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 09-16-2009, 04:46 PM   #1
GPater11093
Barry
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19,025
vCash: 836
Default Jack Johnson Review

So i recently stated before i thought Jack Johnson wouldnt do well in a modern ring.

I have watched some more of him and came to afew new conclusions.

Johnson had a fast jab but tended to paw with it to get inside where he did his best work. In some ways on the outside he is similar (in a tiny way) to Wladimir Klitschko.

He had great footwork, when he got up on his toes his outside game improved 10 fold. He would land his jab and spring back with cat like grace. Although he preferred to stay flat footed which helped him on the inside but when he got on his toes he was very impressive.

He was a great ring general. He seemed to be able to controll the fight very well almost naturally. He always seemed to be in teh middle of the ring and very rarely did he lose it.

He threw good combinations, up close he had excellant combinations generally revolving round his right uppercut and feeding off from there normally with a left hook. However on the outside he tended to just use his pawing jab but he occasionally threw a sharp 1-2 that really seemed to be a great shot for him.

Now heres my biggest problem with him, he kept his right hand about his waist. Every old time fighter i have seen tended to keep there right hand up, Johnson did not he normally had his left hand raised higher than his right. He never seemed to raise his guard Johnson which to me is a lack of fundamentals as even Ali lifted his right arm whilst in range. This is where i feel Johnsons biggest weakness is. And this is why against elite heavyweights - IMO - he falls short.

However he is a marval to watch and a real entertainer. Also he seemed to have invented his own punch. In round 1 of the Jeffries fight he kind of ****s his left arm out t the side and swings it around and then lands a lead left hook. Very similar to Roy Jones 'Chicken Sucker Punch' on James Toney.
GPater11093 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 09-16-2009, 05:00 PM   #2
cotto20
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,918
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson Review

I don't really like to think how Johnson would do in todays era, things were so different in every aspect so I find it rather pointless. I judge Johnson on what he done in his era and how he looked.

I consider Johnson to be the greatest defensive Heavyweight of all time. He had more natrual ability than any pre WW II fighter. Johnson was years ahead of his time stylistically, he revolutionized boxing footwork, defense, and the concept of ring generalship aswell as mastery of ring science. He also mastered the art of clinch fighting which was one of his best weapons. He had one of the best uppercut's of all time, which he would often throw while fighting on the inside.

Also conisder the fact that Nat Fleischer who saw Johnson fight and those up to the Ali era, said, in his book Black Dynamite “Jack Johnson boxed on his toes, could block from most any angle, was lightning fast on his feet, could feint an opponent into knots…he possessed everything a champion could hope for punch, speed, brains, cleverness, boxing ability and sharp-shooting.”

Fleischer also reported in 1958, that Johnson’s “mastery of ring science, his ability to block, counter, and feint, are still unexcelled.”

Jack Dempsy said of Johnson “He was the greatest catcher of punches that ever lived (glove blocker). And he could fight all night. He was a combination of Jim Corbett and Louis. I’m glad I didn’t have to fight him.”
cotto20 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2009, 05:02 PM   #3
GPater11093
Barry
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19,025
vCash: 836
Default Re: Jack Johnson Review

ST

i do know that some think boxing has changed so much and all that but i dont think its changed as much as some peopel say. I think alot of it is fairly similar.
GPater11093 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2009, 05:10 PM   #4
cotto20
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,918
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by GPater11093 View Post
ST

i do know that some think boxing has changed so much and all that but i dont think its changed as much as some peopel say. I think alot of it is fairly similar.
Of course some things are the same but not huge amounts. In Johnson's era, there was a pre combination punching era (90% of the time) of single blows and incessant clinching. As well as more rounds, different type of gloves, etc. In todays era Johnson's master of the clinch, wound't mean much as he would never be allowed to use it, as in todays era when a fight end's up in a clinch the referee immediately breaks it up.

