Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-20-2012, 06:27 AM   #16
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,799
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
Do guys with 8 fights, middleweights, lighheavies and shells of once great fighters count well on a heavyweight resume? Because I am still searching for some really good heavyweights on Johnson's resume. Granted, outside of Johnson, really good heavyweights didn't exist so much in that era.
Seamus, Do you agree or disagree with this. The best fighters who fought Johnson when they were in their prime or near prime were likely Willard, Hart, and Choynski.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 03-20-2012, 06:42 AM   #17
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 20,105
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
Seamus, Do you agree or disagree with this. The best fighters who fought Johnson when they were in their prime or near prime were likely Willard, Hart, and Choynski.
It might be mentioned that Johnson was not prime for any of those fights.
He was a super middleweight when he fought Choynski, under 190lbs when he fought Hart, and 37 years old when he fought Willard.

I thought we generally measured fighters against each other, prime for prime?

Or should we take the Holmes who was dropped by 188lbs, 2 fight Kevin Isaac, and match him with the Johnson who crucified Jeffries?

Childs? Griffin? Burns? Martin? Klondike?
How good were they?

Just as an aside, who were the best fighters that Jeffries fought who were in their prime? Sharkey & Ruhlin? Do they beat Willard, Hart?
Does Sharkey ,or Ruhlin, beat the Langford, or McVey that Johnson beat?

Last edited by mcvey; 03-20-2012 at 11:03 AM.
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 08:04 AM   #18
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 20,603
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
Do guys with 8 fights, middleweights, lighheavies and shells of once great fighters count well on a heavyweight resume?
I think that Holmse is at least as vulnerable to this criticism as Johnson.

Quote:
Because I am still searching for some really good heavyweights on Johnson's resume. Granted, outside of Johnson, really good heavyweights didn't exist so much in that era.
The point is that neither of them have outstanding wins on their resume, but they both bring a lot of depth to the table.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 05:37 AM   #19
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,799
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes

Quote:
Mcvey

It might be mentioned that Johnson was not prime for any of those fights.

He was a super middleweight when he fought Choynski, under 190lbs when he fought Hart, and 37 years old when he fought Willard.

I thought we generally measured fighters against each other, prime for prime?
Let's see if you can keep this clean....

How was Johnson not in his prime in 1905 for the Hart fight? Johnson had 24+ fight sunder his belt when he was pole axed by Choynski. Johnson wasn't exactly a green novice for Choynski, and he surely had the edge in height and weight for the fight. I agree that Johnson was older vs Willard, yet Willard was one of most formidable opponents for Johnson. Either way my point stands that when Johnson meet the best when they were in their prime or near prime, they got the better of him! There is truth to this statement.


Quote:
Childs? Griffin? Burns? Martin? Klondike? How good were they?
Griffin who was past his prime, got the better of Johnson in the series. I did not add him with Willard, Choynski or Hart because he was past his best. Still his result over Johnson is telling. Johnson's ring record vs. Griffin shows he failed to win any of the three matches. 0-1-2.

Klondike was a hitter, but not very skilled. He KO'd Johnson once, drew with him,a nd lost via KO another time. Mixed results here at best for Johnson.


I would say Burns belong in the first group I mentioned ( Willard, Choynski, and Hart ), but would rate him behind Willard and Choysnki for sure. Martin could box, but he had a string bean build and could not take a punch to the head or body, which is why he has multiple early KO losses on his record. Childs was too small, and did not hit hard enough to rate with the above names.

Quote:
Just as an aside, who were the best fighters that Jeffries fought who were in their prime? Sharkey & Ruhlin? Do they beat Willard, Hart?
Does Sharkey ,or Ruhlin, beat the Langford, or McVey that Johnson beat?
Fitzsimmons for sure was better than Sharkey or Ruhlin. Indeed after Jeffries Ko'd Fitz in 1899, he came back to smash both guys. Fighters who are past their prime do not breeze through top contenders. Fitz's prime extended to his late 30's!


