Does Greb's Heavyweight Resume Justify Picking Him To beat Johnson Over 10rds Or

I agree with the first two points but we all know the old cliche styles make fights. Just because Burns beat O'Brien and Johnson beat Burns doesnt mean Johnson would beat O'Brien. In saying that I dont think a fit Johnson loses to O'Brien or even draws with him.

 

Tunney said to beat Greb you have to fight him aggressively. Johnson was not an aggressive fighter in the ring, unless he was in there with a unskilled hack, or fighter who was either tired or hurt.

 

EXCUSES!!!! Johnson 205 in this fight. He was heavier in his fights with Ross, Kaufman, and Ketchel in 1909. The difference was, none of those three were fleet footed skilled out fighters.

And if you think Johnson was not in shape, then a longer fight might not be so good for him. You can't have both ways.

I have Burns vs. O'Brien, all 20 rounds film. I doubt you do. Burns chances, O'Brien runs. So Ketchel beats O'Brien in 3 rounds. Johnson gets floored by Ketchel and takes 12 rounds to beat him. Does this prove Burns is better than Johnson? Of course not, but by your twisted logic, you can use it as an example!

Not good enough for you McVey? How about O'Brien beats Choynski who KO's Jack Johnson, and draws with Hart who beats Johnson!!!!

As I told you the O'Brien Johnson fought had over 100 fights, and his career was well on the downside. Look at the final results for O'Brien after he fought Johnson, and you will see the results of a shot fighter.

 

So Mendoza, how would one go about getting a copy of O'Brien vs Burns ? :hey

 

His resume gives him a hell of a shot of surviving ten rounds with a man of Johnson's style and size ... Greb by all accounts was lightning fast, had a terrific punch output, had exceptional stamina and a chin of steel. I am not saying he wins but he presents a far different set of challenges than a crude slugger like Ketchel or even the vastly underrated Burns ... In addition, Johnson was not a highly aggressive fighter and rarely went for the early KO .. the average Greb could easily steal a decision over the average Johnson ... the best v.s. the best has to favor Johnson in my opinion ..

 

The Johnson - O'Brien fight was a 6 round NO DECISION fight.
In other words, it it goes 6 rounds there's no winner and no loser.

The fact that it was only 6 rounds tends to suggest it wasn't expected to be a serious championship prize fight.

 

A rendition of the fight by an actual witness to the event is inherently superior to some rosy-hued regurgitation of it by a keyboard wanker a century later. Sorry, if you can not see that. But perhaps this should not be a board of Boxing History but of Boxing Mythology.

"Johnson was not in shape." Sorry, I have wearied of the mandatory Johnson excuses for each less than stellar performance. His best round was round 5. He was in shape for that round. However, the earlier rounds he was too timid to let his hands go because of how busy and quick O'Brien was. Almost sounds like some other fighter I know of.

"FIghter A beat Fighter B, Fighter B beat Fighter C, ergo Fighter A beats Fighter C" As any scrub of history knows, and you surely know also, the transitive property does not work in discussing boxing match-ups. I think once upon a time, I heard an adage "Styles make fights."

"stupid" "liar"... what is this, middle school?

 

You seem very content with making strong opinions based on a measly 6 round affair in which johnson wasn't trying his best, rather than actually taking actual 10-15 round fights into context. Greb is not fighting Jack Johnson in a 6 rounder.