BoxRec

I'll give JJ some credit for this though: i heard a recording of him speaking once, and man was regal as f@ck. coulda been a high brow theatre actor or something

The guy was a black man from the south in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He fought 11 years before he ever got a title shot. He took fights on short notice, and took on anyone who would fight him. Jeffries wouldn't defend the title against him. You seem to think he just had one easy fight after another. Do some research and get a clue.

it's doing research which shows allows us to see beyond the nonsense of an atg upper elite hw and to see just how lol a lot of his fights are, of course that doesn't mean all of them my man. and a lot of this stuff being said about him really is not about him as a boxer at all, it's about his personal life.

on that topic, i've learned that jack was a great lover to btw, he could hold and hug a woman better than anyone could

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Dec 2020, 21:04 The guy was a black man from the south in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Surely, it's a massive evidence for him to be a great boxer.

Also, he wore stylish clothes. Look at this hat:



He definitely should be rated very high because of it.

Jack had style and swag for sure...look at this confidence

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑06 Dec 2020, 17:14

littlepug wrote: ↑06 Dec 2020, 16:03 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

The mental side dictates things like longevity and being able to tough it out in a fight when it’s not going your way, Tyson would drown in Johnson’s era IMO

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑06 Dec 2020, 22:28 it's doing research which shows allows us to see beyond the nonsense of an atg upper elite hw and to see just how lol a lot of his fights are, of course that doesn't mean all of them my man. and a lot of this stuff being said about him really is not about him as a boxer at all, it's about his personal life.

on that topic, i've learned that jack was a great lover to btw, he could hold and hug a woman better than anyone could

Instead of spending every waking hour of your life posting on boxrec, read a book. Try papa Jack by Randy Roberts or Unforgivable Blackness by Geoffrey Ward.
Maybe you see what it was like being a black man in the United States when Johnson alive. What it was like to be a boxer at the time. Maybe you will understand why when Johnson finally got a title shot (after 11 years) he took the the fight against a guy who weighed 170.

Maybe you will understand why and made title defenses, he fought whoever he could make money against, even if they were a middleweight or a champion out of retirement after being off for 6 years. Believe it or not, Johnson wasn't worrying about what was going to be said about him on a boxing website over 100 years in the future.
You might understand why he was clinching Ketchel for so many rounds. He probably could have knocked him out in the first round if he wanted to.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 12:55 He probably could have knocked him out in the first round if he wanted to.

The most pathetic excuse ever.

Everyone could have done different things, which they hadn't actually done.

DrDuke wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 14:01

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 12:55 He probably could have knocked him out in the first round if he wanted to.

The most pathetic excuse ever.

Everyone could have done different things, which they hadn't actually done.

Don’t think it’s an excuse just an observation on what we know about him, Johnson owned the rights to his fight films and earned money when they were played at cinemas, by the time they got to the cinema though everyone knew the result and it’s been well documented that Johnson practiced getting knocked down in training as a way to get people into the cinemas to watch the fight so it’s not beyond belief for him to carry an opponent for the same reason.

Yep. Looks like somebody actually knows a little about boxing history.
It's not an excuse at all. He carried Ketchel; it's common knowledge among people that folow boxing history. . He toyed with him. He knocked him down once early in the fight and didn't go after him when Ketchel got up. Later in the fight, he hurt Ketchel who started to sag and fall forward. Johnson actually held Ketchel so that he wouldn't fall.
Look at what happens when Ketchel scores the knockdown. Johnson gets up and immediately knocked him out cold. First time in the fight that Johnson was aggressive. He could have done that much earlier had he wanted to.

It's not like Johnson was struggling and couldn't put Ketchel away earlier.

littlepug wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 14:32

DrDuke wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 14:01

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 12:55 He probably could have knocked him out in the first round if he wanted to.

The most pathetic excuse ever.

Everyone could have done different things, which they hadn't actually done.

Don’t think it’s an excuse just an observation on what we know about him, Johnson owned the rights to his fight films and earned money when they were played at cinemas, by the time they got to the cinema though everyone knew the result and it’s been well documented that Johnson practiced getting knocked down in training as a way to get people into the cinemas to watch the fight so it’s not beyond belief for him to carry an opponent for the same reason.

