jack johnson vs joe louis

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 21 Feb 2006, 00:37

So do you think hed beat Louis?And yes sir ,I have boxed ...alot. Throwing sustained combinations against a guy who counters depends on moving your head and or giving angles after you throw a combination not just standing in front of him to get tagged with counters. As far as what Johnson did in the ring I can only go by what I have seen him do.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 21 Feb 2006, 02:14

dempseyfire wrote:Fast forward to 1996 and witness how Evander Holyfield defeated Mike Tyson.

Holyfield was every bit as good as Johnson, if not better.

Tyson was a fornicating bum compared to Louis.

Louis KO Johnson

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 21 Feb 2006, 04:01

Decagon wrote:Johnson had a very modern defense, but he didn't face off against too many men with modern combination punching. Sure, Sam Langford would set up power punches with the jab and bodywork, but a lot of the combination punching you saw back then was just a bunch of flurries.

Exactly. I would like to see how Johnson would deal with a Joe Louis or Larry Holmes left jab, right cross, left uppercut combo. He wouldn't know what hit him.

Sorry guys, but JJ was a defensive master cuz he was only picking off one and two shots at a time. Show me a film that demonstrates otherwise.

Yes and I've seen JJ's "combination punching". Watch those desperately wide, looping shots he's winging at Tommy Burns at the end of their fight. Hardly modern.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 21 Feb 2006, 04:04

These guys keep telling me to "Watch the old films" and I keep telling them that, not only have I watched them, but I OWN them and have gone over them frame by frame. Yet they keep repeating "watch the films" as if it were some mantra they are stuck on.

The films don't lie, guys. JJ's style is primitive. Joe Louis' is modern.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 21 Feb 2006, 07:35

Nero3000 wrote:
silkov wrote:
Nero3000 wrote: Jim Jacobs watched them In fact, he OWNED them. He said that sustained combination punching didn't become part of the game until Benny Leonard came along.

Are you right and Mr. Jacobs wrong? Do you own or know more about the old fights than that world-reknowned boxing expert/historian?
Jim Jacobs said a lot of things, doesn't mean he was always right. I'm not saying Louis had no chance against Johnson, but to dismiss Johnsons chaces of beating Louis is quite wrong.....
Right you are. We can't totally dismiss Johnson, but we can go with what evidence we have. JJ never dealt with a combination puncher of the modern, post-1920s era. The styles of his time were much different. Can you show me one film of Johnson blocking a 4-6 punch combo? No. All we have is him blocking 1 or 2 at a time before the clinch. Why? Because ustained combos didn't exist at that time.

If you look at boxing history, you'll notice the fighter's hands getting higher and higher as the years pass because more and more punches were being launched at them(combos). Johnson's hands-low-and-weaving style was good for his day, when 1 or 2 shots that would come at him, but it would have gotten him killed anytime after the 20s unless he altered his approach(which I guarantee you he would have been smart and skilled enough to do).

The evidence we have favors Louis. He had faster hands and punched much straighter and harder than Johnson. Louis was KO'd but only after taking a beating from Schmeling. Johnson was KO'd with one punch by Choynski and nailed and floored by Ketchel. That tells us that a powerful, accurate combination puncher like Louis would probably find Jack's chin as well.

Let's just deal with evidence and not feelings here, shall we?

Have a good one!

Louis was floored by numerous fighters... he never fought anyone as clever or as fast as Johnson... Johnson would pick off Louis punches and land his own with far more accuraccy.... Johnson would land his right over Joes often slow left and probably ko Louis. Johnson was a counterpuncher and Louis come forward style would suit him...
How can you hold the Choynoski fight against Johnson?.... Choynoski was an all time great in his own right who gave Corbett and Jeffries terrific fights.... he was so good that he never got a title shot!... Johnson fought him in only his 11th pro fight!!.... you seem to forget that Johnson didn't have a lengthy Amuteur career behind him like Louis did....
The Ketchel thing happened because Johnson agreed to go easy on Ketchel... Johnson got up straight away and koed Ketchel with his next punch... which shows you how badly Johnson was hurt...

