Pick one lightheavyweight to fight Jack Johnson

Johnsons average weight for title defences was around 208,so a LH at 175 would be conceding 33lbs ,thats quite a bit,dont you think?

 

thats a big difference between there two weights but not that big for a heavy. jones would obviously put on a little weight if he knew he were fighting johnson

 

Joe Calzaghe.

Volume and evasion alone would do it against Johnson.

They do it against anyone.

 

So much of the available footage on Jack being successful was against such smaller fighters (Burns, Ketchell). He was able to lean back a lot and basically slap and jab these guys into submission, though let's not underestimate his excellent uppercut, even in the clinches. However, you can't lean straight back and hook if the other guy is 6-4 with commesurate reach.

Look, if Johnson were born in 1975 and undertook an amateur background before turning pro, of course he would be a different fighter. But a whole lot of speculation is required to imagine he would be anywhere near as a good as he was against the crop of his own day.

 

RJJ certainly is a very talented fighter,he could give any one problems,wether he could outpoint someone as defnsively adept as Johnson is debatable.Jones would not be my first pick to meet Johnson ,but I give him an outside shot.

 

Yes, but consider at the beginning of his career he was 150lbs fighting against men as big as 235lbs. As he grew older he filled out his stature, and outweighed many of the top contenders of his time significantly - I don't think it's fair to hold this against him.

Fighters like Ketchel, Burns, were made to look silly against Johnson (Ketchel fight was more a theatrical presentation than an actual fight) but were reasonably successful in the heavyweight division if you look at some of their fights against other top heavies such as Langford.

No? How about Jess Willard? I think this footage in particular is the best indicator of Johnsons style. Even though Johnson was 38, fat, and shot, we're still able to see how he used his reflexes, counterpunching, handspeed, and why he was the "acknowledged master of reach range and farawayness". He was not an infighter by any means.

Willard lacked skill, but he fought behind a jab, packed a right hand like a mule kick (killed a man) and was physically very large in stature. Sounds much like many of todays "modern" heavyweights.

You can lean back and hook if the other guy is lunging forward with his chin when he punches, a la Hatton - Very unlikely with a taller technically sound boxer, but Johnsons favourite punch to counter with was the right anyway.

I think fighting in those incredibly difficult conditions, small gloves, 50 rounds, winner-takes-all purses, contributed significantly to making Johnson and others of that era the fighters they were. Even though he had no amateur background, during the start of his career he sparred with most of the best fighters in the World, such as Barbados Joe Walcott extensively, which is how he developed his techniques. Choynski contributed significantly to developing a defensive emphasis.

 

I don't disagree with you about the era Johnson fought in. Those were extremely tough dudes and have all my respect.

It just doesn't translate to this era. But I don't think the number of rounds matters. If you bring in a modern champion against the sophistication of Johnson (or lack thereof), there would be no contest. The sport has evolved despite what some contend.

 

Good points and well taken.

I'm claiming to be Eddie Futch but when I watch Johnson I see a guy with good reflexes but who leaves a lot of openings that a modern fighter- and a larger fighter with a degree of talent- would exploit.

But given your lucid and well-thought arguments, I will take Ricardo Lopez off my list of fighters who would beat him.

 

Might I suggest that the available footage of Johnson dose not tell the whole story.

Most of the footage is of him fighting smaller fighters but he also fought a whole heap of much bigger fighters with considerable success.

What would we see in those fights?

 

Forget big, this is not about being big.

Jack Johnson was a feared man back in his day, not just because of his size but because of his physical prowess - he was one of the strongest ever '200lbs fighters'. There was big men about, but none built like him.

The difference in weight between a Jack Johnson and Archie Moore may not be so great, but there is in physical substance - rock solid legs, a ripped torso and 17" biceps - this was all from natural conditioning, enduring dogged times. Johnson was made of tough stuff.

As a side note you may catch Johnson performing feats of strength during his vaudeville tour on Ken Burns 'Unforgivable Blackness'.

For those who believe Johnson was not an infighter or an out-fighter, you're both wrong.

Johnson was a physically inclined sharp shooter, which are two contradictive stances. Because of this he always stood up like a plank of wood, as if he was in limbo with what to do next, but it was the opponent who he got to lead and then clinch/counter accordingly.

The funny looking stance that many fans would dub 'primitive' was just a considerate fighter weighing up his options at every interval.

His right back foot lay behind him like the stand on a tripod, which he would either spring off on or bend to shuffle backwards. He was made to adapt; to outfox the boxer and out muscle the brawler.

Roy Jones would definitely give Johnson something to ponder over, but it is simply a matter of time before he decided to commit himself, close the gap and start making it into the physical fight that Jones does not like.

All of the great Light heavyweights are going to be hard pressed to beat Johnson. When you realise he was quite the tough one and get a scope of his true ability you'll find he's carrying too much equipment to be bet against.

 

Ted- I'm not buying any of that.

Are you telling that boxing has not evolved since Johnson's day. Frankly, as a guy who has boxed and watched thousands of matches, I don't see much that a modern cruiser would have problems with in Johnson. And even those of his day consistently got the better of him, only to be robbed (Jim Johnson), undersized (Ketchell- oh, that's right, it was staged), Choynski (despite numerous embarrassing losses, supposedly world's most vicious puncher), Hart (oh, a robbery of course), Jeanette (again a dq, not really a loss, right?), Griffin (oh, he was green then), Haines (?).... The length to which his followers go to excuse his spotty record is absurd. He was simply a GOOD fighter in a tough era, a little above the rest of the pack,nothing more.

We all want to believe in the Paul Bunyan lore but in this case it just ain't there.

 

He's not the only great fighter with spotty patches on his record - Infact most great fighters do have spotty patches, people like Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Roberto Duran, even Ray Robinson. Certain excuses are more valid than others - I see you bring up the Haines fight. Little did you know, that Johnson had Haines on the canvas for THREE MINUTES in the second round but the ref refused to finish his count and let Haines get back to his feet. These days fans whinge if a count goes on for 12 seconds instead of 10.

 

That was why I included the (?) behind Haines. I have heard at least two versions of how that fight went down.

I am not denying there is an argument to be made for Johnson being the cream of the crop of his era. That argument can be made, as it can be made for others. However, I do not think his skill set translates to the modern ring. Therefore, I see numerous LHW's from the 40's on beating him.

 

Point being, Johnson's 'skill set' was timeless.

Victims of Johnson's, who looked to fight more like a 'modern' boxer, were dealt with.

Johnson's ability to anticipate and use his strength are simple reasons why any Light Heavyweight is going to have a real hard time with him.

Success in boxing is easy to pin down - hit and not get hit - at this Johnson was superb at.

Higher work rates, tighter looking guards and more movement does not equate a greater skill set, it is simply the a way of experimenting with ways of making angles and avoiding punches. Johnson would still hit and not get hit because of his inherent ability to read an opponent.

Where your shoulders are, where your feet are - aspects that are a part of all styles, Johnson would pick up on and then proceed to feint you into knots.

A good boxer could trouble Johnson, but they would likely not show him anything that he has not seen before.

Against Light Heavyweights, if Johnson is indeed finding an Archie Moore, or a Michael Spinks to be a bit of a rubik’s cube, he would wait for his time to pounce and over power them.

One thing about Jack Johnson that does not come along with his defensive praises was his punching power that he could turn up very high when things were not going as smooth as he'd hoped.

Don't doubt it because of his poundage, Johnson was terribly strong and powerful.