Why isn't Jack Johnson mentioned in GOAT convos?

Simple answer to your question: Jack Johnson isn't a GOAT.

 

well i tend to only discuss (relatively) modern fighters and preface my comments on GOAT stuff with that because I just dont think some old film and reputation is enough to go on how good someone was.

as your comment illustrates, the sport is so different at this point i think it's pretty pointless to compare jack johnson to tyson fury. decisions were decided by newspapers or referees. fixed fights were, by most estimations, much more common. since there was little regard for the safety of the fighter, fights went on for hours. you're right that modern fighters know nothing about a 45 round fight. but jack johnson knows nothing about a 12 round championship fight where if you have a slow start and lose 3 rounds you basically have to fight perfectly and not get robbed on the cards, or get a KO. guessing there were a lot more lulls and feeling out rounds in the old fights. especially since the film i've seen looks like a lot of loading up and gassing out.

but i have seen johnson listed as high as 3 on some GOAT lists, and I have met at least one person who considers him the greatest hw. two, if you do as well, and if this counts as "meeting."

 

Because he doesn't have good enough resume. It's deep and strong, but he lacks top tier wins of Ali or Louis. That's the short answer.

 

Johnson was a GOAT in the opinion of many, but:
1) the defeat with Hart was right. Jackson landed more punches, but Hart punched more effective and held a more aggressive demeanor. According to the way of interpreting the fighting in those years, Hart had won.
2) against Willard there was no cheat or fix. It was an invention of Jackson, years later, which Jackson himself later denied, admitting he made up selling the match. Willard was a good boxer, he had trained better. Johnson was defeated in the distance.
3) Johnson's career was great, but when he became champion he avoided all the most dangerous opponents. all.

 

He frequently was for a lot of the 20th century.

Once the dust settled on Louis and Ali's careers, it became a harder case to argue.

 

The other thing is, that he's getting swallowed by the misty depths of time. Even today's elderly would have been hearing about him from their grandparents most likely.

The film is sparse and low quality, no one knows how to use a microfiche machine anymore, fewer people have any personal connection to him.

 

Just ignorance

 

He has a argument just like Ali, Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Holmes ete.

 

He isn't considered likely to be able to beat modern fighters under modern rules for the same reason that Jeffries, Burns, Hart, and Fitzsimmons aren't. He was a primitive fighter by modern standards, and small for a heavyweight.

 

That's not really relevant to who beats whom if we take them at their best.

 

Also, Johnson wasn't riding the rails and fighting for weekly lunch money by the time our films of him were recorded. Those films depict a man who lacks what modern coaches would consider to be acceptable 21st century boxing fundamentals. Just like Johnson's contemporaries lacked the same. He also remained a not terribly large fighter.

So to the narrow question of whether he would be likely to beat Fury under today's rules, I would still have to answer that it's doubtful.

 

Johnson's resume on paper, is actually rather impressive, when you look into it.

In he had beaten a couple of critical contenders, at more or less the right time, then he might still be in the argument for being the GOAT.