Jack Johnson vs. Sonny Liston

Langford was not the top heavyweight in the world when he fought Ketchel ...

There is little doubt that Langford carried Ketchel to set up a big dollar rematch for the title ...

 

I agree, the best TESTED version we have of Johnson is in the 185-190 or below range.

Furthermore, in these head to head affairs, it is intellectually honest only to pit the best versions of each fighter, not the versions in their 8th fight (a la Marshall) or at an age when they should be collecting a pension.

So, to keep things honest, let's take the '59 version of Liston that blew out Wlliams, Valdes and Besmanoff versus the 1906 version of Johnson that beat Jeanette, McVea and Langford. And to remind you that this tangent of weight was started in reference to the relative strengths of each fighter, this would be pitting a 6 foot, 185 pound Johnson against a 6 foot 212 pound Liston.

I will still take Liston to finish matters before the 10th.

 

Yet you would be wrong big buddy. As I've asked you before... If you gave Johnson... 2 years of sparring and tune up bouts to get used to "modern" boxing... would you still take liston? If you made the fight 25 or more rounds would you still take Liston?

 

I see Johnson differently than most ... to me he is a small heavyweight by today's standards in the mold of a better Chris Byrd or Bernard Hopkins ... I don't see him as the relic many do ... if you carefully watch his filmed fights he shows an amazing skill set that could easily be adjusted based on style he is fighting against ... and I see him cleanly defeating Sonny Liston by fighting a better version of the Machen fight .. Sonny was too slow and mechanical ... Jack would time him, counter him and box his ears off ..

 

This is based on a whole lot of supposition and basically blind faith in the legend of Johnson.

I will take Sonny Liston as Sonny Liston was in 1959, proven against the calibre of fighters he fought and results he produced. I don't need to suppose what he could have been or could have done if he weren't lazy or unmotivated or had fought better opponents because it is on record, and largely on film.

 

Is it really THAT much supposition though? Would you not agree that Johnson was a great ring general and one of the most intelligent HW fighters out there? So thus, how does the train of logic that follows the above premises become too difficult to imagine further? When you follow said logic to its next logical step (not a leap) isn't very hard.. espeically for a seasoned boxing guru like yourself. Funny you mention filmed evidence... The film evidence we have shows Johnson totally dominating his foes with ease while BARELY trying. I think his filmed evidence is pretty good actually when you factor in all the variables.

 

Yes, he seems to be a great ring general against physically disadvantaged or diminished fighters. He also seems to be quite inconsistent in his performances, a quality which his apologists write off with winks and comments like "he wasn't really trying", or "he had been out all the night before drinking" or "he wasn't in peak shape". So far as I can deduce from statements of the learned fellows on this board, Jack Johnson was trying, had not been out all the night before, and was in peak form a scant few times in his career. But that is all forgiven because of what he could have done had he actually cared to prepare and perform.

 

I think it's plain to see that you can't really give much, if any credit to Johnson for anything. You can't even say he's a great ring general and one of the smartest HW to ever live without throwing in a slight. So really, how can we hope to have a fruitful discussion when your views are already so negative and can't be changed? Doesn't seem possible. If you can't see that Johnson has attributes that Liston doesn't have and that some of these attributes could allow him to beat Liston... Well then, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I see them plain as day... you see them plain as night...

 

I rate him as top ten alltime because of what he did in his era. I may say that Burns doesn't represent much of a win because he was womanly hipped, pudgy middleweight who fought in straight lines... but Johnson HAD to fight him and actually put forth a great effort to make the fight. In that sense, he is pretty awesome. So far as the **** Johnson must have endured being Black and successful, especially in an occupation that cuts to the essence of masculinity, he is amazing. On film, he looks light years ahead of his contemporaries. There is much to applaud in Johnson's career.

My point is that there is just so much we can really know about his abilities in regards to true, modern heavies because of the talent in the era he fought, the development of the division since, and his particular career choices and dedication to the game. Even that said, I see his primary motivation as being a paycheck and not the adoration of internet nerds like myself a century later. It is a motivation that is absolutely understandable and reasonable given his circumstances.

 

It's not winks or nods ... He was only filmed in his title bouts and film was in it's infancy .. his entire previous career was simply not filmed .. there are three fights that exist with a physically prime Johnson and unfortunately the opponents were limited ..

 

No he was not. Sonny was extremely skilled, had great head/upperbody movement, and he was not slow either in his prime.

 

i'll say this in terms of comparing eras, james figg was virtually unbeatable in his time. from records, he was totally dominant within his rule set and era...doesn't mean i'll pick him against a klitschko

if we're comparing fighters head to head, we compare them at their best based on a rule set. if you dropped prime johnson into the modern era, i don't favour him against liston.

 

I find it difficult to accurately gauge how Johnson would've done against a more modern heavyweight because the existing film of him in actual combat shows him against opponents that bear no similarities to someone like Liston or Ali or Holmes etc.. Burns is certainly not a good measuring stick nor is a completely shot Jeffries. Willard may be the closest as he reminds me a bit of someone like Vitali but it's still very difficult. If only there was film of Johnson against a good skilled heavyweight who employed a more modern style then it would be easier to gauge his chances against someone like Liston but there isn't. Based only on film evidence of both men in action I'd have to go with Sonny. I haven't seen any opponent in the films we have of Johnson employ a good jab....or any jab for that matter against Jack. Nor have I seen any combinations used against him as well. All the punches sent his way were one at a time shots. That doesn't mean he couldn't deal with combos or jabs of course but the film evidence just isn't there. How would he deal with a big HW with a more modern style of fighting such as liston or Ali or Holmes? Men who were taught to use the jab as a potent offensive weapon to set up other punches in combination. A big question mark in my opinion. Johnson was good no doubt but I just don't think there were many good big men around to seriously challenge him when he was champion. Am I wrong?

 

I'm not sure why beating Jeanette, McVey and Langford is considered a better version than beating Ketchel and Jeffries .... but anyway .. it matters little to me.
If you insist on a sub-200 Johnson, let's say the guy who fought Burns (official weight 192) because we actually have footage of that fight. Makes sense. And to me he looks exactly the same as he did against Jeffries or Ketchel anyway.

I think Johnson beats Liston, who was given a decent run for his money against Eddie Machen.
Johnson was too fluid, too adaptable, for the lumbering Liston, who had some good moves of his own but was really a poor man's Joe Louis at best.

 

He was slow compared to Ali, Holmes or Johnson .. I would not call his head and upper body movement as great , I'd say good. He was not a master boxer but he was technically sound for sure and more polished than a Foreman without question ...