Jeffries vs Johnson: Prime Against Prime

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 20 Nov 2007, 05:00

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Tyson better do it in 91 seconds, because if he doesn't & can't adequately hurt Jeffries, he's in deep & sure won't win a real fight with a man like that.

Jeffries would be too slow for Tyson...91 seconds or less

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 20 Nov 2007, 05:13

& what, Johnson is too fast for Tyson? Tyson's breath is enough to crack Johnson's shaky chin. Is Johnson going to physically tie Tyson up? Good luck. Is he going to out-manoeuvre him? No, Johnson was a flat-footed fighter. Gonna outslug him? I won't even answer.

Where is Johnson going to beat Tyson, in your view?

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 20 Nov 2007, 06:32

Goodnight, Irene wrote:& what, Johnson is too fast for Tyson? Tyson's breath is enough to crack Johnson's shaky chin. Is Johnson going to physically tie Tyson up? Good luck. Is he going to out-manoeuvre him? No, Johnson was a flat-footed fighter. Gonna outslug him? I won't even answer.

Where is Johnson going to beat Tyson, in your view?

By watching some of the great Jack Johnson's films, in my view, he looked like he was way ahead of his time. He could use his distance and timed his opponents very well. He was strong, even for today's heavyweight standards, he looked very big for his size and weight. I cannot picture Tyson penetrate his guard with someone as good as Jack. Tyson used to get frustrated in the clinches, an area where Johnson was very strong at. In my view, I think he could have licked Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis if he were in their times because his style was a good style for being heavyweight. Plus, Johnson was as fast as any heavyweight with fast hands.

Johnson vs Tyson? I pick Johnson by a comfortable decision win.

pound per pound · Post by **pound per pound** » 20 Nov 2007, 07:20

elmersalsa wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:& what, Johnson is too fast for Tyson? Tyson's breath is enough to crack Johnson's shaky chin. Is Johnson going to physically tie Tyson up? Good luck. Is he going to out-manoeuvre him? No, Johnson was a flat-footed fighter. Gonna outslug him? I won't even answer.

Where is Johnson going to beat Tyson, in your view?
By watching some of the great Jack Johnson's films, in my view, he looked like he was way ahead of his time. He could use his distance and timed his opponents very well. He was strong, even for today's heavyweight standards, he looked very big for his size and weight. I cannot picture Tyson penetrate his guard with someone as good as Jack. Tyson used to get frustrated in the clinches, an area where Johnson was very strong at. In my view, I think he could have licked Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis if he were in their times because his style was a good style for being heavyweight. Plus, Johnson was as fast as any heavyweight with fast hands.

Johnson vs Tyson? I pick Johnson by a comfortable decision win.

My opinion is different. When I watch Johnson on film, his guard is very low, he doesn't use a jab to keep the guy off of him, and his footwork is somewhat stationary. Sometimes Johnson stumbles a bit or even falls down. Johnson's defense is completely over rated unless he's bear hugging the other guy. Johnson's bear hug worked with 5'7" 168 pound Burns and 5'9" 160 pound Ketchel, but it would not work nearly as well vs a man Johnson's size or vs a strong bull like Tyson.

A skilled fighter would whack Johnson. In fact less than skilled fighters such as Ketchel and Willard did, and a joe average Frank Moran nearly earned a draw with Johnson. Other fighters such as a much smaller O'brien boxed Johnson to a draw, and Journeyman Jim battling Johnson also got the better of Jack Johnson in a smelly draw verdict that went Jack's way. Where is this great defense from Jack Johnson?

The Ketchel, Moran, and Willard fights can be purchased on film. IMO, Tyson skills, hand speed, and power wrecks Johnson.

If you want to see good defensive fighter on film in the late 1890's to early 1900's, men with fast feet, the ability to duck punches, and fighters who use their jabs reasonably well, watch some of Jim Corbett, Joe Gans, or Jack O’Brien. They will impress far more on defense than Johnson does.

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 20 Nov 2007, 07:33

i think if the right tyson showed up on the night he could suprise anyy all time great very quick very powerfull but i dont like camparing fighters from 100 hundred years ago to fighters of 10-20 years ago boxing styles and training has evolved so much

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 20 Nov 2007, 08:32

HomicideHenry wrote: Now to put it into a more modern perspective, as far as the young Sullivan, and guys like Cribb and Mace and Molineaux are concerned...I dont think none of those men would be boxers today, but rather in the MMA field of sports.

Sullivan fought most of his fights with gloves and the MoQ rules.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 20 Nov 2007, 10:47

pound per pound wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:& what, Johnson is too fast for Tyson? Tyson's breath is enough to crack Johnson's shaky chin. Is Johnson going to physically tie Tyson up? Good luck. Is he going to out-manoeuvre him? No, Johnson was a flat-footed fighter. Gonna outslug him? I won't even answer.

Where is Johnson going to beat Tyson, in your view?
By watching some of the great Jack Johnson's films, in my view, he looked like he was way ahead of his time. He could use his distance and timed his opponents very well. He was strong, even for today's heavyweight standards, he looked very big for his size and weight. I cannot picture Tyson penetrate his guard with someone as good as Jack. Tyson used to get frustrated in the clinches, an area where Johnson was very strong at. In my view, I think he could have licked Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis if he were in their times because his style was a good style for being heavyweight. Plus, Johnson was as fast as any heavyweight with fast hands.

