This content is protected Would a bout between Mike Tyson in his prime have ended up like Mie`s fight with Bonecrusher Smith, with loads of clionching and Mike not landing much and stuff?
Bonecrusher was a 6-4, 233 pound man mountain not a 6 foot, 190 pounder. Also, Bonecrusher lost almost every round of that fight. I think Johnson would have some, limited success but that Tyson's arsenal, power and punch variety would overwhelm by mid-rounds.
Crazy that the tiny man in the ring with Johnson, the one flailing around helplessly in the clinch like someone’s little brother, was heavyweight champion of the world! I wonder what Tommy Burns would be ranked in today’s heavyweight division.
I think that Johnson would have given Tyson a lot of problems, and not just by clinching. His inside game could have been very problematic for Tyson as well. I think that a lot what Johnson did, could potentially be missing from the small selection of film that we have. I would be more than interested to see footage of him against somebody like Martin or McVea.
I thought everyone knew that? The key to clinching, as a weapon, is to be loose and get the inside position, turn your lead shoulder into his chest, then let him work to get out. By opening up your lead shoulder and, since you have the inside position, the right uppercut is a gimme. Just pick it up. A lot of art and skill was made obsolete as the gloves changed.
he might look small and he might look like he is flailing helplessly, but you know you're going to hear about those "old time" intangibles from many on this forum. They'll write that he was quicker, stronger, tougher than what came after him and that nobody except Johnson could have done that to him. They'll even claim that Burns would be as big as Bowe if he didn't train so hard. Then, they'll do a "film study" of Burns explaining that he isn't "flailing", that he is using nuanced techniques to combat the clinch that have been lost over the years...
Great commentary. He mentioned Under hooks & over hooks. He controls the biceps- & when they move to punch he stiffens up and that prevents them from getting distance. Smothering their own punches? And when he makes space- he can land his uppercut. As he ends stating, "This is what makes him such a defensive master, He knows how to control them in the clinch." I get a lot of flack for calling Johnson a genius, resulting in how today's guys are too skilled to allow. I think the problem often we want to bring the old era vs the new era as is. If we moved Tyson back to the 1910s, then he wouldn't have the same skill set. It was still a work in progress. But if we moved Johnson in today's era, he wouldn't fight like a 1910s HW. So I look at his ring IQ & compare. If he had a high IQ back then, then how would he not have it today? In other words as strong as he was & big as he was back then, he was a thinking fighter first & a brute when he was forced to. Just looking at the few fights we have, they all have one thing in common; he's laughing, composed, exerting very little energy. Antonio Tarver gave a compliment to James Toney, which I think he would have given to Johnson: Toney is so calm & composed in the ring. Thats JJ!! Laughing, resting, while his opponents are tiring themselves. Johnson today would've been a defensive fighter, with the ability to land hard when needed. Now if Jay Nady refs? He loses often!!!!
Burns took the title from the only man who defeated Jack Johnson anywhere close to his prime! Let that sink in a moment!
Hmmm... OK. Now that it has sunk in, I have three potential theories. 1) Maybe Johnson didn't know when to turn on the gas in close fights. 2) Maybe Johnson wasn't the genius he has been purported to be. 3) Maybe having a ref be the single arbiter isn't such a great idea.
That's a good point. A lot of the best inside work I see nowadays comes from MMA fighters, not boxers.
I will suggest a couple more: 4) Maybe Hart was something of a stylistic foil for Johnson. 5) Maybe Hart was simply much better than normally given credit. 6) Maybe Burns was much better at heavyweight than Johnson allowed him to look
Contemporary accounts, of which there are many in Pollock's books, seem to paint Hart exactly as we imagine him. And if memory serves, Hart's performance from Root onward, including Burns, seemed to reflect a downward trend. His record confirms this.
