Heavyweights: Mike Tyson vs. Jack Johnson?

[AntonioMartin]

I have to say I think Jack had superior skills but if Stanley Ketchell could drop him......????

Who, how and why?

[p4p1]

Johnson is historically the far greater fighter even if he did take the odd decision to draw the colour line once he was champion. The footage of Johnson is so shit it's hard to compare him to modern fighter. If under the rules Johnson competed under he likely wins, if under the modern rules he likely loses. Tyson's power and combinations as always are an x-factor but he wasn't a great inside fighter so could probably be roughed up and discouraged on the inside. I'm Johnson had just about every trick in the book on the inside. I think the era's are so different it's hard to compare. After Dempsey's reign boxing started to look much more like it does now and honestly I don't think a whole lot has changed since then, rules wise or skill wise. Of course guys are constantly copying their boyhood hero's etc which is making boxing evolve so to speak but at the same time a lot of our boyhood hero's are the guys who didn't have perfect skills but used their talents and abilities to dictate their style such as Ali, Jones etc.

[DrDuke]

Johnson is historically the far greater fighter even if he did take the odd decision to draw the colour line once he was champion.

Tyson was greater for sure.

The footage of Johnson is so shit it's hard to compare him to modern fighter. If under the rules Johnson competed under he likely wins, if under the modern rules he likely loses.

Sounds about right. Tyson would be frustrated by the inside hustling, which wouldn't be allowed by the rules of the Tyson's times.

[p4p1]

Johnson is historically the far greater fighter even if he did take the odd decision to draw the colour line once he was champion.

Tyson was greater for sure.

The footage of Johnson is so shit it's hard to compare him to modern fighter. If under the rules Johnson competed under he likely wins, if under the modern rules he likely loses.

Sounds about right. Tyson would be frustrated by the inside hustling, which wouldn't be allowed by the rules of the Tyson's times.

Tyson greater based on what? Johnson was 'coloured' World Heavyweight Champion from 1903-1908 when he became the first black guy to win the world heavyweight title. He was World Heavyweight Champion from 1908-1915. It's almost a reign of 12 years though I do believe that towards the end of his World Championship reign other black fighters such as Wils and Langford would have beaten him.
He beat, Joe Jeanette, Sam Langford, Sam McVey, Bob Fitzsimmons, Tommy Burns, Stanley Ketchel, Jim Jeffries, They weren't all at their best but they were the best around at the time. From 1902-1915 (13 years) he went 49-3-5. Losses coming from Joe Jeanette, Marvin Hart (who would win the title that year) and of course Jess Willard. Johnson had been fighting for 18 years and was 37 when he lost to Willard. Johnson didn't take another loss until he was 48, I'm sure he wasn't fighting the best during that period but between 1902 and 1926 (24 years) he lost 3 fights. All to world champions.

Tyson on the other hand was losing to bums before he was 40, was world champion for 4 years and undisputed champion for only 2 and lost his most important fights to Holyfield and Lewis, both of whom are older than him. Tyson was great but historically Johnson was far greater, faced oppression and bigotry that probably would have broken Tyson before he got going and was the best fighter in the world for a far longer period than Tyson.

[DrDuke]

Johnson is historically the far greater fighter even if he did take the odd decision to draw the colour line once he was champion.

Tyson was greater for sure.

The footage of Johnson is so shit it's hard to compare him to modern fighter. If under the rules Johnson competed under he likely wins, if under the modern rules he likely loses.

Sounds about right. Tyson would be frustrated by the inside hustling, which wouldn't be allowed by the rules of the Tyson's times.

Tyson greater based on what? Johnson was 'coloured' World Heavyweight Champion from 1903-1908 when he became the first black guy to win the world heavyweight title. He was World Heavyweight Champion from 1908-1915. It's almost a reign of 12 years though I do believe that towards the end of his World Championship reign other black fighters such as Wils and Langford would have beaten him.
He beat, Joe Jeanette, Sam Langford, Sam McVey, Bob Fitzsimmons, Tommy Burns, Stanley Ketchel, Jim Jeffries, They weren't all at their best but they were the best around at the time. From 1902-1915 (13 years) he went 49-3-5. Losses coming from Joe Jeanette, Marvin Hart (who would win the title that year) and of course Jess Willard. Johnson had been fighting for 18 years and was 37 when he lost to Willard. Johnson didn't take another loss until he was 48, I'm sure he wasn't fighting the best during that period but between 1902 and 1926 (24 years) he lost 3 fights. All to world champions.

