Jack Johnson v Lennox Lewis

The only salient point that I wanted to get over regarding the Choynski fight,which Mendoza endlessly trumpets as ko loss to a" suppermiddleweight", [ he last said Johnson was kod by a middleweight], is that Johnson himself was around that weight at the time.Personally I think that is worth noting and ,taking into account, even if you do not. Regarding Johnson' s level of experience we don' t know precisely how many fights he had at the time, but it was around half of the 50 that Langford had engaged in ,when he was thrashed by Johnson.
I think your post above is pretty even handed.

 

But 24 recorded fights, and few battle royals is a good amount of experince. Remember, back then many of the fights were much longer.

 

This content is protected

 

You do not know this at all .I asked you how the fight being in Galveston helped Johnson ,please explain it?
It didn't stop the local police jailing him did it?
The fight you refer to was against George Gardner and was 18months later.
Point of information ,as late as April 1906 Johnson scaled 185lbs,as late as Nov 1907, he scaled 184lbs.LOOK it up!

Seamus is certainly no fan of Johnson's but ,at least one can have a reasonable debate with him.

You are never rational on the subject and, at times are embarrassingly manic.
I am not going to continue destroying your stupid theorizing ,it goes without saying you will keep putting your hate spin on it,suffice to say I have proved that Johnson was well below his prime weight when he was kod by big hitting Choynski whom Johnson, Fitz,Jeffries, and Corbett rate the hardest hitter they ever faced.

 

It wasnt just the fact that he was inexperienced, but that this inexperience costed him. Johnson was talked into taking on an agressive approach in this fight and this is the sole reason he was caught by Choynski.

Johnson never made the same mistake again, and was always patient after this. that is the biggest difference between the johnson Choynski beat and the real johnson. that is why it took so long to beat Jeffries, Burns and possibly even others like Ketchell. In reality, it probably is even what costed him against Hart.

Personally, i couldnt see Choynski backing up the win against Johnson, even if it were a rematch within a very short period of time.

 

Actually, I am quite a big fan of Johnson. In fact, when I have time, I want to start a thread about some of the crap Johnson had to endure. I've been reading a lot of press clippings from that era lately, and even to the jaded historian, it is shocking the **** people like Jeffries and O'Brien were saying. I am no PC pundit but there quotes made the blood curdle. But I want to compile these quotes before beginning that discussion.

Furthermore, I am just basing my estimation of Johnson on the evidence of his record and the scant evidence on video. I am not allowing for the potential that he may have translated his talents brilliantly to a more modern game, which he very well might have.

 

Fair points .



Some modern opinions of him.Tracy Callis and Monte Cox.

Johnson’s reputation as a defensive master is well deserved. Although both were somewhat unorthodox Johnson’s classic defense was far superior to that of Ali, particularly his ability at blocking punches and countering. Abe Attell said that Johnson fought out of the “perfect stance.” This stance, with the front foot pointed forward, was what heavyweight champion Jack Johnson called, “the key to real scientific boxing” (Ring, April 1941, 16). He noted that the purpose of that stance is that by simply moving the right rear foot, one can move, shift, and pivot in such away as to avoid a blow and always be in perfect position to counter with the full force of one’s body behind the blow. Muhammad Ali was known for his ability to lean away from punches and counter with quick jabs or right hands leads, but he usually did it while moving away from his opponent and was somewhat off balance, which is why he was not known as a terrific hitter. Ali also usually did it with his hands down, which is quite dangerous. The stance of Johnson allowed him to evade and lean away from punches with his hands up, ready to block and counter while remaining in punching position. Johnson also moved about the ring gracefully with quickness to avoid blows, stepping around and countering mistakes by his opponents punitively.
Historian Tracy Callis offers the following comparison, “How many fighters FOUGHT like Ali did? How many COULD fight like he did? How many were trained to fight EXACTLY like he did? The answer is not many (if any). His combination of physical skills enabled him to move (often with hands down) to avoid an opponent's blows. In particular, his boxing savvy, anticipation, exceptionally quick head movement, capability to lean out of his opponent's reach, etc., enabled him to do it. Others did not possess all those skills. Perhaps, some did - to a degree - but not to the extent that he did.” The footwork, parrying and countering skills of Jack Johnson were effective in much the same way. “He stood and moved like he did because he could and was effective at doing it (whatever the technique). He trained at it, perfected it, utilized it, and was well-nigh unbeatable with it.” Incidentally Callis rates Johnson above Ali.


