Jack Johnson against all Dempsey opponents. How does he do?

You can claim Jeffries wasn't active enough.. past his best... etc etc. I don't care about that. One thing we know, is that strength is one of the last things to go. In fact, that is why we have the term man strength used. Jeffries was undoubtedly still very strong, and Johnson boss'd him around the ring. So yes, Johnson is unquestionably stronger than Tunney whether at 190 or 210. Do you disagree?

 

The Dempsey vs Tunney fights were at 10 rounds....one of which was in a light rain.

JJ vs Tunney, fought under those conditions, means Gene only needs 6 rounds to outpoint JJ. Doubtful Tunney could, or would try to, knock JJ out.

 

I don't "claim" Jeffries wasn't active. He was 35 and hadn't fought in 6 years. He owned a saloon that he liked to hang out in too much and ran an alfalfa farm in leisurely fashion. He didn't take warm-up. He looked horrible in sparring. Gunboat Smith claimed the fight wasn't even on the level until the final 48 hours. That is no test. That is facing a human punching bag. That is a farce. Johnson was in a pose down, not a fight.

BTW, did an ancient, shot Jack O'Brien need to be stronger than Johnson to hold his own over 6 rounds?

 

So you listed a whole bunch of nonsense that had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. This is moving the goalposts 101. These are the discussion points:

1. The main argument, and how this discussion got started, is you disagreeing that Johnson is stronger and bigger than Tunney. This is how the discussion got started. Now, I'd still like you to answer the question. Is Johnson, even at 190 pounds, stronger than Tunney

Now a side discussion then emerged, which is as follows:


1. Was Johnson best fighting weight 210 as he claimed against Jeffries... You claim it was 190.

Those are the discussion points, not whether O'Brien was able to last 6 rounds, which has **** all to do with the above discussion points.

 

I go with Johnson beating them all.

 

Your question
"What are the best heavyweight boxer types that Johnson beat?"

To which I replied

What were Tunney's?

Dempsey was not a boxer type , nor was Greb, neither was Greb ever a heavyweight.
Tunney was the only man to stop Gibbons because Gibbons ,34 and past it immediately hung them up after their fight.
Delaney a Lhvy, had 53 fights won 37 ,I don't think he was classed as a boxer type, and I think you are scratching here.

 

Jeffries had a year and a half to prepare for Johnson, and was on two back to back exhibition tours boxing nightly with Fitzsimmons before he even went into serious training for Johnson. Jeffries was down to 225lbs a year before their fight.

No one pretends he was the same fighter he had been, but equally lets not pretend he came straight from his saloon to do battle with Jack. O Brien was past his prime when he fought Johnson but ancient? He was just 2 months older than Johnson.

 

I think Tunney decisions him. Sharkey's a wild card- I'd favor Johnson, but there's legit upset potential there.

Other than that, I'd favor Jack soundly over all of them.

 

Choynski, Ketchel and Gunboat Smith all either alluded to, or outright stated, that Jeffries had lost all his timing and speed. Ketchel threatened to KO Jeffries during the introductions in order the save the pride of the white race. These guys saw Jeffries for the shell of a fighter that he was. Furthermore, Jim himself tried to pull out when the venue was switched from SF to Reno, a pretty obvious duck that Rickard put to an end. Let's not pretend he was there with anything but dollar signs in his eyes.

O'Brien had at the very least 111 fights under his belt when he met Jack. He had 9 fights remaining his career, of which he would only win 2. Ketchel himself would KO him in 3 a few weeks after he tussled with Johnson. He had a lot more miles on the boxing odometer than Johnson.

 

It has everything to do with the topic at hand if you are claiming that a prime Johnson would have a size advantage over Tunney. Johnson's prime performances, his best performances, were not at that mythical 208 (not 210). If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around does it make a noise? If a fighter is in great shape but only proves it against a non-entity is he still prime?

And further to point, how many fights did Johnson fight "at prime"? He certainly didn't against O'Brien at 205. The Ketchel fight was a carry affair so it proved nothing. He didn't exactly perform to the heights against Jim Johnson... So, did he have exactly one fight our of his entire career at his prime weight? One fight?

 

This actually a very interesting question.

Much more interesting than i thought at first glance.

Jack Johnson Lost the title against Jess Willard in April 1915. It is safe to say that Jack Johnson beats all of Dempseys opponents up until this point. I dont think this is arguable.

In 1916, Johnson fought just two opponents, but he must have beat both. John Lester Johnson is probably the most interesting opponent of Dempseys. I cant really see him giving Johnson much trouble or anyone else johnson fought in 1916. Particularly if Johnson was as active as Dempsey (assuming his aging body didnt just fall appart). Johnson does slightly better than Dempsey in these fights.

in 1917 Dempsey Loses to Flynn, but does beat Gunboat Smith and Carl Morris. I dont think there was ever a point where Flynn could beat Johnson. So Johnson does much better here. Gunboat and Morris might be tough fights, particularly as Johnson in reality was in retirment at this stage. If we assume had stayed in fighting shape, then I dont see much hope for either. Neither was good enough to ever take the title from Johnson. This leaves Dempseys series of four rounders against Meehan. An interesting proposition to be honest. I think Johnson might outsmart him, but it is only four rounds. Realistically, i think Johnson performs similar to Dempsey though i give him more of a chance of earning the draws or even the wins on points than of losing. Johnson does better than Dempsey here, but to be fair, Dempsey is starting to close the gap.

