Ring magazine is officially lost it

On the overall subject, it depends totally on the criteria which are subjective. I recently listened to a big debate on who is the best of the all time top ten NFL football players after a sports journal came out with a list. (in order--Tom Brady, Jim Brown, Jerry Rice, Lawrence Taylor, Reggie White, Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, Walter Payton, Johnny Unitis, D-ck Butkus)

What obviously stood out from the discussion is the criteria used determines the outcome. The guy backing Brady pointed to accomplishment. The other two pointed to "greatness" which they defined as athleticism and visible assets at their position. So one guy said Aaron Rodgers is better than Brady because he can throw harder and longer and is more mobile.

My reaction would be accomplishment can be measured and is obviously relevant. Is being able to throw a football higher or longer as relevant? If so, why doesn't Rodgers have the championships. One has to start relying on excuses for Rodgers not doing better. The argument for Brady is that he has won 7 championships while the other nine won 14 total.

Jack Johnson third? He has more longevity than anyone. From 1901 to 1926 he lost only 3 fights. One on a foul to an opponent he defeated often. One on a very controversial decision to Marvin Hart. And one in a finish fight in which a 37 year old Johnson had a wide edge over any reasonable distance.

It has been charged he was only the white champion like Jeffries and Dempsey, but Johnson was the colored champion first and defended that title several times. The charge that he only defeated small men is simply not true.

Marciano fourth? No one rose to the title, defended it against the best men, and swept the opposition like he did. And almost always with stoppages.

The most overrated are Dempsey and Tunney. Johnson fought a lot of big guys. Tunney fought few and no one who was over 6' and 195. Dempsey ducked his top contender and lost twice to the best man he fought. His reputation is far more puffed up than Johnson's.

The Ring list looks at his place in history and his record in the ring in his own time, not to an argument that a man with lesser accomplishment is greater because the fighters have grown bigger.

 

Both stack up very well on the resume argument, even if you disregard head to head.

They are strong on both camps criteria.

 

Just on the size of Johnson's opponents, Janitor gave some, but here is an expanded list from cyber boxing zone

Joe Kennedy--6-2 over 200 lbs
Fred Russell--6-4 over 200 lbs
Denver Ed Martin--6-3.5 over 200 lbs
Sam McVea--5-10.5 around 215 lbs
Sandy Ferguson--6-3 over 200 lbs
Jim Jeffords--6-4 about 200 lbs
Peter Felix-6-3.5 about 185 lbs
Al Kaufmann--6-1 over 190 lbs
Jim Jeffries--6-0 227
Frank Moran--6-1 203
Tom Cowler--6-1.5 over 205
Battling Johnson-6-3 about 220

Everyone focuses on Burns, Ketchel, and Flynn on film, but Kaufmann was a decent sized heavyweight, and Jeffries, Moran, and Willard were big to giant heavyweights for the era.

Knocking Johnson because Jeffries was old doesn't wash with me. Johnson was the #1 contender in 1904 and sought a fight with Jeffries. Jeffries blatantly drew the color line in overtly racist statements. Tough luck for Jeffries that he got his head handed to him when he finally opted to get in the ring with Johnson. Knocking Johnson is knocking the wrong man.

Gunboat Smith--there might be something to Johnson should have defended against him, but that Smith actually wanted the fight when he was the leading white contender does seem in doubt, and if Johnson had fought Smith, the criticism would probably be that Smith was just another "small' man, as he often weighed less than 180.

 

I would add that the one contender who Johnson should undoubtedly be criticized for not fighting, is Sam Langford, who was another small fighter.

 

He lost about 7 in that period. Years are inclusive so i reckon you meant 1902-1925.

Title fights and bouts vs top 10 opposition are the key. After losing the title in 1915 he had 12 fights in 10 years. How many of these would you say are top 5 or top 10 types?

Foreman lost 5 fights in a 28 year period and fought 81 times. Speaking "longevity" he's got Johnson covered for mine, easily.

A guy like Holmes lost 4 fights over a 21 year period and after he lost the title he went about 25-4 with losses to Tyson, Holyfield (the best in the world at the time), McCall for the WBC belt and Neilsen. He also beat a top 5 contender.

Johnson had 13 fights between losing the title and losing again. Where i am heading is that i don't think Johnson did much of note after losing the title. Happy to be somehow corrected. He certainly hasn't got Foreman or Holmes covered for longevity IMO and we've also got guys like Ali with 5 losses in 21 years with no years of fluff at the end like Johnson and Holmes and Foreman.

Don't get me wrong, 1901 to 1915 is a solid run.

 

Okay. You make solid points.

Holmes? Okay.

Foreman? In a way, but there is a problem. In his prime he lost decisively to an aging Ali and Young. In his comeback he lost decisively to Holyfield and Morrison. Johnson was clearly the best fighter in the world for a good number of years. Foreman? One can make the case he was never the best in the world, but just got the right guys as championship opponents. Guys who came to him or stood in front of him. Movers and boxers? Never able to dominate those.

And in fairness to Johnson, the best fighters after 1916 wouldn't fight him or were prevented from fighting him, so it is difficult to know how good he was or wasn't at this point, but he seems to have impressed observers. Also, my point was no one clearly beat Johnson except Willard in a finish fight over a 25 year period. Holmes and Foreman were decisively beaten and in fact stopped.

 

It was on a trip to South America and was a pudu deer.

In the telling and retelling it became first an elk, and then a bull moose.

 

Yeah, those were not good placements.

 

Good discussion here. It's elevated this place a bit, kudos to those involved.

I'm no expert on Johnson or his time but would only add that after the first two heavyweight ATG spots, there's a tremendous drop-off. I have Holmes a solid third. After that, reasonable arguments could be made for a few guys for spot #4, Johnson included.

 

I've always been skeptical of Johnson, but one thing I feel I have to toss in, for fairness' sake: Some fighters back then had embarrassing win/loss records by modern standards due to the different business environment. They wouldn't be training for 1-2 big fights a year where they'd give a peak, all-out effort. A lot of times they were doing just enough to get by against an equally under-motivated opponent. And they would fight too long past their primes, fight while injured, while sick, while on an alcoholic bender, while out of shape, etc. more often than was likely common later on.

You wouldn't expect to see either combatant being prepared to go life-and-death for a win in Langford VS Jeanette XXXVI: Revenge Of The Return Of The Revenge, Again, Double-Payback Time for example.

I'm sure you're aware of this yourself, but figured I would throw it in on the record for the sake of the thread.

 

Yes, I have also looked at Boxrec.

Might I respectfully suggest, that you look at the media coverage of these fights at the time?

 

Your initial argument, was that Johnson only fought smaller fighters, which has been fairly comprehensively debunked.

Your backup argument, seems to be, that the big men he fought were no good.

If the big men that he beat, were at least the best of their era, then that doesn't leave you much wiggle room!

 

BoxRec Ratings are ridiculous the last couple of years.

I have sent them a possible scoring method a few times, no reply, not too say mine were the best, but merely just offering ideas for them to consider. A few years back their Ratings for Champions verses Contenders & Top Noted fighters, were far, far too wide, Now their altogether too Low for THOUSANDS of fighters.

they just can't seem to get it balanced and fair for the Thousands of good and great fighters they are listing for Posterity, yet 'if' you trusted (most don't), but if you trusted their Ratings, well it paints a sad picture for all those great Mitt Men.