Prime for prime - Peter Jackson v Jack Johnson

Oppinions were divided on Jackson's power at the time.

In suport of it, he seems to have knocked some people prety sensless.

 

I'm going by my most recent read in reference to him, which was Pollack's book on Sullivan. I remember several observers thought firstly that Jackson lacked the punching power and secondly that he would be no match for a prime Sullivan.

That said, I would like to read more on the subject...

 

You could have failed o match up to Sullivan as a puncher, and still been prety respectable for that era.

 

The original George Godfrey was reckoned to be be a big puncher, but I doubt anyone among his contemporaries was on a par with Sullivan.

 

George Siler, who saw them both, wrote in his book Inside Facts of Pugilism that Jackson was the best black heavyweight of the times by long odds, and hit harder then Johnson. Please produce your source.


Corbett felt Jackson was the better as well. These are contemporary opinions. Did anyone who saw them both say Johnson was better? Guys like Nat Fleischer never saw Jackson fight. There never was any film on Jackson in the ring either.


Who was better is hard to say. However if they meet, I would favor Jackson on styles as the quick handed boxer-puncher almost always beats the defensive minded counterpuncher…especially if the counter puncher was never known as a knock out artists and was not known for throwing many punches.

 

I've already provided it in a reply to Seamus on this thread, you imbecile!
Inside Facts Of Pugilism page 111.atsch .
I see you've crept back with no retraction, no apology, and no admitting you were wrong.

What an absolute ANUS you are!

 

Who would have a clue other than folks that saw them both ... ?

 

Exactly.

 

A brief summary of Jackson that indicates he was not in top shape when he drew with Joe Goddard.



http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/jackson-peter-6814

In photos, Jackson appears to be heavy thighed compared to Johnson who carried most of his muscle in his top half.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Jackson was the taller man by about an inch, noted for his jab, feint, and quick one two.

 

Mcvey,


You forgetful dolt. Your reading comprehension and memory astounds us all.


Inside facts of Puglism. On Chapter 13 " Days of negro fighters over " Page 111 Siler says Jackson was the best by long odds who ever put his hands up. He probably did not have much on Johnson as a scientific boxer, but as a scientific hard hitting fighter he towered away over Jack.


TRANSLATION FOR YOUR LYING & LAME ASS: Siler thinks Jackson was better then Johnson. Not by a little, but by LONG ODDS.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

You posted the same link I had already provided on page one of this thread, how ****ing stupid are you?atsch
That translates into Jackson was a harder hitter ,which I stated.:huh

You have the gall to criticise my reading and compehension,you ,who are illiterate and borderline ******ed.

Go have a look at how you spelt of course and offence in the Willard thread.
coruse, offense. Rainman

You cannot even construct sentenceatsch
I have to give you credit for having the front to come back on here after being comprehensively humiliated on your own thread . Nothing embarrasses you does it?


From now on I shall just regard you as every one else does, THE FORUM'S JOKE