BoxRec

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Interesting topic,
Least Favorite Fighters

Jack Johnson- the guy was porbably a nut case. he paraded around the country with white woman and he def was the most hated champ.

Perhaps the most ignorant post I've seen here...Who gives a fornicate about his sex life? He was the 'most hated' because he was black in a very racist country...

But...he was also one the greatest heavyweights in history...the first defensive master...a scientific boxer...who was light years ahead of most of the competition...he was ranked #1 all time by Ring magazine's Nat Fleisher...someone who actually saw all the old timers fight...I rank him#3...but if there were better film footage of him, I could see him ranked higher...the films of that era sucked...and the camera men couldn't keep the cameras centered on target either...the Johnson/Burns fight film mostly films about half of the ring...

To say that Johnson is one of your least favorite fighters because he liked "white women"...and because "he was hated" shows your true colors...Do you have a KKK meeting later?

This is a rather silly post. Johnson was in fact much admired by many especially in Europe... he was a brilliant fighter (recognised by some as the best heavyweight of all time) and a man of courage and intelligence... its a shame that someone with such courage to face down the bigots and racists of his age can be dismissed by an illinformed person almost 100 years later as 'a nutcase!'.
And Tarver was robbed in the first fight with Jones... and Jones has been shown to be a pill popping cheat who does not deserve his place among the greats and cetainly not along the likes of Johnson and Robinson.

Like i said on another post. Americans did hate Jack Johnson and one of the reasons was he was married to many under aged white girls and he seemed to have no regard for rules.

sweet scieentist how bout if u had better film footage maybe u could rate him in top 5. the truth is the film was blury and u could hardly see his best fights so ur getting all ur opinions on hearing stories and reading books and taking nat fleichers biased opinion. how would u know hes that great??? thats why i cannot rate him in top 5. i have him at # 6 or 7. Jack Johnson also his competetion wasnt the greatest. The fact that he was knocked down by a middleweight shows u something even though he killed ketchel seconds later. he beat an old jeffries though i think he would have beat a prime jeffries. the man was a stylist but did not TAKE ENOUGH CHANCES. a lot of experts say this and from seeing him i noticed he is not agressive enough and he would have to change his style if he was fighting in later eras or he could be outpointed. he was knocked out by chonski when he was very inexperienced and dropped a ( I heard bad) decision in his prime to marvin hart.
its so hard to compare other generations. sweet scientist, i honestly want to see ur top ten heavyweights.

Silkov, Jones won the first fight with tarver. he deserved the nod, and Jones won when he was weight drained and showing drastic signs of aging. Jones in his prime would have taken tarver apart and would have had better reflex and sense in tarver II to see that punch and dodge it. Jones amazing boxer skills and speed and power will go down in history. he was definetely the best boxer of the nineties and though he had a breif career, i feel at middleweight only robinson would have beaten him. Jones dominated a lot of good fighters. like the best contenders he shut them all out. they werent even close to winning on points.

Dont u realize how much skills he has???? did u watch him in the nineties just dominate tough contenders. NO, HE DIDNT FIGHT LAMOTTAS OR FULLMERS AND GAVILANS but he fought great champions like hopkins and toney. he beat the best of his era.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Like i said on another post. Americans did hate Jack Johnson and one of the reasons was he was married to many under aged white girls and he seemed to have no regard for rules.

sweet scieentist how bout if u had better film footage maybe u could rate him in top 5. the truth is the film was blury and u could hardly see his best fights so ur getting all ur opinions on hearing stories and reading books and taking nat fleichers biased opinion.

Sir...as someone once pointed out to me, there isn't very much good footage of Babe Ruth either, would you deny him his place in history because of that lack of footage?

Even with the poor quality footage, I can certainly see that he was something incredibly special, if you can't see that...that's your problem...he was light years ahead of most of his competition...

When I played football, there were some guys who could study the films well...and there were others who couldn't seem to see anything without it being pointed out to them...maybe you don't really know what you're looking for...


AND..on the 'other post' you refer to...you placed Jack Johnson on that list...and the reasons you gave were he "liked white women" and that he was "the most hated"...those are some really good reasons for YOU not to like someone ...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Like i said on another post. Americans did hate Jack Johnson and one of the reasons was he was married to many under aged white girls and he seemed to have no regard for rules.

sweet scieentist how bout if u had better film footage maybe u could rate him in top 5. the truth is the film was blury and u could hardly see his best fights so ur getting all ur opinions on hearing stories and reading books and taking nat fleichers biased opinion.

Nat Fleisher actually saw him...what did YOU SEE?

Jack Johnson also his competetion wasnt the greatest.

That's utter nonsense...go look at his record...your mouth may be moving, but your ass is doing the talking...

