Which LHW's would you favor over a Prime Jack Johnson

If we accept your premise then the following were prehistoric.
Pancho Villa
Panama Al Brown
Fidel Labarba
Frankie Genaro
Bud Taylor
Tony Canzoneri
Bushy Graham
Jimmy Mclarnin
Battling Battalino
Kid Chocolate
Nel Tarleton
Benny Leonard
Sid Terris
Sammy Mandell
Johnny Dundee
Jimmy Goodrich
Ace Hudkins
Billy Petrolle
Ray Miller
Jackie Kid Berg
Mickey Walker
Dave Shade
Lew Tendler
Pete Latzo
Mushy Callahan
Jackie Fields
Young Corbett111
Tommy Milligan
Harry Greb
Tiger Flowers
Jimmy Slattery
Jack Delaney
AllenTown Joe Gans
Maxie Rosenbloom
Gene Tunney
Young Stribling
Kid Norfolk
Mike McTigue
Jeff Smith
Tommy Smith
Leo Lomski
Battling Levinsky
Jimmy Braddock
Jack Dempsey
Harry Wills
Tommy Gibbons
Charley Weinert
Jack Renault
Jack Sharkey
Max Schmeling
All champions ,or top ten ranked in the 20's.

How about
Jimmy Wilde
Joe Gans
Joe Walcott
Sam Langford
Joe Jeannette
Jack Dillon
Jim Driscoll
Abe Attell
Freddie Welsh
Prehistoric?

ps If you want to come off as unecessarily rude, and with a pretty scant knowledge of early fighters and styles carry on as you are, you're doing fine!

 

Wasn't trying to be rude, just responded to your prehistoric comment. We were I think talking about J.Johnson and what Light heavy could possibly defeat him, not how many considered great for that era fighters we can name. Thats easily done, just got to pick up a boxing almanac. In my opinion best on what Ive seen, most what would be considered great heavys in that era wouldnt be even ranked in the heavyweight division the last 40 or so yrs. For one, technical and skill wise the game developed, esp after the 1930's,, 2nd, as I previously wrote, the size differences. You may not agree, thats fine. But instead of naming fighters, maybe point me in the direction of something concrete about the skill of the fighrers that film doesnt show. Or what a writer from THAT era who never (of course) saw a Holyfeild,a M.Spinks,or even a A.Moore. (probably did fight in the 20's lol.) Another point Ill make, how many of the fighters you named you actually SAW? How many is their actual film on? Or are you basing your opnions on writers that were probably long dead before you were born.

 

Show what Deontay Wilder or Wladimir Klitschko do that Jack Johnson could not.How many heavyweight contenders can hook off the jab, infight, slip head punches? Id say the game was at its peak from 1920 to 1940 when there were probably 5 times as many fighters operating and hundreds of small clubs putting on shows on a nightly basis ,you could go to the fights every night of the week. I've seen a fair amount of what is available , not everything and in any case I'm a fan not an expert.
Joe Louis was champ when I was born, so many of the great writers were still above ground. Many of them place Johnson firmly in the atg top ten and Eddie Futch one of the greatest trainers of all time puts him in a top 3 with Ali and Louis ,all being ranked together. You're entitled to your opinion and I to mine But I didn't start the smart arse remarks did I?

 

Now Don't get me wrong, I'd never say ANY fighter from the last 20yrs are better than fighters before that. Esp aD.Wilder, the Kleischkos bros, or Mayweather jr. For that matter, and your absulutly right about the level of skills between fighters from the late 30's (that in my opnion,is were skill level took off) and the early 90's ( when skill level in my opinion began to drop off) With the absolute best fighters were between in my opnion the late 30's early 40's to the mid 80's along with, some of your best trainers. (A coincidence? Probably not) So no I don't look at today's fighters with rose colored glasses, because honestly most are garbage. So I agree with most of what you wrote, just don't agree with that 20's to 40's time frame. And Futch was 3/4 yrs old when Johnson LOST the championship. Did he actually SEE Johnson fight. I know he saw Ali, Louis,Robinson,Duran, and plethora of other fighters, and anything he's said over the yrs is gold in my book. That's why when he said R.Robinson was THE greatest of all time. Guess what? Robinson is the greatest of all time to me. But did Futch see the best of J.Johnson? Or is he reading what old writers said? And I apologize if I misunderstood your "Prehistoric "comment as being smart ass. If you didn't mean it that way. But certainly sounded like it was...

 

Check out Al Wolgast in 1910

This content is protected

 

Anyone would look prehistoric after 39 rounds of getting the crap beat of out you.

That's an issue with respect to comparing pre-WWI fights and anything after 1930.
If you know you might go 20-30-40 rounds, you certainly fight in a different manner
than if it's only a 10 rounds. You save your energy. You grab and hold. You throw
a LOT less punches per round.

I think we're comparing apples to oranges.

 

Great film (thank you) I can certainly see the skill level of both those fighters, I can see the foot work, I can see the advanced combination punching, proper jab usage,slipping and countering within arm length. But, But, I've never seen Johnson, (topic of this conversation) look that good in ANY film footage I've seen of him. But thanks again for that clip. Its really an eye opener.

 

And when you compare him to modern lightweight contenders, the evolution in technique is jaw-dropping:

https://streamable.com/thjz

The smoothness (of punching and footwork), the economy of motion in punching and defending punches, the balance, the constant jabbing, the tight guards, etc. Even Angel Manfredy would have been an absolute revelation, technique-wise back then.

 

The pace here is faster, but these guys aren't saving energy for 45 rounds. Wolgast and Nelson are still fighting at a fast pace till the 40th round. That's unbelievable.

In terms of technique, I think there are differences. But to say the modern fighters are much better I think is false.

Wolgast displayed some great boxing here:

Nice effective body work after working his way into the inside
https://streamable.com/8usj

A great jab, some nice counters, good timing
https://streamable.com/uk08

Slips the jab, counters with uppercut hook combo
https://streamable.com/ms5h

Jab, slips the jab, lands a nasty combo
https://streamable.com/gvag

Some of these clips are when the fight is well into the 30's in rounds. There's no way that jab+slip in the last clip wouldn't impress any fighter or trainer from any era.

 

Th

This was a marathon slugging match and neither participant was known for his science.

 

why are you electing to use a childishly sweeping statement "nehnehnehnhenhe you're wrong becos you are" instead of being specific?

please be specific, if you are going to make it the crux of your argument, or else the crux of your argument is a fail.

 

Obviously only you have an issue with what I wrote, everyone else seemed to understand my point well. So maybe the "childishness " is coming from you?

 

so as to substantiate your point (which you've still not done withy uor last point despite being specifically asked to) would you list the people who agree and disagree with you?

 

No one else has complained about understanding what was written by me other than you., so the issue must be you. Is that specific enough for you?

 

Why you changing the goalposts. Yuo been asked WHO AGREES AND DISAGREES.

So why you changing it to " You are the only one who doesnt understand me" when the post isnt about comprehension but clearly and blatantly about post comprehension decision making.

Stop running away from answering what I originally posted by warping it into another question entirely.