jack johnson vs joe louis

[DrDuke]

Actually there are some arguable moments with Johnson indeed. I'm not sure about the possibility of Ketchel fight being staged, but Johnson truly emerged in the weakest era for that moment. He even was eventually dethroned by a guy, who is considered to be a one of the worst champions.

As for the subject, of course, Joe Louis would have won in this hypothetical matchup. Louis was significantly more advanced. Louis by a KO, I'd say.

[jamamb]

i agree that johnson is often wildly overrated

take a look at who he fought, absolutely loaded with guys who wouldnt even be close to hws today and were nowhere near as big even as louis. he won the hw title vs a guy who on fight day was 5'7 and in the 160s. hell, f@ck whether ketchel was staged or not, ketchel was the size of a f@cking light middleweight! big win over jefferies was a guy who had been out for YEARS. got knocked out by the one top level shw he faced.

like, imagine the top hws of recent years, lewis, klits, aj, fury, wilder ,etc beating up guys the size of willie monroe, and then ppl acting like that makes them an atg super master boxer hw who would school the great hws of past

[pound per pound]

Is this a fair fight? If you watch the old boxing films Louis is light years ahead of Johnson, and the better puncher. Louis opponents look more skilled too.

[Sidney Carton]

Gosh, it sounds like Jack Johnson was a terrible fighter.

[jamamb]

Is this a fair fight? If you watch the old boxing films Louis is light years ahead of Johnson, and the better puncher. Louis opponents look more skilled too.

id defo go joe

[Ambling Alp II]

It depends on which opponents we are talking about. Johnson beat Tommy Burns for the title. Not his fault that is who was the champion at time. You can not give much credit for it, but's it's not fair to criticize him for it.

Louis beat some really good fighters, but he also defended the title against some guys who were horrible. Comparing the worst opponents that they fought really is not the best way to judge fighters.

Johnson knew what he was doing in the ring. He was a superb defensive fighter. He was a guy who did not go out and blow out completely overmatched opponents. So what?
Some of John's best opponents were in fights in which there is no footage of. That has to be taken into consideration as well.

I think Johnson would have given Louis a lot of trouble.

[APerno]

Johnson fought and defeated better fighters before he became champion. His title fights (not his own fault) are wanting. Burns; Kaufman; Ketchel; (an old) Jeffries; Flynn; Johnson; Moran; Willard is not exactly a who's who list of great of HWs.

Better to evaluate him by his fights with Langford, Jeanette, McVea and Fitzsimmons.

But even with that said the times had changed by the time Louis appeared; the game (technique and training) had progressed; Louis would have outclassed Johnson; Johnson never encountered a man (Louis) that big, with that kind of speed, throwing those kind of combinations; fighting constantly for from bell to bell.

Right around the time Dempsey dispatched Willard the game was changing; all of the ATGs after 1920 where fighting at a different level than just a decade before.

I know you are not suppose to offend the "holy three:" Langford, Jeanette, McVea but try taking a look at what little film there is and you are going to be surprised how limited their techniques actually were.

Not only would Louis have out punched Johnson he would have out boxed him as well; two different eras that can't be properly compared.

[APerno]

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't think these guys were "limited at all" . They were smart, tough, talented fighters.

It's worth noting that Dempsey had a lot of respect for Langford as a fighter.
I think there a couple of things going on here. The further you go back, generally the worse the film. You really have watch the old film closely. Also strategies were different. Defensively, Johnson and other fighters would try to pick off the opponent's punches with their gloves. You don't see that much in later eras where the focus became more on foot and head movement. This doesn't mean one way is better. Just different.

Just a theory, but I agree that in boxing (and probably all sports) the competitors are not as good in the real early days. Some strategies and ideas simply had not been thought of yet. The sports gets better as these developments take place. After a while, (usually a few decades) all the major is stuff is thought of; the sport stay roughly even from then on. Sometimes there are ups and downs, but overall its roughly the same.
By the teens I think it had already happened. Changes have been occurred since but not really improvements.

I agree that Johnson never fought anyone as good as Joe Louis.
On the other hand, I would also argue that Louis never beat anyone better than Johnson.
Louis certainly had some great performances. However watch the first 12 rounds vs Conn, the Farr fight, the first Godoy fight. Is it really inconceivable that Johnson could compete?

I do rank Louis ahead of Johnson all time. However, I think Johnson is being shortchanged here.

