BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote:The Choynski fight was pretty early in Johnson's career. He had virtually no managenement/training team behind him at this stage.
Feeble defense? Johnson had a very good defense.
Not saying Johnson certainly would have won. Could have gone either way.

I normally agree with you, but on this one I just can't see Johnson having much luck trying to catch or ward off Foreman's bombs. Styles make fights. Johnson might elude a knockout early on, but sooner or later Big George would get to him. Johnson's used to smaller guys rushing in and throwing one punch. Foreman would pressure him like no other opponent he faced.

I see this as a Johnson victory.

George met two defensive masterminds and lost to both of them. Of course he has a chance but I would consider this a good match up for Jack.

dempseyfire wrote:Foreman's style is tailor-made for Johnson. Johnson by late stoppage.

This. I have no idea why some people are picking Foreman early. That wouldn't happen if they fought 100 times.

IF they were trotted right out of their time machines in their prime, and led to the ring, and agreed to the fight?

I'd bet on Foreman.....because Foreman would know the fighter he was facing pretty well...based on history.


However........once Jack was beaten.....and allowed to view a few films of George and if they agreed to fight twice...


I would not bet on that fight. Jack Johnson was every bit as intelligent as George, and he was faster.....and as we know.....that's a pretty good skill set to give George fits.

BoxBuzz wrote:IF they were trotted right out of their time machines in their prime, and led to the ring, and agreed to the fight?

I'd bet on Foreman.....because Foreman would know the fighter he was facing pretty well...based on history.


However........once Jack was beaten.....and allowed to view a few films of George and if they agreed to fight twice...


I would not bet on that fight. Jack Johnson was every bit as intelligent as George, and he was faster.....and as we know.....that's a pretty good skill set to give George fits.

If it was fought in Johnson's era, then it's a different fight. Open air during the day, Jack would make sure George had the sun in his eyes for most of the fight. Either way, once it goes past 10 rounds, Big George is done.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:IF they were trotted right out of their time machines in their prime, and led to the ring, and agreed to the fight?

I'd bet on Foreman.....because Foreman would know the fighter he was facing pretty well...based on history.


However........once Jack was beaten.....and allowed to view a few films of George and if they agreed to fight twice...


I would not bet on that fight. Jack Johnson was every bit as intelligent as George, and he was faster.....and as we know.....that's a pretty good skill set to give George fits.

If it was fought in Johnson's era, then it's a different fight. Open air during the day, Jack would make sure George had the sun in his eyes for most of the fight. Either way, once it goes past 10 rounds, Big George is done.

- Nothing like such silliness magnified in this thread for some Saturday comedy relief. Nobody can say when JJ's prime was because he was well beaten throughout his career, but for sure as champion in one of the weakest reigns in boxing history, he could never fight back challenges from little Sam Langford or Joe Jeanette who compiled better records during his 7 title years to surpass his spotty career record. Journeyman Battling Jim Johnson made him quit on his stool, so no way he ever fights a monster like Foreman either. I'd sure like to try some of what your smoking to see the mirage playing out here though. Be funnier than the Rocky series, what 7 or 8 now? Guess Mickey Goldmill gets to be JJ's trainer, some great speeches in the corner for sure.

Seriously, now, JJ was well beaten by considerably inferior fighters than ever beat Foreman who's Olympic Gold medal in the 7200' elevation of a choking, stinking Mexico City against professional Russian and Cuban teams greatly surpasses anything JJ ever accomplished, and George a mere 19 with limited experience. Big George went on to add even mo' better wins than JJ's best.

If not for writer Jack London and playwright Howard Sackler who added pathos and drama to JJ's life that his dreary fights lacked, and Nat Fleischer who JJ courted, nobody would know or care about Johnson who receded in Paris as quickly as yesterday's newspaper headlines.

