Battling Jim Johnson vs Jack Johnson Revisited

Langford was 5' 7 1/2" Langford had 56 fights under his belt when he faced Johnson,that is an entire career today.

Johnson was nowhere near his physical peak in 1906 he added pounds of muscle to his frame and won the title 2 years later .
Langford bulked up because he became lax in his training,he was as effective when lighter,in fact more so when he was koing heavyweights like Hague at the lighter weight.
Langford lost to
Smith
Barry Drew
Ferguson Drew
Mcvey
Jeannette
And drew with Battling Johnson and Bell during Johnson's reign so how much of a standout over his rivals was he? You talked earlier of Johnson only drawing with Battling Jim,but didn't mention he was fighting with a broken arm.
What were Langford and Jeannette excuses for drawing with Battling Jim?

 

Fulton is probably the single best and most dangerous 6'6 and up fighter ever. Wilder hit harder but Fulton was better. Fultons not just a taller man with a jab.

Langfords not a regular short man. Short fighters were an easier matchup for Johnson but this was one of the best generations of short fighters. Schreck and Root are 2 of the best short guys of the era and Johnson didn't fight them. Johnson had the Hart loss and O Brien and I rank them low among the ATG LHW guys of that era. But he beat Gardner who I rate higher. Johnson was probably better than everyone mentioned above except Langford but he was not unbeatable. If Johnson fought as many times as Langfords it is highly improbable he matches Langfords record(ignoring the details just the Ws and Ls).

 

Root was 5 '10" hardly short for the early1900's he was also finished by 1906,before Johnson reached his prime.

Ignoring details? I think you are doing that r.e. the Hart fight many thought Johnson was robbed, and the O Brien one was a 6 round no decision,Johnson ,knowing O Brien couldn't punch and that no verdict would be rendered without a ko, went into the ring undertrained and overweight,it is a matter of record he was out drinking the night before the fight.JimJeffries said over 6 rounds O Brien could give anyone trouble.
O Brien said Johnson would beat him over a longer distance,and Johnson did not lose their fight anyway.
Shreck drew with Ross twice and was stopped by him, Ross could not give Johnson any meaningful opposition.
Shreck was ko'd by Kaufman whom Johnson toyed with.

What leads you thinks he would do any good against Johnson , because he was short?

Fulton was beaten by journeymen, I see nothing in his record to suggest he was better than Willard .

 

Johnson did not weigh in for the O Brien fight. My sources are the Phildelphia. Inquirer ,The Philadephia Record,Graeme Kent and Adam Pollack.

Kent . " The Great White Hopes" On the night of the fight newspapers,commented adversely on the spare tire Johnson was carrying around his middle."
"members of the press who were on the scene agreed that O Brien was by far the better trained of the two,"He had trained hard and consistently and looked good".
"Conversely Johnson appeared to have accepted too many invitations to banquets,to be in the best shape."
"Since his return from Australia,theatrical work had taken most of his time,and he had been living the easy life."
" He was terribly fat on leaving New York,and it would take a good two months to get it off.Two weeks is only the start,when a man is fat and out of shape.Johnson was overweight,soft and blew like a porpoise when boxing with his sparring partners."
Explaining the lack of betting on the fight ,trainer Jimmy Deforest said," I hear Johnson hasn't trained,he looks it". Club Co Manager and referee Jack McGuigan said, O Brien is in top condition."
Johnson gave his weight as 205 or206lbs,but most thought he weighed a lot more.He unquestionably was carrying too much weight but looked to be in pretty good form nevertheless." " O Brien claimed to weigh162 1/2lbs although he was closer to170lbs,he looked as finely trained as a racehorse."

If it was anyone but you I might be inclined to indulge you further and go through my records,but even if I produced certified sworn statements,to advance my case,they would never be enough for you,so to be brutally frank, I cannot be arsed to do so. I have no interest in debating with you.

History Zero is a different kettle of fish ,he has an open mind that is receptive to others opinions.you do not ,so BYE!

 

This might have been the smallest era of HW but anyone below 5'11 was still short.

Yes I know Root was gone right away. Not blaming Johnson it is what it is. Shame. He would have been interesting in these years.

Yeah Hart was a fight could have went either way and might have been a robbery when Johnson wasn't quite at his peak yet. The outcome really isn't the point. Just like it isn't when Flynn and Gunboat Smith beat Langford. Them even having a case is what matters not whether the decision was correct or not(we don't know). I consider Hart and O Brien the "easy ones" of that group of 5 LHWs with Schreck, Root and Gardner. And Johnson beat Gardner good win. Dare I say Tommy Burns is in the former group. Jack Twin Sullivan is like Ketchel where he was a better fighter but would be an easier fight for Johnson.