Johnson had a quick left jab, which he sometimes doubled and even tripled up on.
He was very economic with his movement and fast on his feet, yet always moved flat-footed to be in a position to punch with power.
Johnson used an open left glove to hold his opponent back at times, both Ali and Holmes used this tactics, and Johnson tried to set up his right with it.
Johnson also likes to shove his opponent’s shoulders back like Foreman did against Frazier and then open up with both hands.
Johnson, without question, had excellent hand speed. He was also an accurate puncher.
Johnson was a master at glove and elbow blocking. He was particularly keen at blocking jabs with an open glove with his rear parrying hand.
Johnson was a counter-puncher and one of boxing history’s greatest exponents of feinting. He liked to catch his opponents coming in and feint them into walking into a big punch. Johnson called feinting “the most important art in boxing” in the Ring April 1941 article Secrets of Hitting.



One area Johnson was clearly superior to Ali was infighting. Ali was definitely an “outboxer”, clinching inside but never working the body; while Johnson could fight equally well inside or outside. Jack certainly was a good body puncher. Newspapers reported that it was Johnson’s body punching that took it out of Jeffries. Harry B. Smith of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote, “Unquestionably the body blows, the short jolts that Johnson sent to the body, did more to wear Jeffries down than anything else.” Those who erroneously claim Johnson and his contemporaries were not body punchers or sharp technical infighters simply do not know much about them.

Some modernists have claimed that Johnson was “too small” to compete against “today’s super-heavyweights.” However even a cursory look at the facts proves this to be shortsighted thinking. Chris Byrd has the same height and reach as Jack Johnson and yet he has had no trouble landing punches on modern super-heavyweights with success, and he has been vastly avoided for his defensive prowess. Johnson was superior to Byrd in every respect. Johnson was a superior athlete, a more experienced defensive master, and a better all around boxer with much greater punching power than that of Chris Byrd. There is simply no reason to believe that Jack Johnson would not do very well in a modern ring.



One of the biggest criticisms I run into about Jack Johnson is a question about his near prime loss to Marvin Hart. I wonder how many of those critics have read the actual newspaper reports? If one takes the time to study the newspapers it is clear that had the fight been judged by modern boxing judges Johnson would have gotten the decision. The Mar 29, 1905 San Francisco Chronicle reported “Johnson shows himself strong on points.” The Chronicle also noted “There was a great deal of racial prejudice…Johnson’s clean hitting, his cleverness at blocking, and all his work was allowed to pass with scarcely a murmur, while every blow landed by the white man was cheered to an echo.” The paper also reported “Johnson did more actual fighting in this fight than in all of his other fights in San Francisco put together.” However the referee, Alex Greggains, the sole judge of the contest, gave the fight to the white man on “aggressiveness” no matter how ineffective he had been. Johnson said in the post fight interview, “I was robbed. That’s all there is to it.” Johnson said he “dislocated” his thumb in an early round but still thought he “was the winner at every stage.” The National Police Gazette which was the Ring magazine of that day wrote, April 15 1905, “In the first ten rounds Johnson easily demonstrated his superiority. After that Hart made a better showing but he did not have the better of the going and a draw would have been a present to him.” Johnson deserved to win and would have easily won on points by any modern boxing observers estimation of the fight.



Jack Johnson had a 10 year unbeaten streak and rarely lost a round in his absolute peak as a fighter. He faced and defeated all styles of opponents with relative ease. He beat clever scientific boxers like Joe Jeannette, hard hitting punchers like Sam McVey, boxer-punchers like Sam Langford, stick and move boxers like Ed Martin and swarming pressure fighters like Tommy Burns, Fireman Jim Flynn and Al Kaufmann.
While Muhammad Ali is considered to have the better chin, Jack Johnson’s has been under-rated. He was physically strong and had a 17-½ ” neck that was able to withstand a big punch. It was 14 years between Johnson’s knock out losses. When he finally lost the title to Willard it was the 26th round in 105-degree heat at ringside. Had it been a 15 round fight Johnson nearly pitches a shut out. Not a bad performance for a 37-year-old man who had been inactive and was way past his peak as a fighter. Johnson’s early losses can be easily written off. Johnson was not a coddled fighter like today’s protected boxers. He did not have the advantage of financial backers that Muhammad Ali or Joe Frazier had. He did not have a carefully guided career to a title shot like modern fighters. He was a black fighter who fought during a time when a “color line” existed and there had never been a black heavyweight champion. He often fought on little notice and literally went hungry between fights when he was a rising prospect. Such was the case in his battle against Klondike Haines. Johnson floored his opponent in the first round for a 9 count. Haines was given a very long count according to eyewitnesses (See Ward’s Unforgivable Blackness pp 27-28). Johnson was literally “hungry”, a starving fighter taken out by a body punch after having little to eat for days. This would never happen, and never did happen to a prime Johnson. The Joe Choynski loss was a minor upset, but it was after this loss and studying under the veteran master that Johnson really came into his own as a fighter. Choynski after defeating the young prospect taught Johnson many of his feinting/parrying techniques (during the 23 days they spent together in jail). He was quoted as saying, "No man who moves like you should have to take a punch". Johnson was still green at age 22 when he lost to Choynski. Similarly Duane Bobick stopped Larry Holmes age 22 in the finals of the Olympic Trials, and Larry greatly improved after serving as a sparring partner for Ali. No one today is claiming that Larry has a weak chin because of the Bobick loss, and neither did Jack Johnson have a weak chin because of the Choynski loss.


