Kliltschko vs. Jack Johnson

1. Regardless he was shot to pieces, and not from Peters shots but 70+ shots. 2005 was Toneys last hurrar, anything after is an aged warrior

2. Toney does have strengths over Johnson, but he is 1 of the most skilled boxers in boxing history so knock there. Although Johnson overall is the far superior heavyweight. Toney is an illustative example of a small fighter in todays era

 

If you are going to compare physical assets then you would have to note that Johnson was naturaly a much larger fighter and a harder puncher.

I would also dispute that Tooney is necisarily ahead of Johnson in terms of skill set.

 

Johnson has better movement, use of distance, handspeed and combination throwing. Both are great counter punchers and both are rarely caught clean.

The Johnson critics are ignoring he did very well against the SHWs he faced

 

Johnson probably beat more oponents over 200lbs than any other champion prior to the 70s.

He is verry proven against taller and heavier oponents.

 

Toadboy, your manlove for Pontius is making me jealous.
...

I've read the thread and this is a tougher one than either side makes it out to be.

Pontius' arguments about the comparatively primitive style of boxers circa 1910 mirrors my own -except that I usually will temper my arguments by placing the fight over 15 rounds, modern rules, and against a modern technician. He makes several good points and his case is compelling. However, Janitor has some good retorts.

Johnson would necessarily have to accelerate that style we see on film lest he lose every decision against every modern fighter he faces due to their more active and less patient style. However, to be fair, his filmed bouts with Ketchel, Jeffries, Flynn, and Willard were scheduled for 45, 45, 20, and 45 rounds respectively. Johnson could and did get guys out of there early when he wanted to. I should say that the bout with Ketchel is not a good measure of his skill -he was carrying Stanley. The bout with Willard, in contrast, was completely on the level and there is not a whit of doubt about that. Was he shading his eyes as he lay there? Probably -and does that prove he wasn't unconscious? Probably -but he took a beating over 26 rounds and was exhausted. But then, he was 37 and carrying a spare tire around his middle.

The point is that Johnson fought differently and it is difficult to get a true measure of his skill level because a 45 round fight is going to be a different fight altogether than a 15 round fight. Not only that, but Johnson didn't train at times, and preferred to fool around and carry guys to prolong their beating at others. In general however, Johnson liked to to set traps, wait, and outlast his opponents. He was a trap setter and a counter-puncher. He could punch well, had skill, and was patient and confident.

What I don't like is that sharp angle at which he stands, his penchant for leaning back and fighting off the back foot, and of course, those low hands. I don't like his balance and I think his stance was part of his problem. He does not do well against most of the modern HW champs -he does do well against Foreman and probably Klitschko as well. Why? The answer does not contradict my opinion that the pioneers and pre-1920 boxers were not as technically prepared for the modern ring. It does emphasize the importance of technique against these tough early greats. The closer a modern fighter is -stylistically- to them, the less likely they are to win. You do not want to meet your opponent on his ground -where he is far more experienced and comfortable... Modern technique alone trumps their legendary stamina and grit, at least in my opinion.

Wlad Klitschko. Looking closely at him, you see the following:

* He is not a highly skilled HW -even at the relative level. Compared to modern technicians p4p and he's got simple, basic skills. He's "textbook" is brief. EFFECTIVE because he's a powerful giant, but predictable and simple.

* The best argument against the pre-1920 fighters is their modern opponents' application of modern, multi-faceted skillsets -infighting, combining defense and offense instead of statically moving from one to the other... short combinations... Klitschko doesn't epitomize these very well. At times, he looks to me like someone grabbed Jess Willard, threw him in a time machine, switched those overalls for work-out tights, fed him steroids, and voila.

* Klitschko is not a warrior. There's no eye of the tiger in that doctoral gaze. He is hopelessly defensive-minded.

Sorcery has amended this thread to take place in 1910. If this were a bout scheduled for 45 or even 20 rounds, my money is on Johnson. And it would be the most boring fight in the history of homo sapiens.

