BoxRec

I seriously have a hard time believing Jack Johnson was as great as speculated to be. He earned acclaim for beating Sam mcvea when he barely had 10 fights experience. Fair enough he beat him, which is to his credit. His next attribute of greatness was getting Joe Jeanette victory. Only once did he actual fight Jeanette is a long bout. The 1906 fight which lasted 15 Rounds. The other were only 3 & 6 rounds and a draw of 10 rounds. Which everyone should know Jeanette would have been at his very best in a 20 round tilt. Which he never really got a chance to fight with Johnson. At least Mcvey got 20 rounds. His next footnote of greatness is Sam Langfords win of 15 rounds in 1906. This is actually before Langford hooked up with George Byers who basically turned him into a wrecking ball. Here lies the one of my biggest problems. Of course, johnson is well publicized for not giving Landford another crack at him. However making the assumption that he is automatically better than Langford is a complete farce. Let's just use Johnson himself as a test case. Jack johnson got 3 cracks at a fairly good boxer early in his own career named Hank Griffin. He couldn't beat him once. Are we to assume Hank Griffin was far superior? I think not. Hank Griffin got destroyed by Jeffries and faced Jack Johnson just 2 fights later and beat him. For those of you who think it's a no-brainer johnson destroy's a prime Jim Jeffries. However, that's another argument for another day.

Johnson also defeated Denver Ed Martin when he was in his prime. However lost knockout to a very undersized Joe Choynski. After johnson won, the title is the most frustrating. He stringed along Langford repeatedly enough to make the public believe he wasn't yellow. The closest things got may have come was in Australia 1912. Where is should have happened. This was just before Langford got fat.

Mcintosh the promoter had $50,000 set up for the fight. Johnson repeatedly came up with an issue whenever things got close.
This is the most telling "when i would get johnson near the point of a match with Langford he would stall me off with some excuse. Finally, i made things so hot for Johnson that he admitted to me that Langford was too tough a game to tackle, and he passed the little fellow up."

Instead, Johnson attempted to get a match with the almost decrepit Denver Ed martin for a title shot. Martin was in such awful condition he was unable to go. So instead of facing not only Langford, whom he had good reason to avoid. He sidestepped Mcvea to whom he was actually a good friend. So why not take on Jeanette, who was certainly deserving. Nope, again that presented an actual challenge. Remember he wanted the faded ghostly Denver Ed that was his ideal foe. So he goes and get Battling Jim Johnson. Who lost his last three fights he had with jeanette. Just cowardly. Lacking any kind of fire or test of will.

Even after he lost his title he had a window to rectify some of his actions. He could have most certainly faced Harry Wills for a big money contest. He had name recognition he could have given his friend Mcvea a chance, who, unfortunately, died penniless a few years later. Give Langford his chance he was fat & pudgy not yet blind. Nope. Instead he continued to take the easy road. Having absolutely no "fire" to face any form of a real test. Scheduling opponents which barely had a .500 record. A win over Harry Wills would have considerably boosted his legacy in my mind. Johnson just had no fire in his belly.

Had he been forced to fight some of the better white hopes that came along. I think he would have gotten a few losses on his record just as Mcvea & Jeanette got. Fred Fulton would have definitely pushed him harder than anything he "handpicked" to defend his crown against repeatedly. The fact that he was allowed to take the easy path while Langford & Mcvea & Jeanette were forced to "tarnish" their career by taking chances against more difficult opponents. So in the end were supposed to Give Jack Johnson credit as the best of his era for taking the easy road? There's no way i can rank him as a better fighter than Sam Langford. Who proved so much more than Johnson. His body of work almost double's Johnson's legacy. I'm not sure we are safe to assume a Sam Mcvea that actually had some time to develop wouldn't have beaten him. Jeanette in a 25 round battle would have most assuredly worn johnson down mightily. I mean Marvin Hart wore him down considerably. It's debated whether Hart deserved that win. But the fact of the matter is johnson rarely fought long battles. He doesn't have much in his records of going 20 rounds. Had he fought Jeanette a 25 round battle just once. The outcome may have been dramatically different. The most he faced him was 15 rounds. At that point, Jeanette had 7 bouts only under his belt.

