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

Boxing is a weird sport.

In virtually every other professional sport, experts are excited when a current player shows greatness and they readily admit the players coming up are superior to those who preceded them.

In the NBA, when Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain came around, most felt they were far greater than the players of the past. When Michael Jordan emerged and began winning championships, most felt he was the best ever. When LeBron James came around and even before winning championships, he was dubbed the best ever. Now Steph Curry is the guy unlike anyone we've seen before.

Same thing happens in the NFL with guys like Joe Montana, Tom Brady. When Russell Wilson came onto the scene, experts felt he'd reinvented the position. Now it's Cam Newton, even though he hasn't won anything yet.

You can go through just about every pro sport and you'll find experts and coaches and fans excited for the new guy or the new thing and they are all willing to throw out the past to embrace the new thing.

Even the greats in sports like tennis for instance, like McEnroe, admit he'd be obliterated by players today - with their athleticism and skills and speed and all that.

Boxing is the opposite.

The "experts" in any given era NEVER seem to recognize greatness in their own time and the older fighters rarely admit the new guys are better than they were.

When Johnson was the king, "experts" thought an old 300-pound fighter who had long retired could whip him. When Ali was the king in the 1960s, experts thought he "did everything wrong" in the ring. When Marciano was champ, he was a clumsy embarrassment. When Dempsey ruled, he was vilified and was the guy everyone loved to hate. When Tunney beat Dempsey, people didn't like Gene because he "ran" and was too "brainy." Floyd Mayweather made more money and generated higher gate receipts and went undefeated fighting all the top names of his era, but he was "dull" and "arrogant" and "experts" today just dismiss him and "assume" all the greats of the past would have no trouble with him. Just like Lennox Lewis was dismissed as "chinny" and joke during most of his reign … same with Wlad Klitschko. Just like Holyfield was considered a “blown up cruiserweight” when he was defending against Foreman and Holmes. Holmes was considered a poser and a guy trying to act like Ali during most of his reign.

I don't know why we do it.

In other sports, "experts" recognize that the more wear and tear on an athlete the worse the athlete becomes.

In boxing, you'll find "historians" who believe boxers in the past who had lesser skills and got punched in a head tens of thousands of times more than guys today were "better" ... and the rationale is usually "because" they fought more times and HAD more wear and tear on them ... and so that somehow made them BETTER. (Even though most died relatively young or were severely brain damaged.)

In boxing, all the "experts" and "historians" are @ss backwards 99 percent of the time.

Monte Cox seems to be one of them.

Boxing history didn't change between the time Cox wrote articles praising Johnson and the time he produced videos saying Johnson wasn't as good as everyone (I guess he's including himself in that everyone) claimed.

Johnson was great for his day. He isn't as exceptional compared to those who came after. The sport evolved and continues to do so. The tactics fighters need to use to succeed change when the rules change. It's an ever changing game.

 

Cox isn't too special on boxing, but he's streets ahead of Johnson hater Mendoza,but then ,who isn't?

 

Brady and Montana are rightly still considered the two greatest QB's to ever play the position. In today's NFL, Montana would flourish beyond our wildest imaginings.

Other than that, I tend to agree with your sentiments.

 

In football, one bad loss is negligible compared to a solid career. In boxing, one bad KO could tarnish your legacy.

Nobody wants to rate Wilder as the next ATG, and then see him KO'd by a nobody.

Also, it's a lot easier to compare boxers of the past to present. The sport is simpler. Two guys with gloves on punching each other. The sport evolved less dramatically than NFL and Basketball.

