Jack Johnson's legacy?

[Seamus]

but the point is that Langford, Jeannette, and McVea, all became better fighters after Johnson beat them, but we're not given title shots .

[man]

There is the argument that a fight with another black fighter would not have drawn well at that time. The risk/reward was not great enough for Johnson take a chance.

if that was the case that would be
really weird.

[Ambling Alp II]

There was a school of thought that a fight between two black fighters would not draw very well. Supposedly, some promoters and managers didn't think enough whites would pay to see it. It would be interesting to see how well fights between Langford, McVey, and Jeannette drew.
Johnson made a lot of money making safe title defenses against Ketchel and Jeffries. He probably didn't think it was worth the risk against a more serious challenge; especially if he wasn't going to make big $.

[Chuck1052]

Compared to the gate receipts and film rights revenue which were generated by the bout between Jack
Johnson and Jim Jeffries, the gate receipts of the bouts featuring Sam Langford, Joe Jeannette, Sam McVea and Harry Wills fighting each other were relatively modest. In fact, the Johnson-Jeffries bout was so much more massive financially compared to every other bout which took place before World War I. In other words, it was very likely that Jack Johnson wasn't going to get another massive payday like he did fighting Jeffries even if he defended his world heavyweight title in a bout with Langford, Jeannette, McVea or Harry Wills.

- Chuck Johnston

[NYDominican]

Compared to the gate receipts and film rights revenue which were generated by the bout between Jack
Johnson and Jim Jeffries, the gate receipts of the bouts featuring Sam Langford, Joe Jeannette, Sam McVea and Harry Wills fighting each other were relatively modest. In fact, the Johnson-Jeffries bout was so much more massive financially compared to every other bout which took place before World War I. In other words, it was very likely that Jack Johnson wasn't going to get another massive payday like he did fighting Jeffries even if he defended his world heavyweight title in a bout with Langford, Jeannette, McVea or Harry Wills.

- Chuck Johnston

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


I totally see your 3 points above.


Chuck, a few questions. -------

When Sam Langford, Joe Jeannette, Sam McVea, Harry Wills and Jack Johnson fought. ----- Didn't boxers hold their hands differently? Compared to the boxers who fought from 1933 till now?


Wasn't Jack Johnson a defensive master? An elite master of blocking punches with his fists and arms?


Didn't Muhammad Ali tailor his boxing style off of Jack Johnson? With, Ali refining it with more footwork and torso movement?


Could Jack Johnson have stood up to these boxers? ------ Max Baer, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Sonny Liston, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Earnie Shavers, Ken Norton, Larry Holmes, Mike Tyson, Riddick Bowe &/or Lennox Lewis?

[pound per pound]

Jack Johnson's 5 Best Performances

LKO 26 Jess Willard
W10 Al Kaufman
TKO 9 Fireman Jim Flynn
KO 20 Sam McVea
W 20 Denver Ed Martin

Top 6 Fighters of Jack Johnson's Title Reign

1.Sam Langford
2.Joe Jeannette
3.Sam McVea (was KO'd by Johnson when he was 19, they never fought again)
4.Gunboat Smith
5.Harry Wills
6.Luther McCarty

Take out Flynn and Kaufman and replace with the decision wins over Jeannette and Langford. Both Jeannette and McVey had many more fights than Boxrec gives credit for when they fought Johnson. Also McCarty died before he could really become a #1 contender. Wills was not a top contender until after Johnson's reign.

Jeannette had little experience when he meet Johnson. Langford wasn't even a full fledged middle weight. Not sure if these not ready for prime time greats were among Johnson best wins. I do think Burns was better than Flynn for sure.

[gilgamesh]

Top 10 in boxing. Incredible boost to a severely oppressed peoples. I have recently had the honor of working in same gym with his great,great grandkids. They are very talented.

Fascinating! Another 'first' by Johnson! He managed to somehow have great-great grandchildren without bothering to first have children!

I never even took the time to research this info just took the father of the young boxers word. Just researched it once I saw your post and Jack Johnson didn't have any kids according to Wikipedia. I'm gonna to present this info at the gym

Did you ever present that info at the gym? If so how'd that go?

[dempseyfire]

Jack Johnson's 5 Best Performances

LKO 26 Jess Willard
W10 Al Kaufman
TKO 9 Fireman Jim Flynn
KO 20 Sam McVea
W 20 Denver Ed Martin

Top 6 Fighters of Jack Johnson's Title Reign

1.Sam Langford
2.Joe Jeannette
3.Sam McVea (was KO'd by Johnson when he was 19, they never fought again)
4.Gunboat Smith
5.Harry Wills
6.Luther McCarty

Take out Flynn and Kaufman and replace with the decision wins over Jeannette and Langford. Both Jeannette and McVey had many more fights than Boxrec gives credit for when they fought Johnson. Also McCarty died before he could really become a #1 contender. Wills was not a top contender until after Johnson's reign.