I would also say Corbett who was 33 in his first fight with Jeffries, and put on what his handlers call his ring performance was better than Ruhlin, and better over all ( but perhaps not head to head ) than Sharkey.


Fitz, and Corbett for sure were better than the 156 pound Langford, the 0-3 sub 170 pound Joe Jeannette, and the teenaged Sam Mcvey that Jack Johnson beat. I would also pick Sharkey to win at least two of three matches vs the same group of guys that clearly were not close to their heavyweight primes.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 06:50 AM   #20
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 20,105
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
Let's see if you can keep this clean....

How was Johnson not in his prime in 1905 for the Hart fight? Johnson had 24+ fight sunder his belt when he was pole axed by Choynski. Johnson wasn't exactly a green novice for Choynski, and he surely had the edge in height and weight for the fight. I agree that Johnson was older vs Willard, yet Willard was one of most formidable opponents for Johnson. Either way my point stands that when Johnson meet the best when they were in their prime or near prime, they got the better of him! There is truth to this statement.




Griffin who was past his prime, got the better of Johnson in the series. I did not add him with Willard, Choynski or Hart because he was past his best. Still his result over Johnson is telling. Johnson's ring record vs. Griffin shows he failed to win any of the three matches. 0-1-2.

Klondike was a hitter, but not very skilled. He KO'd Johnson once, drew with him,a nd lost via KO another time. Mixed results here at best for Johnson.


I would say Burns belong in the first group I mentioned ( Willard, Choynski, and Hart ), but would rate him behind Willard and Choysnki for sure. Martin could box, but he had a string bean build and could not take a punch to the head or body, which is why he has multiple early KO losses on his record. Childs was too small, and did not hit hard enough to rate with the above names.



Fitzsimmons for sure was better than Sharkey or Ruhlin. Indeed after Jeffries Ko'd Fitz in 1899, he came back to smash both guys. Fighters who are past their prime do not breeze through top contenders. Fitz's prime extended to his late 30's!


I would also say Corbett who was 33 in his first fight with Jeffries, and put on what his handlers call his ring performance was better than Ruhlin, and better over all ( but perhaps not head to head ) than Sharkey.


Fitz, and Corbett for sure were better than the 156 pound Langford, the 0-3 sub 170 pound Joe Jeannette, and the teenaged Sam Mcvey that Jack Johnson beat. I would also pick Sharkey to win at least two of three matches vs the same group of guys that clearly were not close to their heavyweight primes.

Photos of Johnson squaring up to Hart for their fight , show a sinewy , slender Johnson not the heavily muscled man who beat Jeffries 5 years later.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Langford had over 50 fights when he was thrashed by Johnson , was he prime?

Johnson was nowhere near prime for Choynski ,who described him as a novice.

Ten months prior to their fight, Johnson scaled 168lbs for a fight. That is 40lbs BELOW his optimum weight.

Griffin was 31 years old

A couple of posts ago you tried to say Johnson quit against Klondike. Do you just use whatever alternative suits you at the time?
You opinion of Martin is at variance with Kevin Smith's ,I think I'll take his version.

"Denver" Ed Martin
(the "Colorado Giant")

BORN September 10 1881; Denver, ColoradoHEIGHT 6-3 1/2 (Some sources report 6-6)WEIGHT 203 lbsMANAGERS[Only registered and activated users can see links. ], [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]Martin was a strong and shifty competitor who carried a stiff punch but did not possess a tough chin

Many would rate Burns the equal if not superior of Choynski.


Childs stopped nearly half of his opponents , on what do you base his lack of power?

Below ,a report of Childs koing Armstrong.
Who seven months earlier had gone 10 rounds with Jim Jeffries.

By the way,Childs was an inch and a half taller than Sharkey ,who twice went the distance with Jeffries.


[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]



Fitz had been out of the ring for 2 years prior to BOTH fights with Jeffries , and the night before their first fight, he had to be walked home , by William Muldoon, because he was drunk.
THAT IS NOT PRIME.

Neither Fitz nor Corbett were prime when Jeffries defended against them.
That is a GIVEN.