Up until 1919, Dempsey started his huge win streak where he beat some good fighters like Morris, Flynn, Fulton,Miske and Brennan in such impressive fashion. I cant see Johnson being as impressive, particularly at this age. Still, at the same time, Johnson did beat Cowler and roper how were probably not too far in quality from the guys Dempsey beat (or at least some of them). Realistically, i think Johnson does beat every guy during this run, but some fights will go the distance, and i do see some potentially controversial NDs. Although i give Johnson a decent chance to outpoint Meehan, who dempsey lost to, i do think that overall Dempsey would fare better than johnson at this point, although Jack may yet still go undefeated, and i think he definitely isnt stopped by any of these guys. I do think that Fulton, in particular, might be a really dangerous fight though.

This leaves at the Willard fight. A very interesting proposition. Obviously Jack Dempsey is more impressive here. But, Jack Johnson had already fought a much better conditioned Willard and dominated for the first part of the fight. How many rounds was this scheduled for? That could be a key question.

Can an older and rusty Willard repeat what he did years earlier. If he isnt in the same tip top condition, can he still make a comeback in the later rounds. Is age catching up more to Jack Johnson. Let us not forget taht 5 years after this date, Jack Johnson still had enough left to come out of retirement and defeat decent contenders like Homer Smith and Pat Lester, and Johnson did not lose a fight and had not lost a fight for years. I think it might be possible to give Johnson a better chance or at least an equal chance in this one as what he did have in his actual fight.

Miske, Brennan, Carpentier, Firpo, Gibbons, were all Dempsey title defences. I wont discuss these individually just yet. These defences take us to 1926. This is interesting, because by this time, in reality, Johnson still had not lost a fight since willard. He had also just beaten Homer Smith and Pat Lawler, who were not considered as good as the guys Dempsey beat, but who in reality probably were not too many classes below the guys dempsey fought and beat. No one knows for sure and clearly these would be steps up from who Johnson had actually fought, but it is relevant, i think that Johnson despite age increases, retirements and inactivity that should have completely ruined him, was still beating figthers. Dempsey has to win more impressively but Johnson extending his unbeaten streak is not an impossibility.

So, this leaves us with the next batch of fights which is the Tunney Sharkey series in 26-27. by the way an interesting tidbit is the that between sep 23 and sep 26, Dempsey didnt have a fight. Johnson actually beat two pretty solid (not great of course) contenders in this period. Dempsey was completely outclassed by Tunney. but did rally and KO Sharkey in a close fight.

Johnson lost to Simmons, Hart and Wright, and it seems age had finally caught him at this time, just like it had Dempsey. Simmons, Hart and Wright would not be easy fights for Dempsey or Sharkey, but i think that there is no doubting that 1 win (controversial or not) is better than three losses. I cant see Johnson doing much better against Tunney or Sharkey. Still, one thing worse considering is that the Johnson pretty much came out of retirement for these fights so he wasnt in the best of shape and he probably didnt really have the same desire to perform as Dempsey did. If Johnson had, things coudl be different. Johnson did actually have enough left in the tank to get a KO victory over Brad Simmons some 3 years later. At this time, Dempsey had his comeback chances scuttled by a Levinskey exhibition.

Anyway, all in all, no way does Johnson win every fight of Dempseys, but he may have finished with less losses than dampsey actually did. I also found it interesting that Jack Johnson actually retired and beat his last decent level opponent after Jack Dempsey had retired! His longevity is astonishing, imo.

 

Ketchel who obviously was none too bright did hatch a plan to ko Jeffries during the introductions,thereby saving him from the humiliation and beating he had coming .Stanley's then manager Wilson Mizner, fortunately as quick-witted as Stanley was slow,pointed out that they had bet their last grubstake on Johnson to win,so perhaps it was financially advisable to let events take their natural course?

Choynski was the only one of the three that you named who actually sparred with Jeff, and he did make him look plodding.
Choynski went into print the day after the fight saying Jeffries was in good physical shape but he suffered nervous breakdown once the fight began. In fact he said it a little more bluntly than that but I don't want to get into a wrangle with Jeffries supporters on that and get side-tracked.
Jeffries did not want to fight in Reno because he had welched on gambling debts to several prominent bookmakers.Rickard had to straighten things out with them by promising them a % off what they were owed.

Smith did say the fight was rigged for Jeffries to win had it happened at its original location,how much credence you give that is up to you, he also said the kd of Johnson by Ketchel was faked to make the movies more lucrative,and I know you are aware of this.
I agreed O Brien was past prime but in age he and Johnson were the same,hence the term ancient was inappropriate imo.

 

So, I just found out that Willard Dempsey was scheduled for 12 rounds. Willard was living the high life and detriorating. JOhnson easily won the first 12 rounds of their first encounter and while he too must have detriorated, he did show that he was still there or thereabouts.

I think Johnson wins the 12 rounds on points, but how do others think taht this fight plays out?

 

Are we including Flynn and Meehan?

 

I like tunney but often I wonder exactly why, he beat a puffing Dempsey after all. what he did was great seeing as he was lhw,BUT its not that great.