If Ken Norton had Challenged Jack Johnson?

You did move the goalposts, because THIS is your original quote that I questioned, and have been continuing to question:

"I need to see what film evidence you've seen to suggest Johnson was such a brilliant tactician, because what I've seen, doesn't suggest that"

Here, you're talking about tactics, and questioning whether Johnson was a good tactician. Being a good tactician is very far removed from being good technically. Now you're talking about technique, when that isn't the premise you tried to put forth before that I questioned. Make sense now?

 

Tactician? technique ?I'm responding to what others have wrote. But I'm sure most here understand my point of view, of theirs no proof of Johnson's tactical or technical prowess. Unless beating up old men and Joe dock worker makes him a brilliant tactician, or gave him great technical skills. And the original question is what would happen if he met Ken Norten Sr. So that does relate to a modern boxer and the modern fight game. For all your double talk, and critiques, still, where's your proof of his genius?

 

If Norton had a title fight against Tommy Burns, how do you guess he would have done?

 

You mean besides not losing in almost 14 years? You mean besides clearing out most of the division with his pre-title run? Doing so in a era of longer fights, smaller gloves, more aggressive wrestling and clinching, and yet wasn't defeated in 14 years.... he wasn't KO'd in longer than that. You don't accomplish that by being a subpar tactician. That would be virtually impossible for that to be the case.

Further, nobody fought like Johnson, that was a style he developed to combat what others were doing. I haven't seen anybody fight the way he does with the approach he used. So if one innovates a style that works, in an era where most aren't fighting that way, how on God's Green Earth does that NOT show he was a good tactician. You're not even making sense now.

 

Duran deserves a mention.

 

Fantastic point, imagine how bad Fury vs Wlad would look if it was filmed in the style of an early 1900s fight. Constant frame skipping recorded from a silly angle and in black and white. I mean, You'd rather watch The Wlad-Povetkin fight right? And these are the last two times the best two heavyweights in the world fought each other. It Definitley goes to show that a lot of the time heavyweight boxing is gruelling and ugly to watch, even with crisp, ultra definition visuals modern day technology has bestowed upon us.

Foreman is a top 10 heavyweight and look how shockingly bad he looked for periods of the Lyle fight. Apply the same deficiencies to the tape and you'd wonder why anyone was ever scared of Big George. I guess that does go to show why contemporary opinions surrounding certain eras are very important.

 

No I am not surprised to learn he was outjabbed by a smaller speedster....and?

What I notice of your response here is your selective references that basically paints Johnson into an average fighter that maybe should never have been champion......and yet he beat Jeffries up like he was beating a kid.....a man who had trained for 1 1/2 yrs for this fight and was in the shape of his career in fact he went into training without letting anyone know just to see if he still felt like he could do it and determined he was as strong and fit as he ever was in his 20's...he even said he was in the shape of his life and looked better than he had in his earlier career.....he took a year and a half to lose 100 lbs when fighters like Duran would routinely go up to 200lbs and heavier in between fights and then losing 40-60lbs with no excuses in much less time even Hagler would go over 200lbs then hit the ring at 157-8lbs but the racists people of the time grasped onto the excuse for poor ole Jeff. How do you defend Jeffries so vehemently without much film of him but bash the hell out of Johnson when it comes to a career contender who could never win the title.

Johnson was 37 y.o. and 25lbs heavier than his prime when he fought Willard and had no issue until he got tired later in the fight.....given his lack of fitness and advanced age in a far harsher time he did well with Willard and probably would never have lost to him in his prime.....Jeffries himself said he felt as strong and is good as he ever had in his entire career he had the best training and sparring a fighter could have the entire white race was depending on him.....only apologists make excuses for Jeffries in his day I understand better than today they were racists playing on the jim crowe attitudes of the day...and in the fight Jeff only felt weak when he locked up with Johnson and realized he was not as strong and even admitted as much even claiming to have been poisoned everything except admit he was not as strong as writers had touted him to be back when he was beating up the small, old and drunken fighters of his prime.

You my friend are not looking at this right sure Johnson was not perfect but he was a well rounded fighter that was known for playing in the ring doing just enough to win without getting into a dogfight and putting on a show and at times a clinic in ring IQ but Norton was really a 1 trick pony who had a funky style that was the one in a million style to foil Ali and Holmes two notorious jabbers he just matched up well with these two.....that is it the rest of his career is unremarkable he is not an ATG he just had a bad style for Ali and Holmes but compare his career to theirs.....Johnson actually won the world title and defended it until he was 37yrs old while running from the U.S. government Norton never won or defended the title.

 

People like Nat Fleischer? Charley Rose,Dan Daniel,Tex Rickard,Gilbert Odd ,Denzil Batchelor.




Louis was 6'1.5" ,best weight around 200lbs. Johnson scaled 208lbs when he demolished Jeffries and said he was in the best shape of his life.


