Jack Johnson v Harry Wills ?

The thing I would criticize him the most for is one of the things he advocated the strongest, his sideways back foot. His reason for it was balance and by comparison thought poorly of Louis stance which was very much by the book and allowed Joe to throw his short perfect combinations.

 

I always viewed him as a B-Hop, Chris Byrd, even a Mayweather type ..

 

"My point is that Firpo and Fulton had already been emphatically ko'd by Dempsey."

And my point is what does this prove? --concerning Wills compared to Johnson.

Dempsey ko'd Fulton, Firpo, and Willard early. Wills dominated Fulton and Firpo. Johnson lost to Willard. Dempsey's performance against Fulton does not prove Johnson would have done the same. Johnson didn't have Dempsey's punch and was unlikely to catch Fulton cold.

If Fulton's left was as good as some old-timers claimed, how would Johnson have coped with a jab in his face all night from a man several inches taller?

"Sharkey"

Sharkey looks much better on film than any heavyweight Johnson fought.

"Uzcudun"

It is okay to think Johnson handles him easily, but he wasn't fighting anyone this good at 38. I could see him getting caught like Wills did. At best for Johnson, I see Uzcudun as a very tough fight for him at 38 (and really, how many men as big and strong and tough and 28 years old did Johnson fight at any time. Uzcudun would be one of his top scalps.)

"Moran"

A decent contender and no more, beaten quite often by the better men and handled easily by Willard in 1916. Still, probably one of Johnson's more impressive scalps.

"Could Wills beat the men that Johnson did before he became champ."

In my opinion, yes. Langford was a middle. Jeannette very green. Only McVea might have been a real test. Would Wills have lost at 27 to Hart? Who knows?

*Bottom line for me--Johnson is my pick for the best heavy prior to Dempsey (with only Jeffries as competition), but I also think the heavyweight division was improving rapidly, mainly due to the increased popularity of boxing, and Wills was a dominant heavyweight in a better division)

 

With an asterisk that he did not face the best 5-6 ranked people during that timeline as champion from 1909-1914 in Langford, Jeanette, McVey, Smith, McCarty, and Wills.

When you take away the best the division has to offer, going undefeated for a stretch is not so impressive.

Sure he was undefeated from 1909-1914...cough, even though Gunbaot Smith TKO'd him in a 4 round exhibition match. Johnson drew to a middle-weight, and a draw to a guy with a journeyman record and didn't bother to give all three fighters a re-match.

Who wins on Johnson vs Wills? Judging on how poorly Johnson did vs power hitters who were able to land on him some ( Choynski, Hart, and Willard ) I'd pick Wills in a 25 round match. In a short fight under 10, I'd take Johnson as Wills did not look as good as I thought he should on film.

 

Why do you incessantly harp this. It just makes you look stupid that you cant be bothered to do the five minutes of research it takes to find out this was a sparring session and that Smith merely knocked Johnson down (or staggered him depending on the source). If you actually see Johnson and Smith spar some day you will quickly lose any hope that Smith was a danger to Johnson. Smith was a gangly fighter who was all elbows and knees (and Im talking about in motion, not just photographs). He fought in a very primitive style that didnt change at all from 1909 to his prime in 1914.

 

I don't think Wills was ready for Johnson by 1914. I do believe Johnson missed out on fighting some of the more worthy contenders of his day, while champion.

 

"A 45 year old Johnson toyed with Firpo in sparring."

For how many rounds? It is no surprise to me that Johnson was able to outbox Firpo, but whether he could avoid getting caught over 10 or 15 rounds is another matter.

"Johnson beat Pat Lester over 15 rounds." "Two years later Lester went into the 7th with Uzcudun."

So Johnson went 15 with a journeyman Uzcudun stopped in 7. And this proves?

Johnson in his mid to late forties still had the skill to outpoint second-raters like Homer Smith or Lester, both of whom were stopped by Uzcudun. We've seen in recent decades old ex-champs like Foreman, Holmes, and Holyfield pull off a lot more impressive performances than these two by Johnson. I don't see what exactly it proves vis-à-vis Wills.

"I don't realize you had archive footage"

I perhaps should have made myself clearer. Sharkey looks better on film than any heavyweight Johnson fought looks on film.

"Langford"

I guess you are back to considering him a heavyweight after denying he was a heavyweight a few posts back. The one thing that is certain is that he was a middleweight when Johnson defeated him.

And yes, I think Wills' victories over Langford and McVea in 1915 and over the next few years are on balance more impressive than Johnson's wins over a teenage McVea and a middleweight Langford.

"Denver Ed Martin"

He was just not at the top of the division as long, not did he have wins as impressive, as Fulton did. I think ko'ing Fulton means much more than stopping Martin, who was pretty much a flash in the pan and washed up at 21.

