Why isn't Jack Johnson mentioned in GOAT convos?

I am not saying it definitely is, but this certainly could be a classic logical error called

False Cause

Because two things happen at about the same time, one is said is have caused the other when there is no necessary relationship at all.

Johnson's rep has faded mainly, I think, because he didn't do much after 1910. Whom did he beat? Flynn? Moran? Cowler?

Yes, as I have mentioned, he was beating his opposition over a very long period of time, and impressed observers with his enduring skill, but none of his victims were above so so contenders or journeymen.

In fairness to Johnson, some of this was due to his legal problems and fleeing the country, but it does appear he had little interest at this point in meeting his best black challengers. It was widely believed Johnson became Joe Louis' foremost critic because he basked in the fame of being the only black champion and wanted to keep it that way. In his last interview with The Ring, he had Louis losing to not only Johnson's heavyweight opponents, but even Tommy Ryan.

 

I think that if there had been some sort of widely recognized rankings throughout Johnson's career, the statistics from these would be very impressive.

In terms of number of wins over elite fighters, the only champions that you could really compare him to are Louis, Ali and Holmes.

In terms of the period of time over which he was beating elite fighters, he would be comparable to the three aforementioned men, along with Holyfield, and perhaps Patterson.

Of course it would also underline how bad some of his omissions were, because Langford's statistics would be ridiculous as well.

 

you dont know what you are looking at . in terms of defense hes harder to hit than ali and joe louis. The punch and grapple style that johnson used is the same style Tommy Loughran used except he had a power in both of his hands. He can and probably beats any heavyweight he goes up against.

 

It's certainly possible that I don't know what I'm looking at.

But it's not as if there's anybody today who's particularly well qualified to speak on Johnson's style from its own perspective. Nobody has fought like Johnson in a very long time. It's not a living tradition as far as I know.

(Unless you were either born incredibly early, or currently use Johnson as a model for your striking in MMA-gloved bouts. Maybe.)

There are *modern* coaches of boxing who will tell you that Johnson violated fundamental rules of 21st century boxing. @Pat M is one such coach on this forum. I assume you're not saying that Johnson fights like a modern boxer?

 

Harry Greb fought 16 HOF boxers a total of 48 times.
I don't see that many HOFers on Johnson's record, but correct me if I am wrong.

 

"Jack Johnson beat more Hall of Fame fighters than anyone in history outside of Muhammad Ali. His resume is impeccable."

I count 8 HOF's on JJ's resume. You didn't mention the weight class, so I'm correct note Greb had more HOF"s on his record than JJ...in fact, twice as many.

And if you dig deep enough...Ketchel was a MW, LAngford weighed around 160 in his JJ fight, Fitzsimmons was at least 75 yrs old. Not impressed.

 

That used to hold a lot of sway when boxing films were rare and you couldn't just click a button and basically watch anything you wanted.

Most boxing fans alive today have seen more heavyweight fights than Nat Fleischer ever saw.

Hell, Fleischer died roughly 50 years ago, he never saw anyone fight after 1972.

People can watch roughly 130 years of heavyweight boxing any time they like. Johnson doesn't stand out anymore. Frankly, he held more than John Ruiz. 95 percent of every round was clinching. That isn't going to win anyone over anymore.

The sport evolves and moves on.

Personally, I'm glad a guy who fought 110 years ago isn't still considered the best. Means there wasn't much progress.

 

Ali violated fundamental rules of coaching so did Roy Jones. Eddie Futch ranked Ali,Louis and Johnson as the top 3 all time heavies.

 

Seen this post before,or something incredibly similar, with the same spelling errors , factual errors ,and posted under a different username.

 

It comes down to could these old timers adapt to the modern game and the increased work rate of todays fighters? I don't know ,who really does?

 

Very interesting post, the best for some time ( IMHO ) for me Johnson ( like Kecthel, Gans, etc, ) was a mythical fighter, so when I read articles and saw photos of him in the Ring, Boxing Illustrated and other such mags around 1969 when I first started my love affair, he seemed to me a giant of a man, huge muscles , he looked much taller than he actually was , I used to think fancy getting in the ring with him, he looks like a killer, then after many years of reading about him and more importantly his style, I realised he was in fact more of a counter puncher, waiting for punches he could pick off with an open glove ! then came YTube and he diminished somewhat in my eyes, he looked slow, unexciting, lazy, only doing enough to win , shame .
So do I think he is an ATG not really, his he in my top ten of the best HW not really, I believe even a lowly rated champ like say Floyd Paterson would have had the beating of Jack, on balance like Kecthel wish I hadn't seen footage of the hero's f my youth . keep well.

 

You could throw Hamed in there, too.

That said:

Even Ali and Jones look a lot more modern than Johnson, and it's clearer with the former two that they owe their success to superior reflexes. Both Jones and Ali had the opportunity to learn orthodox boxing technique. Johnson never did; he learned variants of the embryonic, grappling heavy boxing of his time, in bits and pieces.

Anyway, whether Johnson could compete today is another issue. I think my bottom line is more just putting it out there that he's not a modern boxer in any sense that matters technically. I prefer consistency when it comes to Johnson, and find people dismissing his contemporaries as primitive while ranking him the #3 guy to be inconsistent.

 

Would you not need superior reflexes to parry your opponents punches would you not need superior anticipation and timing to do so? Ali and Jones definitely look more modern but they were fighting abbreviated fights compared to Johnson's day and have the advantage of modern filming techniques to show them to advantage.
Do those who rank him highly ,necessarily dismiss his contemporaries as primitive?