Johnson vs Tyson? I pick Johnson by a comfortable decision win.
My opinion is different. When I watch Johnson on film, his guard is very low, he doesn't use a jab to keep the guy off of him, and his footwork is somewhat stationary. Sometimes Johnson stumbles a bit or even falls down. Johnson's defense is completely over rated unless he's bear hugging the other guy. Johnson's bear hug worked with 5'7" 168 pound Burns and 5'9" 160 pound Ketchel, but it would not work nearly as well vs a man Johnson's size or vs a strong bull like Tyson.

A skilled fighter would whack Johnson. In fact less than skilled fighters such as Ketchel and Willard did, and a joe average Frank Moran nearly earned a draw with Johnson. Other fighters such as a much smaller O'brien boxed Johnson to a draw, and Journeyman Jim battling Johnson also got the better of Jack Johnson in a smelly draw verdict that went Jack's way. Where is this great defense from Jack Johnson?

The Ketchel, Moran, and Willard fights can be purchased on film. IMO, Tyson skills, hand speed, and power wrecks Johnson.

If you want to see good defensive fighter on film in the late 1890's to early 1900's, men with fast feet, the ability to duck punches, and fighters who use their jabs reasonably well, watch some of Jim Corbett, Joe Gans, or Jack O’Brien. They will impress far more on defense than Johnson does.

Moran didn't nearly earn a draw . . newspaper writers had Johnson handidly winning a very boring fight.

Johnson did use the jab . .esp. vs Ketchel and Flynn. If you would watch the films slowed down and not filmed in a herky jerky style (which, again, anyone would look clumsy in), you'd see Johnson possessed an incredible defense. His center of gravity was always stable, he could side-step as quick as anyone, and his reflexes were Jones Jr. calibre. He was almost impossible to hit cleanly at his best (Ketchel did ONCE under dubious circumstances and it took Willard 20 rounds before he started landing on Johnson)

You say Gans and Corbett had great defense but not Johnson . . .yet everyone who SAW all 3 of them with their own eyes ranked Johnson's defense up with the very best (and beyond as these men went on to see the likes of Leonard, Robinson, Pep etc.). But apparently, your critique of a handful of Johnson fights (highlights of them at that) on hand-cranked cameras gives infinite wisdom beyond those who actually saw the man.

That makes sense! :P

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 20 Nov 2007, 12:47

I think Jeffries-Johnson when they both were close to their prime would have been a very good fight.
Johnson was very good defensively. He did often hold hands, but if you have the reflexes and know what you are doing you don't need to keep your hands up. (Ali,Holmes,Jones in their primes are examples of this.)

Johnson did have decent power, but Jeffries would probably be able to withstand it for amny rounds. After say 30 rounds, maybe he could wear down Jeffries.
On the other side of the coin, Jeffries might be able to wear Johnson and stop him in a late Ko.

One thing that sticks out is that Jeffries had so much trouble with Corbett in their first fight. Corbett was way ahead before Jeffries knocked him out in the 23rd round. It's true that Corbett moved on his feet a lot more than Johnson, but still you get the feeling that if a slightly past his best Corbett could be that successful, a prime Johnson would be able to beat Jeffires.
A 39 year old Fitzsimmons was also doing well before Jeffries knocked him out in the 8th round in the rematch.
Johnson's only loss in his absolute prime was a disputed decision to Marvin Hart.

If this fight was scheduled for 20 rounds or less, Johnson would probably win this. However, if it's for 45, Jeffries chances would improve. However, Johnson himself had pretty good stamina. He went 20 rounds in his career several times without a problem. He also last 26 rounds against Willard when he was 37. Perhaps he would be able to handle going 45.

If the fight is scheduled for 20 rounds or less, Johnson wins 9 out of 10 times but it wouldn't be easy. If it's scheduled for 45 (like their actual fight was) then Johnson would probably win 6 out of 10.

ebeneezer · Post by **ebeneezer** » 20 Nov 2007, 13:20

pound per pound wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:& what, Johnson is too fast for Tyson? Tyson's breath is enough to crack Johnson's shaky chin. Is Johnson going to physically tie Tyson up? Good luck. Is he going to out-manoeuvre him? No, Johnson was a flat-footed fighter. Gonna outslug him? I won't even answer.

Where is Johnson going to beat Tyson, in your view?
By watching some of the great Jack Johnson's films, in my view, he looked like he was way ahead of his time. He could use his distance and timed his opponents very well. He was strong, even for today's heavyweight standards, he looked very big for his size and weight. I cannot picture Tyson penetrate his guard with someone as good as Jack. Tyson used to get frustrated in the clinches, an area where Johnson was very strong at. In my view, I think he could have licked Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis if he were in their times because his style was a good style for being heavyweight. Plus, Johnson was as fast as any heavyweight with fast hands.

Johnson vs Tyson? I pick Johnson by a comfortable decision win.
My opinion is different. When I watch Johnson on film, his guard is very low, he doesn't use a jab to keep the guy off of him, and his footwork is somewhat stationary. Sometimes Johnson stumbles a bit or even falls down. Johnson's defense is completely over rated unless he's bear hugging the other guy. Johnson's bear hug worked with 5'7" 168 pound Burns and 5'9" 160 pound Ketchel, but it would not work nearly as well vs a man Johnson's size or vs a strong bull like Tyson.

A skilled fighter would whack Johnson. In fact less than skilled fighters such as Ketchel and Willard did, and a joe average Frank Moran nearly earned a draw with Johnson. Other fighters such as a much smaller O'brien boxed Johnson to a draw, and Journeyman Jim battling Johnson also got the better of Jack Johnson in a smelly draw verdict that went Jack's way. Where is this great defense from Jack Johnson?

