BoxRec

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: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.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: if i want to socialize, ill go get hammered at some party.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:sweet, why dont u go find urself a wife and have a few kids. relax a little. maybe ull loosen up, and stop attacking other people personally for no reason

Dapaper wrote:Not to stir up the hive, but I'm also interested to know who the great heavyweights Johnson beat in their prime are? Sam McVea? Joe Jeanette? I only mention them because I don't know how big they were. It does seem to be true that Johnson's best wins were against great fighters not even close to their prime (Fitzie, Jeffries), and fighters much smaller than him (Burns, Langford, etc.). I guess Fitzie could fit into both categories, but we will give him the freak of nature "heavyweight upper body, skinny legs" benefit of the doubt on his size.

It seems like Johnson fans have always perversely considered the Willard fight some kind of "win", ehehe.

Anyway, I am not trying to detract from Johnson, who I feel is from an era just slightly too early to compare usefully with the modern fight game. Obviously he was considered a legend in his own time, and I don't think you can really fairly say ANYONE was better than Johnson. But I have always wondered if an old, nostalgic Nat Fleischer and others like him looked back on Johnson a bit through the rose colored spectacles of their youth. It never meant much to me that old man Fleischer looked back to the great champion of his youth and said, "He was better than any of these fellers nowadays!" And I really don't think you can tell much from the old, grainy film footage that survives, even if some people watch it and find what they are looking for there (which is very difficult not to do with old grainy footage where you are practically forced to use your imagination a little bit).

What happened in the Choynski fight? Did Jack really get KO'd, or was the fight just stopped prematurely and they ruled it a KO? I know Johnson was not in his prime yet at that point.

-Dapa

silkov wrote: If you want to know how good Johnsons competition was then you really need to look at the records and read articles about these fighters. Its wrong to say that Johnson boxed in too early an era to be compared to todays fighters... it just takes a bit of effort on peoples part to read up and study these early fighters. As for size, bigger isn't better!... Johnson was about 200 in his prime but he'd have destroyed todays heavies with little trouble...

Dapaper wrote:

silkov wrote: If you want to know how good Johnsons competition was then you really need to look at the records and read articles about these fighters. Its wrong to say that Johnson boxed in too early an era to be compared to todays fighters... it just takes a bit of effort on peoples part to read up and study these early fighters. As for size, bigger isn't better!... Johnson was about 200 in his prime but he'd have destroyed todays heavies with little trouble...

I never questioned the quality of Johnson's record, but to say that a 30lb.+ weight advantage doesn't mean anything in a sport like boxing is absolutely ridiculous. The fight game was different then, weight classes mixed a lot more, obviously, which is one of the reasons why you can't compare fighters of that era very well with later fighters. But regardless of what era you are in, weight differences MATTER, even if they can be overcome.

To answer your, and my, question Blockbuster, Joe Jeanette was certainly a great heavyweight who Johnson beat at least while he was young (perhaps a little before Jeanette's prime). Jeanette was about Johnson's size, 185-205lb during his career. Apparently, though, Johnson avoided Jeanette (who had given Johnson some trouble in their fights) after he got the title, and Jeanette commented, "Jack forgot about his old friends after he became champion and drew the color line against his own people." Still, from what I am reading, Johnson got the better of him over the course of their multiple meetings and would be a favorite if they fought at any time.

Sam McVey was another great full fledged heavy whom Johnson beat, 205-215lb over his carreer.

How about this account of two great heavyweights from that era, taken from the IBHOF:

"...Jeannette and McVey agreed to fight to the finish with no round limit. The resulting battle was one of the greatest marathons in boxing history. McVey scored the first of his 27 knockdowns in the first round. In the sixteenth McVey countered a Jeannette uppercut with a right to the jaw that most likely would have finished Jeannette-had he not been saved by the bell.

Jeannette went down in the next round, the 21st time in seventeen rounds that he had hit the canvas. Looking beaten after nineteen rounds, Jeannette miraculously revived and seized control of the fight. As the bout moved past the 40-round mark, Jeannette began to floor McVey with regularity, but still could not put him away. In the 42nd, Jeannette dropped McVey seven times. Finally, after 49 rounds, McVey could not continue. Despite having been knocked down 27 times, Jeannette had triumphed in this unbelievable test of endurance, courage, and boxing ability. This fight underscores Jeannette's indomitable will."

You just can't compare that era to modern boxing, imo, it was a different sport. For me, the Dempsey era is sort of the borderline of when comparisons start to make sense.

-Dapa

Dapaper wrote:Um, are we talking past each other? Why do you think they even HAVE weight classes in boxing?

