Jack Johnsons resume, why I consider him a top 5 all time heavyweight

excellent well researched post ,well done Janitor! johnsons claims to greatness rest largely on the body of work he acheived BEFORE he became champion.

 

At last something we agree on. Great post.

 

I actually consider the match in which Johnson lost his title as a key part of his legacy.

Jess Willard only dethroned Johnson because he was able to turn Havana into an endurance contest. But in the peak performance of Willard's career, Lil' Artha was the obviously superior boxer over the 15, 20 and 25 round distances, being especially dominant through the eventual true limit of 15 rounds. If in peak form, Johnson would have easily decisioned Willard over that scheduled 45 round limit as well. (However, I don't believe the Galvestonian ever had the firepower necessary to take Jess out.)

The two things which are most troubling to me about Johnson's peak are the tendency he had to loaf a bit, and what 159 pound Stan Ketchel was able to do to him in an unguarded moment. I believe that Corbett would have outhustled him for the decision if both were at their best, regardless of distance.

My top five heavyweights are Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Frazier and Holmes, but having Johnson in the top five is a perfectly reasonable conclusion for somebody to hold. Resume wise, he is indeed top three with Louis and Ali. If he had become a world champion at the same age they did, his resume probably would have surpassed theirs. (People sometimes forget that Johnson was already 30 when he dethroned Burns. But he was also a relatively late bloomer who needed to stand on his defeats against Choynski and Hart to successfully ascend that final step to the top.)

Should Johnson have not been talked (forced?) into a 45 rounder, he would have repulsed Willard's challenge, and very possibly have held the title inactive through the remainder of WW I. (Johnson, Louis and Ali all had their reigns interrupted by war. What would their resumes look like without armed conflict getting in the way?)

 

Janitor,

Fitz was a dead man when Johnson beat him, and he was only a super-middle

 

Very valid points ,over twenty rounds Johnson would likely have retained his crown

 

Quite true,Johnson who was never very gracious to his victims,or overly modest in victory said"the press overated my win over Fitxsimmons".Fitz was an old spent man,just as Jackson was against Jeffries.

 

I've got nothing against Johnson and in fact thought high enough of him to buy both the DVD and the book on him, by Burns, as seen on PBS. But to me beating a fighter 4 or 5 times is meaningless. Once perhaps twice is enough to demonstrate superiority after that, it's a meaningless number. But that doesn't change the basic premise of your comments, which I mostly agree with. I do think on average many of the fighters were smaller than him. But he grew up in hard, hard times, and he rose to the top..not an easy feat for anyone.

 

well, lets have a look.

Klondike in 00 = one point.
knocked out by Choynski two months later, I doc him one point, because he was green himself.
Losing to Griffin in 01, I doc him another point.
I give him a point for beating Everett, and that's being generous.
I give him a point for beating Childs. Though Childs was a smaller guy, A good win. Best since Klondike
I give him a point for beating Gardiner, a great fighter though a middleweight.
give him a point for beating Martin.
Fergueson and a green McVey do not get points from me.
beating Childs, Martin agian, another 2 points.
I will give him the benefit of the doubt vs Hart, I don't think that its a horrible decision there, but that has been discussed to death so we will just throw it out.
A point for Monroe
I throw out the Jeanette loss on DQ.
I give a point for him for beating Jeanette over 15.
I give him two points for beating a green and small Sam.
I give him nothing for Ruby.
give him a point for Flynn
and two points for Tommy Burns.
I doc him one point because he underestimated O'Brien and PJOB made him look bad.
A point for Kaufman, and one for Ketchel.
give him nothing for the Boilermaker.
a point for Moran.
don't doc him any for losing to Willard, as mentioned, it goes 15-20 its Jacks game.

So the final score
16 points, of which I take away 3. 13 points.

and, sadly, I am hard pressed to pick a definitive fight. His best wins being over a small and green Sam Langford, a still developing Joe Jeanette. Some fairly good contender types. A couple of ATG middleweights, An under rated pound for pound (but truly small heavyweight) Burns. And three fairly run of the mill white hopes.

Compare that to Jeffries.

I give Jeffries a point for beating Griffin.
I give him a point for beating Goddard.
Even though Jeff got the better of Choynski, we will call it even because Choynski was such middleweight even though Jeffries was green.
Nothing for Jackson.
Since I gave Johnson a point for Everett, I will do the same for Jeffries.
I give him two points for beating Sharkey.
A point for Armstrong.
Two for Fitz.
Two for Sharkey again.
Two for Corbett.
A point for Ruhlin.
one for Ruby and an extra point because Ruby's gloves were loaded.
one for Corbett II
and a point for Monroe.
nothing held against him because comeback against Jack was asinine.

16 for Jeffries and thats without loaded gloves and diminishing returns on Corbett and Ruby Fitz and totaly giving Johnson the benifit of the doubt on early Choynski/Griffin losses the Hart loss and the Jeanette DQ.

Jeffries legacy KO's Johnsons.

 

I grant, here, that in Johnson's prime he was very dominant, beat many name opponents and had only two, as you say, somewhat iffy losses in a hectic time period. However:

This is where I think you're glossing things over a bit. Looking down the list you made there, a few of those guys just plain weren't especially good(Felix, Lang, Flynn, Bill), Fitzsimmons was shot and a finished fighter, and Langford, McVey and Jeanette were all very green. I'm not usually one to be too picky on the whole "this guy was a hype job, this guy was old, this guy was small" curve of argument, but in this case, Johnson's opponents were either so mediocre, so old or so small that I can't really overlook it.
And even more importantly, there is not a single genuine star heavyweight in that entire group, and Johnson ultimately turned down his chances to fight that type of opposition. Overall, I can't place his resume on the same level with most of the rest of my top 10 heavyweights.

 

Well, why does Johnson beating Jeff count for nothing, but Jeff gets a point for beating a 37 year old Corbett who also hadn't fought in 3 years.
In August 1903, the SF Chronicle listed Johnson and Sam McVea as the leading contenders for Jeff's title. McVea may not have been the fighter he would become a few years later, but he had wins over Carter and Martin and was certainly worth points. He was a better fighter than Munroe even at this point.
And why does Johnson get no credit for wins over Tom Cowler, Homer Smith, Bob Roper, etc after 1915.
I don't understand the thinking behind Sandy Ferguson being worth nothing either. Or Peter Felix and Bill Lang.

 

Though I think Johnson is the superioir fighter ,you have been objective and fair in your assessment,my respects to you.:good

 

If Johnson is not docked any for losing to Willard, then should Jeff be credited for

when their first match would have been Corbett's over 15 to 20 rounds, and very nearly was over the 25 round limit?

For me, Willard would actually count in Johnson's favor, while Jeffries/Corbett I is considered by me to be in Corbett's favor (although I won't usually count either match against the eventual winner). My perspective here is that if Willard isn't going to be counted against Johnson, that Jeffries/Corbett I ought not to be counted in Jeff's favor either. Granted, it's nitpicking, but it seems to me that an equitable standard should be applied to each side of the same equation.

According to the formula applied here, then I would also expect that Willard gets two for Johnson (if this criteria were to be applied with consistency and fairness).