Randy Roberts makes some pretty Key Points in this assement.......
Quote:
Watching the films of Johnson is like listening to a 1900 recording of Enrico Caruso played on a 1910 gramophone. When Johnson fought Burns film was still in its early days, not yet capable of capturing the subtleties of movement. Nuance is lost in the furious and stilted actions of the figures, which move about the screen in Chaplinesque manner, as if some drunken cutter had arbitrarily removed three of every four frames. When we watch fighters of Johnson’s day on film, we wonder how they could be considered even good. That some of them were champions strains credulity. They look like large children, wrestling and cuffing each other, but not actually fighting like real boxers, not at all like Ali captured in zoom-lensed, slow-motion, technological grace. But the films mislead.”
cotto20 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2009, 05:15 PM   #5
GPater11093
Barry
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19,025
vCash: 836
Default Re: Jack Johnson Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by St_Boxing_J12 View Post
Of course some things are the same but not huge amounts. In Johnson's era, there was a pre combination punching era (90% of the time) of single blows and incessant clinching. As well as more rounds, different type of gloves, etc. In todays era Johnson's master of the clinch, wound't mean much as he would never be allowed to use it, as in todays era when a fight end's up in a clinch the referee immediately breaks it up.

Randy Roberts makes some pretty Key Points in this assement.......
i disagree

combination punching was definitly used since Fitzsimmons day. I recently watched a fight and sat on the remote and made the film fast forward and it looked exactly like a old film with single punches but when i wathced it at normal speed there was definitly combos throwing. Also you can clearly see Johsnon throw combos in his films.

Yes Johnson clinched alot but I believe he did it for show as he seemed to toy with peple in a clinch, when he started throwing up close he was devastating and didnt seem to be holding, to me he was a master in fighter.

More rounds is a big factor but Johnson ofte went just 10 or 15 or 20 rounds instead of the more extreme 45 rounds etc...

The difference with gloves only really to me affects blocking ths hots as bigger gloves mean you can take more punches to the gloves and not get your face torn to shreds by your hands. Thats why old time boxers kept their hands lower (not as low as Johnsons though)
GPater11093 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2009, 05:45 PM   #6
cotto20
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,918
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by GPater11093 View Post
i disagree

combination punching was definitly used since Fitzsimmons day. I recently watched a fight and sat on the remote and made the film fast forward and it looked exactly like a old film with single punches but when i wathced it at normal speed there was definitly combos throwing. Also you can clearly see Johsnon throw combos in his films.

Yes Johnson clinched alot but I believe he did it for show as he seemed to toy with peple in a clinch, when he started throwing up close he was devastating and didnt seem to be holding, to me he was a master in fighter.

More rounds is a big factor but Johnson ofte went just 10 or 15 or 20 rounds instead of the more extreme 45 rounds etc...

The difference with gloves only really to me affects blocking ths hots as bigger gloves mean you can take more punches to the gloves and not get your face torn to shreds by your hands. Thats why old time boxers kept their hands lower (not as low as Johnsons though)
Actually Johnson would use clinches to his advantage. By wearing out his opponet by using his size and throwing his superb upercutts.

It's pretty a common known fact that combination punching from Johnson era was never really a big factor and didnt play a huge part in boxing then. After watching virtually all fights from Johnson's era on footage and reading the newspapers accounts, you will find this out.

I just find it pointless trying to figure out how fighters from Johnson's era would do today, when there are alot of different aspects from then and now.
cotto20 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2009, 06:00 PM   #7
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,906
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by St_Boxing_J12 View Post
I don't really like to think how Johnson would do in todays era, things were so different in every aspect so I find it rather pointless. I judge Johnson on what he done in his era and how he looked.

I consider Johnson to be the greatest defensive Heavyweight of all time. He had more natrual ability than any pre WW II fighter. Johnson was years ahead of his time stylistically, he revolutionized boxing footwork, defense, and the concept of ring generalship aswell as mastery of ring science. He also mastered the art of clinch fighting which was one of his best weapons. He had one of the best uppercut's of all time, which he would often throw while fighting on the inside.

Also conisder the fact that Nat Fleischer who saw Johnson fight and those up to the Ali era, said, in his book Black Dynamite “Jack Johnson boxed on his toes, could block from most any angle, was lightning fast on his feet, could feint an opponent into knots…he possessed everything a champion could hope for punch, speed, brains, cleverness, boxing ability and sharp-shooting.”