 

Lets look at the statement of yours I've underlined.
In1909 Jeannette lost to multiple Johnson victim Sandy Ferguson.
In 1911 he lost to Johnson victim Tony Ross.
In 1912 he lost to Jim Johnson whom an old ,inactive,Johnson drew with even though he had a broken arm.
He also drew with Jim Johnson,[ whom you have several times called a journeyman ,] twice in1914. He also lost to Jim Johnson inMay of 1915,but perhaps his "skills" had eroded in
those 5 months?:think

Langford drew with multiple loser to Johnson, Sandy Ferguson in 1909.
He lost to twice Johnson victim Jim Flynn in 1910 . And drew with "journeyman Jim Johnson in1914 .
In the light of you many times disparaging Johnson's challengers particularly those mentioned here, and their results against Jeannette and Langford,I am forced to conclude that either you underate them or you overate Langford and Jeannette!
Which is it?:huh

 

I'll stand by it and say, Langford, McVey and Jeannette faced much better competition in comparison to Jack Johnson from 1909-1914 and each had far more fights, meaning their chance for a loss or draw was much greater.:deal

The three were also the top best contenders, Johnson skirted them. If you can name better contenders from 1909-1914, let's here it!

As Jeannette aptly put it, "When Jack became the champion he forgot his old friends and drew the color line against his own people."

Jeannette was perhaps the least of the three, but unlike Jack, he holds a win over Jim Battling Johnson and was not afraid to re-match him.

Now for a few more box checkers....

Langford faced many of the same people Johnson did from 1909-1914 and had much better results.

Jeannette if memory serves had a bad call on a loss to a lesser opponent. It could have been the Ross fight. In the re-match, Ross fouled out as he was in a bad way.

Jeannette and McVey both KO'd Sandy Ferguson. Johnson could not in multiple fights.

Langford, Jeannette and Mcvey all defeated Jim Battling Johnson. The best Jack Johnson could do with his was draw with him.

 

What Cox is saying is Johnson was not as great as they told you! He wrote a dead-on article in part 1, then showed some video in part 2

If you expect some defensive wizard on film, you'll be disappointed. He's correct, and more to point Johnson had some questionable things in his prime such as being outboxed by a much smaller man in O'Brien according to some, and being floored by 5'9" Ketchel best known as a middleweight.

He then drew with a journeyman, in Jim Battling Johnson, and didn't look much better than an average type of contender in Moran.

If you count a 4 round exhibition match, gunboat Smith knocked him silly. Re result did not count but the punch was for real, and look at what happened?

Smith beat many of Johnson's title opponents, including the person he lost to but never got a title shot himself. Hmmmm....

Where is this great heavyweight they told you? He doesn't exist in most of his films. That is a what he's saying.

I would say, Johnson's best-filmed fight was vs the 5'7" 168 pound Tommy Burns. Sure he made him look bad. Burns was too small and wasn't held in high regard in comparison to previous and post champions in his lifetime. These days 5'7" is too short for jr middles for the most part. Yet that's likely Johnson's best pure boxing win.

 

They also lost or drew with him and Johnson had a broken arm had not fought in a year and a half,and was past prime.
Jeannette holds a win over Jim Johnson, whom you called a journeyman, he also has 2 losses to him and 2 draws with him.
"Old Friends" Jeannette c*nted Johnson off at every opportunity. Langford hated his guts and picked Jeffries to destroy him.Jeannette picked Jeffries too, didn't
they look clever after the fight?
Johnson owed the pair of them f*ck all!
Johnson didn't forget his real old friend ,Sam McVey,he paid for his funeral.:good

.That's two questions in two posts you've ignored
Want to go for three?
Your problem here is you made this thread expressly to sh*t on Jack Johnson,[nothing new there,] but it's come back to sh*t on you.

 

This Video was awful and I mean awful. I mean the guy honestly feels Ketchel KD Johnson.... and go see.. you tell it's not a fake KD. WTF... Nothing about what he showed proved it wasn't fake, in fact, it just further shows that it was a set up.

**** poor ****ysis IMO... poor video

 

I'm not sure how that reply can possibly be addressed towards my post.

I'm actually baffled.

 

It's Mendoza though Big Luf, you can never expect anything to make sense when he's talking about Johnson. When he's speaking about boxers not named Johnson, he's less bias and can actually contribute nicely. When it's about Johnson, all that goes out the window.

I bet Klompton will love this breakdown lol

 

True dat!

 

Montana stands alone.

 

Yeah, Montana is still the GOAT. Take Brady out of that system and...forget it.

 

You might be right. I was never a fan of Cox to begin with. You can also see Frank Lotierzo chiming in with comments on youtube supporting Cox. He's another hack with agenda based, **** poor articles.