Was Jack Johnson truly as great as he is portrayed?

Yes. Based on the conditions in which HE was fighting.

NO FIGHTER EVER faced the type of hate and bias that Jack Johnson did. No one. No one ever has, no one ever will in the foreseeable future.

You think people are hating on Pac? on Floyd? on Klit? No, no, no. Jack Johnson had more haters than all of them put together, and of a more unsavory and deranged variety.

Anyone hating on Jack Johnson after looking into his history as a fighter is probably just a racist ******* (yeah I said it).

How long were the fights then? How pro-white were the fights then? He could depend on the odds being stacked against him as just the default situation.

I don't blame him for any decisions he made during his career. He had to look out for himself and his best interests because at the end of the day, no one else damn sure would, all they wanted was to see 'that n*gg*r get killed'.


Jack Johnson. A Legendary Heavyweight fighter.

 

I rate him highly for his defensive skills, especially in comparison to what was present at the time.

 

Not a fact.

You can't take track - one example - and use that as the measuring stick for your assertion. That's not how research is done and thats not how points are proven.


(1). You apparently arent keeping up with HW boxing. Most of the bums we have in the rings today in boxings heavier weights are much worse athletically than the fighters of yester-years.

You spout off at the mouth like that so easily, and yet we only fight 12 rounds of boxing now. Jack Johnson used to fight how many rounds?

And if you are even watching WW or MW boxing..and watching it in the late 70's to early or mid 90's you'd have your tongue in your cheek before you begin call our modern day fighters at that weight class better than their predecessors. Who boxing today would you give a UD over Sugar Ray Leonard? Roberto Duran? Hearns? Lol. Who could beat Hagler hands down?

Im a football guy, and personally, I don't think many defenses could stop Jim Brown or Bo Jackson, let alone cover Irvin, Rice. What NBA defensive team could out-right stop MJ?
I watch Kung Fu films.
Jackie Chan and Jet Li don't impress me over many of the martial artist of the past, let alone these even newer guys (Tony Jaa, etc). Its not nostalgia it's just in pure athletic and practiced ability.

Sure, we have our stand outs as every age does, but those stand-outs don't cancel out the fields and scores of fighters or respective practitioners of any respective field of athletic endeavor. It just doesn't.

You want to claim that its the diets. You should consult some food experts and find out if our food is really healthier than food of the past eras after all the crap they put in it. Most people aren't even drinking real water anymore, they are just drinking a solution, but I digress..

Heavyweights today are not better than the Heavyweights of the late 50's,60's and 70's. You'd think with all the film we have on them this would be unanimously understood, but some people believe what they want to believe without actually studying the film and comparing.

 

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

Good post.

And, for me, it boils down to a few significant variables.

1. Distraction/Focus: Fighter's of old had much less distraction, and much more focus on their art. Their life, quite literally, was boxing.

2. Necessity/Desire: They had to fight, it wasn't just a job, it was their life. If they didn't fight, they had nothing else to do. The desire to fight when losing cost more than it does today, far outweighs the desire a lot of fighters now have.

3. Fortitude: Not just boxers but all of us today - especially in developed/western countries - are weaker. We're too complacent in our luxuries and modern convenience. The effect this has on our mental strength is evident everywhere you look.

 

He was pretty good, big for his era and naturally gifted especially defensively, not heavy handed but could deliver a beating, he thrashed Tommy Burns in Sydney, who looked like a midget against him at 175 or less and generally won when he wanted except when the fix was in. His lifestyle restricted his greatness and he could have been a lot better.

 

Sad, but true.

 

Every boxer should be subject to constructive criticism. . . But I agree, old school boxers put in A LOT more work, and boxing was a lot more "real" back then. . .

 

But yes, Johnson was a great HW champion. . . He's somewhere around 9-12 on my list of ATG HW's. . . . I'm not afraid to say he should have fought him. . But meh, it is what it is - still an ATG career. .

That being said, he would be SMASHED TO BITS by Wladimir, or Vitali Ali would pwn him. . Louis would own him. . . I think Tunney woudl outslick him, and outbox him over the distance. . Him and Dempsey is 50/50. . . Tyson would destroy him. . Him and Frazier would be 50/50. . . Foreman decapitates him. . Holmes pickes him to pieces before shutting both his eyes, and KO'ing him late. . . Marciano CRUNCHES him. . .

 

This **** is ****ing hilarious - look at the headbutts at 1:51.

 

Lewis TKO 5's him. . . Holyfield would outbox him pretty clearly, and get hte best of him on the inside over the distance. . . Patterson and him is 60/40 Johnson due to lack of CHEEN on Patterson. . I think Johnson would be too quick for Liston, and decision him. . .

 

Haters gonna hate

 

No hate from me, just honestly. . . He gets his **** pushed in by majority of his fellow HW ATG's.

 

To keep it short, there are arguments that favour Jack Johnson:

-Decent career before winning the title, when he was the 'colored' heavyweight champion.

-He was practically undefeated for a decade, except for a DQ and a controversial decision.

-His style was advanced for his time.

However, there are also strong arguments that play against Johnson's greatness:

-His best wins were over Sam McVea, Sam Langford and Joe Jeanette. McVea had less than 10 fights. Sam Langford's weight was 156 pounds. Jeanette was also very green.

-His title reign was a joke.