If Ken Norton had Challenged Jack Johnson?

Not buying it. Johnson will pick his spots to rush Norton, and that is when Norton is the most vulnerable. He's simply not as good fighting off his back foot nor is he going to win an inside fight with Johnson. If Johnson tries to do just enough, and fight conservatively, sure Norton likely wins. When Johnson brings it, I'm not liking the odds for Ken lasting this fight.

 

Jeffries had one good round and he didn't draw first blood, Johnson had a split lip from a spar with Marty Cutler.
Don't you ever get tired of lying? Bob Fitzsimmons,one of Jeffries biggest boosters before the fight, said Johnson could have ended the fight anytime after the first round.I have the quote.

 

Neither fighter weighed in you clown, read the fight report!

 

Neither Johnson nor O Brien weighed in and ringside estimates put Johnson well above 205lbs I have the reports and the descriptions of Johnson as being hog fat! The Philly Ledger, O' Brien's hometown paper, came out big for Johnson.

 

I'm talking to someone who twice has said Louis was 6'2"and 210 his best weight was around or just over 200lbs and he was 6'1.5"

 

How much do you know about Frank Childs,Denver Ed Martin,Joe Jeannette?
Benny Leonard is routinely elevated to top 3 at Lightweight a division he retired from in1925.
Joe Gans is one of the other three he retired in1908.

Were they just ," street brawlers"?
Why would one of the greatest and most respected trainers of all time,Eddie Futch, name his three greatest heavyweights ,jointly at number one as ,Johnson,Louis,Ali.

Was he a fool?

 

Salt City Telegram. Byline Philadelphia. May 19, 1909
"Neither holds the other cheaply and both are in fine physical condition."

Grand Forks Daily Herald, Byline Philadelphia, May 18, 1909
"A visit today to the respective training quarters of Jack Johnson and Jack O'Brien... found both men in good condition and each equally sanguine.

Johnson will enter the ring at close to 200 pounds."

The Philadelphia Inquirer said that Johnson was 40 pounds the heavier than the estimated 162 pound O'Brien. They also called the fight for O'Brien. I can post more details if required.

The Oregonian, byline Philadelphia, states that Johnson was close to 200 pounds.

The Detroit Times, byline Philadelphia, gives an actual tale of the tape listing Johnson at 203 and OBrien at 168.

I can give more and they seem mighty consistent.

 

Floyd used mma tactics in the clinch? Floyd wasn't a clincher instead rolling with an opponents movements in close and countering. Johnson's brilliance was based on clinching?

 

This might be a tough matchup to call .. I think some saying it's a blowout one way or another are getting it wrong.. So much emphasis here being put on "technique" , which I will say, the better technique in a boxer is what gets the job done to get the win. Put Norton back in Jack's day, next to nothing gloves, old school boxing , 20 - 45 rounds, I'm taking Johnson ... Modern day, bigger gloves, 15 rounds .. I'd favor Norton

 

Did EddieFutch see J.Johnson fight? Did you? I doubt very seriously that Futch actually saw Johnson fight, him being born in 1911 Mississippi he like you just romanticized what he heard, and it may have blinded him to what he may have seen on film yrs later, as it is with many of you. I've read Louis was 6'2" 210 in some publications, but you obviously stood by him, held the tape and measured his height at exactly 6'1" and a half an inches and weighed him at exactly 200 lbs. Your so busy trying to prove your point, your making a issue about an 1/2 an inch and 10 lbs? Really? You guys have so romanticized and brought in to what you've read from long,long dead sports writers that anyone who disagrees with you and try to share a different opinion and perspective that you become insulting, angry. But it's on film, what little their is( or do you use the film being so old theory, to validate your point?)of it. Again in my opnion, if J.Johnson stepped out of the time machine in 1972 with his fighting ability remaining from the early 1900's Ken Norton and many other modern trained heavyweight fighters would beat the hell out of him. And probably some Light heavy's too.

 

And you are entitled to your opinion which in parts I agree with ..but I wouldn't personally go down the he gets his as* beat because of the "modern day trained" road myself ... that opens yourself up to Greb,Langford, Wilde, etc. , etc. all getting their as*es easily beat too.. And what most modern day boxing doesn't have is Activity comparatively .. Where the old greats had so many more fights. That to me is experience and toughness which can not be discounted and is a HUGE advantage, imo ...

 

Wlad was docked against Haye , Povetkin and Jennings. He received multiple warnings every minute against Brewster and Byrds refusal to allow him use his primary method of victory made it easy for Brewster to destroy him.

Had he not fought the majority of his title reign in Europe , he would have been docked a lot more and would certainly have been DQ'd for the Povetkin debacle.

It says a lot about Wlad that he fully deserved a DQ loss against the best name he beat - a guy who isn't even HOF caliber.

Johnson got away with clinching because he was hitting while in the clinch and thats still allowed and accepted today.
Spence held and hit Brook all night and nobody batted an eyelid. Calzaghe Jack Johnson'd the chit out of Chris Eubanks. Endless examples out there..