Johnson deserves a lot of respect, but I honestly think he was a product of circumstances the most. Avoiding these guys before they got great. Making us assume he was better than he actually was. Just look at it from this perspective. Anybody that johnson faced during his title run could have most certainly been beat by Langford, mcvea or Jeanette. At the same point in history. Yet these guys worked twice as hard accomplished a legacy with much more noticeable name recognition than the opponents Johnson has on his records. I for one fail to give Johnson credit for taking the easy path. Mcvea got wins over Harry Wills. How are we to assume that either Johnson's cowardly ass or Jack Dempsey could have beaten him in his prime? Most people don't have Mcvea ranked anywhere close to Johnson. I Just think history has played us slightly a fool into beliefs that might not be very accurate. As to both Jack Johnson & Jack Dempsey for that matter. I'm honestly not sure Johnson is better than either Jeanette or Mcvea. Just because he beat them early in their career's? Denver Ed beat them early in their career's also. He they not got a chance to rectify we be here speculatively wondering is Denver Ed Martin is perhaps the greatest Uncrowned Champion is history? But were not because history tells us otherwise. I'm convinced from people who fought both like Jim Flynn. Langford was most definitely better than Johnson.Hell Duke Mullins trained both and he certainly thought Langford would push him like no other. And i suspect that perhaps any one of the others Jeanette Mcvea & Wills could have beaten Johnson once they were developed more or given a chance. Are they better you tell me? The fact that were to totally assume it's a no-brainer johnson was better than them seems totally ludicrous. Langford proved himself against all these guys in their respective prime. Johnson sure did not. Anybody having Johnson ranked over Langford is just a victim or history's circumstance's. I'm not convinced Johnson would have beaten a prime Jeffries. Nor am i convinced he is better than Harry Wills. I mean he faced no near that big rarely. I think history & what didn't take place has greatly handicapped what was actual reality. Johnson was very careful as to not put himself into a position to be embarrassed. He even stated he knew Jeffries wouldn't even be half the man he was in setting up that fight. History has skewed the real facts of who was the best of this era, i do believe to a great extent. For all we know Wills might have cut down Jeffries, Johnson & Dempsey had he been given a chance. Johnson of all the guys i have my MOST doubts about. Because he totally 100% appeared yellow and cowardly. He wouldn't even take on the 3rd or 4th best fighters of the time. Such as the ones stated. I know politics of the era did play a huge part. But he gave Battling Jim Johnson a crack. He most certainly could have did better than that, Considering Jeanette just beat him 3 times in a row! He must have known something by avoiding these guys. For me personally this just plummets his legacy. To the point that i'm not even sure he was better than Jeanette. He had so much rust on him at that point from not going deep in rounds. I think if he faced a real tough foe he would have been exposed.

jeffries said he would have never beaten him.
that's enough for me ... plus, well, his record.
you seem to have a bias, look for evidence to
support and black out all evidence that contradict
it. you can do the same with thing with everybody.

He's probably better than I think. A lot of people often overrate him I think, and in turn I'm sure I underrate him. I'm sure there's a middle ground where he probably more accurately belongs.

man wrote:jeffries said he would have never beaten him.
that's enough for me ... plus, well, his record.
you seem to have a bias, look for evidence to
support and black out all evidence that contradict
it. you can do the same with thing with everybody.

Except Jeffries never said it. It appears in a lot of biographies. It stems back to an article that appeared in a Los Angeles newspaper a few days after the fight. The reporter claimed to have interviewed Jeffries and Jim Corbett on the train from Reno back to California after the fight. The problem: Corbett wasn't on that train. He was on his way to New York to resume his vaudeville show.

I believe Joe Louis said he could never have beaten Marciano.


I don't take his word on that.


...so even if Jeffries said it, I'm not sure the words of a modest and civil person is always accurate.

raylawpc wrote:

man wrote:jeffries said he would have never beaten him.
that's enough for me ... plus, well, his record.
you seem to have a bias, look for evidence to
support and black out all evidence that contradict
it. you can do the same with thing with everybody.

Except Jeffries never said it. It appears in a lot of biographies. It stems back to an article that appeared in a Los Angeles newspaper a few days after the fight. The reporter claimed to have interviewed Jeffries and Jim Corbett on the train from Reno back to California after the fight. The problem: Corbett wasn't on that train. He was on his way to New York to resume his vaudeville show.

