Kliltschko vs. Jack Johnson

THe argument is as faulty as comparing Johnson, a natural 200 popunder with Chris Byrd, a blown up super middleweight ... then say Johnson was not a big puncher ... whatever ... I completely disagree ...

Wlad was knocked out by under 6' 1" Brewster and had his head handed to him by the under 6" Peter ... to say he beats Jack Johnson is funny ... Wlad is a well conditioned guy with a nice jab that defends the title with honor ... I like him ... however he is so stiff, so scared and has such a weak chin to pick him over Jack Johnson is a joke to me ...

 

Sorry, I'll take Kliltschko.

 

HOPE EVERYONE HEAR READ THIS POST!

 

If anyone wants to look at footage try Havana 1915 and see how a fat, slower 37 year old Johnson had the ability to slip the jab of a prime Willard who was just as big and stiff and jab dependent as Wlad and pummel the hell out of him for the first 18 rounds ... Johnson had more stamina at 37 than Wlad had at 27 ... watch the blazing combination punching ... Johnson would have taken Jr. into the mid rounds and diced him up ...

I find it interesting how many disregard the older fighters as if they fought under water ... there were all different styles then as now .. guess what ? Men jabbed, hooked and slipped punches 10 years ago too ... far and away the biggest difference was pace as men scheduled for a twenty, forty or longer distance bout fought at a slower pace ...

I respect everyone's right to an opinion ... I just think to say as flawed a fighter as Wlad beats Jack Johnson basically says any fighter pre 1935 belongs to a lower, lesser level of ring history and that is dissing a hell of a lot of great fighters ...

 

Do you understand anything about styles at all?

Peter is 6'1, and like Brewster, he hits like a truck and is way out of Johnson's league when it comes to power and chin. But let me know when either of them gets knocked out by a supermiddleweight, after taking monstrous shots from skilled giants like Klitschko and other skill 220lbs+ fighters. Johnson is not a big puncher at all, even against middleweights he needed over ten rounds to put them away.

Okay, tell me when during which fight(s) i can see him jabbing from the outside and keeping his opponent there, saying on his toes.

I'm just saying i can't ever recall him covering up and then throwing a counter shot. It was always clinch, clinch, clinch.

For instance, Lewis covered up in the final moments against Bruno and Morrison before unleashing a gigantic left hook to practically finish both. When did we ever see Johnson do something like that? And i don't necessarily mean that it took his opponent out, but just the action of covering up and picking a spot. Because that's one of the few ways he might land on Klitschko.

Tons. Too many to select, but to mention a few: the double left uppercut, right uppercut, right hook, left uppercut that annihilates Kenny Norton. The combination that knocked down Cooney (not the finishing one). The second knock down of Frazier. There are plenty.

I'll take that as a "no".




Sorry, i'm being an *******. But seriously: we rarely see him jab, and when he does, it is followed up by a clinch 95% of the time, so don't you think that even if we had all his footage, we'd have to look really hard to find him hooking off the jab?

True, he does do it there (against a middleweight). But how often during other fights?

Right... we rarely see Johnson putting together any coherent combination, never throw a left hook, rarely using his size and he constantly clinches after throwing a punch, never using glove blocking, yet Klitschko is more limited.

 

Chris , if you were not so full of yourself you might be tolerable ... instead everything with you is an attack or a knee jerk response of annoyance ... my guess is that you are a college kid ... instead you are a bore and I lose interest in responding to your hole filled arguments ...

You say Jack Johnson loses to Wlad Klit, I laugh .. that's as much time as I'm investing in you ...

 

Well you're hardly mr. humble yourself are you?


But personal issues that you might have aside, would you answer these two questions?

1. Do you agree that Brewster has about as much in common with Johnson as Duffy Duck has with The Terminator?

2. Do you think boxing has not changed nor made any progress from 1900 up to the 1930's, i.e. the transition of bareknuckle to gloved boxing?

 

Under Johnson's rules it's an interesting fight. If Wlad was smaller, Johnson would win without any doubt, but Klitschko's size and rangey offence would make it difficult for Johnson to use his skills. I imagine Klitschko would catch him sooner or later, though.

Under modern rules it's wouldn't last two rounds. He'd have him down a few times in the first and finish him off in the second. No way is this fight even close.

 

When rating Johnson,Dempsey...you got to remember what they had before them, Barenuckle...and a few guys who excelled with the gloves with 20-30 fights and a lot of them 4-6 rounders...Johnson was a master of his time and Dempsey was the Tyson of his time..they did greater than any one before them....Its hard to shrink Klitschko down 60 years and make him smaller and old school HARD and its hard to give Dempsey and Johnson the OLD school HARD bring them into the NOW.......Things like weight and size have to be eliminated when going back or foward...there are certain things inside mankind that existed in the 20's that no longer exist in man today...but man has improved things like diet knowlege, adding muscle and so on...but I got to say the only division where this comes into play is the heavyweight division where there is no limit and it brings you back to who have been the greatest fighters over 220lb and could they beat the greatest below 220....? ? ?

 

1. Brewster isn't the only style to beat Wlad. Faster hands, better footwork, counterpunching, slippery defense are all big threats to him

I would add Johnsons power is underrated, he didnt go for KOs but when he sat on his shots he'd do damage. Johnson would also likely be a more muscular developed individual with modern nutrition and supplements. He'd also be somewhat more refined if he was round today with a modern trainer.

2. Yes I think boxing did progress into the 40s BUT its since deteriated and Johnson does many many things better than both Klitchko's. Wlad has had allot more advantages in training and developement than Johnson

 

Thanks for bringing Johnson back from the brink in this thread, he grant. Most had given in and actually accepted that a non great would beat a great here, you restored faith in me anyway, and logic(just my opnion) in this one.

 

Sometimes you have to disconnect "greatness" when it comes to head-to-head matching.


Do you think the greatest tank of the 30's would stand a chance against your average today's Abraham's tank in overal performance?

Does a 1970 Porsche, one of the greatest modern sportscars, stand any chance against a relatively unknown Koenigsegg of today?

Clearly they don't, despite being "greater". While boxing has obviously not progressed as much as car or tank technology did, there is a clear gap between the bareknuckle style of the early 1900's and the gloved boxing style from roughly 1930 on. In the latter, combinations, glove blocking, working from the outside, among others were incorporated in exchange for constant clinching and wrestling.

 

Chris Byrd had all of those and it got him no where. Slippery defence has never been a threat to Wlad, ever. The only one having counter-punching success against him was Sanders, and it's safe to say Johnson doesn't nearly have his power, handspeed or size. Counter punching was Ibragimov's strong point and it got him no where. I'm not saying that counter punching can't be successful, just that it's a long shot to imagine Johnson having too much success with it.

Which things does Johnson do better?