jack johnson vs ezzard charles....

i don't like johnson's style much but i could see him being a serious problem for charles. ezzard, brilliant as he was, leaned more towards the orthodox. this would give johnson the opportunity to catch and deflect his beautifully thrown but conventional punches. johnson also had quite a bit of sting in his punches while the heavyweight charles had lost the zip of the 175 version.

in the modern era though, i think that charles workrate would cut into johnson's early lead over time. johnson's struggles early came from inexperience and some unpredictability (choynski) and later from lack of fitness (willard). during his prime i'll admit (begrudingly) he took on the very best heavyweights of his day with great success.

charles would have trouble settling into rhythm and his combinations would not land as they typically do, broken by johnson's spoiler style. a lesser fighter would grow frustrated and sloppy; charles would not. over time he adapts and by the championship rounds has johnson read******g to him and having to up his own punchrate to keep up. it's close but in the end it's scored a draw, with numerous rounds difficult to call clearly

 

I personally think Johnson was a 'Genius Fighter'. I think only a tiny few in history attained that 'untouchable level' - don't ask me why or the reasons behind it - it's just a feeling a have about Johnson - a great as Ezzard Charles was I just think that Jack Johnson is just on that other plain - plus as someone else alluded to earlier I think Jack Johnson liked fighting the more orthodox stand up textbook boxer types - his own unconventionalness bamboozled them usually I also am of a strange mindset with Johnson in that, as good as I view him (and as good as anyone else views him) based on what we see and know of him - I actually have a strong hunch that he was an even greater fighter than that - I don't think we saw more than about 65% of what he had or what he could do so I personally have to allow for that unknown quantity aswell haha

 

Bad matchup for charles, a guy as fast as him, bigger than him, great mobility and handspeed for the division and hard to land on without a big workrate, a natural counterpuncher foil for ezz.., and he's stronger and more skilled on the inside. i think johnson neutralizes charles best strengths and really hands it to him in a one sided fight. I think his glove blocking would frustrate the heavyweight, slower version of charles. Johnson may have to up the gas a little bit, but I'm sure he could, i've seen him throw real combinations and doubled/tripled+ jabs and well

agreed rocky

 

i want to agree and stylistically this makes sense...i just love charles too much to discount him right now

 

nope, actually i think Johnson is a faster HW.

 

johnson and by ko, no contest

 

better fighter,bigger,stronger,better defence, faster at hw,harder puncher,more durable, more stamina, johnson my a mile.

 

If I didn't know anything about Charles, going by your post, he was a complete chump...

 

i never said that he was bad, simply jonhson was much better, even faster at hw.

 

Certainly a case could be made that disputes all points, except perhaps the stamina, but in a 15 round fight, either man could obviously make the distance and go strong.

Johnson has a much lower punch output, and would be hard-pressed to make it his fight. I'm all for pre-modern fighters doing well against modern, but the film of Johnson is thoroughly unimpressive and I'd pick Charles, though early he may find it tough to get through consistently, to start scoring with regularity with an attack consisting of bodypunching, volume, and movement that Johnson would be totally unprepared for.

Johnson, by the way, folks, isn't much bigger. We're talking about an inch in height and 10-15lbs...

 

I think Johnson was very good for his time but pretty much garbage for post-30's match-up. Charles by KO in 8... unless Johnson is given time to adapt his style to real boxers.

 

The low output knock on Johnson is a little questionable. One, he was fighting before the fifteen round era, and two he carried a whole bunch of fights beyond their natural endings. I think it's pretty safe to assume that even as a natural counterpuncher, we'd have seen him throwing way more leather in a "modern" fight. In his prime, his stamina was pretty much impeccable.

 

You have to wonder how Jack Blackburn with his primitive skills, ever made Joe Louis into a halfway decent fighter in the 30s.