Who Thinks Jack Johnson Could Step Out Of A Time Machine And Fight For A Belt?

I think the guy would be, at least, competitive in any era. Of course he may have to learn this or that regarding the era he finds himself in, but once learned he'd be successful. He had too much natural boxing talent to fail.

 

I have a film of Tommy Burns skiping rope where he levitates for several seconds.

That should tell you all you want to know about how reliable the film of this period was.

As for Gene Tunney being the first modern heavyweight he honestly brought nothing new to the game. He was little more than a carbon coppy of Mike Gibbons. Indeed I have never encountered any contemporary source suggesting that tunney had turned a corner stylisticaly. You hear it about fighters like Jim Corbett and Terry McGovern but not Tunney.

 

S

Does he also bend spoons or merely fly so fast that the earth reverves its axis?

 

In practice it is a problem with the timing of the film or missing frames.

You have to apreciate that some of these early films are little more than magic lantern shows.

 

Janitor,you win by kayo;I can't beat the levitation trick.

 

Sizzle,

Parrying shots works best against wide shots. Modern fighters are much better at straight punches such as jabs or crosses. Those types of punches are tough to parry. When Moran and Willard threw straight punches with modest speed and technique, they landed on Johnson quite a bit. By the way the Johnson vs Moran fight was very close, and Willard took over from rounds 15 to finish.

All the flaws I mentioned on Johnson are there to be seen on film. Suspect chin, low punch out put, low guard, and a relatively stationary stance. Johnson’s style was cautious, and while he could hit, he really did not have a big puncher’s chance.

When you tally it all up, Johnson would need to re-tool his game and clinch a lot less ( or he would be warned and docked points ) and throw many more punches if he wants to win rounds under a modern scoring system. This is not debatable.

I think Johnson could re-tool his game because he was a top athlete, but at the same time, you can't fix a suspect chin, and I strongly suspect Johnson picked the style he did because it was the best way to protect his chin.

As for pulling straight back on defense, it works if you're on the outside, and have quick reflexes, but the prerequisite is you have to be much taller than your opponent. Otherwise, you're going to get caught. As you punch up, a fighter losses range, and as you lean back, a fighter can increase the distance. Its simple science. At 6'1", this type of defense will not work vs skilled guy that is taller or longer armed than Johnson was. But agaisnt 5'9" Ketchel or 5'7" Burns, it worked like a charm.

 

It's pretty well documented you're a Johnson hater and that everything he did was wrong, and everyone he fought sucked or was too small, or beat him easily despite the official decision.

I disagree with most of what you wrote, except the part about Johnson being a top athlete. Especially the last part about having to be taller than your opponent to pull straight back from a punch - Roy Jones pulled straight back from punches very effectively.

Straight punches are tougher to parry, but very easy to slip compared to looping power punches.

 

It’s pretty well documented that I back my stuff up. I have studied boxing history on film, books and new paper re-views. I also understand the technical side of boxing. When Johnson did well I give him props. When he did not do well, some offer excuses. I tell it like it is. This does not make me a hater. It’s called honesty.

The taller fighter can get away with leaning back to avoid punches from a much shorter / shorter armed fighter. Ask a trainer, or better yet watch some boxing. You'll see.

Yes, straight punches are tougher to parry. Johnson did not face any good straight punchers on film and the instances where he actually slipped a straight punch on film are far and few between. If you watch the 20 rounds between Moran and Johnson, you will note Moran, who was nothing special has the better of the action from the outside, and Johnson has the better of the action from the inside. Johnson defense from the outside is technically flawed for the reasons I stated.

 

It's never technically sound to lean straight back from punches, whether you are tall or short, as you compromise your balance. Slipping side to side gives you a much greater opportunity to counter, and defend the next punch. However, some great fighters got away with doing this often - Jones Jnr was one of them, and he was often the shorter fighter.

No you don't tell it like it is. You may (or may not) know what you're talking about but your biases with Jack Johnson cloud your judgement, which effects your credibility. The likes of McVey have handed you your ass in such arguments and illuminated the fact that you have some sort of overt dislike or subconscious hatred for Jack Johnson, whatever the case is.

Deny it all you like, you may not even neccessarily be aware of it, but every poster that has read your arguments with McVey is.

It's not quite on the level of redrooster-Ray Leonard but you're gaining on him.

 

I don't stick my nose in thread with posters who disagree with you, but rest assured McVey has not handed me my rear, and by refering to him as " the likes of McVey " it seems that your talking down to him. Mcvey has a man crush on Johnson. In other threads he and I tend to agree.