You did not answer my question,I asked you were Sharkey and Ruhlin better than the McVey and Langford that Johnson fought?

Jack Johnson went a decade without tasting defeat,he was never beaten in his prime, that is a FACT.
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 08:32 PM   #21
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,799
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes

Jack Johnson is the long top ten guy on any man's list ( omit those who think Joe Walcott is in the top ten ) who's career is littered with excuses, and losses. Seriously any all time great should have enough ability and desire to get past the numerous losses and draws that show up on Johnson's resume... at all stages of his career.

Corbett was at his best when he fought Jeffries in the first fight, and Fitz was still very much deadly as results show vs. any other contender from 1896-1904.

You date on Griffin's birthday is likely incorrect.

Johnson best performance on film is vs. Burns, and he was very close to the same weight when he lost to Hart.

Yes-- I think the Sharkey and Ruhlin that fought Jeffries were better than a 156 pound Langford, a novice Jeannette who was below 170 pounds, and sometimes sported a losing record when he fought Johnson, and the teenaged version of Sam McVey. I have seen a McVey in his near prime on film. He was very one dimensional. Just imagine how poor he was as a teenager.

I would say the Chosynki, Hart, Klondike, and Griffin that defeated Jack Johnson were better than the versions of Langford, Jeanette, and Mcvey that Johnson fought. I'm sure you will cry foul. For openers Johnson lost to all the guys I mentioned first. Excuses, and bending of facts ( while leaving out others ) will not change this.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 12:40 AM   #22
ETM
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,683
vCash: 500
Default Re: Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes

I gotta say Holmes on the tangible side of it. 20 title defenses is hard to beat for anybody. Larry Holmes was that dude.

On the other hand Holmes didnt have to go through anything close to what Jack Johnson went through. He wasnt run out of his country for being the best heavyweight in the world and being black at the same time.

Could Jack Johnson have run off 20 defenses during that era if they left him alone to fight and defend his title? No question. He couldve reigned as long as he wanted.

From a pure boxing sense I gotta lean toward Lawrence Holmes but got alotta admiration for what Mr Johnson did.
ETM is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 05:09 AM   #23
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 20,105
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
Jack Johnson is the long top ten guy on any man's list ( omit those who think Joe Walcott is in the top ten ) who's career is littered with excuses, and losses. Seriously any all time great should have enough ability and desire to get past the numerous losses and draws that show up on Johnson's resume... at all stages of his career.

Corbett was at his best when he fought Jeffries in the first fight, and Fitz was still very much deadly as results show vs. any other contender from 1896-1904.

You date on Griffin's birthday is likely incorrect.

Johnson best performance on film is vs. Burns, and he was very close to the same weight when he lost to Hart.

Yes-- I think the Sharkey and Ruhlin that fought Jeffries were better than a 156 pound Langford, a novice Jeannette who was below 170 pounds, and sometimes sported a losing record when he fought Johnson, and the teenaged version of Sam McVey. I have seen a McVey in his near prime on film. He was very one dimensional. Just imagine how poor he was as a teenager.

I would say the Chosynki, Hart, Klondike, and Griffin that defeated Jack Johnson were better than the versions of Langford, Jeanette, and Mcvey that Johnson fought. I'm sure you will cry foul. For openers Johnson lost to all the guys I mentioned first. Excuses, and bending of facts ( while leaving out others ) will not change this.


I think the Langford who lost to Johnson and the McVey who was kod by him, both beat Ruhlin.
Of course it should be factored in that McVey was being talked of as an opponent for Jeffries at this time and a substantial purse was offered for Jeffries to defend against him.
It should be also factored in that Johnson, in his fights with both Langford and McVey was pre- prime himself.
You've seen no more of McVey than everyone else.

Mcvey was a couple of weeks short of his 20th birthday, let's not try and give the impression he was 17/18 here, he was also at 207lbs ,27lbs heavier than Johnson.

Three months prior to his one -sided beating by Johnson he had kod Denver Ed Martin in one round , and also held ko wins over Fred Russell and Kid Carter.

