Would jack johnson style work today

You can't by the book slip to the left with your back foot sideways as your right knee can't dip to the left with your waist, stepping backwards and sideways isn't slipping in any book on how to box from the twenties onward, its a form of sidestepping which is taught as such. Johnson didn't need to duck ala the way Willy Pep did but the point is neither could he, you can't with your back foot sideways. You also can't move forward with any speed with boxing footwork if your backfoot is sideways which is why Johnson's feet regulary cross each other when he did. Yes, Johnson's footwork and stance were flawed and wouldn't be taught by any skilled trainer today.

Angelo Dundee said the main influence on Ali's style, movement, and jab was Willy Pastrano not Jack Johnson. Ali didn't parry or block or tie opponents up ala Johnson, his jab was entirely different and in his words taught by his golden glove coach Joe Martin, and his footwork and stance had no resemblence to Johnson's. The one punch Ali attributed to Johnson via Fetchit was the anchor punch he used several times in his career (Liston/Shavers). I practiced that punch thousands of times for years on a double end bag and it really is something when done sharply.

 

Ali was always impressed with Johnson. He went into the second Quarry bout with the intention of emulating his style during that bout....which he did to some extent.

Johnsons defensive abilities are second to none in the hwt division. He was unparalleled in terms of feinting, parrying, blocking punches and this is why he was practically untouchable during his prime. He demonstrated how Schmeling would beat Louis days prior to the fight noting Louis stance flaws....Johnson knew the sport of boxing. Johnson did not rely upon moving or dancing about the ring which he termed wasted motion. Instead he was able in classic form to evade punches and still be in a position to counter. You rarely see Johnson ducking punches simply because he never needed to and his stance reflected this.

It is really a complete mischaracterization to compare a poor fighter in Ruiz vs Johnson. There are a few articles in newspapers from those times...one that comes to mind is after his bout with Flynn....where the challenger complained that the ref was allowing Jj to hold. The refs comeback was...Johnson was not holding...Flynn was free to punch and he did to Johnsons body or head. Johnson though was able to block or slip all the head punches. If you watch his bout with Flynn you can see Jim on Johnsons chest throwing hooks to the head. Just as the punch is about to land Johnson picks it off of he slips his body to the left or right making the punch miss. Greatest textbook hwt in terms of defense that ever was. Incredible alert and this is why after over 100 bouts his face was left unmarked.

 

Also Earnie Shavers, who grew up hoisting bales of hay in Ohio, and was an excellent all around scholastic athlete.

 

Burns levitated everytime Johnson caught him with the right uppercut.

 

Johnson made a killing on the fight betting on the German.

 

This statement is incorrect.

 

Johnson fought tons of men bigger than himself,at the age of 37 he was in front against the 6'6.25" Willard and the referee stated had the fight been over 20rds Johnson would have received the decision.

 

OK, who exactly considered Jeffries to be the "best boxer" up to that period?

Jeffries was so good in 1910 that he refused any tune-up matches, restricted the attendance to his workouts and sparring sessions, so good that Stanley Ketchel, upon seeing him in the ring a week before the Johnson match-up, promised to KO Jeffries during the ring introductions to save the pride of the white race, so good that Jim Flynn claimed a fix was generally agreed by both parties for the San Francisco match with Johnson, but upon moving the fight to Reno, Johnson informed Jeffries two nights before that it was to be on the level... so good that Jeffries didn't sleep a wink for the following two nights. He was that good.

 

I think you are confusing Jim Flynn with Gun Boat Smith.

 

Either Willards size was more than promoted or Carnera smaller. I found a photo that showed a number of past hwt champions standing side by side. Willard dwarfed Carnera...he appeared taller even though he was standing with knees bent.

 

Yup.

A mind is a terrible thing to get wasted.

 

He just dominated you with that list. Willard is one guy. One. Jeff was bigger than him that makes 2. Johnson beat up a bunch of guys he had the advantage in every single way in the tale of the tape. That isn't impressive to me. What is impressive is a little guy like Dempsey beating the **** out of much larger men in brutal and exciting fashion. You understand that?

 

Johnson was the smaller man in MANY of his bouts. Just wait until my book comes out. It will correct a lot of the inaccuracies using primary sources.

 

But was he the smaller fighter in his greatest victories?

One can use the "Dunkhorst" argument all day long. But when looking at quality victories, Langford, Burns, Jeanette... what are the sizes we are talking about?

 

In many cases yes.

For example he was the smaller man when he fought Denver Ed Martin for the Coloured Heavtweight Title.

He was the smaller man when he fougth Sam McVea, which was the fight that realy established him as the outstanding challenger for Jeffries title.

And of course he was the smaller man against Jeffries.