Jack Johnson v Gene Tunney 15 rounds.

First off many felt Loughran beat him ... that being said you obviously know little about Johnson's pre-title competition ... and it's too boring to school you on it ...

 

Please, school me.

Who among them was better than Greb? Which 5 among them were better than Greb?

Also, "fighting better competition" does not mean emphatically beating better competition. Thus, we are allowed to throw Hart and Choynski in the mix, also.

 

Johnson did not rate Tunney highly he said he was only," a pretty fair boxer", and that," Joe Jeannette would have boxed rings around him", That is debatable imo.
I find it difficult to make a pick here,I can see the busier Tunney taking a dec,and also, a fired up Johnson timing his jab and countering to a points win as well. No stoppage seems likely.No pick from me.

 

Johnson didn't have much positives to say about fighter who came after him so i wouldn't pay too much attention to what he says. Like you, i can honestly see it going either way really too close to call.

 

Giving Langford a serious beating (his worst according to Sam) is better than losing one fight (many said Greb should've gotten a decision in another) and then winning the other 2 (or 3) by close decision. I don't think THAT version of Dempsey was THAT much better than the shell of Jeffires. Both were not prime and were unactive. And again, Jeffries never came close to beating Johnson... It was a blowout win for Johnson with ease. Tunney (long count and all) had a harder time with Dempsey.

Anyways, I see Johnson taking the clear decision over 15... over a longer fight.. he stops Tunney

 

Tunney by decision, too fast of foot and hand

 

I respectfully disagree on all points.

Greb and Langford are both top 3 all time greats in my book.

The Langford that Johnson fought once was 156 pounds to Johnson's 185. And so far as I can remember (Moyle would know best), it was one of his first forays into the heavyweight division. It was a couple years before Langford was consistently fighting heavies and making his name in that division.

Greb, on the otherhand, had been fighting heavies and lightheavies for a few years before he and Tunney were matched for the first time, let alone his experience by their 5th fight.

There is no way you can convince me that fighting a small, heavy-novice in Langford ONCE trumps fighting a Heavy Veteran in Greb FIVE TIMES.

Regarding the Dempsey-Jeffries comparison, I believe you are inflating that also, to the detriment on Dempsey. While certainly not prime Dempsey had only been out of the championship ring 3 years to Jeff's 5. Furthermore, Dempsey proved his equalizing power beating Sharkey in between Tunney fights. Jeffries made no such impression. He obviously was not so much an active fighter as a guy looking to grab a paycheck. In fact, witnesses to his training camp for Reno remarked upon the incredible decay of his abilities and reflexes.

Furthermore, Tunney won 19 rounds of 20 against Dempsey. It was an emphatic domination of a still-relevant championship level heavyweight.

 

OK. He wasn't in the thick of the division at the time. He wasn't at the weight or experience where he was really making his mark. I think that can safely be stated.

 

Well, since we are talking about Prime weight... Johnson as you know, also wasn't at his Prime weight for his fight with langford. He said his prime weight and where he felt the best was his weight for the Jeffries fight. So Johnson himself hadn't grown into his body yet, just like you're claiming Sam didn't. Problem is, when Johnson claimed he was prime.. he LOOKED the part and looked really strong. Sam.. when he gained weight, appear to gain more around the belly than any place else. Point is, I don't think Sam had any better skills or added any semblence of an advantage by gaining 25 pouds of not muscle.

Also, you can say again Sam wasn't primed, but he also had more fights by the time he met a also not prime Johnson. So I'm unclear how that really plays any role in anything.

As far as Dempsey and Jeffries... you can talk about it being 5 years inactive compared to 3... Yet, really how can you measure that in any tangible way? They are both inactive is the point. They were both past their primes is the main point. Trying to measure exactly who had slipped more is analagous to chasing your own tail. You can never hope to prove to what degree and extent for either. Point is, Johnson DIDN'T struggle at all with Jeffries... Tunney, while looking very good and winning more rounds, struggled more with Dempsey.

 

Tough call.

 

It's true Langford was pre -prime for the Johnson fight, but the same goes for Jack too. Langford had more fights under his belt than Johnson ,and if Johnson had fought more heavyweights ,for a fair few of them ,he was himself a super middle weight In 1900 Johnson fought Klondike 3 times. Johnson scaled 168lbs that year.

Klondike.190-200lbs.

This content is protected

Langford scaled 156lbs for his fight with Johnson.

What was his best weight? Imo ,175-180lbs tops,[C Moyle is free to correct me if he thinks I am wrong,] the guy was 5' 6.5" ,[he was described as fat in many contests.] So, 20-25lbs heavier than when he fought Johnson.

Two and a half years after losing to Johnson, Langford only scaled 175lbs when he beat 200lbs Joe Jeannette.


Johnson weighed 185lbs when he fought Langford ,Johnson said he was in the shape of his life when he beat Jeffries, for that fight he weighed 208lbs so that is 23lbs heavier than when he fought Langford.

To me that means both were comparable, as far as their optimum weight is concerned.

Johnson had more experience of fighting heavyweights,[ergo he was often less than a LHVY in them]. Langford had more experience overall.

 

Mcvey... how can you really say Lanford was better with the extra fat as opposed to without it. In the pictures and footage of him... we can see the extra weight certainly didn't "carry" well on him and it certainly didn't help his skills at all... I just don't get why people think the extra weight was THAT much better for him.. I don't think it was, I simply think it was a case of him getting better as time went on.. not the 25 pounds (which seemed to all be in his belly).

 

I was trying to be even handed. Langford was short,under 5'7", but he had a heavyweights shoulders and chest .
My point is that both Johnson and Langford were short of their primes, physically .
Langford had over 50 fights when he faced Johnson ,how many more did he need to attain the required experience to be at the top of his game?
Langford had 51 fights worth of experience when he faced Johnson and 518 rounds under his belt.
Compare that to Muhammad Ali 56 fights and 549 rounds for his whole career, a career that went on until he was 40years old.
Langford was no novice in 1906 , he was a seasoned pro.