The 6 rounds bit applies to any top fighter. Guys who'd have no chance at beating someone over 12 or 15 can win at 4 or 6. Short fights favor smaller fighters and underdogs who couldn't win a full fight.

"Fulton was beaten by journeymen, I see nothing in his record to suggest he was better than Willard ."

This shocked me. What journeyman was Fulton beaten by if we exclude DQs? Al Palzer who landed a lucky shot against a young Fulton? Palzer did not suck at all at one point he was in the top 10. He beat Kaufman and Wells when those wins meant something.

Fulton has one of the greatest resumes in the history of the division. 72 knockouts in 110 fights. Willards got one of the shortest resumes and his best wins are outpointing Morris and Frank Moran. Willard only became champion because the Johnson fight was 45 rounds. Instead of being an impressive Johnson title defense if the fight was made for any other roundage he got to pretend he was champion of the world for 4 years.

 

Langford did not lose to Jim Barry or Sandy Ferguson. Langford was 10-0-2 against Jim Barry. Jim Barry scored a few knockdowns and won some rounds. Jim Barry is the GOAT HW with a below .500 record.

Theres nothing wrong with Jim Johnson or Colin Bell. Colin Bell was the best Australian HW for god knows how many decades after him.

Their excuse is fighting him a lot of times. When a fighter keeps rematching a top opponent on a loop draws and even losses happen. In some fantasy matchups you see the term "if they fought 10 times so and so would win 8 times". Well they were doing that hypothetical in real life. A career long round robin. Jack Johnson was not. This needs to be taken into account. Jim Johnson got a lucky win against Wills. If Jack Johnson fought Jim Barry 12 times do you think Jack Johnsons doing better than 10-0-2? If you do are you confident about that?

 

I cant find any mention of Fulton decking Willard in their exhibition in the area newspapers. If you are quoting a source out of New York Id take it with a grain of salt. They also sparred together in 1913 and there is no mention of Willard being knocked down in those sessions either.

Its also not true that Willard avoided Fulton. They agreed to fight during WW1 but the bout was stopped by public outcry against Willard making capital off of his championship by fighting in the ring at home while men were fighting and dying on foreign soil. That was no fault of Willards.

 

I thought Bronson was Ivich!

Y'all are not that damn different, shake hands ... figuratively speaking. Brothers in arms really.

 

Fulton was beaten twice by Martin Burke 36-19-6 a light heavyweight journeyman.
Kod by Adams 0-1-0 in1 rd. A journeyman.
Beaten by Floyd Johnson. A journeyman.
Drew with Gorman 2-4-2 & 0-1-1 twice.
Beaten by Fuente36-6-3 ko1.A journeyman.

 

No Langford did not lose to Barry and Ferguson,he drew with them. I don't know why I put them in the loss category,since corrected.

I just remembered your quote below.
"Also Jeanette was winning that fight before the DQ per boxrec."
Its incorrect.

" Jeannette, after being thumped in lively fashion, in the first round assumed a crouching pose in the second round.He undertook to run in and clinch,ducking a vicious left hand swing Johnson ripped a right hand hook up for Jeannette's jaw.
The latter dropped to the floor writhing in apparent agony.
He claimed to have been struck a foul blow.
" Johnson was beating Jeannette,but lost via disqualification in the second round.
Johnson had been outclassing Jeannette for a round and a half,but then lost as the result of an alleged foul". Philadelphia Public Ledger Nov26th 1905.

 

He broke the radial in his arm and still drew with a professional fighter / contender … I don’t really care about Jack Johnson all that much but give the guy a break lol.

 

@Bronson666 defending his hill and trying to solo the forum:

This content is protected

 

I don't know him personally ,he may be a brave man,but in this instance, ,I think he is motivated by obstinancy and hatred.

 

I skimmed through the posts. Don't have enough time to read all of each one.

My take on some issues raised.

Jack Johnson has the best record and fought the most top men of any champion before Louis.

Jack Johnson was clearly the best heavyweight of his era.

That said, Jack Johnson's title reign, in the sense ot the worth of his defenses, was mediocre after 1910.

And Sam Langford? My take is Johnson definitely should have defended against Langford and criticism of him on this issue is fair to the extent the ball was in his court. The status of the two in their fight in 1906, and the decisiveness of the outcome, is not relevant.

For example, let's assume Schmeling rather than Louis got a shot at Braddock in 1937. Schmeling wins the title and World War II doesn't break out until a few years later than it did. Would Schmeling have been justified in not defending against Louis because he decisively defeated him in 1936. I think not. That would not have been a valid reason for Schmeling to refuse a title shot to Louis.