Jack Johnson vs George Foreman

[Goodnight, Irene]

The thing to remember is fighters aren't robots, there are a multitude of factors that make it so different fighters peak at vastly different ages due to all kinds of stuff like mentality, changes in lifestyle, changes in fighting style, complacency, newfound focus, a shift in training methods, etc.

An obvious truth, lost on John L, though only because it suits him.

[Cutman Scabbers]

This is one case where I think the older version of George Foreman does better than the younger one.

I've never understood why some people think an older George did ANYTHING better than his younger self. Yeah, maybe he paced himself better, but that better pacing doesn't really equate to any net positive considering George couldn't keep up near the workrate he did when he was younger, was much slower and still fatigued late in most fights. The older George also got hit far more. The guy was outboxed by the likes of Axel Schultz and Tommy Morrison . . does anyone think either of those two see the 6th round vs a peak Foreman at age 25?

Would Jimmy Young have beaten the older George Foreman? Would Ron Lyle have knocked down the older George Foreman?

[Seamus]

Jack Johnson was probably the best ever at avoiding getting hit, and he did that by avoiding opponents who might hit him.

[The Great John L]

Jack Johnson was probably the best ever at avoiding getting hit, and he did that by avoiding opponents who might hit him.

That makes this one of the greatest matchups ever then. One fighter who excelled at avoiding guys who could hit him, and the other one who excelled at finding guys who didn't know how to not get hit.

[dempseyfire]

This is one case where I think the older version of George Foreman does better than the younger one.

I've never understood why some people think an older George did ANYTHING better than his younger self. Yeah, maybe he paced himself better, but that better pacing doesn't really equate to any net positive considering George couldn't keep up near the workrate he did when he was younger, was much slower and still fatigued late in most fights. The older George also got hit far more. The guy was outboxed by the likes of Axel Schultz and Tommy Morrison . . does anyone think either of those two see the 6th round vs a peak Foreman at age 25?

Would Jimmy Young have beaten the older George Foreman? Would Ron Lyle have knocked down the older George Foreman?

Umm . . yeah. Young had a very close fight with a younger George, I see him winning probably every round vs an older one. Lyle would've given an older Foreman a beating . .he was a helluva lot better than Alex Stewart.

George in his first incarnation was a much better boxer than given credit for, but he's remembered for being more raw than he was b/c he fought one of his worst fights EVER vs Ali in which he just came in swiniging for the fences. But in most fights, he threw a lot of left jabs, feinted, set up his punches properly, threw combinations, worked the body. I actually think his first fight with Peralta is an excellent display of a powerful guy dealing with a slicker adversary. Yeah, Foreman tired in the last round, but he won the fight handidly. His performance vs Norton is also a masterful display of skilled pressure.

That all said, a prime Johnson was just too slick and well conditioned for ANY George Foreman.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I love the way you guys talk about Johnson as though he were anywhere near as hardened as Ali, or as elusive as Young. He was neither. We all know Foreman would never get a look-in against Johnson anyway. This is a guy who, at a time when it was just a little morew complicated than jumping on the next QANTAS airbus, ran through Europe evading his best challengers. He didn't have the movement, punch, durability, or balls --- being frank --- to deal with Foreman.

Born twenty years later, Johnson would've had no legacy --- not after Dempsey hit him like a tonne of bricks by introducing him to a sustained assault, built on the back of combination-punching, explosive footwork, & deft movement --- something none of Johnson's title-run victims produced.

Dempsey is often credited with changing the sport to a degree. Johnson never saw anything like him, & he never saw anything like Foreman, either.

[keithmoonhangover]

I love the way you guys talk about Johnson as though he were anywhere near as hardened as Ali, or as elusive as Young. He was neither. We all know Foreman would never get a look-in against Johnson anyway. This is a guy who, at a time when it was just a little morew complicated than jumping on the next QANTAS airbus, ran through Europe evading his best challengers. He didn't have the movement, punch, durability, or balls --- being frank --- to deal with Foreman.

Born twenty years later, Johnson would've had no legacy --- not after Dempsey hit him like a tonne of bricks by introducing him to a sustained assault, built on the back of combination-punching, explosive footwork, & deft movement --- something none of Johnson's title-run victims produced.

Dempsey is often credited with changing the sport to a degree. Johnson never saw anything like him, & he never saw anything like Foreman, either.

