Make a top3 of Johnson's linear title fight opponents

On the Burns versus Jeffries issue--Johnson was at, or at least close to his peak in 1910 and had toyed with Burns a year and a half earlier. Burns would have been something like 50 to 60 lbs lighter against Jeffries. If Burns were champion, I think Jeff might have had a good shot at beating him. It would have been very interesting.

As for Johnson and his black challengers--I don't think that fight with Langford proved all that much as to how Langford would have done from about 1911 on. I would also note that Johnson did defend against Flynn even though he had defeated Flynn more decisively in 1907 than he ever defeated Langford or Jeannette. He also did not really dominate Jeannette and his last fight with him in 1907 was a draw. McVea was dominated, if as a teenager.

 

I honestly have a hard time imagining Burns beating even that version of Jeffries.

Burns was a come forward offensive fighter who defeated even much larger oponents based on his power and infighting skills. This is n ot a good style for fighting Jeffries.

I also think that shot Jeffries gave Johnson more trouble than Burns did. He had Johnson in some discomfort in the fourth round.

 

1. Burns
2. Willard
3. Jeffries

Fascinating topic. Good fighters all; the choice isn't at all easy.

I'm going with the consistency of the little giant.

 

All fair points, and i must admit, I am a sucker for picking an old has been champion. But as good as your theory is, I wonder how many people used the same theory to pick Ali over Berbick? Holmes was an ATG, but surely the average Berbick couldnt beat Ali. The great Tyson couldnt be overpowered by Kevin MCBride. The list goes on. I really think that Burns is a lot better than people realise. 6 years retirement is an awful long time. Still, given the 6 years it was really a spectacular effort by Jeffries, so who knows?

 

Just another quick thought which comes to mind. How do you guys see a Burns vs Willard fight going, prime for prime. Would Willards reach be too much. I think that his chin and power would definitely cause Tommy Some problems. This would have made a great fight and the winner would tell us a lot about both. I like Tommy to slightly shade Willard on points.

 

Exactly.

 

If we compare common opponents beat burns and ketchel..its not even close. Ketchel wins it easily. Burn IMO did not defeat any respectable heavyweights outside of Hart...Ketchel would have tooled with burns heavyweight opposition. IMO Ketchel's 6 round draw with a prime heavyweight version of sam langford, is by far a greater accomplishment than anything burns ever did at heavyweight. Ketchel fought Johnson and Langford both at the peak of there heavyweight careers...and despite giving up weight ketchel floored johnson, and gave Langford hell. Langford called Ketchel "the best white fighter i have ever fought." When Ketchel did fight a fringe heavyweight contender Durable Dan Porky Flynn...Ketchel murdered him faster than anyone did until 1917. Boston Globe said Ketchel demonstrated "Tremendous speed and hitting power to knockout flynn."


Ketchel without a doubt was fearless, and took on the two best heavyweight greats of the WHOLE ERA while both were at there peaks and had held a signifigant size advantage over Stanley. Thats Balls. Such a shame he got killed....he would have been as dangerous to the heavyweight division as Fitzsimmons was during early 1900s. Given his efforts against Johnson and Langford....Stanley would have beaten most of the heavyweight contenders out there.

 

Lets compare common opponents between burns and ketchel shall we? I know I posted this a while back and it is off topic...but I want to put a end to the constant notion that burns was a "harder puncher" than Stanley.

Ketchel against common opponents: 5-1 with 4 knockouts

Burns against common opponents: 2-3-5 with 0 knockouts


Vs Jack Johnson

Ketchel - L Ko'd 12
Burns- L TKO'd 14

Notes: Burns got dominated for every second of ever round. While ketchel did get dominated, at least Ketchel hurt Johnson twice during the bout, and FLOORED johnson for 4 seconds with a hard right hand on the ear.

edge: Ketchel who was much more competitive vs Johnson than burns was and put johnson on the floor.



vs Hugo Kelly

Ketchel- KO 3

Burns- D 10 and D 20

Edge: HUGE to ketchel


vs Jack Twin Sullivan

Ketchel: KO 20

Burns: D 20, L 20

Edge: HUGE to ketchel.


vs Philadelphia Jack O Brien

Ketchel- W 10, TKO 3

Burns- L 6, D 20, W 20

Edge: Clear edge to Ketchel. He twice knocked O brien out cold and went undefeated against him, while burns lost to him and i believe(correct me if im wrong) was never was able to take O brien off his feet.



vs Tony Caponi

Ketchel- KO 4

Burns- D 6, W 6

edge: Ketchel. I think a pattern is developing here. Ketchel is proving himself by far the much more devastating puncher of the two against common opposition.

 

Looks like Johnson was carrying Ketchel to me, literally holding him up in the clinches to make the fight last longer. It's pretty clear on the film.
The knockdown looks completely fake too, Johnson sees the right hand coming from a mile away and is already on his way down before the punch connects. Watch it frame-by-frame and you see Johnson's on his way down when that wild haymaker is still miles away. It was done to add drama to the fight and to add value to the film.

 

I've always thought this was kind of strange. However:

1) The way Johnson initially and genuinely struggles to get up looks legit to me.

2) Johnson immediately knocked out Ketchel right after that, suggesting that he wanted revenge and really was pissed off, or that he was carrying Ketchel but the latter didn't play according to plan, so he had to end it.

3) Johnson's ego. I don't think he would've agreed to be knocked down for the drama of it, especially not against a "white boy".

4) Although he does seem to slip before being hit, a hard right hand does connect to the back of his head or ear, which can affect one's equilibrium.


To me it looks like Johnson slipped off-balance but got hit on the way down and was momentarily stunned.

 

The only real live body heavyweight that Johnson fought was Willard, and he was Ko'd late in that match.

I would say Jim Johnson, O'brien, and Jess Williard were Johnson three toughest opponents. The bald truth is, Jim Johnson was ROBBED, O'brien made Johnson look bad, and according to the press was a shade the better, and of course Jess Willard Ko'd an older Jack Johnson.

It truly amazes me that some people honestly believe Jack Johnson was a top 5 great. The films, news reads, and ring results suggest otherwise.

 

Well, I watched this film over and over in slow motion. It appears to me that Johnson saw the right coming and tried to duck under it but it caught him on the ear when he was in an awkward position. It seems very unlikely that Johnson planned ahead with Ketchel to work a timing program with a Ketchel right and expect it to look good on film. He would just have taken a right and then gone down if it was a fix.

As for holding Ketchel up, it appeared to me that Ketchel was not in danger at that time from going down from a punch but was being manhandled by the much bigger Johnson who was throwing him around and while spinning him, held him up, perhaps inadvertently.

 

Nah, Kaufman was an average white hope.

Allow me to clarify. I said Willard, Jim Johnson, and O'Brien were Jack Johnson toughest opponents, meaning they gave the champion his toughest matches.

Does anyone think Louis, Dempsey, Marciano, Ali, or Holmes struggles this much vs the same cast of title opponents?

 

Kaufman was a genuine contender, one of the best of the white hopes