BoxRec

I would please like to know how good is the 1950s heavyweight contender "Hurricane" Tommy Jackson? What was his strength that helped him win many fights like beating a shot Ezzard Charles for example and what was his weakness that make him lost the big fights like losing to Floyd Patterson for example or Nino Valdes?

kovit wrote:I would please like to know how good is the 1950s heavyweight contender "Hurricane" Tommy Jackson? What was his strength that helped him win many fights like beating a shot Ezzard Charles for example and what was his weakness that make him lost the big fights like losing to Floyd Patterson for example or Nino Valdes?

the charles that he beat was so shot it waasnt even funny. charles was never the same after first marciano fight, he aged dramatically. he developed signs of sclerosis during the time of jackson fight i belive.

it wasnt his strength thaat beat charles, it was charles decline.


jackson was 6'4 195lb very skinny. he wasnt that strong. when jackson fought valdez, valdez was at his best and jackson was still young and green. jackson wasnt good against heavy punchers, had a questionable chin

jackson was a top contender by the time marciano retired. he wanted to fight marciano in 56 but marciano retired. BAD IDEA JACKSON.


- jackson gave patterson a tough first fight, but patterson still was young and hadnt reached his peak.

patterson battered him so badly in the rematch that his liscense was suspended. jackon lost every round and was knocked down i beleive 7 times???


- i would say he was a decent contender, no world beater. i would rank him below contenders like folley, machon, but on par with de john, bethea.

kovit wrote:I would please like to know how good is the 1950s heavyweight contender "Hurricane" Tommy Jackson? What was his strength that helped him win many fights like beating a shot Ezzard Charles for example and what was his weakness that make him lost the big fights like losing to Floyd Patterson for example or Nino Valdes?

Here's the book on Tommy "Hurricane" Jackson: he threw a lot of punches (like a Hurricane), but he lacked knockout power. His height and windmill style helped him overcome an aged Ezzard Charles twice but he was unable to overwhelm the much harder hitting, savvier boxer Patterson. For Valdes, he probably just got caught with a big shot and never recovered.

..jackson was one of the most eccentric fighters...in and out of the ring..that boxing has seen. one of his punches was a double uppercut..landed with both hands a the same time.....maybe that should be called two punches. he was knocked down by valdez three times in one round and that was when the three knockdown rule was in effect. he actually bounced back up quickly and seemingly unhurt and could have gone on...but i don't know for how long. (i saw the fight on live tv and at that point he wasn't hurt. his manager said "he was just getting warmed up) he beat some good guys..dan bucceroni...i think rex layne (on the downgrade). his main asset was his constant and coo coo pressure and tirelessness. very unorthodox. he was like playing poker with someone who did everything wrong.....and did things so unexpectadly that those who did it right were baffled.

he disappeared from training camp a lot. he liked to go down to garbage dumps and shoot rats. poor fellow wasn't all there mentally and maybe shouldn't have been allowed to box...but he was like the entertainer who had no talent and when he was asked why he didn't get out of the business said "It's too late....I've become a star."

He was a contender and made some money but i'm sure it was all taken from him.

maybe there's some film of him somewhere....you really have to see him to fully grasp what an oddity he was.

A tough & durable heavyweight, without much power or boxing skill.
It seems odd he was able to rise to the status of # 1 contender. His greatest assets were an ability to take punishment & great stamina. I don't think he would have reached the status he did in any other era.

Dejohn was certainly better then Jackson.

But like Jaclem said, he was one of those guys who was so unorthodox he could give skilled boxers fits b/c they just wern't used to those kinds of punches. He was also a pretty tough guy.

Got ranked so high by beating the over the hill Charles (just as Donald climbed in the rankings by beating a shot Holyfield). Never really deserved his top 5 status though. There were many heavyweights in the late 1950s better then Tommy Jackson.