Next is my interview with Jack Johnson, heavyweight champion of the world 1908-1915. Coxs Corner: Jack in my day there is some of skepticism about fighters of your period. Some say fighters of your day were not skilled fighters. What is your opinion of that line of thought? Jack Johnson: (feigns incredulity) In my opinion fighters of your day are a dime a dozen. Not that I want to throw cold water on fighters of your time, but in my time we had fighters who knew every angle of the game. Fighters who knew how to stand and get the best leverage for a punch and maintain balance. They knew how to take a punch. Most importantly fighters in my day knew the most important art in boxing feinting. Coxs Corner: Its funny that you say that. Feinting in modern times is practically a lost art. Ive only seen a few fighters really work at it and many of them inconsistently. The most important art in boxing yet they know nothing about it. But what about that stance that you and some masters of your era used? Front foot pointed forward and rear foot pointed out at an angle. At a glance it looks kind of strange. What can you tell my readers about it? Jack Johnson: That stance is the key to real scientific boxing. Fighters of my time had perfect balance because of that stance. Ask yourself why modern fighters cannot get perfect balance. Its all about stance. The purpose of that stance is simply by moving the right rear foot, one can move, shift, and pivot in such away as to avoid a blow and always be in perfect position to counter with the full force of ones body behind the blow. No jumping around for us. Take a stick and mover like Billy Conn; for instance, he cant stay on balance with all that moving and jumping around. Men of my day like Jim Corbett, Kid McCoy, Joe Choyinski would catch him off balance and break him in half with power punches. The perfect stance for boxing is what we had, it allows you to slip punches up close, take a punch better, and stay in position to punch more effectively than what I see in modern fighters. Coxs Corner: Thats very interesting. There are, of course, different styles of fighting. Take a swarmer, for instance, who throws a lot of punches, a good number of men have been successful in this style and they didnt use the old masters type of footwork. Jack Johnson: Yes but they waist so much energy that they cant last. Look at Henry Armstrong, a good example, and nobody ever wasted energy like that boy. He reminded me of the Niagara Falls the way he used up all that energy- much of it uselessly. He was successful but only for a short time. There was no way in the world he could have lasted any longer than he did, fighting that way. I see a lot of fighters throwing wide punches nowadays too, straight shots will beat them every time. Coxs Corner: (My Mind drifted to the Antonio Tarver- Roy Jones rematch that ended just as Johnson described. Then I brought us back to subject). But what about Jack Dempsey he was a bit of a swarmer and was a terrific hitter. Jack Johnson: Dempsey had a style all his own. He swung from side to side out of a weave and threw his whole body forward and upward. The blow would land with the whole weight of his body behind it. And he threw it fast, like a bullet. Coxs Corner: It seems strange that some fighters can really punch and others cannot. What do you think is the secret to good punching? Jack Johnson: Balance. Guys who do a lot of running and jumping around cannot get themselves set to throw a hard punch. Benny Leonard is an exception, he moved around really well and kept his balance and that is why he was a good puncher. But most of them are not. Coxs Corner: Who were the best punchers you ever saw? Jack Johnson: The best punchers I ever saw was Joe Walcott (the Barbados Demon M.), Lemme tell you, that Walcott was a killer. Sam Langford was a terrific hitter with those long arms and shoulders of his, so was Fitzsimmons. I would say those three were tops. Coxs Corner: What about Joe Louis? Jack Johnson: Louis was a good puncher too, a tremendously powerful man. He had the powerful smooth muscles of a great puncher. But his stance was all wrong and he could be caught off balance at times. Thats why I think I could have whipped Joe when I was at my best. Coxs Corner: You were not really considered a hard puncher yourself though were you Jack? Jack Johnson: I was waiting for that. I knocked out alot of fighters. I had more knockouts than Jack Dempsey and against better opposition in my opinion. Coxs Corner: What was your toughest