http://www.saddoboxing.com/7134-jack-johnson.html Aside from the appreciation of Johnson, it's nice to see Hunnicut (who Casey sites) aknowledge the greatness of Sullivan -- a reputation on the rebound (kudos, Apollack!) -- and Tunney (currently the most downwardly revised of the ATG heavies, IMO).
"Why be content with a stiff jab if you can have a sledgehammer jab? This was Johnson's way of thinking". Great, another writer who has no clue on what Johnson actually did in the ring but works off a mental masturbation, an artificially constructed fighter based on what he thinks - or wants Johnson to be. "Modern day fight fans who erroneously rank technically flawed fighters such as Floyd Mayweather Jr. as great boxers, would not understand the subtle genius of Jack Johnson" Another statement that is completely laughable. Mayweather technically flawed compared to Johnson? atsch Funny how Mayweather went through all of those fights, over his natural weight (the opposite of what Johnson did 90% of his fights), but no one could find those "technical flaws". Johnson himself held his hands low, didn't throw combinations, couldn't box from the outside, etc, etc, not to mention every one of his opponents look horrible, yet this author has the audicity to call Mayweather technically flawed. Yeah, through 3 pair of rose colored glasses. "His superb jab is often overlooked, but it was the main weapon in his varied arsenal." Another statement that makes it painfully clear the author has never seen Johnson fight, because if he did he would not call something Jack doesn't use "his main weapon". No wonder it's overlooked, it wasn't there! And no, throwing a left hand immediatly followed by a clinch is not a jab. A jab is to keep your opponent off balance, at range; you either move out of range or follow it up by other punches. Johnson rarely did either of those. Well, i could go on, but you get the point. This article is a great joy to read when you know nothing about boxing, but when you do, it's annoying.
You are about as far wrong on Johnson as the authour of this article is on Mayweather. They have one thing in common. They are both in the elite club of champions who shut out a top fighter of their era without getting hit flush more than a handfull of times. As for Johnsons style he was a bit of a miscalaneous. He was a defensive boxer but did not really conform to a style similar to any fighter before or since.
Don't get me wrong, i think Johnson was a great boxer, for his time and a spot in the top10 is well-earned, based on legacy, not head to head. But the superlatives and stylistic descriptions this author uses are just factually incorrect to a laughable degree.
I dont think they are. I think that these are the subtle elements that we dont see through the film of the period. You briliantly displayed the subtlties of Rocky Marciano's technique through carefully selected film which people who had seen the films multiple times had missed. I personaly had seen some of them, but only from reading the accounts of Joe Walcott and Archie Moore and some contemporary observers. So what are we missing in Johnson with these prehistoric films?
Johnson had fights in the 100's, that of which the vast majority are not filmed, and those that are are hard to read...
