Originally Posted by mcvey
I dont "like " Jack Johnson,I think he was a pretty objectionable human being,he beat women,was extrememly vain,dishonest,untrustworthy,and could be cruel,I rate him as I do because thats where I think he belongs,Fleischer rated him higher!,and before you attack him again ,remember ,he put Jeffries at no 2,so if you make a cas for old Nat being biased ,you are tearing down your god,old bigoted Jeff,who bet$5000,on Fitz at odds of 10/6 to beat himself in their first fight,on the grounds he was covering "allbets"..Stop cherry picking incidents,anyone can make a case ,being selective about a fighters career,Ali gets beat by a fighter with only 7 pro bouts,knocked down by a cruiserweight ,Cooper,and a journeyman ,Wepner.Louis is kd by a fat out of shape bartender twice,Galento,hurt by a LH who didnt have ko power at 175,Conn.Jeffries is beaten black and blue by a man who hadnt had a fight in 2 years who was 37 and7 pounds above Middleweight,,Holmes just s****ed by comparative novices like Witherspoon and Williams,Dempsey was taken the decision by a fat Sailor who couldnt punch ,not once but several times ,Meehan.Isolate bouts from any fighters resume and you can spin the bottle in your favourite direction.Joe Frazier beat ONE ATG,and that guy was back from over 3 years out of the ring ,with only 18 rounds of boxing under his belt,you can go on for ever,dont you get tired? Sing another song.
Nat and Jack were friends. Friends tend to over rate friends. I always laugh when they ask a trainer to or manager to rate his fighters. Is this the crutch you using?
I suppose if you think Nat is spot, on that Fitzsimmons is your #3 all time heavyweight too. And Corbett is what, #5?! Jeffries is 4-0, 4 KO's vs two of Nat's all time top five heavies. No other man on the list can come close to saying that. Johnson old beat the shell of Jeffries, and since Nat and Jack had an Ali and Cosell writer and fighter type of relationship, this must be Nat's friendly justification of why Johnson was the best. Just a hunch. Nat also said Jeffries beat the best competition.
And by the way, Fitz and Corbett are not in my top 15. I am objective. Try it sometime.
As to Grebfan's comment, yeah, Wills probably beats Johnson in 1915. It would not matter because Wills was probably too risky for Johnson to fight. Willard wasn't much of a boxer. He was big and slow, which is why Johnson probably risked the fight. Willard in my opinion was the most formidable fighter Johnson gave a title shot to. Oh, and the fight is completely mis understood. Johnson was not up 25-0 before getting knocked out. The fight was close to even. It was a tale of two fights. Johnson in control until round 15 or so, then Willard took command from rounds 16 to finish. Maybe Willard one 1-2 early rounds, and Johnson won 1-2 late rounds. Try reading the full round by round sometime or watching the near full fight. Other bogus claims about this fight were the heat was 105? Really? The weather archives don't say that. And Johnson’s dive claim is hilarious too. Just like his claim of injuring his arm in round three vs Jim Johnson, when the entire crowd saw the injury in round ten!
Other foot notes: Corbett did not do well vs Jeffries in the second fight. You are wrong.
Witherpsoon is 5x the fighter of the lesser fighters who gave Johnson trouble.
Ali and Dempsey had some issues, but they had far less than Johnson.
School is out. I have work to do. Up next for you is paragraph formation, then some more news reads.