Does Jack Johnson really belong in a heavyweight top 10?

His record as champion isn't that special, I don't blame all that on him I think the American Public have to shoulder a lot of the blame for his white hope fights. if there had been no demand for a white champion,there would not have been a supply and the White Hope Era would never have got off the ground.
All time rankings are so subjective and personal,everyone's criteria is different, we probably attach far too much importance to it.

It's a bit of fun best enjoyed over a pint of real ale imo.

Here's an example;
Joe Louis is not in my top 3 ! Heresy? Maybe, but I think Ali, Johnson, and Dempsey beat him.
Does that mean they are necessarily greater champions than him? No.

 

Nah, I think your spell-checker just knows you had those things in your mouth willingly.

 

This whole post is disbelievable and ungood.

 

You could make a strong case for him having the third best resume in heavyweight history.

In terms of depth of resume, and number of wins against world class opposition, he is up with anybody.

 

I feel he's outside, myself, and is overrated both for his social importance historically lending undue weight to his overall ATG ranking and in h2h terms more than others you might class "pioneers" (which he doubtless was, different and stylistically game-changing enough to be viewed as peerless in his own day but not exactly a timeless any-era world-beater, IMO) - but not too far outside, as he was a specimen even by modern athletic standards and was so dominant. He fits pretty snugly around the dozenth mark or so.

 

easily top ten, more pertinently top five.


how far would someone like wlad get if the entire country hated him, if he cant get past getting destroyed in seconds by a fringe contending relic from the last era now in shot2shyte form corrie sanders?
or if he didn't have a ref who didn't disqualify him and didn't get breaks for bad losses, instead gettinh hounded out for such a loss as the sanders one, or being DQ instantly for messing with the rules (povetkin). wlad thrives on being backed up whilst beating up weaklings, not being raged against whilst beating up the best like JJ.

 

I don't think anybody is saying that Wlad is among those standing in his way. Or, if they are, he isn't the foremost example, certainly.

Ali, Louis, Holmes, Lewis, & Marciano have to be ahead of him, IMO - so top 5 is out. Back end of 10 is a conversation that can be had. Personally, to me, he's a few spaces down from even there, but just misses out. (and you can probably find reasons to like his resume better than a couple of the guys above him in the back end of 10, or to say that he might thwart a couple of them head to head)

 

Time tends to swallow up a fighters resume.

Jack Johnson first hit the world scene in 1902 with a win over George Gardiner. Between that and loosing the world title to Jess Willard in 1915, his only defeat was the controversial loss against Marvin Hart.

 

On the back end of the top ten.

 

No. In his time, Johnson was the best. But too many fighters have come after him, and they've pushed him out of the top 10.

Jack Johnson was six foot tall.
He weighed around 210.
He had a 74-inch reach.
He focused on defense first, when fans craved offense.
He held his hands up with his gloves open to block punches.
He liked to brag that he could beat any big man in the world.
And he liked white women.

If Jack Johnson came along 100 years later, he would've been ... CHRIS BYRD, who fits the same exact description.

Time moves on.

 

Yeah, but there's his own color line stuff floating around in that span, no? So it could've been even better and there were probably some holes/question marks, fair to say?

 

Very fair to say.

Even so, I think that his resume is better than that of Larry Holmes!