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

Fccusing on Johnson's accomplishments as a fighter prior to beating Burns is a good thread. I want to start out by saying that I think Johnson was the best active heavyweight out there from 1906-1907, and I would pick him vs ANYONE, with the possible excption of Marvin Hart in this two year window. Being the #1 gun for two years as heavyweight means something.

The wins Janitor posted are impressive on paper, but they are misleading if you study the ages, experience levels, records and weights of Johnson VS McVey, Jeanette, and Langford. I have said this before and it true.

Janitor lists 25 notable wins for Johnson prior to facing Burns in this thread. Ok--Granted. However prior to facing Burns Jack Johnson

This content is protected

, and

This content is protected

! That is 16 unsatisfactory results. I challenge anyone here to show me a fighter in their top 5 who had the same amount of dubious results prior to winning the title. Such man does not exist. As I showed the board, Johnson title run was rather poor in terms of results, he got lucky not to lose at least once, perhaps twice, and he clearly avoided the best competition out there. When grading a fighter we must take the good with the bad, then make our best guess as to where he ranks. At least that is how I do it.

At this point I want to comment on the fighters that Janitor listed. Let's look at the fighter’s record, and judge if he was in his prime or near prime when Johnson beat him.


Denver Ed Martin X 2: 14-1, and 15-4. IMO, these are very good wins. Martin was in his prime or near prime and had a good record. Though he had an extremely suspect durability to the head or body, Martin could fight. I also think Martin had more fights under his belt than the record indicates.


Sam McVey X 3: 6-0, 8-1, 8-2. McVey was a teenager with just a few fights when he meet Johnson. Essentially, Johnson beat a very young, but talented amateur. IMO, the Martin wins are more impressive.

Sandy Ferguson: Ferguson resume is that of a good journeyman’s. He beat bad fighters, but almost always lost to the better ones. Johnson failed to knock Ferguson out, and had to settle for points or ND's. These wins good, not great.

Joe Butler: Butler was well past his best. In fact his recent record was 1 win, 3 losses and 1 ND going into the Johnson fight. After the Johnson fight, Butler's record was 2-8, with 1 ND. Johnson beat a non name shot fighter. IMO, this is not a big win at all.

Black Bill: Bill meet Johnson in a series of fights from 1904-1906. But who was he really? Bill's record is full of soft touches early on. Once he stepped up in class from the Johnson fight in 1904 to 1914, his record is horrible. How horrible was Bill from 1904-1914? He was 10-14-1 with TEN KO losses. This is not a big win at all. Bill was a trial horse.

Frank Childs: Childs was a good fighter, but he was out of his prime when he meet Johnson. Indeed, from the time he first meet Johnson to his retirement, Child's record was 2-4-1. Childs Starting fighting in 1892 ( perhaps before then ). His prime was in the 1890's, not 1904 fight Janitor is talking about when Childs was one month away from being 37 years of age. This win means very little.

Jim Jeffords: Was 26-19-4 when he first meet Johnson, and 39-5-8 when he last meet Johnson. HOWEVER what was Jeffords ring record from the time he first meet Johnson to retirement? Try just 2 wins and 13 losses, with 9 KO losses. These wins for Johnson mean very little.

Joe Jeanette: Jeanette was 0-3 when he first meet Johnson, and no better 9-8-1 when he last fought Johnson in 1906! While Jeanette would later turn out to be great, he clearly was nothing when he fought Johnson. Sorry, the truth is the truth.

Jack Munroe - Munroe was a solid fighter, with a known 11-3-3 record, with only 1 KO loss, however he was 230 pounds for the fight according to the news read I read. Box rec says,

Let's chalk this win up as a good, but not great no decision win vs an out of shape fighter.

Sam Langford - Langford was 156 pounds in 1906. In 1905, Sam lost to temple, a very green Jeanette, and drew with three other guys before facing Johnson. Right after the Johnson fight, Young Peter Jackson stopped Langford. To say Langford was a heavyweight terror in 1906 is false. He would grow into one years later. I beleive this is a very good win for Johnson, but let's not go over board here.

Peter Felix: was 18-12-7, a loser of 4 of his last six fights coming into the Johnson match over 40+ years of age. After the Johnson fight, Felix was Ko'd many times. This win means nothing.

Bill Lang: was 5-3-1 when he meet Johnson with no clean wins over anyone with a reported winning record. Lang was very green.