This is at odds with those that have studied Corbett's career such as Adam Pollack.

Fitz was inactive for two years prior to both of his fights with Jeffries,as was Corbett.

I used Box Rec's date, have you reason to dispute it?

Johnsons best filmed performance is 1910 against Jeffries ,where Johnson pitched a shut out before dispatching the Boilermaker, for this fight Johnson scaled 208lbs. He stated he was in the shape of his life.

The Post Standard 5 July 1910 Johnson Wins In Fifteenth After Toying With Jeffries Huge White Pugilist Floored Three Times In Final round Former Champion Presents a Sad Spectacle as He Is Battered at Will By Cunning Negro JEFFRIES IS BEATEN BADLY; HE NEVER HAD A CHANCE



We do not know exactly what Johnson weighed for Hart, but photographic evidence suggests a man growing into his frame ,a man significantly below 190lbs.

In any event , best performance on film does not automatically translate to prime.

You have no reason to state Jeannette scaled under 170lbs for ANY of the fights with Johnson, there is ZERO evidence to support this, only your manic desire to denigrate Johnson.

You judge McVey on a couple of minutes of film against Jim Johnson, that is nonsensical and agenda driven. His results bear testimony to his abilities.

You cannot laud Jeannette ,and Langford, yet scorn McVey , by doing so , you only expose your lack of logical balance.

Langford was generally McVey's master , but McVey beat him twice and drew 7 times with him.

Likewise Mcvey had 2 draws,one loss and one win against Jeannette, which suggests parity.

How did a ,"one dimensional ,"fighter achieve these results?

McVey lost the following fights , 3 to Johnson, 2 to Wills, 2 to Jeannette, 6 to Langford . In turn he beat Langford x2 Wills x2 and Jeannette, 1 to Denver Ed Martin, the only result he could not reverse was his 3 defeats to Johnson.[* he lost a fight when returning after 2 years out of the game , an aberration that does not concern us here.]
You diss Johnson's wins over Langford , Jeannette and McVey in the same way you build up Corbett and Fitz against Jeffries ,and for opposite reasons ,it is so obvious , and so biased as to be laughable.

To summarise , you have a multitude of excuses for Johnsons wins over Jeannette, Langford, and McVey, yet Johnson's early losses to Klondike and Choynski are inexcusable?
You are incapable of objectivity on this subject , so let us return to the thread.

Last edited by mcvey; 03-23-2012 at 03:56 AM.
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 05:56 AM   #24
james442
Journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Allentown, Pa
Posts: 58
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes

Johnson was a GREATER fighter...but Holmes was a BETTER fighter..Johnson had a plethora of things to put up with at that time and made not only just history but MONUMENTAL history. Holmes was clearly better and I have The Easton Assassin in my top 3-4 HWs ever. Better yet, have Johnson and Holmes switch eras and see who does better. I know Holmes would have beaten those fighters rather easily, but the other things(the Mann act,racism,NO respect at all,) would have curtailed his career quickly. Johnson would have been good,but possibly not as great plus more people could have matched Johnsons talent level in Holmes Era than in Johnsons era.
james442 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 08:28 AM   #25
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 20,105
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes

Quote:
Originally Posted by ETM View Post
I gotta say Holmes on the tangible side of it. 20 title defenses is hard to beat for anybody. Larry Holmes was that dude.

On the other hand Holmes didnt have to go through anything close to what Jack Johnson went through. He wasnt run out of his country for being the best heavyweight in the world and being black at the same time.

Could Jack Johnson have run off 20 defenses during that era if they left him alone to fight and defend his title? No question. He couldve reigned as long as he wanted.

From a pure boxing sense I gotta lean toward Lawrence Holmes but got alotta admiration for what Mr Johnson did.
A balanced view,imo.
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 05:35 PM   #26
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 20,105
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
Jack Johnson is the long top ten guy on any man's list ( omit those who think Joe Walcott is in the top ten ) who's career is littered with excuses, and losses. Seriously any all time great should have enough ability and desire to get past the numerous losses and draws that show up on Johnson's resume... at all stages of his career.