The Ketchel, Moran, and Willard fights can be purchased on film. IMO, Tyson skills, hand speed, and power wrecks Johnson.

If you want to see good defensive fighter on film in the late 1890's to early 1900's, men with fast feet, the ability to duck punches, and fighters who use their jabs reasonably well, watch some of Jim Corbett, Joe Gans, or Jack O’Brien. They will impress far more on defense than Johnson does.

Well said.

Johnson was also caught and KOed by journeyman Joe Chonski.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 20 Nov 2007, 13:27

ebeneezer wrote:Johnson was also caught and KOed by journeyman Joe Chonski.

Journeyman Joe Choynski?? We’re all entitled to our opinions, but that statement kind of makes it hard to take your posts in this forum very seriously.

pound per pound · Post by **pound per pound** » 20 Nov 2007, 14:13

Pound Per Pound

My opinion is different. When I watch Johnson on film, his guard is very low, he doesn't use a jab to keep the guy off of him, and his footwork is somewhat stationary. Sometimes Johnson stumbles a bit or even falls down. Johnson's defense is completely over rated unless he's bear hugging the other guy. Johnson's bear hug worked with 5'7" 168 pound Burns and 5'9" 160 pound Ketchel, but it would not work nearly as well vs a man Johnson's size or vs a strong bull like Tyson.

A skilled fighter would whack Johnson. In fact less than skilled fighters such as Ketchel and Willard did, and a joe average Frank Moran nearly earned a draw with Johnson. Other fighters such as a much smaller O'brien boxed Johnson to a draw, and Journeyman Jim battling Johnson also got the better of Jack Johnson in a smelly draw verdict that went Jack's way. Where is this great defense from Jack Johnson?

The Ketchel, Moran, and Willard fights can be purchased on film. IMO, Tyson skills, hand speed, and power wrecks Johnson.

If you want to see good defensive fighter on film in the late 1890's to early 1900's, men with fast feet, the ability to duck punches, and fighters who use their jabs reasonably well, watch some of Jim Corbett, Joe Gans, or Jack O’Brien. They will impress far more on defense than Johnson does.

Demspeyfire:

Moran didn't nearly earn a draw . . newspaper writers had Johnson handidly winning a very boring fight.

p4p This is BS. I own 90% of the 20 rounds, and let me tell you something its very close. Even a very pro Johnson paper will tell you Moran won at least 6 of 20 rounds with many rounds being even.

Demspeyfire : Johnson did use the jab . .esp. vs Ketchel and Flynn. If you would watch the films slowed down and not filmed in a herky jerky style (which, again, anyone would look clumsy in), you'd see Johnson possessed an incredible defense. His center of gravity was always stable, he could side-step as quick as anyone, and his reflexes were Jones Jr. calibre. He was almost impossible to hit cleanly at his best (Ketchel did ONCE under dubious circumstances and it took Willard 20 rounds before he started landing on Johnson)

p4p: Again, Own these films. Johnson was not a jabber at all. He's lucky to throw 10 jabs a round regardless of how herky jerky the camera film was. This is fact, so spare us lecture that you can judge Johnson on old film. Bah. I can count the punches thrown by Johsnon and they are very few. He woudl not be an effective jabber by modern boxing standards, and he clinched enough to get docked points or DQ'd in just about any era. Johnson lost his balance and fell over vs Ketchel, and while Flynn was badly fouling him, Johnson was also using illegla tactics.

If you care to respond to the amount of jabs throw by Johnson per round, I am here for the reply. If not, I'll assume my point has been made.

Dempsey fire says: You say Gans and Corbett had great defense but not Johnson . . .yet everyone who SAW all 3 of them with their own eyes ranked Johnson's defense up with the very best (and beyond as these men went on to see the likes of Leonard, Robinson, Pep etc.). But apparently, your critique of a handful of Johnson fights (highlights of them at that) on hand-cranked cameras gives infinite wisdom beyond those who actually saw the man.

That makes sense! :P

p4p : Watch the films. You'll see Corbett, Gans, and Obrien have quicker feet, better head movement, and a higher guard for the most part. Each man throws way more punches too. There is no debate here.

Can you show me one film of Johnson where he shows good defense when he isn't clinching? And on the films you might point out, Let's keep in mind these were not the best fighters of the time he was facing. If Ketchel, Moran, Willard, O'brien and Jim Johnson could win many rounds vs Johnson, the better fighters he did not give title shots to in Langford, Jeanette, McVey, or Gunboat Smith can do more without a doubt, and a top modern heavyweight might have a field day.

I have a hunch you did not read the news papers that I have and are feeling heavily on the words of one or two historians, and the passed on " internet " version of Johnson.

I got an email from a friend of mine who is a boxing print and film historian that quantifies and qualifies what I am talking about. Read these news reports and show me where Johnson had good defense. If nothing else, you and the board will have a chance to learn a thing or two.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 20 Nov 2007, 16:45

Ok, some reports are more positive towards Johnson than others. You can say that for almost anyone.

Anyway, I wanted to address some points made on this thread:

The comment about Joe Choynski being a journeyman. The Great John L responded to this, but I felt like I had to as well. That is absolutely ludicrous. Choynski was one of the top contenders for several years. Don't just look at his won/lost record. Look at who he was fighting. He was no journeyman. In fact, he is in the Hall of Fame.

