Jack Johnson vs Mike Tyson

Yeah but if they'd fought Tyson they would have been scared and intimidated and therefore him brutally KO'ing them wouldn't count.

 

He might if he ran for 6 rounds as he did against Johnson.:think
Decrepit ,aged? He was 32 years old ,2 months older than Johnson. Johnson was on a guarantee and unless O Brien could stop him,[how likely was that,] he could not lose his title
The fact that Burns went into the 14th rd against Johnson does not mean that Johnson could not have taken him out earlier had he tried ,ditto with Jeffries and several other of his victims.

Tyson is a real danger to any man, his handspeed ,power and combinations make him a severe problem for any heavyweight to solve. But results can,and are often ,misleading.

 

O'Brien was 110+ fights into his career, had 9 more fights of which he won 3. He was toast.

He could put on track spikes and Mike would find him.

I am not trying to denigrate Johnson. He was a great heavy and an extremely IMPORTANT heavy. But I will not listen to comparisons between Mike's competition and most, if not all, of Johnson's.

 

Meh, I love jack johnson, man was pure pimpin.

In my imagination though, johnson likes to start slow and his bag of tricks can but delay a body beating the raw aggression of Tyson would bring. KO for Iron Mike.

 

Exactly.

If Johnson had fought with genuine intent in his half his fights they would be been over fast - Burns wouldn't have seen the end of the first round and look what happened to Ketchel the first time Johnson threw a genuine punch - he was a nasty finisher - and I don't care how old Jeffries was or how rusty he was - nobody in the era matched him for endurance and ruggedness in an era of tough men yet Johnson lifted over the middle rope and onto the ring apron without even trying with a brutal uppercut and people say the ridiculous 45 round distance partially helped Willard against Johnson and if it had been a 15 rounder Johnson would've won every round but if it had been a 15 rounder I don't think Johnson would let him see the final bell anyway? Look what happened with McVey Johnson purposely toyed with him for 20 rounds and then proved what he could've done at any time and knocked him out with 20 seconds to go in the last round just to underline his dominance.

 

Tyson probably would find him ,but that pre-supposes that Johnson was trying to ko O Brien,Johnson rarely went for the kill and he was in a no lose situation.
Comparisons?
I'm not giving any, I haven't even made a pick.

 

That's the thing... Johnson clearly had the cuffs on sometimes... and clearly didn't open up like he could. To say otherwise imo is being disingenuous. You don't think Johnson could've beaten Burns or Jeffries earlier?

 

Are you suggesting that Johnson had the cuffs on against O'Brien because the description of the action doesn't seem to back that.

And what about against Jim Johnson? Cuffs on again? How about Hart?

Is it the new rule of Johnson that every poor performance was due to the invisible cuffs? That's mighty convenient for arguments sake.

 

He didn't have the cuffs on against O Brien but ,as he couldn't lose because it was a no dec 6 rounder he had no incentive to exert himself.Johnson never worried about giving value for money!
He didn't have the cuffs on against Johnson either , but he was 35 years old and had been out of the ring for a year and a half, he also broke his arm in the third round which may have hindered him somewhat!
The Hart fight is a contentious one, accounts say Johnson landed the most punches , winning the first 10 rounds with ease.Hart was the aggressor but landed little of consequence,at the end of the fight Johnson was unmarked ,Hart a mess.It appears Hart received the decision because of his willingness to make the fight ,and Johnson's reluctance to try and close the show.

The best referee of the time George Siler was ringside,he called the decision in favour of Hart a ,"very curious one". It's a fight that is open to whatever interpretation you wish to put on it.
I think Pollack had it about right.
I'm not trying to convert anyone here, it's a matter of indifference to me what others think on the subject ,I haven't even bothered to make a pick,I just get a bit peeved when blatant liars like Mendoza repeatedly try and feed deliberate bull**** into the system.
Cuffs?
I do believe Johnson could have finished off Burns ,Kaufman,Ferguson,Flynn,Ketchel ,and Jeffries and others earlier had he seriously set bout doing so.

 

i don't make my picks very confidently, that doesn't mean i haven't followed the facts and details of the different fighters, it means that i simply am being "real" when it comes to accepting that it is not a perfect science when it comes to guessing what ATG from one era could beat another.

I pick Tyson but if we could time warp this fantasy match up in place and JJ knocked Tyson out i wouldn't feel stupid about my decision. I always remember that we are all just guessing.

I think that's why i find it amazing when us so called experts treat their guesses as if they are gospels. You don't which i have always appreciated :good

 

Would Mike Tyson leave a fight with Hart "up to interpretation"?

 

I'm gonna say no, I get the feeling your not so sure about this one though Seamus?

 

I'm no expert just a fan who gets it wrong as many times as everyone else.
Choosing a winner from two fighters a century apart is just conjecture.I have enough problems picking a winner from two contemporary boxers.

I picked Wlad to beat Fury.

 

To add, O'Brien had the better jab. Where's this great defense from Johnson? And you're correct O'Brien was on the slide of his career when this fight happened vs a prime Jack Johnson.

 

You either forget or lie like the rug and seldom respond to the facts I list.

Instead, your MO is to go off tangent and use double standards for your defense.

If you want to quote Siler, he felt Peter Jackson was better than Johnson by long odds!

I'm glad you get peeved. I don't put much effort into it, but it just underscores your lack of poise and character.

Fess up, you like Johnson for political reasons, and I noticed you also choose to defend scumbags. The latest example is Carlos Monzon. I'm beginning to see a pattern here....