Jack johnson vs Jack dempsey

I think that Johnson was greater than Dempsey, and retired with a much more impressive body of work, but I have to question whether Dempsey would have been right for him stylistically.

Dempsey’s short punching inside game, strikes me as being exactly the sort of thing that Johnson's economical defensive style, might come unstuck against.

I am not saying that Johnson could not win this, but he would have to think outside the box.

 

When looking for analogous opponents, I think that Gibbons is a lot closer to Johnson in terms of skill level and guile than anyone Johnson fought was closer to Dempsey. I do not think a sub 160 pound Langford really qualifies nor the less than polished Ketchel... nor the green McVea.

 

Exactly as I see it....to me Johnson on film is the one or two who could have beaten history s greatest heavyweight...but testimonies of those who saw them both ltend to favor dempsey...but who knows

 

On a side note, it is fun to read Johnson calling out Dempsey in the 1920's. I'm sure he thought he would win, even at that age. Dude needed a freight train to haul his set around.

 

Maybe as a wrestler.

.

 

Way to hedge it Mc...!

 

Fleischer who saw both men at their best rated Johnson higher.

Johnson was used to fighting swarmers. Dempsey was not used to fighting a fighter with Johnsons defensive skills.

 

Johnson never met anyone like Dempsey.
His clutch an grab style wouldnt be able to contain a viciouse Dempsy

 

Some who picked Dempsey were hype Igoe...grant land rice....Jim deforest...sunny crofforth...Montana jack Sullivan...Carpentier...jeffries...Langford..battling nelson....Blackburn rated Johnson and Louis best ever but not sure he saw Dempsey....to me they are the two best ever and Johnson may have beaten all if them...but after what Dempsey did to Willard and others I suspect dempsey

 

I think you can leave Jeffries opinion out.

 

Both Nat Fleisher and some scribes here view Jack as a great defensive heavyweight and while never hugely impressed by him I think their right. Still he had limitations, his sideways back foot gave him a solid stance but he was awkward when trying to move quickly back or forwards and that would play to Dempsey's favor. He had a jab but it wasn't thrown in a way or often enough to ever keep Dempsey away and inside Johnson would have been up against one of the best ever, his own hold and one at a time uppercuts wouldn't have stopped Dempsey's two fisted assaults and Dempsey feinted as he launched them. Dempsey would take his lumps and might have been dropped along the way but in his prime he was faster, hit harder, and was rock hard trained which would catch him a stoppage win.

 

Like almost all aspects of the game definitions then were very different from today.

As an example a JAB was not a flick or a blow of insignificance. A left jab was a feared punch that was thrown with bad intentions which if landed could lead to a KO win.

Johnson had a great jab, quick hands and a nearly impenetrable defense. He did not relay on side to side dancing but instead could make an opponent miss by subtle movement of the body, a tap to the side of an opponents arm would cause blows to miss and of course Johnson complete mastery of feinting and blocking are unmatched to this very day.

 

I've always seen Johnson winning this by a clear but boring decision. Might come down to how lenient the ref is though.