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

Unlike Jeffries who fought young giants?
Burns convincingly defeated O Brien, an in shape Johnson toyed with Burns.

Primary sources say nothing of the sort:-(

 

Wow. I've always liked and respected Cox Corner, but this is a shallow hit piece on Johnson.

I can find modern fighters who make all the same mistakes Cox pointed out. He uses clinches to show a lack of cutting off the ring, and compares it to Frazier bobbing and weaving. :huh

With all respect to Cox Corner, this is weird stuff.

 

I see nothing beyond the same tired, cliched, and misapplied arguments.

 

Wlad was 39 and possibly a spent force. It's not like he did not fight fighters with a longer reach and beat them. If the re-match happens, I think he'll win it.

 

O'Brien a boxer type with mobility and a jab exposed Johnson defense as he out jabbed him. Primary sources said O'Brien was the better!

We have been over this before. Johnson was at his peak in 1909, but didn't show well on offense or defense despite have 40 pounds and nothing to fear from O'Brien who was a soft puncher.

The Philadelphia Item stated that O'Brien soundly out-boxed Johnson.

The match took place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA!

Trenton Times reported that the referee stated he thought O'Brien the winner by a shade.

 

Any body can pick out individual comments

"A half dozen writers, for instance, gave Johnson the credit of having won the bout, but no two of them agreed as to the distance by which he won, and if you read all these accounts you must have come to the conclusion that he won at any distance from a whisker to a city block"
Johnson couldn't lose it was a nodec and O Brien wasn't going to hurt him.
You just keep clinging to your comforter.

Where was O Brien from?

 

As I always said, those greats of the past, particularly from before the WW2, should be judged in the context of their time. It's silly when people think the likes of Jack Johnson would beat modern elite heavyweight. I doubt he would get past Chris Arreola and Tomasz Adamek

 

You can make a case for any boxer not being as great as what some people will tell you.

 

Monte Cox also wrote the following:

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/johnson.html

 

Jack Johnson didnt even understand twitter.

 

Is Mendoza actually Monte Cox?

 

The author of this article doesn't even seem to be clear what his own line of argument is.

Is he arguing that Jack Johnson's resume is not all that impressive on paper, or simply that he would not have been effective against fighters who came later?

Either position would need a detailed justification in its own right.

 

Jack Johnson cannot be expected to have his fight style translate to all subsequent eras since the Queensbury rules have changed so much!

He was expected to PUT ON A SHOW! People wanted to see the big smile, the in-fight trash talk, the grappling and walking his opponent about the ring. A snarling machine of destruction (a la Tyson) would have been a no-go for the promoters of the time.

Johnson played the game better than anyone else. He had to deal with FAR more political and racial angles than 'modern' fighters can even comprehend.

If Johnson didn't have the eloquent, entertaining approach he did his whole career would never have got started. Even then, he only got his title shot at 30!

Different times.....

 

This is what I was saying. The video fails to indict Johnson, it merely points out that Johnson's opponents on film were vastly inferior to Tyson and Frazier and Louis, and that Frazier hammered Ali with hooks in the FOTC.
Interestingly, in the 2nd Ali-Frazier fight, Ali employed more Johnson-like tactics and avoided taking as much punishment.
That's not to say Johnson would have done as well against Frazier but the video fails to illustrate what Johnson was doing wrong.

 

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. They ran into him like trained herd animals. Are we watching the same video here? Then when they get close Johnson clinches and hits them.

The video points out that Johnson's pre-title wins over a 156 pound Langford, a teenaged Sam McVey and a raw novice in Jeannette, who sometimes had a losing record when he fought Johnson aren't' as great as they might look on paper.

The video points out that Johnson ducked them all once they matured when he had the title.

Where is this vaunted defense? The best answer for die hard Johnson fans is, not on film! The trouble is we have few films to view.

Other areas not addressed by the film is Johnson relatively low punch output, low guard, and draws as champion vs much smaller O'Brien and a vs Battling Jim Johnson, who had a journeyman like a record.