Don't mug yourself Irene, you're embarrassing yourself. The powers that be would not let him fight another black man once he was champion and he went to Europe to avoid the law.

Young Foreman loses by stoppage in the second half of the fight.

[Goodnight, Irene]

If you believe that, Ive got some snake oil here with your name on it, Keith.

I would clean you, Demps, and anyone else up at the betting markets on this one. Thats those of you whod actually put your money down. Johnson would not test Foremans limits. Three rounds...at a stretch.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Jack Johnson was probably the best ever at avoiding getting hit, and he did that by avoiding opponents who might hit him.

That makes this one of the greatest matchups ever then. One fighter who excelled at avoiding guys who could hit him, and the other one who excelled at finding guys who didn't know how to not get hit.

Since youre so fond of belittling Foremans gold-standard demolition of Frazier, why dont you name a better foe Johnson vanquished.

Good fukking luck.

[keithmoonhangover]

If you believe that, Ive got some snake oil here with your name on it, Keith.

I would clean you, Demps, and anyone else up at the betting markets on this one. Thats those of you whod actually put your money down. Johnson would not test Foremans limits. Three rounds...at a stretch.

Seriously, style wise, how would you see the fight going. You don't think Johnson's defence would hold up?

[Diamond WEAPON]

Jack Johnson was probably the best ever at avoiding getting hit, and he did that by avoiding opponents who might hit him.

That makes this one of the greatest matchups ever then. One fighter who excelled at avoiding guys who could hit him, and the other one who excelled at finding guys who didn't know how to not get hit.

Since youre so fond of belittling Foremans gold-standard demolition of Frazier, why dont you name a better foe Johnson vanquished.

Good fukking luck.

Joe Frazier would kick Jack Johnson's ass too. The only reason Ali ever said all those flattering things about JJ is because he looked up to him as a loudmouth who made jackasses out of rich white folks who hated him, Ali was leagues ahead of him in skill.

[dempseyfire]

If you believe that, Ive got some snake oil here with your name on it, Keith.

I would clean you, Demps, and anyone else up at the betting markets on this one. Thats those of you whod actually put your money down. Johnson would not test Foremans limits. Three rounds...at a stretch.

Yeah a guy who wasn't stopped in a 14 year stretch, a guy with "no legacy" who completly outclassed Sam McVey, Joe Jeannette, Denver Ed Martin, Sam Langford, Tommy Burns, Frank Childs, Frank Moran, Sandy Ferguson, beat up Willard for 20 rounds etc. Yeah Foreman just walks in and blows at Johnson and Jack falls over . . .

[Goodnight, Irene]

Even you wouldnt put one of those men in Foremans league at HW.

[Seamus]

Langford was 156 lbs the only time Johnson fought him, and yes I think the weight advantage is significant. McVea was 19 the last time Johnson fought him, and was no where near his peak, Joe Jeannette became a much better fighter later in his career, and so, no surprise didn't get a title shot from Johnson. Burns was a Super Middlewight when he lost the title, and for the rest, they're not exactly of the same caliber as Frazier, Norton, and Lyle.

[keithmoonhangover]

Langford was 156 lbs the only time Johnson fought him, and yes I think the weight advantage is significant. McVea was 19 the last time Johnson fought him, and was no where near his peak, Joe Jeannette became a much better fighter later in his career, and so, no surprise didn't get a title shot from Johnson. Burns was a Super Middlewight when he lost the title, and for the rest, they're not exactly of the same caliber as Frazier, Norton, and Lyle.

It doesn't matter. Thois fight would be about styles. Foreman was great against guys that came to him or had poor defence.

Johnson was a superb tactician. Foreman would be lost if it went past six.

[dempseyfire]

Langford was 156 lbs the only time Johnson fought him, and yes I think the weight advantage is significant. McVea was 19 the last time Johnson fought him, and was no where near his peak, Joe Jeannette became a much better fighter later in his career, and so, no surprise didn't get a title shot from Johnson. Burns was a Super Middlewight when he lost the title, and for the rest, they're not exactly of the same caliber as Frazier, Norton, and Lyle.

Johnson was also a skinny 185 vs Langford, so both were below their optimum weights. If they had fought in 1912, Langford would've been around 180 and Johnson 210, leaving the same 30 lb weight differential.