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 21 Feb 2006, 14:15

i've seen the ketchel-johnson fight and jack did not go easy on him at all.he gives ketchel a pummeling and tries to ko him early.every time ketchel swings wildly and misses johnson pounces on him and punishes him.despite ko'ing him with the next punch he is clearly hurt from the kd.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 21 Feb 2006, 17:36

Right you are. We can't totally dismiss Johnson, but we can go with what evidence we have. JJ never dealt with a combination puncher of the modern, post-1920s era. The styles of his time were much different. Can you show me one film of Johnson blocking a 4-6 punch combo? No. All we have is him blocking 1 or 2 at a time before the clinch. Why? Because ustained combos didn't exist at that time.

If you look at boxing history, you'll notice the fighter's hands getting higher and higher as the years pass because more and more punches were being launched at them(combos). Johnson's hands-low-and-weaving style was good for his day, when 1 or 2 shots that would come at him, but it would have gotten him killed anytime after the 20s unless he altered his approach(which I guarantee you he would have been smart and skilled enough to do).

The evidence we have favors Louis. He had faster hands and punched much straighter and harder than Johnson. Louis was KO'd but only after taking a beating from Schmeling. Johnson was KO'd with one punch by Choynski and nailed and floored by Ketchel. That tells us that a powerful, accurate combination puncher like Louis would probably find Jack's chin as well.

Let's just deal with evidence and not feelings here, shall we?

Have a good one![/quote]

Louis was floored by numerous fighters... he never fought anyone as clever or as fast as Johnson... Johnson would pick off Louis punches and land his own with far more accuraccy.... Johnson would land his right over Joes often slow left and probably ko Louis. Johnson was a counterpuncher and Louis come forward style would suit him...
How can you hold the Choynoski fight against Johnson?.... Choynoski was an all time great in his own right who gave Corbett and Jeffries terrific fights.... he was so good that he never got a title shot!... Johnson fought him in only his 11th pro fight!!.... you seem to forget that Johnson didn't have a lengthy Amuteur career behind him like Louis did....
The Ketchel thing happened because Johnson agreed to go easy on Ketchel... Johnson got up straight away and koed Ketchel with his next punch... which shows you how badly Johnson was hurt...[/quote]

No? How about Billy Conn? In fact Billy was FASTER than Johnson and every bit as clever.

Johnson might pick off the first one or two punches Joe would throw. It's the third and fourth in the combo that he wouldn't be expecting that would nail him. Again, show me one film of JJ picking off a multi-punch combination.

I don't hold the Choynski fight against JJ as much as I hold it up as an example of Johnson getting KO'd by a big puncher.

More later

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 21 Feb 2006, 17:42

actually johnson had 26 pro bouts when choynski knocked him out. however, johnson was still green.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 21 Feb 2006, 18:20

Louis was floored by numerous fighters... he never fought anyone as clever or as fast as Johnson... Johnson would pick off Louis punches and land his own with far more accuraccy.... Johnson would land his right over Joes often slow left and probably ko Louis. Johnson was a counterpuncher and Louis come forward style would suit him...
How can you hold the Choynoski fight against Johnson?.... Choynoski was an all time great in his own right who gave Corbett and Jeffries terrific fights.... he was so good that he never got a title shot!... Johnson fought him in only his 11th pro fight!!.... you seem to forget that Johnson didn't have a lengthy Amuteur career behind him like Louis did....
The Ketchel thing happened because Johnson agreed to go easy on Ketchel... Johnson got up straight away and koed Ketchel with his next punch... which shows you how badly Johnson was hurt...[/quote]

No? How about Billy Conn? In fact Billy was FASTER than Johnson and every bit as clever.

Johnson might pick off the first one or two punches Joe would throw. It's the third and fourth in the combo that he wouldn't be expecting that would nail him. Again, show me one film of JJ picking off a multi-punch combination.

I don't hold the Choynski fight against JJ as much as I hold it up as an example of Johnson getting KO'd by a big puncher.

More later[/quote]

Reposting cuz I suck at this "quote" thing

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 21 Feb 2006, 18:38

dalek wrote:i've seen the ketchel-johnson fight and jack did not go easy on him at all.he gives ketchel a pummeling and tries to ko him early.every time ketchel swings wildly and misses johnson pounces on him and punishes him.despite ko'ing him with the next punch he is clearly hurt from the kd.

