1941 column by Jack Johnson published in The New York Times. (update - fake)

Some of what he wrote there was accurate.
Some of it was BS.

 

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

Actually, having read it again, most of it is accurate.
A little is highly debatable.

 

I interpret Johnson's remarks as justifying his own sh!tty championship reign by noting he won the title late (at 30) and had been pursuing fighters for years before that.

On the other hand, if he could beat Dempsey in 1919, why did he have to stop facing the most dangerous opponents almost 10 years before that ?

 

Joe Louis did his talking with his fists.

 

Jack made some strong points in his column.

 

Here are two of Johnson's technical jabs at Louis, and why he thought he'd have outboxed him:

“Louis’ stance is all wrong. As a matter of fact, he hasn’t any. His feet are too close together. He stands too square, has no backdrop. He can be spun in any direction, is easily knocked off balance and down.”

“Louis holds his hands too close to his chin, lacks the tremendous advantage enjoyed by the boxer who properly uses his left hand like the rudder of a boat, and is in position to move quickly in any direction.”

 

I thought it was interesting at least ..

 

Funny as I was taught by my first coach to keep my feet close together and worked on balance excecises from a close stance.

 

There is no problem with teaching things differently. The problem is when coaches get on their high horses about how one does things, namely that they should only be done their way. The opposite is why Manny Steward was effective - moulding inclinations instead of breaking them.

 

And folks called Larry bitter.

 

I interpret them having been ghosted by a hack reporter and then Jack affixing his name to it.

 

Didn't Joe Louis do a similar hatchet job on Ali's " flaws? "