Technicians? Johnson beat Denver Ed Martin considered the best jabber of his era, knocking him out for several minutes ,and Joe Jeannette knocking him down multiple times.George Gardner easily by decision.

 

I Agree with 90% of this, only disagreement if Jeffries best days were from 1899-1904. But your right he was old, 6 years in active, and if you watch the surviving films its close to even in the early to mid rounds vs Johnson. Jeffries won the 4th round, drew 1st blood, and won the ninth according to news reads. Rounds 1-3 were even, and other filmed rounds show Johnson the better by a small margin. Johnson took over later.

When a washed up great faces a champion in his prime the ending should be Dempsey vs Willard, Marciano vs Louis, or Holmes vs Ali. This one took 15 rounds.

 

Yes, its less tolerated today. Would you agree? Now comes the point when you won't answer my question because doing so shoots 100 holes in what you are trying to communicate!

So answer my question, is clinching less tolerated today as opposed to the early 1900's. The rules back then allowed hitting and holding sometimes, and I never saw a point docked on film for clinching in the early 1900's

+1 already for me

If Wlad was in Johnson's time, he'd blast out the weak title people he faced with no need at all to clinch. He would not be Ko'd, out boxed by primary sources or floored by men weighed under 180 pounds!!! Yes, I upped the bar on the weight to prevent your lame attempts to twist unknown facts about what men who would not even be in the division weighted vs Johnson.

+2 for me

Keep posting, I'll have fun with the score.

Wlad was docked just once for clinching that I am aware of.

Judging by how often Johnson clinched and hit on film, and sometimes fouled by hitting on the break without losing a point if he did the same today he would be docked FAR more than Wlad ever was. No debate here.

Johnson also landed some low blows in his time, once being DQ'd for it, other times mentioned by the press.
We have already been over the fact that primary sources local to the fight said O'Brien out boxed Jack Johnson.

+3 and +4

Carry on and stay on your meds.

 

Exactly. Johnson at 205 in 1909 was in is prime, fresh off the Burns fight and other sparring. Bottom line, O'Brien had a good jab, and despite his shorter stature, or giving up a lot of weight, landed repeatedly on Johnson. But Kenny Norton couldn't?

Johnson and his fans are full of excuses for many matches. More so than any other heavyweight champion I can think of. At what point do numerous excuses interface with reality that he was in the ring and this is what happened?

 

I am a Johnson fan. He was an amazing fighter and an amazing individual. Perhaps not a "good person" in some regards but what he achieved and what he was able to endure was amazing. That said, he fought a safety first style and sometime misjudged how much he needed to exert in order to win. And other times he made it look easy. There was a bit of inconsistency there. Rather than just acknowledge that he was inconsistent, some folks do like rationalize every underwhelming performance. I don't think this is necessary. He just had limitations, like all fighters. He remains an all time great.

 

No I think your to dumb to understand my point. But I do get yours, again this was about a hypothetical fight with Ken Norton. Your on this tangent about he cleaned the div, etc, etc, but that doesn't mean he defeats Ken Norton . Ken Norton wasn't a street brawler like most of the fighters Johnson probably faced. That he was technically and tactically better than his competition is a given. My question would be #1 who was his competition# how does that competition compare to Norton. And based on what I've seen, it doesn't. J.Johnson was great for his era, theirs no arguing that. But does that mean he defeats Ken Norton a fighter that came along all most 70 yrs later, a fighter that once he became a contender all he probably did was eat,sleep, live, boxing., not only that, most of the men he faced eat,sleep and lived boxing. You keep with nonsense about you don't understand. But you keep responding. Sorry I disagree with your man crush on J.Johnson, but in MY OPNION he doesn't beat K.Norton or any top ten fighter from the 60's on up. Not with his special style, his brilliant "tactics or his amazing "technique". All that and K.Norton still beats his ass, if he got in a time machine landed in Madison square garden in 1972. But fought like he did in the early 1900's.

 

From everything I've seen and read over the years, Jack Johnson basically liked to stand his ground, pot shot a couple times a round, smother his smaller opponents, clinch, lock them down, let them get tired trying to pull out of clinches, maybe frustrate them because he'd catch their roundhouses with his gloves, and he'd basically wait until the other guy started to get tired, and then he'd slowly open up.

None of that works against Norton.

Norton's jab would've eaten Johnson alive. Johnson never fought anyone who could jab with Ali and Holmes, that's for sure. And Norton's work on the inside would've ripped Johnson up. Johnson wasn't going to be able to hold and outmuscle Norton.

I just don't see Johnson being busy enough or moving or throwing the combinations he'd need to keep Norton off of him.

Norton will throw 20 punches to Johnson's one.

Ken Norton by KO EARLY.

 

You can rant all you want, the fact of the matter is, you are wrong and were proven wrong. It would be impossible for Johnson to be a subpar tactician considering the facts in evidence. Impossible. You are fully entitled to believe Norton wins, others do as well, but you aren't right in saying Johnson wasn't a good tactician. Now go cry more about how Norton wins.