The comment about Johnson having a shaky chin. - No way. He was not knocked out between the ages of 22 and 37. In fact, he only lost two fights during this time-A disputed decsion and a disqualification.

Johnson was great because he had no major weakness and did a lot of little things well. As dago mentioned, he was good at parrying his punches (something you seldom see these days.) He could fight at long range as well as inside. He was fast, strong,and smart.

As for the comment about not ranking Jeffries high because he didn't have a lot fights- You have to look at who he was fighting. He was fighting top contenders very early on in his career. He only had a few "gimmies". Fighters shouldn't be judged by the number of wins. Nowadays most top fighters start their careers something like 20-0 with 15 knockouts against stiffs. Jeffries could have done that as well. that wouldn't have mean that he was any better.

He had two fights with Fitzsimmons,Corbett,Sharkey and Ruhlin. One with Choynski and Goddard. He had a couple of draws and the rest were wins except for the comeback fight with Johnson. Only a about a dozen or so heavyweights in history have a record that is superior to this. That he didn't fight enough tomato cans shouldn't be held against him.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 20 Nov 2007, 17:01

Alp,

I'll get into a little more to-&-fro when I have more time, but for now...

In a fourteen-year career in which he cleaned out much of the division, became linear champion twice (only the 5th man in history to do so) & when he dominated, not just beat, many of the best Heavyweights around, Lennox Lewis was dropped on only two occasions.

Would you say there is, "no way" Lewis had a shaky chin?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 20 Nov 2007, 17:06

pound per pound wrote:
Pound Per Pound

My opinion is different. When I watch Johnson on film, his guard is very low, he doesn't use a jab to keep the guy off of him, and his footwork is somewhat stationary. Sometimes Johnson stumbles a bit or even falls down. Johnson's defense is completely over rated unless he's bear hugging the other guy. Johnson's bear hug worked with 5'7" 168 pound Burns and 5'9" 160 pound Ketchel, but it would not work nearly as well vs a man Johnson's size or vs a strong bull like Tyson.

A skilled fighter would whack Johnson. In fact less than skilled fighters such as Ketchel and Willard did, and a joe average Frank Moran nearly earned a draw with Johnson. Other fighters such as a much smaller O'brien boxed Johnson to a draw, and Journeyman Jim battling Johnson also got the better of Jack Johnson in a smelly draw verdict that went Jack's way. Where is this great defense from Jack Johnson?

The Ketchel, Moran, and Willard fights can be purchased on film. IMO, Tyson skills, hand speed, and power wrecks Johnson.

If you want to see good defensive fighter on film in the late 1890's to early 1900's, men with fast feet, the ability to duck punches, and fighters who use their jabs reasonably well, watch some of Jim Corbett, Joe Gans, or Jack O’Brien. They will impress far more on defense than Johnson does.

Demspeyfire:

Moran didn't nearly earn a draw . . newspaper writers had Johnson handidly winning a very boring fight.

p4p This is BS. I own 90% of the 20 rounds, and let me tell you something its very close. Even a very pro Johnson paper will tell you Moran won at least 6 of 20 rounds with many rounds being even.

Demspeyfire : Johnson did use the jab . .esp. vs Ketchel and Flynn. If you would watch the films slowed down and not filmed in a herky jerky style (which, again, anyone would look clumsy in), you'd see Johnson possessed an incredible defense. His center of gravity was always stable, he could side-step as quick as anyone, and his reflexes were Jones Jr. calibre. He was almost impossible to hit cleanly at his best (Ketchel did ONCE under dubious circumstances and it took Willard 20 rounds before he started landing on Johnson)

p4p: Again, Own these films. Johnson was not a jabber at all. He's lucky to throw 10 jabs a round regardless of how herky jerky the camera film was. This is fact, so spare us lecture that you can judge Johnson on old film. Bah. I can count the punches thrown by Johsnon and they are very few. He woudl not be an effective jabber by modern boxing standards, and he clinched enough to get docked points or DQ'd in just about any era. Johnson lost his balance and fell over vs Ketchel, and while Flynn was badly fouling him, Johnson was also using illegla tactics.

If you care to respond to the amount of jabs throw by Johnson per round, I am here for the reply. If not, I'll assume my point has been made.

Dempsey fire says: You say Gans and Corbett had great defense but not Johnson . . .yet everyone who SAW all 3 of them with their own eyes ranked Johnson's defense up with the very best (and beyond as these men went on to see the likes of Leonard, Robinson, Pep etc.). But apparently, your critique of a handful of Johnson fights (highlights of them at that) on hand-cranked cameras gives infinite wisdom beyond those who actually saw the man.

That makes sense! :P

p4p : Watch the films. You'll see Corbett, Gans, and Obrien have quicker feet, better head movement, and a higher guard for the most part. Each man throws way more punches too. There is no debate here.

Can you show me one film of Johnson where he shows good defense when he isn't clinching? And on the films you might point out, Let's keep in mind these were not the best fighters of the time he was facing. If Ketchel, Moran, Willard, O'brien and Jim Johnson could win many rounds vs Johnson, the better fighters he did not give title shots to in Langford, Jeanette, McVey, or Gunboat Smith can do more without a doubt, and a top modern heavyweight might have a field day.

I have a hunch you did not read the news papers that I have and are feeling heavily on the words of one or two historians, and the passed on " internet " version of Johnson.