The opinions of a Champion boxer and, a champion trainer.


Some observers such as Archie Moore and Eddie Futch picked Johnson in a dream fight against Ali (See Hauser, Muhammad Ali His Life and Times pp. 34, 456).
Are they all wrong?

 

True, but if we're assessing him in an all-time sense, I think fighters of that era should be cut more slack when they have "hiccups" along those lines.

I don't strongly disagree with anyone who wants to read more into it, though.

 

Mcvey, your obviously one of the more clued up regarding johnson due to the research you've done, so props for that.

I want to address one of your points about johnson's success in later era's.

Byrd, imo, was a successful heavyweight in that he, for a short while, was viewed as the premiere hw on the planet. This success came in an era of the superheavys but it was due to his somewhat unique style; making the much bigger man miss on the inside and then land stinging shots in return. Aside from wlad, a great in his own right, this tactic proved hugely successful, especially once he learnt his lesson against ike.

Do you have any sources suggesting johnson's head movement could rival that of byrd's? I always put johnson's defensive greatness down to his ability to parry and block with great success, but I don't see that style succeeding on the inside against big heavy's coming in behind their jab.

If head movement is one of his better assets I think i'd dramatically reassess my h2h ranking of him.

As it stands, envisioning him trying to parry the brutal hooks from a dempsey, tyson, foreman or frazier doesn't end well. Nor does envisioning him parrying the jabs of liston, holmes, ali, lewis or wlad.

What say you, did he have the athletic gifts to effectively change his style in the face of a greater workrate against a bigger foe?

 

It's not jabs or single shots he'd have trouble with, it's combinations.

 

I agree. Jack might well be the best ever at picking off single shots but against the workrate he'd face in the later era's his style wouldn't work imo.

He'd have to rely much more on head movement as byrd did but i'm not sure he can match him in that category.

If holmes, wlad or lewis just tried jabbing from the outside he could comfortably make them miss imo, but if they're bearing down following the jab with straights, hooks and uppercuts, a parry just isn't gonna cut it.

I'm not saying he's a one dimensionable defensive wizard. I'm saying the style he's most known for doesn't translate to well imo.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

These aren't lightheavies or cruiserweights. These are legit big time heavyweights, against which Johnson never defended during his reign, which some would have us believe was his prime fighting weight.

 

I've read through this thread, it's a good read. I did a little reading outside of it too as Johnson is a fighter I know a little about but not in depth.

Conclusion: I've not changed one bit, Lewis destroys him in 3 rounds max.

 

Good lord, there is so much ludicrous in that excerpt that it is hardly worth a lengthy rebuttal. Let's just mention that Jack Johnson never met anyone who combined the size, speed, skill and output of Ali. No one even in that league. How is he to surmise that Johnson could handle that amalgamation of factors in his supposed prime when a couple years before he went life and death with Marvin Hart? And yes, I have read the clippings. The fact remains that Marvin Hart would not be competitive with any modern heavy of championship calibre. He would get knocked the **** out. Yet with Johnson he made enough of a show to get the victory. But I am supposed to believe that less than a year later when Johnson was gathering his greatest pelts in Jeanette, McVea and Langford, he had accumulated so much skill as to beat a prime Ali? This is typical Classicist boorish rationalization. These self-ordained scholars invest so much into the arcane that they must justify it with ridiculous contentions, then prop up these contentions with the misty-eyed judgements of doddering has-beens. Meh.