From Johnson's draw with Clinton Woods in November 2003 up until the Dawson fight in April, I have seen all of Glen Johnson's fights. His record for this period is 12 fights, 8 wins, 3 losses, 1 draw, 5 wins by stoppage. The losses were a deserved one to a talented champion, Antonio Tarver, and two dubious ones, to Clinton Woods and Chad Dawson. Johnson competed excellently in both against younger opponents, and was particularly impressive against the next big thing at LHW, Chad Dawson. His wins include Roy Jones (not that impressive considering Jones was shot, but Johnson still did his job well), excellent wins over Tarver and Woods, and a stoppage win over Montell Griffin. Johnson won The Ring Fighter Of The Year for 2004 and was briefly The Ring lhw champion. From before this period, the only fight I have seen in his loss to Bernard Hopkins, where he was convincingly beaten by an ATG nearing his prime. No shame in that. Hell, it happened to Hopkins when he was on the way up too. So, on the basis of what I have seen of Glen Johnson I think he is an excellent boxer, definitely world-class. However, my friend won't accept this to be so on account of Johnson's overall record. In fact, my friend actually went so far as to say: He's a journeyman that had a good year because he fought a shot Jones and a complacent Tarver. Johnson is a good, honest, solid pro, but he has lost too many times against mediocre opposition to be considered world-class. He will never make the HOF. I admit that I have judged him purely on the basis of what I have seen, and hadn't really given too much thought to what gone before. Johnson's record is 47-12-2 (32). It is strange to me that a fighter as good as he is has lost 12 times. I mean, this is a guy who it is widely known was purposefully avoided by Joe Calzaghe. Looking at his record, before the Woods fight in '03, there are losses to: Julio Cesar Gonzalez Derrick Harmon Omar Sheika Silvio Branco Syd Vanderpool Sven Ottke Joseph Kiwanuka Merqui Sosa And all of these before his vinatge year '04, so it's not as if he was past-prime or shot. I have seen all of those guys fight (except Kiwanuka) and I know a bit about their careers (except Kiwanuka), and I consider Johnson to be a vastly superior fighter to all of them (including Ottke, though he is the best of the rest IMO). How the hell did he lose to guys like Sosa, Branco, Vanderpool and Sheika?! Was this a different Glen Johnson? I think he is far better than his record suggests - but does that even make sense? My own feeling is that Glen Johnson is an excellent boxer, a world-class boxer. But his record and his losses do cast doubt over that. I'd like to hear from some people who have either followed his career closely or have a strong opinion either way on him. Thoughts/opinions???
well you saw him in his relevent "prime" before he became that solid powerpunching powerpuncher...he was a slickster cutie...that didnt work to well for him which is a reason why he lost alot of fights. it was only about 1999 or so that he truly galvanised to a more aggresive puncher. to this day you can still see his footwork is of his former self I.E. his bouncing in and out, but his left hook and right cross have really improved. if you saw hopkins johsnon it shows his strange unorthodox bouncing dancing style. i remember he was going to retire at some point before that winning streak. also tell your friend that losses dont count but wins do. that way you get a good showing of what they did in there careers you get me? most of these losses were immensly close and in that didnt get him the sport light which he could of recieved earlier in his career.
I totally agree with you. ANd i don't understand why he lose to: Surely there was some robbery. Gonna do some research.
He's very good for a pro fighter. The skill level and natural talent might not be A-level, but his determination, stamina, punch output, chin, physical power and pressure style can take away naturally more gifted fighters' speed and skill advantage. Therefore he's a very good pro. Even better as a gentleman. He's total class.
You could say he's found his division. He's been far more succesfull at 175lbs than at 168lbs. I thought he won the first 2 fights against Woods fairly clearly but lost the 3rd when he gassed after a big effort to finish Clinton in the 9th. However my view is a minority one. Most people think he won all three. I certainly think he beat Dawson and I'm a Dawson fan. Again it was a close one and there are plenty who feel Dawson sneaked it. Imo he's a very good, seasoned, world class pro but not elite.
The Branco fight was a legit loss,saw an interview a while ago talking about robberies(after the Woods fight) and he said that he lost fairly with Branco.I think I read somewhere that the Sosa fight was legit aswell.
people call James Toney a throwback becasue he uses a shoulder roll . Glencoffe Johnson is a true throwback. Doesn't do anything spectacular but always in shape , tough as old boots , will go to the others guys backyard and has good all round skills. You could argue he was lucky with his best wins but sometimes thats the way it happens. Its apt that he slightly edged Clinton Woods over there three fights ( the books show 1-1-1 but in reality its 2-1 to Johnson ) because he is slightly better. A guy you cant help cheering for though !
No robberies, but EVERY SINGLE close fight in his career has gone against him. He could legitimately have 5 losses and no draws instead of 11 losses and 2 draws, but, as far as I know, he could just as legitimately have 11 losses and 2 draws. I've never seen a Johnson fight where he lost and it was a clear out and out robbery. Also, as mentioned, he added a lot of power moving from 160 to 175. His punches just weren't nearly as impressive at 160 or 168.
