What if Jack Johnson had been born in 1975 ?

[Sidney Carton]

Sorry Sid, I work in facts and reasoned arguments.

You could have fooled me.

[crusader]

You seem to lack the ability to follow along, that's for sure

[Sidney Carton]

You seem to lack the ability to follow along, that's for sure

If crusader spent less time acting as his own PR man and learned something about boxing,

I'm sure his posrts would improve.

Give it a try, crusader.

[crusader]

Great one Sid; I'm glad my posts are getting your attention

[Ambling Alp II]

You've claimed that JJ would dominate modern HW eras, so, when examining your claim and trying to extrapolate from his bouts to how he would theoretically fare against these modern opponents, it's perfectly relevant to consider the differences between the two sets of opposition.

The fact is, virtually none of Johnson's notable wins occurred over people who were close in size to contemporary HWs. Anthony Joshua, the Klitschkos, Lewis, etc. would rightfully get no credit for beating up the likes of Kovalev, Kessler, Golovkin, Groves, and Lara (would you highly rate those wins?), yet circus wins of this sort form a big part of Johnson's resume. Further, and as I've shown with the Kovalev-Chilemba example, someone like Jeannette was not at all the size of a modern HW, and if he did in fact move up he'd be tiny. This is not to say that size means everything, but disparities of this nature heavily impact bout outcomes, and Johnson's little guys were not so good as to make it irrelevant.

McVea and Jeannette, the 5'10" guys you questionably listed as fighters who would be HW sized today, clearly lacked experience when facing Johnson. McVea was all of 18 the first time they met, and neither him nor Jeannette had more than a couple listed fights (Jeannette losing all of his previous documented bouts); it may well be they had more experience than shown, but I have seen nothing to suggest that they weren't still essentially novices to the sport. They were prospects in today's terms, avoided by JJ once he won the title and they were more experienced, and many top contemporary HWs would have far more seasoning from their amateur and pro careers.

As for the footage, I guess we'll have to disagree on what we see. I see a guy who is 6'0" relying heavily on size and strength advantages that he wouldn't come close to having against top HWs of recent years, and I don't think the defensive skills you note would be enough to overcome the deficiencies he'd be facing. Johnson was ahead of his time, but that time was of tiny HWs, massive weight disparities, huge experience gaps, and generally underdeveloped technique. He has to be one of the most overrated HWs when it comes to how his reputation as an ATG boxing genius compares to his resume...they're not commensurate at all.

While I'm confident in my positions, I will certainly acknowledge that I may be wrong.

Of course it's good to consider differences between the eras. The problem is that you automatically assume that bigger is better and therefore this era is better. It;'s not. This era is terrible.

You have to get past certain assumptions that you have:
Weight advantages. At a certain point weight stops being an advantage and later becomes a disadvantage. A 250 pound plus heavyweight is too big. He can't do things a smaller man can.
Reach is overrated. Most guys don't know how to use to their full advantage. In close, it's better to have short arms.

You need to look at things like stamina, speed, defense, toughness, punching accuracy. That is what wins fights; not the needle on the scale or the tape measure.

I would give a big heavyweight credit if he beat a great fighter in the 180-200 pound range. The problem is that there have almost no great fighters in this range for the past 30 years. (There have been no great heavyweights since Lennox Lewis for that matter.)
Great fighters in the 180-200 have almost never lost to heavyweights really big heavyweights. This is not my opinion; go through fights over the last 140 years and you will find this to be true. The smaller guy (if he was great) won more than 90% of the time.

Jeannette was not just some green kid. Do you really believe he never had a fight before he was 25? Jeannette also beat Langford before Johnson beat Jeannette in 1906.
You are thinking only in today's terms. You also have to think in therms of their era.
Back then, a fighter fought tough competition very early in his career. He sometimes might fight 15-round and even 20 round fights early in his career. A fighter back then would have much more useful experience in a much shorter time than in the current era.

The footage of Johnson doesn't show that just relies on size and strength advantage. He was a very smart fighter. He was very hard to hit. He was a very accurate puncher. He fought bigger fighters. His technique is much better than today's heavyweights. It might look different, but it was better. You are assuming that todays's heavyweights better technique without really looking at it. Todays' heavyweights have awful technique. Terrible footwork, little defense.

The bottom line is that you have to throw out some basic assumptions as well as learn more about the sport from Johnson' era.

