Jack Johnson....

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 18 Sep 2007, 21:19

I love the character and I love the era, but I know what I am about to say is going to get be hated on...so here goes.

I think Johnson though great for his time was somewhat over rated. The era of boxing he fought in was filled with guys who were flat footed, eyes closed windmillers, sluggish slugers, tough guy farmers, white supremacist huggers, under weight over achievers and a good old fashioned dosage of nostaligic over estimation.

He was a great defensive fighter for his time in the sense that he glove slaped and was interested in self preservation.

At 6'1 and 200lbs (sometimes less) he was a giant amongst barely heavyweights.

I know it is hard to gauge skill level from old film and I know that Nat Fleitscher rated him so highly....its just when I watch him fight and out box Burns, Jefferies and the likes and then here guys say how he would beat Lewis, Tyson or Holyfield I think to myself maybe I am missing something.

Respect the past sure, but the sport has evolved, for the best and the worse (especially of late), and the skills employed and type of fighters then even the rules in place made the sport some what different to what it became as the 1930s began roaring on.

Just my thoughts...nothing more.

Take care guys.....

PS..I don't mean to offend

Kym

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 18 Sep 2007, 23:06

it is a good question.... i think you are right in some ways but what i also take into account is that he was the best fighter of his day no trainer back then even had half of the knowledge a good trainer has know but i put it down to the sport evolvingand the styles evolving thru tried and tested methods but i think you have to compare a champion to his time fighting evolves to much and what would work vs jeffries will not work agains tyson, al, foreman, frazier maybe even not dempsey but for his time easily the bes in his divison

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 19 Sep 2007, 00:03

Robinson wrote:I love the character and I love the era, but I know what I am about to say is going to get be hated on...so here goes.

I think Johnson though great for his time was somewhat over rated. The era of boxing he fought in was filled with guys who were flat footed, eyes closed windmillers, sluggish slugers, tough guy farmers, white supremacist huggers, under weight over achievers and a good old fashioned dosage of nostaligic over estimation.

He was a great defensive fighter for his time in the sense that he glove slaped and was interested in self preservation.

At 6'1 and 200lbs (sometimes less) he was a giant amongst barely heavyweights.

I know it is hard to gauge skill level from old film and I know that Nat Fleitscher rated him so highly....its just when I watch him fight and out box Burns, Jefferies and the likes and then here guys say how he would beat Lewis, Tyson or Holyfield I think to myself maybe I am missing something.

Respect the past sure, but the sport has evolved, for the best and the worse (especially of late), and the skills employed and type of fighters then even the rules in place made the sport some what different to what it became as the 1930s began roaring on.

Just my thoughts...nothing more.

Take care guys.....

PS..I don't mean to offend

Kym

To sum it up you really need to do MUCH more research on that era.

The White Hope era had more "Super HWs" than any other era until the past decade. Johnson was not part. big for his era at all.

As for the film, you need to watch it in slow motion, on a high quality cut. The London Ballet in 1915 was world class and moved elegantly and beautifully for any era, but watching the film you'd think they were a bunch of toddlers in tights. That's what hand-cranked cameras do.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 19 Sep 2007, 05:07

Decagon wrote:Not too many of the pre-WWI heavyweights had truly great boxing skills. Johnson did. Langford did. Dempsey. You say that Johnson couldn't beat Mike Tyson, but then again, Buster Douglas did. You say that Johnson couldn't beat Evander Holyfield, but Michael Moorer did. Johnson went undefeated for nearly 10 years. During that time, he fought every top heavyweight he could. The only argument you can make against his opposition is that he didn't give enough rematches to the guys he fought in his early career.

Spot on.

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 19 Sep 2007, 05:09

Ezzard wrote:
Decagon wrote:Not too many of the pre-WWI heavyweights had truly great boxing skills. Johnson did. Langford did. Dempsey. You say that Johnson couldn't beat Mike Tyson, but then again, Buster Douglas did. You say that Johnson couldn't beat Evander Holyfield, but Michael Moorer did. Johnson went undefeated for nearly 10 years. During that time, he fought every top heavyweight he could. The only argument you can make against his opposition is that he didn't give enough rematches to the guys he fought in his early career.
Spot on.

agree

theone · Post by **theone** » 19 Sep 2007, 09:39

Not too many of the pre-WWI heavyweights had truly great boxing skills. Johnson did. Langford did. Dempsey. You say that Johnson couldn't beat Mike Tyson, but then again, Buster Douglas did. You say that Johnson couldn't beat Evander Holyfield, but Michael Moorer did. Johnson went undefeated for nearly 10 years. During that time, he fought every top heavyweight he could. The only argument you can make against his opposition is that he didn't give enough rematches to the guys he fought in his early career

.