I got an email from a friend of mine who is a boxing print and film historian that quantifies and qualifies what I am talking about. Read these news reports and show me where Johnson had good defense. If nothing else, you and the board will have a chance to learn a thing or two.

Jack Johnson vs Jack O'Brien

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...639C946897D6CF

Jack Johnson vs Battling Jim Johnson

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...CF&oref=slogin

Johnson offered fights with Langford, Jeanette, and McVey

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...CF&oref=slogin

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...679C946296D6CF

Jack Johnson vs Gunboat Smith --Sparring session

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...669D946897D6CF

Jack Johnson vs Stanley Ketchel

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...669D946897D6CF

Corbett's article on greatest fighters

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...629C946196D6CF

Corbett vs Jeffries 1

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...639C946197D6CF

As for Johnson having equal reflexes of Roy Jones, not a chance.

Wow, all of that proves how crappy Johnson was. Do you want me to get all of the negative fight reports written about Ali? (and there were MANY) . . I guess he was crap too!

pound per pound · Post by **pound per pound** » 20 Nov 2007, 17:26

Dempsey fire:

Wow, all of that proves how crappy Johnson was. Do you want me to get all of the negative fight reports written about Ali? (and there were MANY) . . I guess he was crap too!

The reports are solid, and tell it like it was. They are neither pro nor con. The existing filmed fights of Johnson have a strong correlation with the news reads.

If you have any Jack Johnson news reports on the same fights, I invite you to post them here. We shall quickly see if you have the enough material to judge whether the reporting was fair or not.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 20 Nov 2007, 17:53

pound per pound wrote:
Dempsey fire:

Wow, all of that proves how crappy Johnson was. Do you want me to get all of the negative fight reports written about Ali? (and there were MANY) . . I guess he was crap too!
The reports are solid, and tell it like it was. They are neither pro nor con. The existing filmed fights of Johnson have a strong correlation with the news reads.

If you have any Jack Johnson news reports on the same fights, I invite you to post them here. We shall quickly see if you have the enough material to judge whether the reporting was fair or not.

I'm not contesting Johnson-Johnson or O'Brian-Johnson were crappy fights . . .everyone knows they were. Ali-Wepner and Ali-Mathis were crappy fights. Louis-Pastor I was a crappy fight. Jones Jr-Del Valle and Roy-Gonzales were crappy fights. Great fighters are in bad fights where the fighters have an off night/don't put forth much of an effort/came in with an injury etc. It happens all the time. This shouldn't be some sort of news-flash. You are taking forth a few fight reports and then jumping 500 yards west and saying it proves Johnson wasn't good.

Practically every boxing scribe of the time thought Johnson an amazing fighter, albeit one who during his title reign was not always "up" for putting forth his best effort. If you are trying to say that the boxing public of the time didn't think Johnson an excellent Heavyweight, that's a losing argument. Even the rampant racists (and many sportswriters were esp. negative towards Johnson b/c of race, just like many were once Ali joined the Nation of Islam) had to admit his greatness as a boxer.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 20 Nov 2007, 17:58

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Alp,

I'll get into a little more to-&-fro when I have more time, but for now...

In a fourteen-year career in which he cleaned out much of the division, became linear champion twice (only the 5th man in history to do so) & when he dominated, not just beat, many of the best Heavyweights around, Lennox Lewis was dropped on only two occasions.

Would you say there is, "no way" Lewis had a shaky chin?

First of all, I will say that (and I have said this before) that Lennox Lewis had a good chin. The punch that landed on him would have knocked out almost any other heavyweight champion. He did get up against McCall and I think may have survived the round if the referee had let him continue.
He fought many other good punchers (I'm sure you know who) and wasn't knocked down by anyone else.
So no, I don't think Lewis had a "shaky" chin. He didn't have a great chin, but he had a good chin. If he had a "shaky" chin, he would have been hurt,knocked down, and knocked out much more often.
I am no big proponent of Lennox Lewis. I don't think he deserved the decision against Mercer or in the Holyfield rematch, and I think his jab is way overrated. However, I have never understood the criticism of his chin.

Johnson, on the other hand, was never knocked out during a 14 year period. That is even more impressive than what what Lewis did. Where is the evidence that Johnson had a "shaky" chin? The only times that he was knocked out were early in his career and when he was over the hill.
In fact during those 14 years, he was seldom hurt or even knocked down.
If he had a shaky chin he would have been knocked out during his prime. He never was.

pound per pound · Post by **pound per pound** » 20 Nov 2007, 18:16

p4p

The reports are solid, and tell it like it was. They are neither pro nor con. The existing filmed fights of Johnson have a strong correlation with the news reads.

If you have any Jack Johnson news reports on the same fights, I invite you to post them here. We shall quickly see if you have the enough material to judge whether the reporting was fair or not.

Dempseyfire : I'm not contesting Johnson-Johnson or O'Brian-Johnson were crappy fights . . .everyone knows they were. Ali-Wepner and Ali-Mathis were crappy fights. Louis-Pastor I was a crappy fight. Jones Jr-Del Valle and Roy-Gonzales were crappy fights. Great fighters are in bad fights where the fighters have an off night/don't put forth much of an effort/came in with an injury etc. It happens all the time. This shouldn't be some sort of news-flash. You are taking forth a few fight reports and then jumping 500 yards west and saying it proves Johnson wasn't good.

