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

 

Technically speaking all film distorts the visual image, even modern day footage. The Telephoto lens compresses the distance between objects making them appear flat. The wide angle lens gives a great sense of depth and detail but curves the image at the edges. When someone stands to close to a camera the perspective becomes skewed and body parts enlarge and elongate. But that doesn't mean that for the most part we can't tell what we are seeing.

I admitted that a lot of the film from Johnson's era is garbage. It's shot too far away on inferior stock, at a lesser framerate, by people who didn't know what they were doing, cranking the camera by hand, and then poorly preserving it later. But the Johnson footage I posted of him fighting Tommy Burns on page 3 of this thread is clear. It is an exception but it shows the boxers clearly, closely, and fluidly enough that we can make an accurate assessment of their abilities.

 

I can see a lot in old films. A whole lot. It just takes some concentration and knowledge of what you should be looking for.

 

But you also need to know what you are looking at. Johnsons talents ...feinting, blocking countering incredible balance, athletic ability are second to none. The talents he had you don't find today.

 

Neither Norton or Witherspoon were ever the hwt champion. Neither were all time talents.

 

Just to be clear, you are saying you think that Johnson was a better counter puncher than Jose Napoles, JM Marquez, Floyd Mayweather, and Jame Toney? You believe he was more athletic than Roy Jones Jr, Ray Leonard, and Naseem Hamed? A better feinter than Moore, Burley, Jersey Joe Walcott, Duran, B-Hop, and Marquez?

 

:thumbsup

 

I agree with this. The first time I viewed the Frank Klaus-Georges Carpentier fight it looked like just a big, messy mauling session with loads of clinches. Upon closer viewing I saw the brilliant inside work Klaus was doing on the "Orchid Man". Plus loads of big head shots he was landing that actually snapped Carp's head back that I somehow didn't see the first time around.

 

I think a lot of the more optimistic posters here see what they want to see in the old footage. Just this month, when Baclava posted that crystal clear footage of Mike McTigue and Battling Siki, it occasioned remarks such as:

They read greatness into the plodding and pawing of journeymen.

 

He clearly doesn't face the kind of boxing he'd compete with today. The film excuse you dole out is becoming boring. No one is disputing that the film isn't as good a quality as today but the Burns one is fairly clear, and you can still make out what Johnson is exactly defending against...if you really want to. The thing is, in truth, you don't, you'd rather dismiss it and then quote some old timers.

The reality is, Burns, the heavyweight champ, looks like he's trying to rugby tackle Johnson and the awful mauling and clinching, isn't anything to do with the film's quality- given modern equipment, you'd just see more clearly how limited Burns was in ring craft compared with what has gone on since. If Charlie Chaplin is walking funny, we can still make out his steps and style...even if they are speeded up... just like we can make out a doubled-up jab, crisp combination punching and footwork on many of these old films. Believing boxing hasn't moved on in 100+ years is embarrassing and makes no sense at all.

 

Spot on, I don't see how anyone can deny this (but i'm sure they will). It would be good, if these posters could talk about their respective styles and what impress them most about 'scoring punches' in this fight, taking into acocunt the film's quality, which like you say, is pretty good. Maybe they can speak of other boxing fundamentals, like good examples of the jab, solid combination punching and when these times occur, so we can see their viewpoint...instead, I expect a list of names or something. :yep

 

Ruiz vs Johnson. Make it happen, Stoney!

 

Oh cmon Janitor, your bias knows no end.

It is there plain and simple for all to see, the camera doesnt lie!

We all know that Feinting and Levitating are lost arts that used to exist. Tommy Burns was the master of levitation and the only reason he didnt levitate against Jack Johnson was that he was afraid that the Australian Country still held witchcraft as a crime, and he might have been burned at the stake.

With modern rules and non racist attitudes he would levitate around the ring and make mince meat of Wlad's laughable height and reach advantage. Burns wins by KO. Skills are skills and it is plaint to see on tape that the levitiation trick easily trumps anything done today. It is called Devolution. It is like motor vehicles. You just dont see those modern Subarus and Hyundai's standing up to the old time Falcons, Monaros and Leyland PVC's when they hold a demolition derby, do you?

 

The first time I ever watched Chaplin [and also the most recent] was in The Great Dictator, so my perception of Chaplin started out a little different from most.

Although he was an old man by this time, there is color footage of Johnson sparring with Jeannette during WW II, and also a sound clip of him conducting an orchestra in 1929. A number of boxers are preserved competing through the transition from silent films to live sound, for some appreciation of the difference in quality.

Johnson was fast enough that hand operated camera film could miss a substantial amount of what he did. [Ditto Jeffries during his defenses against Tom Sharkey and Gus Ruhlin.]

