Interesting Jack Johnson article by Monte Cox

Okay,I can go with that.

 

Well, in my defence i dont think i have ever fallen into the category of a guy who knee jerk reaction picks old timers over modern guys in a fight. I take it on a fighter by fighter basis weighing styles and physical attributes against each other. I picked foreman to slaughter gibbons and tyson to slaughter willard in the thread referenced. I wouldnt pick burns over many modern hws largely because he isnt even close to hw by modern standards though he does look good. That beimg said its ridiculous to suggest that all old timers would fail miserably against their counterparts. Wilde, langford, walker, m. Gibbons, tunney, norfolk, johnson, etc i think would all do very well. I think were johnson detractors like monte fail is that they look at johnson through a very narrow lens and see a guy fighting smaller fighters in a style that SHOULD spell disaster without looking at the bigger picture. Johnson was a guy who fought to the lvl of his opposition. When you turned up the heat so did he and few could take his heat, he got away with his style because he was enormously strong and had impeccable timing to go with his skills. If you dont think he can handle big fighters look what he did with willard in when he was old and fat, he was at least as strong as the enormously strong willard, faster, and showed that he could fight very successfully going forward against a much bigger man. Age beat Johnson in that fight as much as willard but we can deduce from it that a young, well trained johnson would have been a dangerous fighter and no pushover for anyone. That, combined with some flawed points on montes part, are why i completely disagree with his new thesis, which totally contradicts his old one from not too long ago.

 

Article in the Dallas Newspaper today about a race massacre in Anderson County, TX in 1910. Apparently whites went on a rampage, killing dozens, possibly hundreds of blacks. They just put up a historical marker about it.

Anyway, there was speculation about the reason for the rampage, and it was suggested that it was because of the result of the Johnson-Jeffries fight that had occurred a couple weeks before the carnage.

 

Why is it that no fighter looks great on bad silient era film? The advent of great boxing skills coordinates with better film quality? I see skills in Johnson I see in no other hwt today. He was a remarkable and never to be duplicated talent that was bred in the toughest of times. He was declared the best ever by experts for a reason.

Over the course of boxing history their were hwt champions that eclipsed all others and Johnson was one of these fighters.

 

I think there are plenty of fighters who look great on silent film. Mike Gibbons, Mike ODowd, Jeff Smith, Mickey Walker, Joe Gans, Jimmy Wilde, you could keep going on and on really but i dont get the argument that every fighter looks bad in those old films. Either the people saying that havent seen much quality footage of many fighters or they dont know what they are looking at or they have an agenda.

You cant watch someone like Mickey Walker go from being a slugger against guys like mctigue, milligan to being a boxer against hudkins and Loughran, to being a boxer/puncher against sharkey and schmeling and not realize that the guy was an all time great fighter and athlete who could do it all in any era. To me that fact isnt even up for debate, its there in black and white. Now, did he just appear out of nowhere in 1919??? No. And what does it say about the guys who managed to beat him? Clearly fighters could fight back then and exhibited a high degree of skill.

 

I'm pretty sure that article is meant as a wind up...

 

When I first became interested in the history of the game, I felt Johnson was one of the greats because that's what I was told. Then I saw the films, studied the ring records, and read the news clippings.

A historian who's opinion has not evolved is not a good historian at all.

Now here's what I may lose you. There is a stigma among historians not to poo-poo past greats. It can take a while to overcome, but some people after time value what they think and see over what's cool to your counterparts.

 

You fellow historians have a lot to discuss:good

 

The issue is silent era film....Johnson, Jeffries etc era where everyone moves looks as if they are moving stiffly and without fluidity. As we progress into the 30's film quality greatly improves.

Bad film quality makes any fighter look bad. No human being moves like that in real life.

Johnson and Dempsey were as great a fighter in their own way as Joe Louis and other ATG that came after.

 

Without conscious effort, fighters will always look better with modern footage.

When you watch modern boxing, you're emotionally stimulated. It's entertaining. But when you watch silent film boxing, you tend to watch as if you're studying something. Unless it's an ATG, you're not emotionally invested in the fighters one bit. And it's not because the boxers are bad, it's the nonexistent production value. Whens the last time you grimaced after seeing a big punch on silent films?

When people watch modern fights, they feel more. And those feelings inform their perceptions and their opinions.

 

Yup. I don't think it's a coincidence that people say Joe Louis is the first modern heavyweight, and that he's the first to have tons of high quality fight footage out there.

Boxing is a dangerous sport. When you watch Johnson vs. Jeffries, do you feel danger, or pain, or fear, on the behalf of the boxers? Of course not. Emotion is drained, so you watch is as a historian studying an artifact.

When you watch a movie, and you notice a continuity error, it suspends your belief. Silent film is like that, but constantly.

 

Gans looks amazing.

McFarland and Gibbons look fantastic.

Leonard looks amazing.

Dempsey has his amazing moments.

Tunney looks fantastic.

 

Disagree. They ALL move in the ring like watching Charlie Chaplin. No fluidity. Can a knowledge boxing trainer or possibly a historian after careful examination realize they are watching a very special talent? Absolutely. The average fan.... No way.

Look at any Johnson film and say to yourself does any human being move like that? Answer is no. Answer is its film quality that distort the great ability of these athletes.

 

Exactly Perry.

With conscious effort, you can see beyond the Charlie Chaplin movements. But even then, you still aren't emotionally invested in the fights.

 

A fair question.

For my part I am not arguing for the superiority of old time boxers and I make it clear that my head to head predictions depend upon a number of assumptions. I place a very high premium upon resume, though I appreciate that not all supporters of the old timers do this.

I do feel that there are a number of old timer’s (a rather small number given the history of the sport), who were standouts as talents. I also think that certain circumstances of the era, such as more fights and less weight classes, produced a few fighters who are unlikely to be duplicated.

We will almost certainly never see another fighter like Sam Langford, Harry Greb, or Mickey Walker for example.