If Ken Norton had Challenged Jack Johnson?

I can't knock what you've said here. I was thinking more in terms of their combination of superior skill and reflexes meant that opposition were always one step behind. They were so good that when opponents where reacting to them, they were already gone/in a different place

 

Mendoza see the above and read it again what I said was Johnson was not bothered by the size and strength of either Jeffries or Willard and was able to go 26 rds with a much bigger and stronger Willard...I just wrote in a different way in which others understood. And I never said the 6' 1/2" 205 lb Johnson was bigger than the 6'3"220lb Norton.....what I did say in so many words was Nortons size and strength would not make a difference Johnson could handle these bigger men as he proved in his career....

I do not feel Norton's style would be a major issue for a master like Johnson who had his own varied methods to deal with different styles. Johnson had the patience and craftiness to assess a fighter and adjust in a way Ali and Holmes normally did not.....Holmes and Ali were great champions but they overwhelmed their opponents with their outstanding boxing skills by simply fighting harder with Norton the only answer they had was to try to outbox Norton and when Norton's rythum was unsolvable they just fought harder to win no real strategy shift except more effort. Johnson used a bit more guile and craft in his strategy and adjusted as needed to win whether it be clinch fighting or range boxing he could do whatever he needed to win and IMO he was deceptively strong for his size regardless of excuses Johnson was stronger than Jeffries....Johnson again being a high ring IQ fighter IMO he allowed Jeff to push him around with enough resistance to drain him....Jeffries was outmatched intellectually.

 

I need to see what film evidence you've seen to suggest Johnson was such a brilliant tactician, because what I've seen, doesn't suggest that.Because he was successful against a tough guy like
J.Jeffries, ( a fighter who got into boxing by a lucky punch to another fighters throat, after that other fighter was beating him viscously through out their fight,and won the fight.) Jeffries was way over the hill by the time he faced Johnson and never was a skilled pro fighter, esp in comparison to fighters of the last 50-60 yrs. Jeffries best fighting days were in the 1890's for Pete's sake. He fought J.Johnson in 1910, after coming down in weight from over 300 LBS. THERE WAS NO INTELLECTUAL GENIUS IN BEATING J.JEFFRIES, HE WAS A TIRED OLD MAN, FORCED BACK INTO FIGHTING TO SAVE THE WHITE WORLD. Please stop with that nonsense of how smart J.Johnson was in a boxing ring, esp comparing him to a Ali or Holmes, THEIRS absolutely nothing to support that claim other than your story.

 

We have the testimony of those who fought him and those who saw him fight.How much importance you give them is up to you.

 

Richdanahuff,

I think part of the problem here is many posters like to read, and comment but few have access or watch the films.

Johnson was not stronger than Willard, nor did he attempt to clinch and maul him. There are several viewable rounds of this fight. Some Johnson won, others Willard won. Johnson was not stronger, and he could not hurt Willard.

As for the Jeffries match, the early rounds on film are close and when they lock up, its Jeffries moving Johnson backward more often than not. But the heat and Jeffries age combined with being out of the ring for six years took its toll, then Johnson began to push around a tired old man later in the match.

I do think you brought up an excellent point on Norton being awkward. Yes, he was awkward and skilled, so much that Ali and Holmes, two of the very best and smartest heavyweight champions could not avoid his blows!
So if they had trouble, please tell me why Johnson wouldn't? I'd love to hear your reasoning...

Regarding hitting power, its Norton

Regarding body punching, Norton by a good margin.

Regarding the range of the jab, frequency of use and power behind it, Norton again.

Norton himself was pretty strong and you are wrong to say he had a size advantage in this match up.

You make no sense. Johnson was bothered by Willard size and strength, he could not clinch and hit, nor could he hurt Willard. He was out gunned on the outside and had to mount attack rushes. Lucky for him, Willard wasn't very skilled or accurate when he did so. Otherwise, Johnson's nailed coming in. Besides, comparing Willard's skill level to Norton is like comparing a kindergarten to college.

The Jeffries that returned was a tired old man who had not fought in 6 years. We are talking prime for prime here.

Ali and Holmes were very smart fighters. Who outsmarted them? No one. They also had longer countering options than Johnson and better feet. If they could not stop Norton's attack, neither could Johnson, as his guard was lower, his height and reach, were less, and his feet were not moved as often on film. Use your reason and watch the films, if you are unbiased, you will get it.

You might be surprised to learn that a small and light hitting Jack O'Brien did in fact out jab Jack Johnson. Where was this vaunted defense of Johnson's I ask? O'Brien had some skills, but he's not as good as Norton.
Or watch many rounds of Johnson vs. Moran, its close and Moran lands enough to win many rounds. Ya think Moran is on Norton's level? Not a chance!

 

Yes, its less tolerated today. Would you agree? Now comes the point when you won't answer my question because doing so shoots 100 holes in what you are trying to communicate!

