This is a question for the guys who think Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Baer, Stribling, Burns, Jack O'Brien, etc. are clumsy cavemen who would lose to most top heavyweights today. Do you think the same of Jack Johnson? Why or why not?
I'm not sure that JJ would be big enough nowadays and that fights would be long enough to make his style work, but overall, yes, possibly in principle he could. His mauling spoiling style is still used in various forms by many high level boxers, taking say, Hopkins and Ward as examples. Another thing that might tell against him would be that he'd have difficulty in making his custom grip work on opponents arms with big padded modern gloves.
A fighters size should not be an issue today. there are more options in terms of weight classes than there have ever been. It was Johnson's era where guys were really getting shafted, because they didn't fit any of the available weight classes.
Talentwise I think he would... at lightheavy and cruiser, and given that his game adapts a bit. And he could probably make successful tho short stab with the big boys, winning more than he loses. Ultimately, he's probably a little too short, too small with not enough reach to dominate at the upper end.
What Johnson had was timeless. He was an absolute master of economy of effort. If you change the distance/glove size/rules, then he is still thinking along all the right lines!
I think a in shape Jack Johnson in the modern era would cope well, at heavyweight of course his size might hinder him, at cruiser then yes would fair well. In modern era the colour issue would not come into play, so Johnson would not feel need to play the race card (justified as it was in his day), so focus on beating opponent alone without colour issues. A in shape Johnson was a powerful guy, allied with his boxing skills and confidence, i do think he would perform at elite level, just not at heavyweight today with the behemoths we have in the heavyweight division.
