Jack Johnson ranked outside the all time top 10 HW's?

I want to quote SuzieQ out of another thread to deliver some counterarguments:

source


Personally, I think there are arguments to rank him outside of the Top10, if title reign is important to you for example but I don´t think your arguments for this are that good. Like Suzie said both McVey and Jeanette proved they could hang in with the best the division had to offer and it may very well be that their records are incomplete. Langford had more fights, already proved he could hang in with p4p greats like Blackburn and Gans. Both weren´t at their best weights and probably pre-prime. Langford definitly already deserved to be called a great though.

 

Johnson was the Coloured Champion from 1902 ,when he beat Frank Childs ,until 1908 when he beat Tommy Burns for the universal crown,he defended the coloured title 19 times during that period ,losing once, a dsq to Joe Jeannete,So I think it is reasonable to assume he was the premier coloured fighter extant.He dropped a debatable dec to Marvin Hart in 1905,the same year he lost by dsq to Jeanette, he then went 10 years without defeat.Where you rate him seems to me to depend on how dominant you think he was before he won the universal title.




Oh,by the way your list stinks

 

I think your list is very defensible, although I myself would have Johnson several notches higher and within the top ten.

Others are making the case for Johnson. The case against him is that although he was a top man for a very long time, his big wins were over men washed up (Fitz, Jeffries), small (Langford, Ketchel, Burns), green (McVea, Jeannette) or mediocre (Martin, Flynn, Moran). This is, of course, somewhat true of most champions, but it seems more the case for Johnson. His strong suit, longevity, is undercut by his not fighting the best contenders from 1910 through 1915, most of his reign.

*I thought your comments on Johnson's record were balanced and reasonable.

 

I think this list is very reasonable. I do think Liston should be higher. I, myself, could never rate foreman over liston. I like the Wills over Dempsey pick, very defendable.


- Don't forget. Johnson had essentially two title reigns. He reigned for a long time with many many title defenses as coloured heavyweight champion in an era filled with talented black fighters. His 2nd title reign, the "Linear" title reign, was just icing on the cake.

 

I put Johnson somewhere in the 11-15 range based on ability relative to his era and legacy. Head to head, I think most post-Louis heavyweight champs take him out but that's a different argument.

In regards to your list, 4 out of your top 5 agree with mine so that must mean it's both erudite and well-researched.

 

I would put Dempsey and Holyfield before him.

 

While your list is not unreasonable, I think that it is substantialy wrong.

Johnsons resume is hard to apreciate from 2010 because the exact significance of every fighter he beat when he beat them is hard to determine. I would venture however that he had a significantly deeper resume than your #4 relative to the era he fought in both in terms of quantity and quality.

You mention that Sam McVea was green when Johnson fought him and he was, but he had a lot more fights than boxrec lists, and he was being talked about as the outstanding challenger in the press. I would submit that he was at least as good a scalp as Tim Witherspoon when Larry Holmes beat him. The crucial difference being that instead of holing him to a controvertial points win, Johnson dominated him three times.

This is the type of win that really makes up Johnsons record. Like Larry Holmes, he dosn't have wins over prime great fighters, just shed loads of often dominant wins over world class fighters.

Let me kick off by saying that if the Ring Magazine Rankings had existed throughout Johnsons career, his number of wins over top 10 fighters would rival those of Louis and Ali. The numbers will add up for Johnson here.

 

Johnson's case is a bit like Holmes: he was one of the top heavyweight for a very long time, but his competition wasn't all that and for several years he avoided or at least didn't fight the best heavyweights out there.

I think it's not unreasonable to have him outside of the top10. An interesting, related issue for me has always been: where does Jeffries rank with respect to him? He was at the top for a shorter period of time, but fought all significant heavyweights that were around and beat them all. Never lost a fight until his 5 year retirement. Considering Johnson lost to Hart in 1905, you can't blame Jeffries for not fighting him..

 

He never fought Jack Johnson, whom was a top contender in 1904. The press was pleading for a johnson-jeffries fight, but jeff retired instead. Also Denver Ed Martin.

In fact Nat Fleischer said years later Jeff retired because a great crop of black heavyweights(johnson, mcvea, jeanette) were coming up. I will see if i can find the quote. The police gazette was certainly critical of Jeffries.

 

Like i said in my post, Johnson lost to Marvin Hart who wasn't that highly regarded and whom Jeffries didn't consider a challenge.

As for Martin: he was on a big losing streak the moment Jeffries won the title. Had he fought Martin, he'd only be criticized for fighting an opponent on the down slide.

 

I think there are 10 or more all-time heavyweights who can reasonably be ranked above Jack Johnson.

I dont think the list above is reasonable though, for other reasons.