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

What have I changed? Your basically writing I'm generalizing my point with what I wrote. I'm writing no one else had an issue with understanding my point other you, so the issue must be you. I'm responding to you specifically. Not the thread. So in essence your specific question. Is that hard for you to understand

 

Since you underlined the word prime, you have to define it here. My guess if you leave out the dates when he was defeated by men who were either shorter or lighter. But go for it and tell us! We shall see if I'm correct. Furthermore, the onus of proof is on you to prove Johnson was lighter.

Choysnki was shorter and likely lighter. Johnson had 23+ fights under his belt when this one happened. Hart was shorter and perhaps lighter. Griffin may have been lighter and was past his prime in 1901 when he beat Johnson.

Jack O'Brein, according to primary sources outboxed Johnson, and he was well below the 175-pound limit.

GunBoat smith was most certainly lighter when he TKO'd Johnson in a 4 round exhibition match in 1909

Now please tell us if you think CHoynski Or O'Brien were better than the following light heavyweights! In fact, I'd like to see your list of light heavies, as
you likely rate them below these men...which makes if kind of hard to pick Johnson easily, doesn't it? HAHAHA

Archie Moore
Ezzard Charles
Sam Langford
Gene Tunney
Bob Foster
Tommy Loughran
Michael Spinks
Bob Fitzsimmons
Billy Conn
Roy Jones, Jr.
Maxie Rosenbloom
John Henry Lewis
Harry Greb
Sergey Kovalev

-Mendoza

What a weak reply. Stress? I have fun with you! You could not even name Johnson's prime and completely avoided proving to me that he was not beaten by smaller or shorter men. The fact is he was at many stages of his career.

Adam knows Johnson had 23+ recorded fights, and some battle royal's under his belt before Choynski clocked him cold.

Hank Griffin's prime was in the 1890's. Adam, who I respect would agree with me, you dolt. He beat Johnson at about 180 pounds give or take 5, so essentially he was below what light heavyweights are when then enter the ring. The same man was toyed with by Jeffries who floored him several times in a 4 round affair.

I've asked to see your list of light heavies. I'm guessing you won't list them as Johnson lost to or drew lesser men around the same weight ( 170-185 ) which if you had a logical bone in your body means he would also lose to quite a few better light heavyweights that are general seen as top all time top ten greats.

Not that your clock has been cleaned for the 199th time, I expect you to go racial or start typing in CAPS sooner or later. We'll see if I'm correct again.

 

Comparable to Holyfield? Holyfield was far more durable. Holyfield fought the best of his generation.

One comparison I would make is both had excuses when they lost.

 

You put forward Choynski beating Johnson as a lhvy beating a prime Johnson.Have you any idea how deranged you actually are?
You just don't get it that your tiresome hatred is so much sewage,do you think I give a good f*ck about anything you post? I just correct a few of your more blatant lies.Go kill yourself you sad f*ck!

 

LOL. Get help fast! I asked for you to define Johnson's prime. You didn't. I ask for you to list your top ten light heavyweights. You didn't because many of them were better than Choysnki.

I never said Johnson was at his absolute best in this one punch KO loss, stop trying to distort facts. I did say he had 23 recorded fights, with some unrecorded and wasn't a novice when the match happened. I'll also say Choynski prime was in the 1890's.

When you can not even participate in a debate on one of your favorite topics, it speaks volumes.

None of the above are lies. These are facts. I laugh once again at your temper and lack of boxing acumen. I highly doubt you could ignore me, but I suppose if your doctor ( mental health or primary ) tells you to lay off the board for a while, you just might listen. Why don't you ask them? You really do not add much value here.

 

the issue remains nothing to do with ANYONE understanding what you wrote, but its actual point.

YOU remains to have moved your goalposts, however, and having had your move pointed out,refuse to admit it. Admit it and then we can move on.

 

If you leave aside the hate which crops up, and assume that Johnson improved quite a bit after choynski, although not an out of this world improvement, who really would be the light heavy with the best chance to beat Johnson.

Do you go with Choynski, who did it before. Perhaps if he was a touch younger, or maybe it was a stylistic chance.

Fitz, who had an injured arm and was ancient but on that showing not in the same class.

Maybe Foster, who never managed to compete with the best heavys but did have awesome power and was more modern.

Jones Jr who had lightning speed.

Greb, with his astonishing record.

Langford who grew a lot since he was easily handled by Johnson.

Tunney who had a pure boxing style.

Someone else?

Noone deserves favourtism in such a fight, that is ridiculous. But who would you take, if you had to take someone.

 

Again my point was made prior to you putting your 2 cents in. It was almost any great championship caliber light heavy fighter from the late 30's thru this decade in my opnion would defeat J.Johnson. I'm basing my opnions on the films I've seen over the yrs of his fights. Not overly Impressive to me. If you actually read what I wrote instead of sounding off on bits and pieces you choose to pick out, you would actually know that. Theirs no waffling, moving goal post, or any double talk in that opnion. Read throughly before going off on a tangent.

 

you went off at a tangent.

dont pretend this is a failure of others to read your original point.