BoxRec

johnson was a good defensive fighter and louis was a good all around fighter. what do ya think?

Louis and he would probably stop him.

Louis would ko Johnson easily.

..agreed. while i'm here, though, i'd like to add: a couple of posts from the not too long ago said that jack blackburn said johnson was better than louis. the only time i can find blackburn saying this was early in the bomber's career when he said joe was still developing. after that....probably past the second schmeling fight he always said louis would beat johnson....and every other past heavyweight. if there's a later reference saying otherwise i'd be interested in knowing about it.

Johnson would out fox and out speed Louis... Johnson was a great all round boxer in his own right and would probably stop Louis....

I can't believe everyone is just dismissing Johnsons chances against Louis!... Johnson had a lot more going for him than just a good defence... he was fast and powerful and probably one of the cleverest thinkers inside the ring... Louis great though he was, was also rather predictable and robotic and always had trouble throughout his career with boxers who were fast and clever...

silkov wrote:I can't believe everyone is just dismissing Johnsons chances against Louis!... Johnson had a lot more going for him than just a good defence... he was fast and powerful and probably one of the cleverest thinkers inside the ring... Louis great though he was, was also rather predictable and robotic and always had trouble throughout his career with boxers who were fast and clever...

Sure, but how is Johnson going to deal with someone throwing combinations at him when he's only used to one or two punches coming at him at a time?

Louis had trouble mith movers, yes. But not Johnson's type of movement, which was limited to a a few steps left or right. Billy Conn and Ali were a different breed of mover, the kind of which didn't exist in Johnson's day.

Nero3000 wrote:

silkov wrote:I can't believe everyone is just dismissing Johnsons chances against Louis!... Johnson had a lot more going for him than just a good defence... he was fast and powerful and probably one of the cleverest thinkers inside the ring... Louis great though he was, was also rather predictable and robotic and always had trouble throughout his career with boxers who were fast and clever...

Sure, but how is Johnson going to deal with someone throwing combinations at him when he's only used to one or two punches coming at him at a time?

Louis had trouble mith movers, yes. But not Johnson's type of movement, which was limited to a a few steps left or right. Billy Conn and Ali were a different breed of mover, the kind of which didn't exist in Johnson's day.

You may be right, but I've seen clips of Johnson fights and Johnson himself could box, not like Ali but he was not slow of feet. And Johnson is known for one of the first fighers to ever throw lots of fients at opponets. And Johnson himself is fast handed to as Louis was. One thing for sure it would have been a great fight.

Was Johnson still alive to see Louis fight?

..nero's cogent commentary has saved me from the trouble of making my own. succinct and accurate.

Johnson threw beautiful combos when he wanted to-see of the Williard fight and the final round vs Burns.

He also faced guys who were noted combination punchers-Langford, Martin, Flynn.

Johnson was such a good counterer and so adept at picking his shots on the inside that guys wern't able to get off combination punches on him.

Johnson vs Louis I go with Jack by late TKO.

He's basically the only HW I would make the favorite of beating a prime Louis. He has the right mix of speed, power, and craftiness/defensive ability to really get Joe off of his gameplan.

He actualy died in a car accident on his way to see Louis - Conn II. Johnson was a great fighter but he did alot of holding and hitting and lots of clinching and wresteling kind of tactics that were put up with more in his day I think because of the insanely long duration of some of those old fights. If he fought Louis in the 40's he would have been stopped in the late rounds or lose a UD. But if Louis went back in time and fought Johnson HE would probably be stopped in the very late rounds. Like in the 30 or 40 rounds.

dempseyfire wrote:Johnson threw beautiful combos when he wanted to-see of the Williard fight and the final round vs Burns.

He also faced guys who were noted combination punchers-Langford, Martin, Flynn.

Johnson was such a good counterer and so adept at picking his shots on the inside that guys wern't able to get off combination punches on him.

Johnson vs Louis I go with Jack by late TKO.

He's basically the only HW I would make the favorite of beating a prime Louis. He has the right mix of speed, power, and craftiness/defensive ability to really get Joe off of his gameplan.

Those weren't "beautiful combos" vs. Williard and Burns. They were the flailings of a man looking to finish his opponent. Again, THERE WAS NO sustained, tight combination punching back then. That era is usually credited with the rise of Benny Leonard. Jim Jacobs- as respectable a fight film historian as has ever lived- agreed.

Langford and Flynn were not combination punchers. The films don't lie.

Nero3000 wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Johnson threw beautiful combos when he wanted to-see of the Williard fight and the final round vs Burns.