Practically every boxing scribe of the time thought Johnson an amazing fighter, albeit one who during his title reign was not always "up" for putting forth his best effort. If you are trying to say that the boxing public of the time didn't think Johnson an excellent Heavyweight, that's a losing argument. Even the rampant racists (and many sportswriters were esp. negative towards Johnson b/c of race, just like many were once Ali joined the Nation of Islam) had to admit his greatness as a boxer.

Comparing Ali’s championship tenure to Johnson's is silly. Ali defeated Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Lyle, Quarry, and Patterson in title fights, which trump any of Johnson's title fight opponents by a mile.

Ali was never TKO'd by smaller light heavies / a cruiser, never knocked down by a middle weight, never drew with journeyman, or was put down for the count. If any heavyweight champion today was knocked down by a middle weight the internet chin police would be out in full force.

I just find it convenient that popular old time champion seem to get a pass for having a suspect chin and excessive clinching your opinion, while a modern champion like Wlad does not. This is not fair.

A champion is best defined by who he fights as champion. Johnson having dubious outings vs lesser fighters do not bode well for him.

I really can't speak for old time historians being super high on Johnson. I wonder how many of them besides Fleisher saw Jack on film, went to his fights, or had access to the news paper reviews like I do. I do believe Johnson was among the best fighters in his era. I also believe much of his reputation comes form being top black fighters when they were very green or in-experienced as heavies, and beating an old washed up X champion returning to the ring after a long layoff. The more one studies the dates, ages and experience levels, the less impressive Johnson wins on paper become. And that is the truth.

Where I might differ with historians is I don’t think Johnson would be nearly as good in the modern era. In fact if Johnson fought the best competition in his era as champion like Ali did, I think his historical standing would take a tumble since he often struggled vs 2nd rate contenders. If Johnson can't lick O'Brien, Jim Johnson, barely beats Moran, gets TKO'd by Smith in a sparring session, dropped by a middle weight in Ketchel, and so on.......would he be able to defeat prime versions of better fighters like Langford, Jeanette, McVey, Wills, G. Smith, and Dillion?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 20 Nov 2007, 18:41

pound per pound wrote:
p4p

The reports are solid, and tell it like it was. They are neither pro nor con. The existing filmed fights of Johnson have a strong correlation with the news reads.

If you have any Jack Johnson news reports on the same fights, I invite you to post them here. We shall quickly see if you have the enough material to judge whether the reporting was fair or not.

Dempseyfire : I'm not contesting Johnson-Johnson or O'Brian-Johnson were crappy fights . . .everyone knows they were. Ali-Wepner and Ali-Mathis were crappy fights. Louis-Pastor I was a crappy fight. Jones Jr-Del Valle and Roy-Gonzales were crappy fights. Great fighters are in bad fights where the fighters have an off night/don't put forth much of an effort/came in with an injury etc. It happens all the time. This shouldn't be some sort of news-flash. You are taking forth a few fight reports and then jumping 500 yards west and saying it proves Johnson wasn't good.

Practically every boxing scribe of the time thought Johnson an amazing fighter, albeit one who during his title reign was not always "up" for putting forth his best effort. If you are trying to say that the boxing public of the time didn't think Johnson an excellent Heavyweight, that's a losing argument. Even the rampant racists (and many sportswriters were esp. negative towards Johnson b/c of race, just like many were once Ali joined the Nation of Islam) had to admit his greatness as a boxer.

Comparing Ali’s championship tenure to Johnson's is silly. Ali defeated Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Lyle, Quarry, and Patterson in title fights, which trump any of Johnson's title fight opponents by a mile.

Ali was never TKO'd by smaller light heavies / a cruiser, never knocked down by a middle weight, never drew with journeyman, or was put down for the count. If any heavyweight champion today was knocked down by a middle weight the internet chin police would be out in full force.

I just find it convenient that popular old time champion seem to get a pass for having a suspect chin and excessive clinching your opinion, while a modern champion like Wlad does not. This is not fair.

A champion is best defined by who he fights as champion. Johnson having dubious outings vs lesser fighters do not bode well for him.

I really can't speak for old time historians being super high on Johnson. I wonder how many of them besides Fleisher saw Jack on film, went to his fights, or had access to the news paper reviews like I do. I do believe Johnson was among the best fighters in his era. I also believe much of his reputation comes form being top black fighters when they were very green or in-experienced as heavies, and beating an old washed up X champion returning to the ring after a long layoff. The more one studies the dates, ages and experience levels, the less impressive Johnson wins on paper become. And that is the truth.

Where I might differ with historians is I don’t think Johnson would be nearly as good in the modern era. In fact if Johnson fought the best competition in his era as champion like Ali did, I think his historical standing would take a tumble since he often struggled vs 2nd rate contenders. If Johnson can't lick O'Brien, Jim Johnson, barely beats Moran, gets TKO'd by Smith in a sparring session, dropped by a middle weight in Ketchel, and so on.......would he be able to defeat prime versions of better fighters like Langford, Jeanette, McVey, Wills, G. Smith, and Dillion?

That fact you are raising sparring sessions shows the lack of backup. Lewis was knocked out by Brewster in sparring . . .so who wins in that real matchup?? And I have no doubts Smith was a helluva lot better than Brewster.

Johnson didn't really try vs O'Brian and Johnson . . those "fights" were little more than glorified sparring sessions. THe proof is that none of the press were suddenly proclaiming Jim Johnson or O'Brian "robbed" or the "true champion" . . .they basically couldn't do anything with Jack . . it's just that Jack did little to them b/c clearly to everyone around he just didn't give a F.

