Willard Johnson

So you're of the belief he didnt duck any and have fought them had the fights been viable?

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

$30 000 to fight Fireman Flynn in the USA vs $3000 to fight Sam Langford in London, is a bit of a no brainer.

 

I'm of the belief he would have, as he many times reiterated,fought anyone in the world for $30,00O.
I'm not suggesting that he was not happy to come in the ring in half decent condition and bluff his way through a fight against a Kaufman or a Flynn, if that's what the public wanted, can you blame him?
Consider this.
You will always be told that Johnson's black rivals improved after he fought them .,undoubtedly they did,equally undoubtedly so did he.

Johnson fought McVey three times he outclassed him so badly he was in danger of lapping him .

In there last fight Johnson dominated McVey before koing him in the last round,McVey at 207lbs was receiving 17lbs from Johnson ,Johnson said he was at his physical best against Jeffries in which fight he scaled 208lbs, so he put on 18lbs of muscle.

Johnson convincingly proved the superior fighter to Jeannette when they met, he floored him multiple times, and had him on the verge of a ko a couple of times before he ran out of time ,[note these were mostly short bouts].

What does Jeannette do better than Johnson?

Answer,nothing except keep his mouth shut about his prefererance for white women, one of whom he married.
Same thing with McVey.

Langford was a 156lbs fighter when he fought Johnson, but a fighter with over 50 bouts under his belt, considerably more than Johnson.

Langford's best weight was between 175/180lbs so he was 20/25 lbs below his best. Johnson scaled 185lbs the day he thrashed Langford ,dropping him twice for long counts of nine , breaking his nose and cutting his eyes, so according to himself ,he was 23lbs below his optimum weight too..

The questions you have to you have to ask your self are.

Who improved the most Johnson ,or his black challengers?

Knowing he was facing a Langford ,or Jeannette, would Johnson have come in to the ring fat and undertrained ,or,would he have come in as he did against Jeffries with something to prove?.

Because if Johnson was in top shape he beats them ,imo.

Show me a promoter who was willing to give Johnson $30,000 to fight any of the three.

Please, real offers , not just publicity talk,and I'll show you reports of fights proposed against them cancelled by the authorites,and promoters failing to come up with the requisite $$$$.

DEAL?

 

I can't show nothing I'm not too clued up on the time between his fights with Jeffries and Willard.

I'm just of the default position during this time he was a shite champion based on his record and the record of his top contenders.

janitor mentioned a potential fight with Langford for £3k was that a concrete offer? If so his position is indefensible.

 

No way Johnson threw the fight, the biggest give is back then it wasn't in his character. He went 24 or 26rounds,Why go so long?
He tried to pummel Willard early but Willard being able to absorb so much punishment with held and got him later.

He gave up and giving his circumstances in his life I doubt the hunger was there.

He does have the cheekiness to claim later he threw it.

 

:good

 

Simply because that's what seperates the great champions from the rest of them. They take on the top challengers even when they can make more money elsewhere.

 

Terms had already been agreed for Johnson Langford II, in London at the athletic club. When Johnson won the title, he increased the asking price to $30 000, which they were unable to meet.

The counter argument to that, would be that very few champions have ever taken on the most dangerous available contender, without a substantial cash incentive.

I cannot think of any case where somebody did it for a tenth of what they could get for facing a less dangerous contender.

 

And like I say that's what seperates those at the highest level. Those fighters that take the high risk low reward fights when champ especially when they succeed, they are the ones who can be called great champions.

Johnson is somewhere in my top 8 but that's more with his run pre-Jeffries than after it. Had he defended against his top challengers he might just have been the goat.

 

Lets leave out.

Louis who only defended against two fellow blacks,and could have fought Franklin,Ray,Bivins , Murray.



Patterson who did not fight Machen , Folley or Wiiliams whilst champ.

Jeffries who did not give a chance to Johnson, Martin, or Mcvey.
Corbett who refused to defend against Jackson .
Fitz ditto. In fact lets leave out all three since they refused to face black challengers
Add Sullivan to that mix.

Willard did not fight Wills

Dempsey did not fight Wills.
Tunney did not fight Godfrey, or Sharkey.
Braddock would not fight Schmeling.

Marciano did not fight Valdes.
Frazier fought three ham and eggers,and took on Foreman as he thought he would be easier than Ali.
Holmes did not fight Page, Coetzee ,Thomas.
Spinks avoided 8 of the top 10 of the division.
Wlad and Vitali have fought crap ,and not each other.

Doesn't leave you many to call great does it?

What are we left with Lewis,and Tyson,who may have avoided the following Foreman . Oh, and Carnera who fought the most dangerous man on the planet Mr Baer .after making two easy defences.

So Lewis ,Tyson, and Carnera.
Second thoughts Tyson paid Lewis step aside money.atsch

So Ali ,Lewis, and Carnera.
Please give an example of a "great challenger" who took on his top challenger, even though he could earn more defending against an easier opponent.

ONE WILL DO

 

Why would you leave them out? Are they nor guilty of the same criticism also?

I've checked my rankings and Johnson is behind Ali (never ducked anyone). Louis (Franklin is a valid criticism but he beat more number 1 contenders than anyone). Lewis (never ducked noone). Rocky (Valdes is a valid criticism but had he beaten moore he'd have likely got his shot).

So Johnson sits proudly at number 5 on my list. All things considered I reckon he was the top HW from his 15 round victory over Jeannette up until his loss to Willard. Remarkable longevity no doubt helped by his poor form after Jeffries (I keep him top because of his dominance previously over the contenders).

So yes we are talking a very small group of men that he could feasibly have overtook legacy wise. I think it's an honour for him to be in that group but maybe I rate him higher than you do.

 

Despite his record as a shite champion?:huh
No you don't ,I rate him just behind Ali.

 

Yes because if you drew up a top ten from 1902-1912 you'd probably find Johnson beat them all.

I think he was the best active HW from 1906-1910 and only became **** after beating Jeffries, though he was still probably good enough to beat anyone else around. It mildly helps his case that those he failed to defend against he had already beaten.

He was a great heavyweight, just not a great champion. Fortunately I rank on more than championship prowess.

So yes whilst I think he's an atg HW, he was also a shite champion.