How is it related to not winning opponents more decisively, while being able to do it, as it has been suggested?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 15:13 Yep. Looks like somebody actually knows a little about boxing history.

Here comes the possessor of the biggest knowledge about boxing history. Keep enlightening us, the omniscient sage!

Never claimed to know everything. I do love the history of the sport( like some others on here) and have read a lot about it. You and marge know almost nothing about this period of boxing and yet you both go on and on spouting off about it.

I'm sure that besides littlepug and myself there many others who are quite aware that Johnson carried Ketchel during this fight. It's not exactly earth shattering news. It's been discussed on the boxing history forum. Yet you and marge knew nothing about it. You guys could learn a lot by simply reading about the history of the sport. I love to do it and still learn things. You both could too. You are missing out on a lot.

I know that tons of interesting stuff happened over the 100 plus years of the sport. It has changed in countless ways but in many ways is still similar. I don't pretend that everything magically got better the day I became a fan.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 16:32 Never claimed to know everything. I do love the history of the sport( like some others on here) and have read a lot about it. You and marge know almost nothing about this period of boxing and yet you both go on and on spouting off about it.

I'm sure that besides littlepug and myself there many others who are quite aware that Johnson carried Ketchel during this fight. It's not exactly earth shattering news. It's been discussed on the boxing history forum. Yet you and marge knew nothing about it. You guys could learn a lot by simply reading about the history of the sport. I love to do it and still learn things. You both could too. You are missing out on a lot.

I know that tons of interesting stuff happened over the 100 plus years of the sport. It has changed in countless ways but in many ways is still similar. I don't pretend that everything magically got better the day I became a fan.

I'm not trying to pretend that everything went better the day I became a fan. I'm not trying to go at previous eras.

My initial point was to rate Tyson over Johnson and I clearly presented the arguments for that opinion. I wasn't a fan during the Tyson's reign either.

After that there appeared tons of excuses for Johnson, which are just ridiculous.

What he did in his fights can't be changed. His legacy is measured by what he achieved and how he performed. You say, he could do better, but if even he could indeed, it doesn't really matter already.

Your "favorite" Vitali also could achieve more, if he had no brother, but you keep him "favorite". And when the talk is about Johnson, you bring this could-have stuff.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 12:55

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑06 Dec 2020, 22:28 it's doing research which shows allows us to see beyond the nonsense of an atg upper elite hw and to see just how lol a lot of his fights are, of course that doesn't mean all of them my man. and a lot of this stuff being said about him really is not about him as a boxer at all, it's about his personal life.

on that topic, i've learned that jack was a great lover to btw, he could hold and hug a woman better than anyone could

Instead of spending every waking hour of your life posting on boxrec, read a book. Try papa Jack by Randy Roberts or Unforgivable Blackness by Geoffrey Ward.
Maybe you see what it was like being a black man in the United States when Johnson alive. What it was like to be a boxer at the time. Maybe you will understand why when Johnson finally got a title shot (after 11 years) he took the the fight against a guy who weighed 170.

Maybe you will understand why and made title defenses, he fought whoever he could make money against, even if they were a middleweight or a champion out of retirement after being off for 6 years. Believe it or not, Johnson wasn't worrying about what was going to be said about him on a boxing website over 100 years in the future.
You might understand why he was clinching Ketchel for so many rounds. He probably could have knocked him out in the first round if he wanted to.

I just started reading unforgiveable blackness, great read. I just finished Strong Boy about John L. which was another great read. Johnson was far from the only one who would carry a fighter until enough rounds had passed so that the film of the fight could be profitable.

DrDuke wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 15:14

littlepug wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 14:32

DrDuke wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 14:01



The most pathetic excuse ever.

Everyone could have done different things, which they hadn't actually done.

