Would jack johnson style work today

This is not to your credit.

 

I don't come here for verification, affirmation or credit.

But I'm flattered you noticed.

 

Ken Norton - 220
Earnie Shavers - 210
Mike Weaver - 202
Trevor Berbick - 215
Gerry Cooney - 225
Tim Witherspoon - 219
James Smith - 227
Carl Williams - 215
Ray Mercer - 228


That's a solid resume.


Jeffries was a non-entity. 5 years out of the sport. Looking so bad in sparring that Ketchel wanted to save white pride and KO him during the ring intro's. Reporters were barred from watching him. Fireman Flynn said the fight was in the bag for Jeffries until it was moved out of San Fran, wherin Johnson informed the alfalfa farmer it was going to be on the up and up. I don't give that victory a whole lot of credence. If Jeffries had beaten one decent fighter, let alone contender, during this comeback I would certainly think differently.

 

One might think that height and reach would mean Johnson would be in big trouble, and yet, he was pounding the hell out of 6'6" 238-pound Jess Willard until he got tired and got caught. Of course, that didn't happen until round 26. Great skill, fast hands and feet can offset size. Not sure why everyone is so fixated on size. In a modern 12 round fight, yeah, Johnson is live in there even with a big and tall guy. I think he's live in there with these big guys even in long fights, because unlike Willard, I don't think these guys today could last that long.

 

The style of Jack Johnson was outdated like 70 years ago.

If he virtually traveled through the time and appeared in the present with his style from 1910, he would have been schooled by today's amateur boxers. He would have to use completely different style, appropriated to modern day boxing, but still wouldn't do good due to his abilities which look very limited from today's perceptive (although nobody can question he was world class in his time).

 

What is up with all this talk of fighters being outdated? What, like Johnson didn't know how to elude or block a punch? Like he didn't know how to land a punch? Hogwash. Fighting is fighting. Guys throw their fists at your head and body and there is only so much you can do to block or elude, and Johnson did it all. Either you know how to land a punch or you don't, and Johnson could. You either have talent or you don't. The guy was fast and he had more pop than people realize. That translates to success in any era. A hard and fast punch hurts in 1910 same as it does in 2013. You really think boxing people today are such geniuses? Joe Calzaghe's dad knew nothing about boxing and learned it from some book, and made his son a champ. Fact is, most of these fighters learn the basics and then learn more on the job through experience, and either they have it or they don't. And in terms of experience, Johnson had WAY more of that than any of these moderns, who are coddled on the way up. He was in tough from the get go, fighting guys with 40-50 fights and in 20-round bouts nearly from the start of his career. Just wait til my book comes out and see if you feel the same. Most heavys today are freaking sucking air before the fight is halfway done. Johnson would toy with most of them.

 

Also, running is running, you just run from start to finish and if you're the fastest you'll most likely win. But there's something called progress, or evolution if you like than term better.

Boxing is far more complex than just knowing to land a punch. You don't need to fill your reply with hatred towards modern day boxing in order to back up your statement, because you can hardly have an argument that way.

Talking about experience, there were so many things that happened since 1910 to today, there were so many new styles which appeared and also got outdated in the process. Guys like you indeed make people sound like talking negative about the great boxers of the past that everybody should respect. You don't show your respect by unrealistically talking of the boxers on purpose, that's not the way.

Just look at few video clips of Jack, nothing else is needed. His movement was fine THEN, but if somebody today would have that kind of movement, he would be considered very bad. Look at his defense, it actually doesn't exist, it's just holding, a very primitive one. Look at his jab. Can you actually notice his jab? So please.

He was the best of his era, leave it at that for god sake.

 

Oh, I don't hate modern day boxing, but I'm saying it's no better than the old timers. I don't think there has been all that much evolution in boxing. Some, yes. But not as much as people think. That is because there has also been some regression in certain areas as well. Some folks are going to watch Bernard Hopkins fights decades from now and say, "Gee that's boring. he wasn't so good." But he knew a few things about how to control distance and he had very good timing. Johnson was the same way. He was a master. And guys who were ass beaters and very entertaining got in there with him and suddenly they were befuddled and totally ineffective. Mayweather and Ward have some of the same qualities. Put a guy like Ray Robinson from the 40s in there with welters today, and we'll see how much faster guys are today - I don't think so. He was lightning fast. I don't hate modern day boxing. I enjoy it very much. But I don't go around saying things like Jack Johnson couldn't hang with guys today. A great fighter is a great fighter in any era. And runners don't get punched in the head and body when they are running. Apples and oranges. All the styles we have today have always existed. Just depends on the guy. If you think all Johnson did defensively was hold then I think you need to re-evaluate him. He knew how to move subtly, duck, block, roll and ride with punches, smother, catch punches out of the air, time guys with his punches. There isn't anything they are doing today that he did not do.