Foreman KTFO JJ in 2 rounds fighting in JJ's era of 6 oz gloves, or 3 rounds fighting in Foreman's era of bigger gloves, a joke fight for the ages. Maybe some of you here may even qualify to see the spectacle after you pass on, but only a few that might qualify for admittance in Valhalla. Don't know if JJ will be there though since they don't duck other fighters in Valhalla. He wouldn't make it past a prime Sam Langford in the tourney for the best of his era anyway, you can bet on it :!:

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:- Nothing like such silliness magnified in this thread for some Saturday comedy relief. Nobody can say when JJ's prime was because he was well beaten throughout his career, but for sure as champion in one of the weakest reigns in boxing history, he could never fight back challenges from little Sam Langford or Joe Jeanette who compiled better records during his 7 title years to surpass his spotty career record. Journeyman Battling Jim Johnson made him quit on his stool, so no way he ever fights a monster like Foreman either. I'd sure like to try some of what your smoking to see the mirage playing out here though. Be funnier than the Rocky series, what 7 or 8 now? Guess Mickey Goldmill gets to be JJ's trainer, some great speeches in the corner for sure.

Seriously, now, JJ was well beaten by considerably inferior fighters than ever beat Foreman who's Olympic Gold medal in the 7200' elevation of a choking, stinking Mexico City against professional Russian and Cuban teams greatly surpasses anything JJ ever accomplished, and George a mere 19 with limited experience. Big George went on to add even mo' better wins than JJ's best.

If not for writer Jack London and playwright Howard Sackler who added pathos and drama to JJ's life that his dreary fights lacked, and Nat Fleischer who JJ courted, nobody would know or care about Johnson who receded in Paris as quickly as yesterday's newspaper headlines.

Foreman KTFO JJ in 2 rounds fighting in JJ's era of 6 oz gloves, or 3 rounds fighting in Foreman's era of bigger gloves, a joke fight for the ages. Maybe some of you here may even qualify to see the spectacle after you pass on, but only a few that might qualify for admittance in Valhalla. Don't know if JJ will be there though since they don't duck other fighters in Valhalla. He wouldn't make it past a prime Sam Langford in the tourney for the best of his era anyway, you can bet on it :!:

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:- Nothing like such silliness magnified in this thread for some Saturday comedy relief. Nobody can say when JJ's prime was because he was well beaten throughout his career, but for sure as champion in one of the weakest reigns in boxing history, he could never fight back challenges from little Sam Langford or Joe Jeanette who compiled better records during his 7 title years to surpass his spotty career record. Journeyman Battling Jim Johnson made him quit on his stool, so no way he ever fights a monster like Foreman either. I'd sure like to try some of what your smoking to see the mirage playing out here though. Be funnier than the Rocky series, what 7 or 8 now? Guess Mickey Goldmill gets to be JJ's trainer, some great speeches in the corner for sure.

Seriously, now, JJ was well beaten by considerably inferior fighters than ever beat Foreman who's Olympic Gold medal in the 7200' elevation of a choking, stinking Mexico City against professional Russian and Cuban teams greatly surpasses anything JJ ever accomplished, and George a mere 19 with limited experience. Big George went on to add even mo' better wins than JJ's best.

If not for writer Jack London and playwright Howard Sackler who added pathos and drama to JJ's life that his dreary fights lacked, and Nat Fleischer who JJ courted, nobody would know or care about Johnson who receded in Paris as quickly as yesterday's newspaper headlines.

Foreman KTFO JJ in 2 rounds fighting in JJ's era of 6 oz gloves, or 3 rounds fighting in Foreman's era of bigger gloves, a joke fight for the ages. Maybe some of you here may even qualify to see the spectacle after you pass on, but only a few that might qualify for admittance in Valhalla. Don't know if JJ will be there though since they don't duck other fighters in Valhalla. He wouldn't make it past a prime Sam Langford in the tourney for the best of his era anyway, you can bet on it :!:

What a load of bollocks.

BroughtonRulesRefuge should consider learning about Jack Johnson and his career before sharing an opinion.

It's scary to see the sort of blundering, spurious, crackpot theories that Cap - a Boxrec editor - so frequently agrees with. John Shep has put a real cat in the henhouse with this chap's engagement. Was Il Duce unavailable?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:- Nothing like such silliness magnified in this thread for some Saturday comedy relief. Nobody can say when JJ's prime was because he was well beaten throughout his career, but for sure as champion in one of the weakest reigns in boxing history, he could never fight back challenges from little Sam Langford or Joe Jeanette who compiled better records during his 7 title years to surpass his spotty career record. Journeyman Battling Jim Johnson made him quit on his stool, so no way he ever fights a monster like Foreman either. I'd sure like to try some of what your smoking to see the mirage playing out here though. Be funnier than the Rocky series, what 7 or 8 now? Guess Mickey Goldmill gets to be JJ's trainer, some great speeches in the corner for sure.

