S.I. (1955) -- Was Jack Johnson greatest heavyweight?

A) I am not saying any of these better opponents stood much of a chance against Johnson, tho they were all ready and willing.

B) Neither France nor Australia were founded after 1915.

C) I don't hold Johnson going for the $$$ against him, not by a long shot. I don't think he gave one **** what his legacy would be to a few internet nerds 100 years afterward….

 

You have to come up with concrete offers from France and Down Under to make a credible case for Johnson ducking the original Murderers Row. I've already mentioned Hugh D's rescinded offer to Johnson in Aussie. Johnson reneged on a promise to defend against Langford in London,his purse was to be £3,000 and to pay his own expenses , that was less than he received for beating Burns.

You can say he should have kept his word ,as Jim Driscoll did after outboxing Abe Attell and refusing a title fight because he had promised to fulfill a meaningless engagement back in the UK.
Jack was not Peerless Jim however he was, the original "I'm allright Jack", he didn't give a **** for anyone or anything.

 

This content is protected

 

As I have clearly stated ,the flaw in the argument that the three fore most black fighters would beat Johnson because they had improved is effectively negated by the incontrovertible fact that so had he. He had won the title,and the confidence that goes with it.

For example, you are fond of stating that Langford only weighed 156lbs for their fight,if we take that weight to be accurate,[and Pollack has some doubts about it,]then we take Johnson's announced weight of 185lbs as true too.
Langford's best weight was around 175-180lbs, and 180 is erring on the side of generosity .
Johnson's best weight,according to himself, was 208lbs,[when he fought Jeffries,] that indicates that when they met, Langford was some20/25lbs below his optimum weight ,and Johnson was 20/23lbs below his.
So both were around the same weight disparity regarding their best .

Langford was a veteran of over 50 contests when he met Johnson, he was the more experienced fighter.
Johnson always handled smaller ,shorter,come forward men well ,given that both men were in shape why would the result against Langford be any different in a return?

Clay Moyle, who has written a very well regarded biography of Langford, believes that Johnson beats Langford.
Johnson gave a good 20lbs in weight away to McVey in their trilogy he convincingly beat him time,in their last encounter beating him relentlessly until the last round when he really cut loose and stopped him.

After their contests , Johnson added a further 20lbs of muscle why would the result be any different?
Jeannette never had Johnson in any trouble in their many fights, but he himself was on the verge of being stopped a couple of times ,surviving only because of the short duration of the bouts.

Jeannette never dropped Johnson ,in contrast Johnson dropped Jeannette multiple times in their bouts. Jeannette was not Johnson's equal as a boxer, nor was he on a par with him as a hitter.

How does he beat a trained and fit Johnson?

Johnson's rationale,[ similar to a famous gangster who robbed banks], concentrated on white challengers," because that's where the money was."


Now, how about we get back to the original question of the thread?

 

Why do Mendoza and McVea have to hold the same exact argument, every time we have a thread about Johnson?

We should be free to discuss aspects of Johnson’s career, without it turning into an argument about how wicked/incompetent he was!

 

I wasn't arguing, I was replying to Seamus. Mendoza decided to join in and I addressed his points ,in what I think was an honest ,and courteous manner.
Feel free to pick apart my points, highlighting any inaccuraces,or falsehoods.
Unfortunately your opinion has been drastically devalued i, m, e, because of our last debate, so it's of no consequence to me .I will respond to any valid points you make regarding my post though.

 

The final verdict?

Johnson is looking down on us, relishing every bit of controversy he caused.

Jeffries is looking down on us, wondering how America ever got a black president, and wishing he had stayed retired.

 

Would it be similar to you insulting Choklab in every reply to him you post?:think

 

I imagine Johnson is looking up at us, probably white supremacist Jeffries too!

 

I doubt Jeffries is looking down and regretting staying retired, he made a lot of money and i am sure he had a good use for it at the time. It is no use to him now, but neither is his legacy. Imagine all the money he is going to take off the modern internet fans, when they join him in the sky and bet against him because of that last fight. That Johnson fight has set him up for an eternity of riches, i think.

 

I agree with Mendoza on some other issues, and I don't think he trolls when he attacks Johnson, I really think he believes what he is saying at the time he says it , the fact that it's bollocks is beside the point.

Choklab is hard work because he arbitrarily moves the goal posts everytime he is in trouble. He never responds to your insults,which flatters his points a bit because it makes him seem a lot more reasonable and even handed than he is,and makes you appear as a short fused bully. If you kept your cool a bit more with him , his views would be perceived more objectively and so would yours, which would be to your benefit.
But I think you just enjoy ****ing him off.

 

I am sorry Mendoza, but (assuming Johnson is in great shape which is the real question here), but I cant see any of these fighters improving against Johnson in a real fight. They were all good, Langford great even, but Johnson was a class above them.

He retired after Jeffries, yet despite this, still had a lengthy reign as long as most champions, despite never again having the desire and never again really training fully. Look at how quickly the likes of Dempsey dissipitated once he lost the desire. Frazier, Tyson, Liston and many others had the same problem. Johnson simply kept keeping his title no matter what, for about 7 years despite never being in shape again. That is astonishing. But then after losing the title (and retiring for another period of time), he came back and stayed undefeated for another 10 or so years. In fact, despite being criticised for being more experienced than the trio he actually outlasted all three of them and was competitive with world class fighters much longer than all of them. If any of them really wanted a shot at Johnson, it is surprising that they didnt challenge Johnson some time after Willard. It owuld have shot them into World Championship calculations, but this was a bridge too far for all of them.

Johnson's Post Willard career is similar to Louis' back end career which was ended by Marciano and Ali's end of career that was ended by Holmes and Berbick. With the difference being that Johnson was good enough to extend his career and competiveness a lot longer than either of those two guys were.

there is nothing wrong with ranking Johnson as the world's greatest heavyweight in 1955 or at 2014 or probably any other point in the future. Without doubt he is one of the guys who deserves consideration.

 

Due to his style and the times he fought in I think its very hard to


evaluate Johnson with any kind of precision. I don't see him beating Ali ,maybe he could outsmart Louis and survive Dempsey's early onslaught, maybe Louis would catch him with a combo and start an avalanche, possibly Dempsey bobs and weaves under his extended left and hooks him into oblivion

A focused Lewis is a mighty problem for any heavyweight to solve .

Tyson's handspeed and power make him dangerous for anyone.

I dont see Foreman, Marciano or Frazier beating him.Though, because of his speed ,[superior to the other two,] Joe could give him problems , but he gets smothered inside ,and surely he walks onto an uppercut at some point?
He beats both the Ukrainians imo.

I give Ezzard Charles a chance of making a close fight .Tunney too.

Walcott could be intruiging ,would he prove as vulnerable to Jack's uppercut as he was to Rocky's, or was that just age?

I cant give Fitz a shot because several biographies call him a sucker for a jab.
Prime Jeffries gives him a Frazier /Ali type duel but Jeffries lacked the instant explosiveness to get Jack out of there imo.

Corbett is inferior to Johnson in most everything imo,so no shot. Schmeling ? Dangerous but predictable that doesn't beat Johnson. Sharkey could give him some tough rounds, but I think Jack would get in his head.
Liston ? His foot work wasnt good enough to trap Johnson for the big hooks and right crosses, but his jab would keep him competitive.
Holmes has a very good chance of a dec win imo. Bowe is a tough fight for anyone,ditto Holyfield.
On the other hand , with the increased work rates of fighters due to the reduced rounds maybe Jack struggles badly with the combination throwing champions that succeeded him?