Jack Johnson in the 1970's...?

Of course it is not that simple, just a bit of friday night levity... this general line of argumentation has been and will continue to go round and round on this board till the... well, pick you favorite maxim... the cows come home, the chickens to roost... As I stated earlier I do not believe their is some extreme polarity in opinion here (except whoever picked Bobick over Johnson) just some shades of grey...

 

Something you need to consider is the way that Johnson always kept his hands low...Something you would never be able to do against Frazier. Ali knew it. Ali got downed by dropping his right hand for a half a second. If Jack Johnson ever did that he would be eating left hooks all night and would lose to Frazier hands down. Or anybody. He would have to adapt and keep his hands up or he would never do well against any of those heavyweights.

 

I too, realize that boxing and football has evolved dramatically since 1910, but the thing about Jackson Johnson is, he was actually a big man with finess and savvy that was ahead of his time..... J.J. was no lumbering stiff who merely pop-shot with one or two punches at a time.... J.J. did throw combinations' of all types---when on the attack.....

Jack Johnson was like 6' 2" tall in his prime and around 209 pounds when in-shape..... That is good size and range that would suit fine later in the 1970s.....

On my list of ATG champs, I rate Ali and Holmes above Johnson, but Johnson is in that mix all the way...... I just feel Ali and Holmes were either the same size or a shade bigger, and owned faster hands and feet... Johnson never met a pair of dude's in the ring like Ali or Holmes before....

However, I think Johnson could've perhaps taken Joe Louis, who was a shade smaller than Johnson and not as fleet-footed.......

MR.BILL:bbb:admin:hatshock:

 

Johnson was 6-1 and 205-ish in his prime, a tiny heavy by today's standards. His output was pitiful but necessitated in part by the small gloves. The truth remains he had problems with smaller fighters who would not have had a place in the 70's heavyweight division.

He would have been blasted out by Louis' combo's and speed... Most the guys he fought threw one, and at most two punches and dove for a clinch... Louis would turn him into a bobble-head doll.

 

So where did Jack Blackburn go wrong?

He hated Johnson and loved Louis, and shared a ring with both, but he still thought Johnson would win head to head.

Could you me missing something, or indeed a lot of things?

 

It's the classic "back in my day" argument. If you still fall for those, you have a lot of growing up to do.

 

Louis was 6' 1" tall and 198 + or - pounds in his prime... But I recall reading Johnson was a stretched 6' 2" tall and indeed over 200 pounds in his prime..... Johnson was slightly bigger than Louis was during each man's prime nights on Earth........

And, lacking focus or not, Louis was peaked in 1941 when he fought Billy Conn and came-back to score the 13th round KO...... If a 170 pounder with finess like Conn could fluster Louis for a solid 12 rds, then I gotta guess that Johnson could complete the job that Conn was doing.......

ALSO! Louis did struggle for 15 with Arty Godoy the first time around in 1940...... That too must not be pushed aside, either.......

Johnson surely has a great shot at whipping Louis' ass in a time machine........

MR.BILL

 

Seriously, dude, check the relative output of these guys in their filmed fights. It's night and day. In my infrequent spare time, I am cataloging this. It's a completely different game from 1908 to 1938.

 

So where were the people in the 30s arguing that we were seeing major advances in boxing technique?

There is always going to be sombody who identifies the change.

You might conclude that some people were delusional but it is hardly plausible to suggest that everybody was delusional.

 

I actually think that Johnson had a terrific shot of doing a real number on Louis .. I think he was a much smarter fighter and he would throw of Louis' timing, expose some *****s in his armor and bust him up ... a surgical performance. I happen to like this match up for Johnson ...

 

was this a slur upon our asian brethren?

i respect those that pick Johnson over Louis. I have been reviewing Johnson footage and just don't see it. Then again, watching him toss around super middleweights just doesn't give one much to draw comparison.... but i respect the opinion none the less...

 

Jack Johnson was pretty famous for attacking the modern stance that Joe Louis used. He blamed most of Louis problems against Schmelling on the modern stance. From memory, he said that having the left foot pointed at 45 degrees instead of straight ahead telegraphs your shots and doesnt allow you to put full power in the shots. Also, he believed that not having the weight on the back foot was a problem too. I believe it stopped you from getting full power into your punches (or something similar).

But Joe Louis was a dominant fighter, and his style won out. Joe would have been dominant no matter what stance or style he used.

It is hard to believe that everybody has missed the fact that the modern stance (and style) is not as effective as the older stances. It just doesnt really make sense. Surely at least one person would try the older style, if it was effective, wouldnt they? I tend to think it is a bit like the Ali rope a dope style. Can be effective for the right fighters who train that style properly, but not as effective on average for the average fighters. This means that it isnt taught and by the time fighters come through, it would be ineffective to try to change their styles and methods halfway through their career.

One interesting thing i find though, is if you watch the sport of kickboxing, (different i know and i dont really watch it that much, so i could be wrong), but the modern kick boxing style is actually based on the old boxing stances. They tend to square right up, like the old boxers (so their left front quick which is the equivalent of a jab) has more power. They also seem to put more weight on their back foot, presumably for the same reason. What do most people think. Is this because their sport has not fully evolved yet, or is it just because it is a totally different sport,.

 

and if Naseem Hamed was filmed using antique cameras from the 1910's, he wouldnt look that great either.

you are not considering any other factors.


And are you saying that Louis, and the fighter he fought, were punching more than Johnson? oh yea, I forgot, your basing all of your knowledge off of 4-5 filmed fights. Which were mostly the last fights of his career.

Oh by the way, in the footage that you catalog, did you notcie Johnson throwing 8-10 jabs in 4 second increments?
your probably judging the man off fight like the one he had with Burns. He was toying with Burns the entire time. And ended it just as soon as he pleased. He was basically landing every punch he threw.

 

A) I am well aware of the limitations of antique camera's. Like many here, my eyes have made the adjustment when watching old footage.

B) And you are basing your assessment off some film which we are all not privy to? This is precisely my point, that there is insufficient evidence to draw some of the wild conclusions being stated here. And no, I don't take the heresay of some old codger who was a geriatric, if were even alive, when the Louis era was ushered in.

 

Jameel McCline - 6'6 263lbs
Ray Austin - 6'6 247lbs
Tony Thompson 6'5 247lbs

All of them combined won a total of 4 rounds.


p.s. Willard weighed 238lbs, not 250lbs.