It never ceases to amaze me how people use a language for years yet still remain unable to understand or interpret it correctly. Lets say for arguments sake Johnson was considered the best of " his time " Using logic, or simply plain old common sense tells you that " his time " just as the times before it, and since are part of " all time " Hence a fighter is considered one of the best of " all time " I don't really give a sh it if it is a journalist, historian, or any other idiot misusing the language with their self important opinions. It is still sh it.
In order to determine how good someone really is I use the masturbation test. Can I jack off to this? If I had a fetish for half naked men punching each other. Which I don't.
As film quality improves the ATG fighters all look like ATG fighters. The poorer the film quality the more difficult it becomes to determine boxing skills, fluidity, athleticism. It is predominantly the ATG fighters filmed via primitive methodology that the uninformed question their greatness. This is no coincidence. Johnson had incredible defensive abilities. Blocking, slipping, parrying. In his prime filmed via modern techniques you would be amazed at what you would see. Skills no modern hwt possesses.
Can anyone who saw the two "championship fights" tonight honestly and with a straight face say that those fighters had more skill than Jack Johnson?
Wilder has that get out of jail power, but he doesn't seem to have improved since the Stiverne fight,it's nearly all long swinging punches and he neglects his jab looking for one big shot. At times he pulled back from Szpilla's attacks like a flustered Albatross ,his arms all over the place. He also missed wildly on occasion , not an impressive performance by any means. Johnson laughed from ringside watching the white hopes eliminate each other, he would be wetting himself watching last nights effort.
Indeed. I sometimes feel like advocates of modern fighters, go through the footage of old timers looking for flaws, and forget that the same flaws often happen today.
I watched the Wilder fight last night and was again shaking my head. Wilder has a big right hand but aside from this he has not learned even boxing basics. Can't fight a lick.
Totally disagree with some points being made in this thread. Mike Gibbons is one of the best filmed fighters, period. Anyone who's seen the McFarland or O'Dowd fights must agree. Some boxers from yesteryear stand up to the eye test. Most do not. Some fights do have bitty quality that make it hard to deduce. The fights I've seen of Dempsey and Wilde make it hard to tell if they're defending with their face or slipping punches by inches. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson is an incredible talent. He has no damaging losses to hold against him. Sparked when green. Jeannette and Hart were basically victories. Willard would have been a points win over 12, 15 or 20 rounds. The only issue for me is we don't see him against his best opponents.
I think the problem isn't necessarily that. Dempsey had how many fights on film, 6 is it? Out of those we see Tunney school him and Firpo drop him. This means the mistakes are a larger percentage of what we can see. Where as we see Ward dropped against Boone but then see 20 or so dominant flawless performances against a huge range of talent. That being said some people are clearly agenda driven and will do anything to argue their case.
Whether it is good or not, in the heavyweight division you really only have to excel in one department and be merely adequate in the rest in order to succeed at the highest level... especially when there are so many trinkets. A great punch and a decent chin go a long ways. Wilder is never going to win a skills contest but any man he connects properly with just once over 12 rounds is going to go down. In the end boxing is a test of physicality before it is a test of skill.
Who would deny that Wilder has flaws? The bigger tendency is for fans of the past greats to pretend that their many obvious limitations are irrelevant and to magnify the flaws of today's fighters while ignoring their comparative advantages.
People forget that Johnson had a lot of fights against big fighters before he became champion, and none of those fights are on film. He beat 6'4" fighters in 215-pound Fred Russell, 205-214-pound Denver Ed Martin, and 200-plus pound Jim Jeffords. Also the thickly built 220-pound Jack Munroe. He beat a strong well conditioned hard-punching bull in 210-pound Sam Mcvey. Also 6'3" 220-pound Sandy Ferguson. All of whom weighed more than Johnson when they fought. Al Kaufman was no little guy. Jeffries 220; 6'6" Willard 235. And Johnson beat a lot of guys with a tremendous amount of experience. I'm not saying Wilder it isn't a very good fighter. He is very talented. He has enough skill to go along with that talent to maximize what he has. He has height, reach, a bit of footwork, a bit of defense, and serious speed and power. And he puts it all together in the best way he can to make it work for himself. But he isn't more skillful than Jack Johnson, and still hasn't fought a true championship fight; and my guess is that despite the bluff and bluster, he will take safer fights for the forseeable future. He has only fought one legitimate threat his whole career -Stiverne, who himself only had one decent opponent in Arreola. That tells you what his people truly think of him - they wanted no part of Klitschko. And rightfully so.
The part about how boxing has evolved is undoubtedly correct, but for me that doesn't make him any less great. The best you can do is to excel in your own time and Johnson did that. The rest is speculation, really. And bringing up the Choynski defeat is a bit uneducated. Johnson was at that time just starting out and said himself he knew he'd get KO'd and faced Choynski as a learning experience. That is truly badass in my book.