Would jack johnson style work today

Sanders was not rated prior to koing Wlad, the best man he had faced up till then,[ Rahman] had kod him.
Wlad got his brother to beat Sanders so removing the danger of a repeat ko loss.
Brewster had lost his previous fight to Liakhovitch.

Sanders was 37 years old when Wlad was kod by him. It took Wlad 3 years to get around to giving him a rematch, by then Brewster was 34.
The best two punchers Wlad has fought. BOTH KOD HIM

NONE OF WLAD's LAST FOUR CHALLENGERS WERE TOP TEN RANKED!


How many times did Johnson have to beat Jeannette ?

I posted a ringside report of the Johnson Johnson fight that has the champion finishing strong EVEN WITH A BROKEN ARM.


Smith was not even a pro-fighter when he sparred with Johnson
.
JOHNSON WAS NEVER KOD IN HIS PRIME. WLAD WAS ,TWICE!

McGrain was wrong, you aren't a "halfwit" you're a moron.

 

You can't be more wrong. Once a champion retires the best most deserving contender should be crowned the next champion. At that time the title became highly corrupt and fragmented. WBA, WBC, ibf etc...each with it's own champion, each with it's own challengers. But....you have Holmes clearly defining himself...he beat the universally
considered no 1 challenger in Norton (who had beaten no 2 rated Young) and beat the unretired Ali...no one else had that level of credentials.

The tournament developed by the WBA contained who? Tate, Koetzee, Coetzee.....and from this Tate was the victor. These were the best hwts in the world? Tates victory in your mind is enough to give him the true worlds hwt championship? No chance, no way.

The WBA stripped Spinks because he gave Ali an immediate rematch and then handed Norton the paper title. First no one can strip the lineal title from the lineal champion and second you can't be handed the lineal championship...you must beat the champion to win it or in the case of a champions retirement clearly define yourself as the most deserving. Norton did neither.

Thomas was the WBA champion because of a victory over Witherspoon who beat Page after Holmes relinquished the WBA paper title. That's the WBA title not the lineal championship. Thomas like everyone else aside from Holmes was a paper champion.

Holmes beat Witherspoon, Berbick, Smith all future paper champions. He also beat Norton, Ali, Spinks, Cooney and Shavers. No one else had that level of resume.

Tyson did not win the lineal championship until he beat Spinks.

 

Ross Purrity was years ago.
How can anyone seriously try to denigrate Wladimir for a loss he suffered years ago, while at the present time he has gone 9 years without defeat and has defeated plenty of the best names of his era ?

Honestly, Henry Armstrong, Jack Dempsey, Tony Zale, Max Schmeling, Archie Moore and many other great champions have lost fights on the way up the ladder ... I'm not saying Wladimir ranks with them but I can't see how bringing up losses from his early years is any more valid for him.

 

It's the way he lost all three bouts. There are serious signs of questionable chin, stamina and will to win/determination/heart.

 

It's hard to question his heart when he keeps getting up of the deck, as he did against Sanders, who was a very hard puncher.

Against Purrity, he was an inexperienced fighter who ran out of gas against a very tough opponent. In the 11th round. Typical learning experience.

Against Brewster, yes his stamina failed him.

But look at all the other fights. It's strange to question his heart when he's been knocked down so many times and gets up, win or lose. It takes heart to do that. If his stamina is a problem, he needs to be commended for overcoming that to stop guys like Peter and Thompson beyond the 10th round. If his chin's so bad, his defence must be remarkable.

Wlad's a good operator, calculating and cool enough to stay on top for so long, he's a worthy champion.
I don't rate him particularly high, nor do I rate Lennox particularly high (I've often said if Lewis deserves a high rating, then Wlad must do too). But it seems wrong to take just his very worst results and try to build some grand theory of him around that, or interpret a few seconds from a fight (someone mentioned Mariusz Wach) to prove him an inadequate champion.

 

It's not wrong to point out that he has been brutally koed by not that great of fighters three times. Touch him hard on the chin and he just does not go down...he goes down in sections.

 

I honestly feel dumber having read this thread... If Johnson could come up with a style that didn't have him lose for almost ten years... some say never losing in his prime... I don't consider the hart loss a loss.. but even if you do.. that could be pre prime and he still didn't lose after that for more than 10 years.... Point is, if he could develop a style that work against the best of the day thanks to his physical tools and brains... what on God's green earth would make people think he could do the same in today's era? He would simply adjust his style some and figure out what works. It would see him adjust mid fight... or from one fight to the next.. So the answer is an unquestionable yes.. he would simply tweek his style some and make it work. Make it work as in win titles. If you dominate an era like Johnson did.. that means you have no know-how to get it done in pretty much any era, and certainly a paltry era like today.