Don’t think it’s an excuse just an observation on what we know about him, Johnson owned the rights to his fight films and earned money when they were played at cinemas, by the time they got to the cinema though everyone knew the result and it’s been well documented that Johnson practiced getting knocked down in training as a way to get people into the cinemas to watch the fight so it’s not beyond belief for him to carry an opponent for the same reason.

How is it related to not winning opponents more decisively, while being able to do it, as it has been suggested?

finishing opponents is pretty decisive. These guys, no matter which fighters you look at during the period were all out to make money. Black fighters especially during that time would carry each other if they had already fought a couple of times and knew who was better, just so both of them could have another fight in a few days etc. Johnson plays with these guys.

DrDuke wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 17:31

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 16:32 Never claimed to know everything. I do love the history of the sport( like some others on here) and have read a lot about it. You and marge know almost nothing about this period of boxing and yet you both go on and on spouting off about it.

I'm sure that besides littlepug and myself there many others who are quite aware that Johnson carried Ketchel during this fight. It's not exactly earth shattering news. It's been discussed on the boxing history forum. Yet you and marge knew nothing about it. You guys could learn a lot by simply reading about the history of the sport. I love to do it and still learn things. You both could too. You are missing out on a lot.

I know that tons of interesting stuff happened over the 100 plus years of the sport. It has changed in countless ways but in many ways is still similar. I don't pretend that everything magically got better the day I became a fan.

I'm not trying to pretend that everything went better the day I became a fan. I'm not trying to go at previous eras.

My initial point was to rate Tyson over Johnson and I clearly presented the arguments for that opinion. I wasn't a fan during the Tyson's reign either.

After that there appeared tons of excuses for Johnson, which are just ridiculous.

What he did in his fights can't be changed. His legacy is measured by what he achieved and how he performed. You say, he could do better, but if even he could indeed, it doesn't really matter already.

Your "favorite" Vitali also could achieve more, if he had no brother, but you keep him "favorite". And when the talk is about Johnson, you bring this could-have stuff.

What Johnson did achieve though, was having a white press calling for Jeffries to offer him a shot as early as 1903, have a white press print that Jeffries drawing the colour line was done so with only Johnson in mind, a white press saying that Jeffries cannot retire before giving Johnson who is a clear #1 contender a shot. Much of the press believed that Johnson would beat Jeffries even at that time.
Everything he did was without a proper trainer, without a proper manager while facing obstacles that haven't been seen since. Johnson reigned for 7 years as champion, and with the exception of a Harry Wills beat everyone worthwhile during his era. Wills and Langford unfortunately offered little money for Johnson to fight. Those are the only two men that Johnson can be faulted for not facing during his reign but it's highly doubtful that Johnson was in his prime during his title years as he was on the wrong side of 30.

p4p1 wrote: ↑08 Dec 2020, 02:10

DrDuke wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 17:31

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 16:32 Never claimed to know everything. I do love the history of the sport( like some others on here) and have read a lot about it. You and marge know almost nothing about this period of boxing and yet you both go on and on spouting off about it.

I'm sure that besides littlepug and myself there many others who are quite aware that Johnson carried Ketchel during this fight. It's not exactly earth shattering news. It's been discussed on the boxing history forum. Yet you and marge knew nothing about it. You guys could learn a lot by simply reading about the history of the sport. I love to do it and still learn things. You both could too. You are missing out on a lot.

I know that tons of interesting stuff happened over the 100 plus years of the sport. It has changed in countless ways but in many ways is still similar. I don't pretend that everything magically got better the day I became a fan.

I'm not trying to pretend that everything went better the day I became a fan. I'm not trying to go at previous eras.

My initial point was to rate Tyson over Johnson and I clearly presented the arguments for that opinion. I wasn't a fan during the Tyson's reign either.

After that there appeared tons of excuses for Johnson, which are just ridiculous.

What he did in his fights can't be changed. His legacy is measured by what he achieved and how he performed. You say, he could do better, but if even he could indeed, it doesn't really matter already.

Your "favorite" Vitali also could achieve more, if he had no brother, but you keep him "favorite". And when the talk is about Johnson, you bring this could-have stuff.

