Jack Johnson not as great as they told you, the video

I have been saying this for years. As they say, a picture is worth 1,000 words and the author of the video accurately breaks down Johnson's defense, overrated wins over Langford, Jeannette and McVey and more.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utJYcazHhag[/url]

 

Compared to Gans, or Wilde he was not ahead of his time. Others not on film could have very well had better skills in Griffo, Jackson, and McCoy. You could argue Corbett was better in a classical sense as a boxer as well.

I do think the video accurately states Johnson's athletism. I'd even take it a step further and say Johnson in addition to good reflexes Johnson had natural punch anticipation skills. However is stationary stance and height advantage quicks falls apart vs. a competent boxer. And because he really wasn't a big puncher, he's going to be in trouble vs quite a few of his successors who were lineal champions.

He ( Johnson ) is lucky he fought mostly shorter and lighter men as champion who also happened to be less than skilled in championship matches. You can also say Johnson greatly benefitted from the times, which allowed him to use his weight on smaller men int he clinches. Today this would get him docked points.

Langford, and Jeanette had real skills from 1908-1914. Obrien also had good skills as a boxer and plenty of speed. Though it is not on film primary sources says Jack O'Brien who gave up 40 pounds to Johnson outboxed him. The match took place in 1909, which was the height of Johnson's power.

 

I see it the other way around, Moran who is almost even with Johnson on the shown footage ( 20+ minutes of it ) would not have lasted more than 5 rounds vs. Frazier, Louis, or Tyson. He could have been out in 1 or two rounds!

The same for Flynn. In my opinion, Jeffries would not have come back 6 years out of the ring vs. the same three men at age 35.

 

Okay, you use words like poor, embarrassing, and degrade the creator by calling him a kid, which of course he is not.

Where is he wrong on what he wrote or demonstrated?

What would you teach him?

All I see is a boo / hiss reply without any semblance of an adult type of rebuttal. You're better than that. If you can reply to where he was wrong, and what you would teach him.

The author clearly showed the technique of Johnson's opponents is why he looked " good " for the times, which has nothing at all to do with Tyson, Frazier, or Louis. They were shorter, often much lighter without skills throwing one punch at a time, advancing in a predictable straight line. Are we watching the same video here? Then when they get close Johnson clinches and hits them.

Flynn and Ketchel wouldn't sniff a title match today at heavyweight. Moran might be a top ranked 20-50 type of guy, and he gave Johnson a close fight.

Now, if you want to use Langford he knocks Flynn out cold ( on film ), and ripped some of the men who Johnson gave title shots to. Willard as clumsy as he was also easily outboxed, Moran.

So using the films:

Langford's performance vs Flynn is > than Johnson's

Willard's performance vs Moran is > than Johnson's

Same rules.

 

I see you name call, then opt out of a rebuttal? I'll take it you're familiar with Johnson and may or may not be able to go deeper, but we won't see that here.

Gotcha.

At the very least you'd have to agree Johnson's title opponents were very weak. Yet two of the three shown knock Johnson down and out.
Aren't those examples of an overrated defense and lack of punch resistance?

I think so.

You might like the author's print article, which also is accurate. It was posted here a few weeks ago.