Which, if any, of these Tyson opponents would have beaten Jack Johnson?

well I would start with prime Holmes and prime Tucker,,

(vs a prime JJ)

I think all of them would of given him a good fight because they were mostly all bigger than him and "solid" heavys.

Biggs, Carl and Buster would be a hard match up for JJ because of the size and angle difference (height creates more angles), then again, Biggs, Carl and Buster didn't have the best chins so its possible JJ could of broken through them as Tyson did.

i will think about the others :rasta

 

I would say that all of the above are either physically or skillwise more impressive than the best Johnson victims. Most of the above would qualify in both categories.

 

yes interesting way of looking at it :think :good

 

Very true.

 

I would say any of the below fighters in their prime would be Johnson's best title defense, outside of Willard who knocked him out

Trevor Berbick
Bonecrusher Smith
Pinklon Thomas
Tony Tucker
Tyrell Biggs
Larry Holmes
Tony Tubbs
Michael Spinks
Frank Bruno
Carl the Truth
Buster Douglas

Could Johnson beat a big man with skills? We only have the Willard fight to look at and he wasn't exactly skilled.

The films say no, it's not only an era thing, it's a style preference thing, and film evaluation thing. I would, however, say that Johnson would win a few here even though he's giving up height, weight and, power ( in most cases ) and had the less durable chin.

As for old time heavies pre 1960, I think some of them can do well vs. modern fighters, but they need to have power, a good chin, and the right type of style ( Aggressive forward mover ) to overcome their lack of reach and height for the most part.

Johnson wasn't a power hitter. His clinching game did not work vs fighters bigger than he was and I think he had a suspect chin. With but an 74" reach, and a safety first tendency, he's not going to win on the outside or via activity.

Power and durability translate well into any era. Most heavies pre 1950 have a stamina edge over what we see today as well.

 

I don’t think any of them beat him to be honest.

If you were slower than Johnson, he generally made you look silly, even if you had significant physical advantages over him.

The people, who troubled him in or near his prime, were either small technical fighters, or pressure fighters.

There is probably no number in being a better Denver Ed Martin, or a better sandy Ferguson here.

The people who I see as being the biggest problems here, are Tony Tubbs, and Michael Spinks.

 

Johnson combined the risk avoidance skills of Floyd with the clutching skills of Wlad to build a good resume vs white hype jobs and undersized black boxers. He'd be a UFC fighter today, not a boxer.

So yes, many on the list would defeat him.

 

today, I see, he'd be UFC in your opinion.

and how woud those boxers of today or that list fare in the 1910s vs Johnson?

 

Clearly Tony Tucker, Because his Jheri Curl would have Johnson infatuated to the point he wouldn't care about boxing anymore rather interrogating him on how to replicate the stylings to make him more of a hit with the white women

 

I would make Johnson a firm favourite.

If he lost it changes the way we view boxing from that era.

 

Bill James once said that if you have a man who is convinced that the baseball was at its deepest between 1960 and 1975 then you can't convince him otherwise, except possibly to include 1959. These threads, about guys who fought the better part of a century from each other merely show how you feel about boxing and which era was best.

And that often devolves into unanswerable arguments that, rather than being didactic, are limiting and stifling.