Corbett was at his best when he fought Jeffries in the first fight, and Fitz was still very much deadly as results show vs. any other contender from 1896-1904.

You date on Griffin's birthday is likely incorrect.

Johnson best performance on film is vs. Burns, and he was very close to the same weight when he lost to Hart.

Yes-- I think the Sharkey and Ruhlin that fought Jeffries were better than a 156 pound Langford, a novice Jeannette who was below 170 pounds, and sometimes sported a losing record when he fought Johnson, and the teenaged version of Sam McVey. I have seen a McVey in his near prime on film. He was very one dimensional. Just imagine how poor he was as a teenager.

I would say the Chosynki, Hart, Klondike, and Griffin that defeated Jack Johnson were better than the versions of Langford, Jeanette, and Mcvey that Johnson fought. I'm sure you will cry foul. For openers Johnson lost to all the guys I mentioned first. Excuses, and bending of facts ( while leaving out others ) will not change this.
So, in your opinion Johnson was not a great fighter?

See below.

SPECIAL TO THE POST-STANDARD* RENO, Nev., July 4.—
I tried. That's all I ask credit for doing, -I was beaten fairly and squarely. I have no excuses to make. Let full credit be given Jack Johnson for his victory, He is a truly great fighter.


Jim Jeffries. He should know , don't you think?

Last edited by mcvey; 03-23-2012 at 03:57 AM.
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012, 06:47 AM   #27
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,799
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes

McVey,

I'm not going to waste my time picking apart your biased response. You have a way of avoiding inconvenient truths by making excuses, only showing one part of the data, and spinning the topic into something else. What happened in the ring does not seem to apply to you. I still find this funny.

Why don't you answer the question of the thread. Who would you pick between Johnson and Holmes in a 15 round fight?
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012, 08:03 AM   #28
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 20,105
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
McVey,

I'm not going to waste my time picking apart your biased response. You have a way of avoiding inconvenient truths by making excuses, only showing one part of the data, and spinning the topic into something else. What happened in the ring does not seem to apply to you. I still find this funny.

Why don't you answer the question of the thread. Who would you pick between Johnson and Holmes in a 15 round fight?
Translate this into Mendoza speak= I can't think of a rebuttal ,because I am confronted by facts that I cannot refute.

So plan B ,ignore them.
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012, 05:57 PM   #29
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 20,105
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes

[quote=janitor;12375263]
Quote:

I think that Holmse is at least as vulnerable to this criticism as Johnson.



The point is that neither of them have outstanding wins on their resume, but they both bring a lot of depth to the table.

Holmes has that range finding ,point scoring jab, that can bust you up, a good, if not devastating right cross, good footwork, terrific powers of recuperation ,balls of steel, and great pride.Rarely threw a left hook.

Johnson has uncanny anticipation of incoming artillery, ring intelligence, a good left jab , good short hook, short damaging body punches ,very savvy infighter, but like Holmes , does not carry dynamite power. Both men are probably the best exponents of the uppercut the heavyweight division has seen.
I can't argue either way, they probably split a trilogy.
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2012, 08:06 AM   #30
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,799
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes

Quote:
McVey,

I'm not going to waste my time picking apart your biased response. You have a way of avoiding inconvenient truths by making excuses, only showing one part of the data, and spinning the topic into something else. What happened in the ring does not seem to apply to you. I still find this funny.

Why don't you answer the question of the thread. Who would you pick between Johnson and Holmes in a 15 round fight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey View Post
Translate this into Mendoza speak= I can't think of a rebuttal ,because I am confronted by facts that I cannot refute.

So plan B ,ignore them.
How about you have no life except to post here, while I do? I can refute you all day if I want to. I have better things to do. It matters not, your bigoted on the topic to change.

By the way, I have a nice write up about Johnson going low again ( not in the Jeannette fight ) in a fight report you have never read. Seems like in addition to beating up women, Johnson wasn't shy about tossing a few south of the boarder. When you get bored, I might post it later
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013