Tyson on the other hand was losing to bums before he was 40, was world champion for 4 years and undisputed champion for only 2 and lost his most important fights to Holyfield and Lewis, both of whom are older than him. Tyson was great but historically Johnson was far greater, faced oppression and bigotry that probably would have broken Tyson before he got going and was the best fighter in the world for a far longer period than Tyson.

Johnson is overrated. Tyson, actually, often gets overrated as well, but still his achievements are bigger.

Johnson gets a lot of credit for becoming the first black champion, which is an achievement more from the side of the sport politics than the sport itself. Why he is given much credit for that? Sullivan doesn't have extra credit for becoming the first champion ever and that's good, but Jack gets his credit "of being first".

Johnson's title reign is overrated vastly. His early wins are more important, but even they are overrated, because the likes of Jeanette, Langford and McVey were very unexperienced at the moments of facing Jack. Actually, all of them gets overrated for fighting each other for multiple times and making names for themselves majorly with that.

However, Johnson's title reign was even worse. Tommy Burns was a one of the worst HW champions ever, he emerged in a weak era, which remained weak during the reign of Johnson. Winning Ketchel, while getting dropped by him, was far worse than winning Spinks. Fitzsimmons was at the downfall of his career, while Jeffries was an oldman coming out of the retirement. Those wins equal to the Holmes win. Apart of those wins, Johnson was winning a lesser opposition, both in terms of the size and the skills.

Tyson hasn't defeated anybody of his level either, but at least he was facing real HWs, who were credible at the division of those times and majorly were bigger than Mike. While Johnson was iced by the first significantly bigger opponent he met.

So, Tyson is clearly greater than Johnson. Tyson was a much better boxer and had a better resume.

[Seamus]

Tyson could have taken all Johnson's title defenses in one evening's work. This would be a total mismatch.

[margaret thatcher]

Johnson is historically the far greater fighter even if he did take the odd decision to draw the colour line once he was champion.

Tyson was greater for sure.

The footage of Johnson is so shit it's hard to compare him to modern fighter. If under the rules Johnson competed under he likely wins, if under the modern rules he likely loses.

Sounds about right. Tyson would be frustrated by the inside hustling, which wouldn't be allowed by the rules of the Tyson's times.

Tyson greater based on what? Johnson was 'coloured' World Heavyweight Champion from 1903-1908 when he became the first black guy to win the world heavyweight title. He was World Heavyweight Champion from 1908-1915. It's almost a reign of 12 years though I do believe that towards the end of his World Championship reign other black fighters such as Wils and Langford would have beaten him.
He beat, Joe Jeanette, Sam Langford, Sam McVey, Bob Fitzsimmons, Tommy Burns, Stanley Ketchel, Jim Jeffries, They weren't all at their best but they were the best around at the time. From 1902-1915 (13 years) he went 49-3-5. Losses coming from Joe Jeanette, Marvin Hart (who would win the title that year) and of course Jess Willard. Johnson had been fighting for 18 years and was 37 when he lost to Willard. Johnson didn't take another loss until he was 48, I'm sure he wasn't fighting the best during that period but between 1902 and 1926 (24 years) he lost 3 fights. All to world champions.

Tyson on the other hand was losing to bums before he was 40, was world champion for 4 years and undisputed champion for only 2 and lost his most important fights to Holyfield and Lewis, both of whom are older than him. Tyson was great but historically Johnson was far greater, faced oppression and bigotry that probably would have broken Tyson before he got going and was the best fighter in the world for a far longer period than Tyson.

Mate, Stanley Ketchel was a middleweight. Tommy Burns was 5'7 and about 165 pounds. Fitzimmons was 44 when jj beat him and he weighed 156 in his next fight. his career was pretty much done by that point anyway .these are all fight day weights, so you are looking at jj fighting guys who were prob even smaller than mws today.

How does any of that help put Johnson ahead of Tyson as a HW? Would Fury or AJ boost their HW rating by beating Billy Joe Saunders or Brian Castano? and stuff like Fury or AJ vs 44 year old junior middleweights would never even be sanctioned.

McVea was a teenager when a fully matured Johnson beat him, and Jeffries hadnt fought for 6 years btw. johnsons record was filled with side show circus stuff

[p4p1]

Tyson was greater for sure.

Sounds about right. Tyson would be frustrated by the inside hustling, which wouldn't be allowed by the rules of the Tyson's times.