Jeannette had little experience when he meet Johnson. Langford wasn't even a full fledged middle weight. Not sure if these not ready for prime time greats were among Johnson best wins. I do think Burns was better than Flynn for sure.

Jeannette's Boxrec record (like McVeys) is incomplete; by the time of his late fights with Johnson he was a veteran of over 20 professional fights.

Not sure how the upper 150s is not a "full fledged middleweight" but Langford at his peak wasn't more than a light heavy anyway (5 years later he was still weighing in around 170). And right before fighting Johnson he'd beating top black heavyweights Jeannette and Black Fitzimmons, so he'd proven he could defeat larger men. After the Johnson loss he continued to regularly beat heavyweights; only Johnson managed to dominate him.

[HomicideHenry]

Jack Johnson's legacy (imho) will be that he not only broke the color barrier in heavyweight boxing, but that he was also single handedly responsible for setting back in the blacks in America (if not worldwide) for another twenty-thirty years because of his actions with white prostitutes, gloating over fallen opponents, etc.

Had Johnson been more reserved like Joe Louis, more private with his affairs, etc. the race relations may of grown stronger earlier than they did. Instead, he played the villain card doing the things he knew would infuriate whites more than anything else. He initially had the favor of Great Britain and Australia, Canada and a small but growing minority in America because he was chasing Burns across the globe and had previously defeated most every noteworthy name of both white and black color.

However, he just had to toy with Burns. He just had to laugh and poke fun at Burns. And not only that, raised such a commotion with his white girlfriend--- saying along the lines black women were just not appreciative of black men, etc. that he single handedly incited trouble. And he knew it, and he pushed the envelope all the more in later years, when his white prostitute wife killed herself and within three days married another woman (also white) and had his new wife there at the funeral!

Because of him, and his actions, he made it worse to be a black man in America than not. That's what his legacy is, in my view. He was no hero. He may of been initially, but by the time he was defeated by Jess Willard, even the blacks were keeping their distance of him. He was a tall tale teller, his autobiographies full of lies and deceptions, etc. He was a con man. He had little to no moral character about him.

Now... was he a great fighter? Damn right he was. While I don't believe he was the most skilled boxer of the time (in any weight class), or was the 1900's version of Ali, Holmes, or even Charles and Walcott; he was easily the strongest, toughest, most conditioned heavyweight around. He was a master of psychology, and he could box and slug. A lethal combination--- however, I dont think he was any more skilled than say Jim Corbett was, or stronger/tougher than Jim Jeffries was, etc. If you were to hear it from the Ken Burns documentary you would think he was the greatest of all time--- that he was untouchable, lightning fast, etc. but if you watch the fight films you see a big, strong, man who clinched every ten-fifteen seconds. The only 'defense' tactics I saw in most the films was glove blocking. I saw no shoulder rolling, or fancy foot work. Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott, Gene Tunney, he was not.

The only thing I can really argue against him is that he failed to meet any of his main contenders; and instead opted to fight older, slower, more limited boxers because they were money fights (cus they were product fighters with padded records). The Great White Hope race was in full swing and it was the greatest time in boxing history--- every man from all walks of life wanted to be the White Knight hero in the crusade to defeat the Black Menace. It made white guys all the more marketable, especially if they were bigger and stronger than the next. You cant really blame Johnson in the financial sense, because a world's championship between two black men wouldn't be worth two wooden nickels--- as you would see in France between Jack Johnson and John Johnson when the champion was in self imposed exile.

However, I can't help but think that alot of the black men Johnson fought prior to winning the title, had not yet hit their peaks as fighters either. When he fought Langford, 'The Boston Tar Baby' was all but 156 pounds. Langford's greatest years were yet to come. Sam McVey, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, had beaten Johnson--- and Jack never again tried his hand with him. Joe Jeanette must of fought Johnson over a dozen times, and they split losses and draws. Just think, had Johnson really of been a trail blazer and a crusader for equal rights and of given a prime Langford, a prime McVey, etc. shots at the title how the course of history may of changed.