Seriously, now, JJ was well beaten by considerably inferior fighters than ever beat Foreman who's Olympic Gold medal in the 7200' elevation of a choking, stinking Mexico City against professional Russian and Cuban teams greatly surpasses anything JJ ever accomplished, and George a mere 19 with limited experience. Big George went on to add even mo' better wins than JJ's best.

If not for writer Jack London and playwright Howard Sackler who added pathos and drama to JJ's life that his dreary fights lacked, and Nat Fleischer who JJ courted, nobody would know or care about Johnson who receded in Paris as quickly as yesterday's newspaper headlines.

Foreman KTFO JJ in 2 rounds fighting in JJ's era of 6 oz gloves, or 3 rounds fighting in Foreman's era of bigger gloves, a joke fight for the ages. Maybe some of you here may even qualify to see the spectacle after you pass on, but only a few that might qualify for admittance in Valhalla. Don't know if JJ will be there though since they don't duck other fighters in Valhalla. He wouldn't make it past a prime Sam Langford in the tourney for the best of his era anyway, you can bet on it :!:

What a load of bollocks.

Yep. I really don't get the Johnson hate. He's one of the greatest fighters who ever lived, a true legend of the sport - his record is there to see - its incredible and when you consider the total hatred he had to put up against it just makes it better (robbery decisions given against him - the Hart fight for one). Probably the bravest fighter that ever lived - they used to flick cigars at him in between rounds - he'd enter the ring with the whole crowd baying for his blood, still win and laugh in their faces! He beat everyone in his era and would beat everyone in any era bar 2/3 other immortals in my view.

Not sure. I read the Hart fight was a legit decision.

Do you remember where you read that? I have never seen that.

Can't remember. Possibly in a biography.

I'm sure Johnson himself said Hart taught him a lesson and he wasn't ready for him. I was surprised myself.

But I'm prepared to be proved wrong.

It would interesting to get a good consensus on this. (Not just one book or newspaper article).
I thought that it was the consensus that it was a really bad decision, but now I am curious.

If the decision was legit, it does hurt Johnson's case.
It also helps Marvin Harts's case as well.

Ambling Alp II wrote:It would interesting to get a good consensus on this. (Not just one book or newspaper article).
I thought that it was the consensus that it was a really bad decision, but now I am curious.

If the decision was legit, it does hurt Johnson's case.
It also helps Marvin Harts's case as well.

Yes it's an interesting one this. If legit always thought it was an odd result. Hart was limited but tough for sure. Adam J Pollack's brilliant book first book on Johnson has more info on this fight than I've ever seen. The general consensus on it is that Hart was cut and messed up whilst Johnson who landed more blows and took less was unmarked. Seems like the crowds reaction played a part in a big way and a lot of (white ofc) writers had Hart winning 'pluck and awkwardness better than a mixture of cleverness and cowardice' was one headline. Looking at this entirely objectively and considering the times it seems most likely that Hart who everyone wanted to win, was game, outclassed and was given the nod for putting up such resistance. Johnson was prone to loafing a lot in fights and probably should have ended it at some stage.

Either way my guess here is that in a more modern less biased arena, johnson would have got the decision and won the fight handily. guess we'll never know but taking everything into consideration, thats my take.

'Johnson's defeat was as big a suprise to Hart as it was to the N' is another quote. I can easily see a messed up Hart having his hand raised looking bewildered and Johnson laughing in his corner.

Bottom line it seems that Johnson did not beat-up Hart in any sort of decisive fashion to earn a decision. Little Tommy Burns beat up Hart more decisively and got the nod despite the fact he was not very popular, being a foreigner.

Johnson made his name beating guys smaller than himself. In some cases he outweighed opponents by 25 or 30 pounds. On one of the rare occasions when he did take on a big fella, journeyman Battling Jim Johnson, he barely survived the 10th round, complaining of a broken arm after Battling Jim had him groggy. (Go and read actual newspaper accounts)

Big George Foreman would have little trouble breaking through Johnson's primitive defence with his tree branch of a left jab. Johnson would try to block or catch Foreman's bombs and would end up taking one on the chin, as he did repeatedly from Battling Jim. Only instead of being groggy, Jack would be demolished just like Ken Norton and Joe Frazier.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Foreman's style is tailor-made for Johnson. Johnson by late stoppage.