Fleischer also reported in 1958, that Johnson’s “mastery of ring science, his ability to block, counter, and feint, are still unexcelled.”

Jack Dempsy said of Johnson “He was the greatest catcher of punches that ever lived (glove blocker). And he could fight all night. He was a combination of Jim Corbett and Louis. I’m glad I didn’t have to fight him.”
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ][Only registered and activated users can see links. ][Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2009, 06:36 PM   #8
guilalah
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 935
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson Review

Quote:
St_Boxing_J12

Randy Roberts makes some pretty Key Points in this assement.......

Quote:
Watching the films of Johnson is like listening to a 1900 recording of Enrico Caruso played on a 1910 gramophone. When Johnson fought Burns film was still in its early days, not yet capable of capturing the subtleties of movement. Nuance is lost in the furious and stilted actions of the figures, which move about the screen in Chaplinesque manner, as if some drunken cutter had arbitrarily removed three of every four frames.
Oh, yeah, those old Caruso recording really make him sound like sh-t, huh?
Shame have to take his vocal greatness completely on faith.

And Chaplin looks jaunty cause the camara's were so bad -- not cause he was deliberately moving jauntily and the cameras were deliberately being undercranked.


-------

Johnson's low hands ... if they didn't work today -- not all modern low-hand fighters are abject failures, after all -- well, do you think Johnson couldn't figure it out? If Tris Speaker was playing centerfield today, do you think you'd find him perched 50 feet in back of second base, muttering to himself 'G----nm-it, it worked great in 1912!'.
Give these guys credit for having a brain.


------

If you fought Johnson outside, you were up against a defensive master who could feint and counter; on the inside, a strongman with a close-in uppercut and, if you tried to move out, he'd shred you with short punches; and if you were fighting him at middle range, that was a bad sign: it meant you were ready to go, cause there wasn't a better heavyweight at eliminating the middle range when he didn't want it.

[I edited out the last sentence, which I thought was getting a little rhetorically over the top].

Last edited by guilalah; 09-17-2009 at 08:05 PM.
guilalah is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2009, 06:39 PM   #9
cotto20
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,918
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by guilalah View Post
Oh, yeah, those old Caruso recording really make him sound like sh-t, huh?
Shame have to take his vocal greatness completely on faith.

And Chaplin looks jaunty cause the camara's were so bad -- not cause he was deliberately moving jauntily and the cameras were deliberately being undercranked.


-------

Johnson's low hands ... if they didn't work today -- not all modern low-hand fighters are abject failures, after all -- well, do you think Johnson couldn't figure it out? If Tris Speaker was playing centerfield today, do you think you'd find him perched 50 feet in back of second base, muttering to himself 'G----nm-it, it worked great in 1912!'.
Give these guys credit for having a brain.


------

If you fought Johnson outside, you were up against a defensive master who could feint and counter; on the inside, a strongman with a close-in uppercut and, if you tried to move out, he'd shred you with short punches; and if you were fighting him at middle range, that was a bad sign: it meant you were ready to go, cause there wasn't a better heavyweight at eliminating the middle range when he didn't want it.

The question isn't 'Could Johnson have adapted?', it's 'Could we?'.
Right.........
cotto20 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2009, 07:46 PM   #10
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,215
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by GPater11093 View Post
So i recently stated before i thought Jack Johnson wouldnt do well in a modern ring.

I have watched some more of him and came to afew new conclusions.

Johnson had a fast jab but tended to paw with it to get inside where he did his best work. In some ways on the outside he is similar (in a tiny way) to Wladimir Klitschko.

He had great footwork, when he got up on his toes his outside game improved 10 fold. He would land his jab and spring back with cat like grace. Although he preferred to stay flat footed which helped him on the inside but when he got on his toes he was very impressive.

He was a great ring general. He seemed to be able to controll the fight very well almost naturally. He always seemed to be in teh middle of the ring and very rarely did he lose it.

