Jack Johnson vs. Sonny Liston

Yep. :good

If you wanna lose your money, bet on sonny.

 

Put up a poll.

It's amazing that a guy who struggles with Hart and Jim Johnson, KD'd by Ketchell and dogged out to a draw by O'Brien can somehow beat Liston.

 

Hart was a freaking aggressive monster who could take a world of punishment and keep coming and throwing no matter how many blows he took. Still, many disputed that decision, saying that Johnson outclassed him in every respect except for aggression.

The knockdown against Ketchel is debatable, especially if you watch the video in slow motion. Regardless, Johnson clearly carries Ketchel, even holding him up earlier in the bout when Stan is about to go down. Ugh. Then Johnson brutally KO's Ketchel a mere seconds after going down. Hmm.

Against Jim Johnson his arm was broke. He finished the fight. When Sonny hurt his shoulder, he quit on the stool.

Only a few said the O'Brien bout was a draw. Several, particularly the local reporters, as opposed to he non-local dispatches who often put whatever spin on a report that suited them, said Johnson won. O'Brien did not do well enough to garner enough momentum for another or longer bout. Everyone said that in a longer fight Johnson would KO him. O'Brien landed more taps, but Johnson landed the harder, more effective blows and dropped O'Brien a couple times.

 

You don't need to lowball Johnson Seamus, you're better than that...

1. Most felt he beat Hart and EVERYBODY said he was the superior boxer. This was an unmovtivated Johnson still schooling Hart. I equate it to Pea vs. Nelson or Ramirez... Just because they were hyper agressive.. doesn't mean than won the fight. Under moder rules Johnson easily wins that fight and you know it.

2. He finished the fight with Johnson... Liston has quit on his stool or just quit on the canvas.. This tells you which fighter had the most backbone eh?

3. Ketchel... He carried Ketchel.. LITERALLY. I can't even believe you used this, especially considering how suspicious the KD actually looked.

4. O'Brien.. please... nothing about that fight tells me Johnson lost, nor that he was even in shape or motivated. Yet, most thought Johnson won that fight.

Don't think I didn't notice you avoiding the questions about this thread handicapping Johnson. You know it does, I know it does, just like everybody else. The deck is stacked in favor of Liston... and yet, he still can't pull a majoirty of votes.. Kinda speaks volumes doesn't it? If we evened thing out a bit and gave some fairness to Johnson.. it would be a 20 or 26 round fight....with the clinching rules from back in Johnson time. That would even out the rules and inherient advantages liston has of being a modern fighter (training and expereince) and the fight being in modern times with NO time for Johnson to adjust and just thrown in there. Giving Johnson some allowances as I just named... Johnson would crush Liston.

 

The record states Johnson lost to Hart, states he drew with O'Brien and drew with Johnson (and was booed loudly), lucky to escape with his title. Enough news reports and first hand accounts back these results up, and not enough to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were incorrect. It is as though all less than heroic performances by Johnson require a higher level of proof, a higher level of scrutiny and doubt, than the typical result of the era.

The fact so many pick Johnson, even in light of his soft, under-sized opposition and less than overwhelming performances, proves only that his PR campaign over the past decades is far and away the best of any champion in the history of the sport. He has the greatest legion of apologists and myth-builders the realms of shitty journalists and cigar-chewing hack scribes have been able to construct.

Seriously, how long do you think O'Brien, Burns and Hart would last against Liston?

 

McGrain...But wouldn't you agree, that ALL reports of Hart Johnson have Johnson boxing circles around hart technically and landing the harder blows. The problem was, much like in many of his fights... He A. usually fought cautiously so to not make any mistakes and get caught (Joe. C.) and B. He felt like he was so far above some of his challengers he didn't train properly and take the fight seriously enough. However, make no mistake, EVERY fight report you see has Johnson dominating when he choose to and boxing technically circles around Hart. Yes, reports have Hart winning but SOLELY based on his aggression and the ref saying that was his no. 1 criteria. So, you must agree that under modern rules Johnson wins that fight pretty comfortably. Which is where my example comes in.. Nelson and Ramierez where really agressive and tried to through many blows and were pushing the fight. Pea was dodging a lot and landing his shots but still moving backwards and not being aggressive. Thus, he might have lost under the rule set of the Johnson-Hart fight.. yet me know Whitaker totally outclassed them but got clearly beat in the aggression category. Was it a little off in that whitaker probably even boxed better than Johnson.. sure... but it illustrates the point very well that the scoring for the Johnson-Hart fight was wacky by today's standards.. and by today's standards.. Johnson wins that fight which I think you'll agree with.

 

I'll answer your question when you answer mine big buddy..

 

Fair enough, and I will agree that Hart earned the chance to have his hand raised and put in the performance of his life. Still though, to not factor in wacky rules, and discount the fact that ALL reports had Johnson dominating when he choose to and boxing circles around Hart.. seems to be a little narrow minded. Not saying you're by any means. I'm simply just saying to not factor those very relevant variables in and only looking at the W isn't very judicious imo and doesn't paint an accurate picture of what really happened.

 

I'm not at all convinced that Johnson would have won under modern standards of judging against Hart.

I'm not sure anything's changed in that regard much. Boxers can display boxing "superiority" in every round but if they are too lazy to produce at a decent work-rate then you give the round to the guy doing the work.

 

It's interesting that you choose to portray JOhnson's career in that slanted light and expect to be taken seriously ... it's like portraying Liston as a man that lost to light heavyweights, was badly hurt by Williams, struggled w Machen, KO'ed twice by a light punching Ali, and iced by Leotis Martin ... obviously there is more to the story ...

 

Johnson was NOT unmotivated v.s. Hart ... it was a huge fight for him and his career .. even though the majority said he clearly deserved the decision the fact that it was competitive is to me the biggest question mark on Johnson's record ...