BoxRec

HomicideHenry wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Johnson specialized in catching punches and is the best defensive heavyweight champion ever. Foreman hit hard, but he was predictable. Get Foreman in the midday sun over 20 or 45 rounds and see what happens. Johnson is all wrong for Foreman and stops him anytime he wants after 10 rounds.

I disagree with this. I feel that Ali and Corbett and Tunney and Charles and Walcott were better defensive heavyweights who became champions than Jack Johnson. Compare the films. Johnson also fought in an era where the opposition was quite weak in comparison to others in later eras (at least when he was champion anyways). If the object of mind is to not get hit, and be able to get your own punches off, then I don't think Johnson is "the best defensive ever".... it also doesn't help his case when the best wins of his career were over men far smaller than he was, older than he was, etc.

I mean, you can't help the era you're apart of, and his dominance is without question.... but for the life of me, I wonder (alot) how long would he have been champion had he fought Langford again, or given the other black heavyweights a chance. I wonder (alot) how he would have faired to someone like Luther McCarty who was not only bigger than him, but was quite the mover. I'm not a big fan of Johnson, but I'll also say I am not a fan of Harry Wills.... but for my money... Harry Wills, was a better fighter than Jack Johnson was. Why? He fought and defeated Sam Langford 18 times. He fought and defeated Joe Jeanette twice. He fought and defeated Sam McVey five times. He fought and defeated Battling Jim Johnson four times. He also, defeated the likes of Fred Fulton and Gunboat Smith. The shame of it all was, he (unlike Johnson) never got a shot at the title and when he was in talks to have one, he was already well passed his best years.

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Foreman's best wins were against smaller boxers also.

HomicideHenry wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Foreman's best wins were against smaller boxers also.

There's quite a contrast in size differentials between Johnson's era and Foreman's era.... while Foreman was 215 pounds in his prime, the "smaller" men he won against were only five, ten or fifteen pounds lighter... you go back into Johnson's time, he was winning decisions or knocking out men who were 160, 170 pounds and here he was 200-210 pounds.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Foreman's best wins were against smaller boxers also.

There's quite a contrast in size differentials between Johnson's era and Foreman's era.... while Foreman was 215 pounds in his prime, the "smaller" men he won against were only five, ten or fifteen pounds lighter... you go back into Johnson's time, he was winning decisions or knocking out men who were 160, 170 pounds and here he was 200-210 pounds.

I agree with that mate. I think it depends on era as well. In Johnson's day, there were a lot of small factors that affected fights and then there is the amount of rounds. Johnson wins in his era IMO.

15 rounds in Foreman's era could be a different story.

HomicideHenry wrote:I always used to say, that if all the rules were the same (25 rounds, 3ox gloves, outdoor arenas, etc) that Jim Jefferies could beat anybody. Why? Even someone as skilled as Ali eventually would get so damn tired fighting essentially a larger version of Marciano, that by the 20th round came along he would crumble under Jefferies pressure. Then again.... it reminds me, also, of something Randall Tex Cobb said following his loss to Larry Holmes "If the fight went another fifteen rounds, Larry would fall over dead from exhaustion."

keithmoonhangover wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:I always used to say, that if all the rules were the same (25 rounds, 3ox gloves, outdoor arenas, etc) that Jim Jefferies could beat anybody. Why? Even someone as skilled as Ali eventually would get so damn tired fighting essentially a larger version of Marciano, that by the 20th round came along he would crumble under Jefferies pressure. Then again.... it reminds me, also, of something Randall Tex Cobb said following his loss to Larry Holmes "If the fight went another fifteen rounds, Larry would fall over dead from exhaustion."

It's just so difficult to compare guys from those days and anyone more modern.

Ketchel at middleweight would have beaten anyone in his era.

cfang wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:I always used to say, that if all the rules were the same (25 rounds, 3ox gloves, outdoor arenas, etc) that Jim Jefferies could beat anybody. Why? Even someone as skilled as Ali eventually would get so damn tired fighting essentially a larger version of Marciano, that by the 20th round came along he would crumble under Jefferies pressure. Then again.... it reminds me, also, of something Randall Tex Cobb said following his loss to Larry Holmes "If the fight went another fifteen rounds, Larry would fall over dead from exhaustion."

It's just so difficult to compare guys from those days and anyone more modern.

Ketchel at middleweight would have beaten anyone in his era.

Apart from Sam Langford!

keithmoonhangover wrote:

cfang wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:


It's just so difficult to compare guys from those days and anyone more modern.

Ketchel at middleweight would have beaten anyone in his era.

Apart from Sam Langford!