If Moore and Douglas fought in that era we would have been speaking about them as all time greats. Tyson and Holyfield would destroy Johnson.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 19 Sep 2007, 09:45

theone wrote:
Not too many of the pre-WWI heavyweights had truly great boxing skills. Johnson did. Langford did. Dempsey. You say that Johnson couldn't beat Mike Tyson, but then again, Buster Douglas did. You say that Johnson couldn't beat Evander Holyfield, but Michael Moorer did. Johnson went undefeated for nearly 10 years. During that time, he fought every top heavyweight he could. The only argument you can make against his opposition is that he didn't give enough rematches to the guys he fought in his early career
.

If Moore and Douglas fought in that era we would have been speaking about them as all time greats. Tyson and Holyfield would destroy Johnson.

I'd make a response but in regards to this kind of attitude I say what's the point . .

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 19 Sep 2007, 09:49

theone wrote:
Not too many of the pre-WWI heavyweights had truly great boxing skills. Johnson did. Langford did. Dempsey. You say that Johnson couldn't beat Mike Tyson, but then again, Buster Douglas did. You say that Johnson couldn't beat Evander Holyfield, but Michael Moorer did. Johnson went undefeated for nearly 10 years. During that time, he fought every top heavyweight he could. The only argument you can make against his opposition is that he didn't give enough rematches to the guys he fought in his early career
.

If Moore and Douglas fought in that era we would have been speaking about them as all time greats. Tyson and Holyfield would destroy Johnson.

i kind of agree with you but the point i was trying to make before was the training moore and douglas have had at there disposal is 10x better than johnsons if johnson was born in this era he would be a great but he would have a very different style and be better that is why i think it is hard to compare champions of 100 years ago to champions of now the time makes a big difference i believe

theone · Post by **theone** » 19 Sep 2007, 09:57

I'd make a response but in regards to this kind of attitude I say what's the point . .

What attitude? I just don't buy into a lot of these sacred cows that exist on these boards. If you want to delusion yourself into thinking Johnson's style would have been as effective against later, more talented champions, then thats your problem. Even Marciano, who I think is overrated, would have beat the shit outta Johnson.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 19 Sep 2007, 10:06

p4p1 wrote:
theone wrote:
Not too many of the pre-WWI heavyweights had truly great boxing skills. Johnson did. Langford did. Dempsey. You say that Johnson couldn't beat Mike Tyson, but then again, Buster Douglas did. You say that Johnson couldn't beat Evander Holyfield, but Michael Moorer did. Johnson went undefeated for nearly 10 years. During that time, he fought every top heavyweight he could. The only argument you can make against his opposition is that he didn't give enough rematches to the guys he fought in his early career
.

If Moore and Douglas fought in that era we would have been speaking about them as all time greats. Tyson and Holyfield would destroy Johnson.
i kind of agree with you but the point i was trying to make before was the training moore and douglas have had at there disposal is 10x better than johnsons if johnson was born in this era he would be a great but he would have a very different style and be better that is why i think it is hard to compare champions of 100 years ago to champions of now the time makes a big difference i believe

Part of Johnson's style was due to the fact that they were wearing 5 ounce gloves. You can't do a peek-a-boo defense with 5 ounce shoe-leather gloves. Put Tyson in 1915 and he better adapt quick or he's getting a broken nose in the first round trying to bob in with both hands up to his face. The rings also had very little if any padding. Ali won't be able to dance for 6 rounds let alone 15 on those.

Beyond these touches I think Johnson clearly had many great skills (feinting, side-steps, quick straight left jab, level-changes, amazing reflexes and ability to anticipate an opponent and counter-punch, very good punching power) which would easily enable him to have success in more modern times after making a few adjustments and maybe fighting in exhibitions/sparring with the new equipment/rules for 6 months.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 19 Sep 2007, 10:47

Dempsey and Dec are right.