What Johnson did achieve though, was having a white press calling for Jeffries to offer him a shot as early as 1903, have a white press print that Jeffries drawing the colour line was done so with only Johnson in mind, a white press saying that Jeffries cannot retire before giving Johnson who is a clear #1 contender a shot. Much of the press believed that Johnson would beat Jeffries even at that time.
Everything he did was without a proper trainer, without a proper manager while facing obstacles that haven't been seen since. Johnson reigned for 7 years as champion, and with the exception of a Harry Wills beat everyone worthwhile during his era. Wills and Langford unfortunately offered little money for Johnson to fight. Those are the only two men that Johnson can be faulted for not facing during his reign but it's highly doubtful that Johnson was in his prime during his title years as he was on the wrong side of 30.

Prime Jeffries vs prime Johnson is another pointless mythical matchup, it doesn't affect the legacy of both. As well as their actual bout. It's as important win for Johnson as the Louis win for Marciano or the Ali win for Holmes, or the Holmes win for Tyson, or the Tyson win for Williams and McBride.

All that stuff about being black, having no proper trainer, etc, etc, etc is irrelevant in rating him as a boxer, I've already said that. It's like to use the cinderella man story of Braddock to boost up his ranking as a boxer. Johnson was in a more good position for being a part of such myths, as he lived in more obscure times.

And, of course, the stories about "Wills and Langford offering little money" mean nothing. I'm not telling, that it wasn't like that, so, our dear boxing historians, please don't get mad again, my point is just that the fights didn't happen eventually, so they can't be used as arguments in the talk about legacy. It is what it is. Johnson faced all those guys, Langford, Jeanette and McVea, while those were unexperienced. All of them were majorly making the names on fighting each other. And, actually, there even was no indication of Johnson to being past it during his reign.

Well of course a Jeffries-Johnson is not pointless. It would have been a huge fight; one of the most meaningful of all time. The point some of us are trying to make is that Johnson was not scared of anyone. He wanted to fight the best. He did not get that chance against a prime Jeffries.

He gets criticized for fighting small opponents. We are trying to explain why this happened. The champ (Burns) was small. He was the guy that Johnson had to beat to win the title. Johnson made very little $ in his 11 years before getting a title shot. He would have been a fool to pass this up. Not Johnson's fault he was small. Ketchel was a big pay day. Jeffries was off for 6 years; Johnson fought him because it was a huge payday.
Nobody is is that it was a great achievement for Johnson to win these types of fights. We are trying to explain why Johnson took these fights.

We are also trying to explain how boxing was in his day. Prospects did not start off with 20-0, with 20 automatic wins and then get a WBS title shot back then. What a fighter did before getting a title shot was much more important than it usually is now. Prospects fought each other sometimes. Contenders fought each other often.

Johnson fought anyone who he could in the 11 years before he finally got a shot. Some of these guys were small. Some inexperienced. Some over the hill, some simply were never that good. When rating him, just ignore those fights. However, many were very good. He fought more very good opponents on his way up then some champions after him did in their entire career. Take a look at those fights when rating Johnson. don't just look at the title reign.

You are going to do some research. Read about boxing form the early 1900s. Try to find out about his opponents. Don't automatically write some off because their record was not pretty.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Dec 2020, 13:04 Well of course a Jeffries-Johnson is not pointless. It would have been a huge fight; one of the most meaningful of all time. The point some of us are trying to make is that Johnson was not scared of anyone. He wanted to fight the best. He did not get that chance against a prime Jeffries.

He gets criticized for fighting small opponents. We are trying to explain why this happened. The champ (Burns) was small. He was the guy that Johnson had to beat to win the title. Johnson made very little $ in his 11 years before getting a title shot. He would have been a fool to pass this up. Not Johnson's fault he was small. Ketchel was a big pay day. Jeffries was off for 6 years; Johnson fought him because it was a huge payday.
Nobody is is that it was a great achievement for Johnson to win these types of fights. We are trying to explain why Johnson took these fights.