If getting stopped by a heavyweight champion and all-time puncher in Dempsey "exposes" Fulton and Firpo, what does getting stopped by Bob Armstrong or Charlie O'Rourke say about second-tier guys like Martin and Ferguson.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Gunboat (who like most people i am sure) I really like because his name is nothing short of legendary did have a brilliant run for sure. from about late 1912 to early 1914. His early 1912 fights included losses to Jim Stewart and Jack Geyer and a draw with Charles Horn. He was starting to become one of teh best contenders but i think he needed at least a couple of good wins after this, before anyone could realistically promote him as a standout challenger.

The Jim Flynn fight was in July 1912 and Flynn was on a win streak which included Kaufman and Mclachlan and a draw with Morris. 2 months before the July fight, when you would expect fighters to start training, Gunboat would have been coming of a loss to Jim Stewart. I cant see him as being a credible defence for this fight.

Gunboat fled the US soon after this fight and did not fight again until December 1913, in France where he fought Jim Johnson.This was Gunboat's best argumetn for earning a title shot. He was on a great run, and could have fought Johnson here, particularly after getting the decision over Langford, although as i recall, this was a disputed decision wasnt it? In any case, Jim JOhnson had the advantage,because he was actually in France. If he wasnt, i think that Gunboat might have earned a shot here. If memory serves me correct, Gunboat had stated a preference to wait for a shot at Johnson. In any case, it would not realistic for Gunboat to get a title shot at this time, when he was situated in America (a place where the champion was not allowed to challenge) and where he was not even the standout no 1 contender. At this time, Langford, McVea, Jeanette, at the very least had similar claims to a right to challenge for the title.

In JUne 1914, when Moran got the shot, he had just beaten al palzer and ND with Luther McCarthy. Before that though (about 1912) he had lost to Gunboat Smith so you would think Gunboat may have been in line for this challenge. It is particularly interesting that Gunboat went to London and fought Georges Carpentier. Common Sense would suggest taht the winner of this fight would have had a great chance to fight Johnson here. I am sure Klompton has some strong opinions on this result, But either way, you would think that this was a great chance for either of these fighters to get a shot at Johnson in France. I am actually quite surprised that JOhnson didnt defend against one of both of these guys in France. I dont know if ducked is the right term, because Langford, McVey, Jeanette and maybe even Johnson were all equally as deserving, but this very small window does seem to have been a missed opportunity.

For the little it is worth, i think that Johnson, even at this stage, would have beaten both Carpentier and Smith quite comfortably.

 

Horse**** and you know it. Gunboat Smith even admitted in his own words that it was a sparring session not an exhibition. You know this because Ive seen the post on this very site where the interview with him, contemporary to that time, was posted in reply to you and you suddenly disappeared and refused to acknowledge it like you always do. Irregardless Ive seen him spar Johnson, have you? I dont need Gunboat Smith to tell me Johnson would have kicked his ass. Something he would have admitted seeing as how he viewed Johnson as the best HW ever.

He beat Willard? Really? Why dont you go and read those fight reports. No? You cant be bothered with facts? Let me summarize. That was a very controversial decision that most thought should have gone to Willard. His win over Moran was equally unconvincing.

Do I think Smith deserved a shot over Ross and Flynn? When Johnson fought Ross in 1909 Smith had two fights... No I dont think Smith deserved a fight ahead of Ross. When Johnson fought Flynn in 1912 Smith had still not fought anyone of note, whereas Jim Flynn had only recently beaten the holy hell out of Carl Morris in a publicized fight and was still being seen in nickelodeons fighting Sam Langford on film, after having already beaten him once. In short, as a 70+ fight veteran and recognizable name he was imminently more deserving of a title fight. I wont argue that Langford deserved the shot ahead of Flynn but Smith doesnt have a case in that argument. Indeed his window where he could argue that he was the top WHITE contender was very small. Maybe a year at most and that block of time comes after Flynn and long after Ross.

 

Can you go further? William Slattery of SF Call did think the way you stated (10-6-4 in favor of Willard), but he wasn't so sure about the "majority" in his write-up two days after the fight ("Referee Selig's decision pleased many, while others maintained that Willard was entitled to a draw, and some held that the Kansan had a clear lead. Setting aside the argument over the merits of Selig's decision and getting down to the merits of the fighters, the majority seem to think that Willard is the better man of the pair, even though he was defeated by Smith on Tuesday night."). Harry B. Smith of SF Chronicle thought Smith scored the most points and won fairly. Bill Naughton thought a draw would be just. The Associated Press reporter scored it 8-6-6 in favor of Smith. The United Press picked Willard.