The Langford fight was a warm up to advertise their proposed fight. Ketchel was coming off opium and a booze addiction and lost a fairly close newspaper decision. Prime for prime, different story.

cfang wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

cfang wrote:
Apart from Sam Langford!

The Langford fight was a warm up to advertise their proposed fight. Ketchel was coming off opium and a booze addiction and lost a fairly close newspaper decision. Prime for prime, different story.

I totally disagree. Langford was better than Ketchel and would have beaten him prime for prime. You dont get stanely appearing in all time p4p lists but you do Langford and for good reason. SRR, Greb and Sam are streets ahead of the rest and hed have stopped ketchel.

Ambling Alp II wrote:I have never seen anyone compare his fighting style it Ali, so I don't know why you keep saying it's overrated.

Johnson was not wide open for anything. He was hard to catch cleanly. Foreman was not particularly accurate nor did he possess great handspeed. He did throw a great volume of punches; maybe Foreman catches him early and hurts him, maybe he doesn't. There is certainly no guarantee of that.

cfang wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

cfang wrote:
Apart from Sam Langford!

The Langford fight was a warm up to advertise their proposed fight. Ketchel was coming off opium and a booze addiction and lost a fairly close newspaper decision. Prime for prime, different story.

I totally disagree. Langford was better than Ketchel and would have beaten him prime for prime. You dont get stanely appearing in all time p4p lists but you do Langford and for good reason. SRR, Greb and Sam are streets ahead of the rest and hed have stopped ketchel.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

cfang wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
The Langford fight was a warm up to advertise their proposed fight. Ketchel was coming off opium and a booze addiction and lost a fairly close newspaper decision. Prime for prime, different story.

I totally disagree. Langford was better than Ketchel and would have beaten him prime for prime. You dont get stanely appearing in all time p4p lists but you do Langford and for good reason. SRR, Greb and Sam are streets ahead of the rest and hed have stopped ketchel.

We disagree on this. Ketchel used to top the middleweight rankings long after he, Greb and Robinson had retired. The thing is with Ketchel, when he started out, he had to win a fight in order to eat. If he got knocked down, he had to get up. By the time he fought Langford he'd earned $250,000 and spent most of it on gambling, whores, opium and whiskey. He was a physical mess when he fought Langford (which is his own fault) and lost a close decision. If he'd been firing on all cylinders, it would have been a different fight.

The Who are my favourite band and my hangovers are legendary among me and my mates. After a masiive night of alchol and drug use, I woke up the next day and a mate said I had a hangover Keith Moon would be proud of - so that's how my username came about.

Cutman Scabbers wrote: ↑20 Dec 2015, 09:08

Ambling Alp II wrote:I have never seen anyone compare his fighting style it Ali, so I don't know why you keep saying it's overrated.

Johnson was not wide open for anything. He was hard to catch cleanly. Foreman was not particularly accurate nor did he possess great handspeed. He did throw a great volume of punches; maybe Foreman catches him early and hurts him, maybe he doesn't. There is certainly no guarantee of that.

Early on in his career, maybe. But he got more and more accurate, especially in his
second incarnation, when I think he distinguished himself as true precision puncher.

Kalan wrote: ↑03 Apr 2018, 16:32 Jimmy Young didn't think so.... At Foreman's ripped best of his life he weighed 217...

A powerful 217 but not too big and strong for a rock solid 208 Johnson v Jeffries... Young didn't have much experience.

golden oldie wrote: ↑03 Apr 2018, 19:18 George Foreman fought with his physique. Jack Johnson fought with his BRAIN.

End of discussion.

P.S. Before the imbecilic Kolon starts harping on about fukking sandwich makers or whatever Muricans call fat George's money making venture, it alters NOTHING. I n comparison to Jack Johnson, Foreman was SH,IT.

golden oldie wrote: ↑03 Apr 2018, 19:39

oogiebe wrote: ↑03 Apr 2018, 19:25

golden oldie wrote: ↑03 Apr 2018, 19:18 George Foreman fought with his physique. Jack Johnson fought with his BRAIN.

End of discussion.

P.S. Before the imbecilic Kolon starts harping on about fukking sandwich makers or whatever Muricans call fat George's money making venture, it alters NOTHING. I n comparison to Jack Johnson, Foreman was SH,IT.

...subtle...

Don't do subtle kid. People can take it or leave it. I couldn't care less, either way.

golden oldie wrote: ↑03 Apr 2018, 19:43 Truth is, Foreman was an idiot. Jack Johnson wasn't. Who I offend with that observation, is of less than NO consequence to me.

golden oldie wrote: ↑03 Apr 2018, 19:51 Anyone who can breed untold kids, and call EVERY one of them George, is NOT capable of inventing ANYTHING.