BoxRec

I think all of them with the exception of Dempsey would beat Jack Johnson. I think he would outbox Dempsey and knock him out.

why zslayton??/

To me, Johnson beat McVey, Jeanette, and Langford especially before they really matured as fighters.

All three of those fighters would have loved to have fought Johnson in their primes (while Johnson was champ) but Johnson chose to make more money and take the easier money fighting white hopes (not that that was a stupid move).

Johnson did defend against another black fighter, so it was not that he did not think a defence agaisnt a black fighter was a good idea, but he did not want to fight such risky fights.

Jeffries was a shell of a man when he fought Johnson too. For him to come out of retirement of five years with no tune up at 35 to fight the best heavyweight in the world is crazy. How did they think this would be a super fight???!!!!

But Johnson was a damn good boxer, who has beaten several great fighters. McVey, Langford, and Jeanette may have peaked later, but they were great fighters. As was Tommy Burns, whom he won the title from (poor Tommy never got much respect, but was a hell of a fighter). Johnson did not fight the best of the white hopes of his day, but he did fight some.

Boxing has come along way, but if you compare what fighters did in their eras, and consider the level of competition in their eras, Johnson has to be held in high esteem.

6 Pack wrote: Jeffries was a shell of a man when he fought Johnson too. For him to come out of retirement of five years with no tune up at 35 to fight the best heavyweight in the world is crazy. How did they think this would be a super fight???!!!!

Because the prejudice and bigotry back then was unbelievably irrational...there were white people who sincerely believed that a black man couldn't compete with a white man at anything...I've read that Burns honestly believed he'd beat Johnson, just because he was black!...so when the original 'Great White Hope' Jim Jeffries came out of retirement, many white bigots just knew he'd win...until the fight started and the black man totally outclassed him...like he outclassed every one for a decade...and against some of them, 'outclassed' is putting it mildly...If Johnson had fought the the '50's or '60's. I honestly believe he might be seen as the greatest ever...a lot is lost in a 100 years...there is no living frame of reference...nobody who saw him is still alive, nobody who fought him is still alive...and that takes something away from him...in a way, it's almost as unjust as the attitude towards him when he was alive!

Sweet Scientist wrote:

6 Pack wrote: Jeffries was a shell of a man when he fought Johnson too. For him to come out of retirement of five years with no tune up at 35 to fight the best heavyweight in the world is crazy. How did they think this would be a super fight???!!!!

Because the prejudice and bigotry back then was unbelievably irrational...there were white people who sincerely believed that a black man couldn't compete with a white man at anything...I've read that Burns honestly believed he'd beat Johnson, just because he was black!...so when the original 'Great White Hope' Jim Jeffries came out of retirement, many white bigots just knew he'd win...until the fight started and the black man totally outclassed him...like he outclassed every one for a decade...and against some of them, 'outclassed' is putting it mildly...If Johnson had fought the the '50's or '60's. I honestly believe he might be seen as the greatest ever...a lot is lost in a 100 years...there is no living frame of reference...nobody who saw him is still alive, nobody who fought him is still alive...and that takes something away from him...in a way, it's almost as unjust as the attitude towards him when he was alive!

Funnily enough, all of the top black fighters picked Jefferies as well. Langford said he thought Jefferies would be too rugged and take Johnson into deep water.
Turned out the other way.
Now when people say "how the hell did people think Jefferies had a chance"
Imagine this . .
Mike Tyson retires in 1989 after the Williams TKO.
He goes to a country home, becomes a muslim, and then years later challenges Holyfield for the title. He goes through a super-training camp getting back into condition that's overseen by Larry Holmes and Kevin Rooney.
How many people would be picking Tyson?

zslayton wrote:I think all of them with the exception of Dempsey would beat Jack Johnson. I think he would outbox Dempsey and knock him out.

The sport evolved. Johnson was ahead of his game and that is what made him great (IMO). He was doing things other guys of that era couldn't (or at least you didn't see very often). However, the other greats, IMO, would take him out.