Explain why Johnson holds Ketchel up from going down several times throughout the bout . . it's a clear act of Johnson prolonging the fight, and THAT is in the film.

Johnson defense was more then picking off shots. It was judging distance, footwork, pivoting an opponent so that he lost his balance, and also his extremly quick reflexes. You want examples of Johnson blocking combinations-see the Frank Moran fight, in which Johnson not only blocks but slips and ducks several attempted multi-punch attempts from the Pittsburg kid.

Hands kept getting higher and higher? Show me film of Ali and Lennox Lewis . . .if you put them in 1915 camera, they'd look similar, b/c they all held their hands low.

I don't know where you get your evidence that Billy Conn was faster then Jack Johnson. You can see film of Johnson shadowboxing in REAL TIME in his late 40s and the guy was clearly up there with Ali and Louis in terms of all time HW handspeed and reflexes. He would go to gyms in the 1930s and ask to spar with the quickest guy there. He'd go in and the opponent wouldn't touch him ONCE. This has been confirmed severa times by eyewitnesses. Johnson's defensive ability was something special and people who look at sped-up crank camera film and dis-miss it are really not assesing it correctly.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 21 Feb 2006, 22:11

Johnson defense was more then picking off shots. It was judging distance, footwork, pivoting an opponent so that he lost his balance, and also his extremly quick reflexes. You want examples of Johnson blocking combinations-see the Frank Moran fight, in which Johnson not only blocks but slips and ducks several attempted multi-punch attempts from the Pittsburg kid.

Hands kept getting higher and higher? Show me film of Ali and Lennox Lewis . . .if you put them in 1915 camera, they'd look similar, b/c they all held their hands low.

I don't know where you get your evidence that Billy Conn was faster then Jack Johnson. You can see film of Johnson shadowboxing in REAL TIME in his late 40s and the guy was clearly up there with Ali and Louis in terms of all time HW handspeed and reflexes. He would go to gyms in the 1930s and ask to spar with the quickest guy there. He'd go in and the opponent wouldn't touch him ONCE. This has been confirmed severa times by eyewitnesses. Johnson's defensive ability was something special and people who look at sped-up crank camera film and dis-miss it are really not assesing it correctly.[/quote]

Good lord! If you're gonna cite the Frank Moran fight as an example of JJ picking off tight, disciplined combos then we're never going to see eye to eye. Moran? A one-punch, one-dimensional flailer if ever there was one. Tex Cobb probably could have made Moran miss. Ducking/slipping/blocking slow, wide Frank Moran flailings and doing the same to tight, powerful, lightning-fast Joe Louis combinations is a completely different thing.

People like Ali and Roy Jones held their hands low because they could get away with it due to their athletic ability. They were an exception, not the rule. Fighters from Johnson's era held their hands low cuz that was the style of the day. Again: one or two wide punches and a clinch...one or two wide punches and a clinch......one or two wide punches and a clinch...

Other than low hands, Ali on a 1915 camera would look nothing like the fighters of that day. None of them had footwork like that.

By watching how the audience, cornermen and referees are moving you can get a pretty good idea of the speed of the old-timers. Johnson had excellent speed, but was not in the class of speedsters like Ali, Conn or Jones.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 22 Feb 2006, 09:05

dempseyfire wrote:
dalek wrote:i've seen the ketchel-johnson fight and jack did not go easy on him at all.he gives ketchel a pummeling and tries to ko him early.every time ketchel swings wildly and misses johnson pounces on him and punishes him.despite ko'ing him with the next punch he is clearly hurt from the kd.
Explain why Johnson holds Ketchel up from going down several times throughout the bout . . it's a clear act of Johnson prolonging the fight, and THAT is in the film.

Johnson defense was more then picking off shots. It was judging distance, footwork, pivoting an opponent so that he lost his balance, and also his extremly quick reflexes. You want examples of Johnson blocking combinations-see the Frank Moran fight, in which Johnson not only blocks but slips and ducks several attempted multi-punch attempts from the Pittsburg kid.