Jeannetee and McVey had much more experience than their boxrec records show when Jack beat them. Yes, they were yet to reach their absolute peak, but Jack's complete ownage of them, over several fights, suggests he beats them anytime in their career, they would've had to do a literal 180 in terms of ring performance.

[zojo]

I bought the "defensive wizard" line. Then I saw the Ken Burns documentary on Jack Johnson. From the clips they showed in the doc, Jack Johnson held onto his opponents just as much as John Ruiz did during his career. Ruiz's defense was frowned upon and his career gets quite a bit of razzing here because of his clinching/grabbing during his fights. I have since changed my opinion on just how great Joahnson's defense was.

Therefore, my pick is Foreman by early KO

[Badhusker]

I would say a pre-Ali Foreman would win by early KO. He was an absolute wrecking machine. Anyone that takes out Frazier and Norton more than once inside of 5 rounds is incredible. Who knows though, JJohnson may have frustrated him somewhat like Ali did with his style? He would have to take punches like Ali could though, and I have my doubts about that. Ali withstood the heaviest hitters like Liston, Foreman, Lyle, and Shavers. Not sure if Johnson would have.

[Seamus]

Dempseyfire

That's one huge assumption to make a statement that Jack Johnson would handle Langford, Jeannette, and McVea over a period that amounts to several years (Johnson still held the title over a decade after his last fight with McVea) and during Johnson's title reign, Langford's stoppage wins over McVea, Gunboat Smith and Harry Wills are alot more impressive than anything Jack did.

[dempseyfire]

I would say a pre-Ali Foreman would win by early KO. He was an absolute wrecking machine. Anyone that takes out Frazier and Norton more than once inside of 5 rounds is incredible. Who knows though, JJohnson may have frustrated him somewhat like Ali did with his style? He would have to take punches like Ali could though, and I have my doubts about that. Ali withstood the heaviest hitters like Liston, Foreman, Lyle, and Shavers. Not sure if Johnson would have.

Johnson had a much better defense and was superior technically to Ali, especially a 32 year old Ali. Jack would never just lay against the ropes.

Langford had better wins? Probably, but Johnson dominated the black HW scene before winning the tile, and Martin, McVea, and Jeannette were the top black HWs of that period (Jeannette last lost to Johnson in his 24th fight, and McVea had more undocumented fights and was regarded as the best heavyweight on the West Coast when Johnson bludgeoned him. And if you look at the framing of history, Johnson fought all top 5ish contenders besides Jim Johnson and Ketchel (which was a big money making fight no champ would pass up like Dempsey-Carpentier, Hagler-Duran or Hopkins-Oscar). O'Brian got knocked out twice by Coffey, who subsequently got owned by Frank Moran (who Johnson beat). Flynn had just rolled off a string of good Ws before fighting Johnson for the title, including drubbing 'White Hope' Carl Morris. Kaufman was the top White Hope in 1909 and Johnson owned him. You can't really fault him for not engaging in lots of big fights from 1913 owward considering his legal problems and the fact he was running from country to country. Should he have fought Langford . . absolutely. But as stated, while Langford got bigger, so did Johnson. There would still be the same weight pull in the matchup, although I will certainly concede 180-210 is more fair than 185-155.

[The Great John L]

Since youre so fond of belittling Foremans gold-standard demolition of Frazier, why dont you name a better foe Johnson vanquished.

Good fukking luck.

I've never belittled his wins over Frazier, Lyle or Norton. However, you might want to review his resume post Peralta II when his handlers finally understood that George was seriously flawed and wasn't improving, as anyone with eyes and even a basic understanding of boxing could tell.

It's styles pal, and you just don't seem to get it. Often times better has nothing to do with it. Based on your logic I could simply say that Jimmy Young is a better ATG HW than George Foreman. And Mike Spinks beat Larry Holmes, so I guess that makes him a better ATG HW than Holmes. In fact, with your logic that should put Spinks ahead of Foreman in many peoples ATG HW rankings since many rate Holmes higher than Foreman.

A prime Foreman would have been hell for Marciano and Tyson as he was for Norton and Frazier. However, the few times he stepped into the ring with guys who didn't stand in front him with targets on their chins he struggled massively. It's unfortunate that you are unable to see this, but it really isn't even debatable.

[keithmoonhangover]

Since youre so fond of belittling Foremans gold-standard demolition of Frazier, why dont you name a better foe Johnson vanquished.

