Jack Johnson in the 1940's

Okay, i'm done discussion this for now. If you think going 1-2-1 against a 33-17 journeyman with the one win coming one fight before Simmons retired and then saying "he drew with Fox" while in reality, he lost three times to Fox and only managed to get one draw (when Fox had a grand total of 7 fights, when he got more experienced he beat Brad 3 times), then say "he was leading against Wright" while he got knocked out 1 round one time, got knocked out in 7 an other time and lost a decision an other.... christ, this argument is pathetic. Simmons was horrible, never ranked and lost only one of four fights against Johnson.

 

Spoken like a true boxrec warrior. Revolver himself could not have done it better. Now look beyond boxrec at what was really happening and what these fights really mean.

The following sentence strongly suggests to me that you have not done this.

While we are on the subject am I to be favoured with any response to my observation that Johnson did in fact use combinations jabs and outfighting on film contrary to what you have claimed.

 

Ok, let's drop the Simmons bit.

Okay, so i just saw Marciano throw a jab and i saw the same with Frazier. Does that mean they are jabbers and can work from the outside?

Johnson threw a jab here and there but he never showed much from the outside and staying there. It was always punch clinch clinch clinch. If he was to be faced with a skilled big man like Ali, or even a Tunney, he'd be presented with a whole new thing and have loads of trouble adapting. You see, Marciano and Frazier had a style that was based upon getting in so it doesn't really hurt them to not really use the jab much, as Johnson did. But Johnson has a totally different style.

 

If Ali faced Johnson dont you think ALI would "be presented with a whole new thing and have loads of trouble adapting" too ?

 

Not really,

Ali knew how to hold behind the head. That's all he'd need against Jack johnson.

 

If Ali fights under Johnson rules? Yes, for sure! In fact, he may just lose to Johnson with that ruleset.

If he fought Johnson under the 70's rules... well, he'd be facing a new thing, but nothing hard adapting to. You're not going to beat Ali by throwing one punch and then try to wrestle him around asif he's a 5'9 middleweight. Johnson would show Ali a new style, but not one that is better than the style that most of Ali's opponents had for that ruleset. If Ali fought my 9 year old cousin he'd see a new style too.

 

Not all of Johnson's wins were against 5'9 middleweights. I think he had facets of his game that went beyond that. There's very little footage of a prime Johnson around, it would be a mistake to assume the Ketchel and Burns fights were the only type of fights Johnson could dominate.

What are the significant rule changes that would influence the difference in how this fight would look in 1910 and 1970 ?

 

Can we drop the 5' 9'' middleweight guff please.

Johnson proved himself against a heap of bigger fighters so it hardly matters if he fought some smaller fighters.

To try to characterise him asif his record is somehow built mainly on beating smaller men is more than a liberty with the facts.

 

Larger gloves and fewer rounds. It's not that the rules changed THAT much, it's just that boxers had to adapt to gloved boxing from centuries of bareknuckle fighting and training as such. During the 1900's, this was still developing. Many (including me) recognise Dempsey and Tunney as the first modern champions in the sense that their style fully developed for gloved boxing. Of course one of them is an attacker and the other a defender, but you get the point.

Well, he faced more small guys than any other heavyweight champion with the exception of Jeffries. There were a few big uns, but most of them weren't very good and couldn't consistently beat their smaller counterparts. Of course, Jeannette and Mcvey were excellent, but then he avoided them when they had more than 15 fights. So in my optics, he isn't really that proven against a skilled big guy. Martin is one of course. But there are so few!

 

Since there is no film of most of these larger fighters it is a stretch to say that they were all unskilled.

I would say that Sam McVey, and Denver Ed Martin at least would count as high grade big men who had a 20-30 lb weight advantage on Johnson. Martin was a good defensive technician and had 9" reach on Johnson.

You oftebn question how proven some pre war champions are against bigger skilled fighters and I submit that Johnson is one of the more proven.

 

I have three rounds of McVey vs Battling Jim Johnson. The film runs at the right speed, and is clear. McVey looks more dangerous than he is. Essentially he's a left hooker, who re-sets and charges. McVey showed good movement, but not much variety and technique.

The surprise to me was I expected McVey to look a bit tougher than he did in these three rounds. He pawed at his face when Johnson laded a good one, and seemed to worry about getting hit much more than I initial thought. McVey was did not have the fearless fighting style of Sam Langford.

 

It's sad to see Jack Johnson's ability and accomplishments demeaned by people who evidently know absolutely nothing about him.

Sometimes that is what the classic forum is all about though.