Dreamfight: Jack Johnson (1910) vs Sonny Liston (1962) - who would win?

I think maybe Johnson beats them all, regardless of size. Of course it has to be a 20 rounder, because that great defensive style takes a while. But yeah, Johnson in 20 over every heavy that ever lived (I think this includes Liston).:rastaartytimearty

 

Prior to Johnson's reign ,and during it 08-15
Saw the following men hold world titles.
Palmer
McGovern
Dixon
Nelson
Richie
Britt
Welsh
Wolgast
Mcauliffe
Erne
Gans
Lavigne
Walcott
Kilbane
Driscoll
Young Corbett
Moran
Bowker
Kid Williams

Dempsey
Fitzsimmons
Klaus
Papke
Smith
Mantell
Chip
Mike Sullivan
Dixie Kid
Britton
Lewis
OBrien
Dillon
Root
Gardner
Plus many others,and assorted contenders.Does this mean that, owing to their chronological place in boxing history ,they were possessed of only rudimentary skill?
Liston had capable boxing ability coupled with great power, but because he is the more modern fighter ,does not mean he is the more skilled .For example his footwork was crap, he never learned to cut off the ring.
Johnson's foot positioning was excellent.
Many fighters of that era were highly skilled boxers, Griffo,Dixon,Gans,Driscoll,Bowker,Attell,Kilbane Corbett,Richie,Welsh,Mcauliffe,Moran,Coulon,McCoy,Smith , Britton,Ryan,Sullivan ,to name a few.I dont think you can pigeon hole every one ,according to the time in which they fought.

 

Johnson is good but the one question that always sticks in my mind is whether or not Jack could cope with a modern heavyweight who emplyed a good stiff jab consistently. All the film evidence we have of Johnson shows him against either smaller men who have to lunge to reach him or slower big men who don't seem to employ more modern boxing tactics. Against Liston Jack would be facing a man with an 85"reach and a potent jab behind it, not to to mention quite a bit of power in both hands and somewhat underrated quickness (At least when he was in his prime). Plus I don't think Jack would be able to cradle Sonny in his arms ala Ketchell and Burns and walk around with them while smiling for the cameras. If Johnson is to win this one then he has to neutralize Sonny's jab and make him pay with accurate counters all the while looking out for Liston's two fisted power. Can he do it? I can't say one way or the other. I wish there was some footage of him dealing with a big man who could and did jab instead of him playing with much smaller men like Burns and Ketchell or a washed up big one like Jeffries. Looking at Johnson with the available footage that we do have I think he could but I'm not sure. The physical talent is there no doubt but it wasn't tested against a more modern style or so it seems. This is what makes it difficult (At least for me) to gauge Johnson against his more modern ATG's such as LIston, Ali, Holmes, Holyfield etc.. Maybe someone out there could help me out and clear things up.

 

A thoughtful objective post :good

 

Well i was talkinga bout the big boys mainly. There are a lot fewer of them and they are less talented in general, which is why the first modern boxers only came along in the 20's, i.e. Dempsey, Tunney, and it wasn't until the 30's when that style became the standard for heavyweights, and would be for the next 80 years up until today.

I agree that Liston wasn't really good at cutting the ring off. But Johnson, although he wasn't an attacker, he wasn't a stick and mover, or just a mover in general, either. He barely did outside work without immediately falling into a clinch and wrestling for ten seconds. Maybe he could make it a Machen-like fight though, who knows.

 

Well you have a point if you are concentrating on the heavyweights Chris.The problem with Johnson is that all his fights before he won the title are lost.Many of these men were neither small nor over the hill,but posterity has denied us footage of Jack fighting them.
Personally I don't think Johnson looks that impressive on film, I believe that to be due to two things ,one he was a lazy performer who was content to do just enough,and two, none of the opponents he faced on film put him under any real threat.
I have no problem with anyone picking Liston over Jack,but I don't think it is a given,and that is all I was trying to illustrate.

 

Fair enough, old chap.

By the way, Jeffries vs Johnson in 1905, who you got?

 

Jack ,but he would not have time to wave and grin at ringsiders:good

 

I've never been impressed by footage of Johnson. A few nice touches, but Liston would batter him. About 8 rounds probably, Johnson will never have seen such a jab.

 

Yeah, it was Liston's jab that floored Patterson, and it would be Liston's jab that floors Johnson.

 

I could go either way wtih this one, though I'd be rooting for Liston because I find him much more entertaining. Johnson's style was SO dull, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be effective at neutralizing Sonny or making him look bad or frustrating the living hell out of him in a sucky fight. Johnson was a great clincher, he knew how to use range, counters, some footwork, quick shots, and could grab with the best of them. That said, Liston was a monster of punching power and strength and had a heavy jab, so it isn't clear that Johnson's defense and clinching would work against that mountain of strength. The Johnson 1910 victory over Jeffries is meaningless as it was against a shot and inactive Jeffries.

 

Its always so hard to pick a winner in these kind of matchups.

Liston obviously has the advantage of all the refinements in technique in his favour. Thats why I would pick him.

I do prefer to compare boxers of eras so far apart such as these in terms of resume and achievement than H2H matchups.

 

Johnson would win a unanimous decision over 15, providing he doesn't get caught.

 

AT NO TIME.DURING THE TWO FIGHTS WITH LISTON, WAS PATTERSON FLOORED BY A JAB.
Both fights can be seen on you tube.
Where you may end up, if you keep posting like you are at the moment .atsch