Jack Johnson .Vs. Lennox Lewis

I know of a certain Light Heavyweight who did.

 

Give Johnson the modern advantages nutrition/supplements/training/steroids and it makes it an interesting fight. Johnson probably plays a spoiler role

 

Time-machined together I'd favor Lewis a little.

Coming along at the same time, I'd take Johnson, but not by a lot.

 

If you are thinking of Choynsky he gave 52 lbs to Jim Jeffries and held him to a 20rds draw. So not too shabby .

 

Jack Johnson was only 180lb when he fought chonyski, he wasnt the 200lb chizzled monster he later became.

 

Johnson had more natural ability than every heavyweight that ever lived pre-WWII.

Yes, that includes Joe Louis in terms of natural ability.

 

This is a laugher. He does possess the best PR of any heavyweight ever. How exactly you measure "natural ability" I do not know. However, I do know he under-performed often and once champ avoided the better opponents until meeting Willard, after which he essentially became a sideshow attraction battling bums and never was palookas.

 

I guess all those experts who saw him fight must be wrong ,thanks for coming on here and educating us,pity Nat Fleischer's gone you could have put him straight

 

To call Johnson's style primative is clearly showing a lack of knowledge ... the man was possibly the greatest defensive fighter of all time ... he clearly showed he had no problem landing hard and often against the giant Willard as a 37 year old man ... I see him being a very tough match up for Lennox ...

 

First of all, how would Johnson's defensive skills be outdated? Please explain because all the trainers and boxing enthusiasts that I've talked to have clearly said Johnson was better defensively than the majority of the greatests heavyweights, including Ali and Larry Holmes. He was a master of the art of feinting, shoulder slipping, and is arguably the greatest counterpunching heavyweight of all time. You're talking about Johnson as if he had no footwork, which is absurd.

You know absolutely nothing about medicine, nutrition, health care, and sports related sciences if you say genetics haven't advanced one bit in 100+ years. No disrespect to you, but that type of statement coming from you Seamus makes me wonder if you've paid attention to the evolution of sport EVER. Atheletes today are bigger, faster and stronger, and Jack Johnson was way ahead of his time as an overall fighter. Whether atheletes are smarter today is up for debate, but even the greatest Ali, said Johnson was the smartest heavyweight fighter and patterned his ring skills after him.

Johnson was one of the fastest heavyweight champions ever, on foot and with his fists, so I don't understand how you can underrate him so severely. Johnson fought plenty of fights after losing to Willard, and you should know that he was denied a title shot by Dempsey for obvious race reasons of the time. Johnson apparently had challenged Dempsey at 38 years old and was denied. In fact, the issue of race is a huge factor that coincides with Johnson career. I think you should seriously look at his record after the Willard loss before saying the man never won another fight? That is plain ignorance. Quality of fights is a different story, but the man didn't retire and dissappear after Willard.

There's a reason why everyone in attendance who regularly watched the sparring at the now extinct Stillman's boxing gym, would stop in total silence when Jack Johnson walked into the gym. You're disrespecting one of the greatest heavyweight boxers ever.

 

Johnson was avoided just as bad, if not worse than how Archie Moore was avoided at light heavyweight. Many will consider his greatest fights before he won the heavyweight title. Is he wrong for avoiding contenders in his title reign? Absolutely. Worse is the fact that he and other black contenders were denied the opportunity to fight for the title. I'm not condoning Johnson for avoiding the black contenders, but I don't recall anyone after Sullivan and Paddy Ryan giving Johnson or any other black contender a title shot. The brave Canadian Noah Brusso "Tommy Burns" finally gave him a shot and he got his butt whupped.

 

I could see this one going to a split decision. If I had to bet, I would probably bet on Lennox Lewis, but I would not be too surprised if Jack Johnson won.

 

Long in the tooth oldtimers who tell tall tales interest me little. We all know that we glorify those fighters who were in their prime when WE WERE IN OUR PRIME. We associate our relative excellence to theirs. It's purely psychological. However, Johnson's resume is not that impressive, his title reign lacking and on film he would look foolish in a modern ring.

I'm sorry. I used to drink the Kool-Aid regarding this guy, but it really does not play out to the objective eye.

 

My premed degree and masters of science would argue with you. Gene pools do not change in matters of decades. This is even ridiculous to argue.

 

My favourite is Dempsey but I didnt see him when I was in my prime
You make assumptions about others .Fleischer and other experts had the advantage of seeing all these guys,EVERY ONE of the historians agreed Johnson was a defensive genius.Boxers who sparred with Johnson concur he was extremely clever.Tom Sharkey, who hated Johnson ,said he was the greatest defensive heavyweight he ever saw ,and he sparred with Johnson and fought Jim Corbett.Corbett ,who also heartily loathed Johnson ,told Fleischer that Johnson was the cleverest big man he ever saw.Ted Kid Lewis sparred with an aging Johnson and said" I couldnt lay a glove on him".
Seems all the historians ,writers , and fighters suffer from a psycological blindness, they must have all hit their prime together.atsch