he is a fighter that puzzles me. what are your opinions on him? he's lost against some really average fighters, yet he has a win against jones and put up a good fight against dawson. calzaghe received a lot of stick for pulling out of fighting johnson. do you really think that calzaghe would have lost to a fighter who has 12 defeats on his record? would johnson be considered as another nobody if calzaghe had his name on his unbeaten record? is johnson an average fighter who is only respected because he did well against over-rated americans like roy jones and chad dawson? what i will say about johnson is that he doesn't duck no-one. is he seen as a high risk - low reward sort of fighter? i know i've asked a lot of questions here, just answer which ever questions you like and educate me a little about glen johnson. thanks.
Have you watch all those 12 lossed he recieve? If so then you would know that most of his losses were robberies. Theres a reason why his nickname is "the road warrior". So you going to tell me that Manfredo is a better then Johnson?
Many of his losses were questionnable. The first time I saw him live was when hebattered Toks Owoh in the UK and I was very impressed with him. I thought he beat Woods in their fights. He is beatable but has fought many capable fighters along the way.
Johnson is a true warrior, a throw back to the old days will fight any one any were! him and adamek was close to happening for the cruserweight title but hbo was not intrested so it never happend
the only time i've seen him was in the woods fights. woods is a very ordinary fighter imo who did great to win a world title. johnson also looked ordinary in those fights thats why it surprises me how highly he is regarded by some. there is obviously more to him than what i have seen?
why would i say to you that manfredo is better than johnson? :huh calzaghe only fought manfredo to gain himself some exposure in america, because the average american boxing fan new who manfredo was better than they new calzaghe
I don't know if I'd say that *most* of the losses were robberies, but there were a lot of close losses and a couple blatant robberies thrown in there, and he would usually go out on the road to make the fights. Really though, he became a different fighter in the early '00's. He used to try to be a more well-rounded fighter, someone who would box from the outside and win a boxing match. After he racked up a bunch of losses, he retooled his arsenal a bit and became a much more aggressive, offensive-minded fighter who moves forward, throws punches in bunches, and slips punches enough to win rounds. In my mind, Johnson was and still is a lot better than average. Of all of those 12 losses, the only wide loss was to Hopkins, and Johnson fought EVERYONE. Arguably, he should have wins over Ottke, prime Branco, prime Gonzalez and prime Sheika, and if he had won those, he'd probably be a hall of famer. 1-0 against Jones, 1-1 against Tarver, 1-1-1 against Woods, wins over Griffin, Hall, Ulrich and Harding. Not always the most consistent fighter in the world (he had a bad night in the third Woods fight, for instance), but when he's on, he can hang with just about anyone. How would he have done against Calzaghe? Probably would have lost, and probably by a fair margin. But Johnson would still be the 3rd or 4th best win on Calzaghe's resume had they fought.
thanks for that brickhaus :thumbsup how would you assess his performances against jones and dawson. was his success because he was that good or because they were that bad?