Johnson fought ina way that suited the rules and equipment of the time.

'Rocket'Rigby · Post by **'Rocket'Rigby** » 19 Sep 2007, 10:50

Decagon wrote:Not too many of the pre-WWI heavyweights had truly great boxing skills. Johnson did. Langford did. Dempsey. You say that Johnson couldn't beat Mike Tyson, but then again, Buster Douglas did. You say that Johnson couldn't beat Evander Holyfield, but Michael Moorer did. Johnson went undefeated for nearly 10 years. During that time, he fought every top heavyweight he could. The only argument you can make against his opposition is that he didn't give enough rematches to the guys he fought in his early career.

Couldn't have said it better! Spot on Dec, spot on.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 19 Sep 2007, 11:27

I don't know what it is with you Theone, but in all honesty I consistently agree with your posts more than anyone else on this forum.

theone · Post by **theone** » 19 Sep 2007, 14:39

I don't know what it is with you Theone, but in all honesty I consistently agree with your posts more than anyone else on this forum.

I take that as a compliment.

By the way, I lived in Chicago for a few years in the 70's. I lived on Seminary, not so far from Wrigley field. I go back from time to time to visit. I love it as much as New York actually.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 19 Sep 2007, 17:27

Is everyone overrated now? Except for Louis and Marciano? If that's the new rule I'll go along with it, but I wasn't notified.

Johnson was the best black Heavyweight of his time. That's how he got the fight with Burns. He beat the best black Heavyweights. He KO'd Fitzsimmons in two rounds. He then toyed with Burns, who had 9 title successful defenses. His title reign wasn't that great, I would say Dempsey had a better one. But the Heavyweight championship was more a money making tool than anything else for Johnson. I think the Jeffries fight was the only defense he took that really meant anything to him in terms of enhancing his legacy, though by then Jeffries was shot and became another fighter Johnson toyed with. You say you aren't impressed with his performances with Burns and Jeffries, but he probably could have KO'd them in a couple of rounds if he wanted to.

I can understand some of the criticisms of Johnson. But, c'mon, he was the best of his era.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 19 Sep 2007, 18:26

Jack Johnson is completely under-rated by today's fans. You have to take into consideration that the man was virtually unbeatable for many years even before winning the title and he beat the likes of McVea, Jeanette, Langford and others multiple times, not to mention former champs like Bob Fitzsimmons and protege's of former champions like Kid Cutler.

Johnson was fearless against these men, and to write off the white competitors of the day as being bums is completely off the mark. Sure you had ponderous, hard hitting wind suckers like Fred Fulton and Carl Morris, but you also had guys like Bombardier Billy Wells, Luther McCarty, Jim Coffey, and others also on the scene, and those men had the smarts, the ring science and the toughness to go rounds with even the best big men of today.

It was a very lively and competitive era, one historian once said it was a promoters dream when Johnson took the crown, as you had every town champion, every carnival champion, every contender high and low fighting it out to determine the best man for the job to defeat Johnson.

Wouldn't be until Johnson was down to peanuts, old and out of shape, that he would lose the crown to Jess Willard (mind you, had Luther McCarty had not died he would have been the one to have gotten the shot at Johnson, Willard was second in line)...and even then Johnson dominated the first 20 rounds.

Muhammad Ali himself stated numerous times, that outside of himself, Johnson was the fighter who was the most like himself, not just in terms of controversy, but in greatness as well. The so-called "anchor punch" he threw against Liston in the rematch was an invention of Johnson's, and alot of Ali's in ring manuevers were also Johnson's tactics.

Archie Moore said he felt if any HW could have beaten Ali, it would have been Jack Johnson. Maybe the Ol' Mongoose was just partial to Johnson, considering as a youngster the then HW champ saw Moore do an amateur tournament and told him that he would make it as a professional, but those are big words from possibly the greatest Light Heavyweight that ever lived.

Johnson fought the likes of McVea, Jeanette, Langford, Hart, Fitzsimmons, Jefferies, Burns, Willard, Ketchell, Denver Ed Martin, Sandy Fergussen, Hank Griffin, Frank Childs, George Gardner, Peter Felix, Jim Flynn, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Battling Norfolk, Joe Choynski.....that's just the scratch on the surface, and he fought some of these men multiple times, almost always coming out as the victor.

