Grading Jack Johnsins championship reign

You guys are way too hard on Jack Johnson's title reign.

There are by my count 37 Lineal heavyweight champions. To get a C, presumably you would need to see Jack at 19 on the all time list.

Looking down the list, there is no doubt that Jacks reign was way better than that of:

Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Hart, Willard, Schmelling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock, Walcott, Johanson, Liston, Spinks, Tyson (2 defences only), Spinks, Douglas, Bowe, Moorer, Briggs, Rahman. That alone is 20 fighters (more than half) whose reigns were not as good as Johnson's without too much of an argument, because they were so short.

Burns, Patterson, Tunney, Charles, Frazier (assuming his lineal reign started with his victory over ali), Foreman were all far too short to realistically, despite some good quality, to be as good as Johnson's reign. That moves him up a further 6 places, making his reign better than 26 of the 37 previous champions just outside the top 10 reigns ever. Surely this alone would be enough to push the reign up to B Grade level without too much of a controversy.

I think there is also a good argument that Johnson's reign was better than Holyfield, Dempsey, Lewis and Sullivan's for differing reasons and while i think that there are arguments that can be made against this, i can see why many would prefer Johnson's reign. This means that his reign was better than 30 others.

Guys like Jeffries, Marciano, Holmes, are very underated but, i think that you can put up some reasons why Johnsons reign compares or betters them. What mark this gives his reign, i dont know, but he must be starting to sneak up towards the A mark, by the sounds. And Certainly a B should be a minimum.

 

If you include his Coloured World Title reign, which actually had better comp, it rates pretty highly in terms of a who's who of the era

 

By my reckoning it is a solid b.

Only the reins of louise, ali, jeffries and rocky are definitively better than his (not enough is known about sullivan's rein as reports vary wildly some say he knocked out 200 men in total defending 30 times). Whatever the circumstances it also works in his benefit that he had already beaten the top contenders he later ducked.

What he did to langford and jeanette is shameful. Drawing the colour line against his own people is ridiculous. But the truth is, not many heavyweights in history have a comparable rein nor even a rein to speak of. He established his greatness prior to his rein, his rein is (like it or not) one of the top ten in heavyweight history.

 

..now his reign is A+ and top 10 material
If his reign is A+ then so is dempsey's who's better then his.

And now ppl. compare JJ's reign with Rocky's, Holmes' and Sullivan's
Further proof that JJ is the most overrated HW on this board..his reign is absolutely rubbish and not more then C+.

 

Tell me ten heavyweights with a better title rein.

 

You rate his reign higher than me, I made it a C.
Rating him is different, I make him an A +.

 

That makes perfect sense, and I agree with you. I feel the same way about Dempsey with Wills and Greb. Those guys didn't get to be at the top without being exceptional head to head fighters, and they certainly wouldn't stay there as long as they did if they weren't. I wouldn't have favored anyone active in Johnson's reign to beat him even if a few would've been capable of springing an upset. Same with Dempsey, whose reign I rate as stronger than Jack's because I view his opposition as better, but with the same general knocks against it.

An interesting factor to note is that today, people will talk about how the heavyweight contenders had stronger resumes than the champions. This isn't surprising at all and fits what the climate was at the time- the hardest part, in most cases, was earning the title shot in the first place and being good enough that day to win it. Most of a champ's best work, then, took place prior to winning it. When a top contender never got that title shot, he couldn't really afford to take it easy and that's why their resumes look better today. I have my doubts as to whether Langford, Greb, Wills, Jeanette, etc. would ever have managed their title reigns much differently than how the two Jack's did.

 

Jack Johnson's reign lasted from Burns to Johnson (excluding the Coloured title claims), when he pretty much stopped staying in shape, and took a year off (retired?). At this point, he had already defeated every single one of the top 10 current top 10 fighters at the time. Plus, he had beaten nearly all previous championship claimants (Heavy, Light heavy or middles) who were active during his time including Burns, Fitzsimmons, Jeffries, O Brien, Gardner, Ketchell. Of the champions he didnt beat, he generally beat the men who didnt defeat them. By this time, his level of dominance over the field is something that was only matched (and not necessarilly defeated) by the top echelon of fighters like Louis and Ali. From this point, the reign faultered as he started fighting less, avoiding fighters and not getting in shape. But let us not forget that despite all this, he still continued to win right up until the Willard fight. Does this really lessen his reign or strengthen it. When Ray Robinson got old he lost his title regularly. Old Ali had problems keeping it. Less focussed Dempsey lost it decisively. Jack still kept his title for a long time. It was definitely a top 10 reign and to suggest otherwise is just being silly.

I think it is much higher. In fact, if Johnson had snuck in a win against a young Harry Wills somewhere before the Willard fight, i think it would have been the biggest thing for his legacy. I agree that he should have defended against the black trio, but he was fighting part time by this time, and if had beaten them, it would have hurt their standing more than helped his, in the long run.

 

I am very happy with my D minus rating. He struggled against miniscule foes, avoided those who might be his best challengers and hung his hat upon beating a 5 year retired ex-champ.

The plethora of excuses do not count for ****. If he was not up to the task of wearing the crown through the behavior of a slackard, that is not an argument for him, but a stain upon his championship character.

 

Slackard ?
Added to which he was a varlet, and knave.:good

 

Kaufman was actually stopped by the light fisted Jack O'Brien before he meet Johnson, and KO'd six times in 28 record fight by Box Rec. Some of the fighters who stopped him I never heard of. Johnson took Kaufman the distance.

While I think Kaufman could hit some, he must have had a glass type of jaw

 

You somehow forgot to mention Kaufman was 19 years old and having his 6th fight O Brien his 163rd ,when O Brien beat him.
After losing to Johnson, Kaufman faced O Brien in back to back fights ,winning both of them.
No need to thank me for the correction, happy to do it!
I know it would appal you to think that anyone believed you could possibly be biased on this subject!

 

I dont include Ketchel as I believe it to be a fix.
Pretty dismal reign

 

I have to be honest Mendoza, i was hoping for a little bit longer response considering you had 7 years to think about it.