Jack Johnson:Enlighten me

he had the biggest **** in boxing history. officials made him wrap his **** to the inside of his leg, so it wouldnt embarras the 'gentile' ladies of the era. the fact is, women went just to have a look!!

also, he is famous as the 1st black man to win the title. (correct me if im wrong).

also famous for his love of white women. a real no, no, at the time.

im sure the **** could fight. its hard to see power on video. i suggest you check his record, keeping in mind, white men rarely would fight him....

 

Complete and total control of opponents.

 

P.M ,Mendoza ,he will enlighten you on Jack Johnson, pimp, coward, cheat, white slaver,wife beater, liar and ,all round bad N****R.

 

If boxing is the art of hitting and not getting hit, then he is about as good as you can get.

You also have to give a high weighting to results atained in the ring, even if you do not find a fighters style aestheticaly pleasing.

 

Bob Fitzsimmons was black.

As was Shakespeare.

 

I've thought similar things in the past, greats are considered great because they were great in their own time and Johnson of course beat everyone from his own time (even if he didn't rematch them). While I do think the technical side of boxing has progressed he does some things adeptly, that because of his boring style can be missed). Most of his game is based around being a master of distance, this he is very good at, he keeps range and lands his jab before his opponent can (around 1:30 in the video - look how he leans forward to generate the best angle for his uppercuts/hooks and throws them). You have to remember although his workrate appears low some of his fights were scheduled to last the full night through if there wasn't a stoppage, conserving energy was vital

When he goes for the kill his combinations are pretty quick, plenty of torque, short, and managing to use leverage inside against shorter men which most can't (see 2:34 on). His strength is impress, he'd pick opponents up and swing them around at times (see 4:17). Although he puts his weight on his back foot, he is looking to roll punches and counter. He clearly is a very quick counter puncher, potshotter with an excellent lead right, if you look at highlights of him picking Jeffries apart (5:17 on) you could almost imagine it was Mayweather-Hatton highlights. He also has some smart wrestling techniques to tire opponents like twisting arms, pinching biceps, all very useful within the rule set of his day.

This is a really well made video by Reznik an ex ESB poster

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUqhJzgSj4M[/ame]

In the past I've thought he wouldn't get away with his leaning back countering style against a taller opponent but despite being past prime he completely schools the taller Willard and you can see how quick he looks, you can see his ability to parry punches

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPXB9OLrAnA&feature=related[/ame]

There are flaws in his style and skillset but in many ways I'd consider him more skilled than Joe Louis, certainly smarter

 

Awesome Video. Sam Langford and James Jeffries never would have beaten Jack Johnson in my opinion.

 

I agree on all of your points. Most people point to the fact that he dominated his era with defense and that he was waaaay ahead of his time in this regard. You have to remember that noone had really studied defense nor did they know how to teach it back then so the fact that he was able to be so dominant with such a negative style is extraordinary.

 

you are wrong. Peter Jackson was!

I dont know what these guys are crapping on about, but Jack Johnson was a very good heavyweight champion who held the title for so long. It is a shame that his good reign is often overlooked because he was well beaten by the smaller Dave Sands, but Dave was an atg. It is a shame that johnson didnt come along a bit earlier so we could see a Jack Johnson v Tommy Burns fight for the championship. That could have been a beauty but I think most agree Tommy probably takes it.

 

:? you mean back then or now:?

 

i think prime sam would struggle to beat Jack any time right up to about or just after the Lawson fight and possibly before the choynski.

Jeffries may or may not have beaen a prime Johnson. He demolishes a young, old or ill prepared Johnson.

 

Yes boxing bareknuckle and gloved had been around for 200+ years and literally nobody studied or thought about how to not get hit in the face while trying to hit someone else in the face

 

Which statement are you commenting on?