He also faced guys who were noted combination punchers-Langford, Martin, Flynn.

Johnson was such a good counterer and so adept at picking his shots on the inside that guys wern't able to get off combination punches on him.

Johnson vs Louis I go with Jack by late TKO.

He's basically the only HW I would make the favorite of beating a prime Louis. He has the right mix of speed, power, and craftiness/defensive ability to really get Joe off of his gameplan.

Those weren't "beautiful combos" vs. Williard and Burns. They were the flailings of a man looking to finish his opponent. Again, THERE WAS NO sustained, tight combination punching back then. That era is usually credited with the rise of Benny Leonard. Jim Jacobs- as respectable a fight film historian as has ever lived- agreed.

Langford and Flynn were not combination punchers. The films don't lie.

You obviously havent watched many films from that era if you think there was no combination punching. How would Louis deal with Johnsons speed? and power?... if the Braddock etc could floor Louis, Johnson would be able to knock him out..... Johnson played with Burns and at no time tried to ko him!....

if the Braddock etc could floor Louis, Johnson would be able to knock him out

if a middleweight like ketchel could floor johnnson, louis would be able to knock him out.

How would Louis deal with Johnsons speed?

how would johnson deal with louis handspeed and power? johnson never faced a man as deadly a combination puncher like joe louis. u underate louis speed, he had such incredible handspeed how the hell is johnson going to catch louis punches? please tell me how? johnson never had to catch 8 lightning fast and deadly punches in a row before.


besides, johnson loved to stand there and clinch and fight on the inside. so louis will not have trouble finding him. johnson was not a billy conn or ali, johnson did not dance and run away like a bob pastor.

Nero3000 wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Johnson threw beautiful combos when he wanted to-see of the Williard fight and the final round vs Burns.

He also faced guys who were noted combination punchers-Langford, Martin, Flynn.

Johnson was such a good counterer and so adept at picking his shots on the inside that guys wern't able to get off combination punches on him.

Johnson vs Louis I go with Jack by late TKO.

He's basically the only HW I would make the favorite of beating a prime Louis. He has the right mix of speed, power, and craftiness/defensive ability to really get Joe off of his gameplan.

Those weren't "beautiful combos" vs. Williard and Burns. They were the flailings of a man looking to finish his opponent. Again, THERE WAS NO sustained, tight combination punching back then. That era is usually credited with the rise of Benny Leonard. Jim Jacobs- as respectable a fight film historian as has ever lived- agreed.

Langford and Flynn were not combination punchers. The films don't lie.

You can see it in the films, blind man.

Johnson throws sustained 6 punch combos to the body and head of Jess throughout their bout . . .wild flailings they were not at all.

the Langford-Flynn bout shows both men throwing sustained combinations on the inside, and Sam throwing a nice left hook-right uppercut -jab combination he was known for.

How tall was Louis and Jack?

silkov wrote:

Nero3000 wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Johnson threw beautiful combos when he wanted to-see of the Williard fight and the final round vs Burns.

He also faced guys who were noted combination punchers-Langford, Martin, Flynn.

Johnson was such a good counterer and so adept at picking his shots on the inside that guys wern't able to get off combination punches on him.

Johnson vs Louis I go with Jack by late TKO.

He's basically the only HW I would make the favorite of beating a prime Louis. He has the right mix of speed, power, and craftiness/defensive ability to really get Joe off of his gameplan.

Those weren't "beautiful combos" vs. Williard and Burns. They were the flailings of a man looking to finish his opponent. Again, THERE WAS NO sustained, tight combination punching back then. That era is usually credited with the rise of Benny Leonard. Jim Jacobs- as respectable a fight film historian as has ever lived- agreed.

Langford and Flynn were not combination punchers. The films don't lie.

You obviously havent watched many films from that era if you think there was no combination punching. How would Louis deal with Johnsons speed? and power?... if the Braddock etc could floor Louis, Johnson would be able to knock him out..... Johnson played with Burns and at no time tried to ko him!....

In fact I've watched MOST of the films of that era

silkov wrote:

Nero3000 wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Johnson threw beautiful combos when he wanted to-see of the Williard fight and the final round vs Burns.

He also faced guys who were noted combination punchers-Langford, Martin, Flynn.

Johnson was such a good counterer and so adept at picking his shots on the inside that guys wern't able to get off combination punches on him.

Johnson vs Louis I go with Jack by late TKO.