 

Correct...all time abilities to fight would translate into any era.

 

Well wrote. It would be clearer on how Jack would have done today had he met Langford but the post is about how his style would fare and your response is as fair as any of us could be.

 

Ladies first

Its not like Larry was completely worthless here, its not like he had no talent, but you are grossly exaggerating it. He was a good boxer but not a great. Overall he is about equally good as klitschko. He wouldn't have beaten pinklon but neither would lots of boxers. Snipes was not good, he was undeafeated but so was seth mitchell so was wilder, it means little when you look at his resume.

Neither have asterisk, possible dempsey on wills but Larry has the wba and vacating titles asterisk. No one doubts Dempsey's great and no one thinks larry is except senial old cooqs.:nut Those guys were the lineal champions. And larry left lots of unfinished business by not rematching guys who beat him up like norton and witherspoon.

Wrong, there are guys who beat way more than that.

Agreed.

You can't say Ross puritty was years ago but then try to bring up wins or near wins or losses like he almost beat lennox. You can't have it both ways. He has been knocked down 13 times.:-( He wouldn't last in Johnson's day because there were no mouth guard and gloves were 3 not 15 onces.

Thats not how boxing works. Usually a matchup or tournament is set up. Youc an't just give away titles. Larry helped corrupt the titles by vacating wbc and going into don kings ibf. Norton was not the challenger he was given a belt he didn't even win it. No reasonable person thinks you should just be given a belt. Ali retired a champion with the wba belt by beating spinks on the rematch. He then vacated the belt and there was a matchoff for the lineal title between Tate and Coeetzee. Tate won, tate became lineal champion. He won the title Ali last held, which was held by liston, frazier and foreman, for all practical purposes this is the lineal title. And no norton was not #1, that is why the faceoff did nto include him it was tate and coeetzee 1 and 2. Norton was old and washed up by the time he met Holmes, e had 3 tough fights with ali a tough fight with spinks and a whipping from foreman and tough fight with garcia. Norton was so washed up he'd never win a fight again except over a 11-4 unheard of noone. John tate was 20-0, Jimmy young was 22-5 why did Young deserve a title shot over tate at wbc Larry should have fought tate but then he just wanted to beat up little guys like mike tyson and mike spinks. Norton barely sqweaked by young with 22-5 record On wat planet is 22-5 better than 20-0? Of course the wbc acted corruptly. Norton's last fight to ali was was a loss, ali won to the 3rd fight so its not a justification for #1 when 2 guys fight and one losses. The Wbc cannot represent the lineal title because everyone recognizes ali retired as a lineal champ (after the spinks bout)

Yes because the ladt lineal title holder, Ali vacated the title for $50,000 for a matchoff between tate and koetzee. Ali would have to had fought 1 of the 2 (probably tate) if he didn't retire and would have lost because well he was not even a boxer at that point. My argument is not they are the best. Holmes didn't fight tate so I can't say Holmes is better or Norton was better or worse at that point in time. Lineal champion isn't always the best, boxing has politics, lineal champ is about the title going from the previous champ to the next. The previous champ was ali, he gave his up his belt for a matchoff between to fighters, tate and koetzee. Its not the wbc, naba, ibf, or poopoo title. Its the wba that become lineal at that point because it is the one he last held.

wbc stripped spinks not wba. Ali held both titles. Spinks refused to fight Norton over ali for obvious reasons. WBC strips him of the wbc title and gives it norton without a fight. Larry beats norton holds wbc until he vacates it in 84 for ibf don king title.

Exactly @ Bold. Norton didn't have the lineal title when Holmes beat him. You can't just strip spinks of the lineal title and give it to Holmes. And Holmes would have to prove himself as you said. This is usually done by unifying the titles. Or holding the title the last lineal champion held. Holmes did neither. Holmes didn't beat the lineal champion at any point in hiscareer, he could have never been lineal with 4-5 other guys walking around with titles during his reign, including the 2 most credible wba and wbc. What did it take for tyson to unify the titles at 20 2 years? Why could larry not unify the titles in the 15+ years of boxing?

