Johnson did "beat" Willard. The fight was scheduled for 45 rounds. Johnson dominated the first 20 rounds of the fight before slowing down in the 26th round which was understandable because it was 100 degrees outside and he was 37 years old. Under modern rules, Johnson gets the win. Ali at that age was getting his butt kicked by Larry Holmes. Do we hold against Ali if he couldn't beat Larry Holmes in a 45, I repeat 45 round match in the scorching hot Cuban sun? By that point of Marciano's life, he had been retired for FIVE years. Mike Tyson was TWO years younger when he was "washed up" vs Lennox Lewis. It's impressive that Johnson was competitive at age 37 against a solid prime Heavyweight champ in Willard in a time when 37 years old is like being 45 years old today.
Under modern rules, then, Leonard lost the first fight to Hearns. And both Dempsey/Tunney fights are undecided to this day, since neither was over the modern 12 round championship distance.
Good post! I've had the privilege of seeing some old (some might say ancient, with dinosaurs outside constantly threatening the proceedings, with their loud and weird sounds) fights, in person. Then I later saw the same fights on film, usually in black and white. My memory about ancient things is much better than it is about recent things, and I can tell you that live fights and old films are not the same thing. Along with that, the fight conditions were different. With Jack Johnson, that's true in spades! I never saw Jack in person, but I bet if I had, I'd think differently about him than the films show. To the modern viewer, Jack might as well have been fighting in an environment on another planet. My point is that greatness finds a way to express itself in any era, and under any conditions. If Jack was here, today, fighting, we'd see the result of that truth.
We can not used this fight to tell what would happen on a shorter distant. Willard and Johnson KNEW they had 45 rounds, so Willard keep his stamina for the later rounds with out being active. He was fast pace for shorter fights like vs Moran. And slow pace for the Johnson fight. Not saying Willard would beat Johnson in a 12 round rounder, but had that fight been 12 rounds, we would see a totally different fight.
Another good post! There are certainly many "if onlys" in Johnson's career. Some were within his control and many were not.
It really doesn't make sense to say the fight up to the 20th round is how it would have played out had it been scheduled for 20. It would have been a very different fight, with the fighters trying to get a decision. It would have gave Johnson a better shot a winning, but with his age and inactivity, it's by no means certain that Johnson would have won. That age equivalence thing is nonsense. Fighters generally peak later now, but every era has fighters peaking at a variety of ages, and staying at the top for different times.
Johnson was still fighting and winning up to his 50's or so. I do agree as Champion at 37, he was ready to be taken by some one young. Yeah age may of played a part of his loss to Willard, but I think it had more to do with ruleset, what type of fighter was in the ring at that time, and living the high life. But even so, he was still a top fighter, and perhaps the greatest fighter at even at age 37 going into the Willard fight. I do not think many top fighters of his era could of taken that Johnson in 1915.
You can see on film his timing looks pretty out. I think there were probably a few guys then that could have beaten him. Harry Wills is am obvious one. Langford was probably better overall by that point, but I suspect Johnson always had his number. As for age, check out what Jem Mace, Joe Goss and Tom Allen had done decades before at an advanced age. Or more recently Bob Fitzsimmons
His timing was off more because he has not fought in a few years. Dempsey did not look as sharp vs Tunney the first time either after that 3 year break.
It is true that Johnson was old when he lost to Willard, but Willard was also old. Johnson was 37, Willard 34. It is important, three years of difference? Johnson was a trained boxer, in full swing, when he lost, he was not a boxer who "came back" after years of inactivity, like Jeffries, Louis, Ali and others. In the boxe it is common for the world champion to defend the title over the age of 30: Willard, Louis, Walcott, Marciano, Liston, Ali, Holmes and many others
That can be an absolutely critical difference, especially when the older man has been a lot more active.
Yes, that can be a critical difference. But it is at the level of hypothesis. May be or ... not may be. in theory, three years is not a long time On the other hand, it is certain that Willard lacked experience when he fought against Johnson, with only 4 years of professionalism.
Gentlemen, please let me know what Champions ever criticized Jack Johnson. I don't recall any of these Champs who criticized JJ Ali,Tyson, Holmes,Charles, Marciano, Tunney, Dempsey, Louis, and you can include a hundred others. I am sure there might be a few who have criticized him, other than those on the Forum. Thank you all and have a good day,