Just of those men (Burns, Jefferies, Hart, Jeanette, McVea, Langford, Ketchell, Willard, Fitzsimmons, O'Brien) were Hall of Famers. That's 10 just there in that pool. Compare that to Ali's HOF opponents: Moore, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Foster, Liston, Patterson, Holmes, and that's 8.

Not to say McVea could beat Norton and Langford could best Moore, or Jeanette take on Patterson, but it does somewhat level out both men's greatness. They are two of the very few fighters in history who stand on equal ground, in my opinion, if not be accomplishment, then by historical significance.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 19 Sep 2007, 18:32

I have peek a boo'd with MMA gloves on.

Having said that I would not even think of doing anything like Johnson did with such light gloves on.

After work today I am going to watch the Johnson vs Jefferies fight.

Kym

theone · Post by **theone** » 19 Sep 2007, 18:43

I would never question Johnson's greatness when put in an historical perspective. Same with many greats of that era. But head to head against fighters like Louis Ali, Liston Marciano and Frazier, I think thats when he gets overrated.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 19 Sep 2007, 18:54

Johnson is one of boxing's sacred cows. He KO'd Bob Fitzsimmons when he was 44 yrs old, dominated Jeffries after he had been out of the ring for 5 yrs and had to lose over 70 lbs, couldn't KO Young Peter Jackson, a welterweight in 12rds, decisioned Langford when he was 156 lbs, took the title from Tommy Burns who'd be a Super Middleweight today, struggled with Philadelphia Jack O'Brien with a 40 lb weight advantage, got floored anyway you look at it, by 170 lb Stanley Ketchel. Then of course he never defended his title against the 3 best contenders of the day, ie, Langford, Jeanette and McVey. But hey, who want's to risk there title against Sam Langford when you can defend it against Battling Jim Johnson and Tony Ross.

tennessee · Post by **tennessee** » 22 Sep 2007, 18:12

he dominated his opponets. he was like a man fighting boys. hes the best

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 26 Sep 2007, 01:03

Yes he did dominate his opponents

and your analogy is apt.

What does that say about the era of boxing ? Or does it mean
Johnson was that great, that he made all else look so slow and
unskilled?

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 26 Sep 2007, 01:35

With fighters of the past all you can do is look at how good they were and what they accomplished in their era, yeah there are a lot of what-ifs but the fact is what-ifs usually don't hold much water. I mean what if the current U.S. were to have a war with the U.S. of 1822, the current U.S. would smash the old U.S., as time goes on there become more and more differences in variables as far as lifestyle, conditions of way of life and training practices and evolution of the art to the point where it's really difficult to compare past to present. Yeah the Lennox Lewis of the fluorishing 1990's with all it's advances in nutrition, health, training etc. probably would kick a lot of ass in the 20's 30's and 40's if he was simply transplanted in those days. That's why the best way to rank fighters as far as all-time greatness is by acheivement first and foremost, with some (though less) consideration to ability and physical attributes. I mean there are a lot of fighters today who would be in completely different weight classes than they are currently in due to 24 hour weigh-ins and the higher amount of weight-classes nowadays than long ago and vice versa, I'm sure Roberto Duran and SRR might've used the extra 12 hours before the fight to get down further to 130 rather than 135.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 26 Sep 2007, 03:04

Yeah, maybe, but on the flip side, if you used that same logic, if you put one of the past ATG's into today's world with all the "advanced" nutrition and "training", the guys from the past would have still kicked the newer guys's asses.

I don't buy into the argument, generally (least with the Heavyweights), because today you have guys who average 6'5" and 245 pounds, and after four rounds of a mediocre pace they start sucking wind...while if you go back to Jack Johnson's time, all the fighters no matter the weight class were accustomed to going 20 to 45 rounds or more.

While technique and speed may have improved, the stamina and conditioning has went down the toilet as the years have went by. The guys of today might hurt the old timers early on, but in the middle to late rounds, they simply wouldn't have been able to keep them at bay, because the old guys would still be fresh.

Jack Johnson....

Jack Johnson....

Re: Jack Johnson....