Hands kept getting higher and higher? Show me film of Ali and Lennox Lewis . . .if you put them in 1915 camera, they'd look similar, b/c they all held their hands low.

I don't know where you get your evidence that Billy Conn was faster then Jack Johnson. You can see film of Johnson shadowboxing in REAL TIME in his late 40s and the guy was clearly up there with Ali and Louis in terms of all time HW handspeed and reflexes. He would go to gyms in the 1930s and ask to spar with the quickest guy there. He'd go in and the opponent wouldn't touch him ONCE. This has been confirmed severa times by eyewitnesses. Johnson's defensive ability was something special and people who look at sped-up crank camera film and dis-miss it are really not assesing it correctly.

johnson did that in many fights,he manhandles ketchel in the clinches and swings him round,if he had let go of him ketch would have been on the floor.however for anyone that has seen more than just round 12,it is plain to see how hard johnson is trying to hurt ketchel.no way was this a sparring session being played out for a draw.notice the early kd where ketchel opens up and jack blazes back.

-KOKid- · Post by **-KOKid-** » 22 Feb 2006, 10:53

I'd pick Louis to KO Johnson.
Louis was too good an infighter for Johnson to be successful in tying him up on the inside every time. Sooner or later Louis would catch Johnson flush and end it.
That said, I there aren't lot of offensive minded fighters I would pick to beat Johnson, but Louis' infighting skills, those short, powerful punches that he got such leverage into, were better than any other heavyweight's in history.

-KOKid-

theone · Post by **theone** » 22 Feb 2006, 18:56

You have to look at the films slowed down to appreciate Johnson. You could put Tyson 1985 and film it the way they did in 1915 and he'd look horrible.

Actually its just the opposite. If you watch those old tapes in slow motion to take away the "herky jerky" aspect of the film those old time fighters from Johnsons days STILL look downright primative if you compare it to a Joe Loius or even a Mike Tyson clip on slow-mo. Ive done this many times before.
In contrast if you take an early Babe Ruth clip and play it on slow-mo his swing looks just as good, if not better than modern ball players. Try it for your self and see.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 22 Feb 2006, 19:20

It's genetics. The "herky jerky" chromosome is mysteriously vanishing from the human genotype.

theone · Post by **theone** » 22 Feb 2006, 21:11

It's genetics. The "herky jerky" chromosome is mysteriously vanishing from the human genotype.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 22 Feb 2006, 22:38

dempseyfire wrote:Explain how Johnson was competetive with some good fighters in the 1920s, while he was approaching 50 years old!!!

You have to look at the films slowed down to appreciate Johnson. You could put Tyson 1985 and film it the way they did in 1915 and he'd look horrible.

Johnson was incredibly fast. He was a master at feinting and counter-punching. Yes, he did like to frustrate his opponents by clinching often after he threw.

Fast forward to 1996 and witness how Evander Holyfield defeated Mike Tyson.

But he was much more then a old timer's John Ruiz. He was a mster at picking his shots on the inside, he usually wasn't just holding - - he would throw a few to the ribs, and then utilize one of the most beautiful and powerful uppercuts seen in boxing. On the outside, he possesed a strong fast jab, which he could double up on (see the Ketchel fight). He also was often not flat-footed, and could glide away from an opponent's swings and make them miss by inches (also see Ketchel, Moran fights). After he made an opponent miss, he throw sharp counters that would turn his opponents into a shell. If you;ve ever boxed, you now that it's very hard to throw sustained combinations vs a guy who can counter well, b/c you'll end up getting hit good and hard.

As for the "no combination punching in that era" argument, you're simply wrong. Look at film of Gans, Wolfgast, Johnson vs Williard and Flynn, Langford vs Flynn. It's hard to tell sometimes from the sped up old films (which would make anybody look clumsy) but those guys WERE throwing combinations, and regularly. Is it simply a coincidence that as we start seeing films in real-time (late 20s, 1930s) we start saying they're fighting in a 'modern' style??? No, it's because you can more accuratly see what they were doing.

Go to Monte Cox's coxcorner website for further musings on this topic.

Monte Cox? Fekkin' hell, Monte knows nothing about the mechanics of boxing. He's even more of a bookworm than "barry bullshit".

