Fight of two Jacks; Jack Johnson Vs. Jack Dempsey

Different styles provide different windows of prime. Dempsey's aggressive, attacking, swarming offense is not a style made for longevity. See: Frazier, Tyson. We completely missed Dempsey's extensive campaigning in 1917-18. And I can pick apart each of Johnson's opponents the same way I can Dempsey's. Their level of competition is quite close, if not quite even. Fighting Joe Jeanette ten times, basically going 2-1-2 with 5 NC's, has diminishing returns in this equation.

 

There were advantages and disadvantages for Langford at both weights. Langford did great things at HW with both builds. Langford was at his best at 165 when things were working but the fat version was more durable and had more one punch power.

Regardless when Johnson beat Langford he was 19 years old and was new to HW. Regardless how much he weighed. Langford was stopped by Jeanette in their first fight. But while Jeanette gave Langford many chances to prove that was a fluke Johnson took that first win as an excuse to avoid a fighter he had almost no chance of beating later on.

The way black boxing worked was debutants got farmed by established stars with the understanding this wouldn't be held against them and eventually the shoe would be on the other foot. Johnson took advantage of this system. All the other top black HW's between Peter Jackson and Joe Louis adhered to this understanding. Johnson didn't.

 

Langford was twenty years old. Johnson signed contracts to defend against him in Australia for H D McIntosh.When Johnson jumped bail and left the US ,Australian public opinion turned against him and McIntosh cancelled the fight.You are entitled to your opinion ,but can you tell me why you think Johnson would have," almost no chance with him in a rematch? What do you base your opinion on?
BTW Johnson fought Jeannette 7 times,how many times was he supposed to fight him?

 

"BTW Johnson fought Jeannette 7 times,how many times was he supposed to fight him?"

Logically this makes sense and ducking Jeanette is more defendable then Langford. By far. But under the system described above if a fighter is 5-1-1 against an opponent that isn't a lifetime pass to not fight them again. The last time Johnson encountered Jeanette(a draw)his record was 10-10-2. By the time of the December 1913 double header in Paris Jeanettes record was 83-15-13.

Other then the H2H there is nothing about their careers that suggests Johnson would win whether it be the boxing or their shared resume. Johnson was a point fighter who chronically struggled to damage his best opponents and even at his best needed to wear them down over a full fight he was dominating. Even the most rosy interpretation of Johnson as a boxer has to complete a full fight with Langford like he did the first time. Can't see him doing this.


Johnson's wins and opponents didn't do anything after 1915. By contrast older Langford had easy wins over a guy who won a HW title in 1935. Johnson did a less extreme version of what Sullivan, Corbett and Jeffries did and rested on his laurels and claimed to be the best HW on the basis of one run years after it happened with feats that weren't current.

A)because the wins aged well but were totally different fighters(Langford, Jeanette, Ross and Flynn(who to Johnsons credit he actually rematched) were much better years after Johnson fought them

B)Were ancient like Fitz, Jeffries and Felix.

C)Ketchel the best fighter Johnson beat at the peak of his power was a young MW who was at the peak of his powers because someone killed him shortly after.

D)Which leaves us with Kaufman, Tommy Burns and Lang who were all in their prime but for varying reasons saw their careers fizzle out in the 10s. Langfords win over Lang is one of the most impressive in the divisions history but his resume doesn't depend on it it's 1 great win out of 100.

In real time Johnson had a more credible logical case to do this then the three white quackers who preceded them and the fourth white duck he'd eventually lost his belt to. Flynn, Ross and Gunboat Smith's dominance of the white HW ranks amplified Langford and Jeanettes dominance of the black ranks and gave Johnson a combination of unanswerable excuses. Up to about 1915 he had wins or was affiliated with everyone who was doing well. If you accept the premise Johnson didn't need to give rematches Jim Johnson actually was the next man up when Johnson fought him. The division got much better thereafter and almost nothing Johnson did was relevant thereafter. He knocked out Tom Cowler who was nominally elite but Johnson being elite isn't what was in question. Johnsons only relevant 1920's feat a win over Jack Thompson at the age of 45 has the following summar on boxrec

"So bad was the bout that the boxing commissioner, sitting at the ringside, fined each fighter $500 for stalling. In the 10th round the referee left the ring (and replaced by promoter Sam Tolan), while a shower of cushions, pop bottles and other missiles were hurled at the boxers."

This wasn't racist stupidfudgeistan this was in Cuba. They were booing because this fight was a snoozefest.

