Who was the better fighter, Jack Johnson or Joe Frazier?

They wouldn't have had to be ranked contenders for Frazier to defend against them.
Zygliewisz,Stander,Daniels,Mathis.

 

Johnson's challengers had the highest weight average until Joe Louis came along.This BS about he only fought little guys is pervayed here by his chief hater, who needs no introduction.

 

Even if we make this assumption (I don't like them remember), you could still argue that Johnson was greater, simply based on the fact that he beat more of the top fighters of his era.

When you start arguing that the contenders of era B were better than like for like from era A, you are effectively turning it into a head to head comparison by the back door.

 

To be honest with you, the argument in favor of Johnson's resume, has never really hung on the quality of the best men that he beat.

It is very much a quantity and longevity over quality resume, like that of Larry Holmes.

A lot of champions beat somebody better than the best guy that Johnson beat.

So yes Ali was better than anybody that Johnson beat, and indeed Quarry might have been, but Johnson can absorb that with his depth and longevity.

 

I also think that we need to stop repeating the nonsense that Johnson built his resume against little men.

Yes he fought a lot of little men, but he also fought a whole heap of big men.

He had to beat men like Denver Ed Martin, Sam McVea and Sandy Ferguson multiple times in order to establish himself as a contender, while taking fights against men like Russel and Jeffords between.

A lot of champions before the 1970s are vulnerable to this criticism, but Johnson is not one of them!

 

I tried that ointment but it gives me a rash.

 

You got that one right.

Johnson best win is like Burns, all 5'7 1/2" 168 pounds of him. Second best win? Maybe Martin, a guy who was Ko'd six times, without looking very early.

Frazier would destroy Johnson.

 

Thanks for posting this, no further comment is necessary.

 

LOL

Langford 20 years old, 156 pounds. A man who says in a recent boxing magazine which chronicles decades was the better later in the fight and floored Johnson. I am quoting Langford here. A guy Johnson ducked and pulled out of a signed match to meet as champion in 1909. I'm not saying the knockdown did or did not happen, so waste no time here.

Jeannette? Sure a raw novice with no amateur experience that had a losing record in many fights with Johnson, starting out when they first meet with Jeannette's known record of 0-3

McVey. Yeah, he was a teenager, and the fights stunk according to the press.

Childs. Not that good at heavyweight. Small. Other super middles did MUCH better vs. Johnson

Martin? A weak chin and body. Solid fighter of the times, probably Johnson's 2nd best win. Ko'd 8 times, often inside of six rounds.

Burns? 5'7" 1/2 168 pounds. Another super middle. By the way you know there were reports of Burns not being 100 with a Jaundice, quoted by Kevin Smith historian of early black prizefighters and written in a Book on Burns. Now shoot down the sores at all costs!!!

Moran. Not ever a top white hope. He went the distance and won several rounds with Johnson fouling and knowing he wasn't getting paid!

Gardner? Hardly a boastful win.

Fitz? Very Old and Injured. Really?

Jeffries, had not fought in 6 years, and old.

Quite a resumes. Best win is likely Burns!

Men like Hart, Choynski, and Griffin...people who beat Johnson would get creamed by Frazier.

 

Don't you think Burns is his best overall win? You have said so before. Clarification is needed as you forget what you say. This much has been proven often here.

 

Good posting but I can't see it, Jack almost always had his weight on his back foot, much like Conteh much later, to help his blocking and parrying and this limited his speed of movement in any direction. I can't see him changing this from any of his fights and eventually Joe's non stop coming in would get through to the body and that over 15 rounds would win the fight for Frazier.

 

Where to start? You don't want me to mention the knockdown of Johnson against Langford which you know did not happen? Should I mention the two long nine counts Langford was afforded in that match?
Should I talk about the fact that neither man weighed in so any weights were approximate?
Should I say that both men added weight as their careers progressed and that both were about 20lbs short of their optimum weight?
Should I mention that Langford was the more experienced fighter?
No one ,including his excellent biographer Clay Moyle ,has established Langford's date of birth with any certainty
How about Childs ? He was the Colored Heavyweight Champion?
He beat the following heavyweights
Klondike x3
Armstrong x3
Byers
Everett x2
Butlerx2
Russell x3

 

I really like your post, very true.