Would jack johnson style work today

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I do not see anything in apollock oppinion the should have garnered such a strong reaction. Where is your breakdown of how Jack Johnson fought? I think what is happening is that you are refusing to learn something from apollack because he laided out some truths about one of the greatest fighters that ever lived and all you gave him insults for his trouble.

 

In the end, based on film (yes, the film is enlightening), contemporary evidence and the opinions of those who saw him and those later, Johnson had the physical gifts and mental make-up to be a factor in any era. He would make the necessary adjustments to the modern game. In the modern era, I see him still being cautious but more of a sharp shooter with great footwork and less of a wrestler. He definitely had a mind for the game and would mix his assets and protect his deficiencies.

 

I agree, Johnson was not dumb, We cant really go off base on the fight films in regards to his style because of the plus 30 rounds the fight was suppose to go. Sometimes we get a Tommy Burns or Jim Flynn ending that predates round 20 lol. But even than you cant use that has a stick of how he do in the 12 rounders, because Johnson didnt know Flynn would foul out in round 9, he was fighting ready to last the next day if had to.

 

I somehow managed to notice that he stated "All the styles we have today have always existed" and "There isn't anything they are doing today that he did not do". It made me feel like he's not willing to debate objectively and that's the reason I don't want to be involved in the discussion any further.

By your response I'd say that you with him and are willing to defend his points. I was never debating about his greatness, that's one of the things that can't be questioned, at least not by me. The question was his style, which I believe I answered quite nicely, without insulting anyone and without being subjective. But if somebody just denies it, sticking to his own opinions and discrediting the others to back up the argument, there's not much of the debate left.

@Mendoza Good point. I agree that he should have to change his style. I don't know how good was his ability to adapt so let's leave it at that.

 

He already made a great adaptation to his style after getting sparked by Choynski if legend is to be believed. Johnson was a very smart operator. A narcissist, an egomaniac, a giant self-promoter... but still smart. I think he would adjust fine if he was willing to listen to a good trainer.

 

I have always found it odd on here why people slobber over Johnson when he was almost always the bigger guy in fights, he was flat footed and didn't throw a lot of punches and had more slow/boring fights but the SAME people will bash a guy like Jack Dempsey that was almost always the smaller guy had head and foot movement was in exciting fights almost always and was willing to trade leather with anyone.

 

In 1902 A Trip to the Moon was the best film of it's time, but it can't hold a candle to 1939s Gone With the Wind or 1993s Schindler's List. Physically, there is nothing wrong with Jack Johnson, unless you count his size which would only make him a cruiserweight by todays standards. But his style is hopelessly outdated, and his achievements are even more overrated. His supporters are unrealistic. He would have to start over from scratch and learn completely differently in order to be effective today. He wouldn't even be a match for James Toney based on what I've seen.

Also, the distance wasn't always 20 or 45 round fights back then. He's got a lot of 6 and 3 round fights too.

 

One cannot judge entirely on the available film as Randy Roberts wrote in Papa Jack, “Watching the films of Johnson is like listening to a 1900 recording of Enrico Caruso played on a 1910 gramophone. When Johnson fought Burns film was still in its early days, not yet capable of capturing the subtleties of movement. Nuance is lost in the furious and stilted actions of the figures, which move about the screen in Chaplinesque manner, as if some drunken cutter had arbitrarily removed three of every four frames. When we watch fighters of Johnson’s day on film, we wonder how they could be considered even good. That some of them were champions strains credulity. They look like large children, wrestling and cuffing each other, but not actually fighting like real boxers, not at all like Ali captured in zoom-lensed, slow-motion, technological grace. But the films mislead.”

Consider that Nat Fleischer, the founder of Ring Magazine, who saw Johnson fight and those up to the Ali era, said “Jack Johnson boxed on his toes, could block from most any angle, was lightning fast on his feet, could feint an opponent into knots…he possessed everything a champion could hope for punch, speed, brains, cleverness, boxing ability and sharp-shooting.”

Fleischer also reported in 1958, that Johnson’s “mastery of ring science, his ability to block, counter, and feint, are still unexcelled.”

