johnson was great in his era, possibly any era in history. However, his opposition were primative fighters who rarely punched in combination. Joe louis was way different than anyone he ever faced. If there was ever a perfect puncher it was louis, and not only did he punch in combination, his blows were swift, accurate, and powerfull as well. Not only that, but he was also immensly strong. Johnson would not have handled louis inside like he handled his opponents. Louis lifted opponents much larger than himself off their feet in clinches. I'd pick louis to kayo johnson within 10 rounds. Johnsons defensive mastery was not proven against someone of louis calibre and his chin was also somewhat of an enigma. fighting louis in close would be a definite no-no and he would get caught. He might put louis down once but in the end it would be johnson who would be counted out.
I really do not know where this definative conclusion that fighters never jabbed before the mid-1930's came from .. JamesdCorbett and Peter Jackson jabbed ... Sam McVea and Fred Fulton were know for their jab ... Johnson jabs at will in the Ketchel footage ... there is a dire scarcity of footage from the day to make these broad based generalizations ... the biggest difference was pace based on bout differences ... I appear to be in the minority but I disagree ...
i have always regarded fighters from before the 1920s primitave and would never be able to fight and beat a 'modern' fighter however last night i was sparring a guy who was big and strong and boxed like the old bareknuckle type style. And it was very hard trust me any modern boxer would struggle.
There is not a harder fight for Joe Louis than Jack Johnson. Starting with Louis' foundation of boxing he gives Johnson the first hand to mess with his delivery and countering. Johnson weaves an evil web from the outset with feinted jabs and sharp shuffling. The quickness of Johnson; his ability to 'pounce' with his whole body to clutch n' smash with the uppercut would be a novel experience for the 'Bomber' - one which Johnson could control entire fights with against sluggers or men of well-taught striking ability. The pace at which Louis fought would be equally obliged by Johnson who would happily work off the back foot and beg Louis' usually stolid composure to come out of its shell and eat a lead right - a shot which Louis was forever partial to. The familiar combinations of Louis would likely not find their home as Johnson continues to fight super-safe, slapping down the 'range-finders' and peppering any well-observed 'resets'. Ted Spoon believes Johnson has the antidote and add-on pack to confuse, outland and control the explosive Louis to a Unanimous Decision. Johnson was certainly not as vulnerable as some fans make out and he was rather adaptable himself when speaking of Louis' vaunted rematch record. Out of the many tales Johnson told, when he claimed he knew exactly how to beat Louis, this fans ears pricked with good reason.
Although I, on balance, favored Joe "a little", it is true that: 1) you have a master feinter against a guy who likes to counter; 2) an alltime mid-range boxer-puncher against maybe the greatest heavyweight ever for eliminating the mid-range.
It's ridiculous ... there is so little footage out there yet many base an entire generations worth on it .. as if a jab and combination punching never existed before 1930 ... it s a joke.
I was talking about Johnson's opponents. Most of the opponents he dealt with were unskilled, wild swinging bar room brawlers who were much smaller than him. Just watch the tape. The exception is Langford, but he wasn't even a middleweight. Joe Louis is a whole different kettle of fish.
Do you class Joe Jeanette as an unskilled wild swinging bar room brawler ? Likewise George Gardner and O Brien? Was Burns unskilled?
This is mostly true. Having said that I can see Johnson giving Louis some trouble because Louis had problems being bulled around in clinches, did not like to be crowded, and was there to be hit. But in the end, Louis offensive prowess would find its mark, and he would TKO Johnson.
This ending is an entirely possible scenario,but not for the reasons you cited. 1 Louis was very strong and had NO PROBLEMS manhandling very big men like Simon,Baer,Carnera. NOBODY BULLED HIM AROUND IN THE CLINCHES. 2Johnson was NOT a crowder ,he liked to sit back and counter off the back foot,and rarely took the initiative."defence allways wins in the end ,if its good enough" J J. Johnson may have had problems countering Louis comparatively fast hands ,and accurate combos,and he would certainly have to up his work rate considerably, to cope with the more modern style of fighting. Louis had the power to get anyone out of there ,but boxers troubled him especially those utilising fast foot work. Training footage shows Johnson to be quick on his feet ,but generally he appears to have fought flat footed,would he be there for Louis' hooks and crosses ? Could he avoid the majority of them? If he couldnt it is very plausible that Joe catches up with him sometime late in the fight. I picked Johnson ,but no one has a cake walk against Louis. Stylistically I think Dempsey swarms all over Louis taking him out inside 3 rounds,,but I think Johnson handles Dempsey easier than he does Louis. Styles make fights!