But he wanted no part of equally great black fighters. Instead, he fought the middleweight king Stanley Ketchell. Instead he fought an ancient, sick, Jim Jeffries. Instead, he fought men like Jim Flynn and decided to do pro wrestling and circus strongman acts while in Europe, rather than defend the title against guys who were remotely any good. His reign was one of great business for boxing, but his own personal character set back social relations between the races. Do I think he was in the top 5 greatest heavyweights list? No. The top ten? No. The top twenty? Yes.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again til I'm blue in the face--- when you reach the top twenty in any division (except for the fabled pound for pound division) you are really splitting hairs of greatness; therefore, in my estimation, anyone in the top twenty on any given night could and would defeat anyone else on that top twenty list. Could Johnson beat Marciano? Sure. Could he beat Jack Dempsey? Sure. But the same is true of Marciano and Dempsey beating him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Just a few points:
I don't believe he ever lost to McVey. Does anyone have information when that would have happened?

As for Jeannette, I believe he lost to him once by disqualification and that was the only time he lost to him and he never had any draws with him. He won a decison over Jeanette, and several newspaper decisons over Jeanette.

Splitting hairs between the top 20 in every division? Not really. The number #1 fighter at just about any weight class is clearly better than the #20.

[The Great John L]

Splitting hairs between the top 20 in every division? Not really. The number #1 fighter at just about any weight class is clearly better than the #20.

I'm not sure I agree with the top 20 argument that HH made, but since there is never a consensus on #1, or #2 or #3 for that metter, I certainly get where he's coming from.

[scallum]

One of his great Grand kids has just made it to the National Silver Gloves

[HomicideHenry]

Splitting hairs between the top 20 in every division? Not really. The number #1 fighter at just about any weight class is clearly better than the #20.

Here's where I am coming from in my thought process on "Top Twenty".

I believe you can make an argument for fighters in the top twenty being able to beat anyone else in the top twenty, including the #1-#10 guys, at least once in a series of fights. Can I see someone like Jack Johnson winning at least once against Ali in say three, five, or even ten fights? Sure. Can I see a guy like Rocky Marciano winning at least once against Louis in say three, five, or ten fights? Sure. I can say the same for the so-called 'fringe' greats. Could Max Schmeling beat Ali at least once out of ten fights? Sure. Could Max Baer win one out of ten against Gene Tunney? Sure. Etc.

Once you go passed the top twenty range, though, the argument becomes all the more harder to do so. I mean, can you argue the likes of Witherspoon, Coetzee, Berbick, Dokes, Page, etc. being able to beat guys in the top twenty? Top ten? Tope five? Or argue guys like Leon Spinks, and some of the heavyweight crop of today being able to do so? Probably not. Outside of Tyson, Lewis and Holyfield, there's no way a Tommy Morrison or Ray Mercer, etc. are able to beat anyone in the top twenty, ten or five--- because then the odds become astronomical, like 1 win out of 100 or 10 wins out of 100.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well ok. To me splitting hair is when you have two guys that are extremely close; like say Charles and Walcott. I do think that just about everyone in the top 20 would have a one in 10 chance of beating anyone. This is boxing, you could get a bad decision or a premature stoppage. But a legitimate win, (I'm assuming we are talking about fights where both guys are close to their primes) the #20 guy in just about any weight class is probably not going to beat the #1 guy once out of 3.

And I agree, that the farther you get outside the top 20, the less often a guy would beat one of the very top guys. That just makes sense. The main exceptions are inconsistent fighters who you would not put in the 20 because they lost too often to inferior fighters but were capable of the occasional upset someone in the top 20.

Sort of a side issue, but I could see Ray Mercer winning one out 10 against someone in the top 10; I thought he should have got the decision against Lewis. Of course that was one of his best fights and Lewis did not fight as smart as he usually did.

[dempseyfire]

Ja



However, I can't help but think that alot of the black men Johnson fought prior to winning the title, had not yet hit their peaks as fighters either. When he fought Langford, 'The Boston Tar Baby' was all but 156 pounds. Langford's greatest years were yet to come. Sam McVey, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, had beaten Johnson--- and Jack never again tried his hand with him. Joe Jeanette must of fought Johnson over a dozen times, and they split losses and draws. .

McVey never beat him. Johnson dominated McVey everytime they fought. And Jeannette only ever beat Johnson on a DQ. See my post above about Langford's weight and McVey and Jeannette's experience levels (which were much more than their records show). If Johnson and Langford had fought in 1910, Johnson would've outweighed Langford by even more (210 to 170) than he did in 1906.

You have to watch Johnson's film slowed down and close up to see the subtle defensive moves he made, which were outstanding. If you just watched grainy sped up film of Hopkins you'd also just say "all I see is a guy clinch every 10 seconds . ."

