"Jeffries was crude but Johnson could compete today..."

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by cross_trainer, Jan 14, 2010.


  1. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    18,216
    14,021
    Jun 30, 2005
    I hear this a lot on the Classic forum--that guys like Corbett, Fitz, and Jeffries were primitive cavemen but Johnson was every bit as good as modern fighters.

    I don't see it.

    He drops his hands frequently, parries too far downward, is often off balance, and throws odd punches rather than the orthodox ones we use today. Johnson is different from the bareknucklers, but he's also VERY different from modern fighters. He's an evolutionary side-road of boxing technique. If anything, Jeffries' crouch-and-left-hook approach is more modern than Johnson's style.

    I don't have an axe to grind. As far as I'm concerned, Jeffries, Johnson, Fitz and Corbett would all beat modern fighters under early 20th century rules (different rules, different skillsets...), but that isn't the issue.

    What does Johnson do that the other guys don't? What makes him so much more modern?
     
  2. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,774
    47,620
    Mar 21, 2007
    I agree with everything you've said.
     
  3. Sweet Pea

    Sweet Pea Obsessed with Boxing banned

    27,199
    93
    Dec 26, 2007
    The fact that the people who state these things have actually heard of Johnson beforehand, and therefore don't want to sound blasphemous by condemning such a supposedly heroic figure. The fact that he was black doesn't hurt, either. They see old white guys and just assume they all fought like club-fighters.
     
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,774
    47,620
    Mar 21, 2007
    Very logical Pea. I think also, though, Johnson looks more athletic in terms of reaction times etc., and this has somehow become synonymous with moderninity. Moderninity? Is that a word?
     
  5. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    399,853
    81,826
    Nov 30, 2006
    Modernity. :good
     
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,774
    47,620
    Mar 21, 2007
    Moderninty. Moderninity.
     
  7. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    399,853
    81,826
    Nov 30, 2006
    Desisist!
     
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,774
    47,620
    Mar 21, 2007

    :lol:
     
  9. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    18,216
    14,021
    Jun 30, 2005
    I disagreeify. I find McGrain's alternatative spellications invigorificous.

    And you can quotiferate me on that.
     
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,774
    47,620
    Mar 21, 2007
  11. Bummy Davis

    Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,666
    2,146
    Aug 26, 2004
    From what little film I have seen of Jeffires and the film I have seen of Johnson and from the history of both mens career. I would have to rate them very close. Lets face it Jeffries came back after 6 yrs,had to lose 100lbs at the age of 36 with no tune up. Johnson was Ko'd by Willard and was still an active fighter. If we had to compare the Jeffries of the Johnson then we would have to use the Johnson of the Willard fight. I rate these men very close and if I put 1 of them and 9, the other should be close. A lot of the old timer, included some at Ring magazine that saw both fight think a prime Jeffries would have beaten Johnson. We can not rate Ali based on the Berbick, 1st Leon Spinks fight so it would not be fair to rate Jeffries off that loss to Johnson, that was not Jeffries, not near.

    I do Think a great fighter like Jeffries would be competitive today. To adjust to modern training would be something he could do. I think a great fighter would be great in any era.
     
  12. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    18,216
    14,021
    Jun 30, 2005
    Dis-un-nonsensificationous. :nono
     
  13. Sweet Pea

    Sweet Pea Obsessed with Boxing banned

    27,199
    93
    Dec 26, 2007
    :lol:Alright, now it's funny again.
     
  14. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    50,942
    24,875
    Jan 3, 2007
    My problem with Johnson's style is that it relies a bit too heavily on holding and wearing down, what were generally smaller men. It also rewards a man who fights in long distance bouts over 20 or more rounds, where his opponent is likely to tire at some point. In a different era where men are considerably bigger and stronger, while also only having to conserve their energy for 10 or 12 rounds - and not 20, Johnson's style and physical attributes may not prove to be as effective as they were against a man like Tommy Burns....Does this guarantee that johnson fails in the latter half of the 20th century and beyond? Not necessarily, but it does leave some valid questions in my opinion.
     
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,774
    47,620
    Mar 21, 2007
    Magoo, you are right in a way, as far as our perceptions of Johnson's style goes, Jeffries might even be the more affective in 2010 as CT was hinting. But from what I've read in primary newspaper accounts Johnson fought so often on the inside because fighters were terrified to box him. In-fighting was seen as the best chance of beating Johnson, such was his boxing prowess. Maybe the greatest feint ever sold? I don't know, but Kauffman was openly laughed at for trying to box him, and he did much better on the inside (might even have won a round).
     
    Balazs likes this.