Jack Johnson vs. Sonny Liston

On a technical front, it probably wouldn't help Liston 'doing things by the book'. You get the sense Johnson found the wildman more troublesome than the scientist, like chaos theory doing terrible things to a student’s dissertation results.

Liston's redeeming traits here are his jab and anti-clinch policy, but this does not discount Johnson from being a nuisance; thumping you in the biceps, walking you off balance - clinches were not a bench-press competition.

If Liston could keep Johnson coy with his left and shoulder his way out of inside difficulties his chances increase, alas Lil' Arthur was an onion of a fighter, one famous for sculpting farces but knew when to turn it on, like he did when Langford pressed, or when Ketchel altered the script.

As is the case with Dempsey's slipping ability in the Tunney fights, Johnson's losing battle with Willard yields tasty nuggets.

For around eighteen rounds Johnson fought a masterly bout, drawing out the leads of the big man and neatly timing short-armed volleys. The list of heavyweight who would have wilted that day is long indeed. A similar strategy would be advised against Liston. Admittedly this would be more difficult though it would be foolish to envisage Sonny continually walking through the feints and letting both hands go.

With Liston cocksure about his 'seek-n'-destroy' ideology it is likely that he will be the one who is taken aback by Johnson's own strength and power.

The bigger man will be sucked into an awkward fight, and it is going to make him fight awkward. Johnson is a man who could remain the dictator in all terrain, and Ted Spoon is circumspect of a reach differential and a few pounds flipping this familiar scenario.

Speed would not kill, but it would be an inexorable pest as Johnson rummages through his considerable inventory to stop the dangerous brute switching through the gears. Under a fierce sun Liston would lose a bumpy decision while his antagonist is still in good enough knick to flash that grin.

 

McGrain, how do you think johnson would try countering liston's jab?

Do you not think liston's slow hands will lead him open to the parry/return that johnson mastered?

Do you see liston being able to avoid johnson's lead uppercuts?

 

Good post.:good

 

No , I can't what I can say, with confidence, is the jury is still out. Thats my point.

 

This is a sweeping statement , can you show me film evidence that supports it?
Liston throwing opponents around, manhandling them in clinches etc? What you think is likely is not admissable.

 

Jack "Gin and Juice" Johnson by TKO9 in a war.:!:

Johnson is faster, way better footwork, more stamina, much tougher And has ATG Warrior-Heart.:bbb

As for SIZE, they are pretty much teh same weight (208 VS 212), there is only half an inch difference in height, And Liston's real reach is 80inches, only 6inches longer than Johnson's 74. Forget that 84inch bull****, it is obvious on film footage Liston's reach is teh same as Muhammad Ali's, And you can see here on film his reach correctly listed as 80inches!

@1.50

[yt]aiTQsdgt9-w[/yt]



Foreman Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook!:hat

 

What film of the early 1900's could I scan to pick out examples of great jabbers do you think?

Film of great jabs?
I consider that a loaded request but here is one from 1910
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LSDYJOFp7Q[/ame]

Turn of the century great boxers include Abe Attell, Joe Bowker, Jim Corbett,Packey McFarland, Joe Gans ,ect , or perhaps you believe the jab magically appeared on a given date? Circa 1960 perhaps?

"Extremely strong", is not the same as," stronger than ,"is it?

Which testimony have you seen from Liston opponents that leads you to this conclusion?

I think you are confusing strength with hitting power.

 

Boxing skill evolving is all nonsense. Jabs, hooks, body shots, uppercuts etc. have existed all along, as well as blocking, ducking, clinching, moving, etc. Guys hit other guys on the jaw and body and knocked them out then, and do so now. Guys made other guys' punches miss then, and do so now. You don't go 20 rounds over and over again and not get knocked out and not know something about the art of self defense. And you don't knock out so many guys without knowing how to punch. They wanted to do both back then as much as they do today. You really think trainers or boxers in the gym now are some geniuses who have the secret formula or knowledge they didn't have back then? Kids come into the gym and learn the basics of punching and defense from folks who have done it or seen others do it. Same thing back then. Some are better and some are worse, both as teachers and as pupils. And there are tons of styles and ways to do things - some make it work, and some don't. Ali's lean back was criticized by many in the 60s, but guys like Corbett and Johnson did that way back when. Stick and move and clinch was done by guys like Corbett and Jack O'Brien and Johnson even before Ali used that stuff to frustrate guys like Liston. Nothing new. That Bernard Hopkins stuff - move, fire, smother, charge in, feint, duck, slide back - they did that back then too. Watch Joe Gans sometime for some in range boxing skill. They all had their own unique way of doing it, but if it works, it works, and it works in any era.

Johnson beat small guys, and he beat big guys. Willard was a massive guy who was 6'7" who weighed more than Liston and had a longer reach than Liston and no one argues that Johnson was not ahead on points through 20 rounds. McVey had a rock solid body, was over 200 pounds, like a young Mike Weaver - would put the bodies of heavies today to shame, and was knocking guys out left and right, but couldn't budge Johnson. Al Kaufman was 216 pounds and had a lengthy win streak over top contenders, mostly by knockout - but couldn't do anything with Johnson. Jeffries was 225. These guys could not lay a glove on him and even when they did Johnson could handle it.

People are in love with punchers, and I get that. They are entertaining and so much more fun to watch. But the fact is that masterful boxers often give great punchers fits. Johnson might have been dull and boring to many, he might have been the jazz of boxing, and few understood him, but when he fought elite guys those guys got frustrated big time.

 

Oh well, I guess I am in the minority....but I have always enjoyed being one! I think in spite of the neanderthal comparrisons, that Johnson has the reflexes, speed, stamina and skillset (for a caveman that is....perhaps if he were around today, he could be doing geiko commercials ;D) to beat Liston in a decision....Not trying to fall into the sterotype that many throw out on Tyson/Foreman slugger punchers, but I do feel that the longer this goes the more Johnson's chances increase (although I am still figuring this at 15 rds....above that I think Johnson's chances increase even moreso)...From 58-68 Liston did have a few 6-8 rd type stoppages and only 3 decisions. I like Johnson on the cards! JMHO

 

I would argue that film framing, film quality, projection speed, all influence some to favor modern boxing. You see that nice color, closeups, smooth and clear projection, and it seems better than that raggedy old film that has disintegrated and isn't projected properly and the fighters are further away from the camera. Plus, some guys had different styles. You show a clip from an exciting fight today and match it with a more technical cautious fight to the finish back then. A more proper comparison might be a slower paced bout today. A guy who stick and moves and runs and grabs, and suddenly it is looking about the same.