He's basically the only HW I would make the favorite of beating a prime Louis. He has the right mix of speed, power, and craftiness/defensive ability to really get Joe off of his gameplan.

Those weren't "beautiful combos" vs. Williard and Burns. They were the flailings of a man looking to finish his opponent. Again, THERE WAS NO sustained, tight combination punching back then. That era is usually credited with the rise of Benny Leonard. Jim Jacobs- as respectable a fight film historian as has ever lived- agreed.

Langford and Flynn were not combination punchers. The films don't lie.

You obviously havent watched many films from that era if you think there was no combination punching. How would Louis deal with Johnsons speed? and power?... if the Braddock etc could floor Louis, Johnson would be able to knock him out..... Johnson played with Burns and at no time tried to ko him!....

Jim Jacobs watched them In fact, he OWNED them. He said that sustained combination punching didn't become part of the game until Benny Leonard came along.

Are you right and Mr. Jacobs wrong? Do you own or know more about the old fights than that world-reknowned boxing expert/historian?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

if the Braddock etc could floor Louis, Johnson would be able to knock him out

if a middleweight like ketchel could floor johnnson, louis would be able to knock him out.

How would Louis deal with Johnsons speed?

how would johnson deal with louis handspeed and power? johnson never faced a man as deadly a combination puncher like joe louis. u underate louis speed, he had such incredible handspeed how the hell is johnson going to catch louis punches? please tell me how? johnson never had to catch 8 lightning fast and deadly punches in a row before.


besides, johnson loved to stand there and clinch and fight on the inside. so louis will not have trouble finding him. johnson was not a billy conn or ali, johnson did not dance and run away like a bob pastor.

THANK YOU! That's check and mate.

dempseyfire wrote:

Nero3000 wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Johnson threw beautiful combos when he wanted to-see of the Williard fight and the final round vs Burns.

He also faced guys who were noted combination punchers-Langford, Martin, Flynn.

Johnson was such a good counterer and so adept at picking his shots on the inside that guys wern't able to get off combination punches on him.

Johnson vs Louis I go with Jack by late TKO.

He's basically the only HW I would make the favorite of beating a prime Louis. He has the right mix of speed, power, and craftiness/defensive ability to really get Joe off of his gameplan.

Those weren't "beautiful combos" vs. Williard and Burns. They were the flailings of a man looking to finish his opponent. Again, THERE WAS NO sustained, tight combination punching back then. That era is usually credited with the rise of Benny Leonard. Jim Jacobs- as respectable a fight film historian as has ever lived- agreed.

Langford and Flynn were not combination punchers. The films don't lie.

You can see it in the films, blind man.

Johnson throws sustained 6 punch combos to the body and head of Jess throughout their bout . . .wild flailings they were not at all.

the Langford-Flynn bout shows both men throwing sustained combinations on the inside, and Sam throwing a nice left hook-right uppercut -jab combination he was known for.

The blind man sees flailings, not concentrated combinations. When they went for the KO they would flail away, otherwise it was: Two punches and a clinch....two punches and a clinch....two punches....

dempseyfire wrote:

Nero3000 wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Johnson threw beautiful combos when he wanted to-see of the Williard fight and the final round vs Burns.

He also faced guys who were noted combination punchers-Langford, Martin, Flynn.

Johnson was such a good counterer and so adept at picking his shots on the inside that guys wern't able to get off combination punches on him.

Johnson vs Louis I go with Jack by late TKO.

He's basically the only HW I would make the favorite of beating a prime Louis. He has the right mix of speed, power, and craftiness/defensive ability to really get Joe off of his gameplan.

Those weren't "beautiful combos" vs. Williard and Burns. They were the flailings of a man looking to finish his opponent. Again, THERE WAS NO sustained, tight combination punching back then. That era is usually credited with the rise of Benny Leonard. Jim Jacobs- as respectable a fight film historian as has ever lived- agreed.

Langford and Flynn were not combination punchers. The films don't lie.

You can see it in the films, blind man.

Johnson throws sustained 6 punch combos to the body and head of Jess throughout their bout . . .wild flailings they were not at all.

Yes they were. Not washerwoman wild, but still flailings.

Nero3000 wrote:

silkov wrote:

Nero3000 wrote: Those weren't "beautiful combos" vs. Williard and Burns. They were the flailings of a man looking to finish his opponent. Again, THERE WAS NO sustained, tight combination punching back then. That era is usually credited with the rise of Benny Leonard. Jim Jacobs- as respectable a fight film historian as has ever lived- agreed.

