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

SLOW DOWN. I said, as for who Johnson could have given title shots to, Langford, McVey and Jeanette come to mind. There were big money offers to Johnson to take these fights. I think this is a given, Mcvey. Iproved it by posting the new reads. No other lineal champ ducked his top three contenders over a long period! Just admit it, and move on.

After Langfrod, McVey, and Jeanette, there was Gunboat Smith ( Who hurt Johnson in a sparring session ), and beat many top fighters, Luther McCarty who some felt was the best of the " white hopes ", Jack Dillion who was tough as nails and known as a " giant killer " and Jeff Clark who was a speedy boxer type, a bit like O'Brien. Clarke bested top fighters, the same as Gunbaot Smith. Any one of these seven fighters would give a qualified contender a title shot from 1908-1915. That is my point. My point is not that some of them ( McCarthy ) were not active or ranked until 1912.

When I said 1908-1915, I referred to a field of people, not one fighter in particular.

I will stand by any of the seven men I mentioned who were active from 1908-1915 were better then MOST of the fighters Johnson gave a title shot to, with Willard being the exception in some cases. I will also say if Johnson beat any one of the seven, his legacy goes up.

Instead, he had a poor showing vs a past his prime O'brein, got knocked down by Ketchel, had to settle for an ugly DQ win vs Flynn, got lucky to escpae with a draw vs Jim Jonhson, and barely edged Moran. This is shamefull, and it amazes me how few people really understand what happened in these fights.

If you want debate the resumes of the men I mentioned vs the easy marks Johsnon slected for title shots, go for it. In the end, the matches were there to be made vs the best fighter. Johnson made none of them.

 

I too have been following this Jack Johnson topic over the variety of threads that Dr. Z, oh I mean Mendoza, and others have started and I have found it meddening and interesting. A couple of points I would like to make.

Dr. Z keeps referring to Johnson's title defenses against Ketchel, O'brien and Bat Jim as proof of one thing or another, yet he does so with only half the facts, or the facts as he interprets them.

These are just some random thoughts I had while reading through the various posts.

1) Does anyone have a primary source that the Battling Jim fight was scheduled for 20 rounds and not ten. Z's own NYT article states clearly that it was a ten rounder.
2) The Ketchel fight was a flagrant rip off. It is continually mentioned that Johnson got dropped by the middleweight champ, but rarely is it discussed that Jack nearly killed Ketchel some ten seconds later. Gee ya think he was holding back?
3) The Obrien fight was a joke--a money maker for Johnson that he neither trained for, nor took seriously. He wanted his money and he got it, a lot of it for six rounds of walking around with O'brien. To twist it in to anything but what it was, is simply wishful thinking. Nobody would have paid to see a rematch, nor do I think any promoter would finance one.
4) Jeff Clarke was a middleweight and only fought heavyweights because those were the only men he could get to share the ring with him. he had no designs on challenging Johnson and never did. Yes he was good, he was damn good(the best middleweight on the planet in my opinion between 1910 and 1914), but to list him as someone who Johnson should have fought is ridiculous. PBF is a great deal better than most all of the heavyweights roaming around these parts but it hardly qualifies him as someone who should challenge for the heavyweight title.
5) Using statistics cannot give anyone the insight or the information needed to truly make an assesment of the quality of any opponent--nor does a newspaper report from one source give us the entire story of what was or what was not happening. I think Janitor said it best a number of posts ago--you have to consider all the factors of the time, the particulars of the fights and fighters and then evaluate everything that was happening around them. You cannot simply go to BoxRec and say, fighter A beat fighter B and Fighter C beat fighter A and so on an so forth.
6) Johnson was not a knockout artist. If anyone knows anything abotu Johnson, his style was defensive and that is how he fought. The fact that he didn't knockout so and so and somebody else did, has little to do with anything about Johnson.
7) Marvin Hart took a beating from Jack Johnson.
8) Neither Jeanette nor Young Peter Jackson knocked out Sam Langford. He retired in both bouts because of injury.
9) There is a certain amount of folly in the stating that Johsnon should have fought the fearsome threesome. They were constantly fighting one another and constantly beating and losing to one another. Langford was clearly the cream of the crop and Johnson ducked him--no doubt in my mind on that one.
10) I think Jeffries comp as champ is highly over-rated--a mixture of much smaller men and older champs. Because they were name fighters, and former champs, they tend to get the benefit of the doubt.
11) How come Johsnon's win over Langfordis dismissed--a fight he dominated by the way--because of the weight difference, yet Jeffries wins and draws versus Sharkey and Fitz and even Corbett are not. Did he not hold 20 plus pound weight advantages over these men. To dismiss the win versus Langford is ridiculous.
12) Jeff Clarke did not merely earn a draw with middleweight Frank Mantell. He slammed him around the ring and boxed his ears off--oh and Jeff weight less than Frank at the time.
13) McVey was not as green as he is being made out to be by some folks here. Again, dismiss Johnson's wins over him at your own peril. He was a heck of a lot better then than he is being given credit for. Sam had been around the block a few times before meeting Jack. I would not argue that he was at his peak, but he was still a fairly formidable foe. I would also argue that Jack was hardly as his peak when the two met either.