Lol.....this is a typical "source" for one our contributors.

BoxBuzz wrote:I believe Joe Louis said he could never have beaten Marciano.


I don't take his word on that.


...so even if Jeffries said it, I'm not sure the words of a modest and civil person is always accurate.

The consensus of the sporting public, actually involved in the fight game, didn't believe that Jeffries could actually win against Johnson. Bob Fitzsimmons and his trainer both said in newspapers that no one could be out of the game for that long, and get in good enough condition to win the world championship. However, alot of people, including Jess Willard, will say that had it been the Jeffries of old the story would of been different. Thing is, you cant fight back the clock. Jeffries did in fact say "I couldn't of beat Jack Johnson at my best... no, I couldn't of reached him in a hundred years."

However, some time afterward, Jeffries recanted these remarks, saying that he was ill during training, and felt lethargic and even considered the idea he was doped before the fight---- fact is, you can't be gone six years, lose 110 pounds, and get in condition for a 45 round contest and not get so physically drained and sick. He literally had nothing to offer coming into that fight--- he looked the part, but then again, so did Muhammad Ali when he fought Larry Holmes, that is until the bell rang.

It is an often forgot, but true none the less, that Johnson in his own later years would say that Jeffries was the greatest heavyweight of all time--- not himself, but Jeffries--- and that Corbett was the best tactician that he had ever saw--- not himself, but Corbett. Whether it is out of respect, or not, is speculative, but I happen to agree with Johnson's assesment that Jeffries in his prime was better than Johnson.

HomicideHenry wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:I believe Joe Louis said he could never have beaten Marciano.


I don't take his word on that.


...so even if Jeffries said it, I'm not sure the words of a modest and civil person is always accurate.

The consensus of the sporting public, actually involved in the fight game, didn't believe that Jeffries could actually win against Johnson. n.

That's completely untrue. The wide majority of boxers and boxing "experts" when asked who would win picked Jefferies.

This topic always comes up, usually by people fairly ignorant of Johnson's era and who are trying to be provocative. I've been through this argument so many times on here throughout the years I'm thoroughly tired of it. To just summarize as a rebuttal:

-Johnson beat a very high calibre of fighters pre-title reign. Jeannette and McVey were much more experienced than their Boxrec records show. And the weight advantage Johnson had vs Langford would've been the same throughout their careers, as Johnson also gained weight (he was very skinny at 185 lbs and got to a very solid but still lean 205-212) as Langford gained into the 170-180 range. Denver Ed Martin is also a criminally under-rated heavyweight, and I rank those wins over him very highly.

-Johnson made more money fighting the likes of Flynn, Kaufman, and Moran than he would have the other leading black heavyweights. The public wanted to see a white man beat him, thus the clamor for white hopes.

-Even at 37 and overweight, he beat the crap out of a prime Willard for over 20 rounds. And while Willard had his off-nights prior to his title shot, people forget he got the newspaper decision vs the highly touted McCarty, who many Johnson detractors claim would've beaten the Texas native, and also fought a very competitive bout with the leading White Hope Gunboat Smith that some even think Willard pulled out. Willard was a clear top White Hope and Johnson dominated him until the very end. A young Harry Wills also couldn't even hang with Johnson as a sparring partner. The guy was recognized by scribe and fighter alike as one of the most skilled heavyweights of all time, and rightly so.

HomicideHenry wrote:Jeffries did in fact say "I couldn't of beat Jack Johnson at my best... no, I couldn't of reached him in a hundred years."

No, he never did. See above post.

-Johnson made more money fighting the likes of Flynn, Kaufman, and Moran than he would have the other leading black heavyweights. The public wanted to see a white man beat him, thus the clamor for white hopes.

I'm not disputing this at all. I fully understand, it. Yet he gave Battlin Jim Johnson a crack at him. He systematically avoided the toughest competition. I like Jeannette's quote's here.

“How do you think Johnson intends to fight you this time?” Jennette was asked. “Well, I shouldn’t be surprised if he intends to stall as much as possible. He probably figures he can go along without doing much and not take any chances. Of course it takes two to make a good fight, but it won’t be my fault if there is not plenty of action."