He threw good combinations, up close he had excellant combinations generally revolving round his right uppercut and feeding off from there normally with a left hook. However on the outside he tended to just use his pawing jab but he occasionally threw a sharp 1-2 that really seemed to be a great shot for him.

Now heres my biggest problem with him, he kept his right hand about his waist. Every old time fighter i have seen tended to keep there right hand up, Johnson did not he normally had his left hand raised higher than his right. He never seemed to raise his guard Johnson which to me is a lack of fundamentals as even Ali lifted his right arm whilst in range. This is where i feel Johnsons biggest weakness is. And this is why against elite heavyweights - IMO - he falls short.

However he is a marval to watch and a real entertainer. Also he seemed to have invented his own punch. In round 1 of the Jeffries fight he kind of ****s his left arm out t the side and swings it around and then lands a lead left hook. Very similar to Roy Jones 'Chicken Sucker Punch' on James Toney.
Johnson was a better in-fighter than out fighter I agree with you his guard was low, and when he fought top notch boxer in his prime ( O'Brien ), it might surprise you to know that he was out jabbed.

I have read the reports of Johnson in non filmed fights vs Hart, O'Brien,and Jim " battling " Johnson. To say he could be 0-2-1 here is not an understatement.

The Johnson vs. Frank Moran fight is interesting. Moran was but a standard " white hope " contender, yet the scoring of the 20 rounds between the two is close. Johnson won by a shade.

I fail to see this" can't touch " this Pernell Whitaker defense that Johnson fans rave about. In truth, Johnson was there to be hit. His punch out put is very low too.

On the plus side, Jack had a very good uppercut, was relaxed in the ring, strong in the clinches, and had fast hands.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2009, 08:32 PM   #11
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,906
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
Johnson was a better in-fighter than out fighter I agree with you his guard was low, and when he fought top notch boxer in his prime ( O'Brien ), it might surprise you to know that he was out jabbed.

I have read the reports of Johnson in non filmed fights vs Hart, O'Brien,and Jim " battling " Johnson. To say he could be 0-2-1 here is not an understatement.

The Johnson vs. Frank Moran fight is interesting. Moran was but a standard " white hope " contender, yet the scoring of the 20 rounds between the two is close. Johnson won by a shade.

I fail to see this" can't touch " this Pernell Whitaker defense that Johnson fans rave about. In truth, Johnson was there to be hit. His punch out put is very low too.

On the plus side, Jack had a very good uppercut, was relaxed in the ring, strong in the clinches, and had fast hands.
You are enttiled to your opinion on Johnson,I think no one is in any doubt of it by now.
A couple of points.it is a matter of record that Johnson did not train for the no decision 6 rounder with O Brien,it is also on record that he scaled 221lbs for the Moran fight .It is a matter of record that Johnson broke his arm in the Jim Johnson fight ,but if it pleases you to include it ,do so.
I wonder where all the epithets about Johnson's marvellous defence came from?
Why did contemporary writers such as Fleischer,Rice,Buck,Batchelor,Farr,Odd say Johnson was the greatest defensive fighter of them all?
Why did contemporary boxers Ted Kid Lewis,Jim Corbett and Tom Sharkey, all concur on this?
Why in 102 fights was Johnson only beaten 13 times? Seven of those after he was 48 years old.
If Johnson was indeed "there to be hit", as you say,shouldnt he have lost more fights?
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2009, 07:06 AM   #12
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,215
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey View Post
You are enttiled to your opinion on Johnson,I think no one is in any doubt of it by now.
A couple of points.it is a matter of record that Johnson did not train for the no decision 6 rounder with O Brien,it is also on record that he scaled 221lbs for the Moran fight .It is a matter of record that Johnson broke his arm in the Jim Johnson fight ,but if it pleases you to include it ,do so.
I wonder where all the epithets about Johnson's marvellous defence came from?
Why did contemporary writers such as Fleischer,Rice,Buck,Batchelor,Farr,Odd say Johnson was the greatest defensive fighter of them all?
Why did contemporary boxers Ted Kid Lewis,Jim Corbett and Tom Sharkey, all concur on this?
Why in 102 fights was Johnson only beaten 13 times? Seven of those after he was 48 years old.
If Johnson was indeed "there to be hit", as you say,shouldnt he have lost more fights?
Well, if your fighting much smaller men, past their prime fighters, or 2nd rate contenders who only got a title shot because they were white, how often do you get hit?