This. I have no idea why some people are picking Foreman early. That wouldn't happen if they fought 100 times.

Ambling Alp II wrote:The Choynski fight was pretty early in Johnson's career. He had virtually no managenement/training team behind him at this stage.
Feeble defense? Johnson had a very good defense.
Not saying Johnson certainly would have won. Could have gone either way.

Good point. Didn't Choynski teach Johnson his defense while they were incarcerated after their bout?

cfang wrote:These fights from such different eras are tricky. There's two schools of thought it seems.

1. Old timers were slower and smaller. Modern fighters are faster, hit harder and like other sports like athletics, humans get better. Older era fighters don't have a prayer and get steamrolled by modern fighers.
2. Old school fighters were tougher than today and harder. Life was harder and these people were harder too. Old school fighers were great and would beat todays guys.

I've kind of swayed between these two schools of thought over the years. At one stage I'd have said Foreman KO1 and at other times I'd say Johnson far too great and skilled and easy points of even stoppage.

These days I think that the truth is somewhere between the two schools. Was johnson greater than foreman? Absoluely no doubt, he was the best of his era and an icon, Foreman was prob top 3/4 of his and a great fighter but didn't dominate like Johnson did.

One thing that's for sure though is that Foreman is the guy that did step into 2 or really 3 eras (70s, missed the 80s and fought in the 90s). He was a champ in two of these and I think this goes some way to show that older fighters are not automatically cannon fodder for modern ones.

I find it hard to believe that Johnson wouldn't be tough enough and skilled enough to beat foreman like Ali did if I'm honest but ofc one shot could end it all.

Another thing to keep in mind is that when Big George stepped into those latter eras, he didn't do it as his younger self.

So he was "older" in two senses of the word.

Which brings up another point -- the older version of Big George fought differently than the younger one.

HomicideHenry wrote:It goes one of two ways.... either Foreman annihilates Johnson fast... or it turns into a Tony Thompson-David Price type affair, where the bigger, stronger man gasses out and Johnson manages to survive the storm and give the young Foreman a boxing lesson and drops him.

I think this is about as disrectful a comparison as I've ever read on this forum.

Cap wrote:

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:-

keithmoonhangover wrote:

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:-

What a load of bollocks.

I don't think I've ever seen the world of internet forums more perfectly represented than these back to back replys
At the end of the day it all boils down to "yer slaverin' pish pal"

davie wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:It goes one of two ways.... either Foreman annihilates Johnson fast... or it turns into a Tony Thompson-David Price type affair, where the bigger, stronger man gasses out and Johnson manages to survive the storm and give the young Foreman a boxing lesson and drops him.

I think this is about as disrectful a comparison as I've ever read on this forum.

How so?

George Foreman in his prime never paced himself, and the logic at the time was if anyone could take him into the middle or late rounds, he could be defeated. Muhammad Ali and Jimmy Young did just that. If you could survive his blows, and take him into deep waters, you could drown him. He could be out boxed, out thought. The only person who ever could "take it to him" was Lyle, and even he failed to come out on top in that exchange. Foreman was rather one dimensional in those days.

Jack Johnson in his prime, never quite defeated a man of any real serious consequence. I would argue, like Jack Dempsey, he fought a greater caliber of fighters BEFORE he was champion that while as champion. The best win of his career, and still touted by historians like Ken Burns, etc. is the Jefferies fight. Any knowledgable boxing fan can assure you, that Jefferies had no business in that ring after six years inactivity, losing 110 pounds, and getting in shape for a 45 round contest. The end result was a man who looked physically perfect, but on the inside was weak and no energy. And it still took Johnson fifteen rounds to end it. No offense to Johnson and his historical importance, but every film I have ever seen of the man was a clinch almost every ten seconds. Where was the great foot speed? Where was the combinations? The only thing I seen was his ability to parry and block with his gloves. Outside of that I didn't see this marvelous ring wonder that many have claimed. Sure, he was the strongest and toughest and (at one time) the most conditioned--- but the greatest tactician? I never saw it.

