Jack Johnson destroyed big Jim Jeffries with those right uppercuts

Inb4 mendoza

 

NO doubt he was an exceptional fighter .. his speed, strength, defense, conditioning (in his prime) , intelligence were terrific .. he also seemed to be a decent puncher when he let loose ... I feel his dominance of Burns is over looked as Tommy was a terrific fighter, on a roll in and in his prime .. not that beating such a smaller man is a staple for all time heavyweight honors but the ease with which he did it ... I also like the way he easily handled Flynn and Moran when he was already past his own prime .. we do not have his best fights on film. His fights with Jeannette were evenly fought. BY no means did Johnson dominate them ... and of course there is the inexcusable Hart bout ... I personally give him little credit for the Jeffries victory but I'm sure you choose to start this thread to stir up the usual cast of Johnson nuthuggers and haters ....

The Holmes analogy is absurd as Holmes fought far more and much better competition as champion and we have a ton more film to go on ...

I have always given Johnson a terrific shot of defeating Louis and believe he defeats Dempsey and Marciano ... what are your thoughts on each of those match ups ?

 

Jeanette looks absolutely horrible on film.

 

The sole loss to jeannette seems to be bogus in the same vein as fitz's loss to sharkey.

From 1902-1910 johnson was fantastic and those uppercuts are beautiful!

 

looks awkward I would say.....

 

Numerous boxing analysts made a case for Jack Johnson being #1 Hvywt up until 1960 when the "oldtimers" started dying off.

Johnson pretty much could have held his own with all the top hvys of the past century.
The Galveston Giant would have been hard to beat.

 

I think that Johnsons uppercut is a verry under rated punch.

It didn't do to take too many of them.

 

Well Jeanette was 0-3 when he first meet Johnson, and not really much better than a .500 fighter when he finished the series. Jeanette said he was in the 165 pounds when he last meet Johnson. Essentially Johnson could not finish off a novice who was under 170 pounds in multiple attempts, and had to foul out with low blow combinations in the fight Jeanette won. Not much to brag about here...

 

I agree, Johnson had a very good uppercut.

 

Your research is incomplete ... the fights with Jeanette were quite evenly fought ... in fact they knew each other so well they were almost sparring sessions ..

I noticed how you avoided mentioning how you believed those uppercuts would have done against a Louis, Dempsey or Marciano ...

IN addition , Johnson's weight is blown out of proportion ... hie prime weight was 192, the weight he defeated Burns ... we was never in the same shape again and the difference in his body is obvious as he was never as cut again ... he did carry the 208 or so decent but it is pretty clear it's mostly post 30 water weight ... he was no stronger or better at 32 v.s. Jeffries himself than he was v.s. Burns. In fact , it is clearly obvious that the Burns fight ( what exists of it) is his finest filmed performance against his finest filmed opponent ... and Johnson was known as a master of the uppercut, perhaps his finest offensive weapon ...

 

Only four better heavyweights heavyweights in all boxing history than this guy IMO - truly genius fighter - and IMO all the others are a walk in the park for him - I don't think we even saw 50% of what he could REALLY do either - so for all I know, in reality, he could very well be WAY ahead of my top 4 as well - WHAT A FILM BY REZNICK ASWELL - a truimph for Johnson

PS the bit where Jeff is shaking hands with Corbett and Sullivan etc - does anyone else think he looks just like Ricky Hatton?? LOL

 

But he's black, short arse. You don't like blacks.