That quote goes a mile with me! It's exactly what i'm digging at he did not want to take any chances. How can we assume he was so much above his peers while he systematically avoided conflict. While they fought each other and improved dramatically from year to year. To the point he felt it wasn't in his best interest to face them.

I'm not in any way trying to say he wasn't a great world beater. But these guy's were improved dramatically after he faced them. They cut their teeth in the ring & were truly battle tested. It seems a shame even after he lost his title he couldn't ...give a go with one of these guys.

In the entire history of boxing, I don't think there's ever been a fighter who avoided as many top contenders during his title reign, and then received a great big pass for it with the explanation that "we know he would have easily beaten all of them anyway". Maybe we should apply that same logic to anyone who avoided bouts with a top contender or two.

Seamus wrote:In the entire history of boxing, I don't think there's ever been a fighter who avoided as many top contenders during his title reign, and then received a great big pass for it with the explanation that "we know he would have easily beaten all of them anyway". Maybe we should apply that same logic to anyone who avoided bouts with a top contender or two.

Are you talking about Johnson? Can you write something more?

I've seen Jack Johnson appear in a lot of top 10 lists. Weather or not he deserves to be there I don't really know and won't argue either against or for it. His lineal title reign lacked some of the best challengers but that's also offset by the fact that he defeated a lot of good men during his tenure while holding the colored title. He fought actively enough. Beat more than his fair share of good opponents. And also left some things to be desired as do most champions. Some people rate him with the Gods while others have less than flattering things to say. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Thats pretty much how I see it. He had a great career; it could have been better. A fighter should be rated on what he actually did do; not whether or not we think he would have beaten someone that he didn't fight (at least during his title reign as in Johnson's case.)

Had he successfully defended his title against Langford, Jeanette, and McVey, he would deserve to be ranked at least a clearcut #3 All-Time heavyweight, (behind Ali and Louis) maybe even higher.

Going by what he did do, he belongs with several other roughly even fighters (we all know the cast of characters here) that are clearly behind the top 2 and but anywhere from # 3 to about #10.

Had he had those successful title defenses, he would deserve to rated higher in a pound for pound rating as well; maybe close to the Top 10.
However, his career was still great enough to be Top 50 pound for pound.

I disagree on all counts here. It's kind of like revising history in a way. you can make conclusions about anything but the facts are that Johnson was easily and by far the best heavy of his era. He beat pretty much everyone of note before he won the title. OK so he didn't defend against those dangerous victims when champion but it made no sense to do so and Johnson was a shrewd business man.

The key thing to consider here too is that Johnson loafed about in fights, carried opponents and was often poorly trained. When up for it he was vastly superior to anyone. He didn't just beat Jeffries, he tortured and executed him. The truth is that Johnson was a truly exceptional boxer who had vastly superior skills to his contemporaries.

To call a man who came up via battle royales, was world heavyweight champion, unbeaten for a decade who laughed literally in the face or complete and total racism when at times his life may have been at risk, a coward is ridiculous.

cfang wrote:I disagree on all counts here. It's kind of like revising history in a way. you can make conclusions about anything but the facts are that Johnson was easily and by far the best heavy of his era. He beat pretty much everyone of note before he won the title. OK so he didn't defend against those dangerous victims when champion but it made no sense to do so and Johnson was a shrewd business man.

The key thing to consider here too is that Johnson loafed about in fights, carried opponents and was often poorly trained. When up for it he was vastly superior to anyone. He didn't just beat Jeffries, he tortured and executed him. The truth is that Johnson was a truly exceptional boxer who had vastly superior skills to his contemporaries.

To call a man who came up via battle royales, was world heavyweight champion, unbeaten for a decade who laughed literally in the face or complete and total racism when at times his life may have been at risk, a coward is ridiculous.

Truth is he beat, tortured and 'executed' an old man. If someone in today's time fought someone who hadn't fought in six years, had to lose 110 pounds, and get in shape for a 45 round contest, etc. that person would be laughed out of the building for even considering facing someone that fornicating shot. That would be like Mayweather agreeing to face Roberto Duran. To me, the testimony of that fight isnt to Johnson's greatness--- but by how tough, determined Jeffries was that he didnt have a chance at all of winning, yet he received over a dozen cuts to his face, broken ribs, a gashed mouth and still went fifteen rounds. It took that many odds against him, for him to finally be dropped for the first time in his entire career.