[crusader]

I think size is usually a notable advantage when you're dealing with major disparities. Of course, if the size difference is simply a product of one fighter being grossly overweight it's not so beneficial, but when it comes to the top HWs of recent years you're dealing with several fighters who are 6'2-6'7" and much naturally larger than guys like Jeannette. I don't think Johnson is so good that he'd be able to dominate recent HW eras (I've already given my opinion of his abilities as can be seen in footage), and I think the evidence suggesting he would is greatly limited because of who he fought.

On Saturday, LHW contenders Joe Smith and Sullivan Barrera squared off. They each made the 175 limit on Friday, yet on Saturday the 6'1" listed Smith weighed 190, while the 6'2" listed Barrera weighed 187, and both men appeared to be in good shape. I also previously noted that the 6'2" listed Chilemba and 6'"0 Kovalev weighed 180+ for their bout, and it's not uncommon for SMW and MWs to weigh around 175 on fight night. These fighters, none of whom are HWs or even CWs, are about the same weight as and taller than the guys you suggested are the size of modern HWs. They are most certainly bigger than the likes of Burns, Ketchel, Fitz, and 156 pound Langford.

I struggle to believe that Smith and Barrera sized fighters, in other words, modern LHWs, would really be the ones with size advantages against the likes of Anthony Joshua, the Klitschkos, or Lewis. Guys like LL and Wlad had good jabs, crosses, and abilities to control range with their length and footwork, and would rightfully get no credit for beating up LHWs, SMWs, and lower. Now, Johnson was a very good fighter, but he was dealing with vastly different dimensions and levels of power than he'd be facing against many top modern HWs, and he'd go from being the bigger man, with a style reflecting that, to being the much smaller man.

So, I'm just not convinced that JJ, even with his laudable parrying and strong-armed clinch work, would be a dominant force against top modern HWs--guys who are huge compared to him, 18-year-old McVea, Jeannette, Burns, Langford, Ketchel etc.; have good ability to go with their size; and have spent years gaining experience as elite amateur and pros. You're right in pointing out that his era was very different from today, but part of that difference is big size mismatches and HW bouts featuring guys who aren't any bigger than modern light heavyweights, super middleweights, or middleweights.

[APerno]

instead of 1875 ?
would he look like this one dude seen here with all the muscles ?
( The action begins at about 5:00 into this clip)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVeVcVBW_CE

You cancel your cable subscription because of Bill Mahar and then you watch this crap? Sarcastic self-righteous assholes offend you, but boorish self-entitled bullies don't?

[Ambling Alp II]

I think size is usually a notable advantage when you're dealing with major disparities. Of course, if the size difference is simply a product of one fighter being grossly overweight it's not so beneficial, but when it comes to the top HWs of recent years you're dealing with several fighters who are 6'2-6'7" and much naturally larger than guys like Jeannette. I don't think Johnson is so good that he'd be able to dominate recent HW eras (I've already given my opinion of his abilities as can be seen in footage), and I think the evidence suggesting he would is greatly limited because of who he fought.

On Saturday, LHW contenders Joe Smith and Sullivan Barrera squared off. They each made the 175 limit on Friday, yet on Saturday the 6'1" listed Smith weighed 190, while the 6'2" listed Barrera weighed 187, and both men appeared to be in good shape. I also previously noted that the 6'2" listed Chilemba and 6'"0 Kovalev weighed 180+ for their bout, and it's not uncommon for SMW and MWs to weigh around 175 on fight night. These fighters, none of whom are HWs or even CWs, are about the same weight as and taller than the guys you suggested are the size of modern HWs. They are most certainly bigger than the likes of Burns, Ketchel, Fitz, and 156 pound Langford.

I struggle to believe that Smith and Barrera sized fighters, in other words, modern LHWs, would really be the ones with size advantages against the likes of Anthony Joshua, the Klitschkos, or Lewis. Guys like LL and Wlad had good jabs, crosses, and abilities to control range with their length and footwork, and would rightfully get no credit for beating up LHWs, SMWs, and lower. Now, Johnson was a very good fighter, but he was dealing with vastly different dimensions and levels of power than he'd be facing against many top modern HWs, and he'd go from being the bigger man, with a style reflecting that, to being the much smaller man.