[Sidney Carton]

Not a single "expert" here has mentioned that Johnson defended his title in 45 round fights (Jeffries, Willard, Fl.ynn.)

[APerno]

Maybe I am trying too hard to be a debunker; maybe I am overstating the negative but I do feel that Johnson and crew are often romantically over rated.

Fighters then often spent much of a round posing in front of each other, limiting how often they punched. In fact Langford and Jeanette actually look to be busier than most fighters of their day. Films of Johnson vs. Jeffries and Johnson vs. Moran show the fighters spending more time circling and feinting than actually fighting. (Granted judging Johnson by the Moran fight is unfair considering the surrounding circumstances.)

In regards to watching the above film I agree it is impossible to catch the rhythms the fighters might be displaying. But with all its clinching that fight today would be called a stinker by most fans. But yes as always, judging the past by contemporary standards is always wrong at some level. The problem is, I just don't see many combinations being attempted, let alone landed; too much one punch and grab.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Flynn was DQ in the 9th, Jeffries stopped in the 15th; and against Willard, in the 26th round Johnson was so exhausted he did not throw a single punch. (And please don't tell me it was 105 degrees, it wasn't, it was in the mid 70s.)

What relevance is there to mentioning that the fights were scheduled for 45 rounds? Other than looking terrible against Willard (by most accounts he was finished by the 21st round,) Johnson never went pass 20 rounds and more often than not fought at a slow pace, throwing one punch and grabbing or spending an inordinate amount of time circling.

Now if you were talking Ad Wolgast and Battling Nelson going 40 of 45 rounds you might be saying something. But the little guys were always better fighters. For his day that's what made Dempsey special, he was the first HW to fight with the speed and consistency of a MW.

[Ambling Alp II]

Guess I agree with some of what you are saying not with others.

I hope you aren't criticizing Johnson for losing in the 26th round, regardless of the temperature. He was 37 years old by this point. If this fight was scheduled for 15, 20, or even 25 rounds he would have won.

Johnson also won several fights over 20 rounds during his career.

As far a clinching, I see a lot of clinching in Dempsey's fights as well as fights from much more recent times. Watch his title fight with Bill Brennan or the Tunney fights for example. Lennox Lewis and W. Klitschko clinched quite a bit. And that is not even getting into John Ruiz.

There are certainly things worth criticizing Johnson for; most notably not defending the title against Langford, Jeannette or McVey. However, there should not be any doubt that he was a great fighter.

[man]

i have that theory that with gene tunney
a new era of more efficient boxing began
with more accurate defense and foot work.

this makes me believe louis would win by
late stoppage, exploiting technical weakness
in jack's game.

[APerno]

Guess I agree with some of what you are saying not with others.

I hope you aren't criticizing Johnson for losing in the 26th round, regardless of the temperature. He was 37 years old by this point. If this fight was scheduled for 15, 20, or even 25 rounds he would have won.

Johnson also won several fights over 20 rounds during his career.

As far a clinching, I see a lot of clinching in Dempsey's fights as well as fights from much more recent times. Watch his title fight with Bill Brennan or the Tunney fights for example. Lennox Lewis and W. Klitschko clinched quite a bit. And that is not even getting into John Ruiz.

There are certainly things worth criticizing Johnson for; most notably not defending the title against Langford, Jeannette or McVey. However, there should not be any doubt that he was a great fighter.

I am not criticizing Johnson for the Havana fight I realize the circumstances leading up to that fight; he wasn't just 37 at the time but had lived a very difficult three years leading up to the fight.

I couldn't find any fights over 20 rounds except the Willard fight, I will look again. (Scheduled yes, but not fought pass twenty, except Willard.)

I personally don't think Johnson was ducking the holy three because he feared them, there just was so much more money (via controversy) for him to beat up on white fighters and a champion should always go for the most money.

Yes way too many fighters clinch, but two things: Dempsey would throw combinations before he was tied-up, Langford and Jeanette were throwing one punch and then grabbing, multiple times. -- Second this all started with Johnson vs. Louis and I suspect that Louis wouldn't have tied up as readily as Johnson would have liked; Willard and Johnson did quite a bit of grabbing.

But as I stated I am probably being a bit too tough on Johnson, I just feel that over the decades there has been much praising and not enough honest evaluation of Johnson and the gang. To steal a Dempsey quote to make my point: "I was a pretty good fighter, it was the press who made me great." IMO history has made the (unfairly ducked) Black fighters a touch greater than they actually were.)