The thing is, he shouldn't be critisized for that in the same way he shouldn't be praised too much for that. He was a champ of a comparably weak era. That happens sometimes. Tyson actually was in a quite similar situation, yet still in a better one.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Dec 2020, 13:04 We are also trying to explain how boxing was in his day. Prospects did not start off with 20-0, with 20 automatic wins and then get a WBS title shot back then. What a fighter did before getting a title shot was much more important than it usually is now. Prospects fought each other sometimes. Contenders fought each other often.

Johnson fought anyone who he could in the 11 years before he finally got a shot. Some of these guys were small. Some inexperienced. Some over the hill, some simply were never that good. When rating him, just ignore those fights. However, many were very good. He fought more very good opponents on his way up then some champions after him did in their entire career. Take a look at those fights when rating Johnson. don't just look at the title reign.

You are going to do some research. Read about boxing form the early 1900s. Try to find out about his opponents. Don't automatically write some off because their record was not pretty.

The point was not in that prospects should go with 0s, but that winning unexperienced fighters is less valuable than winning opponents, who already reached their primes. For instance, there's less value in Machen's win over Quarry and Folley's win over Bonavena, than in Frazier's wins over both Quarry and Bonavena.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Dec 2020, 21:04 The guy was a black man from the south in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He fought 11 years before he ever got a title shot. He took fights on short notice, and took on anyone who would fight him. Jeffries wouldn't defend the title against him. You seem to think he just had one easy fight after another. Do some research and get a clue.

As champion Jack Johnson drew the color line and refused to fight the best contenders. Why should he receive sympathy for being ducked when as champion he did the exact same thing?

it makes it all more understandable. Yes, from a fan's perspective, it would have been great had he defended the title against Langford, McVey and Jeannette. However, when you have not made much $ for all of those years, it made sense for him to cash in. ie. make a lot of money in low risk fights against Ketchel and Jeffries or make a fraction of that against much better opponents. almost anyone would have done what Johnson did in that situation.

Who is actually giving him a ton of credit for beating Burns, Ketchel, Jeffries etc. Nobody. Nobody is. He is not getting praised for this. That isn't why Johnson rated so highly historically.

The division was pretty strong during his title years and as a contender. The main difference in his career and what you see in modern times is that most of his best opponents were. In modern times a fighter's pre-title career is not noteworthy at all. with Johnson (and many others form his time) it is.

Coming up, Johnson fought some decent fighters who were far more experienced than him. Later, he sometimes did the same when he had experience and sometimes hos opponents didn't. Guys took on whoever was available.

When looking at his career (or anyone in the early-mid 20th century for that matter) is to take this into consideration. Also take into consideration that young prospect might have a lot of fights against another hot prospect. Contenders actually fought each; sometimes several times. As a result, hardly anyone had pretty win/loss records back then. you see a guy with a record of 24-8 now, you know he is probably just a journeyman. Back then, he may have been pretty good. Or not. You have to look hard.
In short, we have to look hard at his whole career, not just the title reign.

Mike Tyson vs. Jack Johnson. Hmmm. I don't have a pick off the top of my head. I need to really think this one over. I'll say this much off the top of my head: Whoever wins, Jack Johnson will most likely surprise a lot of boxing fans, in many ways, in this fight. If Mike beats him, he's going to have to dig down deep and show a lot of heart and courage, because a prime Jack Johnson's going to give him Hell, in so many ways. I definitely agree with those who say you have to study him deeply to get the full measure of just how good Jack Johnson really was as a boxer.

Djanders44 wrote: ↑10 Dec 2020, 02:26 Mike Tyson vs. Jack Johnson. Hmmm. I don't have a pick off the top of my head. I need to really think this one over. I'll say this much off the top of my head: Whoever wins, Jack Johnson will most likely surprise a lot of boxing fans, in many ways, in this fight. If Mike beats him, he's going to have to dig down deep and show a lot of heart and courage, because a prime Jack Johnson's going to give him Hell, in so many ways. I definitely agree with those who say you have to study him deeply to get the full measure of just how good Jack Johnson really was as a boxer.

Okay. I have thought about it. I think Jack would discourage Mike and beat him, probably by decision.