If Johnson was WK he'd be DQd for holding and NOT hitting.

If WK was back in Johnson's time he'd be a 200 pound scardey cat , without Manny in his corner , forced to fight guys he never seen any footage on. My hunch is he picks up more loses than Johnson did.

 

I agree with this, with the following caveats. Some of his fans fail to acknowledge or understand his limitations.

Most here would agree that Johnson's best pure win is over a 5'7 1/2 168 pound man ( Tommy Burns ) at heavyweight. He was beaten several times before becoming champion and struggled a few times as champion from 1909-1915 without really fighting any top heavyweights aside from Willard who knocked him out. Picking a fighter like this beat more accomplished champions or bigger and far more skilled fighters challenges one's intellectual honesty.

Johnson didn't have the punch to take advantage of Norton's chin ( which could have been better than Johnson's ) he didn't have the size/reach /boxing skills to outpoint him, nor was he active enough to win on points the way fights are scored today.

There isn't a single fighter Johnson defeated that Norton would not, keep in mind when Johnson meet them, meaning McVey, a teenager, Langford estimated at age 20 and 156 pounds and Jeannette a novice with a sometimes losing records when he fought Johnson.

By stark contrast, I'd pick Norton to beat the following eight fighters who defeated Johnson or drew with him.

1 ) Klondike
2 ) Choynski
3 ) Griffin
4 ) Hart.

1 ) Jim Battling Johnson - Draw
2 ) O'Brien - News draw
3 ) Jim McCormick
4 ) Billy Stift

And I'd favor him over Willard in a ten round match, but it's not a sure thing.

 

Jeffries drew first blood. Stop making excuses. Learn and read, I am correct.

Fitzsimmons also said Jeffries wasn't a quarter of the fighter he fought. Johnson could not end it early ( not a chance in the early rounds ). Jeffries even old and rusty was still durable, and Johnson's safety first style makes an early KO very unlikely. In fact, early KO's for Johnson vs. prime guys were pretty much non-existent.

Maybe Johnson could have ended it sooner than 15 rounds, but to do so means risking getting hit the fight was close to even after nine rounds.

Fitzsimmons is only offering an opinion, and I think he's wrong. A twerp like you will try to make it sound like a lie by disagreeing with him. It's obvious. You're reduced to conjuring older quotes to try to prove points that are opinions because you cannot argue with the facts or results that I present!

I can pull out some quotes too. How about Johnson! To paraphrase he felt the white man remained strong until the very end. If you watch the films, he's correct until the final rounds. Now McVey, are you calling John Arthur Johnson a liar : )

+5

 

Jeffries merely knocked a scab off of Johnsons lip which was covering a slight nick cause by a spar a few days earlier.I said it was inflicted by Marty Cutler,on checking I find it was Kid Cotton,at any rate it is well documented.
By the way the scab was knocked off by a head butt from Jeffries!page 408 Pollack.
Fitzsimmons was ringside, you have seen edited, grainy excerpts of film that is,107 years old!
You are endeavouring to make the fight appear an evenly contested fight you tried this before,it was nothing of the kind.

The Reno Evening Gazette . "It was Johnson's fight from the start and even a novice could see that."
John L Sullivan,"Johnson won easily"." It was one sided from start to finish and Jeff was never in the fight."
T.P Magillian,"Except for the 4th rd ,the writer could not see any round where Jeffries so much as as held the black man even.It was all Johnson,for he toyed with Jeffries."
Pauline Jacobson." To a novice it was palpable that Jeffries was getting beaten to a pulp,that he was getting groggier and groggier,.Jeff'. thick swollen lip drooped,his eyes were swollen.Blood splattered over his cheeks ,and over the ropes."
Battling Nelson " The fight was the poorest exhibition of fighting I ever saw.Johnson was the master of the situation"
The Chronicle"There was a sameness to every round.Jeffries could not land for Johnson blocked him with ease and gradually beat him down with a succession of uppercuts."
The Nevada State Journal " Jeffries had a chance up to the second round".
"Jeffries landed one shot in the 4th round which I felt,it was the only round he did well in Johnson."
You have been corrected on this several times and its in Unforgiveable Blackness,Papa Jack ,and In The Ring With Jack Johnson. It won't make the slightest difference to you you will continue to repeat it just as you continue to repeat that Johnson was tko'd by Gunboat Smith in a spar.
I could waste my time typing dozens of ringside accounts of this fight from such as John L Sullivan who stated Jeffries was never in it. But to what purpose? Haters got to hate,and you sure are a hater!
I really cannot be arsed to go on correcting your lies, just lie your silly head off, nobody gives a flying **** or gives you any credibility on the subject you do not harm Jack Johnson you only damage yourself. For that I suppose we should be grateful!
I'm not calling Jack Johnson anything, unlike you he doesn't occupy the whole of my waking day!
You I am calling a liar, a compulsive and obsessive one ,its downright eerie how this man compels you to spew out such unrelenting venom about him !