Considering how Johnson belonged to the era of stiff legs and straight backs, etc. it's hard for me to imagine him being able to stand up to George. Frazier tried being a stand up fighter against him in the rematch, and he got brutalized far and away worse than he was the first time. So, in my mind.... Foreman's either gonna blast Johnson out.... or Johnson someway, somehow, manages to pull out every single bit of knowledge that he has, and makes Foreman miss, catch him on the arms, parry the blows, until George tires out. I'm going with the former, though.

HomicideHenry wrote:

davie wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:It goes one of two ways.... either Foreman annihilates Johnson fast... or it turns into a Tony Thompson-David Price type affair, where the bigger, stronger man gasses out and Johnson manages to survive the storm and give the young Foreman a boxing lesson and drops him.

I think this is about as disrectful a comparison as I've ever read on this forum.

How so?

George Foreman in his prime never paced himself, and the logic at the time was if anyone could take him into the middle or late rounds, he could be defeated. Muhammad Ali and Jimmy Young did just that. If you could survive his blows, and take him into deep waters, you could drown him. He could be out boxed, out thought. The only person who ever could "take it to him" was Lyle, and even he failed to come out on top in that exchange. Foreman was rather one dimensional in those days.

Jack Johnson in his prime, never quite defeated a man of any real serious consequence. I would argue, like Jack Dempsey, he fought a greater caliber of fighters BEFORE he was champion that while as champion. The best win of his career, and still touted by historians like Ken Burns, etc. is the Jefferies fight. Any knowledgable boxing fan can assure you, that Jefferies had no business in that ring after six years inactivity, losing 110 pounds, and getting in shape for a 45 round contest. The end result was a man who looked physically perfect, but on the inside was weak and no energy. And it still took Johnson fifteen rounds to end it. No offense to Johnson and his historical importance, but every film I have ever seen of the man was a clinch almost every ten seconds. Where was the great foot speed? Where was the combinations? The only thing I seen was his ability to parry and block with his gloves. Outside of that I didn't see this marvelous ring wonder that many have claimed. Sure, he was the strongest and toughest and (at one time) the most conditioned--- but the greatest tactician? I never saw it.

Considering how Johnson belonged to the era of stiff legs and straight backs, etc. it's hard for me to imagine him being able to stand up to George. Frazier tried being a stand up fighter against him in the rematch, and he got brutalized far and away worse than he was the first time. So, in my mind.... Foreman's either gonna blast Johnson out.... or Johnson someway, somehow, manages to pull out every single bit of knowledge that he has, and makes Foreman miss, catch him on the arms, parry the blows, until George tires out. I'm going with the former, though.

Johnson specialized in catching punches and is the best defensive heavyweight champion ever. Foreman hit hard, but he was predictable. Get Foreman in the midday sun over 20 or 45 rounds and see what happens. Johnson is all wrong for Foreman and stops him anytime he wants after 10 rounds.

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Johnson specialized in catching punches and is the best defensive heavyweight champion ever. Foreman hit hard, but he was predictable. Get Foreman in the midday sun over 20 or 45 rounds and see what happens. Johnson is all wrong for Foreman and stops him anytime he wants after 10 rounds.

I disagree with this. I feel that Ali and Corbett and Tunney and Charles and Walcott were better defensive heavyweights who became champions than Jack Johnson. Compare the films. Johnson also fought in an era where the opposition was quite weak in comparison to others in later eras (at least when he was champion anyways). If the object of mind is to not get hit, and be able to get your own punches off, then I don't think Johnson is "the best defensive ever".... it also doesn't help his case when the best wins of his career were over men far smaller than he was, older than he was, etc.

I mean, you can't help the era you're apart of, and his dominance is without question.... but for the life of me, I wonder (alot) how long would he have been champion had he fought Langford again, or given the other black heavyweights a chance. I wonder (alot) how he would have faired to someone like Luther McCarty who was not only bigger than him, but was quite the mover. I'm not a big fan of Johnson, but I'll also say I am not a fan of Harry Wills.... but for my money... Harry Wills, was a better fighter than Jack Johnson was. Why? He fought and defeated Sam Langford 18 times. He fought and defeated Joe Jeanette twice. He fought and defeated Sam McVey five times. He fought and defeated Battling Jim Johnson four times. He also, defeated the likes of Fred Fulton and Gunboat Smith. The shame of it all was, he (unlike Johnson) never got a shot at the title and when he was in talks to have one, he was already well passed his best years.