Was Jack Johnson Overated? (fighting ability and stylewise)

All thoughtful points. One thing I'll say is that for Langford to defeat Johnson in, say, 1912-13 and later he would have to be much more of a pressure fighter than we see on film. I mean he'd have to be right on top of Jack all the time, not just when he would be moving in for the kill like against Lang and Flynn. And I think Johnson's inside game would be way too big, strong, and crafty for Langford. Jack's uppercut would eat Sam alive. On the other side of the coin, if Langford chose to lay back and pick his spots, so to speak, he would be cut to pieces by Johnson's long game of jabs and fast flurries of combinations. And Langford wasn't any more attentive to his physical condition than Johnson. You can point to the Ketchel fight, but I think Johnson was carrying Stanley. Anyway, I don't think Johnson would be so careless against Sam, that is, if the Ketchel knockdown was even legitimate!

 

Yes, but at the same time, it might be scary to see what Langford would do, if he actually stood to win a title!

 

Johnson had very dull style that was invented for different rules and equipment than we have now, but he waa very skilled ar what he did.

I do find his resume a bit overrated by some, but his consistency and longevity is remarkable nonetheless. He's clear top 15 HW ever with a strong case for top 10.

 

You can't really evaluate him without looking at his pre title run where he had most of his big wins, including Sam McVea, and Denver Ed Martin.

He overall title run was very poor, some (not all) of that was not his fault.

However him and Tommy Burns had cleared out the division when they met, Johnson having the better wins, and then he dominated Burns.

 

He'd beaten Joe Gans, Young Peter Jackson, and Jack Blackburn. I think he'd shown himself to be a world class operator, but he'd done nothing a heavyweight, besides a loss then a win against a very green Joe Jeanette.

He wasn't a good heavyweight by this point, but he was a very good fighter.

 

Yes he's overrated, in the sense that he stands little chance against most of the ATGs that came after him.
But he was a product of his era, so it wouldn't be a fair comparison.

Given what he achieved in his own era and his impact on the sport, he's top 10 all time.
H2H, he ain't even top 30.

 

You could argue he was the greatest fighter of the era the biggest H2H threat with that equipment and rule set. But if you took him as he is threw a pair of modern gloves at him and marched him off to fight even someone mediocre in the top mix up as Whyte he would run for the hills figuratively of course as Whyte would beat the breaks off him pretty quickly. But if the rules where swapped well the outcome has become up for debate.

 

As I've said before, and I'll say it again, the main criteria for greatness, is how well you did your time; how far apart did you set yourself from the rest, when, everybody was exposed to the same training methods and knowledge. If you stand out, excel, and essentially "create" a style that was almost impossible to overcome at his best, that has to equal greatness. He was better then the rest, and that was WITH handcuffs on, and seemingly toying with his foe, that far ahead. It may not equal h2h greatness 110 years later, but it certainly counts for boxing greatness imo.

 

Indeed.

 

JJ was an exceptional fighter for his time. Clever, tough , liked the rough housing against men-----too many smaller white dudes. But he was was a younger version of Holmes . Uses the long arms , defense and ability to counteratackk to perfection. For His his time all time great. But I will stir it up again...... Could he beat Vitali or Lennox, or Bowe? Absolutely not. Time changes everything. Take it as a 30 year period. How dominant were they? That is how they should be judged. We still rate Ali 1-2 . 40 years after fighting . How long would the great Sullivan last against Bert Cooper? Welcome the abuse.

 

he beats all 3 of those boxers , what you are basing the proclamations (without evidence) on?

 

IMO---For one major reason. His style of fighting was to frustrate his opponents with superior strength and tactics. Did any heavyweight clutch and hold as often as Johnson? I know he was a good infighter but at the same while watching his fights I am amazed at how limited his opposition is. I dont think he ever saw a jab like the 3 men I mentioned threw. With the jab pounding away and eating right hands----he would be forced to go on the offense and with that style of keeping his hands so low.. Not good

 

He was great! It was a different time.

 

watch that era more carefully, Johnson can keep his hands down because HE WAS TOO FAR AWAY TO BE HIT WITH ANYTHING . He only went in when he had a opening to do so, Low hands is only a problem if you are an idiot and dont understand range or how to defend without using your hands.Also you cant just jab for the sake of jabbing , Johnson often lifted that rear hand up and extending it smothering the path for the jab to fully extend (think foreman and that mummy guard) There is no path for the jab you cant jab . Instead of assume stuff lets ask questions like why didnt Johnsons opponents jab (answered for you) how did Johnson get away with hands down(answered for you) and final note Johnson was a vicious counter puncher so that theory of countering him would not work either!

 

I would say yes. His legacy is that he was the first black heavyweight champ, am easy accolade to romanticize. When taking a closer look, he fought McVae and Jeannette while they had less than 10 and 20 fights respectively. They were also much smaller. Langford was still green and at least 40 pounds smaller and giving up six or seven inches in height. Ketchel a middleweight, Burns a very game but small heavyweight, Fitzsimmons washed up, Jeffries coming off a six year retirement and losing a hundred pounds. He drew the color line as champion, never gave any black fighter besides a cherry picked Jim Johnson a shot.