Jack Johnson is widely regarded as the greatest defensive heavyweight of all time. In recent years some revisionists have tried to downplay Johnson’s defensive capabilities, which is an injustice to both the man and those who saw him fight. The key to understanding the defensive mastery of men like Johnson, Joe Gans, and George Dixon comes in their ability to block an opponent's leads. That is where the old masters like Johnson truly shined. You have to jab to get inside and to set up your punches and they could block and pick off an opponent's jabs and counter. Trainer Eddie Futch said, that Ken Norton gave Ali 3 very tough fights because he knew how to block a jab with an open glove and counter-jab.

An interesting comparison can be made by looking at two different boxing training manuals one published in 2000 and the other published in 1943 (Naval Aviation Training Manual 1st edition). The old National Police Gazette’s often had famous boxers demonstrate their techniques. Some of these types of techniques can be seen in the Naval Aviator boxing manual but are absent from the modern instruction book. The modern manual is not at all bad showing parries, covering, and ducking, slipping, as well as shoulder and forearm blocks. The older book however also explains stopping (or pinning/trapping), cuffing, weaving, shifting (quick shift, drop shift, rear shift), folding, and open glove blocking –catching the opponent’s leads in the butt of the glove. The older masters had a greater variety of defensive techniques at their disposal than what is being taught in most gyms today.

It is noteworthy that although Johnson fought often and with only 5 ounce gloves, his defensive skills kept his face largely unmarked. This demonstrates his effectiveness as a defensive fighter.

John Durant wrote in The Heavyweight Champions of Johnson, “He was a genius in the ring. He was a flawless boxer with an almost perfect defense, and he could hit hard with either hand. A superb counter puncher, he was never off balance, always in position to hit, and he was a master of the art of feinting."

John McCallum stated, in his Encyclopedia, "Johnson was a reputation breaker. He could make most any opponent look bad, without looking invincible himself. It is doubted if the prize ring has ever known a more muscular champion. Yet despite his size, he used his colossal strength primarily for defense. He gave the lasting impression of always fighting under wraps of never going all out."

Johnson was like a bigger, stronger and more technically sound version of Roy Jones Jr, but with greater defensive capability. Johnson, like Jones was exceptionally fast, able to leap in with quick counters, was a strong puncher, and was a master feinter. His opponents were weary of his speed and power and he was able to dominate them without taking great risks. Unlike Jones, Johnson did not throw wide looping punches that exposed himself to counters, but instead held his hands properly and threw lightning quick straight punches outside and uppercuts safely from the inside.

Veteran fight manager Dan Morgan, who saw Johnson fight agrees, saying, "I had a feeling he could demolish an opponent any time he chose."

This fact is revealed by the descriptions given of some of his great fights with Sam McVey. In his second bout with Sam, billed as the "colored heavyweight championship", one reporter noted that McVey went through the "worst hell" ever witnessed in a Los Angeles prize ring. In their third meeting, Fleischer wrote, "It became pretty plain after the tenth round that Galveston Jack was the master." Mcvey took "blow after blow to the chin and Johnson kept sinking rights to the heart and left smashes to the stomach." McVey showed courage but, "In the twentieth round Jack decided he had punished Sam sufficiently and ended the contest with a right to the heart and a pretty left hook to the jaw." McVey took such a beating he decided he never wanted to face Johnson again.

Likewise, in his battle with Al Kaufman, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on Sep. 10, 1909 that "Kaufman badly whipped by Johnson in ten rounds. Kaufman hardly lays a glove on colored opponent, who is a marvel of cleverness." Johnson pitched a shut out, "All rounds for Johnson" the Chronicle reported.

The biggest fight of his career was against former champion Jim Jeffries, who came out of a long 6-year retirement. In the days preceding the fight Johnson predicted, “Jeffries can’t touch me.” This turned out to be the case as Johnson dominated the hulking former champion from the very first round. According to the July 5, 1910 Chronicle, “Round after round Johnson handled the burly Jeffries as he pleased” and stated Johnson “blocked every punch” that the former champion attempted to land. The Chronicle said it was Johnson’s “body blows” that wore down Jeffries and eventually resulted in a knockout victory for the splendid black heavyweight champion.

Historian and writer Gilbert Odd discussed Johnson's ability in The Great Champions, “Jack’s skill at leading, picking his punches and whipping in precision blows was unequaled, so too was his uncanny ability to deflect punches aimed at him or to make them miss by a fraction of an inch as he drew back his head. His left jab was straight and true, his right-cross sheer artistry, while his uppercuts were devastating. He was an expert at drawing an opponent into his blows, and of course, as they advanced so met with double impact, “They just knock themselves out”, he was fond of saying.”

