First of all, Baird didn't beat Benvenuti. Secondly, Benvenuti was coming off KO wins over Baird and Bethea heading into the 1st Monzon fight. His career actually appeared to be rejuvenated rather than "finished."
Baird not only got robbed in Ohio in a gift draw against Benvenuti but he was also stopped prematurely in Italy against him. If getting a premature stoppage revenge victory over a fringe fringe fringe contender and a revenge KO over 14 fight "veteran" is your idea of rejuvenation then we have very different views on the definition of the word. Its amazing the lengths some will go to in order to build up their idols. Claiming that Benvenuti's 2-2 record against Baird and Bethea of all people somehow gave him a new lease on life. Pfft.
Hence he doesn't look impressive on film. :good Relating to this thread generally, I'm ''impressed' by every ATG on film of whom we have footage of at or near their bests or in a significant performance. Even if I don't like or understand their style. It makes little sense to call a fighter an ATG and then watch one of the fights that makes him an ATG and say 'not impressed'. If it aint impressive, then I'd probably say ' he aint an ATG !'. But then, I'm probably being pedantic.
The thing with Monzon, he was a little ungainly at first glance, just from his build I guess, or at least he wasn't explicitly graceful or 'stylish' ... but what probably grates the viewer more about his style is that he was so relaxed and loose and casual with what he was doing. I mean, he really was, not just a contrived relaxed style like some posing slickster from Detroit or Philly, nah, he was way too relaxed for that. He just went in there and boxed, no frills, no effort. It's kind of tedious.
You neglected to mention that he was dominated and dropped several times in the rematch. Returning to form with two decisive wins over opponents that had previously caused him problems is about as clear-cut a rejuvenation as you can get. Like trying to dismiss a dominant performance as a "premature stoppage"?
Some of the Johnson bashing here is scary over-the-top. The idea that he just clinched and stalled is completely contradicted by the phenomenal damage he inflicted on opponents in some of his most famous fights (Jeff, Burns, Ketch for starts). I'll agree that he often looks unimpressive in the very, very little ancient footage available of him (and it's a TINY amount), but taking that footage out of context and using it to dismiss his entire career is bonkers. There are a bunch of reasons the small amount of video on him often doesn't look spectacular : he'd often deliberately carry opponents to the later rounds, either for financial reasons or because he had a vicious sense of humour and wanted to humiliate opponents and their backers (definitely the case in the Burns and Jeff fights) by prolonging the fight and clowning around. Instances on existing footage of him fighting at full-pelt are virtually non-existent. When he does (eg. last round of Burns) he looks devastating. the Burns, Jeffries and Willard fights were fought in unimaginable heat. During the Jeff fight there was a real fear the wooden arena would catch fire due to the temperature and Rickard had fire hoses on standby. People in the audience were on the verge of passing out. Now imagine fighting fifteen rounds in that.... Jack was smart. He saw no reason to go into crazy exchanges when he knew his conditioning was superior and he could outlast pretty much any other heavy. Also being ever-so-slightly vain (heh), there's a reason he had barely a scratch on his face after any fight. The fact he wasn't truly pushed by an opponent on any of the available footage (with the exception of Ketch, who he ANNIHILATED instantly) is down to his aptitude for frustrating opponents and making it impossible for them to land. And lastly, and this is enormously important and never mentioned, so I went and looked it up - a quote from the Randy Roberts book : "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." I don't object to Johnson's inclusion in a list of ATG's who don't look impressive on film, I probably agree with it to be honest. But to then go on to act as if this film is comprehensive evidence his career was a load of **** is absolutely crazy.
I didn't 'dismiss his entire career'. I said on film he doesn't look as great as he clearly was. The thread says 'on film'. And if you count all the footage up the majority of time spent watching Jack is of him clinching.
Yes, and as I specified, I agreed with his inclusion in the list on that basis. I did go out of my way to make that clear. It was the subsequent comments about him only fighting tiny or shot opponents, his colour being the main reason he's rated, and bizarre criticisms like him slipping when he absolutely obliterated Ketchel (as if that somehow takes away from the KO), that I found puzzling.
That's fair. Your last paragraph did make that clear just wanted to explain my stance further so my earlier post didn't see me lumped in with the crowd that think his skin colour sees him so highly rated. Obliterating Ketchel isn't impressive at all IMO. It's expected.
Yeah, I did intend to quote directly when I started the post but there were a fair few bits and pieces I disagreed with throughout the thread and it would've took ages....most have quantified Johnson's inclusion in the list by saying the footage doesn't show him at his best, which is fine although I do think the Roberts quote is helpful when looking at any video of fighters of that era. The Ketchel fight is a strange one. Jack was carrying him and didn't make any real attempt to KO him until Ketchel knocked him down. When he made up his mind to finish the fight it took, what, two seconds from the time he gets up off the floor? Less? Regardless of the size difference Ketch was a tough ******* and I find it impressive ANYONE could knock him clean out on less than two seconds notice.
I'd expect any heavyweight champ' worth their salt to be able to carry him and/or ice him when they wanted to. As nails and dangerous as he was, he was a middleweight. I'd expect Johnson to do the same to Dick Tiger as well.
Burns was a striaght up canook weakling with a set of fine birthing hips on him. Can you imagine the derision that would be thrown Klitschko way were they to defend against such a paltry entity? Ketchell was another midget and a hophead and a fix. Jeffries was ancient and hadn't sniffed a ring in 5 years. Randy Rhodes, on the other hand, shredded magnificiently.
In Jack's defence he didn't defend against Burns. Although he does seem to fit the bill of a Johnson opponent. I actually don't mind Burns. He was decent, and a nice right hand. Not brilliant, but one of Jack's better scalps all the same.