The fact that he was knocked down by a middleweight shows u something even though he killed ketchel seconds later.

you apparently never heard the story that Johnson & Ketchel had agreed that this was an exhibiton that would end in a draw...and when Ketchel fired a serious shot and floored Johnson...well, you saw what happened within seconds after that, now didn't you...(unless you just read about it)

the man was a stylist but did not TAKE ENOUGH CHANCES.

your ass is doing the talking again...this was a man who practiced the 'sweet science'...the art of boxing is to hit without being hit...and Johnson excelled at that, once in his prime...only a fool takes chances...(or a fighter who can't box and has to aggressively pursue...leaving himself open for jabs & counters, a fighter like that HAS to take chances, Johnson DIDN'T HAVE TO TAKE CHANCES)...Johnson made people look silly, like they were tripping over their own feet...the man was a DEFENSIVE MASTER, light years ahead of his time...

he was knocked out by chonski when he was very inexperienced

apparently you never heard that the split second Johnson was knocked down, police entered the ring, arrested, incarcerated, and heavily fined both fighters...not your typical KO...Johnson didn't have a chance to get up, the cops stopped the fight...but then, you wouldn't know about that, would you?

and dropped a ( I heard bad) decision in his prime to marvin hart

You heard right about that...Hart's face was beaten badly...he (Hart) did have some moments, though...but he was beaten badly by Johnson...like most everyone else was...

Sweet Scientist wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Like i said on another post. Americans did hate Jack Johnson and one of the reasons was he was married to many under aged white girls and he seemed to have no regard for rules.

sweet scieentist how bout if u had better film footage maybe u could rate him in top 5. the truth is the film was blury and u could hardly see his best fights so ur getting all ur opinions on hearing stories and reading books and taking nat fleichers biased opinion.

Nat Fleisher actually saw him...what did YOU SEE?

Jack Johnson also his competetion wasnt the greatest.

That's utter nonsense...go look at his record...your mouth may be moving, but your ass is doing the talking...

The fact that he was knocked down by a middleweight shows u something even though he killed ketchel seconds later.

you apparently never heard the story that Johnson & Ketchel had agreed that this was an exhibiton that would end in a draw...and when Ketchel fired a serious shot and floored Johnson...well, you saw what happened within seconds after that, now didn't you...(unless you just read about it)

the man was a stylist but did not TAKE ENOUGH CHANCES.

your ass is doing the talking again...this was a man who practiced the 'sweet science'...the art of boxing is to hit without being hit...and Johnson excelled at that, once in his prime...only a fool takes chances...(or a fighter who can't box and has to aggressively pursue...leaving himself open for jabs & counters, a fighter like that HAS to take chances, Johnson DIDN'T HAVE TO TAKE CHANCES)...Johnson made people look silly, like they were tripping over their own feet...the man was a DEFENSIVE MASTER, light years ahead of his time...

he was knocked out by chonski when he was very inexperienced

apparently you never heard that the split second Johnson was knocked down, police entered the ring, arrested, incarcerated, and heavily fined both fighters...not your typical KO...Johnson didn't have a chance to get up, the cops stopped the fight...but then, you wouldn't know about that, would you?

and dropped a ( I heard bad) decision in his prime to marvin hart

You heard right about that...Hart's face was beaten badly...he (Hart) did have some moments, though...but he was beaten badly by Johnson...like most everyone else was...

Man you must be like 90.

hahaa grimm.


Yes I have seen all of johnsons film fights that exist. I understand about ketchell fight fix, im not an idiot. I know ketchell is a hard hitting middlewieght BUT hes facing a big heavyweight and he is able to knock him down with one punch. maybe johnson didnt see it coming and boxers liek grimm can tell u the punch u dont see coming is the knockout punch. Perhaps thatright by ketchell would have felled any middleweight.

and u make johnson sound like some kind of machine where every punch or move a fighter makes on jhonson , he counters easily. he was not heads over heals above everyone defensively. i understand he was one of the best but u say he DOESNT NEED TO TAKE CHANCES. well he does need to be somewhat aggresive or else when he gets in their with an ali whos got the offensive and defense, or a marciano and dempsey and foreman offensive sluggers who pound u away. johnson NEVER BEAT a great heavyweight.
I wonder how he would have done it u put him in against some other all time great heavyweights.

and fighters back then did keepo their hands low so thats why its hard to compare him with todays fighters.

Grimm and Brockton you both need to go away and grow up some and read up on boxing history... come back in 10 years time and you may be mature enough and wise enough to hold an intelligent debate about boxing.... but I doubt it!.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Yes I have seen all of johnsons film fights that exist. I understand about ketchell fight fix, im not an idiot. I know ketchell is a hard hitting middlewieght BUT hes facing a big heavyweight and he is able to knock him down with one punch. maybe johnson didnt see it coming and boxers liek grimm can tell u the punch u dont see coming is the knockout punch. Perhaps thatright by ketchell would have felled any middleweight.