So, I'm just not convinced that JJ, even with his laudable parrying and strong-armed clinch work, would be a dominant force against top modern HWs--guys who are huge compared to him, 18-year-old McVea, Jeannette, Burns, Langford, Ketchel etc.; have good ability to go with their size; and have spent years gaining experience as elite amateur and pros. You're right in pointing out that his era was very different from today, but part of that difference is big size mismatches and HW bouts featuring guys who aren't any bigger than modern light heavyweights, super middleweights, or middleweights.

Jack Johnson is not Barrera ans Smith. He was a truly great fighter.
I'm not saying Burns, Ketchel, OBrien would be heavyweights today; (They would be top middleweights-light heavyweights) but Johnson, McVey, and Jeannette would be. And they would be the top guys.
This partially due to today's heavyweights really sucking.
Why do today's heavyweights suck? Part of is due to experience. They don't get enough experience against decent competition in their first 4 years or so as pro. It's too risky to get a loss. They need to be undefeated to get a paper title shot.
They are also too big. Yes you can be too big.

A fighter back then often got more practical experience in their first 1-2 years than today's get in their first 6 or 7 or even their entire career.
Once again, you are simply looking at it from todays' perspective.

When I first got interested in boxing, I had no pre-conceived ideas of what makes a great heavyweight. I didn't assume that bigger is better. I didn't assume that a certain era was better. You (like many others) have already made up your mind before you looked at the evidence.
Boxing history shows that a great smaller heavyweight beat a huge heavyweight. It happened over and over and over. But if you have no interest in history, I can see how you are coming to your faulty conclusions.

[Kalan]

Jack Johnson is not Barrera ans Smith. He was a truly great fighter. I'm not saying Burns, Ketchel, OBrien would be heavyweights today; (They would be top middleweights-light heavyweights) but Johnson, McVey, and Jeannette would be. And they would be the top guys. This partially due to today's heavyweights really sucking. Why do today's heavyweights suck? Part of is due to experience. They don't get enough experience against decent competition in their first 4 years or so as pro. It's too risky to get a loss. They need to be undefeated to get a paper title shot. They are also too big. Yes you can be too big.

A fighter back then often got more practical experience in their first 1-2 years than today's get in their first 6 or 7 or even their entire career.
Once again, you are simply looking at it from todays' perspective.

When I first got interested in boxing, I had no pre-conceived ideas of what makes a great heavyweight. I didn't assume that bigger is better. I didn't assume that a certain era was better. You (like many others) have already made up your mind before you looked at the evidence.
Boxing history shows that a great smaller heavyweight beat a huge heavyweight

You're a knee-jerk reactionary Ambling Alp... Like a lot of old timers you immediately dismiss all contemporary Heavyweights who pack stadiums with 90,000 fans... You call Jack Sharkey a great fighter... How can a guy with a career record of 37-13-3, who gets knocked out by a stumbling oaf like Carnera, be a great fighter??? You saw what a great fighter like Joe Louis did to both Carnera and Sharkey.. He beat them up and knocked them out early without even trying.

With only 19 fights, Anthony Joshua already has 6 more KO wins than Sharkey had in his entire career.. Joshua won all of his fights by knock outs...including stopping ATG Heavyweight Champion Wladimir Klitschko who had one previous loss in 11 years.. All you have to do is watch videos of their fights to understand that Joshua is an outstanding boxer-puncher with well rounded skills -- and Sharkey was a wide open and super sloppy swinger who was easy to hit. Hence Joshua's perfection of 4 wins in 4 Heavyweight Championship Fights, while Sharkey's record shows 1 robbery SD win in 2 Title Fights.

[Kalan]

Actually Sharkey had 3 Title Fights. Losing 2 and winning 1. The win was widely panned as a robbery.

[nobleart1978]

Firstly he would not be the Jack Johnson we know.

If he'd been born in 1975 he would not box like he actually did.

The wrestling, holding etc would not be allowed.

I think he would have been World Cruiserweight champ.

Would be like watching Johnny Nelson

[Ambling Alp II]

They hold all the time now.
No great fighter stays at cruiserweight. There is no $ and fame there. Johnson was a great fighter. He would move up to heavyweight.

[Kalan]

where Joshua or Ortiz would park his ass.

[Cojimar 1946]

Johnson might do well at cruiserweight or light heavy if he could adapt his skills to the modern era.

[Caractacus]

Cruiserweight ? Jack Johnson weiged around 205 lbs back then which would translate into about 225 lbs at least
by todays standards.

[oogiebe]

He'd be 42

LMAO!!!