fight? Jack Johnson: My toughest fight was against myself in the days leading up to the fight with Jim Jeffries. The bitter attacks I faced were far worse than any fighter I ever faced in the ring. The caustic remarks, the threats to injure me, the shots at my character-fighting those were my toughest battle. Coxs Corner: Thank you so much. Coxs Corner: Joe many historians consider you one of the three greatest, if not the greatest lightweight of all time, nearly 100 years after your time. To what did you owe your great success as a fighter? Joe Gans: I would say I owed my success to straight hitting more than anything else. Coxs Corner: I guess I half expected for you to say your speed or power or natural gifts. But Johnson made a similar comment about straight punching. Joe Gans: Yes, its very important. Careful living and correct training methods aided me a great deal, but I would say straight punching was the foundation of all my success. Coxs Corner: But you were known for having a strong left hook as well as a straight left jab and a straight right cross. Explain to my readers what you mean by straight hitting. Joe Gans: Some fighters waist a lot of their energy. Wait for your opportunity and when it comes, avail yourself of it. The idea of boring in and throwing punches helter skelter without reason doesnt amount to a row of pins. Every time you miss a swing it is worse than being hit. I could be champion until I was as old as Methuselah if all I ever fought were opponents who just rushed at me throwing wild blows. Al I would have to do is let them waist their energy and when they were weakened just land one blow, a straight one to be sure, and it would all be over in a jiffy. The point is to put your whole body behind the punch and land accurately and in the right spot. Then victory is yours. Coxs Corner: Tell us about your famous fight with Battling Nelson in Goldfield. Joe Gans: It was September 3rd, 1906. We fought 42 rounds for my lightweight championship. Nelson and his manager Billy Nolan did everything under the Nevada Sun to try and weaken me. I had to weigh in 3 times with shoes, trunks and supporter and make 133 each time or Nelson refused to fight. Coxs Corner: That seems very unfair. Tell us about the fight itself. Joe Gans: Nelson could absorb punishment like no one else. I gave him quite a beating. He was as game as they come. He made an ugly fight out of it, kept hitting low, elbowing and butting, and even tried to kick me once, but I paid him no mind and fought a clean fight. I hit him with some of my best punches enough to knock out an ordinary man several times. He was a glutton for punishment. I had him down twice from punches and reeling around the ring several times. I couldnt believe he wouldnt go down and then he would come back as fresh as a daisy the next round. I broke my right hand in the 33rd round on his hard head or I would have finished him sooner. He fouled to save himself any more of a beating. He was bleeding from the eyes, nose and ears as well as cuts on his face, I was playing for his right eye. Once I closed that, with his other eye closed too, he would have been my chicken. Coxs Corner: The referees decision was met with unanimous approval according to newspaper accounts is that correct? The low blow is very plain on the film of the fight. Joe Gans: Yes, he hit way south of the border everyone could see it. Everyone at ringside cried foul at the time. He had been fouling through the whole fight and Referee Siler, who was a very fair man, had seen enough of it. Coxs Corner: In my time the beating he took would never have been allowed to continue even if we had fights scheduled for longer rounds. It would probably have been stopped in the 15th round when you knocked him down and he got up unsteadily and staggered about, especially with all the damage his face had taken already. We just dont let fighters take that kind of a beating nowadays. Joe Gans: Well ours was a finish fight and they just didnt stop fights until a man was counted out or quit on his stool. Nelson was a tough ole boy, the toughest I ever saw. He quit when he just couldnt take it anymore. For 42 rounds he had a rough go of it. Coxs Corner: Amazing. Joe how did you get the nickname "The Old Master? Joe Gans: Tad Dorgan, the famous newspaperman gave me that name when I was champion. He was fond of doing that to fighters. He is the one who started using nicknames for athletes and made it popular with the public. Coxs Corner: Thanks Joe it was a pleasure.
