All Time Heavyweight Championship. QUARTER FINALS

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 10 Jul 2006, 14:34

IrishRufusMurphy wrote: Marciano on the other hand skipped the 'middle' of the division beating the best as beat the very best of his era...can't say that for Johnson, whose title reign was against as I said before over the hill shot fighters or goons or men much smaller than himself.

Johnson's reign wasn't that great but that wasn't so uncommon in those days. Dempsey's reign wasn't great either. I believe that Johnson's pre-championship record is far better than Rocky's.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Jul 2006, 15:32

Ezzard wrote:
IrishRufusMurphy wrote: Marciano on the other hand skipped the 'middle' of the division beating the best as beat the very best of his era...can't say that for Johnson, whose title reign was against as I said before over the hill shot fighters or goons or men much smaller than himself.
Johnson's reign wasn't that great but that wasn't so uncommon in those days. Dempsey's reign wasn't great either. I believe that Johnson's pre-championship record is far better than Rocky's.

johnsons pre championship is better than rockys......

rocky beat 4 top rated contenders joe louis, rex layne, roland lastazra, and harry kid mathews.

thats solid pre title wins by rocky and he clearly defintley earned his title shot. the only names rocky didnt beat pre title that he probably should have faced were top contenders bob baker and clarence henry.

jack johnson on the other hand really did well pre title........

he beat

green 18 year old sam mcvey
green joe jeanette
156lb langford
klondike haines
old frank childs
denver ed martin
peter felix
sandy fergusson
george gardner
black bill
jim jeddfords

but as u see its very decieving. sam langford was only a junior middleweight then and mcvey and jeanette were very green had not reached there peaks yet. however johnson did beat a very solid list of depth pre title.

in terms of quality though........i think the 1951 joe louis was better than anyone johnson beat pre title. i cant imagine 156lb langford beating 215lb joe louis. too small. jeanette and mcvey were green and i can see louis experience being too much for them. i also see roland lastarza as just as good if not better than anyone jeanette beat pre title.

but johnson did beat a very solid list of depth pre title, he beat a wide range of contenders more so than marciano

however rockys title championship reign far exceeds johnson that it cancels out johnsons superior pre title competition.

so in the end its 50/50

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Jul 2006, 15:35

the only time johnson fought jeanette near his prime was in 1908 and that fight ended in a draw in a fight where it was basically a scripted exhibition and not a real fight.

rockys pre title competiton is as good as johnsons pre title comp in terms of quality.........but in terms of depth/quantitiy johnsons far exceed rockys.

so i give jack johnson the edge in terms of pre title competition

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 10 Jul 2006, 18:38

Johnson had greater depth, but as you said, almost equal competition. Marciano in my opinion faced greater opponents as a champion than Johnson did---making it possibe 50/50, but I give Marciano the edge.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 10 Jul 2006, 19:03

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:johnsons pre championship is better than rockys......

rocky beat 4 top rated contenders joe louis, rex layne, roland lastazra, and harry kid mathews.

thats solid pre title wins by rocky and he clearly defintley earned his title shot. the only names rocky didnt beat pre title that he probably should have faced were top contenders bob baker and clarence henry.

jack johnson on the other hand really did well pre title........

he beat

green 18 year old sam mcvey
green joe jeanette
156lb langford
klondike haines
old frank childs
denver ed martin
peter felix
sandy fergusson
george gardner
black bill
jim jeddfords

He also beat Flynn, Gardner and Fitzsimmons, although Fitz was pretty much spent. In addition, I'm sure he learned some things in loses to Choynski and Hart. Many often over look loses when evaluating a fighter, often times a boxer improves more from a loss than from win and there is no shame in losing to Choynski or Hart.

Plus JJ fought some of these guys multiple times, which is much more impressive than more "modern" fighters who at best will only fight world class fighters once. Don't you think JJ learned quite abit by fighting Joe Jeanette so many times?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Jul 2006, 19:38

In addition, I'm sure he learned some things in loses to Choynski and Hart. Many often over look loses when evaluating a fighter, often times a boxer improves more from a loss than from win and there is no shame in losing to Choynski or Hart.

he didnt lose to hart. although i agree with the overall assesement

Don't you think JJ learned quite abit by fighting Joe Jeanette so many times?

yes defintley

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 10 Jul 2006, 19:43

didn't lost to Hart? Jesus Christ what a crock...he lost a 20 round decision to the 'Fighting Kentuckian'!

And John L...how can u say that he learned anything from facing Fitz? Fitz was in his 40's, and had an injured arm, he beat up a defenseless old man!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Jul 2006, 21:34

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:didn't lost to Hart? Jesus Christ what a crock...he lost a 20 round decision to the 'Fighting Kentuckian'!

And John L...how can u say that he learned anything from facing Fitz? Fitz was in his 40's, and had an injured arm, he beat up a defenseless old man!

he wasnt talking about fitz, he was talking about johnsons loss to the much more experience joe choynski in 1901.

- johnson did NOT LOSE TO HART. it was a major robbery, or at least thats what most papers say