Which one of you were saying Johnsons style is too primitive? Of that his footwork is "plodding" and that he is flat footed? 2:23 [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5ntK49v_5g[/ame] And your explanation? I wonder what else he could do/did in those numerous unfilmed battles he had with other fighters. Show Johnson a 20 second clip of Ali against Williams, and he will say "easy" and will do it. Maybe not as well, but you guys are acting like modern fight styles would be rocket science for pugilistic geniuses of only 100 years ago.
"Plodding" is not word i would use to describe Johnson. If i did use such a descriptor in regards to Johnson, I would really like to see it. He did most often hold a strength advantage which encouraged his infighting but I would not call this plodding. So, please to quote me where I described him as "plodding"...
Okay while I look for a quote, can you explain to me the stylistic primitiveness in that moment? Or are you just going to retract your statement about him not being able to keep up with modern fighters because of his outdated style altogether?
Seamus I apologize. You indeed never say that about his footwork. And you also dont really talk about his style either. I must apologize You did basically mock him as a serious threat as a boxer. And thats kinda your persona on this message board, is to downplay the ability of old timers. Having bowed my head in shame of misconception, Im still wondering, now, what do you think of him moving like that in that clip? Does it change your perception on what "might be" at least? His entire body is "one" when hes moving like that. Hard to appreciate on some of the first moving picture cameras ever, but you can observe that his entire body is with the movements. He had that balance, and athleticism that only the best of the best are built with. I dont see how you can take him so lightly, unless your naturally that critical of all fighters.
For the record, Jack Johnson stands as an all-time great. He was the best of his era at heavyweight (though I rank Langford lb4lb much higher... well higher than everyone else ever, too). His record, however, is far from pristine. He was inconsistent and curiously struggled with fighters who I don't think would pose a threat to the top-10 in the post-Patterson era of the heavyweight division. He often used his strength and size advantage in his victories, advantages which would be far less in the modern ring. Let's face it, he was a "giant" for his day. He is smallish for the division for today... and pushing around middleweights does little to impress me for one's status as a heavyweight. So, for all his "athleticism" (again the most inane term coined in decades), his results against what one must infer are "non-athletic" opponents raise eyebrows as to his actual abilities.
