My Video on Jack Johnson

A lot of great defensive fighters lacked a guard but most of them had exceptional head movement. I am not impressed with Johnson's head movement, or anyone from that era. Johnson was great at blocking/parrying punches. But from what I've seen, most of his opponents had limited offence. There was no sustained combination punching. They would throw a punch or two and end up in a clinch. Most of the time, his opponents attacked in straight lines and telegraphed their punches. None of them showed a solid jab. None of them were great at feinting. None of them had good footwork. They barely used their footwork to get inside their punching range. This is basic offence. Get inside your punching range using your feet, throw punches, move out/away. Maintain distance with your footwork.

How come they ended up in a clinch so often when they attacked? I think most of them didn't know how to control the distance. They didn't use a jab and they had a limited understanding of footwork. You can have an oddball here and there and you can call them "unorthodox". But they all can't be "unorthodox". They weren't good boxers imo (by today's standards or even 40s/50s standards). So I gotta disagree. Johnson was not the best defensive fighter in HW history. His defence was great for his time but he never faced good offensive fighters that could test his defence. How do you think Burns would do against Patterson/Frazier? They'd look like ATG defensive fighters had they faced someone like Burns/Flynn/Moran/Ol' Jeff.


You brought up the Jim Flynn fight. I thought that was a horrible fight. Flynn kept walking forward in a straight line. Johnson showed no jab. So Flynn kept getting inside and Johnson kept tying him up. Then he would push Flynn out and the cycle repeats. Flynn gets frustrated and starts butting Johnson. He can't do nothing on the inside. But he keeps trying to get inside. He doesn't attack on his way in. If you know you can't do nothing on the outside or inside, you should at least throw something when you get close, not when you get close enough to be held. Johnson throws a punch every now and again when Flynn is walking forward. But I don't see a jab from Johnson and I don't see good footwork either. He stands still most of the time and waits for Flynn to get close and just holds him. What I see is an incompetent challenger who has no clue on how to fight Johnson and he's clearly undersized like most of Johnson's opponents. And Johnson wasn't impressive at all in this fight.

 

Johnson threw a great jab vs Flynn. However Johnson wanted Flynn inside which is where Flynn wanted to be. Johnson is not clinching. He is controlling Flynn. Huge difference.

Johnson’s greatest competition were the many he fought prior to winning the championship.

Johnson was the very best at feinting and blocking that does not mean he could not slip blows when he had to.

Combination punching can be seen way back in hwt boxing history. Louis was an exception as he threw such varied 4,5 punch combinations.

Side to side movement was difficult in those days as they wore slippery leather soled shoes into the ring. The 3-5 oz horse hair filled gloves made every opponent dangerous as they all had bricks for gloves.

 

I'm interested how you think they should guard with the smaller gloves. It's impossible to cover up, so it has to be head movement or catching and parrying.

The switch to grappling was integrated into the defence and stopped their attack, Johnson would control them, landing punches while stopping them throwing. It wasn't because he couldn't control distance, the clinch was often exactly where Johnson wanted to be, in it he could tire his opponents, he could stop them attacking while landing his own punches.

 

I think it's comical to not think Johnson wouldn't adapt quickly and impressively. I don't even find it conceivable frankly. Why? In my view in order for me to give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to adapting and still becoming champion; the two things I look for are, natural athleticism beyond that of your contemporaries, and ring IQ beyond your contemporaries. Johnson had both in spades. In the era he was exposed to, where training and knowledge was all equal, he developed a style that was different than many, but that was near impossible to solve in his prime. His style required very fast reflexes, a tight defense and excellent ring IQ, to throw less but still appear to be dominate and win without getting KO'd. Something that isn't easy to pull off, but guys like Whitaker could do the same. It's an art. So somebody like Johnson, with I would say well above average strength for his size, well above average reflexes, and well above average ring smarts.... Yeah, I'd easily pick that guy to adapt and pick things up quickly in any era. He did it in his own, why wouldn't I expect him to grown into whatever training methods and techniques were present and make it his own and succeed? Frankly, I'd trust that he'd either be able to pull off a variant of his own style in modern times or come up with whatever was necessary to add to his game and do just fine. Just my opinion.

 

Johnson didn’t use a jab in the Flynn fight?

What about when he landed about 20 of them in a row?

 

He moves his head plenty against Moran too

This content is protected

 

Every era produces great boxing talent, an elite, that would stand out in any era.

 

Langford threw combos better than modern fighters.
Fitzsimmons also threw combos in limited film.
Tommy Burns didn't have any problems with combos either.
Jeffries threw combination of hooks at Ruhlin.

Jeannette had solid jab on film.
Willard's jab was good.
Burns showed jab in his other filmed fights.
Of course Johnson himself had outstanding jab.

Fitzsimmons and Langford were great in that aspect, you can see that on film.
Even someone limited like Moran showed some nice tricks against Johnson, even though he was outmatched.