I liken this to Holmes who proved he was a elite HW at an advanced age but in doing so only generated disappointment he didn't use that time to actually take fights of note to answer the many unanswered questions he'd left as champion. By contrast older Langford didn't just beat Thompson he beat the 2 best black LHWs in their prime and knocked out a dude who won a HW world title in 1935. Quickly. Twice.

You could say Johnson shutting out Willard aged well. Johnson only lost his belt because he agreed to 45 rounds. If you are a Willard person. I am not a Willard person. Willard was not the best SHW, HW or anything and is not the standard by which anything in this era should be judged. You could argue he was the 5th or 6th best superheavyweight. You can't prove it and he's got the Morris win(the most impressive actual win of his career) when Morris was green but I see no reason to elevate him above Fulton, Coffey, Morris, Bill Tate or Andre Anderson. Tom McCarthy. And these are just other big guys like him. Forget Langford, Miske and the smaller guys coming from LHW. Forget Jack Dempsey. Forget Wills. Willard would have a hard time lasting 2 with Langford much less 25. Who might I remind you is nearly a full foot shorter.

 

Johnson twice signed contracts to defend against Jeannette in NY,where Jeannette was popular,the NYAC banned Johnson. Johnson signed contracts to defend against.Langford and McVey in Australia and Jeanette in NY Johnson said his price for defences against them was $30,000 per man facts show when his price was met he signed for the fights.
So why do you keep saying he ducked these fights?

 

Just a comment here: as I understand it, Burns was paid $30,000 to fight Johnson and Johnson received only $5,000, so Johnson's ask for $30,000 wasn't all that unreasonable.

 

That is how he arrived at that figure.

 

Dempsey easy work

 

Johnson’s prime 1907-1910 vs Dempsey’s 1918-1921, fight could go either way. Just too many potential permutations to know.

 

Johnson post Jeffries wanted big money for big risk .. if he read the market right or not, that's what he wanted after a dozen years of scratching by .. he would have fought any of those guys following Jeffries especially in the following eighteen months or so as he was still clearly in top form .. they didn't get made because of the complexities of the match ups and the money didn't come through .. after two years Johnson's life because politicized more than ever and he took the fights he could get .. it's interesting to note the difference in the men's title reigns ... one had the wind at his back the whole time and the other had to fight upstream every step of the way till the end ...

 

Did Dempsey ever fight someone with Johnson's overall athleticism? Yes Dempsey slew a lot of giants but none of them had anywhere near the conditioning of Johnson. Johnson's Chin wasn't perfect he did get starched by Choynski(who was one of the hardest hitters in the sport) but that was early in his career and he took a lot of licks from Willard before succumbing. I think Johnson was good enough to stifle most of Dempsey's offence and even the odd one slipping through I actually envision Johnson taking it moderately well. Dempsey had a solid chin of his own but his endurance was nowhere near the level of Johnson's. I think Johnson would win by KO eventually. I rate him really high.

 

I like this,,

 

Johnson’s skill set shuts down any swarmer. He beats handily Dempsey, Marciano and Frazier.

 

Dempsey had fast hands and power. Johnson could tie you up and wear you down and catch you coming in with a punch or 2 and then hold you.

Dempsey at his best could catch Johnson with a quick flurry and middleweight Ketchel put Jack J down (with one sneaky shot) Dempsey could flurry like he did vs Tunney, but it would have to be an active and fit Dempsey. Dempsey underrated for speedy combo punches, Johnson was strong and held and the pot shotted and was effective wearing you down like he did the 5'7 170 lb. Tommy Burns and old and rusty Jim Jeffries.

A prime Dempsey had good legs and very Aggressive - Willard was past his best and inactive, but Dempsey destroyed the giant.

Prime vs Prime I think Dempsey could get the ko but if Johnson survives and takes you into deep waters the later rounds it could get painful.

 

Hi Buddy.
Neat and concise breakdown of this match up, earlier in the thread I posted my thoughts, and they were that the fight could turn out to be a messy affair, in the main due to Johnson's propensity to grab and hold, as you have alluded to, as to the " KD " in the Ketchell fight, I am of the opinion it was a fake, Jack looks for the canvas after the right seems to glance his face, Johnson ever the showman wanted to add drama to the very one sided fight, not least to boost the film rights thus more revenue for the free spending champ.
like your posts, they show a keen insight into boxing, from all perspectives.
stay safe BD.
Mike.