I'd just like to point out several things. -See Johnson fought out of a style used by robinson and joe gans too. Guys today fight differently, they either square up completly like Mike Tyson, turn both feet in like the power punchers and crab fighters, or turn both feet sideways like your broner's and mayweathers or have some kind of combination. It doesn't really matter because it is wasting energy. With Johnson's style you make one movement with the back foot and you are out of harms way. You can make four movements (2 to each side) without ever moving the front foot, move out of danger each time. This saves a tremendous amount of energy. One could dodge 8 punches by solely moving one foot and never even lifting the lead foot hence always being in a position to counter at full power, in balance and in position. Its no wonder why opponents had trouble to hit johnson and often cussed him for being too clever. THE Other benefit of this style besides ALWAYS being in a position to attack and land your hardest punch with either hand, being hard to hit and saving energy is efficiency. It is easier to step in every direction from this stance. stand up square, its not easy to jump back, but not so hard to move side to side, not without losing balance or giving up strength. Stand to sideways it become hard to move side to side without comprimising your stength (ie mayweather) sure he can run all night but he isn't knocking down most guys while moving backwards (except haton with the check hook). He also can be caught in the corner when he is in transition. He must decide between defending by turning his shoulder or moving sideways. Hence this is an inferior position to one that allow you to move away from punches easily and hit with full force without any compromise. -The other major benefit of the style was that it allowed you to take punches better. How, well you are too square, you can absorb hooks better by moving with the punch like roberto duran (he was the best at this when he squared up, you can find some youtube clips on this). Too slanted and you can make the jabs and uppercuts ineffective by slipping back. But the first is weak to the straight on punches, which was why guys just tried to uppercut and jab mike tyson all day after the douglas fight. And why Frazier could never get by foreman. It wasn't because Frazier had a bad chin (quiet the opposite) he had poor TECHNIQUE and that poor technique meant he could not absorb and take certain punches properly. Do you really want to be ducking down your head in a bob and weave style when someone is trying to nail you with an uppercut from the waist? While the square fighters rely on speed and reflexes to duck out the way of jabs and uppercuts, it is wrong because you can't jump out the way of every punch. You have to be able to absorb them too, and in an effective way. This was why Duran got beat so easily by hearns (with his great jab) despite fighting like hell against Hagler who was laying out guys like a persian rug store. The guys who use angles and slanted legs or both legs in or both feet pointed out are vulnerable to left hooks and overhand rights/hook. They have no leg under them to make it easy to absorb the left hook without falling off balance. This is especially true if the guy is a south paw and is shooting that right hook all day long. It will really wreak havoc on such a style. Johnson's style allows one to effectively move in all directions with ease, making it easy to move both backwards and sideways and often both simultaneously making it easy to absorb any punch by moving in the opposing direction. -Johnson's point was exact on, Louis was always off balance and he got tagged by schelming for it. He wasn't a bad fighter, he was great, but there were certain points where he was very vulnerable, Johnson predicted he'd be knocked out long before it happened because of this. -he is also point on about guys who move around too much, with the exception of Leonard and Ali who modified his style numerous times in his career, you do not see guys who hit all that hard who move around too much. -Its one more reason why I believe Johnson would have beat them all, superior technique, the ability to always hit hard, slip punches up close and move out of range far away. He got death threats before his biggest fight, people rioted, attacked in the press. No fighter could ever psyche out or intimidate him, people were killed in riots after he fought, he came from Texas and when he was born in the 1870s was still going and his parents were slaves. There was simply nothing he had not seen and nothing in the ring could intimadte him or cause him to be fearful. Whereas a lot of guys waste shots today or throw wide, Johnson could feint you all the way across the ring without throwing a single punch, because it is missing punches that fatigues guys over time. Notice Johnson describes feinting as the most important art in boxing, more important than punching, defense, offense, head movement, balance all of them. Because once you get your stance right you can move around the ring effortlessly, you will not be tired from just moving your feet even after 15 and you can feint your opponent into being tired. You do not have to throw like Armstrong to win. In fact you will not last long by being a swarmer, not even the top swarmers tyson, frazier, marciano are ever great for more than a few years. You take all that damage from swamring in on guys and you end up going blind like armstrong. Johnson fought in a tough era and didn't end up deaf and blind or ******ed or in a wheel chair or with slurred speech hell he was fighting exhibitions in his 60s, where as Joe Louis was either dead or going paranoid at this age and ali couldn't hold a cup of water. In fact he fought an exhibition with Joe Jeannette in 1945 for war bonds 1 year before he died in a car accident. The idea of almost any other top boxer lacing up gloves at that age is unheard of and the irony is he still had the moves and could probably out box most the bums today at that age. The major difference I notice is the video became alot clearer by the 1940s than in Johnson's initial era where almost all of the film is grainy. -Normally when you cannot hit a guy from out far, you shorten up the punches, but in the case of Jack Johnson it does not help. Why because the style makes you just as effective at stopping, blocking and absorbing punches on the inside as far out.