[The Great John L]

...If you just watched grainy sped up film of Hopkins you'd also just say "all I see is a guy clinch every 10 seconds . ."

[HomicideHenry]

See my post above about Langford's weight and McVey and Jeannette's experience levels (which were much more than their records show). If Johnson and Langford had fought in 1910, Johnson would've outweighed Langford by even more (210 to 170) than he did in 1906.

You have to watch Johnson's film slowed down and close up to see the subtle defensive moves he made, which were outstanding. If you just watched grainy sped up film of Hopkins you'd also just say "all I see is a guy clinch every 10 seconds . ."

First, my argument was that the men Johnson faced (the black fighters) never reached their primes or peaks as heavyweights--- sure he boasts alot of wins over the grouping, however Langford didn't really pose the kind of threat that he would years later; same goes with McVey. After all, Langford was arguably the #1 contender even during Jack Dempsey's reign.

Second, I disagree with your comparison to Hopkins. B-Hop may be a boring fighter, however, when I watch him fight--- and watch Johnson fight--- I see one man using angles, keeping the distance and pace with the jab, etc. (Hopkins). Then I see the other man, using brute power, and mauling clinching tactics to wear down opponents--- only difference between Johnson and his contemporaries who used power and might is Johnson paced himself when doing so. I guess we will agree to disagree. Oddly enough, the best performance I ever seen of Johnson was the Willard fight--- where he was forced to use more ring science, more high volume jabs, counter punching, etc. because Willard was so damn big and strong that Johnson couldn't out muscle him like he did so many others.

[dempseyfire]

See my post above about Langford's weight and McVey and Jeannette's experience levels (which were much more than their records show). If Johnson and Langford had fought in 1910, Johnson would've outweighed Langford by even more (210 to 170) than he did in 1906.

You have to watch Johnson's film slowed down and close up to see the subtle defensive moves he made, which were outstanding. If you just watched grainy sped up film of Hopkins you'd also just say "all I see is a guy clinch every 10 seconds . ."

First, my argument was that the men Johnson faced (the black fighters) never reached their primes or peaks as heavyweights--- sure he boasts alot of wins over the grouping, however Langford didn't really pose the kind of threat that he would years later; same goes with McVey. After all, Langford was arguably the #1 contender even during Jack Dempsey's reign.

Second, I disagree with your comparison to Hopkins. B-Hop may be a boring fighter, however, when I watch him fight--- and watch Johnson fight--- I see one man using angles, keeping the distance and pace with the jab, etc. (Hopkins). Then I see the other man, using brute power, and mauling clinching tactics to wear down opponents--- only difference between Johnson and his contemporaries who used power and might is Johnson paced himself when doing so. I guess we will agree to disagree. Oddly enough, the best performance I ever seen of Johnson was the Willard fight--- where he was forced to use more ring science, more high volume jabs, counter punching, etc. because Willard was so damn big and strong that Johnson couldn't out muscle him like he did so many others.

You can see Johnson use plenty of jabs, counters, feints, subtle angle changes vs Ketchel and Moran.

Langford was never considered a top contender ever since his losses to Fulton. He was certainly not even close to be the #1 during anytime of Dempsey's reign.

[HomicideHenry]

You can see Johnson use plenty of jabs, counters, feints, subtle angle changes vs Ketchel and Moran.

Langford was never considered a top contender ever since his losses to Fulton. He was certainly not even close to be the #1 during anytime of Dempsey's reign.

So you're suggesting the story/legend that Dempsey ducked Langford during his way to the top, and during his championship reign was bull, even when Dempsey admitted Langford was the one man he willingly ducked in his autobiography?

As for the Ketchell bout--- it was a ruse. They had a pre-agreed upon deal to more or less spar throughout, because there was more money in the film rights if the fight went for a long time. As for Moran, that was one bum who didn't deserve being in the ring for the title what so ever. Look, I'm not saying he didn't jab, or do some other things--- he just didn't do it often. Only against complete bums or in pre-arranged outcome duels as in the bouts you mentioned. As stated before, the only time I ever really seen Johnson employ great tactics was when he was forced to against Willard, and that was because Willard was so much bigger and stronger, to where Johnson couldn't clinch and maul him.

[The Great John L]

You can see Johnson use plenty of jabs, counters, feints, subtle angle changes vs Ketchel and Moran.

Langford was never considered a top contender ever since his losses to Fulton. He was certainly not even close to be the #1 during anytime of Dempsey's reign.

So you're suggesting the story/legend that Dempsey ducked Langford during his way to the top, and during his championship reign was bull, even when Dempsey admitted Langford was the one man he willingly ducked in his autobiography?