Holmes never held the wba. How can holmes be a non paper champ, he did nothing to become lineal. Tyson became lineal when he unified the titles

agreed

Fair

True.

 

Ricardo Mayorga was undisputed welterweight champion.

 

Ok Ipayforleavingnot, lets see if you actually know your stuff or if its all fluff, fair? You stated falsely in another post that along with being ko'd by Flynn that Dempsey also was ko'd by other small heavies in flash knockouts (Dempsey's greatness if anyone wants to see your own words). This of course was made up as Jack was ko'd once in his career. Now you said "Wrong, there are guys who beat way more then that" in response to the statement; "I beleave Larry set a record for Heavyweight champions for fighting and beating eight undefeated contenders." Your up, name them during their heavyweight title reigns and also address your statement about the other men who flash knocked out Jack, I'll make sure this one stays open long enough for you to answer.

 

You cannot have a tournement composed of nobodies andthen name the winner as the true worlds champion. The next champion after a retirement must be the one with the best credentials. Generally this is done via the top two contenders fighting with the winner bei ng the new champion. Since the title was so fragmented this wad not possible but Holmes with victories over norton. Shavers and ali clearly gave him that status. He was the lineal champion until he lost that title to spinks. Your posts are filled with many many inaccuracies.

 

Its what kind of irratates me about the poster although he likes boxing alot like the rest of us, but sometimes the stuff he writes isn't from someone who knows the sport.

 

-hOLMES was a nobody until he fought norton. You cannot just give a washed up old man a title then let an up and comer beat him up and claim the up and comer lineal. Again Ali was an old retired man and shell of himself by the times holmes beat him it means nothing but he beat up a guy with parkinsons. His best win is over shavers a guy who could never win a belt despite their being an alphabet soup of belts out there. Tate and Koeeztee where far more qualified they fought their way to it and deserved it and that is why ali vacated the belt for them. Had ali stuck around he'd fight tate not holmes, as spinks was stripped of the wbc before ali rematched him.
-norton was a top contender for wbc, tate for the wba, the problem is that ali the lineal champ, didn't have the wbc title when he retired he had the wba, so just because holmes had a longer career than tate, doesn't mean holmes is the lineal champion. He might be better overall but not at that time, tate was better. Which is why larry never unified. Larry was more popular but he was not lineal champion. The title was not fragmented, ali gave up the lineal title for the winner of tate vs kooezte we all knew who the lin champ was. The expectation was obviously that holmes would go for the wba title to prove his legitimacy but he chose not to. He couldn't be lineal champ at the spinks fight mainly because he had vacated titles. When you vacate the title that is lineal you ain't lineal no more. Even if I accept the false argument he is lineal after the shavers or cooney or ali fight, he loses it when he lost his title, a lineal champion cannot be someone who ducks. Riddick bowe can't be lineal when he throws his title in the garbage to avoid fighting. Otherwise a linela champ could just refuse to fight anyone but "little guys".
-I don't recall claiming dempsey was knocked out more than once but if I said it was probably mistyped and meant knocked down (ie all the times he was knocked down like against firpo)
-As for larry beating most undefeated guys when heavyweight champion first we'd have to define when if ever he was champion. Imo he was never lineal.
-Even if we start from the witherspoon fight after he beat most of his best opponents so he could at best be viewed as lineal in your view, I only count frazier, frank bey and williams so 4. No only 2 of these guys have more than 20 fights, not that impressive and half have like 10 or 14 fights like frazier or bey. Seriously world champ is fighting guys 10-0 or 14-0 or getting SD over witherspoon at 15-0, this is suppose to be impressive?
-There is an added layer of difficulty, if we accept the ali stage as him being lineal before he had his best wins then his lineal reign ends when he vacates the wbc for the ibf, before he fights most of his undefeated opponents. Or you can count witherspoon snipes frank and cooney. And then you have the fact he was given the ibf title didn't win it though beating a top contender, beated a horrible 10-0 marvis frazier. Sorry larry just was the deontay wilder of his time except more talented. Maybe like a less talented wlad klit except wlad only ducked 2 not 20 guys. Larry can't be properly viewed as the true ibf champ when he didn't fight anyone to get it, he just like norton was given the title. And that is the problem with his career, he was given titles instead of winning titles so its hard to rank a guy who ducked his best opponents because he didn't need to fight for the lineal title to make big money.