Weight makes a huge differnce; this is a FACT of the sport, it is not something that is up for debate. If you disagree, then feel free to start a new sport of boxing with no weight classes and see how things pan out. You will be turning the sport back a millenia or three, but who knows...

Btw, I agree with you about the ideal heavyweight size, but that is because of economies of scale. After around 210-220lb or so, the human body starts to be increasingly less efficient (for the sport of boxing, at least) to the degree that the advantage gained by additional size is counteracted. Doping changes this formula a bit, though, and I think that is the main reason why the heavyweight ranks have become dominated by these huge bohemoths today.

What your saying is totally ignoring the fact that the best heavyweights have always been able to give away weight and still win. What about Dempsey vs Willard or Firpo?.... or Louis vs Baer, or Simon... and these big guys I'm mentioning weren't bums either. Heavyweights have often given away a stone or more and quite often it is the smaller guy that has won. If we go by heavier is better then the likes of Willard, Carnera would be amongst the best champions of all time while in reality the best Heavies of all time are those that scaled between 190 and 210 in their primes. The heavies of today would have a hard time getting into the top 10 of the 80s let alone before that.....

-Dapa

ur just afraid of being showed up by a college kid thats much younger than you.

ringsider wrote:

ur just afraid of being showed up by a college kid thats much younger than you.

Says the blockhead.

Hey Blockhead, if they are letting people into to college who "rite" like you.........they have really lowered the bar on admission standards..

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:The best hevayweight johnson beat was joe jeaneate and he wasnt considered a great heavyweight.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:By the way silkov, u need some agressiveness in you when you argue boxing.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:I am not gonna get into it with ringsider aka badblood and silkov. Silkov has always had a grudge against me for no apparent reason. By the way silkov, u need some agressiveness in you when you argue boxing. And I dont belittle other peoples knowledge. I respect a lot of users on this forum, even some ones i dont agree with. I think they have a lot of knowledge. Just because I dont respect Sweet Scientist or u doesnt mean you have to start crying like a little girl. i was being outfront with u.
And Once again i dont care what other people think as long as i get my info and questions answered. but, on a side note, I have noticed users saying im a very nice kid and i only become disrespectful when someone attacks me personally first. and if u want to call me something call me by my name which is NICK.
Johnson fought a very inexperienced sam mcvey who was like 7-0 when he fought johnson. The best hevayweight johnson beat was joe jeaneate and he wasnt considered a great heavyweight. He gave johnson a lot of trouble. and do u want to explain to me how a 160 lb philadelphia jack gave johnson so much trouble????

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Sweet Scientist ill say this, im gonna be head over heals above u when im ur age in terms of boxing knowledge.

silkov wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:I am not gonna get into it with ringsider aka badblood and silkov. Silkov has always had a grudge against me for no apparent reason. By the way silkov, u need some agressiveness in you when you argue boxing. And I dont belittle other peoples knowledge. I respect a lot of users on this forum, even some ones i dont agree with. I think they have a lot of knowledge. Just because I dont respect Sweet Scientist or u doesnt mean you have to start crying like a little girl. i was being outfront with u.
And Once again i dont care what other people think as long as i get my info and questions answered. but, on a side note, I have noticed users saying im a very nice kid and i only become disrespectful when someone attacks me personally first. and if u want to call me something call me by my name which is NICK.
Johnson fought a very inexperienced sam mcvey who was like 7-0 when he fought johnson. The best hevayweight johnson beat was joe jeaneate and he wasnt considered a great heavyweight. He gave johnson a lot of trouble. and do u want to explain to me how a 160 lb philadelphia jack gave johnson so much trouble????

This post of yours Brockton shows just what I've been getting at... it's laughable and really quite childish to think that you need to be aggressive when arguing boxing or anything for that matter!. Aggression is a very negative thing and one of the reasons I admire boxers so much is that the majority of them outside the ring are the most respectful and peaceful guys you could ever meet!.
As for me being also Badblood and Ringsider which you seem to be alluding to that is all crap as well... I don't need to hide behind different names. Perhaps you can't belive that there is more than one person who disagrees with you.
I have nothing against you and if you take the trouble to look through the threads you'll see I've actually stuck up for you a few times. But I often disagree with what you say and have become tired of your aggressive and condecending attitude to me and others when we don't agree with your ideas.
If you are going to post on a forum you should bve willing to accept other peoples points of view without constantly resorting to insults or boasts about your 'superior' knowledge of the sport.
And as for respect I certainly don't have any for you anymore and won't be bothering to go onto any of your threads in future till perhaps you grow up some... and I won't hold my breath on that!....