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

Jeffries could have fought Johnson ,if not him then Hart.
I think he retired because he did not want to take achance of losing his crown to a black man [namely Johnson] ,and he several times said he did.

 

I rate johnson within my top ten. he made more of a historical impact and actually was the worlds best heavyweight for a long enough time to warent inclusion. this is where i rate him amoung linear champs.

1.louis
2.ali
3.marciano
4dempsey
5holmes
6 johnson
7lennox lewis
8hollyfield
9foreman
10tyson
11 baer
12jeffries
13 schmeling
14liston
15charles
16 walcott
17 patterson
18frazier
19ingo johanason
20primo carnera
21buster douglas
22gene tunney
23bowe
24 willard
25 sharkey
26 rahman
27 tommy burns
28 moorer
29 mike spinks
30 braddock
31` leon spinks
32 shannon briggs

 

Should be above Tyson and Liston.

 

Johnson's record, of what we know, is pretty darn solid. There are plenty of 'what ifs', but that should never take away from the ‘what was’.

Those who saw him swore of his ability; looks good on the flickering film to boot.

To not rate him in the top ten, you're going to have to come up with some original research. Incomplete records and immaterialised bouts don't satisfy a decent Johnson retort.

 

my rankings:

#1. Muhammad Ali
#2. Joe Louis
#3. Larry Holmes
#4. Jack Johnson
#5. George Foreman
#6. Lennox Lewis
#7. Evander Holyfield
#8. Mike Tyson
#9. Sonny Liston
#10.Rocky Marciano

 

If you are going to rate Jack this low, you need to compare to some of those you have above him.

You have Lennox Lewis at 5.

You surely cant think that Lennox Lewis' title reign was anywhere near as good as Jack Johnsons. Lennox got his first title with a win over... Oh hang on, they just gave it to him, because the World champion wouldnt fight him. He then defended it 3 times against two guys who were definitely not one of the main contenders but were decent fighters and one guy, who to be honest I dont even remember who he is and doubt he would have been a top 50 fight. In his 4th fight he was stopped by an average fighter in Oliver McCall. Compare this to what Johnson did with his coloured title where he beat all the best contenders going around until he was beaten on points (not KOd) controversially by Marvin Hart. This is a massive advantage to Johnson.

We then move to part two. After finally winning the undisputed world championship against Briggs, Lennox managed 5 wins against ordinary fighters (other than Holyfield) before he was again KOd, this time by the average Hasim Rahman. Jack Johnson then fought 8 World Title fights against fighters who were of similar status. Admittedly that status did not include the big 3 Langford, Jeanette and McVey, But Johnson had already beaten them, and Lennox's resume at the time did not include the big 3 either. He didnt fight Tyson, Bowe or Foreman, Or for that matter, he also didnt fight former world Champion Moorer, leading contender IKE ibeauchi, and even his win over McCall is arguably tainted by McCalls less than prime condition for want of a better word. And this is assuming that Holyfield was closer to prime than Mcvey, Jeanette and Langford were when they fought Johnson, which he probably wasnt.

Lewis did recover again to beat Rahman and follow this with a win over an ancient Tyson and a good win against Vitali Klitchsko before retiring. But is this any better than what Johnson did after the Willard loss, which incidentally came after he dominated Willard for more than 15 rounds. Johnson went for about another 7 years or so without losing a fight!

I am sorry, but unless you are using head to head and relying on physical attributes, Lennox Lewis does not compare to what Jack Johnson did. Lennox' achievements have all of jacks weaknesses and then some. I agree that Jack could have achieved more, but even without this, he was still better than Lennox.

If you have Lennox at number 5, then Jack Johnson must be ahead of him. To be honest, although i have never done a real comparison, I would be surprised if Johnson's reign is not more comparable to Louis and Ali's than people realise or certainly give credit for.

Interestingly, there appears to be to different types of legacies to consider when you look at legacies. There is the short and spectacular reigns like Marciano, Tyson, Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Jeffries etc And the longer dominant reigns/carreers like Louis, Ali, Johnson, Sullivan, etc. Sometimes it is hard to know which type to give more credit to.

 

good list

 

Johnson is not in my top ten. Out of respect to historians, I give him a spot in the top 20.

Objective points to ponder.

1 )His title reign was perhaps the weakest on your list ( omit wills who was denied a chance ).

2 ) He was floored and Ko'd by middles, drew too many times, and had too many average performances vs lesser contenders as champion.

3 ) And I am willing to change my mind if a good argument can be made. Johnson may lack a win over a great heavy in his prime or near prime. McVey, Langford, and Jeanette were green, small and young when Johnson beat them. Jeffries was too old.

 

What parts of the comparison I made with Lennox' reign do you disagree with?

And I dont see how the reigns of Dempsey, Liston or Frazier are better than Johnsons.

Is it better to be floored by a middleweight who is world class or get KOd by a bigger fighter who is not really world class? Dont Forget, that if the scoring for his draws were used in other world title fights, Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield, Ali etc might have many draws on their record. Lewis, Holyfield would almost certainly be 2 draws, or 2 newspaper decisions, split each way. Ali Frazier would probably have two NDs. Ali NOrton might be 2 NDs and a newspaper decision for Norton! Would an old Ali even beat Joe Bugner if the fight was scheduled for 60rnds in the sun. Or for that matter would Joe louis have prevailed over Walcott. The different rules and conditions need to be factored in.

It is hard to get wins over great heavies, when you have beaten every single fighter around. Once you beat fighters they generally drop from the radar and it is very rare for their to be considered two greats at once, unless something happens to stop the greats from fighting or you lose to a fighter. Eg Frazier wouldnt be thought of as great if Ali wasnt stripped of the title and/or lost to him. Holyfield wouldnt be considered great if Tyson hadnt slipped up against Douglas and/or went to jail and instead he beat Douglas then holyfield. Even Ali might not have been considered all that great, if Foreman hadnt slipped up against him. Joe Louis pretty much didnt slip up and surprise surprise most say he didnt beat a great fighter. Same goes with John L and Jeffries. Peter Jackson was considered great but would he still be, if he fought John L and lost?

There is not a single fighter from Johnson's reign who you could define as great, who hasnt fought and lost to Johnson. Would Johnson's reign really be that much better if he fought and won a trilogy with Willard (who without dempsey might have been a great) and then held the title until losing to Lawson, who could then retire as champ and become a great? Would it help Johnson's reign if he had a bad fight against Tommy Burns and he won in a close thriller, like Ali did against Frazier, or if old Johnson had a shocker against Jeffries and old Jim dominated the fight, before Johnson eventually stopped him late, like Jim did to corbett? Johnson's dominance was such against good fighters, that he didnt allow greats to emerge.