Fitz : Fitz had a great resume. The best on the list by far prior to 1908. However he was old and fighting with a bad injury before the match started. The fight meant little. Even Johnson himself said so.

Fireman Flynn - was 13-2-10. This was a good win vs a fringe contender type. But 12 non wins in 25 fights is not great.

There we have it. A review of the wins Janitor listed. I for one am not overly impressed. The best win might be Ed Martin, or Langford. There are no wins vs anyone I would rank as a top 5 heavy when the fights happened, except maybe Martin and at best he was a #4 or #5.
Most of the wins are vs green, or over the hill fighters. Or guys who simply were joruneyman types. I for one am not as impressed as some other here may be. If anyone wants to dispute the above on a fighter, start a seperate Jack Johnson vs thread, but be sure to include the date of the fight. I might have made a counting error in this post, but I am pretty sure the information I posted is solid.

 

Felix was a decent contender in the late 1890s, but he was over 40 years old when Johnson got to him and was losing to everyone and their mothers. If Wlad Klitschko beats up an ancient Lou Savarese for his next fight, I'm not about to use it to prop up his historical legacy. Lang was inexperienced at the time, and never beat an elite heavyweight anyway; this just isn't a substantial win.

I'm not criticizing Johnson for fighting Fitzsimmons- I'm saying the win doesn't help his legacy.

Yes, I'm not disputing that those guys were already regarded as world-class. You're missing my point- the wins don't carry full weight. He didn't beat any real star heavyweights at their best. When he had the chance to fight Langford, McVey and Jeanette while they were on top and were the three best challengers to his title, he turned them down. The wins don't have full efficacy and the fact that he dodged them in their primes weighs down on him.

It certainly couldn't be said of Holmes that, with full opportunity to make the fights, he turned down the three exceedingly outstanding challengers to his title. Nor that he had a lackluster title reign in which he faced hardly any worthy challengers and repeatedly put out embarrassing performances.

To some extent I think it's more that you're taking some guys who were like their days' equivalent of Scott LeDoux, some guys who may once have been decent but were utterly, utterly shot, and some guys who had a half-dozen pro fights and looking at them as though they were all prime top contenders.
Using your Holmes comparison, if I wanted to pad his resume with guys like Scott LeDoux, Lorenzo Zanon, David Bey, etc., I could make a ginormous list of wins Holmes put together and argue from the depth of his resume that he belongs in the top five of all time. Then, when you tried to pick holes in it by pointing out that a lot of those guys were not very good(LeDoux, Lucien Rodriguez, Zanon, Bey, L. Spinks, etc.) and, say, Ali and Louis would get virtually zero credit on their resumes for beating that type of fighter, some of them were utterly shot(Ali), some of them were very green(Witherspoon, Williams), etc., and argued that Holmes' resume is relatively poor compared with guys who beat a lot of actual star heavyweights in their primes, I could say, "But stand back and look at the whole picture!" Except Holmes does actually have more wins over top contenders who were genuinely in their hey-days, as I see it(Shavers, Cooney, Mercer, a Norton who was only slightly on the downhill).

 

McVey was 8-4, with three losses in a row when Jeffries had his last fight in 1904. The 1904 loss to Ed Martin bothered McVey, and he nearly gave boxing up for good. I don't see McVey as a contender for Jeffries.

I disagree that Jeanette or McVey were significant wins when it happened. I do agree they look great on a reusme. Langford was better, but he was just too small back then.

This is ture. However when Johnson was matched vs a prime or near prime guy his size ( Choynski, Griffin, Hart, and Klondike ) he got the worst of it.

Ture. Dempsey had some losses and draws, and these should be facoted in too. Why Demspey had trouble with Meehan is puzzling. But in the end Dempsey did not as many as losses and draws as Johsnon did, and fought better guys in title fights.

Very intersting. What were the reported fights? I agree that the Martin win was a big one for Johnson. Pehraps the best win you listed.

Ferguson lost to the best more often than not, quit in fights, and really was not that good.

Hyped? Yes. Good? No. I have some reads on Ferguson. Would you like to see them? Ferguson was not the only white contender willing to fight the black dynamtie crew. Fireman Flynn did the same. So did Ross and a lot of other guys.

He was shot.

