Who had the better Career Resume...Liston or Johnson

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by Seamus

That puts them quite a bit above what the 1900-1914 period offered, doesn't it?

I don't know. I don't understand where you get this stuff from.
If Sam Langford and Jack Johnson and Gunboat Smith etc. were quite a bit below 'tough guys off the bread line' who came later .... then it's a wonder a boxing match could even draw a crowd in those days.
I mean, these professional boxers couldn't even fight as well as the bums and drunks and under-employed labourers who were fighting in the gutter for free, right ?

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by Legend X

I don't know. I don't understand where you get this stuff from.
If Sam Langford and Jack Johnson and Gunboat Smith etc. were quite a bit below 'tough guys off the bread line' who came later .... then it's a wonder a boxing match could even draw a crowd in those days.
I mean, these professional boxers couldn't even fight as well as the bums and drunks and under-employed labourers who were fighting in the gutter for free, right ?

They didn't have internet pornography. They would bet on termites.

Seriously, Joe Louis is my favorite heavy so I don't think that poorly of the 1930's.

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by Seamus

They didn't have internet pornography. They would bet on termites.

Seriously, Joe Louis is my favorite heavy so I don't think that poorly of the 1930's.

How poorly do you think of the 1910s ?

[PetethePrince]

Seamus doesn't really rate any HW pre 1950's barring Louis that highly. He has the right to do so as it is a fair position to hold. I would argue he's a little too tough for the era, personally.

[KuRuPT]

Originally Posted by Seamus

Was a different diet going to make Sam Langford 6-3 with a 78 inch reach? Would Tommy Burns be anything but a fat middlweight with zotfig hips?

And by the time we get to Jesse Owens in track and field, the heavyweight division had risen to a very high level, having evolved from the primordial ooze that was Johnson's era.

and yet u didnt answer the question at hand.. Was he slow?

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

and yet u didnt answer the question at hand.. Was he slow?

**** no. 10.3 ain't slow as it is. Had he been training full time into his later 20's (rather than retiring out of college), had modern training regimens, and competed on modern tracks, he would be under 10. No doubt.

[KuRuPT]

That is still REALLY slow compared to 9.5 So if Johnson had modern training methods.. a proper childhood well he was well nourished... proper training equipement and world class trainers... He wouldn't be even bigger and better than he already was? See where i'm going with this? you must as you just lead your argument for Owens right where the argument has been at for Johnson since page 1...

[Legend X]

Jesse Owens ran on a dirt track. He'd be a top sprinter in any era.

With boxers, there's no meaurables like in sprinting. It's not that kind of sport. It's man versus man, pitting their wits against one another. They don't know what they will have to do from moment to moment to win the fightuntil it happens . It's like chess, or war. You make the right moves at the right time you win the fight.
No one can compare boxers from one era to another in any certain way, as far as head-to-head goes.
Sprinting is always the same - run as fast as possible down the track. No ifs or buts, the fastest man wins.

[KuRuPT]

Originally Posted by Legend X

Jesse Owens ran on a dirt track. He'd be a top sprinter in any era.

With boxers, there's no meaurables like in sprinting. It's not that kind of sport. It's man versus man, pitting their wits against one another. They don't know what they will have to do from moment to moment to win the fightuntil it happens . It's like chess, or war. You make the right moves at the right time you win the fight.
No one can compare boxers from one era to another in any certain way, as far as head-to-head goes.
Sprinting is always the same - run as fast as possible down the track. No ifs or buts, the fastest man wins.

Did you miss the ENTIRE premise of the other side.. which relied heavily on the fact that Johnson didn't beat any TRUE HW's and Liston himself was too big and modern for Johnson. I'm not sure how you could miss that part..but that is exactly where my analogy comes into play and the correlation is sound. Athletes are a product of their time.. Period.. If you're great in that time period when the techniques and training methods were all the same.. that carries just as much weight as people who were good in an era where techniques and training has improved. That, and to go further.. if we can give Owens credit for what he could've been with Modern training equipment and methods and diet.. then why couldn't and shouldn't we do the same with Johnson.. and fully expect him to be bigger.. stronger and more technical than he already was?

[SuzieQ49]

Would Tommy Burns be anything but a fat middlweight with zotfig hips?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAA

[janitor]

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

if we can give Owens credit for what he could've been with Modern training equipment and methods and diet.. then why couldn't and shouldn't we do the same with Johnson.. and fully expect him to be bigger.. stronger and more technical than he already was?

Do we even need to?

[KuRuPT]

No, but to not even factor that into consideration.. when their whole argument stems from how a "real" HW should look and what real HW's somebody beat.. You would think a simple extrapolation wouldn't be too much to ask and consider. Especially when ones whole argument is based around said flawed logic.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

No, but to not even factor that into consideration.. when their whole argument stems from how a "real" HW should look and what real HW's somebody beat.. You would think a simple extrapolation wouldn't be too much to ask and consider. Especially when ones whole argument is based around said flawed logic.

It's based around my protestation that a 185 pound heavyweight beating a 156 pound opponent is not an achievement upon which to hang so much of your hat.

And if so, where are we going to place Young Peter Jackson, who turned the same trick two months later via KO?

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

Did you miss the ENTIRE premise of the other side.. which relied heavily on the fact that Johnson didn't beat any TRUE HW's and Liston himself was too big and modern for Johnson. I'm not sure how you could miss that part..but that is exactly where my analogy comes into play and the correlation is sound. Athletes are a product of their time.. Period.. If you're great in that time period when the techniques and training methods were all the same.. that carries just as much weight as people who were good in an era where techniques and training has improved. That, and to go further.. if we can give Owens credit for what he could've been with Modern training equipment and methods and diet.. then why couldn't and shouldn't we do the same with Johnson.. and fully expect him to be bigger.. stronger and more technical than he already was?

I didn't miss anything.
I was just adding some thoughts of mine to the thread.

I think Jack Johnson was plenty big enough anyway, for what it's worth.
I don't even buy into this "modern training methods and diet" stuff.
It's overrated. Yes, some HWs use drugs, and they lift weights more now, and are bigger on average. But I don't think a Johnson, a Dempsey, a Louis or an Ali would be at much of a disadvantage.

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by Seamus

It's based around my protestation that a 185 pound heavyweight beating a 156 pound opponent is not an achievement upon which to hang so much of your hat.

And if so, where are we going to place Young Peter Jackson, who turned the same trick two months later via KO?

Great fighter.