Jack Johnson ranked outside the all time top 10 HW's?

It's your opinion dude. No sense in fighting with you about your choices. I don't agree with all of your picks but I do agree with some. I think Holyfield should be much higher and Liston lower. Jeffries and Wills a bit too high for me. I can't think of Dempsey without thinking about Tunney... do you have him #15? I think Foreman was considerably better than Frazier but I always see them just 1 spot apart and I do understand why.

 

1. Johnson's colored heavyweight title reign was one of the best reigns in HW history. He had around 18 title defenses of it.

2. He was only kayoed by a middleweight, when he was nearly a middleweight himself. What were the weights for choynski vs johnson? I bet both were close to one another


3. I would argue Mcvea and Jeanette were near there prime when Johnson beat them. Mcvea was coming off wins over Denver Ed Martin, a top contender. Jeanette was coming off a 8 round knockout victory over Sam Langford.

4. You harp on langford's size(156lb) but johnson was only 185lb himself. thats a 29lb weight advantage. When James Jeffries fought Fitzsimmons and Sharkey, he sported around 40lb weight advantages. If johnson doesn't get credit for beating langford cause of a size advantage, then neither should jeffries.

 

Johnson above Jeffries, definitely.

 

absolutely. jeffries was more of a world class athlete than a world class boxer.

 

Jack Johnson- he deserves respect. Some overrate him, some underrate him, some don't know much about him.

Let's look at a few things-

6'1 1/2" with a 74' reach. During his World Title reign he weighed 192-225Lbs.

I've seen his record listed as 74-13-10 (40) 4NC overall. I've seen it listed with more wins as well but usually the 13 losses are mentioned. He went 7-1-2 (4) in HW World Title fights. He was stopped 7 times, but not just toward the end of his career. He was stopped twice before he peaked, the other 5 KO losses were when he was past prime.

He fought among others-

Klondike x3 LKOby5, D20, and WKO14

Joe Choynski LKOby3

Sam McVea x3 W20, W20, WKO20

Marvin Hart L20

Joe Jeanette x8, he went 4-1-2 (0) 1NC vs. Jeanette

Young Peter Jackson W12

Sam Langford W15

Bob Fitzsimmons KO2

Fireman Jim Flynn x2 KO11 and KO9

Tommy Burns KO14 (it's a KO IMO)

Philadelphia Jack O'Brien D6

Al Kaufman W10

Stanley Ketchel KO12

James J. Jeffries KO15

Frank Moran W20

Jess Willard LKOby26

 

Yes, and that's a HUGE advantage. Especially when Johnson was also 7 inches taller.

Would you think Holyfield would have a great win if he beat a 154lbs Hearns by decision in the late 80's? Because i think that would mean **** all for his ranking as a heavyweight.


The only miracle here is how the hell Langford went the full distance with a guy that big and that good.

 

So then Jeffries should be penalized for sporting 36lb and 39lb weight advantages on sharkey and fitz?

 

I can see where you are coming from Chris, but something to ponder.
Johnson was 6'1/4' ' Langford 5'7'',thats 5 ''and 1/4''height advantage.

Harry Wills makes a lot of lists ,largely on the results of his series against Langford,yet Wills height is given anywhere up to 6'' 4''.Wills was also a bit bigger than Johnson.

Wills had 16 fights with Sam, generally getting the better of their series, but he also lost 2 of them by ko,and, it could be argued that like

Johnson ,he was not meeting a prime Langford,Sam was 33 -38[nearly 39].
If you give Wills credit for that ,perhaps Johnson should get some?
Especially as, for at least the latter part of the series, Wills was prime,whereas Johnson ,[like Langford ],was short of his peak

Al Philips,Nat Fleischer's father in law was present at the Johnson/ Langford fight, he stated that Johnson dominated Langford flooring him TWICE not ONCE, as is usually stated, broke his nose and cut him above both eyes, he also said Langford was the benificiary of a long count that kept him in the fight.

 

Yeah, but Langford's best weight was said to be around 165 pounds at his peak in 1909 - 1912, so 156 is not too far off his optimum weight.

 

Quite a few. Lewis pretty much fought the best out there as champion. He did not avoid punchers, and fought and defeated the three best heavies of his generation as champion in Holyfield, Tyson, and V. Klitschko.

Johnson's title reign was weak. He pretty much avoided the four or five best fighters while he was champion. He has a lucky draw result as a journeyman, and a too close ND vs a middle weight. The most formidable
oppoent Johnson fought as Champion was Willard, and he lost that one via KO.

With Liston, I agree with you as he only made one title defense. You have to give Frazier the edge for defeating Ali in 1971. Dempsey to me fought better opposition in his title matches, and had better results.

Ah, but which heavyweight did Johnson defend against that was world class? Johnson avoided the four or five best opponents as champion ( Langford, McVey, Jeanette, Smith for sure...perhaps Clarke and McCarthy too ), and was dethroned by one of the worst lineal champions.

He was floored by a middle in Ketchel, drew and might have been out boxed by another middle in Jack O'Brien, and got lucky in a draw vs a journeyman in Jim Battling Johnson. I think these results are more detrimental than losing to say a big puncher at heavyweight who has a puncher's chance.

Unfortunately there was bad scoring in Lewis vs Holy 1. However both men Ko'd Tyson. A close match vs hall of fame fighters does not hurt a resume that much. However a close filmed match vs a fringe contender in Frank Moran, or close news results in non-filmed matches vs others does. This is a key point.

All a fan can ask of a champion is to fight the best around as champion. Johnson did not do that. He fought easy marks. I can live with a few easy title defenses for long tenured champions.