As for the Ketchell bout--- it was a ruse. They had a pre-agreed upon deal to more or less spar throughout, because there was more money in the film rights if the fight went for a long time. As for Moran, that was one bum who didn't deserve being in the ring for the title what so ever. Look, I'm not saying he didn't jab, or do some other things--- he just didn't do it often. Only against complete bums or in pre-arranged outcome duels as in the bouts you mentioned. As stated before, the only time I ever really seen Johnson employ great tactics was when he was forced to against Willard, and that was because Willard was so much bigger and stronger, to where Johnson couldn't clinch and maul him.

So the over the hill, chubby Johnson adapted his performance to his much larger and more powerful opponent by using good boxing skills but chose not to when he didn't have to. Similar to the way that Ali usually performed to the level of his competition during his second career.

[HomicideHenry]

So the over the hill, chubby Johnson adapted his performance to his much larger and more powerful opponent by using good boxing skills but chose not to when he didn't have to. Similar to the way that Ali usually performed to the level of his competition during his second career.

The same can be said of many fighters, bad, decent, good, inbetween and great though. George Foreman in his prime seldom ever boxed, just blew up on opponents. In his comeback, he was tactically superior to his younger self and therefore was better despite beging 'fatter' and slower and older. Usually you would think it would be the otherway around, that someone would be a great boxer in their youth, and become a slugger as the years progressed (Juan Manual Marquez; excellent counter puncher in his 'prime', then becomes a flat footed power puncher). However, this isn't always the case. You mention Ali, I bring up Foreman. I can also bring up someone like Jersey Joe Walcott, whose knockout ratio was higher prior to winning the title, or contending for the title--- sure he was always a ring wizard, but he became all the more so as he got older.

Same logic in a sense can be said of Lennox Lewis, he became a better tactician (therefore greater fighter) as he got older. I can even list some not so great names who were slugger/maulers early on or in their 'prime' only to become decent/good tacticians later in life--- the point is, just because Johnson did something similar to what Ali, Foreman, etc. could do doesn't necessarily put him up there with them. Besides--- Jess Willard was one of the most wide open targets to ever step into the heavyweight ring; Johnson should of been able to pick him off at will (and he did) because he was so huge, slow, ungainly and uncoordinated. Sure, Willard was strong, had excellent stamina and a chin made of granite (at least until Dempsey got him) with plenty of reserves in the fuel tank--- but he could be outboxed by even far lesser boxer-puncher-tactician types; after all, prior to the Johnson fight it was one 'no-decision' after another with Willard and he was losing steam among fans of the division. Only his size seemed to be the draw, the only sole reason why people tuned in and why he was selected to face Johnson, not because he was the best of the bunch out there.

The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, when you watch the Willard/Johnson fight; without question Johnson won rounds 1-20 relatively easy. The weight, the strength of Willard in combination with the suffocating heat in Cuba and a long lay off and little training done Johnson in. Had he showed up in shape, and maybe had more than one or two fights in three years against quality guys, Johnson probably would of ended up stopping Willard or winning the 45 round decision because the oaf was just too easy to hit and get away from.

[man]

boxing
ATG10 at heavy weights.

personal
ATG5 at afro americans.

unbelievable personality. incredibly brave.
and apparently very humorous.

[elmersalsa]

What do you think Jack Johnsons professional boxing legacy is?


How do you think Jack ranks all time in the heavyweight division?


Do you see Jack being somewhere in the top 15?


Top 10?


Or, top 5?



Why do you think Jack Johnson should rank at that respective position?

The first black heavyweight world champion. That is big weight for historical significance
First man to fight in 5 different decades. The great Roberto Duran and Saoul Mamby were the others
Gets lots of flack for not defending his crown against the top black heavyweights of his era.
A top 15 ATG p4p for me. He is #3 in my book at ATG heavyweight.

[Ezzard]

...If you just watched grainy sped up film of Hopkins you'd also just say "all I see is a guy clinch every 10 seconds . ."

Totally agree...his style has been used and adapted by Hopkins, Mayweather and Ward to differing degrees.

The stuff about Dempsey and Langford. It would have been a clear victory for Jack once he got to his peak or near to it. He said that really as a huge compliment to Sam. It was Jack showing one of the greats real respect.

I guess there was also something of it aimed at Wills... A sort of...."I signed to fight Harry, but wouldn't have signed to fight Sam [there I've admitted I'd have drawn the line...but not against Wills]..."

[TimJB]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/ ... y=obinsite

Sen. McCain still trying for legal pardon for Jack Johnson. FYI.