Tyson greater based on what? Johnson was 'coloured' World Heavyweight Champion from 1903-1908 when he became the first black guy to win the world heavyweight title. He was World Heavyweight Champion from 1908-1915. It's almost a reign of 12 years though I do believe that towards the end of his World Championship reign other black fighters such as Wils and Langford would have beaten him.
He beat, Joe Jeanette, Sam Langford, Sam McVey, Bob Fitzsimmons, Tommy Burns, Stanley Ketchel, Jim Jeffries, They weren't all at their best but they were the best around at the time. From 1902-1915 (13 years) he went 49-3-5. Losses coming from Joe Jeanette, Marvin Hart (who would win the title that year) and of course Jess Willard. Johnson had been fighting for 18 years and was 37 when he lost to Willard. Johnson didn't take another loss until he was 48, I'm sure he wasn't fighting the best during that period but between 1902 and 1926 (24 years) he lost 3 fights. All to world champions.

Tyson on the other hand was losing to bums before he was 40, was world champion for 4 years and undisputed champion for only 2 and lost his most important fights to Holyfield and Lewis, both of whom are older than him. Tyson was great but historically Johnson was far greater, faced oppression and bigotry that probably would have broken Tyson before he got going and was the best fighter in the world for a far longer period than Tyson.

Mate, Stanley Ketchel was a middleweight. Tommy Burns was 5'7 and about 165 pounds. Fitzimmons was 44 when jj beat him and he weighed 156 in his next fight. his career was pretty much done by that point anyway .these are all fight day weights, so you are looking at jj fighting guys who were prob even smaller than mws today.

How does any of that help put Johnson ahead of Tyson as a HW? Would Fury or AJ boost their HW rating by beating Billy Joe Saunders or Brian Castano? and stuff like Fury or AJ vs 44 year old junior middleweights would never even be sanctioned.

McVea was a teenager when a fully matured Johnson beat him, and Jeffries hadn't fought for 6 years btw. johnsons record was filled with side show circus stuff

Of course Johnson did side show circus stuff, during that era they all did, especially if you were black. You can't compare the guy to modern standards. The fact is in his time he was the best and he was the best for a long time. This was before kids took up boxing seriously as Tyson (and many others before him) did but it also seems implied that a larger percentage of the population took up fighting one way or another during that time period.

McVea wasn't at his best when Johnson beat him in '03&'04 while Johnson was likely close to his best. Johnson was giving away about 20lbs to McVea, which was not uncommon for him to do so before he was champion and had a stable income.

Johnsons size is often exaggerated, I would imagine at the time the writers preferred to use his size rather than his skills and smarts as the reason why he kept winning. But when Johnson fought Burns the 194lbs he weighed in at seems to be his highest weight at the time. That hardly makes him a giant when you consider Jeffries routinely weighed in the 220's, Sullivan was at his best in the 195-200lbs range, Jackson was the same etc. He did often give away weight. Yes he lost to the biggest man he faced, he was 38 at the time. Willard had beaten some decent contenders and defended the title once before being destroyed by Dempsey. At 38 Tyson was losing to McBride and Williams. Johnson in the mid 180s is about the size of a SMW today. If competing today he would be a LHW, like many of his contemporaries. A lot of these smaller guys were of similar height and reach, AJ often has a weight and height advantage similar to one enjoyed by Johnson. Fury just enjoyed a 40lb weight advantage over Wilder. Yes they're both heavyweights but Fury and Wilder have similar dimensions just as Johnson did against many of the guys he fought. If AJ or Fury fought Saunders they would have 6+ inches in height, 80+ pounds in weight. A win over Usyk who would give away less height and weight than many of Johnsons opponents did (only Burns gave away more height) would be considered an excellent win and probably the best of AJ's career.