Johnson also used some unique tactics in the ring. Mike Aoki wrote that Johnson liked to “shoot a punch at a foe’s bicep while the fellow began to launch a haymaker. This not only kept the blow from arriving, but it gradually numbed or paralyzed the arm.”

Jack Dempsey said of Johnson, “He was the greatest catcher of punches that ever lived. And he could fight all night. He was a combination of Jim Corbett and Louis. I’m glad I didn’t have to fight him.”

Trevor Wignall agrees saying, "He could box as well as fight. He was a tremendously hard hitter, while, for a man his size, he was amazingly swift on his feet."

Some analysts have questioned the quality of Jack’s chin. But Johnson’s chin is not nearly as bad as some revisionists make it out to be. Prior to the Willard fight he was knocked out only by Klondike Haynes and then by the wily veteran Joe Choynski both fairly early in his career and before he had reached his pinnacle as a fighter. After the Choynski loss he would not be knocked out again for 14 years.

Nat Fleischer rated Johnson as the greatest heavyweight up to the time of his death in 1972. He picked Johnson in a dream fight over Joe Louis. The reason is given in 50 Years at Ringside pp 80-81. Fleischer quotes Johnson as saying that Louis was "always off balance" and to beat a counter-puncher like Schmeling he had to "change his stance." Johnson said a "clever sharp shooter" with a good "right hand" could beat Louis. And that is precisely what happened in the first Schmeling fight. It was because of Johnson's prediction that Nat always thought that Johnson could beat Louis.

Johnson could also give Muhammad Ali a lot of trouble in a tactical boxing match. Johnson in his 1902 “colored heavyweight championship” match against Denver Ed Martin easily defeated a man who was said to have “the best footwork in the business.” In the first ten rounds they boxed with caution, but in the 11th round Johnson exploded with a right hand to the neck that dropped Martin. He went down four more times in the 11th round. Martin had a pretty good chin and his legs allowed him to survive the distance but Johnson won the 20 round decision and the title. The ease with Johnson could defeat a man with good footwork and a good chin demonstrates he could give Ali a mass of technical problems to solve.

Charley Rose who saw both Johnson and Ali fight said "Johnson would have caught Clay's jabs like Willie Mays catches a baseball." Ali’s lack of properly placed parrying hand to block a jab (he held his right hand out to the side when he jabbed) would allow Johnson to counter Ali's jab. Johnson’s superior defense and technical superiority would offset some of Ali’s natural gifts of speed, and quick reflexes. When Ali made a mistake Johnson had the hand speed to exploit it with a quick counter. Observors such as Archie Moore and Eddie Futch also picked Johnson in a dream fight against Ali. It would be a very interesting fight.

 

Houdini, the film isn't nearly as bad as you make out. It's pretty clear in fact. Your argument might work for some film of the time but the Johnson footage is fairly good and shows him to not be an Ali level boxer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ_Dguh9hEE

Likewise, while the Caruso record isn't HD it's still good enough to illustrate much of the singer's talent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aef9DGvZ8Qo

Those arguments about sound and video quality held up for years when people didn't have regular access to see the footage with their own eyes, but in the days of youtube and online streaming video Jack Johnson has been exposed.

 

Wrong....all the old films are silent film quality. Watch Charlie Chaplin...do you really think people from 100 years ago walked and moved that way. Same thing when you watch these old films. There is no doubt that the old masters have a much higher level of boxing skill than those presently. These men were masters of the finer points of the game...parrying, feinting, slipping, blocking and countering to vital areas of the body. these are lost arts today. Don't believe me that's fine....read what the trainers and historians wrote from that time they say the same. Boxing as you know it is predominantly a lower skill sport than it was as practiced by Johnson.

 

Houdini, I LOVE Charlie Chaplin films. He's my favorite comedian. He moves like a ballerina. His slapstick is poetry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wDBHIU_Wno

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qsd6FX3C0c

There is nothing wrong with the footage of Chaplin. It captures motion and speed admirably. It's the acting style which was dramatic and exaggerated, coming as it did from the tradition of stage theater and vaudeville. People would make large exaggerated movements so that they could be seen in the back row. This overstated hyperbole actually works quite well for comedy, but it often made dramas maudlin and silly.