Jack Johnson Review

I would love to see how Johnson would handle a big fast HW like Ali or Holmes who had long hard fast jabs and could could land thier shots from a distance. I wonder if Johnson could handle combinations from say Evander Holyfield. There wasn't much combination punching back then (at least from the film footage anyway). Would Johnson be as good defensively in the 70's and beyond or would he have to tweak his style a bit to adapt to the bigger stronger and more athletically gifted fighters that would come later. I think he has the physical tools and the reflexes but his flatfooted lean back style would be problematic against the type of fighters I mentioned. Ali, Holmes, Holyfield and Lewis are light years ahead of Fireman Jim Flynn, Tommy Burns and Stanley Ketchel. Jack would have to kick it up a notch or two so to speak. Could he do it? I think so.

 

Johnson would certainly have to be on his mettle ,no loafing or carousing the night before,otherwise his habit of picking off punches with an open glove would rebound nastily on him.with two ,three or more fast jabs coming his way in succession.I dont know how he would do,I think he could adapt but, in all truth I can't be dogmatic and state anyone who says different is wrong .
Johnson did beat some clever boxers ,Joe Jeanette, for example,but the fast big men of today would surely test him.That said, I think they would test all the old time champs.
Lewis is a very high hurdle for the old timers to clear imo,his combination of size power and agility[for his stature] make him a very tough nut to crack, stylistically I think he is a very hard problem for most Champs to solve.
I can see Ali outboxing Sullivan ,Corbett ,Fitz and Jeffries pretty comfortably, I cant make my mind up how a fight with Johnson would go ,but I lean towards Ali because of his speed.

 

I think Johnson would be decidedly average today, probably not even crack the top 30. He fought small, primitive fighters in an era of small, primitive fighters. The bigger guys he beat were totally shot or, well, decidedly primitive.

He was very good for his era, immensely important in the history of sport and that of American Society. Other than that (which is quite a lot), he is a drastically over-rated fighter who had fits with smaller, lesser fighters in his day and who requires legions of apologists to uphold the myth of his greatness.

 

My fav all time boxing quote from messers Jack Blackburn


"Don't ever tell Chappie I said this but Jack Johnson Woudda whooped the ear locks offa that boy"

 

Could the modern greats travel back in time and be as effective in those years as they were in the years they actually fought? No, I don't believe so.

In a very similar way, I don't believe Johnson can move forward in time and effect the same greatness he achieved in his day. There are too many factors that come into play like equipment and rule-sets; the incongruities between eras are just far too irreconcilable, in my humble opinion. He may adapt to a reasonable degree, but I don't think he can ever fully do so, and certainly not to the point as to match or exceed his efficacy in his own time.

With that in mind, I still say that past and present operate on enough of the same principles that comparisons can be drawn, albeit with much difficulty. And certainly, Jack compares favorably against the very best of history.

 

Jim,

Willard who was perhaps the slowest of all the champions landed on Johnson from a distance. So did Frank Moran.

Without our his clinching, fighters like Ali or Holmes would have a field day on Johnson mostly stationary style, and low guard. Johnson was a little short in height and reach ( 6'1" 74" reach ). If modern boxing has shown us anything its that short fighters with limited reach are completely in over their heads against skilled bigger men. See Byrd vs either Klitschko.

Johnson would have to change his style, and become more aggressive to beat a skilled bigger opponent. This was not his way, as his power and chin were not suited for these type of battles.

 

I wonder if you can reply to my comments directly? Let's stay on point this time, and see if you can offer a direct reply without switching the topic.

As I said before, 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.

 

Jack Johnson was truly great, and his defensive ability was great. He'd clinch and contain just about anyone he fought, but he'd be smashing them with body punches and uppercuts too. And he could fight at long range too.

He's a bit monotonous to watch at times, but this was 40+ years before the era of "television fighters" and a decade or two before the whirlwhind style of Dempsey set the standard for what makes a great boxing (box-office) hero, so all the need to be flashy, dramatic and aesthetic wasn't there.

If anything, Johnson was playing to a more refined, more educated, fight crowd, and he'd probably chuckle at the ignorance of boxing know-how being spewed by the so-called "experts" of this day on forums like this.

 

I've seen almost all available footage on Johnson and strongly disagree. His hands were low but never when in range. The only time it was down was to goad the opponent into punching the open area so he could slide and counter. These skills are lost today and not recognised.

