketchel is not something that would really worry me too much. I’m not sure that fight proved much. And it was all over very quickly once Johnson decided it was time…


I honestly think Jack should be put up there with Ali and Louis as one of the untouchables.

[Syntax Error]

I can see what you're saying, but my only reservation about Johnson (or anyone from his era) is that the films we see are not in real time.

It's quite difficult to gauge how quick or even how powerful the fighters were then compared to more recent fighters.

Saying that, I'm inclined to believe that Johnson holds up in any era of boxing.

He was obviously a great fighter & he has the best back-story attached to him of any fighter I've read about.

[Ambling Alp II]

He was one of the very best. Yes he should have defended the title vs Langford, McVey and Jeannette. Still, he had a great career. For some reason people don't like to talk about him. You can make a serious argument for him being the #3 heavyweight of all time.

[dempseyfire]

I can see what you're saying, but my only reservation about Johnson (or anyone from his era) is that the films we see are not in real time.

It's quite difficult to gauge how quick or even how powerful the fighters were then compared to more recent fighters.

Saying that, I'm inclined to believe that Johnson holds up in any era of boxing.

He was obviously a great fighter & he has the best back-story attached to him of any fighter I've read about.

I've seen slowed down, zoomed-in footage of Johnson and the guy was the real deal. Incredibly quick reflexes and into his 40s was sparring with some good black heavyweights and they all remarked how he was (even at that age) impossible to hit. He had Hopkins defense and wile but RJJ-esque reflexes, plus a heavyweight punch. For me he's right behind Louis and Ali in all-time rankings. Like Dempsey he gets lots of flack for a less than scintillating title reign but like Jack many overlook the quality of the comp defeated prior to winning the title (and Johnson's also hurt that many of his earlier opponents-Jeannette, Martin, McVey-have incomplete records and were more experienced than their records indicate when they fought Johnson.

[HomicideHenry]

Real time, slow time, fast time, etc. he still looks inept, at least to me, on film. He clinched as much as John Ruiz did for crying out loud.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

he still looks inept

And yet you wax on poetically about the skills of Gerry Cooney.

[HomicideHenry]

he still looks inept

And yet you wax on poetically about the skills of Gerry Cooney.

I never said Cooney had great skills; I said he was the hardest punching man of the 1980's and that he had alot of potential.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

[HomicideHenry]

Hey, at least Cooney can't ever say he lost to a man worse than himself; Johnson lost to a guy who was more limited and wide open to be hit than Cooney was.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Yeah, whatever you say. Cooney > Johnson. Fitzsimmons was a great heavyweight because of his work at Middleweight, yet Tunney doesn't rate at Heavyweight because he didn't fight enough there.

sums up all of your posts.

[HomicideHenry]

Yeah, whatever you say. Cooney > Johnson. Fitzsimmons was a great heavyweight because of his work at Middleweight, yet Tunney doesn't rate at Heavyweight because he didn't fight enough there.

sums up all of your posts.

What Fitzsimmons did at heavyweight alone was superior to anything Tunney did at heavyweight. Never mind what he did at middleweight, and light heavyweight. Don't make me break out the damn record books and dates and names, its too early in the morning for this bullshit. Fitzsimmons defeated a prime Jim Corbett (arguably the fastest heavyweight of all time), gave Jeffries arguably his two toughest fights, and prior to the championship defeated a long string of contenders and title claimers---- in fact he kayoed Tom Sharkey in one single round if I am not mistaken. And after losing the title defeated alot of contenders still into old age. And that is just at heavyweight.

What did Tunney do? Maybe 4-5 fights prior to Dempsey at heavyweight against fringe contenders. Beats Dempsey twice (almost gets himself kayoed in the rematch) and then defends it one more time against some crap contender. It's a stronger 'career' at heavyweight than say Roy Jones, but it is pretty limited and weak when you think about it.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Yeah, whatever you say. Cooney > Johnson. Fitzsimmons was a great heavyweight because of his work at Middleweight, yet Tunney doesn't rate at Heavyweight because he didn't fight enough there.

sums up all of your posts.

What Fitzsimmons did at heavyweight alone was superior to anything Tunney did at heavyweight. Never mind what he did at middleweight, and light heavyweight. Don't make me break out the damn record books and dates and names, its too early in the morning for this bullshit. Fitzsimmons defeated a prime Jim Corbett (arguably the fastest heavyweight of all time), gave Jeffries arguably his two toughest fights, and prior to the championship defeated a long string of contenders and title claimers---- in fact he kayoed Tom Sharkey in one single round if I am not mistaken. And after losing the title defeated alot of contenders still into old age. And that is just at heavyweight.