I tell it like it is. There's your difference. In fact, the more objective posters here see my points when I say Johnson is over rated. I don't just say it. I give real reasons as to why.

No, it is not technically sound to lean back from punches, BUT if your much taller and longer than the other guy, you can get away with it, more so that if your much shorter than the other guy. Johnson on film was able to get out of range vs the 5'7" Burns, 5'9" Flynn, and 5'9" Ketchel, but could not vs the 6'1" Moran and and 6'6" Willard. In additon, a guy near his height who acutaly had some skills in Jack O'Brien landed plenty on Johsnon from the outside.


The title of this thread is, “ Who Thinks Jack Johnson Could Step Out Of A Time Machine And Fight For A Belt? “ In this era, guys are bigger, stronger, taller, and throw more jabs and straight punches per round, hence a shorter fighter like Johnson would be today, would not be as good on defense without a major adjustment. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

Your Roy Jones point is noted, but let's get real, Jones was much quicker than Johnson is on film with his hands and his feet. Jones has a higher guard, and far more lateral movement in comparison to Jack Johnson. Roy Jones punch out put is also much higher than Johnson’s. Fighters feared Roy Jones offense, speed, accuracy, and countering ability, which is why many fighters didn't press Jones until they learned he had a suspect chin.

Back to my point. I wonder if you have seen the same amount of film on Johnson as I have. If you have, can you please point out in which fight and what rounds Johnson actually slipped or ducked punches? I've seen Johnson stumble and lose his balance as much as he made guys miss on flim. Somehow I think this; along with my other spot on points in this thread that best describe what happened on film will remain un-challenged. If you want respect, don't play the hater card as an out. Instead, engage in a debate. I'll be here to repsond to debates.

 

Thats allways his ace in the hole! The old levitating story,still undefeated .!

 

I have to agree with assessment of Mendoza here. Johnson would be lacking stacked against modern heavies. I prefer to consider him a pioneer and a great based on fighting the available fighters of his day.

 

I am absolutely not talking down to McVey. McVey and Old Fogey are probably the two posters on this forum whom I respect most, how can you come to the conclusion I'm talking down to him? When I say "The likes of" I'm pointing out he's not the only one thats illuminated your hatred of Jack Johnson by highlighting the inconsistencies in your arguments.

McVey does not have a mancrush on Johnson, his points have all been reasonable and well thought out. You have every right to believe Johnson was overrated, but some of your reasoning gave me the impression you WANT him to be overrated - Why, I don't know, but clearly the same standards don't apply to all fighters - ND's turning into losses, random bar fight claims are apparently gospel truth when it came to Johnson-Jeffries yet you disregard first hand sparring accounts etc etc.

So Jones looks to react quicker on film than Johnson? You think that may have something to do with the quality of the footage?

Obviously I haven't seen the amount of Jack Johnson footage you have, you appear to be a dedicated historian, it's a shame you can't view it without tinted spectacles though.

 

Sizzle,

I have the ability to break film down, describe the action, count the blows landed in slow motion ect.... Even if the film is horrible and not smooth, things like activity, and blows landed can easily be seen. I'll tell you what, pick a Johnson fight, and I see if I have time to do just that. Be for warmed that I will tell it like it is.

As for Johnson struggles with O'Brien and Jim Johnson, The news paper reads suggest that O’Brien was even or slightly ahead, and Jim Johnson was flat out robbed. This has nothing to do with me being biased at all. Could you imagine the press today if say Wlad Kltischko was out boxed to a stand still by a middle, floored by a middle, and saved from a loss vs a heavyweight journeyman in a fight that was ruled a dubious draw? The press would be all over him. It’s not even debatable. It seems some old timers are bullet proof to cross examination of film and new paper reads. IMO, that should not be the case, but with some historians it is. In fact some historians hardly mention these fights to prop up Johnson, which is a bit of an injustice to the fighters who did well against him.

The bottom line is this. I had these conversations with Historians who have “Graduated” from message board talk, and after I present my points, they tend to agree with me. The thing is, some historians feel in order to be in the club, you have to be willing to accept certain things as givens, and to examine them and find out they are not true means they subject themselves to peer pressure.


As far as Johnson goes on defnese, all the flaws I poitned out are there to be seen on flim.

 

i would be very intersted to see punch outputs for Johnson v Jeffries (so far as film allows).