Johnson's title reign would have been great if he fought Langford, Mcvey, Jeanette, McCarty, Smith, or Clarke as champion. If Ali did not fight Frazier, Foreman, Lyle, and Norton, his title run is much weaker! Its all about fighting the best matches that can be made. As I said I could live with a few easy defenses, but a great champion should blow out guys like Ross and Moran....Johnson took them the distance. I fail to see any dominace in Johnson's matches with O'Brien, Jim battling Johnson, or Moran.

 

Johnson is tough to figure as he was a bit of a head case. He did not go balls to the wall often. He did just enough to win without overextending himself. He might lose to some guys listed above simply because of his lack of punch output depending on his mind set. I mean, what right did Marvin Hart have even going the distance regardless of who won more points, in such an important battle for Johnson ? I do feel his pretitle competition was excellent.

That being said after studying his career quite a bit I feel he was a sort of Hopkins/Byrd hybrid and could nullify and defeat many of the names listed such as Dempsey, Marciano, Foreman, Jeffries, Wills. With Frazier it would be a ref's fight. He could decision Liston. I have always felt he had the skill set to throw off and defeat Louis.

I just do not know or see him busy enough to decision a fast jab and move Ali, Holmes and possibly Holyfield. I'm not sure about Tyson or Lewis ...

 

H2H who does Johnson do vs. the likes of Louis, Marciano, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, and Lewis?

 

But Johnson fought Jeffries, Langford and McVey who were probably the three best fighters of his time. Jeffries was way past prime, like Tyson. Langford was pre prime, but then again this is balanced by Holyfield being past prime by the time Lewis got to him. Mcvey was pretty close to prime and even if you think he was raw, Jeanette was also pretty much prime and Jeanette seemed to show that he was at the same level roughly as Langford and McVey were when they were prime. Johnson never had any trouble with him. Johnson also fought his next best fighter of the period Tommy Burns. So, he fought the 5 best fighters in the world, after winning the coloured championship.

But you can keep going, he also fought Bob Fitzsimmons old, but previously the best fighter in the world and just a couple of years from being the light heavy champ, Jim Flynn, the man who kod dempsey the next great champion (the equivalent of a win against Corrie Sanders!). George Gardner, a man 1 year away from winning the World Light heavy champion (equivalent of a Michael moorer victory?), Denver Ed Martin, maybe the 6th best fighter of his era. Childs, Griffin, Ferguson, Jim Johnson - fighters who were arguably the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th best fighters of their eras.

It really depends when you start to look at his reign. If you take it from when he won the coloured title (which was probably more prestigous than Lennox' first title) then it is actually one of the most spectacular reigns ever.

The fact is that Johnson held the title for 7 years. That is a long time. And while he was nowhere near his best after beating Jeffries, Unlike most other greats, he still managed to produce the goods and keep the title, even though there might have been some close fights. What is scary, is how long Johnson would have kept the title if 12 round fights were the norm back then. Particularly 12 round no decision fights. He went undefeated for 7 years after losing the title.

But JOHnson had already beaten 3 of these guys. Smith was not really a standout at all, in fact i think he would be highly criticised if he had fought him. Same with McCarthy. He was simply too young and inexperienced, he was no more experienced than the Jeanette and McVey that Johnson KOd and you are criticising him for. He also was taken to a no decision by Moran, just two fights before Johnson fought Moran. Surely if McCarthy was to earn a world title fight, he should have actually knocked out or beaten Moran.

Jim Johnson was not a Journeyman. He was the best coloured fighter that Johnson had not already beaten, and a legitimate top 10 contender for the title. Certainly he had a more proven record against world class fighters (he won and lost some) than say a corrie Sanders, or Razor Ruddock, or Hasim Rahman. He is a lot better than you are willing to admit.

It was bad scoring and i agree it shouldnt hurt him too much, although it shouldnt help him too much either. But Jim Johnson went the distance with Hall of famers McVey, Jeanette, Langford and Johnson as well as beating Harry Wills. So if the close match against hall of fame fighters does not hurt a resume why does it seem to hurt Jim Johnson's resume in your eyes?

I can see your point in a way, but you use Ali as an example. (i dont necessarilly make these criticisms) but, if you are criticising Johnson for not rematching fighters he already beat, shouldnt you also criticise Ali for:

1. Refusing to rematch Sonny Liston, after the controversy of the 2nd fight, Sonny's win streak and the fact that he got his head put back on.
2. Refusing to rematch Foreman after the Zaire controversies.
3. Not giving Norton a 4 th match since he broke his jaw in one fight and was arguably robbed in the decider.
4. Not giving Holmes a shot at the title.
5. Giving light heavyweight Gold medallist Leon Spinks the shot instead of heavyweight gold medallists Teofillo Stevenson.
6. Not giving Frazier another title shot - it was 2 1 but Ali openly admitted wanting to quit in the last fight and each of the three was marginally close.


Anyone's reign can be criticised. The fact is Johnson holds wins over the very best fighters of his time. In fact when he was at his best he dominated the best fighters he fought. And when he wasnt at his best, he still found a way to win. In hindsight, there were obviously other fights that could be taken, but all the fights he took were against decent top 0 opposition. From Lennox' time, Lennox did not fight Wlad Klitchsko, Chris Byrd, Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George foreman, James Buster Douglas and Ike Ibeauchi just to name a few. You cant fight everyone. Jack Johnson did a pretty good job at fighting most. there really arent many decent fighters from his time, that he didnt fight.

 

In terms of longevity, beating the best of his time Johnson rates very highly. In longevity few are near him, were talking about 2 decades and as such only Ali/Holmes/Holyfield and maybe Lewis/Tyson have that type of longevity

 

I think his coloured heavyweight title reign is more impressive than the lineal one. This in my mind should be enough to consider Johnson a top ten Heavyweight.