If you clinch a lot and don't take many chances, how often do you get hit?

Where can I see great, non-clinching defense from Johnson on film?

As for Johnson poor performances vs. O'Brien, Moran, and Jim Johnson, all I get back is excuses! Sorry, but a alleged top 5 all time great heavyweight ( Pick one ) would toy and demolish these three.

In fact Hart, Choynski and Griffin, who were much better heavyweights than O'Brien, Moran, and Jim Johnson defeated Jack Johnson prior to him becoming champion, so why should it surprise an objective researcher that Johnson was champion struggled vs grade B contenders?

It should not, but popularity and myth to some here often trumps objective reasoning, news reports, and film.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2009, 07:36 AM   #13
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,906
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jack Johnson Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
Well, if your fighting much smaller men, past their prime fighters, or 2nd rate contenders who only got a title shot because they were white, how often do you get hit?

If you clinch a lot and don't take many chances, how often do you get hit?

Where can I see great, non-clinching defense from Johnson on film?

As for Johnson poor performances vs. O'Brien, Moran, and Jim Johnson, all I get back is excuses! Sorry, but a alleged top 5 all time great heavyweight ( Pick one ) would toy and demolish these three.

In fact Hart, Choynski and Griffin, who were much better heavyweights than O'Brien, Moran, and Jim Johnson defeated Jack Johnson prior to him becoming champion, so why should it surprise an objective researcher that Johnson was champion struggled vs grade B contenders?

It should not, but popularity and myth to some here often trumps objective reasoning, news reports, and film.
"If you are fighting much smaller fighters past their primes, how often do you get hit"?
Well in Jeffries case. A ****ING LOT!
Sharkey 183 Jeff 215
Corbett 188 Jeff 218
Fitz 167 Jeff 206
Fitz 172 Jeff 219
Corbett 190 Jeff 220

"Second rate contenders who only got a shot because they were white"

Do you mean Jack Munroe and Jack Finnegan?

Have you heard the expression " HOIST WITH YOUR OWN PETARD"?

WELL YOU HAVE JUST DONE IT!

All those contemporary writers who SAW Johnson in action were wrong then ?
THanks for the entertainment.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2009, 07:53 AM   #14
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,643
vCash: 238
Default Re: Jack Johnson Review

Sorry, but i don't see this combinations and jabs that the initial poster is talking about. Yes, he did use them every now and then, but 90% of the time, it was.... throw a punch, fall in a clinch, rough him up a bit, throw him away, and repeat the same. Particularly the opponents did this; they did not show ANY combination punching or jabbing at all... nevermind footwork or boxing from the outside.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2009, 11:28 AM   #15
GPater11093
Barry
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19,025
vCash: 836
Default Re: Jack Johnson Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by St_Boxing_J12 View Post
Actually Johnson would use clinches to his advantage. By wearing out his opponet by using his size and throwing his superb upercutts.

It's pretty a common known fact that combination punching from Johnson era was never really a big factor and didnt play a huge part in boxing then. After watching virtually all fights from Johnson's era on footage and reading the newspapers accounts, you will find this out.

I just find it pointless trying to figure out how fighters from Johnson's era would do today, when there are alot of different aspects from then and now.
Yeh Johnson would use clincheds i dotn argue that but he didnt need to, he was a brilliant in fighter as well as a clincher and he could easily in fight instead of hold and grapple

I honestly dont agree, when i reaad newspaper reports you here of combinations and agaian i mention when i fast forwarded my film by mistake it made combos look like single shots. Watch Joe Rivers vs Willie Ritchie shows great combos and from the 20s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey View Post
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ][Only registered and activated users can see links. ][Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
publicity shots McVey

Interesting Cutler seems to mimic Johnsons hand placement perhaps he klearned of teh champion but he stands half crouched
GPater11093 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 09:50 AM.


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