It's not unusual for a hard punching Middleweight to knockdown or even knockout Heavyweights.

Once ageing former Middleweight contender Eugene Hart KO'd a young Heavyweight called Tim Witherspoon in a sparring session.

Witherspoon had a very good chin but Harts savage left hook still KO'd him.

silkov wrote:Grimm and Brockton you both need to go away and grow up some and read up on boxing history... come back in 10 years time and you may be mature enough and wise enough to hold an intelligent debate about boxing.... but I doubt it!.

Go back and read the rest of my posts on this topic.

Because it is obvious that the only post you read is when I said the guy was 90.

I didn't down play Johnson at all, I know of Johnson's greatness

Go ahead go back and read...

Grimm wrote:

silkov wrote:Grimm and Brockton you both need to go away and grow up some and read up on boxing history... come back in 10 years time and you may be mature enough and wise enough to hold an intelligent debate about boxing.... but I doubt it!.

Go back and read the rest of my posts on this topic.

Because it is obvious that the only post you read is when I said the guy was 90.

I didn't down play Johnson at all, I know of Johnson's greatness

Go ahead go back and read...

Why should I bother to reread stuff written but an ageist punk like you eh?... 8) .......

silkov wrote:

Grimm wrote:

silkov wrote:Grimm and Brockton you both need to go away and grow up some and read up on boxing history... come back in 10 years time and you may be mature enough and wise enough to hold an intelligent debate about boxing.... but I doubt it!.

Go back and read the rest of my posts on this topic.

Because it is obvious that the only post you read is when I said the guy was 90.

I didn't down play Johnson at all, I know of Johnson's greatness

Go ahead go back and read...

Why should I bother to reread stuff written but an ageist punk like you eh?... 8) .......

Because you're an idiot that's why.

Calling sweet scientist 90 was a joke, and a compliment if anything.

I was refering to his knowledge of the sport saying he must've been an old man to know all that.

Grimm wrote:

silkov wrote:

Grimm wrote: Go back and read the rest of my posts on this topic.

Because it is obvious that the only post you read is when I said the guy was 90.

I didn't down play Johnson at all, I know of Johnson's greatness

Go ahead go back and read...

Why should I bother to reread stuff written but an ageist punk like you eh?... 8) .......

Because you're an idiot that's why.

Calling sweet scientist 90 was a joke, and a compliment if anything.

I was refering to his knowledge of the sport saying he must've been an old man to know all that.

Perhaps I was joking when I called you an ageist punk?.... have a guess... .....and because I'm an idiot I should want to reread the pearls of wisdom which you have written?..... hhhhhmmmmmmmmmm!.... guess I'd have to be an idiot to do that eh!!! 8) .

Vinny Pazienza....because he stunk, even when he was supposed to be good.....all he ever did was run off at the mouth, and fight over the hill ex-champs who in their prime would have destroyed Pazienza.

Greg Haugen kicked his ass and was robbed by the hometown judges......

ringsider wrote:Vinny Pazienza....because he stunk, even when he was supposed to be good.....all he ever did was run off at the mouth, and fight over the hill ex-champs who in their prime would have destroyed Pazienza.

Greg Haugen kicked his ass and was robbed by the hometown judges......

You're being Harsh on Vinnie... who was in a lot of good fights with a lot of good fighters... to say he stunk is plain silly really!.
I have funnily enough actually been watching the Haugen vs Paz fights today and though the first bout was debatable no way did Haugen kick Vinnies butt... and Vinnie boxed Gregs head off in their 3rd match.
Vinnie may have been a big mouth but he had a big heart as well imo.

So you are going to sit here and tell me, that Vinnie in HIS prime would have beaten a Duran in HIS prime? Or Camacho? Or a an Aaron Pryor? A Thomas Hearns? Vinnie was a stiff, whose greatest commodity was his mouth.

So what if Vinny was in a lot of good fights with good fighters? He was never in any good fights with a great fighter who was still great!! Your thinking is the same mentality that says that Autro Gatti was a great fighter because he was in three club fights with Micky Ward.

Chumps fighting chumps while it may make a great fight, doesn't make the fighter/fighters great.

Vinny was overrated and under skilled.

Eh?... I never said that!... but just because he wouldn't beat a pryor or Duran doesn't make Pazienza a stiff mate!. Pleanty of fighters couldnt beat Duran, Pryor etc does that make them all stiffs??? . Is your boxing knowledge really so black and white! .