 

Stonehands. Kilitschko is a teriffic mover around the ring considering his size; 6' 6" and 245lbs. While I agree he's technically sound and rather basic, his movement around the ring is remarkable for such a large physical specimen. One thing I have noticed about him he's not as quick as Lewis with his hands. And regarding him being defensively minded, your right. Maybe those knockout defeats to Sanders and Brewster have made him 'gunshy'. That surprises me actually as Steward has a great track record for mentally tuning fighters after career setbacks. Hearns and Lewis both suffered devastating knockout defeats yet responded positively to them under Steward's guidance.

 

He's not as fast, he's not as fluid, he's not as strong and he's not as graceful as Lewis was. He fights a scared man's fight because he know's his stamina is subject and his chin weak ... call it like it is about him ...

Power Puncher: I don't know you but keep your cheap shots to yourself . If you need to defend you points do so on your own.

Lowe: What did Peter do? He knocked Jr. down three times ... the rest of the fight Klit jabbed , held and ran for his life ... he diefinately showed heart but man is he weak ... I feel in a rematch he will destroy Klit Jr.

 

I have watched all films, broke them down via DVR slow motion, and read many of Johnson’s news paper fights.

Johnson’s defense by modern standards is a mixed bag. If you want the straight dope, I will give it to you.

The good:

Johnson had the innate ability to read the other guys body language. His punch anticipation is very good.

Johnson’s reflexes were very good.

Johnson judgment of distance were also good, he could make a guy miss by a few inches.

Johnson had an odd wax on wax off type of defense where he would catch or deflect blows with his gloves.

As a clincher, Johnson was excellent. He was strong, but unlike a pure hugger, Johnson mastered the art of hitting and holding, and was sneaky with his uppercut and body punching. However, when matched vs an opponents his size with stamina, Johnson’s clinching was not a factor. See the Hart, Moran, or Willard fights, or early rounds of the Jeffries fight.


The bad:

Johnson’s hands were low.

Johnson had a fundamental flaw of pulling straight back from punches. While this works vs shorter opponents with less reach, it would not work against taller opponents with more reach. In fact, Willard who is modernly skilled and not quick handed landed when he actually threw punches. A smaller O'Brien peppered Johnson with quick shots. The low guard combined with this fundamental flaw would spell trouble for Johnson. *However, I prefer to rate the man over the era. It is plausible that Johnson could improve a bit on fundamental flaws if he had a trainer familiar with a more modern style of defense.

Johnson was not a top out fighter on defense or offense, and could be out jabbed in new reads or on film.

Johnson was footwork was good, but he was sometimes off balance, and balance is important for defense. Johnson hit the floor with other parts of his body besides his feet in a few fights. Johnson did not seem to have the ability to fight while circling or moving backwards like some other defensive masters can.

I did not see much of a ducking style of defense for Johnson.

 

Yeah, Wlad isn´t as good as Lewis was, nobody argues that. But his stamina has improved and he proved he carries his power in the late rounds while stioll bringing a decent workrate to the table. Wlad´s stamina isn´t subject for the last 3-4 years. Get your facts straight. His chin isn´t weak, he took serious punches from hard punchers is isn´t average either but not far from it.

Yeah, he knocked him down with illegal punches if you think that proves anything ou really are deluded. You should be much more objective.

 

Jack Johnson would win on cuts, laugh in the ring, taunt furiously, and steal Klitschko's woman.

 

We've had this argument before and i think you're selling him short by saying this. He is using basic, textbook stuff of course, but what's wrong with that? By the same means, Joe Louis was a basic, textbook fighter*. I'd rather have a textbook fighter with a high guard etc, than a non-textbook fighter like Johnson who did not or only to limited extent utilize several of gloved boxings skill assets.


*Not saying he is as skilled or fluid as Joe Louis, but you get the point.

 

You do realize he's not in there with a middleweight knocking him down this time, who only got the fight because he was white, right?

 

Yeah, instead he's in there with a really big heavyweight who cuts even easier and has even less heart.

 

actually ketchel got the fight because he knocked out a couple big heavyweights and fought sam langford to a draw. bob fitzimmons was smaller than fitz and worse, but i dont hear people complaining of fitz only getting a title shot because he was white.

 

A middleweight like Byrd?