Make a top3 of Johnson's linear title fight opponents

Burns
Jeffries
Willard

 

Burns was a good fighter, but way too small to tangle with Johnson on even terms........ I cannot credit Johnson beating Burns all that much......... Burns was out-gunned to the max there in Australia...........

Jimmy Jeffries was the BIGGEST name opponent during Johnson's reign, but he was 35 and rusty as a door nail in 1910..............

Fireman Jim Flynn was prolly Johnson's most noteworthy opponent who was in-shape and ready to rumble for the title.... However, Johnson was once again too good for Flynn........

MR.BILL

 

Jeffries was his "best" in terms of credentials and the magnitude of the fight, but IMO Willard was the best in terms of actual quality at the time.

 

Prety much spot on.

Burns was the lineal champion which prety much puts him in a class above Johnsons title oponents as a whole. Small or not he had beaten Hart who had beaten Johnson in a high stakes fight.

I well understand Jeffries circumstances coming into the Johnson fight but he probably still had enough left to beat the likes of Kaufman and Moran.

Willards title winning effort against Johnson is enough to put him ahead of any of Johnsons title challengers who are not among the three you listed.

 

Sorry, I forgot to make my "top 3" list.

1. Willard
2. Jeffries
3. Burns

 

I say...

1. Jeffries
2. Willard
3. Burns

 

I think the reason for this is that while Fitz, Choynski and Burns built up impresive heavyweight resumes Ketchel did not.

He was working on it but a jealous farm hand had other ideas.

 

Burns was a much better fighter than he is given credit for, i think he is Probably number 1.

Jeffries was gone, but he was still one of the greatest ever, and i think that it would have taken an All time great to beat him. I say he is number 2, and wouldnt be surprised if old jeffries was better than Burns. He seemed to push Johnson harder.

Kaufman was probably a legitimate number one contender in 1909. In 1904 and 1905 Kaufman won an incredible 6 fights with 6 first round knockouts. It then took a world class fighter in Philladelphia Jack O brien to stop him. By the time he fought Johnson in 1909, his KO/win streak included Mike Shrek (who had beaten Marvin Hart), Fireman Jim Flynn, Jim Johnson, Tony Ross, George Gardner and Jack twin Sullivan. Plus, shortly after Johnson, he reversed the O'Brien fight and won their trilogy. Though sadly, it seemed to be downhill from there. I think he is a very good scalp for Johnson probably the third best.


I know you asked for three, but Jim Johnson is another who seems to be hopelessly underated today. Jim Johnson fought Langford, McVey, Wills and Jeanette regularly. And while he did lose some of those fights mostly on points, most of these fights went the distance and were ND fights. In fact, he even has a 2nd round tko over wills. His record against the others seems to pretty much hold his own with these guys. When you consider that Johnson had already beaten these guys (Wills excepted) you would have to say that Johnson is probably unfairly criticised for choosing Johnson as his only black opponent. In reality, Johnson was at about the same level as the big 3 that most seem to say jack Johnson ducked.

On this point, if you accept that Johnson is close in level to the Mcvey and co, then surely those who rate Willard above Johnson are rating him above these three too. I am a little undecided on Willard but i would rank him 5th of johnsons opponents, mostly because Johnson actually lost the fight (i know this shouldnt come into it but it is a good excusse to stop me thinking too hard).

Stanley Ketchell is said to be an all time great middleweight and he also beat Philadelphia Jack Obrien who was an established title contender twice, including an early stoppage which earned him a fight with Johnson.

Next best was probably Philladelphi Jack O brien. He had beaten two former world champions in Bob Fitzsimmons and Tommy Burns. Although he did later Draw and lose to Tommy Burns in World Title fights. He had also beaten Joe Choynski, the man who kod johnson and knocked down Marvin Hart, who also beat johnson. O Brien had not lost a fight since the Burns fight 2 years earlier and he was coming off a ND to Ketchell and was TKOd by ketchell soon after the Johnson fight, but i think he was a good challenger.

Ross - Really seemed a bit of a journeyman, and the only reason that he ranks over Moran is because he beat him.

Moran - Although he would later fight Willard for the world title, he doesnt really seem to be much better than a fringe top 10 fighter. He seemed to have some good wins, and did go the distance with some decent fighters but really, he was often found out by the best fighters he fought.

All in all, (and i expect to feel the wrath of many people here particularly Mendoza), but when you accept that Johnson had already beaten Langford mcvey and Jeanette, and there was no need to give them continuous rematches, i think that Johnson's resume is actually very good. It is definitely, even as champion, better than most modern fighters when comparing fighters standings in relation to their era. Klitchskos, and even the likes of Holmes Holyfield and possibly Lewis are not really any better.

 

Probably a fair point, but if Vitali or Vlad had beaten John Ruiz and Chris Byrd as Johnson had done earlier in his career, there may have been a decent argument as to why there should be no rematch. Although admittedly i agree with you that there probably should have been.

It is very interesting that you rate Ancient Jeffries over Tommy Burns and all the other contenders that Jeffries fought. Burns was a World Champion who defended many times, and a very good fighter. At worst, most of the other defences were top 5 or even top 10 fighters today. Jeffries came off a massive layoff, as you know. If Johnson did not exist or had lost the fight with Burns or even if Burns was Black and never defended against Johnson, does this mean that you would be choosing Jeffries to come back and win, just like most people were against Johnson? Or as an equivalent, if Lennox Lewis came out of retirement today, would you give him a shot against any of the top contenders, say a Samuel Peter or someone? In fairness, i tend to agree with you on this piont also. But, are we getting sucked in like all those who backed him against Johnson. Given that at this time, we dont know just how good Johnson was at the time, it is easy to see how Jeffries was given a chance isnt it?

 

I think Tommy Burns and Stanley Ketchel are the top 2.
Possibly O'Brien in 3rd place.

All small guys, but active fighters with decent form coming into the fight.