The Ketchell fight was made because 1. Ketchell was really fornicating good and 2. before he got his long awaited and earned title shot Johnson had beaten everyone of note around.
The best Heavyweights around the time Johnson fought were:
Bold = fought during Johnsons reign, italics = fought before Johnsons reign, underline = never fought
Jeffries - Jeffries may have not fought for 6 years before Johnson kicked his ass. But why was that? Fans were calling for Jeffries to fight Johnson as early as 1903, Johnson had been calling him out since 1902. Jeffries refused to fight him for fear of losing to a black guy. Had they fought in '03 Jeffries may have won but what if Johnson did? He may have reigned from 1903-1915.
Fitzsimmons - Fitz was old no doubt, but he was at that time still one of the best in the world. Johnson was the bigger man but at that point in his career was weighing around 185lbs. It wasn't the 40lb+ weight difference that you seem to be implying. It was still a decent win but when comparing it to Tyson's wins it does have a striking resemblance to the Holmes win for me. Old former champ, 18 months removed from losing a world title. Fitzsimmons weighed just under 170 for his LHW title bouts in 2 of his 3 previous fights. The next fight were he weight 156lbs you're referring to wasn't until 2 years later. Johnson would have had a 1/2 and inch in height, 2 1/2 inches in reach and around 15lbs in weight. Not the size mismatch you've painted. It's not a great win but it is a good win.
Maher - By the time Johnson came on to the scene he was well past his best and would have done nothing for Johnson
Choynski - They fought when Johnson was very Green. Seems to be the best hitter of the time period going from the comments of his contemporaries. Actually taught Johnson a little while they were in jail together for 3 days after their fight. He well past his use by date by the time Johnson was a contender and retired in 1904.
12. Hart - The fight that took place between them is hard to figure out. Going from the writing it would seem that Johnson had the better of the fight but the referee have the fight to Hart for pushing the action. The fact is that a victory for Hart allowed a title lineage to be created without Johnson in the way. The reports of the time do seem to say or indicate that Johnson knew he had to knock Hart out to win. Hart then lost to Burns and was never in the title picture again.
McCoy - One of the few guys missing from Johnson's resume. I suspect that his loss to Root in '03 and his 4 year hiatus from 04-08 are key reasons why the fight never happened.
O’Brien - 40lbs weight advantage for Johnson. O'Brien seen as one of the best around but was to small to ever have a chance.
Root - There would be nothing for Root to gain by fighting Johnson at the time they were both contenders, he fought Hart in 05 for the vacant title. Retired in 06.
Langford - Johnson should have given Langford a shot, as should have those that followed him. When they fought they had roughly the same amount of fights but Langford gave away 30lbs to Johnson and was 23 at the time. I suspect much the same as it would have been in a fight against Wills, there just wasn't money in 2 black guys fighting for the championship at the time.
Wills - see above
Jeanette - Lost to Johnson 3x and drew once before Johnson's title reign. After which he couldn't beat Langford to argue #1 spot until 1915.
McVey - When they first fought Johnson was also pretty green at the time though a few years older. He lost to Jeanette in 1907 before Johnson had the title so was not in a position to fight Johnson before his title reign again. McVea probably deserved a shot between beating Jim Johnson and losing to Langford but I'm sure money was an issue, especially given Johnson had already beaten him twice.
Willard - Johnson was 38. Who cares.
Burns - As you said was 5'7 and 168lbs. He did have the same 74' reach as Johnson interestingly. I'm not sure why Burns was the light for the fight. During that time he appears to have hovered between 175-180. Perhaps the weight loss was an effort to deal with Johnsons speed? I'm not sure. Either way Burns is not the worst HW champion by a longshot. He reigned as undisputed champion for longer than Tyson did and had more successful defences against guys who stood about as much chance as the guys Tyson fought.

Johnson is one of the greatest HW's of all time because he was the best of his era. If given the opportunity by Jeffries he probably would have taken the title from him and been champion before 1908. He was already 30 by the time he won the title. He missed important fights later in his career against prime Langford and Wills but the flip side is that by 1911/12 he was into his mid 30's and likely past his best anyway. Johnson is an all time top 10 HW while Tyson is not. Johnson is greater, Tyson may have been better. In the rules from the early 1900's, 45 rounds in the sun, against one of the smoothest operators of the time who laughed at and toyed with some of the best contenders of the day, I'm not sure Tyson could pull that off. That's not a mark against him he didn't have the experience.

[gilgamesh]

Johnson is historically the far greater fighter even if he did take the odd decision to draw the colour line once he was champion.

Tyson was greater for sure.

The footage of Johnson is so shit it's hard to compare him to modern fighter. If under the rules Johnson competed under he likely wins, if under the modern rules he likely loses.

Sounds about right. Tyson would be frustrated by the inside hustling, which wouldn't be allowed by the rules of the Tyson's times.

Yeah I'd agree that the winner would be decided by the rules they fought under.

[p4p1]

Johnson is historically the far greater fighter even if he did take the odd decision to draw the colour line once he was champion.

Tyson was greater for sure.

The footage of Johnson is so shit it's hard to compare him to modern fighter. If under the rules Johnson competed under he likely wins, if under the modern rules he likely loses.

Sounds about right. Tyson would be frustrated by the inside hustling, which wouldn't be allowed by the rules of the Tyson's times.

Yeah I'd agree that the winner would be decided by the rules they fought under.

Do you think those rules hampered the shorter/less long man? Despite being big an strong would Tyson be rag dolled in the clinch by the longer but smaller guys? I would imagine having height and leverage when that much wrestling, holding and hitting etc was allowed was as important as other factors if not more so. Even the short guys during the era such as Langford and Burns had surprisingly long reaches at 74 inches the same as the taller Johnson. Boxing has changed so much since those days, I don't imagine someone built like Tyson being able to go 45 rounds in the sun with constant wrestling and clinching. That kind of explosiveness doesn't normally make for a great endurance athlete. I would imagine guys like Liston and Foreman would have been terrifying under those rules though.

