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

In many ways they are, but Johnson did cross over, unlike, say, Langford who had to fight Harry Wills, McVea, and Jeantte multiple times. It is very subjective when you have to compare multiple fights with the same guy.


I think both Johnson and Jeffries beat out Holmes though, I am sure Holmes fans will not agree with me. It is interesting that Johnson talks usually turn into Holmes ones. Its logical as both fighters did their best work when they had to, and both title reigns suffered because of it.

For what its worth my "never to be equaled, scientific ratings system applied to Larry Holmes"

1 pt for Shavers
2 for Norton (his best win and for the title)
1 for Occasio (who deserved a shot for beating Young twice)
nothing for past it Ali
1 for Shavers for title
1 for Snipes
1 for Cooney (a strectch, but it was an event)
1 for Spoon (as I gave the nod to McVea for Johnson for a point)
nothing for Frank, nothing for Frazier, nothing really for any of the IBF defenses)
2 because I think he beat Spinks in II
1 for him for Mercer

those were his quality legacy wins.

no harm in losing to Evander or McCall.
So I guess that means I give him 11. But I take away for losing to Spinks and Tyson, both greats and Holmes on the downslide so only one point deductions. So 9 for Holmes

 

Just out of interest Langford where do you rate Holmes?

 

He is out of my top five, but firmly in my top ten.
I can rank him higher head to head, but in the end, its whom you fight.

 

I have him at 5,but wish he had fought Page and Thomas ,and given Witherspoon and Williams return fights,I suppose his rationale was he was getting older fighting young men ,and the cash was allways a factor,money didnt talk to Holmes,it shouted.

 

yeah, I agree, he would be ranked higher by me if he had at least tried to unify and met guys like Page, Thomas and Dokes.

I am one of the few people who believes that Tyson actually accomplished more than Larry.

Tyson fought better versions of Berbick, Smith, Williams, than the versions that Holmes fought. Unlike Holmes, he met Tubbs and Thomas. Of course he crushed Spinks. I would probably rate Ruddock just as high as Shavers.
Tyson lost to Douglas and Holmes never lost to anyone that bad (of course it was the best night of Douglas life, those are things that are lost when you can't see an opponents history when they are from older eras).

 

Very good post. I actually put Johnson at around #9 on my list (all factors considered), however you've constructed a very good argument and I agree with many of your main points. Here's my all-time Top 20 list, note that much of the mid-portion is very close to call:

This content is protected

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Joe Frazier
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Mike Tyson
8. Sonny Liston
9. Jack Johnson
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Jack Dempsey
12. George Foreman
13. Jim Jeffries
14. Gene Tunney
15. Riddick Bowe
16. Floyd Patterson
17. Harry Wills
18. Joe Walcott
19. Sam Langford
20. Max Schmeling

 

I don't think you can justify someone being #3 when he ducked not one but 3 or 4 very deserving challengers during his entirely pathetic title reign. Yes, what he did before that was great, but no one rates Tyson #3 for complete dominance (against equally sized or bigger opponents for a change) while ****ing up afterwards.

 

I don't rate him at #3 either but he's definite Top 10 material and I can understand people who argue Top 6. janitor has made some very valid reasons with his post.

Ps: Just out of interest how highly do you rate Johnson all-time? Also why exactly do you regard his title reign as "totally pathetic", could you elaborate on this and back up your point with reasoning?

Thanks, Neil.

 

Interesting point. The other side of the coin is Johnson lost to lesser men before he won the title, and had some draws which might have been losses as champion vs lesser men too.

If we are talking about a pioneer legend, Johnson can be top 3. But in a head to head case or a resume case as champion, not a chance.

 

I actually think that Johnson would be a very formidable head-to-head force, perhaps not Top 3 but he'd give many fellow greats a tough night that's for sure.

 

He had a better record than McVey, or Jeanette when they fought Johnson, in addition to an amateur career. Witherpsoon’s best effort may have been the Holmes fight. You can’t call that green.

Shavers was better than Martin. He was an all time puncher.

And Cooney would cream a guy like Sandy Ferguson. I don’t think anyone here thinks Ferguson was any good. Cooney was dangerous, and cleaned out some past their prime fighters like Norton, Lyle and Young.

Holmes was 36 when he lost a close fight to great light heavy, and decent heavy. Holmes was cheated vs Spinks. Johnson was in his prime when he drew with O'Brien.

As Champion, Lennox Lewis cleaned out an era. He fought Holy 2x, Tyson, McCall, V Klitschko, Bruno, Tua, Ruddock, and many others. As Champion Johnson skirted all of the top contenders. There is a huge difference here. The fact that Lewis had to drop a belt or two due to politics to go for Tyson and a big pay day is not a big mark against him. The fact that Johnson had some big pays days to fight McVey, Langford, and Jeanette, but opted for cheaper fights vs lesser talents is.

Sorry Janitor. If you want to add up the box rec numbers and compare the rated fighters that Lewis and Holmes fought as champion in comparison to Johnson, Johnson losses by a country mile. If you want to look at the winning percentages of the fighters that Holmes, Lewis and Johnson fought, Johnson also looses by a big margin. A “ box rec “ argument does not work for Johnson at all. The reverse is true.

 

Hi Neil,

The reason i called his title reign totally pathetic is because his opposition was a joke. I can understand why he did it: he wanted to show that the black man was not inferior by taking on all white hopes, but they were white jokes. Middleweight Ketchel who knocked him down? Tony Ross? Moran? Journeymen. Drawing in a 10 round fight against samed-named journeyman?

Also funny that some people say fights with a prime Langford / Jeanette / McVey were all not marketable because they were black, but when it's a black journeyman like Battling Johnson, of course the people were dying to see that so it happened. Sounds a bit like Bill crying that Holmes didn't want to get involved with King so he didn't fight Page, but when it's a Cobb, a Zanon or a Ocasio, all of a sudden the fact that it's a King fighter doesn't matter anymore.
Either one of Langford, McVey, and Jeanette should've gotten a chance when they were not green/middleweights, Johnson beat them but in a very early stage of their careers. Remember they didn't come off long amature careers back then.
Did you see how much **** Wlad got when he had to fight an unworthy challenger in Ray Austin? Well he disposed of him in 2 rounds using exclusively the left hand. Can you imagine the amount of **** he would've gotten had he fought Peter McNeely as a voluntary, not mandatory, defense and drew with him over 10 rounds without a rematch? There is some historical revisionism here. The same standards must be applied.

Gunboat Smith is another that should've gotten a shot instead of for instance Flynn, whom he by the way stopped twice as fast as Johnson did.

I can understand why a shot Jeffries got a titleshot, Johnson needed to remove that doubt. But that doesn't mean it's a great win. I think the win means very little, just like Holmes' win over Ali.

He also didn't rematch Hart (before he won the title, Hart was pretty much done by 1910). I can imagine Hart not wanting to rematch as the decision was somewhat controversial, but still it misses on his resume. I'm not saying he should've done all of those, but being the #3 heavyweight of all time puts you at a very high standard.

And on top of that, there is the fact that he rarely fought someone of his own size. That, combined with the above eliminates him from the #3 for me.


I don't really have a definite top10 list, but if i'd had to make one, it would look something like this:

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Lewis
4. Marciano
5. Holmes
6. Tyson
7. Frazier
8. Foreman
9. Johnson
10. Holyfield

.. to which i will add that there's very little between #5 and #10 in my opinion. I think the top4 is a level above the rest however, and the top2 is also a step above the rest.

Regards.

 

In his prime but not in orime shape,and he didnt draw once again NO DECISION.,plus he dropped OBrien TWICE.