Again, he clearly beat Moran. The KD from Ketchel was b/c Stanley double-crossed Jack (the films clearly show Johnson was not going all out as he was holding Ketchel to keep him from going down). These scribes didn't see Johnson?? The guy was the champion of the world in the biggest sport in the United States . . .he was seen by hundreds of thousands of people!

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 20 Nov 2007, 22:00

"First of all, I will say that (and I have said this before) that Lennox Lewis had a good chin. The punch that landed on him would have knocked out almost any other heavyweight champion. He did get up against McCall and I think may have survived the round if the referee had let him continue.
He fought many other good punchers (I'm sure you know who) and wasn't knocked down by anyone else.
So no, I don't think Lewis had a "shaky" chin. He didn't have a great chin, but he had a good chin. If he had a "shaky" chin, he would have been hurt,knocked down, and knocked out much more often.
I am no big proponent of Lennox Lewis. I don't think he deserved the decision against Mercer or in the Holyfield rematch, and I think his jab is way overrated. However, I have never understood the criticism of his chin.

Johnson, on the other hand, was never knocked out during a 14 year period. That is even more impressive than what what Lewis did. Where is the evidence that Johnson had a "shaky" chin? The only times that he was knocked out were early in his career and when he was over the hill.
In fact during those 14 years, he was seldom hurt or even knocked down.
If he had a shaky chin he would have been knocked out during his prime. He never was." - Alp

Well, I have to admit I wasn't expecting that. McCall & Rahman were good punchers, but in no way could either be reasonably interpreted as one-punch KO artists. I suppose in the case of the first McCall fight the stoppage was subjective, but I can't see how the referee could be criticised for calling it. I won't say Lewis couldn't have survived --- but look at his eyes, not just as he goes down, but while he does his little involuntary dance, gloves over drooping jaw. The eyes tell the story. Lewis was clear enough to protest, but that was all. He was sick.

Rahman put out how many fighters (first-class or even second) with one shot for the count? He couldn't even beat (much less KO) a Holyfield older than the Sphinx itself. Big punchers Mercer & Tyson rarely if ever landed cleanly on the jaw (I must be the only guy who saw Lewis-Mercer as competitive but no more than that, Lewis won).

My point is, it is just too facile to say Johnson was rarely KO'd & therefore must've had a great chin. Chins improve as a fighter matures, but rarely do they dramatically change. Johnson wasn't getting hit in his prime, & wasn't getting KO'd as a result. As a young man approaching his peak, he made mistakes, & he was hung out for it on at least two occasions. He began his pro career in 1894. Between 1899 & 1901, he was twice beaten inside the distance. After five & seven years respectively as a pro, it is unfair to call Johnson green & therefore blameless in defeat. Those were relatively early-round losses that came on fairly quick, rightly indicating Johnson wasn't as tough as some may believe. Joe Choynski was an exceptional fighter sure, but if you're a big Heavyweight (by those times) you do not get floored for the count by a 168lber. Period. No excuses. Name me a 175-180lber in history who would KO George Foreman, or, let's say, Joe Frazier (who was smaller than Johnson).

People wish to throw out the Ketchel knockdown & that is just reaching, IMO. I accept that a deal was made, & Ketchel took advantage, so I don't at all blame Johnson for getting caught. However, look at the film. Ketchel, a Middleweight, floored & visibly hurt Johnson (Johnson recovers quickly, but plainly is shaken as he gets to all fours). Someone said if a great Heavyweight were dropped by a Middle, the Internet chin police (there's a new one :P) would be out to get him, & it's true. Johnson's chin gets a free pass, & it's wrong. He just wasn't getting hit throughout much of his prime, certainly not in succession for repeated rounds. Johnson gets the credit for being too classy (although he did his own ducking as a champion, it must be concluded), but the truth is he was too good to suffer the blows of many opponents, at least not in sustained assault.

Again let me make this point --- if a Sonny Liston, a George Foreman or an Evander Holyfield had suffered such knockdowns or knockouts against opponents who ranged in weight from Middle to Super-Middle, we would never, ever hear the end of it. Not that it is related to his chin, but I give Johnson a free pass for Moran because he was plainly old at that time. But to say the fight isn't close (I know that wasn't a point you made) is strange to me. Johnson-Moran was quite close indeed.

Interesting situation in this thread, I may note. We have four members arguing, two on one side, two on the other, but as yet we have not exchanged dance partners, DempseyFire & I haven't argued & either have Alp & PPP. I hope the rest of us are enjoying this as am I.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 21 Nov 2007, 02:57

I am watching all that I have on Jefferies and I really am struggling to find what you see.

Just because A fight was scheduled for 45 rounds, and it goes for less than half that does not mean that James J is the king of 45 rounders.

I think this is a thread like many here, and many more to come that is a case of...lets all agree to dis-agree. And ultimately its waht makes boxing so fun. Arguing over who is better...and who isn't :)

Kym

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 21 Nov 2007, 04:56

Both are greats from their era. Both could have competed in any era and still been great but Johnson has so much more to his game. Johnson is top 3 on my list.

pound per pound · Post by **pound per pound** » 21 Nov 2007, 08:19

p4p:

Comparing Ali’s championship tenure to Johnson's is silly. Ali defeated Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Lyle, Quarry, and Patterson in title fights, which trump any of Johnson's title fight opponents by a mile.

Ali was never TKO'd by smaller light heavies / a cruiser, never knocked down by a middle weight, never drew with journeyman, or was put down for the count. If any heavyweight champion today was knocked down by a middle weight the internet chin police would be out in full force.

