Jack Johnson vs. Sonny Liston

This content is protected

:mj

[yt]VldGL5Un7Ds[/yt]

Foreman Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook!:smoke

 

I agree with you about evolution. I think boxing technique evolved exponentially from dot until about the 20's. I think it then levelled off a bit with the only significant improvements being in nutritional information.

Johnson never fought anyone as good as liston. We do know, however, he was one the hardest to hit in his era. One of the fastest hands and one of the more intelligent.

Based on film, johnson was a level above his peers in terms of what he could do.

I'm not sure on the outcome here, but liston's slow hands and one dimensional attack make it open for debate.

Liston was a wrecking ball who jabbed is way and through hooks and wide shots up close.

His jab was slow but powerful.

I think i'm trying to say, johnson does have the tools at his disposal to make this a fight worth actually considering.

 

I agree with all this.

I don't see the alleged difference from old-timer to modern skill.
Not only can I see the old-timers doing all those things that moderns are credited with, they wrote boxing manuals that covered all these techniques that some don't seem to believe existed back then !

If I remember rightly, Jack Blackburn tried to model Joe Louis on Joe Gans. There's was never any suggestion that Louis was using stuff that Blackburn didn't know about back in his day.

 

Like I said, the exact way folks do things can vary. But if it works it works. Fighters have their strengths and weaknesses. Some throw a punch one way, and others another. Some lean back when throwing, some crouch down, some lean forward. There are good fighters who do things a myriad of ways depending on their physical attributes, talent, natural inclination, and way they combine their skills together, or use what I call compensating values - doing things not totally "by the book" but doing other things to make up for it. Same today as then. Top fighters can have different styles and methods, and combine them in varying ways, but if the end product is that you know how to win a fight, you know how to win a fight.

Keep in mind also that there are thousands upon thousands of fights, fighters, and styles that simply have been lost in time except for news reports, owing to the fact that they were either not filmed or the films were destroyed or disintegrated. So you cannot totally assume that the style fighters use in one particular fight represents an entire era or all fighters from that era, or even the style that fighter used in other fights. For example, Fitzsimmons had fights were he attacked, fights where he stuck and moved, and fights were he stood and waited to counter. Plus, often when the two best guys in a division fight, it can often become a cautious tactical boxing match - just like today - but if you saw them in more bouts you'd see more excitement. So we are only looking into a small window. Anyway, the overall argument I'm making is fighting is fighting. If you can punch and knock out a guy in 1900 and block the blows he's using to knock you out in 1900, then you can do it in 1960 too.

 

the head forward 'power' jab (klit or hagler say) is used a lot more in modern fighting imo. in pre 30's i mostly see it from the odd crouch position

the 'fencing' jab has changed due to the amatuer boxing scoring code and bigger gloves making blocking/catching shots earlier.

johnson over liston as he wears liston out (as much mentally as anything) by 2/3 distance imo

 

I didnt think this was a fight people could actually debate.

Jack defense of catching on the glove and leaning his head right back is essentially useless when you have a man with a longer reach, stepping forward with real thudding, blunt force, pressure jabs.

What could Jack actually do to take a win here?

 

There's nothing that could be considered peculiar in the styles of these two, from what I can see anyway :

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRhSQWbqvqs&feature=related[/ame]


Both are throwing a lot of lead jabs, neither of them is in a particularly upright or a lean-back stance. They are doubling up on jabs, and throwing combinations.
And the work-rate is impressive for the 38th round !

Of course, this fight was so long that it might have bridged the gap between "primitive" and "evolved" boxing.
They entered the ring as 'neanderthals' and left as 'modern boxers'.

 

Ok, have your facetious fun.

Great hitters?
Foster, Wilde, Jenkins, Delaney , Hostak, Marshall,Robinson,Choynski, Fitzsimmons,McCoy, Trinidad,Hearns.

Any of them particularly strong?

Strong men .
Carnera,Lamotta,Fullmer,Chuvalo, Cobb,Risko,Uzcudun, Valuev.

Any of them big bangers?

 

No, Ali leaned back too and folks criticized it, but it worked. Worked for Corbett too. And no Corbett was not the acme of punching. I have quotes from Fitzsimmons where he dogs on Corbett's punch form. Corbett wasn't lauded for his punching ability but more so for his science in terms of hitting and not being hit. He was a clever guy. He could be a slapper though. And so too could Mayweather be a slapper at times. There were plenty of guys with brutal left hooks, guys like Choynski, Langford, Dempsey, Sullivan. The hook existed for sure. But guys like Corbett preferred straight punches for the most part because he liked to remain as far away from his opponent as possible. He also leaned and pulled back a lot, as Ali did at times, because his number one focus was not to hit you but to make sure you did not hit him.

 

Unlikely. Jack had great defense for the era he was active in,but Liston's piston like jab would have penetrated it too often.

 

For example, everyone knows that Naseem Hamed did not follow the rules of boxing, but he was a champion who won a lot of fights against very good fighters. He might not have thrown his punches in a textbook fashion, but when he hit chins, guys went down. So could he punch?