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 23 Feb 2006, 02:48

..this one has gone on about as far as it can go.....all arguments for both sides given..and given again.

i'm not going to get into it..but i will use this one to say one of the most erroneous statements about joe louis is that he was a slow of foot plodder. he was not....look at the younger joe.....max baer is a fair..if brief ..example...he steps around baer..moves from side to side...all the while staying in position to unload his arsenal.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 23 Feb 2006, 16:28

Jaclem wrote:..this one has gone on about as far as it can go.....all arguments for both sides given..and given again.

i'm not going to get into it..but i will use this one to say one of the most erroneous statements about joe louis is that he was a slow of foot plodder. he was not....look at the younger joe.....max baer is a fair..if brief ..example...he steps around baer..moves from side to side...all the while staying in position to unload his arsenal.

Yeah, but let's be real here. Dancing around Max Baer is about as athletically admirable as dancing around the Venus de Milo.

Louis' style didn't require him to show much blazing footspeed or footwork. He looks like a shuffler to me, but maybe he had more than he showed us. Or more than I've seen....

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 23 Feb 2006, 16:41

Its funny how everything about Louis was so economical. His footwork ,his punches ,and even the way he expressed himself outside the ring.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 24 Feb 2006, 03:09

..nero...i said stepping...not dancing....and there's a big difference. expug has it right....don't have anything to add.

...venus demilo....not much of a jab , hook, or cross.....but hard chin.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 24 Feb 2006, 03:30

Jaclem wrote:..nero...i said stepping...not dancing....and there's a big difference. expug has it right....don't have anything to add.

...venus demilo....not much of a jab , hook, or cross.....but hard chin.

*L* I needed that. Long night at work.....

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 24 Feb 2006, 13:12

Louis wins this fight. Hes much more talented and does have the power to KO johnson. Johnson does potentially have a shot at knocking louis down early by catching him off guard which wasnt that rare..but if he cant capitalize of that somehow, and manage to pummel louis, then i do beleive louis comes back up n wins this fight by either mid/late KO or more then likely a UD

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 22 Mar 2006, 11:34

Jack was a great defensive fighter and whatever era he fought in this would be the case. He would adapt and being such a gifted athlete he'd do so with aplomb. Jack was also lightening fast and a powerful puncher in his own right. In fact many accounts suggest that he could have been a brutal KO puncher if he had chosen to fight in a different style.

There would also be a fair amount of needle between these 2 and I feel that Jack would have a lot to prove to Joe. I also don't see Jack getting KO'd by anyone. Saying that though Louis probably has the best chance of anyone. I still think Jack wins the fight by decision.

The Scranton Assassin · Post by **The Scranton Assassin** » 09 Sep 2018, 00:28

Jack Johnson is possibly the most overrated boxer ever and this is mostly because of his win over Jeffries, who hadn't trained at all in 7 years and was 100 pounds over his fighting weight and dropped all of it in a matter of months with no tune up. Yet since he was still considered the greatest fighter ever , it didn't matter. His his rating is based mostly on tjis in. He fought in THE weakest HVY division ever. All he did was hold and hit, back strait up when he was rushed, bullying and wrestling middleweights and lighthvys and flailing wildly with wide open silly looking flurries(not combinations). He beat the smallest heavyweight champion ever to wIin the title(which is actually his best win ironically)He defended his title 6 times in arguably the worst defenses in hvywgt chmpnshp history.

Ketchel-which is an irrelevant defense since the fight was a staged fight and Johnson betrays the agreement. (He takes the fight to Ketchel and knocks him down first) i read an interesting article which talked about how the entire fight was staged including the knockout and judging by the amount of staged pro wrestling style fights at tbe time, im not so inclined to disagree.
Jeffries-a way pasy his prime overweight former champion. The idea of someone fighting in thiz condition is laughable today and his legacy is based on this fight.
Jim flynn - Journey man who he simply outweight and held and hit the entite fight.
Jim Johnson- another journeyman who he fought to a draw and many felt he lost to.
Frank Moran-probably the only legitimate defense he made of the title and he still struggled to barely win a decision.

jack johnson vs joe louis

Re: jack johnson vs joe louis