Deontay Wilder vs Jack Johnson

In no order Martin, Burns and Jeffries probably, with a note that Jeffries choice is controversial.

 

Do you think the versions of those men Johnson faced would be ranked in the top ten heavyweights today?

 

I think this is the key. Wilder is in shape every fight and takes good beating. Jack Johnson likely wins every second but wakes up in his dressing room.

 

The same thing would happen as with Jess Willard. Just not in the 26th round, but earlier.

 

Burns definitely not, he's too small. The rest is plasuable, today's top 10 is nothing to rave about

 

Literally, everyone you mentioned had poor records or was very very old. You didn't refute my claims because you can't. Shame you didn't google these great fighters before making a post about them...... Once again, listing a bunch of Journeymen and a crumbling historic relic doesn't help your argument

 

So a middleweight who didn't know what a combination was, a 6 years inactive formerly morbidly obese turned punching bag, and a journeyman with a 25% loss rate. Great choices....

 

Under modern ruleset sure, Johnson does ok until Wilder gets the one second he needs to end it all..... Under Johnson's ruleset it just takes longer. Johnson would be the less powerful man, and considering his gameplan often revolved around clinching, this tactic would likely backfire against a much stronger and larger opponent, especially with that nuclear right...

 

With all due respect, why. Is it because of how Great he was for his Time? Ive seen some of his fights on film and it doesn't necessarily translate to the modern style of fighting. Not to mention Jack Johnson has been knocked out by much smaller and possibly less devastating punchers to what Wilder is.

 

You have no idea how to compare records across eras. Back then losses weren't seen the same way as now and fighters didn't pad their records with no hopers until their 30th fights.

Fighters also fought way past their best for money which often makes their overall records look worse than what they were in their primes.

 

You haven't seen a single Burns fight if you think he didn't know wgat a combination was. He used combos in all fights we have from him.

Denver Ed Martin was black HW champion of the world and lost one out of 17 fights when Johnson took the title from him. As I said, you are clueless about the era.

 

I suppose if you count the occasional flurry that resembles gnashing mandibles maybe.... I wouldn't call a wild flurry of inaccurate telegraphed half swings a proper combo, but you do you..... He hardly even attempted them in the Johnson bout. Whatever acclaim you give his wild flurries, that doesn't change he was a 5ft 7 natural middleweight, who weighed almost 40 pounds less than Johnson, in a time where extensive clinching predominated. One of Johnson's best wins?

Like I said earlier, Martin was the closest win to a skilled man of size, but his overall record is still somewhat poor (almost 40% loss rate). Consider this was during a time where fighters were much more active, yet Martin was far from as active as most others of his day, yet still retains that loss ratio. Mentioning his title is irrelevant when one looks at his actual record, and activity.

The irony here is, if we don't include Martin's much later comeback fights in 1921 as you seemingly would desire, his loss percentage goes considerably higher at a solid 45% loss rate. Kinda the opposite of what you said but oh well.

No mention of my argument of Jeffries, did you decide to take him off Johnson's three best wins? If not, why did you neglect to attempt to refute my point?

 

We have more Burns fights than Johnson one. Try to watch them before talking anything about him.

I mean, Dempsey's best win is arguably against Gibbons who was much smaller than Dempsey. Another high quality win of Dempsey is against Carpentier, who was smaller and worse than Burns.

Martin lost one fight before Johnson beat him. What happened after isn't relevant.

I said that Jeffries is questionable choice and I give him the benefit of doubt. You can pick someone else - McVea, Moran, Ferguson, or anyone else you want to.

 

I've watched several, and my point stands. Your refusal to address the obvious and consistent defense that a win against such a small man in a sport where clinching is key was so great, is your choice not mine.

While I wouldn't consider that his best win, Gibbons weighed 12 pounds less than Dempsey (175-187 at weigh-in) and was one inch shorter. Burns was 5 inches shorter and 38 pounds lighter than Johnson. Burns had over three times the weight disadvantage and 5 times the height disadvantage against Johnson that Gibbons did against Dempsey. Do you not do research, or do you just enjoy saying things and hoping people will believe them?

Calling Carpentier a great win is somewhat laughable, the only reason it is so noteworthy is due to it being the first million-dollar gate. Dempsey's 17-second KO of the KO artist Fulton is a far greater win than either name you mentioned, and Fulton had a far more impressive record and beat more top contenders than Martin, and perhaps Burns. His first-round KO of Morris, first-round revenge KO of Flynn, 6 round KO against Brennan, and even his 2nd round KO of Firpo are all certainly greater wins than Carpentier, but let's stay on topic and focus on Johnson, instead of all the poorly thought out whataboutisms on unrelated fighters.

Guess you didn't like it when I discounted for past prime fights like you asked.... As for your point, who did he go against before him who was any good? Ferguson with his 40% loss ratio? Give me a break. Once he started going against decent opposition, he started losing. Records matter.

Regardless, you picked him as one of the three best. Do you honestly believe that win is greater than any of Johnsons other wins not already in your list? If so, you must think the ancient Jeffries was somehow more formidable than the vast majority of Johnson's opposition, which doesn't look good for your entire argument. No matter your tactics of defense, your top three still consists of a mismatched middleweight, a crumbling historic relic, and a journeyman.

 

You wouldn't say that if you had seen Burns fights.

Burns weighed 167 lbs, Johnson weighed 194 lbs. You accuse me of not doing research, yet you have problems with simple math? That's not 38 lbs, that's only 27 lbs.

Besides, you basically criticize Johnson for being bigger than Dempsey, which makes no sense. Burns wouldn't be much smaller than some of the top Dempsey opponents.

Martin beat Armstrong, Childs and Griffin which were all the best black fighters in the world. He also beat Ferguson who was top rated white contender. He also went 1-1 against McVea after Johnson fight before he went past his prime.

Again, you should read more about the era besides looking at boxrec.

I didn't think too much about the top three ans I gave Jeffries the benefit of doubt. He's a bit of enigma, as we haven't seen him fighting anyone else after his comeback.

Martin wasn't a journeyman, he was the best black fighter in the world at some point. Again, you need to learn more about the era.

Burns wasn't a middleweight either and you know it.

I'd say that Johnson resume is better than Dempsey's overall, certainly deeper.