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:hahaa grimm.


Yes I have seen all of johnsons film fights that exist. I understand about ketchell fight fix, im not an idiot. I know ketchell is a hard hitting middlewieght BUT hes facing a big heavyweight and he is able to knock him down with one punch.

Now...you just said that 'I understand' (about the agreement between the fighters that it was an exhibition that would end in a draw), but then you don't 'understand' how he knocked down a guy who wasn't expecting it...if I walked up to you, and hit you with my best punch when you weren't expecting it, you might go down too...Johnson wasn't expecting to get hit by a hard punch...that's why Ketchel knocked him down...

and u make johnson sound like some kind of machine where every punch or move a fighter makes on jhonson , he counters easily. he was not heads over heals above everyone defensively.

in his day he was...who was a better defensive heavyweight 1906-1912???

i understand he was one of the best but u say he DOESNT NEED TO TAKE CHANCES. well he does need to be somewhat aggresive or else when he gets in their with an ali whos got the offensive and defense, or a marciano and dempsey and foreman offensive sluggers who pound u away.

He would not need to be aggressive against Marciano, Dempsey, or Foreman...they would take the fight to him...he would be the defensive master...You couldn't have seen all his fights...you don't seem to understand how he fought at all...

johnson NEVER BEAT a great heavyweight.

That is a remark of ignorance...look up his record...what the hell is your idea of a great heavyweight???


You seem very young...shouldn't you be going to bed now...don't you have school in the morning or something????

Sweet Scientist ur not as smart as u think u are. u have said some pretty unintelligent things on a lot of topics. and unlike u, i have told everyone who i am, and my personel life. so if u want to know my name is nick gamble, im 18, and graduated needham high school in massachusetts. and I will attend springfield college in the fall, and I will be wrestling there.

U said im ignorant because i say johnson never beat a great heavyweight. well then u tell me a great heavyweight that he beat???? and dont say old old jeffries. tommy burns is a super middleweight. so i guess that leaves joe jeanette and jim flynn. they were great for their time but not considered great heavyweights. Johnson may have deserved the decision against hart but he lost it because hart was being the agressorr and landing some of the time. johnson was just sitting their and waiting. U cant just sit there all the time and expect to win a decision against an eilite heavyweight, what happens if he faces a guy like joe louis or ali??? and he had immense trouble with middleweight philadelphia jack who in their 6 round fight boxed evenly with johnson and used his speed to dance around and frustrate the much bigger stronger man. Johnson kept his hands very low also which everyone did during that time and he would wait for them to throw and counter. but he wasnt offensive enough. he had a good uppercut. im just saying he is in the top 10 but not top 5. who knows how many of his fights were fixed too.
And I understand how he fights buddy. im pretty sure hes ur favorite fighter and ur only defending him this much cause u love the guy. u see i back up marciano arguements with legit arguements and good facts, unlike u with johnson. u dont back up ur responses with a lot of info either. just personel attacks.
i guess 60 year old man like u like to put people down. im sorry ur life is miserable but thats not my problem. dont take it out on me.

Hey dumbo Blockhead.....you is spelled you, not "u", unless you are talking about female sheep which is spelled "ewe" , and sounds like you too.

Do "you" get it?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Sweet Scientist ur not as smart as u think u are. u have said some pretty unintelligent things on a lot of topics. and unlike u, i have told everyone who i am, and my personel life. so if u want to know my name is nick gamble, im 18, and graduated needham high school in massachusetts. and I will attend springfield college in the fall

That's OK...I was probably an asshole too when I was 18...but I could always write and spell...You're going to have some trouble with that first semester composition class...

U SEE ??? HE AVOIDS THE MAIN TOPIC JACK JOHNSON BECAUSE HES GOT NOTHING TO SAY IN DEFENSE OF HIM. WHY DONT U JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AND PROVE U DONT SUCK AT DEBATING WHICH I THINK U DO.

If ur so worried about spelling "you" instead appreviated "u", then why dont u get the hell off this forum. its BOXING FORUM . not english class.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:U SEE ??? HE AVOIDS THE MAIN TOPIC JACK JOHNSON BECAUSE HES GOT NOTHING TO SAY IN DEFENSE OF HIM. WHY DONT U JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AND PROVE U DONT SUCK AT DEBATING WHICH I THINK U DO.

If ur so worried about spelling "you" instead appreviated "u", then why dont u get the hell off this forum. its BOXING FORUM . not english class.

I don't have to defend the great Jack Johnson to an ignorant teenager...After you learn how to read, go find some books on him...enough said

After you learn more about boxing, come find me and well have a debate. I am not at all impressed with ur knowledge and ur like 60. by the time im ur age, im will have forgotton more about boxing than u had ever known.