So answer my question, is clinching less tolerated today as opposed to the early 1900's. The rules back then allowed hitting and holding sometimes, and I never saw a point docked on film for clinching in the early 1900's

+1 already for me

If Wlad was in Johnson's time, he'd blast out the weak title people he faced with no need at all to clinch. He would not be Ko'd, out boxed by primary sources or floored by men weighed under 180 pounds!!! Yes, I upped the bar on the weight to prevent your lame attempts to twist unknown facts about what men who would not even be in the division weighted vs Johnson.

+2 for me

Keep posting, I'll have fun with the score.

 

Yeah Jeffries was an old tired man of 35 who had been in training for the Johnson fight for nearly a year and a half.
Johnson was a young 37 years old man on the run from his own country a fugitive in exile.lol
You might be surprised to learn that the Philadelphia Ledger, O 'Brien's home town paper gave Johnson the clear verdict over O' Brien! Their fight was a 6 rds no decision affair and Johnson didnt train for it,the fight reports state he was "hog fat."

O' Brien said he was in the best shape of his life for the fight. I have the interviews.

After the fight Jim Jeffries said O 'Brien could give anyone trouble over 6 rds.
Moran did not win "many rounds," against Johnson I have the fight reports. Johnson was 4 days off of 36 when he beat Moran over 20rds.

Haters got to hate!

 

How many points has Wlad had docked for clinching?

How can you be outboxed by a primary source? How absurd are you in your vitriolic hate? Its a sickness!

 

in an period with more clinching/wrestling, fouls, longer fights and smaller gloves, you don't think not losing a fight in like 14 years PROVES he was a good tactician? It most certainly does imo. It wasn't just this style or that style, it was against a variety of styles, and he figured out how to get it done. Not sure how you can say it isn't proven he's a great tactician frankly

 

you'd tihnk that wlad pov was a fight from the 1910s then, he clinched within seconds and kept it up nonstop. Pov would be forgiven for thinking Mrs Pov was in the ring that night

 

But your talking about the people who also called Johnson the "the Galveston Giant" at a little over 6' tall and 200lbs. Yet 40 yrs later J.Louis was 6'2" 210, what would the people of Johnson's era consider Louis? The sport of boxing technique wise grew tremendously between Johnson's era and Louis, The hand placement, the way your feet were set, leverage, all that made strides between the 2 eras. (But, it has definitely regressed the last 10-15 yrs, replaced by size,and athletics,and mass media making more of todays fighters than they are) Look the people of Johnson's era were basing their opinions on what they saw. But most probably never saw Louis, fewer of those saw Marciano, fewer still saw Liston , or Ali, Holmes, Tyson etc. Believe your own eyes, fighters like Johnson and Dempsey were tremendous in their time. But they wouldn't be considered 2rd rate between the times of Louis and Lewis.

 

Good compared to to whom? J.Sulivan, J.Jeffries, B.Fitzsimmons, most of the fighters of the time were big strong men ( compared to the average of the population of the time) who were fighting in BACK alleys back rooms, parking lots, were ever a bunch of men could gather and place bets on who was going to win, it was much more respectable during the era, then it is today. But it doesn't mean they were well skilled. It usually ment the fighter who won was mentally and physically stronger than his opponent, not technically sound. Hell, on that note the "Great" Kimbo Slice should've been a pro champion. But we saw what happened to him the minute he started dealing with real pros who were training daily. Again I'm pointing out what should be obvious. J.Johnson and J.Dempsey were great for their era's. But they are tons of questions about their abilities esp compared to pro fighters of the last 60-70 yrs. And thats what were doing trying to compare them to fighters of they last 60-70 yrs. And to me, their is no comparison. They way some of these posters are going in the next 100 yrs Dempsey and Johnson will have done what Hercules did in his 12 labors lol.

 

now you're moving the goalposts. You said, you saw no evidence that Jack Johnson was tactical, and good at tactics. This was point blank proven wrong, which again, is the point we were discussing. Now you want to talk about whether their skills of the day would translate against a more modern fighter if they stepped out of a time machine. That isn't the question. You questioned whether Johnson showed any good tactical prowess, which to me, there should be no question of that.

 

C'mon. Not to go sideways here but O'Brien was at the tail end of a long and damaging career. Johnson was listed at 205, less than he was for Jeffries. Wilkes-Barre saw Jack as the clear winner. NYT had it as a draw if I remember. Johnson was notorious for doing just enough to win and sometimes this backfired on him.

 

Where did I move the " goal post"? I did say in comparison to whom J.Jeffries (coming out of retirement) Fitszsimmons (should've been retired) I did say most of the fighters of the time were basically street brawlers. Like Kimbo Slice was and like Slice the minute they stepped up to real and well trained competition they were destroyed. So what great technician that J.Johnson defeated, that was over 5'10 for us to infer Johnson's techniqal prowess?