Jack Johnson in the 1940's

I see Jack Johnson throwing combinations when he opens up against Tommy Burns, and when he's pounding on Jess Willard. He throws a bunch of punches when he opens up.

The "end" of the Burns fight - ie. the end of the film of it - he's throwing a ton of leather, opening up like Ali would, raining punches in.

I cant see how you can miss that.

 

He also throws about five jabs in a row at one point in the Flyn fight.

 

Agreed,

Johnson lacked in some essentials which would later be recognized as basic fundamentals. I also can't see him getting away with the grabbing and holding techniques that he used against smaller fighters like Tommy Burns. He also may have beaten a few good men in the 30's but certainly not the elite, and I don't see him doing it even in his prime. Sure he may have fought a few men over 200 Lbs in his day, but they were few, and nor did they posses the full all around package of height, weight, and modern boxing ability which incorporated the very skills that you discussed. to say that he would compete against big modern men because he did it back in his day is like comparing apples to oranges. Buddy Baer and Jess Willard were both big men of comparable size, but which do you think was the better fighter regardless of things like world titles? You be the judge.

 

So, is the 1940s "modern" now, or is it "old school" ?

 

I would say that it was modern in contrast with the era in which Johnson was in his prime wouldn't you? Especially considering that you had probably more change during that 25 year time frame than at any other point in the sport. No more London prize rules. More opportunites for black fighters. Less fighters who were 150-170 Lbs fighting as heavyweights, etc. Boxing methods involving more footwork, combinations and the use of the jab, etc. Big differences if you ask me.

 

Footwork reached the peak of its development some time in the early 19th century.

Combinations have been around since the era of Jem Mace.

The jab is as old as boxing.

None of these things are new developments they are just aplications of what had always been around to a changing rule set.

 

Please. Johnson fought Simmons 4 times, lost twice, had one NC and won in their final meeting which was when Simmons compiled a record of 33-17 and would retire one fight later.

I don't hold this against Johnson as he was way too old, but it's hardly evidence that he could beat the better modern contenders.

Yep, and Ruiz is pretty aweful.

He used them from time to time, for instance right after Ketchel knocked him down. But the majority of the time, it was one punch, hold, one punch, hold.

To do most of the work on the outside, yes. Johnson outweighed his opposition by a gigantic margin (probably moreso than any other champion except for Jeffries) but he did not find the inspiration to for instance jab and move, despite being a boxing type of fighter. He choose to punch and hold, punch and hold.

I can't speak for him, but fact remains that he hardly used the jab as an effective weapon to keep his opponent at bay.

Ali kept his gloves up when his opponent came in range. He didn't carry them by his waistline almost all the time, coming forward or when in range, like Johnson and his opponents did.

 

The 1940s is more recent, yes.

Well, when Max Baer was battering Primo Carnera more than a few old-timers were commenting on how the old prizefighting skills had been forgotten. Fighters from the turn of the century were horrified by some of the fighters who were contesting titles during the boxing boom of the late 20s and the Depression era.

Joe Louis's mastery was credited to the wisdom and mastery of his old school trainers.

How many of Johnson's fight were London Prize Rules ?
All I've seen of him is Queensberry.

That's a good development. But Johnson was black and fought many blacks and whites, so he would have had a full boxing education, having fought everyone.

Depends on the quality of the fighter whether this is strictly a good or bad thing.
Billy Conn was 169 (or officailly 174) when he fought Louis, proved a better challenger than the much bigger contenders.

Well, the jab, the straight left lead, that's been basic boxing fundamentals forever, as far as I know.

Styles changed, but I'm not sure the fighters from the 40s could do loads of things that Jack Johnson and his best contemporaries couldn't do.

I think post-Dempsey fighters were encouraged to be more exciting, crowd-pullers, whereas Jack Johnson's "art" put spectators to sleep. That doesn't mean they didn't possess the same tools, or weren't as effective. Just fought differently.

 

Okay Sonny, just so I know, when did London prize rules officially end?

 

I dont know.
I dont know much about it. It's John L. Sullivan and that crowd, I think, or earlier. London Prize Rules was rounds ending when a fighter goes down, coming "up to scratch" within 30 seconds, and all that. Crosstrainer used to know all about it. It's ancient history, not boxing as I know it.

Scheduled distances of 3-minute rounds, and 10-counts, that's Queensberry Rules.

 

Sullivan oversaw the oficial transition from LPR to Queensbury rules but Queensbury had been employed intermitently for some time before that. Jem Mace had gloved bouts for example.

Corbett fought almost exclusivley under Queensbury rules and all of Jeffries fights were Queensbury. Despite this the bare knuckle stance persisted for a while with Jeffries being the first heavyweight champion to employ a dedicated Queensbury rules stance.

 

I actually think that prime Jack Johnson beats guys like Dempsey, Louis, etc. His defensive grappling style is not good for brawlers/punchers.

 

For whatever it is worth Johnson thought so to.

"The slashing fighter is my meat"

Jack Johnson