BIG DEE HERE= The problem with this fight is that Louis will have more problems with Johnson than Johnson will have with Louis. For the first time Joe Louis will run into a guy that will slap his jab away and block it all night all the while talking **** to him. Joe Louis is not used to that at all and it would happen. The other thing is that Johnson was the greatest in-fighter of any Heavyweight championand would at close quarters tie-up and rip-up Louis as nobody has ever done before. I favor Joe Louis because of the ability to end a fight with one punch. A right or a left could end the fight at anytime but Johnson was known to end a few like that to that Johnson was a underrated puncher because he preferred to draw his fights out and punish his man showing his mastery of that said opponent.
OK, that was a bit over the top. However, based on his record and film evidence, I do not have an extremely high opinion of Johnson in the head to head sense. He struggled against some otherwise mediocre opponents, lost to some decent fighters though not world beaters and his great social importance has flattered his actual accomplishments. Would he have a chance against Louis? Sure. I just don't think a guy who goes life and death with Marvin Hart, gets KO'd by Choynski, by witness accounts loses to LH Jack O'Brien, gets KD'd by a middleweight, loses to Jim Johnson but gets a bye, gets KO'd by a lumbering strongman who does not even seem to like boxing, a guy who made a career out of clutching and grabbing smaller opponents, or swatting away their bar-room brawler punches, who made a legacy by defeating an over the hill champion from a different stylistic era... I don't think this guy gets the edge over the vicious, proven fighting machine that was Joe Louis. Now, before the inevitable flood of Johnson apologists bray the largest litany of excuses ever afforded a single pugilist, I will say that Johnson does suffer somewhat from fighting in that era which straddled the bar-room brawler types and the more polished fighters which Dempsey, Tunney and moreso Louis helped to usher. Johnson developed a set of tools which were extremely effective against the sort of fighters he faced and which represented quite an evolution in the sport. He can only be applauded for this. However, I will just state that these same tools would not be as effective against the heavyweights 20 years to years later and beyond. Now commence with the excuses and anecdotes of the skills of a 50 year old Johnson.
You are entitled to your opinion S.Ted Kid Lewis ,sparred with Johnson and said he couldnt touch him,"I couldnt lay a glove on him,his defence was remarkable".No one who picks Luis agaist any Heavyweight has to defend themself ,he was a great Champion,,Johnson is a fighter ,you either like or loathe imo,I think he outpoints Joe.
I think it's hard to say really, because you can't make too many conclusions on the small amount of film, in bad quality, there is of Johnson. If they fought under the rules of Louis's time or modern rules I think that Louis would take it quite handily, though. His style of boxing was more modern and better adapted to today's conditions. If you stand right in front of Louis with your hands low you have to have the reflexes of RJJ and the chin of Chuvalo to have chance of pulling it off. Johnson had neither. If the fight took place in Johnsons's era it might be a different story.
I have always thought that Louis's chances would improve considerably post 1938. After this point his punches became more compact and he aplied much more pressure on ofence both of which would make the bomb much harder to difuse. Perhaps there is a critical point where Louis refines his technique enough to take Johnson.
He knew that Schelming could beat Louis, so that is enough for me.I think Jack had the potential to stop Joe late, or decision him. But he would have to be at his very best.
Agreed. Johnson may be the greatest of the "old time" heavyweights. AND, he may have been able to learn how to fight as a modern fighter like Louis (the stylistic difference between Johnson and Louis, even Johnson and Dempsey, is much larger than the difference between Louis and today's fighters.). But if Johnson tried that old time pawing stuff against a combination-throwing machine like Louis, or any modern heavyweight, he would get destroyed.
I would have to Take Louis over johnson simply caus Louis is the better allround fighter johnson was good but to defensive minded to beat a guy like Louis
That is quite a large assumption. Johnson tangled with numerous bustling fighters who threw at a high volume. On the other hand, Joe Louis brought a new flare to 'combination punching'. Still, Johnson fought negatively, very negatively and that puts a severe cramp on combinations. Not to suggest your point is invalid, just a tad blunt. It's another big assumption. There has been much individual interpretation of Johnson's style, with conviction, stating just how poorly it would translate into another era, but would it really? For many fans, they use a particular era, a template of fighting which they believe represents how one should conduct themself inside the ring if they are to fight 'properly' or 'correctly'. Theories like the fighters of the 1940's or 1980's possessing the most considerate training techniques and complete fighters are full in effect. It is, as a rule, not true. Technically, boxing asks two things of you 1) to hit and 2) to not get hit - who did this better than Johnson? The word 'movement' encourages one to conjure up images of 'smooth' and 'flashy' circling or even something which could be dubbed as just bouncing about and trying to replicate Ali's highly influential breed of fighting; efficieny not in question. Whether one is labelled as smooth, herky-jerky or stationary, if they work what they do then it matters not. More than anyone else, Johnson cancelled out what you attempted to do, and he later proved that he had an eye for spotting flaws in Louis' developing style. He was a true ambassador of 'mastering your craft' and explaining flaws in styles as well as physically exploiting them in the ring, so for members to blurt out dismissive, singular words of disregard against the wealth of ability and experience that Johnson hoarded around the ring causes pause for Ted Spoon because it represents a sizable disparancy in members understanding of boxing and analysis. You have underlined the key things that Johnson would have to chew on, but still fail to see everything Johnson was doing in there, which causes you to doubt just how manipulative he could be. You're not wrong, Louis' jab and arsenal is a real hazard for Johnson, but the clinching, sharp-shooting, pace control, negating defence and general trap making is more likely to make Louis' goal much harder to achieve than vice versa.
Fair enough, i just thought you were suggesting Johnson would pull a Conn: without the bad ending of course. If anything, Ruiz' success does support your theory and has certainly convinced me a bit of Johnson's tactics... though i stand by the points i made earlier about the style of his opponents.
Bustling perhaps. Strong or skilled or large, not many of any, none of all. Johnson was a pioneer amongst cromags but this does not translate into excellence in the near modern evolution. On film he seems merely to possess good reflexes and above average strength. On record, he even fails in these respects at times. Empirical evidence per this longtime fan and young practitioneer of the fistic arts suggest this is as a rule, true. On tape, the early fighters look absolutely ridiculous at times. Even Johnson on tape looks imminently beatable by a cruiser of this day. But I am not- and can not by assumption- give him the doubt of learning modern techniques were he to face modern fighters. He just looks plain shitty at times, open, immobile, predictable and vulnerable to numerous punches.[/QUOTE] Against the nascent talents of his day, he was quite good, though certainly beatable by even the most modest of the same talents. His record is replete with exceptions, dubious arguments and apologies. I have a very difficult time taking his career terribly seriously. He was more of a sideshow attraction than successful prizefighter at times. A statement utterly with substance or merit. This does nothing for your argument. Reconstruct or edit this out next time. There is no evidence that Johnson would make it beyond a club fighter in the modern era, though I would certainly do better in the 1930's. There also is no evidence he would not dominate today. One simply can not extrapolate from his performances- recorded and anecdotal- that he could or could nor perform in the modern arena. Even a hypothetical match against Louis is at best nothing more than a forum for flaunting bias. On all empirical evidence, Louis crushes him handily.
That's agreeable, but it's often the case that every little bit more we learn of a fighter we develop a greater respect. Point in case, it's important to keep a considerate eye when looking through history.