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

I'll see what I can do. Maybe on Monday I will have time for a punch stat.

 

bump.

Any luck finding time yet Mendoza?

 

Johnson-Jeffries fight video only has 7 full rounds (including 1st and 15th, I didn't match the ones in between against written reports to find out which rounds they were as they are not numbered on video), or there more complete version too?

 

I think Jack Johnson could be a top contender and a potential heavyweight champion today. He was a very intelligent fighter and would learn the skills required to compete in our time.

 

I have not had time to watch it again. Its on my to do's.

 

Jack Johnson was apparently horribly out of shape against Phil. Jack O'Brien and Battling Jim Johnson.
Jim Johnson fight was 1913 and by that time Jack Johnson was a 35 year old mostly inactive fighter who had been partying in Paris.
It's like judging Ali off the Evangelista and Leon Spinks fights.

I'm not excusing Johnson - his lack of conditioning and poor showings against mediocre fighters IN TITLE FIGHTS is valid criticism against his legacy.
But obviously his reputation is built on earlier performances.

The O'Brien fight was 6 ROUNDS NO DECISION and Johnson was clearly out of shape.
Basically, in a 6 Round ND fight O'Brien would have had to KO Johnson to be regarded as champion.
Even if he had won all six rounds clearly it is doubtful whether anyone would be championing him - calling for a 20 round rematch, yes, but seriously saying O'Brien was champ, no.
That's why and how Johnson afforded looking bad against O'Brien.
Things were arranged differently then. Today we have unambiguous title fights (all 12 rounds) and we have DECISIONS. If someone explained to Wlad Klitschko that his next "fight" was no decision against a guy who couldn't knock him out, so all he had to do was show up and last six rounds, and that there were to be no live TV cameras present, and that the sanctioning bodies weren't interested, maybe he'd turn up out of shape and just play around and look so awful that a middleweight or light-heavy goes even with him.

You have to look at the context of these things.

 

Johnson was not in bad shape for the Jim Johnson match. He was a tad over weight vs O'brien, but a six round match does not test stamina.

Here is where we differ. Wlad would not lose a round to either O'brien or Jim Johnson. He would easily dominate the action. What we have here is the heavyweight champion of the world in Jack Johnson being embarrassed by a 160ish pound fighter who was near the end of his career in O'Brien, and being saved by a decision to make a fight he lost into a draw vs a good journeyman in Jim Johnson

Agreed, and it doesn't look good for Johnson. Also, might some of Johnson opponents also have excuses too? I think so. How much time did O’Brien and Jim Johnson have to prepare for the title shots? Jack Johnson called the shots. He said where, and when. There are too many games here. When the heavyweight champion enters the ring in a non-exbibition prize fight, his title is on the line. We should go by the film, ring results, and reports.

 

I think he was old and out-of-shape constantly by the time he faced Jim Johnson. It's his first fight in 18 months, he's 35 years old, and he's living high life in Paris.
This is not the same hungry Johnson as 1908.

As for O'Brien, it's not about stamina. If he hasn't trained then EVERYTHING is off.
As I've explained the circumstances of these 6 round no decision bouts afforded Johnson to treat it like a sparring session. All he has to do is not get knocked out, and there is no suggestion that O'Brien was ever close to doing it.
On the other hand, O'Brien was KNOCKED DOWN TWICE.

You can say "Wlad would do this", "Wlad would do that" but you DONT KNOW.
All we can say is what they do in their own time, and WHY they do it.
I've explained WHY Johnson may not have impressed versus O'Brien. He did what he needed to do.
If you want to pretend that we can judge what happens in a 6 round no decison bout in 1909 with the same standards as we judge present-day title fights then that's up to you.
Maybe you can explain how modern day judges would award a 6 round bout to the guy who hit the deck in the 1st and 5th rounds ?
It's silly to supplant one set of circumstances into another era where almost everything that caused the circumstances is not applicable.

Obviously O'Brien should have been more motivated to put forth a good effort against Johnson than Johnson was motivated to do against him.
As I have explained, Johnson couldn't lose the championship unless he gets KO'd' !
That's the rules.
Johnson did what he had to do, under the circumstances. His title WAS on the line, and O'Brien knew that only a KO would make him champion. So what's the problem ?

As for your distinction of a "non-exhibition prize fight" it was NOT clear cut in those days.
During this time when boxing was illegal, they even distinguished between a "prize fight" and a "boxing match" and the NO DECISION thing needs to be studied in its historical context too.
What's the definition of an "exhibition" anyway ? Is there a legal or commercial definition ?

Boxing was completely different in those days. Some times the local mayor or whoever would inform the organizers they wanted a civilized "boxing match" and if it got out of hand (too violent, too one-sided) they'll all be jailed.
Other times bouts were allowed to go 45 brutal rounds.

This is the historical context. If Johnson, or Langford, or any great fighter of the time "sparred" on almost even terms with some local guy in some unknown town in an "official" fight it wasn't necessarily a BAD thing.

 

I have to go with Mendoza on this one. Johnson's social legacy (important as it is) tends to shade his boxing legacy, and fawning bio's like Ken Burns' load don't help much. Johnson had lapses in his career which would be inexcusable twenty years later, let alone under the harsh appraisal of the modern era.

 

I have no problem with agreeing that Johnson had lapses, and perhaps too many for them not to affect his legacy considerably.

But I think distinctions should be made between the best of Johnson and the worst of Johnson.

And the testimony of many contemporaries who thought him at his best considerably superior to all his peers needs to be taken seriously.

Also, criticising him from a viewpoint as if he were fighting under the boxing media spotlight as it exists in 2007 is nonsensical.

 

I disagree wholehearted. If another champion today had the same types of lapses that Johnson had, combined with a horrible title run, he would be ripped by the press, and mocked on the internet. No modern fighter could be called " Great " under Johnson's circumstances as boxer in the ring.

The question is you brought up is interesting. What was the best of Johnson, and did that version of Johnson ever beat a great heavyweight in his prime or near prime?

 

The best of Johnson was in several fights from about 1905 to 1910.
Sure, he had a few crap fights among that time frame but he was usually miles superior to his opposition even while not getting out of first gear. He was in-shape and whether he deserved his reputation of invincibility or not, it must have come from somewhere.

I will concede that he didn't beat a prime or near-prime great heavyweight, but the same can be said of Holmes, Tyson, perhaps even Joe Louis.

 

If Johnson's best was from 1905-1910, he looks vulnerable to me. During your version of his best 5 years Johnson to Marvin Hart, Fouled out via low blow on Jeanette, Drew with Billy Dunning ( who was he? ), looked bad in a 6 rounder with O'Brien, and was floored by Middle Weight Ketchel. How could one view a prime version of Johnson’s up and down performances as a dominating fighter?
I just don’t see it. I do think Johnson had good wins from 1905-1910.

Burns, Langford, and Lang come to mind. But we all know Burns was ill, and Langford was but 156 pounds, so the wins over Burns and Langfrod when examined look a bit less impressive.

Tyson, Holmes, and Louis never had this many bad resutls in their prime years.

 

"Johnson more powerful than Louis" . That goes to show you what happens when people rate on memory and heart instead of film. What a joke.

 

It might not be as far from the truth as you might think. Johnson clearly had considerable power when he chose to turn offensive.