How would Jack Johnson do vs. Jack Dempsey's title opponents?

it is very possible, johnson was the more skilled fighter, the bigger man, the stronger man, he had the better defence, he had more stamina, he had comparable speed , he was as fast(if not faster) johnson was better in my eyes.johnson did beat the best men of his era in jefries, langford, fitzsimmons, mc vea, jeannete, burns,moran... who did beat dempsey? carpentier? firpo?willard?sharkey? he avoided wills and even a past prime langford, and he lost twice against tunney(and it looked more a problem of "styles make fights" more than "he was past his prime")

 

:rofl

 

It was a 6 round bout. A fast slick boxer like Obrien, especially in the 22 foot ring they fought in, could potentially outbox anyone. Make it a championship distance fight and you would have a different story. Gibbons, although an excellent contender, more than likely would be creamed by a prime Johnson.

 

History shows us that bigger and stronger doesn't help you win against Dempsey.

Smarter? Yes.

More skilled? Yes.

Better defense? Yes, but Dempsey had the much better OFFENSE.

More stamina? Hardly. Dempsey packed much more actual fighting in his bouts than the clinch-happy Johnson did. He threw more punches and was far busier.

Bad example. The 156 lb Langford did not hit harder than the prime HEAVYWEIGHT Dempsey. Let's not even go there. The 175-180 lb Langford? Yes. But we all know that Johnson didn't want any part of that Langford anyway, don't we?

Ah, so now you are questioning the sturdiness of Dempsey's chin with these silly examples? C'mon HH. You can do better

 

History shows us that bigger and stronger doesn't help you win against Dempsey=? no.. the history just shows that a big heavy bag like willard could not beat dempsey... that´s all
silly examples? hahah so, now getting hurt and dropped by a bum, a light puncher(lhw)and a caveman are silly examples?
about the stamina...:rofl:rofl johnson fought more of 20 rounds against a peak willard when he was 37... of course that he had much better stamina than dempsey.. johnson is one of the hws with the best stamina in the history...it is not even a debate.. please.... you coul not be more partial..

 

Watch the films. Dempsey did more punching and actual fighting in 10 rounds than Johnson did in 20. It isn't even close. Johnson clinched constantly and paced himself carefully. Dempsey cut loose. You're forgetting that one of the reasons (among many) Johnson was so unpopular back then was because of the lack of action in his bouts. He was roundly criticized for it. Look it up.

Too bad punchstats didn't exist back then so you could see how many more punches Dempsey threw on average per fight than Johnson. Stamina advantage to Dempsey.

 

O'Brien was 32 years old with 90 some fights under his belt and would go 3-6 for the short remainder of his career. His next outing was getting blown out by Ketchel in 3. He weighed a whopping 162 for the bout against Johnson.

In 63 fights, no one ever "creamed" Tommy Gibbons. And his opponents include, many of them multiple times... Greb, Miske, Chip, (these three account for over 20% of Tommy's resume) Levinsky, Dempsey, Carpentier and Norfolk. Tunney turned the trick in the 12th round of Gibbon's final fight. I don't think Johnson would cream Gibbons. In fact, the prime version of Gibbons would be the toughest heavyweight opponent Johnson ever faced. A very underrated fighter.

 

I am very well informed about Tommy Gibbons. My father knew him well when he lived in St Paul back in the 40s. Tommy Gibbons HIMSELF did not think he could have beaten Jack Johnson. Another interesting fact is that Gibbons and Johnson sparred in the 30's. Tommy told my father that even at that time Johnsons defense was incredible. Gibbons could not land a solid blow during their exhibition. Gibbons was a very good defensive boxer so for him to be impressed with an over 50 year old Johnson says plenty.

 

Again....Obrien was as slick as they come rated as the greatest lt hwt ever or close to it for many decades. They fought in a huge ring and Obrien ran around it pot shoting Johnson for 6 rounds. akin to Meehans 4 round bouts with Dempsey. Obrien in a short bout against a slower opponent could do this to anyone.

 

This opinion is based on all the Hart footage you have viewed I take it?

 

O Brien was 32 years old, so was Johnson. I think O Brien actually weighed 168lbs for Johnson.

Gibbons would a dangerous foe, but he would not beat Johnson who was his superior in every department,imo Houdini's earlier post is rather revealing.

 

Particularly one who had not trained for the fight and was out partying into the early hours of the day of the fight. It was a no dec ,Johnson could not lose unless O Brien kod him, , hardly likely .

Tales of O Brien's fleeting success in this dreary 6 rd affair still give Johnson haters erections ,strange really?:huh

 

I don't have any footage that shows me that John L. Sullivan is a harder puncher than Marvin Hart either. But I think the consensus among those who saw them would all agree that John L. is his superior in this dept. Nor do I have footage that suggests that Young Griffo had a greater defense than George Dixon (or even Joe Grim, for that matter). But we can trust the overwhelming consensus on that, too.

You have any eyewitness testimony that supports the notion that Hart may be Dempsey's equal or superior in these areas?

Welcome back, btw Where ya been?