Jack Johnson Review

I don't really like to think how Johnson would do in todays era, things were so different in every aspect so I find it rather pointless. I judge Johnson on what he done in his era and how he looked.

I consider Johnson to be the greatest defensive Heavyweight of all time. He had more natrual ability than any pre WW II fighter. Johnson was years ahead of his time stylistically, he revolutionized boxing footwork, defense, and the concept of ring generalship aswell as mastery of ring science. He also mastered the art of clinch fighting which was one of his best weapons. He had one of the best uppercut's of all time, which he would often throw while fighting on the inside.

Also conisder the fact that Nat Fleischer who saw Johnson fight and those up to the Ali era, said, in his book Black Dynamite “Jack Johnson boxed on his toes, could block from most any angle, was lightning fast on his feet, could feint an opponent into knots…he possessed everything a champion could hope for punch, speed, brains, cleverness, boxing ability and sharp-shooting.”

Fleischer also reported in 1958, that Johnson’s “mastery of ring science, his ability to block, counter, and feint, are still unexcelled.”

Jack Dempsy said of Johnson “He was the greatest catcher of punches that ever lived (glove blocker). And he could fight all night. He was a combination of Jim Corbett and Louis. I’m glad I didn’t have to fight him.”

 

Of course some things are the same but not huge amounts. In Johnson's era, there was a pre combination punching era (90% of the time) of single blows and incessant clinching. As well as more rounds, different type of gloves, etc. In todays era Johnson's master of the clinch, wound't mean much as he would never be allowed to use it, as in todays era when a fight end's up in a clinch the referee immediately breaks it up.

Randy Roberts makes some pretty Key Points in this assement.......

 

Actually Johnson would use clinches to his advantage. By wearing out his opponet by using his size and throwing his superb upercutts.

It's pretty a common known fact that combination punching from Johnson era was never really a big factor and didnt play a huge part in boxing then. After watching virtually all fights from Johnson's era on footage and reading the newspapers accounts, you will find this out.

I just find it pointless trying to figure out how fighters from Johnson's era would do today, when there are alot of different aspects from then and now.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Oh, yeah, those old Caruso recording really make him sound like sh-t, huh?
Shame have to take his vocal greatness completely on faith. atsch

And Chaplin looks jaunty cause the camara's were so bad -- not cause he was deliberately moving jauntily and the cameras were deliberately being undercranked. :roll:


-------

Johnson's low hands ... if they didn't work today -- not all modern low-hand fighters are abject failures, after all -- well, do you think Johnson couldn't figure it out? If Tris Speaker was playing centerfield today, do you think you'd find him perched 50 feet in back of second base, muttering to himself 'G----nm-it, it worked great in 1912!'.
Give these guys credit for having a brain.


------

If you fought Johnson outside, you were up against a defensive master who could feint and counter; on the inside, a strongman with a close-in uppercut and, if you tried to move out, he'd shred you with short punches; and if you were fighting him at middle range, that was a bad sign: it meant you were ready to go, cause there wasn't a better heavyweight at eliminating the middle range when he didn't want it.

[I edited out the last sentence, which I thought was getting a little rhetorically over the top].

 

Right.........:huh

 

Johnson was a better in-fighter than out fighter I agree with you his guard was low, and when he fought top notch boxer in his prime ( O'Brien ), it might surprise you to know that he was out jabbed.

I have read the reports of Johnson in non filmed fights vs Hart, O'Brien,and Jim " battling " Johnson. To say he could be 0-2-1 here is not an understatement.

The Johnson vs. Frank Moran fight is interesting. Moran was but a standard " white hope " contender, yet the scoring of the 20 rounds between the two is close. Johnson won by a shade.

I fail to see this" can't touch " this Pernell Whitaker defense that Johnson fans rave about. In truth, Johnson was there to be hit. His punch out put is very low too.

On the plus side, Jack had a very good uppercut, was relaxed in the ring, strong in the clinches, and had fast hands.

 

You are enttiled to your opinion on Johnson,I think no one is in any doubt of it by now.
A couple of points.it is a matter of record that Johnson did not train for the no decision 6 rounder with O Brien,it is also on record that he scaled 221lbs for the Moran fight .It is a matter of record that Johnson broke his arm in the Jim Johnson fight ,but if it pleases you to include it ,do so.
I wonder where all the epithets about Johnson's marvellous defence came from?
Why did contemporary writers such as Fleischer,Rice,Buck,Batchelor,Farr,Odd say Johnson was the greatest defensive fighter of them all?
Why did contemporary boxers Ted Kid Lewis,Jim Corbett and Tom Sharkey, all concur on this?
Why in 102 fights was Johnson only beaten 13 times? Seven of those after he was 48 years old.
If Johnson was indeed "there to be hit", as you say,shouldnt he have lost more fights?

 

Well, if your fighting much smaller men, past their prime fighters, or 2nd rate contenders who only got a title shot because they were white, how often do you get hit?

If you clinch a lot and don't take many chances, how often do you get hit?

Where can I see great, non-clinching defense from Johnson on film?

As for Johnson poor performances vs. O'Brien, Moran, and Jim Johnson, all I get back is excuses! Sorry, but a alleged top 5 all time great heavyweight ( Pick one ) would toy and demolish these three.

In fact Hart, Choynski and Griffin, who were much better heavyweights than O'Brien, Moran, and Jim Johnson defeated Jack Johnson prior to him becoming champion, so why should it surprise an objective researcher that Johnson was champion struggled vs grade B contenders?

It should not, but popularity and myth to some here often trumps objective reasoning, news reports, and film.

 

"If you are fighting much smaller fighters past their primes, how often do you get hit"?
Well in Jeffries case. A ****ING LOT!
Sharkey 183 Jeff 215
Corbett 188 Jeff 218
Fitz 167 Jeff 206
Fitz 172 Jeff 219
Corbett 190 Jeff 220

"Second rate contenders who only got a shot because they were white"

Do you mean Jack Munroe and Jack Finnegan?

Have you heard the expression " HOIST WITH YOUR OWN PETARD"?

WELL YOU HAVE JUST DONE IT!

All those contemporary writers who SAW Johnson in action were wrong then ?
THanks for the entertainment.:happy

 

Sorry, but i don't see this combinations and jabs that the initial poster is talking about. Yes, he did use them every now and then, but 90% of the time, it was.... throw a punch, fall in a clinch, rough him up a bit, throw him away, and repeat the same. Particularly the opponents did this; they did not show ANY combination punching or jabbing at all... nevermind footwork or boxing from the outside.