Good fukking luck.

I've never belittled his wins over Frazier, Lyle or Norton. However, you might want to review his resume post Peralta II when his handlers finally understood that George was seriously flawed and wasn't improving, as anyone with eyes and even a basic understanding of boxing could tell.

It's styles pal, and you just don't seem to get it. Often times better has nothing to do with it. Based on your logic I could simply say that Jimmy Young is a better ATG HW than George Foreman. And Mike Spinks beat Larry Holmes, so I guess that makes him a better ATG HW than Holmes. In fact, with your logic that should put Spinks ahead of Foreman in many peoples ATG HW rankings since many rate Holmes higher than Foreman.

A prime Foreman would have been hell for Marciano and Tyson as he was for Norton and Frazier. However, the few times he stepped into the ring with guys who didn't stand in front him with targets on their chins he struggled massively. It's unfortunate that you are unable to see this, but it really isn't even debatable.

Great post.

[raylawpc]

Since youre so fond of belittling Foremans gold-standard demolition of Frazier, why dont you name a better foe Johnson vanquished.

Good fukking luck.

I've never belittled his wins over Frazier, Lyle or Norton. However, you might want to review his resume post Peralta II when his handlers finally understood that George was seriously flawed and wasn't improving, as anyone with eyes and even a basic understanding of boxing could tell.

It's styles pal, and you just don't seem to get it. Often times better has nothing to do with it. Based on your logic I could simply say that Jimmy Young is a better ATG HW than George Foreman. And Mike Spinks beat Larry Holmes, so I guess that makes him a better ATG HW than Holmes. In fact, with your logic that should put Spinks ahead of Foreman in many peoples ATG HW rankings since many rate Holmes higher than Foreman.

A prime Foreman would have been hell for Marciano and Tyson as he was for Norton and Frazier. However, the few times he stepped into the ring with guys who didn't stand in front him with targets on their chins he struggled massively. It's unfortunate that you are unable to see this, but it really isn't even debatable.

Great post.

. . .except John never answered the question.

[Ambling Alp]

I guess I come down on the middle on this one. Johnson certainly should have defended his title against better opposition. He does have wins over McVey, Langford and Jeannette before he won the title. If you are going to count these as great wins than you have to count his ko loss to Joe Choynski when himself was not a rookie but still very experienced.

However, none were the great heavyweights that they would later become. Jeffries was obviously way past it and Ketchel was only a middleweight. Burns was really a lightheavyweight etc.

There certainly is truth to all of that. However, when you take all of them together, it would take a very good fighter to beat all of them.

Foreman did get beat badly by Young. (btw, getting knocked down by young is at least as bad as a flash knockdown against Ketchel) and of course was ko'd by Ali. Still, he blew Norton out who was not a bad defensive fighter by any stretch. He beat Peralta who was a tricky fighter when he was very inexperienced.

I think these are 2 of the top 5 heavyweights ever. Certainly they have to be 2 of the top 10. they had vastly different styles. It's not hard imagining Foreman blowing Johnson out easily. On the other hand, it's not difficult imagining Johnson beating Foreman by decision.

This could go either way.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Since youre so fond of belittling Foremans gold-standard demolition of Frazier, why dont you name a better foe Johnson vanquished.

Good fukking luck.

I've never belittled his wins over Frazier, Lyle or Norton. However, you might want to review his resume post Peralta II when his handlers finally understood that George was seriously flawed and wasn't improving, as anyone with eyes and even a basic understanding of boxing could tell.

It's styles pal, and you just don't seem to get it. Often times better has nothing to do with it. Based on your logic I could simply say that Jimmy Young is a better ATG HW than George Foreman. And Mike Spinks beat Larry Holmes, so I guess that makes him a better ATG HW than Holmes. In fact, with your logic that should put Spinks ahead of Foreman in many peoples ATG HW rankings since many rate Holmes higher than Foreman.

A prime Foreman would have been hell for Marciano and Tyson as he was for Norton and Frazier. However, the few times he stepped into the ring with guys who didn't stand in front him with targets on their chins he struggled massively. It's unfortunate that you are unable to see this, but it really isn't even debatable.

I stopped reading at the end of your laughable first sentence. I assume I was right to do so, & you didn't come up with a better name Johnson beat?

As I thought.