 

Conteh was as close to emulating Johnson's style in modern times. Weight on the back foot, set to parry, block and counter. Neither though were adept at slipping, ducking, or moving well forward with their game and while it wasn't a problem with the fighters Johnson met in his day the limits his style imposed would limit his success today greatly. His sideways planted back foot provided stability but ackward movement if tried quickly and have zero ability to slip to the left. Its why on film Johnson looks like he's running when he moves forward too fast,,,he is, one foot goes ahead of the other. Bottom line is he would have had to be willing to be trained in the changes needed to have a chance today.

 

John Ruiz did OK when the referee's let him grapple. He is a modern day Jack Johnson.

 

We cant really tell because the rules has change since 1910. Put Either Kilt vs Johnson in a outside arena, with the small gloves, and a fight to the finish winner take all, and I would favor Johnson to win, in boring fashion lol.

Johnson's style fitted the ruleset of his day, I sure he would change it up or be more active in a 12 round fight,

Look at the film of Johnson and see what Rounds Johnson "may" have been fighting.

Burns? I not sure how long that one was for, to tell the truth.
Flynn, fight to the finish,
Willard 45 rounds.
Jeff, 45 rounds,
As you can see you are not going to be as active in this type of fight as one would be for a 12 rounder. I sure Johnson had a 12 round style if it came to it, but as I said, he had a style that fitted the rule set. You think Mayweather or Suger Ray would dance for 45 rounds?

 

When Jack Johnson was the champion in 1908 the motion picture in America was less than 10 years old.

That means is wasn't high def or anything close. That means we do not get to see everything that was reported about hi, We also do see any fights where got pushed in his prime because he was toying with all of his opponents. He was so much better that he laughed at them in their faces, during the fight, for the entire fight, and he told people he would do it, and did it.

I bet if we could see his fluidity like we can with today's fighters we would see all the boxing skills that people have discussed about him all through the years.

If he fought today he would be faster, have better defense, and tougher than all of the fighters that fight today. He would not need to change on thing about his style.

 

Seamus, I think you are mistaken as everybody knows Sam was 156 pounds!


To add a bit more. Langford was likely 20 years old when Johnson beat him! Jeannette was a raw novice who had a losing record and a .500 record when he meet Johnson!

McVey was a teenager for the first two fights, and but 20 for the last match. Reports from Australia, and books suggest Burns was ill at 168 pounds.

Jeffries was out of the ring for 6 years, balloned up to 300+ pounds, and had no warm up fights, and very old sparring partners.

I suggest most great heavyweight champion smash the same group of young, old/in-active, small and green fighters in half the time Johnson did.

 

The film shows Willard tuned the tide before round 26, and nearly Ko'd Johnson with a hard body shot in round 25! The truth is, Willard slowly broke Johnson from rounds 17-26. It wasn't just one big shot that suddenly ended it. You could see the end coming if you watch the films.

I hope you get a chance to watch this film, as what is reported in print years later, and we see on film are two different things. While primary sources are great, they really do not trump a film. Sometimes the film tells a different tale, just like sometimes a writer or judge is way out there on his opinion of what happened.

Willard couldn't box a lick, he was perhaps the worst defensive heavyweight champion, slow, and lacked a conventional jab which would have made him much better.


I do agree, the longer the match, the better Johnson's would be, but the title of the thread said today, so its 12 rounds only.


Yes--Great skill, fast hands and feet can offset size, depending on the fighters style and hitting power. If you are Joe Frazier, or Rocky Marciano, sure you could say this. But as you know Johnson was a risk adverse fighter and one without a big time punch, so I doubt he ventures often into the danger zone before being able to land anything vs a skilled bigger fighter. You could say the same for Chris Byrd, but he was out of business vs the Klitschko's in terms of winning rounds. If you want to use Holyfield, he was 1-4 vs. Bowe and Lewis on fair score cards, and his speed, and footwork edge did not help him vs the longer reach and superiror size and hitting power of Bowe and Lewis.


The examples of a guy giving up a lot of height and reach out boxing a skilled big man are far and few between at heavyweight.

 

That's the point of the whole debate. Jonhson was the master in his time. That's the key difference. Being master of the style in 1910 is far away from being master in 2010, 100 years away actually. If you don't think that boxing progressed since then, you are either very ignorant or very deluded. I understand that this is classic boxing forum but it doesn't mean that you have to lose any sense of reality.

Well I guess that these two statements pretty much end our debate.