...and Harry Wills rated so low on many people's lists? people go crazy over Johnson's wins over Langford, Jeanette and McVae, but Wills beat these three guys multiple times.

Ive heard that Johnson beat them when they were more 'prime', but how is that so? McVae was 18-19 years old when Johnson beat him. call me crazy, but that seems pretty young, assuming they got his birth date correct.
on the other hand, Wills beat him when he McVae was 26, and then a few more times before he even turned 30. hmmm.

Jeanette is understandable, Johnson beat him when he was much younger. although I have to admit, when Johnson fought him his record looked like garbage, when Wills fought him it looked much better.

and people always say that it counts a little against Johnson that he never gave Langford a rematch, yet at the time that people wanted a rematch, Wills was fighting him again and again.

he also beat guys like Fred Fulton and Firpo, which are better wins than pretty much all of Johnson's non-colored title defences.

I dont expect him to be rated over Johnson, but how is it that Johnson gets into people's top 3, while Wills doesnt get into the top 10 at all? either lower Johnson or raise Wills, because something doesnt make sense there.
and whats more, I dont see how Dempsey could be rated higher than Wills either.

Johnson beat them when they were too young while Wills beat them when they were too old.

Jeannette, Langford and McVea struggled to find anyone to fight during their prime days except each other.

The one thing that keeps Wills from being ranked high is that he never got a shot at Jack Dempsey. If he had fought Dempsey and won, I'm sure he would be ranked in many top 10 HW lists.

Unfortunately he is now a mostly forgotten great of the early 1900's era.

I would not put too much into boxrec records by the way, they are usually incorrect when it comes to the lesser known boxers of the late 1800's/early 1900's.

Johnson beat them when they were too young while Wills beat them when they were too old.

Jeannette, Langford and McVea struggled to find anyone to fight during their prime days except each other.

The one thing that keeps Wills from being ranked high is that he never got a shot at Jack Dempsey. If he had fought Dempsey and won, I'm sure he would be ranked in many top 10 HW lists.

Unfortunately he is now a mostly forgotten great of the early 1900's era.

I would not put too much into boxrec records by the way, they are usually incorrect when it comes to the lesser known boxers of the late 1800's/early 1900's.I wasnt judging boxrec rankings actually, I was judging the people in the top 10 Heavyweights list that had Johnson really high and didnt have Wills in the top ten at all.

and I know Ive said this before, but boxrec is as good as any other source when it comes to judging old fighters...its all secondary sources. either boxrec or newspapers...and newspapers cant even agree with each other on how the fight went a lot of the time. I mean, I seriously doubt even boxing historians have ever actually seen a full Jeanette fight before, because little to no footage even exists of him...at least in his early days.

and boxrec doesnt have all the fights listed for certain old fighters, but they probebly will have all the big/significant fights theyve been in, and thats mostly all that counts. I dont really care if a fighter's win over a bum is missing or not.

the thing is that Wills basically fought and beat a lot of Dempsey's and Johnson's best wins...and doesnt seem to get as much credit as either of them.
I dont care how you rate them, I just dont think it makes much sense that Johnson ought to be rated that much higher than Wills.

I wasnt judging boxrec rankings actually, I was judging the people in the top 10 Heavyweights list that had Johnson really high and didnt have Wills in the top ten at all.

and I know Ive said this before, but boxrec is as good as any other source when it comes to judging old fighters...its all secondary sources. either boxrec or newspapers...and newspapers cant even agree with each other on how the fight went a lot of the time. I mean, I seriously doubt even boxing historians have ever actually seen a full Jeanette fight before, because little to no footage even exists of him...at least in his early days.

and boxrec doesnt have all the fights listed for certain old fighters, but they probebly will have all the big/significant fights theyve been in, and thats mostly all that counts. I dont really care if a fighter's win over a bum is missing or not.

the thing is that Wills basically fought and beat a lot of Dempsey's and Johnson's best wins...and doesnt seem to get as much credit as either of them.
I dont care how you rate them, I just dont think it makes much sense that Johnson ought to be rated that much higher than Wills.

I agree with you but in my opinion it's not so much about Dempsey and Jack Johnson being overrated as much as it is about Harry Wills being underrated.

Even the big fights are often listed wrong by boxrec.

In the past couple of months Tunney's fight against Loughran has changed from a win to a loss and then to a no contest, and Langford's fight against Ketchel was changed from a draw into a win for him.

