Not really, I give Mendoza respect on any other subject . Any thing that has Johnson or Jeffries involved.ZERO CREDIBILTY.:good
I would not say that. Ali and Frazier were closely matched. Objective readers who value dates and facts that are confirmed by either film or next day reports will side with me.
If you think so why dont you have a poll? :good ps. I'm surprised you can spell objective,since objectivity is a quality singularly lacking in your posts , when you are on your hobby horses Johnson and Jeffries.
Your claim that Johnson did not struggle in his prime for 10 years is bogus. Would you like me to post a thread titled, Did Johnson struggle from 1904-1914? It will not be a poll. Posters can read the fight reports, and make a decision for themselves.
I agree HEgrant I disagree! Burns was not fast, certainly nowhere near the level of Stanley Ketchel like handspeed. He hit hard, but once he stepped up in competition....his power suddenly became non existent, while when ketchel stepped up in class he continued to score devastating kayos. I posted a thread where ketchel did FAR BETTER against burns competition than burns did himself.
Jeanette stopped Sam Langford in 8 rounds, prior to Johnson winning a 15 round decision over him. This shows us jeanette was highly dangerous in mid 1906 when Johnson was beating him.
Squires was D level at best. I doubt he would have lasted past the 1st 10 seconds against Stanley Ketchel. Mcvea was coming off a knockout victory over colored heavyweight champion and top contender Denver Ed Martin. Martin knocked out Hank Griffin and easily outpointed Bob Armstrong. This is a signifigant win for a "Teenage" Mcvea. Mike Tyson?
Sam Langford was not a world-beater at heavy in 1905-1906. Indeed, he lost to the likes of a 12-7 Larry Temple in 1905 before facing a much bigger Jeanette. Johnson beat a 156 pound Langford, who in fact lost his next fight via TKO to a much smaller Young Peter Jackson. When Jeanette first meet Johnson, Jeanettes known record was 0-3 with a KO loss. In the last meeting between Johnson and Jeanette, Jeanette known record was 8-8. In other words, he was a .500 fighter at best and a 0-3 fighter at worst. The logical conclusion here is Johnson took advantage of an in-experienced Jeanette.
Blame it on Jim Jacobs. Jacobs had a collection of over 6000 filmed fights and by far the largest collection of pre-1920's fights. This is a quote from BERT SUGAR'S FIGHT GAME, Sept 2000, issue. Page 56. This is a reprint from a late 1960's interview: "The best that can be said about the old-time fighters is that they were the best of their time. "By old-timers, I'm referring to the fighters who competed in the 1920's and before. Jack Dempsey for me is the bridge between the old and new eras in boxing. "In any case, when I look at the films of the old-timers there is a complete absence of combination punching. Combination punching, as you probably know, is a series of four or five punches calculated to hit certain parts of the body. It's effective because you can miss the first three punches and knock out the man with the fourth. Sugar Ray Robinson was great at that . . . Sugar Ray made it very graphic to modern fighters just how important combination punching was. Yet the old-timers just didn't do it. That doesn't mean they didn't flurry, that is throw a humber of consecutive punches, but it wasn't as calculated as it was later. "Another thing about fighters up to the 1920's, the left jab was nonexistent. These fighters are supposed to be the greatest of all time, but they did not employ the most basic of boxing rudiments." On Jack Johnson: "Jack Johnson, instead of avoiding punches by slipping and feinting, would catch the punches with his gloves, making it virtually impossible to counterpunch. Another shortcoming of Johnson's, he had no left jab. I've got eight of his fights in my film collection and he's yet to throw a jab." The reporter brings up Jim Jeffries: "I have four of his fights on film. Jeffries was very slow, very awkward, lethargic. He couldn't win the open Golden Gloves today." And Dempsey: "Dempsey fought round one like the fight was scheduled for one round. Before him, boxing didn't have the accelerated action it often did after Dempsey. If I showed you Jack Johnson and Jim Jeffries, you'd see a lot of menacing movements, unoccompanied by punches. "Dempsey was also the first heavyweight champion to employ the left hook. Fighters of other divisions had used the left hook, but no heavyweight had. And he was the first heavyweight champ who bobbed and weaved. That was a most radical innovation among heavyweights. Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Johnson, Jeffries, Willard, and Burns. None of them did it. They fought at a slow, methodical pace."
My own reaction to what Jacobs says: 1. Combination punching--largely accurate 2. Jabbing--most old-timers do not throw many jabs or try to control an opponent with the jab 3. Johnson--He feints, but how he would deal with combination punching and a strong jabber with his hands down so low is an open question. 4. Jeffries--over the top criticism. I don't think he was that bad. Not slow for such a big man. 5. Dempsey's accelerated pace--right on. 6. Dempsey's bob and weave--yes 7. No left hooks--??????. Unless he has some sort of technical definition of left hook, I don't know what he is talking about. He might be talking of the wide left of the Dempsey or Frazier type, but Fitz, Jeffries, and Johnson definitely throw left hooks on film.
1. Dwelling on the exhibition with O'Brien and the fight with Battling Johnson actually weakens your argument. Jack Johnson was handling Battling Johnson easily until he broke an arm. How many fighters look good fighting with a broken arm? This type of argument puts you in the position of using every broken arrow in the quiver in an effort to discredit Johnson. 2. That said, you have a point that can't be completely rebutted. Johnson's resume sounds awesome on paper--Jeffries, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Ketchel, McVey, Jeannette, Burns--but does not stand up that well to scrutiny. Jeff had been off for six years and was 35. Fitz was 44 and hadn't won a major bout in 4 years. Ketchel and Langford were middles. McVey a teenager. Jeannette green. Langford, Jeannette, and McVey were years from their peaks as heavies. Jeff and Fitz way over the hill. Ketchel small. Burns was in his prime, but smallish and ordinary. I think it is fair to ask what was Johnson's most impressive win and how impressive was it?
Joe Louis was a machine. I pick him but you never really know with all timers like these guys. Still, I have Louis number one fat HW for a reason.