I did experiment during my boxing days with Johnsons stance and footwork but found it a problem for the same reasons he looked so uneven with his feet when he tried to move forward quickly. Your set with it to do alot but that is not included. Its ideal for blocking and parrying the way Jack did but not for slipping or ducking as the back foots position won't allow turning from the waist as needed. John Conteh was an excellent user of this stance and the skills that go with it. While Jack didn't like Louis stance it was that taught foot positions that allowed his short, fast, combination punching which Jack could not duplicate from his. Jack's stance would have been totally wrong for a Willy Pep, Ken Buchanan, Gene Tunny, etc. and the skill set they had. I did find that Jacks stance afforded a real nice trick uppercut ala Johnson!
It was even in bold. I suspect you either are misusing the term slipping or were not taught how to slip a punch properly, care to elaborate on what you define slipping as? Gene Tunney bounced around far too much and wasted way too much energy bouncing around up and down. If you use the defense properly you would rarely be in a position to need to duck to begin with (except in the case of an overhand right, which would easily be sidestepped or backward shifted). A slip comes from turning the right leg inward in this defense. it is actually easier to slip because your back leg is already turned sideways.
I did see what Jack wrote and noted it. He and others of his era can be seen slipping punches and its much in the manner that Conteh did later, but it is also limited as your entire set from the feet up is for blocking and parrying. I was taught slipping from three sources from a fourties era pattern ala Burley, Pep, etc. where the head is to have no movement of its own and the slipping is from a turn in the waist and knees at the same time. Ducking as Pep was a master of can't be tried at all from Johnson's type of stance. One excellent source of slipping training is from an out of print book that Bruce Lee learned it from, as did I, was a University of Minnesota boxing manual from 1940 titled simply, How to Box. (Slipping to the left is the same mech. as to the right, waist and knee at the same time).
I have that book, the military one right. LOL Why would you want to duck under punches leaving you vulnerable to uppercuts?
Not military, the University of MN had a collegian boxing team in the thirties and fourties as did a number of other colleges. Ducking isn't for everyone as you have to pretty flexible but watch Pep vs Saddler for how it can be the right tool for the right fighter. I never mastered it as he of course did. Nat Fleisher included slipping and ducking in his Ring how to box booklet also. He included too parrying and blocking which Jack was more of a master of then Pep but they had entirely different skill sets. Jack was great and I'm just a layman but still, just maybe he was abit prejudaced against those whose styles were different then his own. Heres a comparison of number of bouts a few of those bouncers had compared to Jacks (not including no dec's); Gene Tunney 65-1-1 (67), Henry Armstrong 150-21-10 ( 181), Willy Pep 229-11-1 (241), Jack Johnson 54-11-9 (74).
Johnson was fighting for decades before Tunney, and fought a year or so after tunney's last fight. Armstrong is a complete right off, was blind, deaf, couldn't see etc by the time his career was done, despite his many fights. Pep, was something special
Jack's point was these fighters wouldn't last long because he thought their styles were too active. The number of bouts they had showed they lasted in number of fights longer then Jack as well as many others.
I disagree, these guys fought lots of fights and ended up blind or mental in their 60s, johnson was in good health in his 60s he was still fighting
