Jack Johnson's 5 Greatest Performances

So nothing verry impresive compared to Ali, or even Louis and Marciano.

Verry much a quantity and longevity over quality resume.

This is exactly what we have with Johnson.

 

Problem is... Spoon. Mercer and Williams weren't even close to being near the best or champions... Burns was... same with Ketchel. Sure they were smaller than Johnson but Champions none the less. You can talk about the style of the early 1900's and make fun of it all you'd like. The thing is.. under your own premise that is just how people fought. That was the style of that time, which looks different than the style of today. However, since most everybody was fighting that way... then it's an equal playing field.. yet the guys that Johnson fought rose to the top during that time and style of fighting. The same can't be said for over half of the people you listed in the Holmes column

 

If Witherspoon was a name on Johsnons resume, you would dismiss the win by saying that he was green when the fight happened, and inconsistent thereafter.

The only difference between Holmes Witherspoon and Johnson McVea, was that Johnson dominated McVea instead of being held to a controvertial decision.

 

McVey was a wild wide open slugger? Well you live and learn.

Ketchel was just over 170lbs for the Johnson fight, 2lbs more than Billy Conn weighed when he took Joe Louis into the 13th rd.
I have shown Johnson's challengers had an average weight of 202lbs.considerably more than those of
Marciano's 192lbs
Charles 190lbs
Dempsey's 188.9lbs
Jeffries 184.5lbs

Maybe you will start a thread about how 220lbs Jeffries challengers had an average weight of 184.5 lbs?

 

Yeah, because that´s exactly what your posts show. I see you.

 

No you are not questioning. You are degrading and hating. Read your own posts.

It wasn´t wose, it was different. But then that is to be expected since they had different rules, gear and possibilities.

 

My point was you keep banging on about real heavyweights.Ive given you the weights of Johnson's opponents and they compare very favourably to 4 champs I've given .I could provide more but, why bother ?You are set on your course ,the thing is ,everyone knows your destination,and the purpose of your voyage

You believe you have seen adequate footage of Sam Mcvey to make that sweeping statement?
You must be almost as clever as you think you are.:good

 

But you must conceed the general point, that the strengths of Johnsons record are:

A. Depth of contemporary world class opposition

B. Longevity against contemporary world class opposition

C. Dominence over contemporary world class opposition

D. Consistency against contemporary world class opposition

Nobody has tried to sell it on the basis that he beat great fighters in their primes, or made a clean sweep of the top fighters of his era.

 

I think it is a major problem when people try to use the words good and skilled opponents to rate people, when this pretty much is just not possible. If a fighter is the best fighter in their era, they are a good fighter. If they are the second best in the world, they are a good fighter. If they are the third best, they are a pretty good fighter. If they are the 10th best, they are not so good, if they are the 100th best, they are not good fighters. Anything else just does not work.

You have to assume, that within reason, eras are pretty much the same. This is why the Klitchskos are starting to have a rise through the ranks. EVen though, i dont think they have ever fought a really skilled and conditioned fighter. Should they be penalsed because they have never fought a skilled opponent under 200lbs? I dont think so. But if the old time rules and values were still used, people would bleat on about them never fighting an in shape fighter. The closest they came was a 2-1 record against a 30lb overweight Chris Byrd, who didnt get into shape until his very last fight. In fact, you could say it is why the Klitchksos are so dominant, since they are the only two fighters around who actually are in good shape, and their record proves that if a fighter is in shape, they will beat the overweight muscle bound fighters, even if the have moderate skills only (See also willard and Carnera).

Anyway, the point is, if you are the best fighter in the world, then you are the best fighter in the world, whether you are crude like Foreman or arguably Ali, or text book perfect like Joe Louis. The best fighter is the best fighter. Johnson beat all of the best fighters in the world. That is a cleanout. It doesnt matter about the weight. For another modern example, Vitali's win over Adamek was much better than his win over Areola and is better than a win over Michael Grant would be. A win over Haye is better than a win over Valuev. Regardless of Size.

When Johnson thrashed Jeffries, there were no fighters left to fight. Burns was the worlds best, Jeffries may have been (but wasnt), Martin Langford, McVey and Jeanette were all top fighters. Kaufman, Ross, Ferguson and Co were all the very best available. In fact by the time Johnson took the first few years off and was banished from the US, he had already beaten every major player (his two losses were no longer any good and he beat the men who beat them from memory). And the next best fighter he had not fought him but had emerged was probably Jim Johnson and Johnson beat him as well. Even when not in shape he still fought solid guys like Moran and Willard (who were the best around that he had not already give a chance to!) his only crime was not rematching fighters he already beat