[gilgamesh]

Being physically strong, and having the strength to outmuscle somebody would play a bigger role in those days. Yes Liston and Foreman would be monsters in that era. As they were in their own eras if not more so.

[goose 5]

Tyson in one round based on era versus era comparison. If they had both been developed in the same era-that's a whole different question.

[Post 4 Post]

Both greats who lived life on the edge & both monsters in their time.

Too much time between them though, where Tyson was far more advanced & evolved to the point it would be a mismatch.

Tyson is too much for Jack Johnson & would get a violent quick win

[Ambling Alp II]

I know there is an excuse for everyone that Johnson beat, but haven't the ones for Joe Jeannette and Denver Ed Martin. What are they?

[margaret thatcher]

Lol , pretty hilarious giving guys ratings boosts as hws for beating guys 155-165 pounds on the day isnt it

a sideshow, circus record for sure. tiny little guys, 17 year olds, and guys who hadnt fought in over half a decade

how about those hugs though, jack was a lover and didn't want to hurt anyone, wlad's role model

[Ambling Alp II]

And Jeannette and Martin?

[margaret thatcher]

What about them?

Btw you can really tell Wlad Klitschko watched a lot of JJ and based his style on the original king of hit and hug, defo the wlad and jj fans can find a lot of common ground together

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

I might sound dumb but...

Is there footage of jack Johnson fights? I know the ketchel clip - are there many others?

[DrDuke]

I might sound dumb but...

Is there footage of jack Johnson fights? I know the ketchel clip - are there many others?

Browse them on youtube. Extracts of his major World championship fights are there.

[Post 4 Post]

It's odd there is no fights of Sugar Ray Robinson when he was at his best at Welterweight, but there is multiple footage of boxers well before then, like Jack Johnson

[goose 5]

There are home movies of Robinson at 147 in private collections.

[littlepug]

These different era matchups never work as impossible to balance all the variables, the vast differences in political, financial and scientific landscapes between those eras help define the fighters themselves so where do you have the fight? Back in time or in the more recent era? Do you have them born in the same era so there’s a level playing field but also would create different fighters? What I do know is that Tyson wasn’t mentally strong enough to handle being champ with the fame and riches that came with it, Johnson on the other hand handled being champ with ease the fame, money and the whole of white society (and every fight crowd) against him he took in his stride and with a smile on his face. Johnson is by far the greater fighter.

[Ambling Alp II]

What about them?

Btw you can really tell Wlad Klitschko watched a lot of JJ and based his style on the original king of hit and hug, defo the wlad and jj fans can find a lot of common ground together

Johnson did more than hit and hug.
Johnson beat them both . Jeannette was a great fighter and Martin was very good. Neither were middle weights or light heavyweights. Johnson did more than just hit and hug.

So again, what are the excuses for Jeannette and Martin? There has to be something doesn't there?

[margaret thatcher]

What about them?

Btw you can really tell Wlad Klitschko watched a lot of JJ and based his style on the original king of hit and hug, defo the wlad and jj fans can find a lot of common ground together

Johnson did more than hit and hug.
Johnson beat them both . Jeannette was a great fighter and Martin was very good. Neither were middle weights or light heavyweights. Johnson did more than just hit and hug.

So again, what are the excuses for Jeannette and Martin? There has to be something doesn't there?

Sure, just as Wlad sometimes KTFO guys brutally with power shots and wasn't just jab and hug either. But, dang, the huggy bois both had hitting and hugging as a huge part of their styles.



I'm not making any excuses for those guys--it's great that not all circus Jack's opponents were 160 pounds or either teenagers or long-retired

[margaret thatcher]

These different era matchups never work as impossible to balance all the variables, the vast differences in political, financial and scientific landscapes between those eras help define the fighters themselves so where do you have the fight? Back in time or in the more recent era? Do you have them born in the same era so there’s a level playing field but also would create different fighters? What I do know is that Tyson wasn’t mentally strong enough to handle being champ with the fame and riches that came with it, Johnson on the other hand handled being champ with ease the fame, money and the whole of white society (and every fight crowd) against him he took in his stride and with a smile on his face. Johnson is by far the greater fighter.

Tyson's championship resume is really no less impressive than Johnson's

You seem to be rating them on out of the ring and broader cultural stuff, on their personalities and not as boxers