Johnson- Willard rematch

Closer to a four year difference. Jack was born on March 31, 1878, Jess on December 29, 1881. Beyond that though, Willard was a relatively young fighter, not having taken up the sport until age 27. Jack's official one on one fight record dated back 18 years, to 1897. He'd been in battle royals prior to that. Jess had been competing for four years, so he was the far fresher of the two.

Johnson was a veteran of 72 fights dating over those 18 years. Havana was fight number 30 for Willard.

 

But johnson was the one who went another 7 or so years without losing a fight.

I think Johnson gets in shape and wins a rematch, quite easily, he was that good. This would leave Johnson v Dempsey as the next blockbuster or maybe even Johnson v Wills. It isnt totally inconcievable for Johnson to win both of these fights, even at his advanced age, which would make for a very interesting view today, on the greatest of all time.

 

It's not the age of the fighter,it's the mileage on the clock.

 

Willard looked better as champion vs. Frank Moran. I think he improved a little, while Johnson was on the slide.

If the fight was short, yes, Johnson would have a good chance in a re-match.

 

Johnson showed nothing as a world class fighter post-1915.

 

I disagree. Tom Cowler and Bob Roper were top 10 caliber opponents. Homer Smith was also a top 10 caliber opponent. At worst, Johnson's run of opponents was better than many of the opponents that the likes of Briggs, Maskaev, Golota etc often string wins against and gain title opportunity. At best, there were actually some pretty decent wins there and if he had been a young white contender with those wins, he would probably have been given a title shot, And conversely, if he had been a young Black contender with those wins, many would be crying blue murder today, that he didnt get a title shot.

Obviously his opposition didnt include the likes of Harry Wills and co, but it was not the worst opposition around, and he most certainly was still world class. Even when he finally started losing to the likes of Lawson and Wright, these were still competive fights against world class fighters, not too different to the likes of Valuev, Donald or others that have beaten Holyfield recently.

 

No they weren't.

That doesn't say much though. I'm sure Johnson would have gotten a shot with 4 belts around, but there was only one, and he didn't come close to deserving another crack at the title with the exception of an immediate rematch with Willard, which didn't happen.

Those wins weren't worth anything in the big picture, let's be honest. If Johnson deserved a title shot, it was due to past reputation, not anything he accomplished post-1915.

It was mostly the worst opposition around aside from a handful of half-decent fighters, who weren't top raters by any means.

We have the top 10 rankings of 1924 and there is no sign of Johnson or his opponents and for a good reason, because they did not belong there.

1. Jack Dempsey, Champion
2. Harry Wills
3. Tommy Gibbons
4. Charley Weinert
5. Quintin Romero Rojas
6. Jack Renault
7. Luis Angel Firpo
8. George Godfrey
9. Jim Maloney
10. Erminio Spalla

 

Well take Johnny Thompson for starters. Since november 1920, when he beat Sam Langford, he knocked out George Godfrey in 4 rounds, Fought no decisions with Langford, McVey and Wills, Drew With Bearcat Wright and defeated Bill Tate. If he wasnt top 10, he was certainly a world class fighter. Johnson beat him.

If you dont think that competing with that sort of company is world class, then you are a very tough marker. MOst of the other competition was probably better described as journeyman level and probably at monte barrett type level but still, to not slip up is still a good effort.

Agreed, and i am not saying that his competition was great or anything, but combined with him being such a dominant champion and presumably such a huge box office draw, I think it was crazy not to give him a title shot, and to be honest, i think he should have got one. Like Holyfield did against Valuev, i would be prepared to bet that he would really surprise. Certainly i think he would beat the comebacking Willard, at the very least.

Past reputation, and the fact that he was still winning his fights!

Actually it was some of the better opposition he could face, given that nobody would fight him, because of his location and political problems.

Ring rankings are not the be all and end all. And to be honest, unlike today, there were more than 10 world class fighters in the division. Still, from memory, didnt Jack Thompson (johnson victim) split KO wins with George godfrey? And didnt Johnson beat Homer Smith just as convincingly as Luis angel Firpo? And didnt Johnson victim Captain Bob Roper go on to beat Quentin Roman Rojeros? I havent checked those last ones so i might be wrong.

 

Jack Thompson was Johnson's best opponent, but it was a non fight and Thompson like Johnson had already seen his best days, during which he was never the best. He lost his last 8 fights, 5 by KO.

It is not world class. World class would have been competing against the likes of Jess Willard, Jack Dempsey, Harry Wills, Fred Fulton, Billy Miske, Tommy Gibbons, Harry Greb, Bill Brennan and other top heavyweights of the era. Johnson did not do that.

Very different times. Evander fighting for the undisputed title would have been an outrage, fighting a circus freak who happens to hold some belt was acceptable.

He fought mainly tomato cans and a couple of mediocre fighters. I doubt that's the best opposition he could find, and he performed horribly against them, so badly that the crowd would throw objects at him and his opponents for not fighting.

Thompson beat a very young Godfrey, who was unknown by then, and was then KO'd by a more experienced Godfrey.

Johnson's fight with Homer Smith was outrageously bad.

Roper was not a bad fighter, but at the time he faced Johnson he had only fought a handful of fights.

The Ring magazine rankings reflect what was thought of at the time, not nearly a hundred years later with no insight to what was actually going on.

 

until we are talking about Joe Choynski with 66 (most likely more) fights or Jack O'Brien with 110 fights...

 

Oh c'mon, neither of them lived the life Johnson did.

After Jeffries ,Johnson was never in top shape again.
His thirty seven , [when he fought Willard], would be equivalent to B Hop's 57.
ps. Johnson has about 20 early figths that are not credited by Box rec, which would put him comfortably over Choynski's tally

 

So, if Johnson had so many early fights, how come I keep hearing how green he was when he got poleaxed by Choynski?

It's hilarious that Johnson apologists have created such a web of varied excuses and justifications for his performances that they often contradict themselves...

 

Easy to explain.
Johnson fought Choynski in1901.
He had at least 14 more fights prior to that, after that date he had another 11 uncredited,I found these without really trying.
So now we have the 55 ,prior to Willard ,PLUS an extra 25 = 80 fights.
I think that comfortably surpasses Choynski's 61 ,in fact it equals Choynski's career resume.
ps I am no one's apologist ,and I never said Johnson was green ,just pre -prime there IS a difference.
I do think Johnson developed late, in contrast to ,say Jeffries, you no doubt think that an excuse,and of course I am mortified by that

 

Johnson had at least 24 recorded fights, and a few battle royal matches ( results not record except for Johnson being mention to win some ) before he meet Choynski. In addition the fight took place in Johnson's home town. It was Choynski who rode the rails to arrive.

Its a good think the internet wasn't around in those days. Ko'd by a supper middle, and down by another middle? The internet chin police posters would be out in full force.

 

Good points as always GA .. I believe if it were scheduled for 15 Johnson may have had enough left to win if he trained and was motivated .. two hug IFS ..