Joe Louis vs Jack Johnson

I was under the impression that in Johnson vs Willard,
Jack in his finest moments with his back to the fence fought like a SOB and dispelled all these trite evaluations of him.
At the age of 37 too. Thats like 50 in todays age.

 

So, he dominated Joe Choynski, Marvin Hart, Jack O'Brien and Jim Johnson? Or was he just trying to "make it look easy"?

 

Against Marvin Hart he did make it look easy.. He had no marks on him and Hart looked like a hamburger. O'Brien was a 6 round affair.. nothing significant there. Johnson still beat Johnson with a broken arm... Yea.. pretty much the definition of not having to try.

Joe Louis.. struggled or out right lost to anybody he faced that was an all time great. Lost to Max... Lost to Walcott (No. 1) and was having more trouble with him in no. 2 before the KO... lost to Charles.. lost Marciano... Had real trouble with conn... Some of these might be this or that.. but the fact remaims.. Louis struggled with the best he faced or outright lost. Johnson on the otherhand.. dominated the best he faced...

 

So who exactly were the best that Johnson faced?

 

Langford.. Jeffries.. mcvey.. Joe J.. Denver Ed... Ketchell.. Burns... I might include Jim Johnson to considering some of his results .. I won't list Fitz

 

As with Louis’s best names, the context invalidates the argument.

Langford was not a world class heavyweight yet when Johnson fought him.

Jeffries was an empty shell.

McVea was legitimately world class, but he was green.

Martin was world class.

Ketchel hadn’t beaten anybody at heavyweight yet.

Burns was the champion, fair enough.

Jim Johnson was never considered that good.

Hart and Willard were clearly better than a few of the people you listed.

 

No he wasn't. He got knocked down, got back up, and proceeded to knock Ketchel out with one punch...silencing the white crowd that was cheering for him to be knocked out.

 

More importantly, not one single fighter on that list(the versions that Johnson fought) lasts even 5 rounds with Louis. Not one.

 

Clearly you are not privy to next day reports. Hart seized the initiative and was more aggressive. Given the interpretation of the day this secured the win. Johnson had a chance for a title shot with a victory but apparently could work no harder to attain it.

O'Brien was a ND bout. Jack, old and puny, was not going to KO Johnson but he did redden his face with jabs and generally fluster a prime Johnson over the 6. He retired a few fights later. There still seems to be disputation over when Johnson broke his arm against Jim Johnson. I know that he claimed earlier in the fight, perhaps round 3. But many claim it was in the last 2 minutes of the fight. He was roundly booed for his effort against this B-level fighter. I guess, "not trying" could be an excuse one, as a Johnson apologist, could provide posthumously.

 

No need to knock one of these guys to support the other. Both were terrific. I just believe head to head Johnson would confuse Joe and counter him to pieces and win a decision. I don't for a minute buy this Johnson only fought one punch at a time guys. Who the hell aught alohas but Blackburn, a Johnson contemporary. Any, that being said jack would have to pitch near no hit ball as Joe could certainly take him (or anyone) out.

 

There is really no need to knock either.

But as far as analysis, I think people are over impressed by Johnson rag-dolling a diminutive and crude trapsetter/brawler in Burns or a shell of an athlete in Jeffries. Footage of Jeanette doesn't show a whole lot either, mainly a guy who liked to find an opening for one punch, deliver it and wrestle, a guy with a horrendous jab by modern standards and whose footwork got caught up. Jim Johnson shows a similar lack of schooling. These guys don't even look to be in the league of a Bob Pastor. Could they still win against superior boxers? Sure, every once in a while. But they are no preparation for a cool, efficient killing machine like Louis.

 

So if I'm understanding you listing losses to ranked fighters when it's Walcott is 'distorted' and 'borderingon on ******ed' but when it's Louis it's a-ok? A perfectly reasonable stance.

 

Actually it's you who must not have read the reports. In virtually every report it's made clear that Johnson was clearly the better boxer and landed the harder more telling blows. Hart looked like swish cheese and Johnson looked like he was out on a jog. Hart barreling in and throwing punches and showing aggression doesn't mean he landed the harder blows nor does it mean he boxed better. He was simply.. just aggressive and pushed the fight. Hardly a sign of being superior. In fact, most people realize that if it had been scored under modern criteria Johnson easily wins.

Jim Johnson has some impressive wins and ND bouts on his ledger though.. so I wouldn't easily dismiss him. Johnson fought him with a broken arm and was never in any danger what so ever.

Point of the matter is this... Louis struggled more than Johnson did when they faced the best fighters.. Johnson how the cookie crumbles

 

The difference is... I personally believe being a part time fighter.. inexperienced .. starving.. not proper training or support is a worse situation than being a little past your best.. but with the best trainers and support in the world along with be very experienced and seasoned. Big differences there imo.

 

False big Janitor...

Langford was world class.. and Johnson wasn't a HW either.

Martin wasn't world class... he was okay. Burns Thrashed him.. we see easily Johnson dealt with Burns

Ketchel has some HW victories and was world class... maybe not HW world class but still world class

Johnson has a better resume than Marvin Hart that much is true. So if you have Hart there.. Jim Johnson should undoubtedly be there

I would place Willard there before I would Hart.