Langford and Flynn were not combination punchers. The films don't lie.

You obviously havent watched many films from that era if you think there was no combination punching. How would Louis deal with Johnsons speed? and power?... if the Braddock etc could floor Louis, Johnson would be able to knock him out..... Johnson played with Burns and at no time tried to ko him!....

Jim Jacobs watched them In fact, he OWNED them. He said that sustained combination punching didn't become part of the game until Benny Leonard came along.

Are you right and Mr. Jacobs wrong? Do you own or know more about the old fights than that world-reknowned boxing expert/historian?

Jim Jacobs said a lot of things, doesn't mean he was always right. I'm not saying Louis had no chance against Johnson, but to dismiss Johnsons chaces of beating Louis is quite wrong.....

silkov wrote:

Nero3000 wrote:

silkov wrote: You obviously havent watched many films from that era if you think there was no combination punching. How would Louis deal with Johnsons speed? and power?... if the Braddock etc could floor Louis, Johnson would be able to knock him out..... Johnson played with Burns and at no time tried to ko him!....

Jim Jacobs watched them In fact, he OWNED them. He said that sustained combination punching didn't become part of the game until Benny Leonard came along.

Are you right and Mr. Jacobs wrong? Do you own or know more about the old fights than that world-reknowned boxing expert/historian?

Jim Jacobs said a lot of things, doesn't mean he was always right. I'm not saying Louis had no chance against Johnson, but to dismiss Johnsons chaces of beating Louis is quite wrong.....

Right you are. We can't totally dismiss Johnson, but we can go with what evidence we have. JJ never dealt with a combination puncher of the modern, post-1920s era. The styles of his time were much different. Can you show me one film of Johnson blocking a 4-6 punch combo? No. All we have is him blocking 1 or 2 at a time before the clinch. Why? Because ustained combos didn't exist at that time.

If you look at boxing history, you'll notice the fighter's hands getting higher and higher as the years pass because more and more punches were being launched at them(combos). Johnson's hands-low-and-weaving style was good for his day, when 1 or 2 shots that would come at him, but it would have gotten him killed anytime after the 20s unless he altered his approach(which I guarantee you he would have been smart and skilled enough to do).

The evidence we have favors Louis. He had faster hands and punched much straighter and harder than Johnson. Louis was KO'd but only after taking a beating from Schmeling. Johnson was KO'd with one punch by Choynski and nailed and floored by Ketchel. That tells us that a powerful, accurate combination puncher like Louis would probably find Jack's chin as well.

Let's just deal with evidence and not feelings here, shall we?

Have a good one!

I cant call myself an expert on the fighters from Johnsons era, but from what I have seen on film ,it sure looks like alot of clinching and mauling.Couple punches grab couple punches grab. Jonson would have to get away from this to have a shot against Louis. He probably had the talent to adjust ,but who knows? I cant see him beating Louis fighting that way.

Explain how Johnson was competetive with some good fighters in the 1920s, while he was approaching 50 years old!!!

You have to look at the films slowed down to appreciate Johnson. You could put Tyson 1985 and film it the way they did in 1915 and he'd look horrible.

Johnson was incredibly fast. He was a master at feinting and counter-punching. Yes, he did like to frustrate his opponents by clinching often after he threw.

Fast forward to 1996 and witness how Evander Holyfield defeated Mike Tyson.

But he was much more then a old timer's John Ruiz. He was a mster at picking his shots on the inside, he usually wasn't just holding - - he would throw a few to the ribs, and then utilize one of the most beautiful and powerful uppercuts seen in boxing. On the outside, he possesed a strong fast jab, which he could double up on (see the Ketchel fight). He also was often not flat-footed, and could glide away from an opponent's swings and make them miss by inches (also see Ketchel, Moran fights). After he made an opponent miss, he throw sharp counters that would turn his opponents into a shell. If you;ve ever boxed, you now that it's very hard to throw sustained combinations vs a guy who can counter well, b/c you'll end up getting hit good and hard.

As for the "no combination punching in that era" argument, you're simply wrong. Look at film of Gans, Wolfgast, Johnson vs Williard and Flynn, Langford vs Flynn. It's hard to tell sometimes from the sped up old films (which would make anybody look clumsy) but those guys WERE throwing combinations, and regularly. Is it simply a coincidence that as we start seeing films in real-time (late 20s, 1930s) we start saying they're fighting in a 'modern' style??? No, it's because you can more accuratly see what they were doing.

Go to Monte Cox's coxcorner website for further musings on this topic.