What did Tunney do? Maybe 4-5 fights prior to Dempsey at heavyweight against fringe contenders. Beats Dempsey twice (almost gets himself kayoed in the rematch) and then defends it one more time against some crap contender. It's a stronger 'career' at heavyweight than say Roy Jones, but it is pretty limited and weak when you think about it.

Record books? I asked you to explain your hypocritical rationale and you refuse to do so. This is yet another pointless post.

You like to crank out long winded posts, you hate to get called on even a small portion of them. Instead of admitting you're wrong or ignoring it, you respond with something completely irrelevant to the point. Which was this............


"Why Fitzsimmons at all on the list? Overall accomplishments at various weights, longetivity and success at different stages in his career. Why not Tunney? Because imho Gene didn't do enough at heavyweight."

[HomicideHenry]

Bob Fitzsimmons (prior to the championship):

Peter Maher (Ireland)- KO 12th

Joe Choynski (USA)- KO 5th

Peter Maher (Ireland)- KO 1st

Tom Sharkey (Ireland)- DQ 8th (loss)*

*Must be noted that referee Wyatt Earp incorrectly ruled the knockout blow as an illegal one; Fitzsimmons was robbed of a victory in this fight

Bob Fitzsimmons (The Championship & Beyond):

Jim Corbett (USA)- KO 14th

Gus Ruhlin- KO 6th

Tom Sharkey (Ireland)- KO 2nd

-The Two Losses to James J. Jeffries (KO 11 & KO 8 respectively)

Philadelphia Jack O'Brien- KO 6th (the first match was a heavyweight contest)

-Losses to Jack Johnson & Bill Lang in 1907 & 1909; Fitzsimmons began his pro career in 1885, so it gives a great perspective as to how long he stayed in the fight game. These losses, therefore are excusable.


Gene Tunney's Entire Heavyweight Career:

Tom Heeney- KO 11th (1928)

Jack Dempsey (2x's)- Decision Wins in 1926 & 1927

Dan O'Dowd- KO 2nd

Johnny Risko- W12

Bartley Madden- KO 3rd

Jack Herman- KO 2nd

Tommy Gibbons- KO 12th

Eriminio Spalla (1924)- KO 7th

Jimmy Delaney- W10

Martin Burke- W15

Harry Foley- W10

Charlie Weinert- W12 & KO 4th respectively

(Prior to 1922, the only heavies Tunney tangled with were guys like Jack Clifford who was 0-6, or Ray Thompson who was 0-5, so no need to mention these nonentities and others like)


HOWEVER.... outside of Gibbons & Delaney and arguably Risko, none of these men listed were ever contenders for any championship, or were even a stone throw away from ever receiving one. Unlike Fitzsimmons whose wins over top flight contenders Maher, Sharkey, Choynski, Ruhlin, etc. were far superior. Quantity & Quality Fitzsimmons had over Tunney.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Yup, more pointless blabber.

[HomicideHenry]

You effing dick, I think you just do this shit on purpose to make me write out a long effing explaination for everything.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You effing dick, I think you just do this poo on purpose to make me write out a long effing explaination for everything.

You're writing out long explanations on something I never questioned. Like I said, you like to get long winded to avoid getting called out for talking out of your ass.

Answer the question or STFU. Why does Fitzsimmons get credit for fights outside the Heavyweight division when Tunney does not? To quote you, your rating criteria looked at from any angle is 'inept'.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Sorry Ezzard, I rate Johnson higher than anyone pre-Louis by a significant margin.

[Seamus]

Had some good wins on his way up the ladder, but avoided the best 5 or 6 Heavyweights in the world during his title reign. Once you forget all the hype, his best wins aren't all that impressive.

[HomicideHenry]

You effing dick, I think you just do this poo on purpose to make me write out a long effing explaination for everything.

You're writing out long explanations on something I never questioned. Like I said, you like to get long winded to avoid getting called out for talking out of your ass.

Answer the question or STFU. Why does Fitzsimmons get credit for fights outside the Heavyweight division when Tunney does not? To quote you, your rating criteria looked at from any angle is 'inept'.

AT heavyweight alone, Fitzsimmons is certainly higher than Tunney. On the p4p sense Fitzsimmons is miles ahead of Tunney as well. Either way you slice it, dice it, etc. Fitzsimmons imho has a greater claim to being in the top ten (pre 1985) than Tunney who beaten a fringe contender or two and a washed up Dempsey.