Dempsey, at 45, does look a lot more fluid against Luttrell than in any of his 1920s bouts. Loughran always looks good on film, but it's certainly still instructive to contrast his 1926 sparring footage with Dempsey against the live sound film of his late career win over Maurice Strickland in November 1935. [And there's surely no substitute for hearing the punches of Galento and Max Baer pounding off of each other, or the thwack of Robinson's rights hammering into the ribs of Bobby Dykes.] Jack Sharkey performed before both silent hand operated cameras and then on live sound a number of times.

 

Jefferies, fitzsimmones, burns, langford, jeanette, mcvea, flynn, corbett, sharkey, these are among the finest boxers to ever lace up gloves. Johnson has more greats than any other fighter on his resume including ali.

O really, and how do you explain his win over 6'7 1/2 Denver Ed Martin? With the exception of Mike Tyson, Muhammad Ali, Floyd Patterson and JackJohnson EVERY heavyweight is slow in comparasion. And 6'1 219 is tiny now when the best boxers all weighed less than this like tyson, ali, liston, louis, spinks all weigh lessed in their primes. Guys weighed less because who wants to weigh 250 pounds to fight 45 rounds, you think buster mathis or klitschko can fight 45 rounds when the first is fat and the latter gets knocked out by journey men in his prime in 11 rounds from exhaustion? Fireman Flynn beat prime Dempsey so is Dempsey **** too now?atsch

Nope would beat both klitschoes in 1 round at the same time.

Agreed.

You can down anyones resume. He beat the best there was for a very long time. His "bums" like flynn, went on to beat prime dempsey, so his "bums" couldn't be that bad now could they.

yeah Jeffries who was considered the best boxer up to that period was garbage but ray mercer and carl williams, witherspoon and norton who holmes lost to in reality are great wins for holmes. At least Johnson didn't fix fight like holmes did, I got a good write up on that won.:good

Farmers are strong people, Joe Frazier was a farmer and so was sonny liston. Farming produces strong and ruddy people. And johnson was like what 39 in a time when people died at like 50. there is substantial evidence johnson threw the fight so he could return to the usa. Knocked out people don't shield their eyes from the sun, not from head shots.

No Johnson would have lost to the guys of today with all their modern sport science. Modern sports science makes you dodge punches like how modern science allows you to dodge bullets like the matrix. Modern fighters are better because they are coddled and avoid tough fights their whol careers that the 2 best boxers still make excuses to fight each other. Oldies where dumber because greats use to fight each other. Modern fighters are better because they quit fights, have glass chins and get 100 stitches when lennox lewis hits them. But oldies would get annihilated because Jack Johnson fought in a time with no mouth guards but he never had to get stitches nor had a mark on his face nor get cut nor did he end up in a wheel chaired crippled or shaking for life or with slurred speech because modern sports science is more advanced which is why guys today fight into their 60s like Johnson did. Johnson would lose to tall modern fighters because he knocked out 6'7 1/2 Denver Ed Martin who was described as having the best footwork in the business. Johnson at 6'1 would be too short to win, whereas tall modern fighters like Marciano, Dempsey, Tyson, Frazier, Quarry, spinks, shavers, jimmy young, gene tunney, arturo godoy Patterson, Walcott, Liston and Charles were all bums and couldn't compete against tall modern fighters. Just because Jack Johnson was called the giant and knocked out opponents at will with either hand, who almost never hit him cleanly means nothing because modern fighters have special technology in their gloves that allow them to heat seeking punching capabilities.

I agree there were so many new styles that Ali decided to copy the style of Jack Johnson and called up stepin and fetechit to ask him to teach him punches that jack johnson use to do. I agree, Johnson's movement was bad because he could fight 20 and 45 rounds without getting hit, which is a sure sign of a bad boxer. he also had no defense which is why he never had to get stitches, never got cut up and never had a black eye. He had no scratches on his face, all his teeth in an era before mouth guards but his defense was very very bad. His jab was so bad that Ali decided to copy it. Johnson was no good because he dominated fighters. atsch

Yes pick conteh and ignore Ali, rather convenient ain't it. Where do you think all that movement, side stepping and back dancing, tying guys up came from, you think people fought that way before jack johnson. And of course Johnson never slipped to the left, even though I just watched him slip 10 punches to the left by stepping backwards and sideways and dancing around them. He was an excellent slipper, watch the whole fights not the highlights. He didn't duck because on the films he is usually fighting smaller opponents, who the hell ducks under a smaller man? Ducking is not the most effective defensive manuever. Compared to moving your hand. So you are claiming he ran for 45 rounds now, wow he most be some runner. And you are saying Johnson doesn't move well, please, stop talking rubbish clown.