I think most of the so called great white hopes johnson fought sucked! They were mostly oversized, slow footed, stamina lacking, one dimensional fighters. I think he is great, no doubt. He dominated during his time. I think Dempsey is great too, but I think they, much like Larry Holmes, ruled the division when it didn't have much to offer. I think if you match them up against the other greats, Dempsey gets outboxed by the boxers and outslugged by the bigger, stronger, harder hitting guys (Foreman, Louis, Tyson). I think Johnson fairs better than Dempsey against this group but don't think he beats many of them just because I see many of them as equal from a skill standpoint but bigger.

dempseyfire wrote:

Sweet Scientist wrote:

6 Pack wrote: Jeffries was a shell of a man when he fought Johnson too. For him to come out of retirement of five years with no tune up at 35 to fight the best heavyweight in the world is crazy. How did they think this would be a super fight???!!!!

Because the prejudice and bigotry back then was unbelievably irrational...there were white people who sincerely believed that a black man couldn't compete with a white man at anything...I've read that Burns honestly believed he'd beat Johnson, just because he was black!...so when the original 'Great White Hope' Jim Jeffries came out of retirement, many white bigots just knew he'd win...until the fight started and the black man totally outclassed him...like he outclassed every one for a decade...and against some of them, 'outclassed' is putting it mildly...If Johnson had fought the the '50's or '60's. I honestly believe he might be seen as the greatest ever...a lot is lost in a 100 years...there is no living frame of reference...nobody who saw him is still alive, nobody who fought him is still alive...and that takes something away from him...in a way, it's almost as unjust as the attitude towards him when he was alive!

Funnily enough, all of the top black fighters picked Jefferies as well. Langford said he thought Jefferies would be too rugged and take Johnson into deep water.
Turned out the other way.
Now when people say "how the hell did people think Jefferies had a chance"
Imagine this . .
Mike Tyson retires in 1989 after the Williams TKO.
He goes to a country home, becomes a muslim, and then years later challenges Holyfield for the title. He goes through a super-training camp getting back into condition that's overseen by Larry Holmes and Kevin Rooney.
How many people would be picking Tyson?

Yeah, I guess if you point it that way, I can see how some would pick him.

I do remember Joe Jeanette also picked Jeffries. It was not just white people picking him to win.

But in hindsight (like a hundred years hindsight ) it was a total joke. Poor Jeffries should have stayed retired. History would have look back on him much better that way. He would looked at like Rocky Marciano gets looked at.

He would be given the benefit of the doubt when ever some one looks back at his career because he never lost.

He should have stayed retired, but what can you do?

zslayton wrote:

zslayton wrote:I think all of them with the exception of Dempsey would beat Jack Johnson. I think he would outbox Dempsey and knock him out.

The sport evolved. Johnson was ahead of his game and that is what made him great (IMO). He was doing things other guys of that era couldn't (or at least you didn't see very often). However, the other greats, IMO, would take him out.

I think most of the so called great white hopes johnson fought sucked! They were mostly oversized, slow footed, stamina lacking, one dimensional fighters. I think he is great, no doubt. He dominated during his time. I think Dempsey is great too, but I think they, much like Larry Holmes, ruled the division when it didn't have much to offer. I think if you match them up against the other greats, Dempsey gets outboxed by the boxers and outslugged by the bigger, stronger, harder hitting guys (Foreman, Louis, Tyson). I think Johnson fairs better than Dempsey against this group but don't think he beats many of them just because I see many of them as equal from a skill standpoint but bigger.

I don't see it that way at all...My philosophy is more towards 'the cream will always rise'...The biggest reason some of the earlier greats get short changed is because they fought so long ago, no living reference point...but you get bombarded with stuff about the more recent ones...if you switch around Ali and Jack Johnson (put Ali at the turn of the century and Johnson in the 1960's) you would surely think differently about both of them...Dempsey would have done well in any era...Louis would have ruled in any era...the sport hasn't changed as much as you indicate...there have been no new punches invented, or no new ways to avoid them invented in the last 100 years...the biggest differences/advances are in nutrition (did they even know what a carbohydrate was in 1900?), conditioning (which if you aren't dedicated-means nothing anyway), equipment, etc. Actually, the case could be easily made that the old guys were much tougher...

Bigger isn't better...skill will always be skill...Johnson had skill and speed...what heavyweight today is on a par with Jack Johnson? They all have the modern 'advantages', but none of them have the skill...

Jack Johnson is a true great of the sport but he does split fans of the sport.

If he were around today I'd imagine a Mayweather/Hopkins style of fighter (as he adpats to 12 rounds and new equipment).

I believe Johnson is one of the greatest of Heavies and had he fought Langford, Jeanette and McVey in his title years he'd have a shout at being the best ever.