[JC]

For me Johnson is the prototype of the style that was taken on and made particularly successful by black fighters who learned their trade in the cities in the mid-atlantic and midwest.

In terms of infighting and defence you can draw a line from Johnson through fighters like Jersey Joe Walcott and Sadler mid century and on to Marc Johnson, Toney, Hopkins and Mayweather. Which is why he's one of the most important figures in the sport's history even outside of the racial and political stuff.

From the film I've seen where he could be called inferior to the fighters that came later was at long and mid-range. He punched wide and didn't seem to have much in the way of balance or a jab.

As the rules/conditions of the sport changed it's natural that certain skill and attributes would become more important. I think by the Dempsey/Tunney era, or definitely the Louis era, he would have needed to adapt his style to be successful.

[Ezzard]

Sorry Ezzard, I rate Johnson higher than anyone pre-Louis by a significant margin.

How about a Langford in a rematch? When Sam was a full heavy?

[Ezzard]

Had some good wins on his way up the ladder, but avoided the best 5 or 6 Heavyweights in the world during his title reign. Once you forget all the hype, his best wins aren't all that impressive.

The Jeanette wins are surely as good as it gets?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You effing dick, I think you just do this poo on purpose to make me write out a long effing explaination for everything.

You're writing out long explanations on something I never questioned. Like I said, you like to get long winded to avoid getting called out for talking out of your ass.

Answer the question or STFU. Why does Fitzsimmons get credit for fights outside the Heavyweight division when Tunney does not? To quote you, your rating criteria looked at from any angle is 'inept'.

AT heavyweight alone, Fitzsimmons is certainly higher than Tunney. On the p4p sense Fitzsimmons is miles ahead of Tunney as well. Either way you slice it, dice it, etc. Fitzsimmons imho has a greater claim to being in the top ten (pre 1985) than Tunney who beaten a fringe contender or two and a washed up Dempsey.

Once again you avoid my source of contention.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Sorry Ezzard, I rate Johnson higher than anyone pre-Louis by a significant margin.

How about a Langford in a rematch? When Sam was a full heavy?

I think Sam, along with Greb, were the two greatest fighters who ever lived. But Jack was the greater Heavyweight.

[HomicideHenry]

I did but I will clarify.

Fitzsimmons cleaned out the MW division before he dominated the HW division. And, of course, he would become LHW champion after all that. Gene, great fighter that he was, wasn't that dominate. He was one of the best ever to never win a world title at LHW but that doesnt mean he was on the same class or level of accomplishment as Fitzsimmons.

Gene's best wins as a LHW are a bit askewed, considering he is most famous for (at LHW) his wars with Harry Greb the former MW champion. Problem is, alot of newspaper decisions say the verdicts should have went the other way. Another issue with Gene is I have a hard time believing the myth that he was that great that four-five champions out right ducked him. He could have fought Siki, McTigue, Carpentier, and Berlenbach for the titles---- but he didnt. I have a hard time believing it was politics alone that made it impossible for him getting a shot. The decision came down to Gene alone, imho.

That being said, here is Gene's best wins as a LHW:

Harry Greb (take your pick of the five); "officially" Tunney lost one of the five, but according to newspaper accounts the one draw (their 4th encounter) was a Greb victory. Their second encounter, which "officially" was a split decision for Gene was highly controversial as most newspapers (19 of 23) said Greb won. So in truth, Tunney won two and lost three to Greb.

Tommy Loughran, 1922, eight round draw; here's the catch, though, Loughran was only 11-1-0 as a professional when they fought. A far cry from the great fighter he would eventually become.

Georges Carpentier, 1924, 15th round kayo; after this Carpentier would fight four more times (2-1-1). He hadnt been the LHW champion since 1920, and was clearly a victim of inactivity following his service in the military. He had no business in the ring with Dempsey, and in essence was a fighter on borrowed time by the time he meat Tunney.

Battling Levinsky, 1922, 12 round decision; for the American LHW Championship. I will say I am genuinely amazed at how Tunney was capable of beating Levinsky considering from his debut up until 1922 he only fought one man of consequence (Lee Houck), as the others for the most part were military fighters with 0-0-0, 2-0-0, etc. type records.

So what's the verdict? Tunney certainly wasnt the best LHW by a long shot. Greb held a greater distinction of that than he did. His best victories, in truth, were over a washed up old pro in Carpentier and against a novice Loughran. Levinsky, on the other hand, was a solid win but he was on his way out as a pro anyways. Fitzsimmons---- by miles, beats Tunney in the "other weight division" category in terms of accomplishment.