Just have to get this off my chest

Fair enough.
I just dont have much of an opinion on Johnson's head-to-head potential, because I really haven't seen him.
Seeing as he was known to be a fighter who appeared to only do what was needed to win, and seeing as most of his footage are past-prime or against opposition that offer exhibition-type workout at best, I expect i haven't seen enough to even guess.
From what I have observed with great fighters small alterations within their style had make massive differences. I dont know if they would apply with Johnson, but i dont know enough to say it probably wouldn't either.

 

The turn of the twentieth century boxers deserve respect as they're pioneers of boxing. The one problem I have though,is comparing them to their more modern day counterparts. Boxing at this time seemed more of a transitional phase between old time prize fighting,and boxing as we know it today. It's when we reach the Jack Dempsey era,I can totally recognise boxing as we know it.

 

I think your post is very astute, Johnson would certainly have to modify his style today ,standing flat footed ,waiting for your man to come in to be countered , works if you are 6 foot 7in ,with albatross arms .Johnson's reach was not particulalry long [shorter than Burns], maybe that is one of the reasons he did not employ a jab consistantly?
Then too, he rarely instigated the action ,preferring to respond to punches .
I agree about his infighting being superior to his long range[,though Mendozy's contention that he could not out fight is farcical], he beat many bigger men at long range.
Johnson's best weapon ,as you pointed out, was his right uppercut, he would draw you in and smash it home, he broke Moran's nose with just one of them ,ruined Burns with the punch and punished McVey , and Langford with it,I don't think we saw one as good among the heavies till Holmes came along.

 

I agree. But he must have modified it during his own time too, if he ..

 

Agree with all of this. In fact, its part of the reason I used to diss Johnson so much; because of others perceptions before I actually saw him fight.

I think if he fought the same way he did (albeit with much less clinching) utilising the attributes he had, he'd still be hassle for all of the top ten. Doubt he'd beat either Klit though.

 

What, when Dempsey punched Willard when he was still basically on the ground?

The Louis era, as vague as that categorisation is, is for me when boxing really looked, ahem, 'modern'.

 

I've probably favour Johnson over Tyson. It's a matter of styles.

 

Thing is, people say 'he's primitive, he'd lose to s-and-so'.

Put 'em in a 15-round fight, with less clinching (making it fairer for the so-called 'modern' fighter) and allow both men to train as they want. Allow the modern fighter to wear his gloves (makes sustained punching easier) and allow the 'old timer' to wear his (makes his punches hurt more I imagine, would certainly be something the modern fighter wouldn't be used to) and I think it evens things up.

Which is why I think Bob Fitzsimmons would spark Floyd at 154 :yep

 

Flea Man still has a chip on his shoulder regarding Floyd then.

 

Chip on my shoulder? It's called being realistic. :good

 

You can't ****in' wait for the guy to get his head stomped. Stop it, Flea man.

 

Nope. Just pissed off with the love/kudos he gets for doing what equates to **** all in the grand scheme of things.

 

I actually see the opposite for most part on the Classic Forum.

Footage I have seen of both Jack Dempsey and Jack Johnson hasn't necessarily blown me away, but I obviously have respect and admiration for what each of them achieved during their time respectfully.

Fighters like Willie Pep and Tony Canzoneri look spectacular on film.

 

I tend to agree with you, but to say his career equates to **** all would be pushing it.

 

Fleaman, when Hasegawa got sparked, you said to Greg, 'a loss means NOTHING, you know that Greg', well Mayweather has forgotten more of his achievements than Hasegawa has of his own, so i just hope we're all going to e consistent and not hypocritical around here, meaning if Floyd ever loses, you got to apply the same logic to avoid not eing embarrassing man.

Not to sound a ***** mate, you're one of my favourite posters easily, you know this, but if i sense an agenda i got to speak out Flea, hope i'm wrong though.