I skiped a few names you posted ( Childs, Jeffords, Lang, Felix, et al ) because it would just be a re-hash of what I said earlier. I agree looking at the whole body of work is the key. Persoanlly I give fighters a break in their first 10 fights or so, and when they are past their primes. Eveything else in the middle is fair game. Yes, Holmes resume of wins will look impressive 100 years from now. Holmes fought guys with better records, won more often, was only TKO once when he was past it vs an all time puncher, made 20 title defense,and was at one point 48-0.

 

.

 

.

 

I agree, and I do not hold them against Jack that much. Like I would say, Lewis vs. Rahman.

Yes he was a Crafty fighter.

Not really. He was chinny and lacked defense. I do not think that you can put him in the same catagory as Tom Sharkey. (A pre Jeffries II Sharkey)
Two good, but I humbly disagree as to them being great wins. If a Jeffries vs. Martin fight ever pops up, I would say the same thing, good but not great great win. Too much is made of Martin.

His record at the time does not reflect that. Tim had amatuer experience,
a win over Ratliff and another over Snipes. Both either top ten or near top ten guys, plus, I think it is not a super great win for Holmes that he struggled with such a fresh heavyweight whom he never granted a rematch to.
Ok, a point for McVea, the one that beat Martin (who was taylor made for him, and middleweight Carter)

[/quote] At the verry least he should get three points.[/quote]

I just don't see it. Sam McVey (McVea) was not the finished product yet by any means. I would give him three points for beating McVey one time, in say, 1909.

Sandy should be commended for fighting, like Everett, fighters of all different backgrounds. But that does not change the fact that he was, at best, a solid journeyman who didn't have the hangups that many American fighters had about crossing the color line. He knew that he would get paid more to take on black challangers, knew he had no hope of reaching the top himself, and there is absolutely no reason why Johnson should have fought him five times, this wasn't Robinson vs. LaMatta. (other than cash, which is always a great reason)

at best, one point.

Jeffries win is not that impressive. Jeffries had beat nobody in the past six years. Didn't have a single tune up fight and I equate Jeffries loss with Jeffries beating Peter Jackson. I don't think you can give Johnson Jeffries and not give Jeffries Jackson.

Butler was well past it by the time he was fed to a young Johnson.
Black Bill
A 1907 Peter Felix
These are not legacy type fights.






[/quote] While Jeffries has the edge in consistency and perhaps a slight edge in quality, Johnson has the edge in depth by a country mile.[/quote]

Johnson was much, much more active. But quality wins are something that Jeffries has over Johnson, which is what I use most to rank all the fighters that I admire and I like Johnson. I am holding none of Johnsons losses over him, I think I was generous with him, and still
I do not think he matches up.

But I like what you had to say and there are far worse legacies than Johnsons.

 

This is a rediculous argument. So if I'm either faster than you, bigger than you, stronger than you, hit harder than you or am just a better boxer and I beat you, you should win the next fight?

So, for example, you're saying that if Lewis fought Tua another 4 times Tua would find a way to win? Sorry I'm not buying into that argument at all.

But this argument aside, many others have brought up extremely valid points. It would have been nice if he'd given Langford, and others, a shot while he was champ, if he was after a legacy of some kind. The fact is Johnson didn't care much about his legacy, he fought for the money and as such, he legacy isn't what it may have been if he fought with a different objective in mind.

 

Sure, Holmes was 48-0 at one point with 20 title defense in a row. He was an active champion and fought men ( Bigger and stronger ) with far better records than Johnson's opponents. Holmes also beat Ali, who is viewed as the #1 guy by Ko, beat Norton who beat Ali, and beat Shavers 2x who was a huge puncher. Holmes was also robbed in the 2nd fight vs Spinks. Johnson lucked out vs Jim Johnson, and drew vs O’Brien. In a box rec sense, Holmes towers above Johnson. Unlike Johnson, Holmes was never embarrassed on the way up or in his prime. The math here is easy.

Lewis had multiple titles, and unlike Johnson he could be striped of one of them if he didn’t make mandatory’s. Making more than 2 mandatories in a year is hard. Lewis opted for fights vs Grant and Tyson, over Ruiz and Byrd. They were one time affairs, not a case of sustained ducking. Of Course Lewis won both fights vs Grant and Tyson via KO. No one in the press thought Ruiz or Byrd would likely beat Lewis. They would be heavy underdogs vs Lewis.