Has the skill set declined in heavyweight boxing?

You think he'd do better than Quarry? Quarry did well in that era, he just didn't have what it took to beat 6'3, 6'4 monsters like Ali, Norton, Holmes, and Foreman. Those guys all had height, reach, and about 15-20 lb weight advantages on him. Look at the other contenders around that time, the other 6 foot tall 200 lb guys: Zora Folley, Eddie Machen, Jimmy Ellis.

There are two great champs from that period that don't fit that 6'3" mold and that's Joe Frazier and Sonny Liston. Sonny Liston has a ten inch reach advantage plus 10-15 lbs on Johnson. Joe Frazier is actually an inch shorter than Johnson, but otherwise similar measurements. Both are great punchers. Unless Johnson can punch like them, I don't see him having much of a chance.

What makes you think that Jack Johnson could go toe to toe with Frazier and Liston, let alone Ali, Holmes, Foreman, and Norton?

People talk about him like he's some sort of defensive wizard like Willie Pep, and then they show me footage of him fighting middleweights like Stanley Ketchel and Tommy Burns or a past it James Jeffries and I think "Well of course he looks good fighting those guys!"

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I hear what you are saying about him being a defensive specialist, but if all that you say is true, I still don't see him doing better than Chris Byrd.

 

This is fair, but in Shavers case so many people who were in the ring with him acknowledge his power. I think he could bang with the best of them if we're talking one shot but when comparing two the power of two boxers boxers, i prefer to listen only to fighter who's either beaten both or lost to both, as too many fighters claim somebody they battered hit harder than the one that KO'd them. Of course, Ron Lyle thinks Shavers hit harder than Foreman- he twatted Earnie and got starched by George. Still, Earnie definitely has a case, as Norton was beaten by both so his viewpoint is worth hearing.

Holmes, for once, may not be talking sour grapes, he was badly hurt by Earnie. But his opinion can never be trusted. He would never give a guy who beat him any props. If he'd stayed on the deck against Shavers and beat Tyson, no way would he have said Shavers hit harder.

Tillis said Tyson hit harder than Shavers anyway and he wasn't asked for a comparison. He may have changed his opinion 30 years later for a Shavers documentary or something but that doesn't interest me. You have to take into account the punches taken too- just because someone fights a monster puncher, doesn't mean they were hit cleanly with their best shots. I think Mike definitely hit as hard as Earnie, probably not with one shot though. But Tillis' opinion that Tyson hit the harder seems the more genuine version.

Although Henry Clark, who fought Shavers, Liston and sparred with Foreman...thinks Eddie Machen hit harder than anyone. Of course he would, he beat Machen and he wasn't 100% when he got put on his arse...like none of them are.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I've never disputed Shavers may hit harder, I just prefer examples like you mentioned, where a fighter's ego doesn't appear to play its part (I touched on this and used Norton as an example of a fighter who'd been sparked by both).

 

A similar debate from a diferent era, is the Joe Louis Max Baer debate.

Again, the testimony evidence backs up Baer, and often from people whose interest lay in promoting Louis such as Max Schmeling and Tony Galento.

 

Interesting. Baer probably did have the advantage in raw power, rather than being the all-round punching technician that Joe was. Again, i've always been keen to hear these opinions- from fighters who've beaten/lost to both.

 

You still cant ignore these lines of evidence, especialy when more than one fighter says the same thing.