I just find it convenient that popular old time champion seem to get a pass for having a suspect chin and excessive clinching your opinion, while a modern champion like Wlad does not. This is not fair.

A champion is best defined by who he fights as champion. Johnson having dubious outings vs lesser fighters do not bode well for him.

I really can't speak for old time historians being super high on Johnson. I wonder how many of them besides Fleisher saw Jack on film, went to his fights, or had access to the news paper reviews like I do. I do believe Johnson was among the best fighters in his era. I also believe much of his reputation comes form being top black fighters when they were very green or in-experienced as heavies, and beating an old washed up X champion returning to the ring after a long layoff. The more one studies the dates, ages and experience levels, the less impressive Johnson wins on paper become. And that is the truth.

Where I might differ with historians is I don’t think Johnson would be nearly as good in the modern era. In fact if Johnson fought the best competition in his era as champion like Ali did, I think his historical standing would take a tumble since he often struggled vs 2nd rate contenders. If Johnson can't lick O'Brien, Jim Johnson, barely beats Moran, gets TKO'd by Smith in a sparring session, dropped by a middle weight in Ketchel, and so on.......would he be able to defeat prime versions of better fighters like Langford, Jeanette, McVey, Wills, G. Smith, and Dillion?]

Demspey fire: That fact you are raising sparring sessions shows the lack of backup. Lewis was knocked out by Brewster in sparring . . .so who wins in that real matchup?? And I have no doubts Smith was a helluva lot better than Brewster.

There is nothing wrong with posting reports. If you try it sometime, you will broaden your opninion. Johnson should have fought Smith for real, as he defeated both Willard and Moran. Smith was the best of the white hopes. It is obvious that Gunboat Smith could have beaten Johnson, and he gave him some chin music when he knocked him out in the sparring session.

Johnson didn't really try vs O'Brien and Johnson . . those "fights" were little more than glorified sparring sessions. THe proof is that none of the press were suddenly proclaiming Jim Johnson or O'Brian "robbed" or the "true champion" . . .they basically couldn't do anything with Jack . . it's just that Jack did little to them b/c clearly to everyone around he just didn't give a F.

P4p: It seems like Johnson like to ham it up when he was in control, but when he had his hands full, he has excuses. If any modern champ had outings like this, the press would pan him. Stop being a selective crotch jockey here and just admit the truth. O'Brien skills had little trouble landing on Johnson's vastly over rated defense, and because O'brien had quick feet, Jack could not clinch. As for the match with journeyman Jim Johnson, it was a robbery.Jim should have won not jack. Did you read the report?

Again, he clearly beat Moran. The KD from Ketchel was b/c Stanley double-crossed Jack (the films clearly show Johnson was not going all out as he was holding Ketchel to keep him from going down). These scribes didn't see Johnson?? The guy was the champion of the world in the biggest sport in the United States . . .he was seen by hundreds of thousands of people!

p4p: Take my word. Johnson vs Moran is a very close fight. Johnson did not clearly beat Moran. Johnson might have played a bit with Ketchel, but Ketchel was over matched and lacked skills. However, he nearly pulled off the upset. If a 5'9" 160 pound middle weight can knock down the heavyweight champion of the world, the heavyweight champion's chin should be questioned.

I can provide you news reads, or talk film on Johnson. Its clear he lost too much and did not impress in his title fights. If the call was correct with O'brien or journeyman Jim " battling " Johnson winning their title match fights with Jack Johnson, Jack Johnson's reputation would take a tumble.

Just because some historians thinks Johnson was great doesn't make it so. Obtain the information. Watch the films, read the fight reports, and study the vitality of the opponents he fought. Then make your own conclusion. Do not rely solely on historians unless information on the boxer is very limited.

Years ago, the best minds felt the sun revolved around the earth, and the earth was flat, and it was impossible to fly, ect.... If you had information to the contrary, you you blindly believe them or tell it like it is?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 21 Nov 2007, 08:23

In the latest Johnson bio O'Brien's reputation is brought into question. Doesn't mean the fight wasn't legit...

Being champion back then didn't mean the same thing. It was recognition from the fans and a meal ticket the champion.

I agree that Johnson's best is probably pre-championship.

pound per pound · Post by **pound per pound** » 21 Nov 2007, 08:31

Robinson wrote:I am watching all that I have on Jefferies and I really am struggling to find what you see.

Just because A fight was scheduled for 45 rounds, and it goes for less than half that does not mean that James J is the king of 45 rounders.

I think this is a thread like many here, and many more to come that is a case of...lets all agree to dis-agree. And ultimately its waht makes boxing so fun. Arguing over who is better...and who isn't :)

Kym

Kym,

There is film on Jeffries working out ./ sparring for the 1901 Ruhlin fight. It is the lone film that is clear and up close to judge Jeffries. Part of the work out with weights, jumping rope, and medicine ball are axed out, but what remains is good enough.

Judge for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CauVMvNspIY

Jeffries vs Johnson: Prime Against Prime

Johnson over Tyson? No way.

Re: Johnson over Tyson? No way.

Re: Johnson over Tyson? No way.

Re: Johnson over Tyson? No way.

Re: Johnson over Tyson? No way.

Re: Johnson over Tyson? No way.

Re: Johnson over Tyson? No way.

Re: Johnson over Tyson? No way.

Re: Johnson over Tyson? No way.

Re: Johnson over Tyson? No way.

Re: Johnson over Tyson? No way.

film