Interesting Jack Johnson article by Monte Cox

Don't buy it and I do not believe the boxing public bought it either.

Gibbons 6' .50 ......175 pounds. Lt heavyweight, Hwt contender.
Carpenter 5' 11......170 pounds. Lt heavyweight champion.
Greb. 5' 8.............165 pounds. Middleweight champion and the size of a middleweight.

Again you would be the first to complain if Dempsey had fought and koed Greb in a couple of rounds which more than likely he would have done. Just because Greb did well sparring with Dempsey with big gloves in training does not mean he takes Dempseys punches with 5 oz horsehair filled gloves.

 

Instead were here talking about how Demosey picked on people that had just been beaten by that MW.

 

This is an argument that I have put forward, more than once.

 

Carpentier was a LT heavyweight in terms of both weight and height. Long history of LT heavyweights fighting hwt champions

Gibbons was a LT heavyweight who fought hwts. His weight and height clearly put him in the hwt division. Long history of LT heavyweights fighting hwt champions.

Greb was clearly a middleweight in terms of height and weight. Not a very good history of middleweights fighting for the hwt championship.

 

Greb had over 30 fights weighing around 168/ 170lbs Gibbons around the same scaling 168/175lbs .I'm a big Dempsey fan but we can't pretend that Harry didn't beat a lot of good heavies.
It would have been, as you said a no win situation for Jack, but your weight disparity explanation is rather thin imo.
No pun intended.

 

I see the action clearly and don't feel much "friction" when I watch fights like this (McVea-Johnson, 1910) but I feel extremely underwhelmed nonetheless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pay6XBYfnRc

 

Jack Johnson had what I'd call an adaptable defensive style, so it doesn't quite make sense that he'd struggle with "modern styles".
He had a lot of room for adjustment built into the style.
Unlike, say, a Joe Frazier or a Mike Tyson, whose styles could only really be imagined with a very limited scope for adaption and adjustments.

Having said that, whether Johnson was good enough to beat some of the fighters that came since is the real question. It's not so much 'could he cope with the styles?', it's more a case of 'was he good enough ?' based on the suspect heavyweight opposition he did actually beat ?

 

Can barely tell which punches land, and which don't.

Imagine watching GGG fight, and not knowing which punches are landing :scaredas:

 

You're missing the point. Punching, moving/footwork, and balance have advanced leaps and bounds during the past 100 years. Today's amateurs and "bums" benefit from tactics and techniques that just weren't understood by the top heavyweights in the world back then. This has nothing to do with film quality.

And if Golovkin were in there landing punches, you'd know.

 

Sorry, that was awkwardly worded shorthand. I was really referring to advances in how fighters maintain balance on offense and defense and leverage in their punches (particularly counters and combinations). From what I've seen, some of the top heavies back then often fell in/lunged in with their punches in ways that would have looked comical later in the 20th century. Some of the best heavies evaded punches in ways that took them completely out of fighting position -- some even looked temporarily off balance in doing so-- leaving them unable to counter with any leverage. Quite a few also stood too tall, which also limited them in those respects.

 

http://evolutionaryedges.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/3/13937781/4606980.jpg?740