More importantly you have to factor in the amount of rounds Johnson's fights were. He would be a wholly different fighter over 12 rounds rather than 30. He would be on his toes more and throw more punches if only fighting for 45mins.

One other thing, Johnson is hard to compare to other greats. There were hardly any before him. Think about that. Noone had seen a Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Marciano, Liston, Clay etc. They and their fighting styles didn't exist. If Johnson were born in any other modern era he would be even better IMO. Better sparring, training, opponents,coaches, nutrition. His freak like strength, his speed,reflexes chin and heart would bring him to the top had he been born in any era.:bbb

 

Ive destroyed your argument once ,pointing out your description fits Jeffries to a tee, then you post it again?
Keep your arguments for someone who gives a ****,you sick ****.

 

I think the biggest thing going against Jack Johnson today would be his size. I don't think he would be known as the Galvestan Gaint today. He would be closer to a crusierweight. I think with his real life abilities combined with curent training methjods and stragities he would be one of the best crusierweights of all time. I can see him having some secuess at heavyweight but I don't think he would domanate.

 

Firstly I have gone against head to head over many decades, styles can change and improve, physical ability and standards go to new levels, living standards and nutrition has all vastly improved. Johnson had to sleep rough, often didnt have enough to eat, had to fight battle royals

Johnson would have slim to no chance against Ali/Holmes/Lennox/Tyson coming forward in a time machine but if he grew up in the more priviledged. Compare him to others around his era such as Louis/Dempsey/Corbett/Fitz/Jeffries/Tunney/Schmelling/Wills and he compares very favourably

Now as for the criticism, Johnson kept both his hands low because he was so much taller/rangier and the equivilent of a 6'6 man today if we look at average heights. Plus he fast enough to parry/move/clinch. It didnt amount to a weakness because it didnt lead to him being hit

 

I take your points on board,but not all of Johnson's opponents were smaller than him for example.
Frank Moran 6' 1 1 /2in
Jim Johnson 6' 3in
Peter Felix 6'3in
Bill Lang 6'1in
Hank Griffin 6'1in
Fred Russell 6'6 in
Sandy Ferguson 6'3in
Denver Ed Martin 6'6 1/2 in
Klondike Hayes 6' 1in
Al Kaufman 6'1in

Thats ten men taller than the 6 1/4in Johnson.

 

You didn't prove a a thing. Sure Jeffries fought smaller guys, he was the biggest ranked heavy in his time. Duh. At least he beat smaller hall of fame guys in Corbett, Fitz, and Sharkey, and unlike Jack Johnson does not need excuses.

No one ever claimed Jeffries was impossible to hit in the ring. That false claim is Johnson's, and I ask you point blank where I can see this type of defense on flim. You go silent.

Now that I have replied to your off tangent questions, lets return to the topic of the thread. Please tell me Johnson's excuses for the following events:

1 ) Getting KO'd cold by a supper middle weight in Choynski!

2 ) Quitting vs Klondike and taking the TKO! - A non hall of fame fighter!

3 ) Losing to Griffin, and not winning one match in the series, yet Jeffries easily beat a more prime version of the same man!

4 ) Losing a high stakes match to the likes of Marvin Hart by putting forth a mediocre effort!

5 ) Getting out jabbed by a past his prime middle and having to settle for a ND vs. middle weight O'Brien even though Box Rec reports a paper felt O'Brien was the better by a shade! This happened as Champion.

6 ) Getting knocked down as champion by a middle in Ketchel!

7 ) Quitting in a scheduled 20 round fight ( source Cyber Boxing Zone ) vs journeyman Jim " battling " Johnson. If you quit with rounds to go, you should lose your title.

8 ) Ducking the best challangers while champion in Langford, McVey, and Jeanette...also not fighting perhpas the best white hope of the times in Gunboat Smith ( Who rung Johnson bell and floored him in a 4 round ehhibition match to point where Johnson's manager had to stop the aciton in that round because he was dazzed and unable to defend himself! ) HA!

Sure Jeffries could have fought Johnson in 1904 to ealry 1905 before Johnson lost to Hart. I'll give you that. However Johnson ducked the three best out there for multiple years, and used the color line worse than any champ I can think of.

Damage control, Mcvey! Damage control!!!!

You're playing checkers while I continue to play chess.