Johnson beating Foreman!? Thats a stitch. In his style, Johnson would exit the ring from that fight a cripple.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Johnson beating Foreman!? Thats a stitch. In his style, Johnson would exit the ring from that fight a cripple.

...and yet still victorious

For once I have to agree with Irene. JJ could never beat Foreman. George may be old and out of shape, but he still has a big advantage over a guy that's been dead for over 60 years.

Ezzard wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Johnson beating Foreman!? Thats a stitch. In his style, Johnson would exit the ring from that fight a cripple.

...and yet still victorious

I wouldn't even pick him over the 90's Foreman. Not being facetious, he's just a horribly over-rated figure. The old Foreman's jab & pressing attack would reach Johnson at some point, but the young Foreman would put him in a wheelchair.

Ezzard wrote:Jack Johnson is a true great of the sport but he does split fans of the sport.

If he were around today I'd imagine a Mayweather/Hopkins style of fighter (as he adpats to 12 rounds and new equipment).

I believe Johnson is one of the greatest of Heavies and had he fought Langford, Jeanette and McVey in his title years he'd have a shout at being the best ever.

I like the Mayweather comparison. Both shamelessly & openly ducked their most pressing competition. The Hopkins one ain't bad, either --- each stood tall on a long reign over decidedly mediocre, often-outsized rivals.

The Great John L wrote:For once I have to agree with Irene. JJ could never beat Foreman. George may be old and out of shape, but he still has a big advantage over a guy that's been dead for over 60 years.

Okay, it evens it up a bit, I'll grant you, but not enough for anyone to be certain.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Johnson beating Foreman!? Thats a stitch. In his style, Johnson would exit the ring from that fight a cripple.

...and yet still victorious

I wouldn't even pick him over the 90's Foreman. Not being facetious, he's just a horribly over-rated figure. The old Foreman's jab & pressing attack would reach Johnson at some point, but the young Foreman would put him in a wheelchair.

Pure ignorance . . .an old Foreman wouldn't win a minute vs a peak Johnson.

What you call ignorance, I call imperviousness --- to the legend of the Golden Smile.

dempseyfire wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ezzard wrote: ...and yet still victorious

I wouldn't even pick him over the 90's Foreman. Not being facetious, he's just a horribly over-rated figure. The old Foreman's jab & pressing attack would reach Johnson at some point, but the young Foreman would put him in a wheelchair.

Pure ignorance . . .an old Foreman wouldn't win a minute vs a peak Johnson.

x2

Difficult question. If you send them all back in a time machine to Johnson's prime, then he has some huge advantages.

1. A lot of the other fighters never got to fight out doors on a sunny afternoon. Johnson would position fighters so that the son was in their eyes.
2. No neutral corner rule. So, if he got Larry Holmes down, Larry can't walk around the ring, shaking his head, while the ref counts to 8.
3. Referee standards were totally different, so Jack would be using the ref's blind side to his advantage.
4. Longer fights. How would Lennox Lewis or George Foreman have coped with a 45 round fight.

By knocking him out before round 45 is my guess.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:By knocking him out before round 45 is my guess.

Foreman is far too clumsy and wild with his punches to beat Johnson. George couldn't even beat an Ali that was years past his prime. What on earth makes you think he could beat the best defensive heavyweight fighter in history?

Foreman was limited in his first career and vunerable in his second. Johnson would eat him alive in the later rounds.

keithmoonhangover wrote:Difficult question. If you send them all back in a time machine to Johnson's prime, then he has some huge advantages.
4. Longer fights. How would Lennox Lewis or George Foreman have coped with a 45 round fight.

Johnson himself couldn't handle a 45 round fight. The longest fight he had was the Willard fight where he was exhausted and KOd after 26 rounds. Willard had trained and paced himself for the full distance. More modern fighters haven't had to train for that distance, so they don't, that doesn't mean they couldn't.

Brett Paul Dunbar wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Difficult question. If you send them all back in a time machine to Johnson's prime, then he has some huge advantages.
4. Longer fights. How would Lennox Lewis or George Foreman have coped with a 45 round fight.

Johnson himself couldn't handle a 45 round fight. The longest fight he had was the Willard fight where he was exhausted and KOd after 26 rounds. Willard had trained and paced himself for the full distance. More modern fighters haven't had to train for that distance, so they don't, that doesn't mean they couldn't.

We are talking about Johnson in his prime, not the old mman that fought Willard. Look at the photos of Jack at his beat, there isn't an ounce of fat on him.