Burns footwork was decent and Langford footwork was phenomenal.

Like this?

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Simple, it's Johnson who wanted clinches to control his opponents. He landed many punches inside while avoiding anything in return. Besides, with smaller gloves clinches weren't the same back then. They fought in clinches, wrestled, punched and did dirty work. It's not possible with modern gloves, that's why fighters don't use inside game as much. Johnson basically grappled opponent's arms and controled his body to find openings, that's not possible today. So no, it's not because lack of ability to judge distance. Many fighters fought in the clinches back then.

He's outclassed here, but him against second tier HW from 1950s or 1960s would be competitive. Burns was good, you should watch more his fights than only Johnson loss.

I agree that Flynn fight is terrible to watch, but Johnson punched a lot of jabs in that fight. Not to mention that Flynn wanted to be inside (that was his style, rough wrestling and inside body punching) but he was outmatched there. He didn't have any chance from outside so he forced inside game and Johnson was more than happy with that, because he was the king there.

Most filmed opponents, because Johnson fought a lot of big fighters for his era. More than anybody before Louis probably.

He wasn't, he was unmotivated and faced weak challenger. He didn't need to do much to win this fight and that was his approach - do as little as possible. He still completely outclassed him, that's what matters.
Johnson looks far better against Burns, Jeffries and Moran. Even his losing effort against Willard was quite impressive, given in how bad condition he was.

 

And showes how good his left hand was. Moran was outclassed from outside and not strong enough inside. Moran wasn't small guy either.

 

Great post.
I always think the greats of the past would be great in the more modern era, with the benefit of the “more advanced training methods”

 

From his footage Johnson did not have great head movement,but again how many punches do we see landing ,or coming close to landing on his head? No need to duck and slip if you are not under pressure,or in danger of being tagged.
Sorry you are wrong about Johnson not jabbing against Flynn he couldn't miss him with a jab and the referee describes him landing it in bunches of 5's and 7's.Flynn's face was covered in blood with cuts over his eyes and a broken nose if Johnson was only hitting him with, "a punch every now and again",how did he get in such a state in nine rounds? Johnson took the center of the ring and awaited his opponents attacks, just because he didn't dance away from them but contented himself with blocking and diverting their punches whilst standing relatively stationary does not mean his foot work was poor.He could move surprisingly rapidly when it was needed ,but it seldom was.

Would Johnson have to modify his style and up his work rate to be successful today?
I'd say yes.Could he have done so? I think so,many will probably say no.
One of the greatest trainers ever Eddie Futch ,named Johnson, Louis and Ali as the three greatest heavyweights placing them in no order.
Did he know what he was talking about?
Bottom line, Johnson's M. O. worked in his era ,"if it ain't broke ,don't fix it".

Johnson wasn't impressive in that fight,but he didn't need to be, he nullified everything his opponent did and he accomplished it with ease.Johnson hadn't fought in 2 years but he rendered Flynn totally harmless , containing his attacks effortlessly.
Flynn,"clearly undersized" Flynn according to Box Rec was 5'10 1/2"and 193lbs for that fight.
Would you call Marciano at 5'10" and 185lbs clearly undersized if he fought Johnson?
How many heavy champions before Louis were 193lbs?

 

I strongly disagree with the first statement. Just because Sam threw combinations, doesn't mean you can oversell him like that. If I'm comparing him to someone like Archie Moore, then I'm not impressed at all. For his time, he was actually good. He had a decent jab and he threw combinations. But something I see in most fighters from that era- a lot of times when they throw more than one punch at a time, they leave themselves wide open. I see combinations but I also see a lot of counter-punching opportunities. And I used the term "sustained" combination punching. I don't see that in any of those fighters.

The primary purpose of combination punching (afaik) is to overwhelm your opponent's defence. It's easy to block/slip one punch at a time. Combos can also allow you to land that one "right" punch which can be disguised by the other punches. Fighters who have a great left hook can throw a 1-2 to land the left hook. Since you won't land a lead left hook very often, you hide it behind other punches. You can keep jabbing to set up the right hand (very common). You can go to the body to set something up top. So on and so forth. I don't see that kind of combination punching when I watch these fighters. Throwing more than 1 punch at a time qualifies as a combination but that's about it. A good combination is supposed to be tight, rapid, and purposeful. Your head shouldn't stay in the centre while you throw punches and you should know how to exit the pocket. That's how you avoid getting countered.

I think we need to establish what we mean by "jab". If it's just the extension of your lead arm, then yes, these fighters could jab. If we get more scientific, we need to look at how they use their jab to control the range and set up their punches; how diverse is their jab (varying speed, flicking, stepping in, blinding), do they jab to the body (only saw Jeannette do it consistently), do they double the jab, do they use the jab for defensive purposes, do they jab from different angles using their footwork, how is their balance when they jab, do they leave themselves open for counters, and how effective is their jab?