 

Great Post ! I think I agreed with most of it in mine earlier!
I wasnt aware Clark beat Mantell that emphatically ,the result I have was that it was a draw ,end of story.
Mendoza,aka Dr Z slams Johnson for meeting Langford when he was young and weighed 156 to his 185,but lauds Jeffries when he stops a 37 year old Fitzwho had been inactive and was conceding 45 lbs to him similarly his win over Corbett is highly meritorious yet Corbett was nearly 34 ,had had one losing fight to Sharkey in 2 years ,and was conceding 30 lbs,both men gave Jefries hard fights.Langford as he should be was beaten up by Johnson.
My post to Chris Pontious said I thought Johnsons wins over Jeanette , Langford and Mcvey were underated ,you have reinforced that view.Dr Mendoza like to have his cake ,and eat it,as you have shown!.

 

And what are the facts that I missed. Please do tell!

My poster name is Mendoza. French papers and the Cyberboxing Zone say its 20 rounds, with the French papers being a primary source. Either way Jack should have lost the fight. Oh yeah, the injury happened in the last round according to the crowd. Next.

A fighter is dangerous when he's hurt, which Johnson was. Ketchel was not out for a long period of time. In fact he picks his head up up during the count, and then stayed down.

More excuses! A joke? How past it was O'brein? Read the news reads. They think O'Brien was better by a small margin. Who says no one wanted to see a re-match? Can you psot a source?

Big deal! O’Brien, and Ketchel were middle weights too. Burns was but 168 and ill when he fought Johnson for the title. Yet Johnson gave them title shots! The way I see it, Johnson had no issues fighting middle weights. I am correct here. Please stop with the Clarke didn't qualify or do enough for a titiel shot whiel Johnson was champion. Clark was fighting and holding his own, or getting the better of the best black fighters that Johnson ducked! The bottom line is Clarke was one of the best heavies out there during Johnson's title reign.

The films would be better. Still, most heavyweight champions whip the fighters Johnson fought, and look good doing it. Johnson has excuses, poor performances, and as you said, ripped off the fans during his fights, and by not making the fights the fans wanted to see.

I agree, though I do think Johnson could punch. Smart fighters ( and Johnson was smart ) pick the best style for them. Those safety first defensive counter puncher types don't have good durability at heavyweight. At least there has never been one that I can think of. Furthermore, films show Johnson did not throw a lot of punchers. Since he wasn't a huge puncher, and had a low punch out put, points wins in fantasy fights for him are less likely than one would think.

Hart won the fight. Johnson dogged it the entire second half of the fight. Hart Hurt Johnson with a body shot that nearly dropped him in round 12. Johnson cornermen were urging their man on, but Johnson did little. Pulling an Ocsar de la Hoya for 10 rounds is no way to win a fight in those days. At stake here was a possible shot at Jeffries for the winner. Johsnon's poor showing vs men with experince vs heavies ( Choysnki, Griffin, and Hart ) prove he wasn't all that he was cracked up to be. As I said before, these fighters were harder tests for Johnson than Langford, Jeanette, and McVey...because they had beaten BETTER competion and had far more experince vs heavies.

Also, Johnson could have offered Hart a re-match after he beat Burns. Johnson was no Joe Louis. He did not give re-matches when he looked bad in title elimination or title matches.

Yes, and both managed to stop Langford, which is something Johnson did not do.

This is a flat out lie. A champion should fight the best talent out there. Do you agree? Johnson was champion from 1908-1915. I posted several articles from known promoters offering Johnson a huge amount of cash to fight Langford, Jeanette, and MCVey? Did you read them Mr. Smith? I suspect you did. Where is the excuse here? I think a few people here simply will not embrace the truth. Perhaps I should test the waters on this thread on another board to see if there is a change in perspective when posting news reads.

This is a separate thread, and something designed to draw interest away from the topic at hand which you spent 9 points making. Jeffries fought the best in general while champion. In additon, he gave re-matches. Johnson did not! There is little debate here. If you disagree, start a thread titled who fought better competion as champion, Jeffries or Johsnon.