Not many humans could've done what he did how he did it,and he did it as a Black man in frigging early 1900s. Like Ali said That #%@@! was crazy lol

I think he was definitely great. A complete asshole, but a great fighter.

Just wanted to make the point…

Johnson won the ‘Colored [sic] Heavyweight Title’ from Ed Martin

He then defended it beating McVea 3 times, Jeanette twice, Lanford, Young peter Jackson and Martin all once…

Now, to my mind, that title was at least as legitimate as Holmes’ original WBC title, or Tyson’s, or Lennox’s… And his opposition vastly superior.

I have Johnson firmly in the Louis-Ali camp…considerably ahead of the rest.

Ezzard wrote:Just wanted to make the point…

Johnson won the ‘Colored [sic] Heavyweight Title’ from Ed Martin

He then defended it beating McVea 3 times, Jeanette twice, Lanford, Young peter Jackson and Martin all once…

Now, to my mind, that title was at least as legitimate as Holmes’ original WBC title, or Tyson’s, or Lennox’s… And his opposition vastly superior.

I have Johnson firmly in the Louis-Ali camp…considerably ahead of the rest.

It does sound much better the way you've presented his resume.

But Langford, Jeannette, and McVea all became much better fighters AFTER Johnson beat them, and yet they didn't get title shots. If you want to make the argument that that was not entirely his fault that's one thing, but the automatic assumptions about Johnson get pretty ridiculous. Imagine what you'd hear if you made similar comments about guys like Roy Jones Jr, Joe Calzaghe, etc.

Ezzard wrote:Just wanted to make the point…

Johnson won the ‘Colored [sic] Heavyweight Title’ from Ed Martin

He then defended it beating McVea 3 times, Jeanette twice, Lanford, Young peter Jackson and Martin all once…

Now, to my mind, that title was at least as legitimate as Holmes’ original WBC title, or Tyson’s, or Lennox’s… And his opposition vastly superior.

I have Johnson firmly in the Louis-Ali camp…considerably ahead of the rest.

I like this..

And when you consider that most discussions of all time great heavys usually include Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Lewis, Holmes, etc, it seems Johnson is often left out, leaving me to believe that he is more underrated than overrated.

True Henry Jeffries was brave and shot and of course the best heavy of his day. I was just making the point that Johnson could probably have taken him out earlier if he was so inclined. He would mess about and carry opponents, have chat with crowd etc. The point I was making was that Johnson was a lot better than his results show and superior to his contemporaries.

He could have stopped burns in a couple of rounds, carried Ketchel and a lot of the time messed about in the ring. He even seemed to mess about and carry Flynn when Flynn was jumping off the floor butting him (a typical example of the sort of things Johnson had to put up with being black).

I believe Johnson is underrated and possibly for reason that he didn't show his true fighting colours that often. Something tells me he wouldn't have cared if people in the future thought he was great or not. I think he's a legendary fighter who stood up against intense hatred for many years. As any heavy and in terms of greatest, is a solid 3rd on my list.

Seamus wrote:But Langford, Jeannette, and McVea all became much better fighters AFTER Johnson beat them,.

If you look at their records before and after facing Johnson and read the fight write-ups what you're saying doesn't ring true. I'll accept that McVea and Jeannette got more seasoned and Langford put on some pounds, but they did not increase in ability to the point where one would think Johnson, who DOMINATED all of them, would have much trouble beating them again. Hell, McVea even said after his 3rd fight with Jack he didn't wish to face him again as he got his a$$ kicked so thoroughly.

It's like if Doug Jones had not just beaten, but thoroughly demolished Ali in 63, scoring several knockdowns along the way. Sure it would add to the victory if it was the Ali of 67 or 72, but it still would be considered an amazing/all time great win.

Considering that fighters are now managed to steer them through very shallow waters early in the day then the number of fights now doesn't compare to back then...

Of Holmes' challengers...

Bey 14 fights
Smith 15
Williams 16
Witherspoon 15
Ocasio 13
Leon 14
Marvis 10

Of course these are only numbers...

Johnson should have re-matched Jeanette, Langford, McVea...

And Larry should have re-matched Witherspoon and Williams...fought Pinklon etc...

I do agree with all the criticisms of Johnson but they were different times...and what he did isn't a million miles from what's happened in recent history too.