If I compare all these guys to someone who actually had a good jab IMO (Ernie Terrell/Hasim Rahman), then I can't say these guys had a good jab.

Langford showed some good feints. I was talking about Johnson's fights that have footage though. Idk how Langford fought Johnson.

Agree to disagree. Especially on Langford.

Not really what I was looking for but it's alright. Burns vs Squires- Burns was much better than Squires (from what I can tell). I don't see either fighter controlling the distance really well. Squires is moving forward and Burns is moving backwards. Basic footwork. But Squires can't judge distance to save his life. He's the taller fighter and he keeps walking into Burns' punching range without throwing a punch. Burns plants his feet to attack and he's able to easily hit Squires because Squires is right in front of Burns with his hands low and he doesn't move his head. Look at the first knockdown from that fight. Squires throws a right hook to the body but he's too far out, he misses and he ends up in Burns' punching range with no defence whatsoever. He gets hit with a right hand and goes down. He fought even worse afterwards. But this was a mismatch.

I wanna point something out here. You linked fights where you saw certain fighters show good footwork and sense of distance. But along with that, I'm still looking for a jab, feints, overall footwork, balance, punching form, combinations, defence etc. I didn't see much from Burns/Squires. If I showed you a fight from 80s (of similar level)- say Marvin Johnson vs Eddie Davis, you'd see more elements of boxing and how they flow together. I fail to see that in the fights from that era.

That's true. Smaller gloves allowed for more grappling. But what I meant is I see fighters unable to keep the fight on the outside. When they choose to throw punches, it's almost as if they fall into a clinch. Not just Johnson-Flynn, I see this in a lot of fights from that era. I feel that their tendency/inclination to grapple and fight in clinches inhibited their outside fighting skills. Imo, that's the reason most of them failed to develop a good jab, defence, footwork, combination punching, counter punching etc.

If I'm an out-fighter and you're an in-fighter, I can try and nullify your strength (in-fighting) by hugging (get those underhooks), necktie or locking your arms with overhooks. Johnson did this against Flynn, forcing Flynn to use his head (even though Johnson didn't have to do that and Johnson was very strong). But it doesn't work the other way around. If you're great at fighting on the inside, you'll have to get past my jab and cut me off. It's a lot more work. And when you're inside, I can just hug you and kill time. How do you get inside? You gotta have good footwork to cut the ring off and head movement to not get jabbed to death. Did Moran/Flynn/Burns etc. show these skills? I didn't see it.

A lot of fighters from that era weren't exactly in-fighters like Frazier, Toney, or Duran. They were more like grapplers. Most of them didn't get close and use both hands to punch but rather hold and punch (dirty boxing). It was harder for them to get proper leverage and defend themselves. On the other hand, a guy like Toney would get close, he'd slip under your punches and blast you with powerful counters that turned into combinations. He used his footwork to attack from angles where he could hit you and not get hit in return. Most of the great in-fighters were low targets where they'd bend their knees and get lower than their opponents. Getting your opponent to punch down means he's bound to leave his chin open. His punches carry less power and he's forced to headhunt while you can go to the body and head. Imo, that's a more efficient form of in-fighting.

I understand that gloves have evolved over the years forcing fighters to adapt. But the outside fighting skills of 1900s/1910s fighters were primitive and amateurish compared to the generations that followed. I'm sure they had their bag of tricks in the grappling department but that's of no use if I put Johnson in the 90s. How is he going to adapt? His bread and butter was those oven mitts. He could literally grab his opponent's arms with those gloves. Give him synthetic leather gloves and he's Wladimir without a jab. People here keep pitting the likes of Johnson against modern fighters when its two different worlds. What Johnson did back then, he couldn't do today. But what a fighter does today, he can do in any era.

Thanks for linking the Burns-Moir fight. That was actually good stuff. But I still don't think he'd be competitive against 2nd tier HWs of 50s and 60s. I consider Folley, Williams, Machen, Terrell 2nd tier by the way.

Makes sense. I guess he was simply outmatched.

 

A jab in those days was thrown as a devastating blow. Not the flick we see today.

 

I think you have done your best top be objective and generously even-handed with your replies, [ at least those you responded to,] and for that I applaud you!

 

Correct and he is lucky he didn't fight many skilled fighters who could exploit it.

Flynn was awful. There were better choices to pick from. Johnson made $21,000, he could have done much better had he chosen a better opponent. Only 4,500 people saw this fights. Flynn was another shorter, less than skilled white hope, and Johnson wasn't impressive in this fight, I agree. The issue here was the distance of the fight and the according to Senya's 13 ringside reports, those watching it live said Johnson was slowing down, while Flynn who had no defense at all was still going strong. I suggest you read them before talking about something you are unfamiliar with.

No doubt Johnson was in the lead, but after 8 rounds, does that matter in a 45 round fight? No, it does not.

Also, why compare Flynn to Marciano? Rocky takes Flynn out inside 3 rounds.