Jack Johnson today with 8 oz gloves - how would he do?

I suppose Mcvey has no comeback for that one.

 

He would a) suffer from culture shock or b) legally bang white women.

 

Houston
Futch
Arcel
Roberts
Farhood
Goldman
Sugar
Carpenter
Mullan
Gutteridge
Have all seen a **** of a lot more of those guys than you have, and from close up ringside,and ,since they've seen all the footage of Johnson that you have and, possibly some you haven't ,in the driving seat ,you definitley are not.
.
Futch for example ,worked with Louis,Holmes ,Bowe, Norton,etc, he rated Johnson in his top 3 of all time along with Ali and Louis.
But what does he know compared to you?
The all seeing, all knowing , Mr Negative.
ps How's that for a comeback Mendoza/Mendacity?

 

From what I remember McVey picked Haye as a live underdog, not as the winner

 

Correct P P, I give him a punchers chance,and if suitable odds are available I will have a small wager .

 

This is funny. I love how quickly you change a story, particularly when pressed into something. In the thread tittled Is Wlad over the hill, you posted this on 5-1-11

So, Haye by stoppage was your pick until I called you out....Changing your story once again I see.

 

It's still my pick do you have learning difficulties?
Wlad will be favourite, I therefore expect to get odds for my bet on Haye .Is that so hard to grasp Rainman?
Dont even think about calling out, you tried it once before ,and **** your trousers remember?

 

Read my reply Rainman.:good

 

So, Arcel and Sugar called Dempsey the greatest heavyweight ever. Do you subscribe to that ranking also? Rose had Langford #1 at heavyweight. Do you agree that a 5 foot 6 fighter was the greatest heavy ever to enter the ring?

And let's look at the term greatness. As usual, the boxing minds at work are less than rigorous in their terms and definitions. I guess this is necessary when taking in the majority of the audience for which they are writing. But let's assume greatness in this sense refers to "historical impact", "pioneering efforts" and such. Sure, Jack Johnson ranks among the greatest to ever step in a ring.

Now, if you want to add head-to-head abilities, championship resume... then things get dicey. Johnson had an inconsistent resume at the top. He didn't show great form against smaller and lesser fighters who in the modern era a supposedly great champion would be excoriated for struggling with. On film, I don't see a lot he has to offer that would overly-trouble top flight modern heavies, though admittedly the rules and equipment were different. Finally his competition on the available footage looks amateurish at times, almost embarrassingly so by modern standards. We really need to recalibrate our expectations for these fighters if the surviving footage is an accurate representation of their full fighting abilities.

So, we are left with two standards of excellence by which to measure the heavies. Do we make an aggregate them? Do we appease our elders and try to cheaply share their limelight by aping their opinions decades later? Do we entirely dismiss generations of fighters and fight observers by declaring them irrelevant? I don't know the answer to these questions really.

I have stated repeatedly that I consider Johnson an all-time great, possibly top 10 at heavyweight, despite the flaws in his career that I have noted. And how I come to this opinion is every bit as scientific as hacks like Farhood and Sugar, hopefully without the overdose of cheap, disingenuous sentimentality they bring to their efforts. At the end of the day, it is a judgement call.


This girlschool fight between you and Mendoza is fatiguing and embarrassing. Please leave me out of it.

 

I mentioned a list of writers who rated Jack Johnson very highly , and asked if they were all wrong and you were right?

You riposted that many on my list of writers and historians had not seen as much of modern heavyweights as yourself .
I then gave you new a list of them, all of whom rate Jack Johnson very highly indeed, but have also had the advantage of seeing modern heavyweights close up and personal from ringside ,and in some cases actually trained them, and worked their corners.

My banter with you has nothing to do with Mendacity , leave you out of it? You jump in at every opportunity you are like twin echoes.
If your spelling wasn't appreciably better than Mendoza's ,I would think you were his doppelganger.

You seem to come on here just to demean every posters opinions and threads ,and you do it in a smug sneering manner. I know you have a sharp sense of humour, because on rare occasions you have treated us to it ,and its amusing ,and droll.

Sadly the vast majority of your posts are negative in the extreme, not only lacking in humour ,but any cohesive train of thought, just one liners knocking some boxer,or poster,or both.
I thought you could make a better case ,but I guess your forte is critical one liners, delivered in a sneering aside ,then a quick exit
.I couldn't care less where you rate Jack Johnson , I just think your style of ",stab from behind the curtain and retire " is fatiguing and embarrassing".

 

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/heavylists.htm

 

I'm trying to get to the germ of what you have to say. Ignoring the profound insights to my character, I will address the boxing issues here:

Do you agree with Arcel and Sugar that Dempsey was the greatest heavyweight of all time? Are you choosing which of their rankings to endorse based on the argument you wish to pursue?

Again, if I rank Johnson #11, is that blasphemous? Is that high enough for a heavyweight who had mediocre results against the modern equivalents of lightheavies and cruisers?

 

a few problems with your statement....

the fact is that it is easier to ko people with smaller gloves...
just watch any mma event and you will see guys who are not great punchers ko guys with 1 shot or whatever.

with 4 mma gloves you get more ko's then you get with 10 oz boxing gloves
this is why any gym in the world will make guys spar with larger gloves usually 16 oz or 14....reason is less ko's and damage happen with larger gloves...

ANYONE WHO HAS EVER SPARRED CAN TELL YOU ALL THIS....


i do agree a bit on the hand wraps thing....

bottom line in those guys the guys did not have the best punching techique and more importantly refs were much slower to stop fights
this is why you had less ko's happening

 

I know nothing of your character ,only your posts.
I rate Dempsey at no 3. What that has to do with where the vast majority of writers, and trainers, rate Johnson escapes me.
Where you rate Johnson is up to you.His results as champion are not particularly illustrious , I think more of his form pre champion days.
Similarly I rate Liston in my top 10, based on his performances prior to winning the title.
Johnson beat plenty of big men, prior to gaining the title and ,contrary to what you think ,they were not all clods and cowhands.
You fasten on Johnson's results against Choynki when Johnson was pre prime and , no more than a light heavy himself,and his lethargic performance against O Brien, I mention he was not in shape for O Brien ,and knowing O Brien had zero chance of stopping him in their no dec 6 rounder, he cynically did little . You say I am making excuses .Have you ever read anywhere that Johnson trained for the O Brien fight , that he was even in half way decent condition? Johnson toyed with Burns , Burns chased O Brien out of the ring
.Let me ask you a question that requires an honest answer, if Johnson was in shape, and focused do you think O Brien would have a cat in hell's chance against him? YES OR NO?
Johnson's career cannot be separated from the fact that he was a hated man, he lost to Hart ,it was a debatable decision, several leading papers thought he was robbed ,several did not.
He was a lazy fighter ,content to do just enough, today he would have to up his work rate considerably to win fights.
He was knocked down by Ketchel,or was he? Film appears to show him falling before the punch lands,and there is no doubt he carried Ketchel,if you can't see that then I really am wasting my typing fingers.
I think Johnson's results before he was champion are enough to justify my rating of him ,you don't, fine.
Let us be clear, where I rate Johnson doesnt matter one iota to you, and neither does your ranking affect me,and in the long scheme of things a man who was killed 2 years before I was born is not that integral to our day to day existence now is he?
I have become more focused on Johnson since I came on this site ,chiefly because of the absurd lengths another poster goes to discredit him
.Personally I would sooner watch Dempsey ,Ali, Louis,Tyson ,anyday of the week.