Which heavyweight did Langford beat before he faced Johnson? He got Ko'd by a 7-4-1 Joe Jeanette, and took points win vs an 8-6-1 Jeanette. Please, Jeanette had no amatuer experience and barley was above .500

Outside of that, Langford meet guys his own size that were best known as light weight or welter weights. If you want to study who Sharkey, Fitz, or Corbett were in the ring with and beat before then faced Jeffries, their resume of fights vs Heavyweights trumps Langford by a country mile.

I'm not sure how this point got here, but thanks.

McVey was a teenager when he fought Johnson. He had six known fights when he first meet Johnson, and had never been past six rounds or beaten a fighter with a winning record according to Box Rec! If this isn’t the definition of green, I don’t know what is. If McVey had an amateur career, its news to me. In addition, you should be aware that McVey nearly quit boxing when Ed Martin defeated him 1904.

 

Hart after beating Johnson ,in 1905,beat LH Jack Root in 12,in 1906 he lost a 20 rounder to Burns,stopped a39 year old Maher who had been kod earlier by Choynsky in 2 rds,Gardner in 1 a,and Jack Monroe in 4,Maher was very damaged goods.
After beating Root ,Hart was kod by Mike Schreckin21 rds. In 1908 Hart won on a foull from Jack Twin Sullivan.In 1909,Hart won on a foul from Tony Ross,was again kod by Schreck ,this time in 4 rds.In 1901 Hart was kod by Carl Morris in3, that is the extent of his pugilism at any where approaching top level after his "victory " ,over Johnson,deserving of a rematch? I dont think so! Your othe rbiased rebuttals I will leave for Mr Smith to reply to ,if he so wishes ,though he may deem it rather a pointless exercise,given your blatant and boundless bias against Johnson.So Long Dr!

 

Interesting insight ,Janitor I only had the result ,bot any details ,thanks.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

K Smith (and others)

Regarding the alleged fixed fight you mention between Ketchell and Johnson. While i am not 100% convinced of a fix, despite Johnson's claim, one thing i find interesting is the manner of the fix which always seems to be assumed.

Then general assumption seems to be that there was a prior agreement, Ketchell misread the script and knocked johnson down and Johnson then KOd Ketchell in one punch. Why would Ketchell knock Johnson down (it was a clumsy knockdown). It was unlikely hed get a 10 and if it was a prearranged draw, he gains nothing from it. It seems very strange.

On the other hand, and i find it interesting that the two were friends as i had never heard this before, if i were fixing a fight between these two, surely i would have Ketchell knocking Johnson down in the last round (enhancing his punching reputation) and johnson coming back and ko ing ketchell, also enhancing his reputation. i.e. if it was a scripted fight, isnt it likely the script was to knock down Jack Johnson and then take a dive? That was the best one punch ko of Johnsons career wasnt it? And the power and reputation of both fighters grew because of the fight. Do you not agree that this is the most likely fix if one existed? It is strange that everyone calls fixed fight, yet assumes the KO was legitimate and Ketchell deviated from the script.

 

Hey Kev, how ya been?

I think Jeffries competion tends to be under-rated these days. Too much is written off due to size, yet nobody ever really brings up Jeff's lack of experience. And I think that Sharkey, Fitz, Griffin, Choynski, and Corbett tend to really be overlooked by the modern fan.

Because Jeffries fought the best versions of these fighters available, and they were still all in very good fighting form. Particuarily Sharkey, but also Fitz and Corbett first fights. Jack did not fight the best Sam available. Jeffries never drew with any fighter after Choynski. (sixth fight?).

I would like to believe this. But, how "ungreen" can an 18 year old be? Especially one who had his first pro fight ten months before he met Johnson for the first time? Surely, he was a long way from finished product. What can you tell us about his experience that would really point to this?

 

So the French Newspaper ( primary source ) where the fight happened and the Cyber boxing zone research staff is not enough for you?

I posted a full round by round review. The fight does not sound like a fix. The story of a fix was Johnson's after Ketchel died. Did Johnson play with Ketchel? Yes. When he was in there an over matched opponent, he played with guys. It looks like Johnson carried Flynn, and Burns too. But that does not mean there was an " agreement "for Johnson to them!

Was Johnson vulnerable against smaller, quicker, skilled men? I think Choynski and O'brien fit that description! In addition Ksmith, I pointed out that the better fighters Johnson meet pre 1908 that had size above 160 pounds and experience vs heavyweights made him look average. How else can you explain Johnson losing to Choynski, Haines, Griffin and Hart? I am all ears. Can you tell me Johnson who is viewed as a world beater by some here did not whip these guys? Also, what about the numerous draws to no names? Let's be reasonable here. The funny thing is some say I spin things, yet I often see others " spin " the results of the fight to make Johnson look good.

I can check. It might be out there. Were not one who said that McVey vs Johnson was not offered? The onus was on Johnson to offer a re-match after the papers thought O'brien edged or drew with him.