I agree with you but in my opinion it's not so much about Dempsey and Jack Johnson being overrated as much as it is about Harry Wills being underrated.

Even the big fights are often listed wrong by boxrec.

In the past couple of months Tunney's fight against Loughran has changed from a win to a loss and then to a no contest, and Langford's fight against Ketchel was changed from a draw into a win for him.

but thats because those fights were judged differently by different newspapers. I mean, when one newspaper says that Tunney beat Loughran and another says the opposite, what are you supposed to make of it? there is no real right answer unless youve seen the full fight yourself, and in the end the NC is probebly a more fair assessment of the bout than either of the newspapers, which basically means that boxrec is more reliable than a newspaper reoprt(in that case, at least).

I have done tons of research on Johnson in the past, and i broke down his record piece by piece on other sites. Im burnt out on talking about him.

He's definetly overrated, and it's pretty crazy to see him in the top ten on some people's lists.

I'd like to say that BoxRec blows, but that might be a little unfair to them because they are and have been attempting to add to their database on an ongoing basis. I really do think people rely way too much on what is listed on their site, though, especially for the fights that took place during the no decision era of the sport when they are often changing their listings of fights (as Machine so accurately illustrated) or are very often selective in listing a single source for what supposedly happened, and even doing so when that source was very much in the minority (I gave an example of this a couple months back in regards to one of the Langford/Jeannette fights).

Besides maybe a fight date that I don't have available from other sources, that's not a site I personally use as a source for the fights from back then, nor is it one that I find myself visting on a regular basis.

but thats because those fights were judged differently by different newspapers. I mean, when one newspaper says that Tunney beat Loughran and another says the opposite, what are you supposed to make of it? there is no real right answer unless youve seen the full fight yourself, and in the end the NC is probebly a more fair assessment of the bout than either of the newspapers, which basically means that boxrec is more reliable than a newspaper reoprt(in that case, at least).

In that case yes, but in the case of Langford-Ketchel, the fight was listed as a draw for years by boxrec.com but it is now listed as a win for Langford although some newspaper reports gave it to Ketchel or had it a draw.

About Tunney vs Loughran, Philadelphia newspapers gave the decision to Loughran while New York newspapers favoured Tunney.

In my opinion both newspapers could have been biased for their hometown fighter and having read detailed reports on the fight, listing it as a no contest or a draw seems appropriate.

I'd like to say that BoxRec blows, but that might be a little unfair to them because they are and have been attempting to add to their database on an ongoing basis. I really do think people rely way too much on what is listed on their site, though, especially for the fights that took place during the no decision era of the sport when they are often changing their listings of fights (as Machine so accurately illustrated) or are very often selective in listing a single source for what supposedly happened, and even doing so when that source was very much in the minority (I gave an example of this a couple months back in regards to one of the Langford/Jeannette fights).

Besides maybe a fight date that I don't have available from other sources, that's not a site I personally use as a source for the fights from back then, nor is it one that I find myself visting on a regular basis.
I think that boxrec is pretty useful simply because it usually lists what the newspaper decision(s) said. then you can look up the newspaper in question and try to get a more detailed review of the fight by looking in their archives, if one exists.

personally, if video of the fight doesnt exist, I have no problem using boxrec. by far the best way to judge a fight is to see it first hand...and if thats impossible and no one living can describe the fight, I dont see how its much different than a 100ish year old newspaper report, since newspapers in that time(or any time) were often unreliable anyway since they could be biased and conflict with other newspaper reports.

cant imagine many people baising their facts or opinions on newspaper decisions. really how thick is that when you think about it.

old timers got their own opinion on what went on back in the days. if im rating somebody i need to see that fighter for myself. and not once or twice, and not in just a couple of fights either.

I think that boxrec is pretty useful simply because it usually lists what the newspaper decision(s) said. then you can look up the newspaper in question and try to get a more detailed review of the fight by looking in their archives, if one exists.

personally, if video of the fight doesnt exist, I have no problem using boxrec. by far the best way to judge a fight is to see it first hand...and if thats impossible and no one living can describe the fight, I dont see how its much different than a 100ish year old newspaper report, since newspapers in that time(or any time) were often unreliable anyway since they could be biased and conflict with other newspaper reports.

But reading many newspaper reports will give you a clearer view of what happened in a fight than reading a result listed on boxrec.

Three newspaper reports of the Tunney-Loughran fight:

"Not many boxers could outbox Tunney at this stage of his career, but Loughran was one of them. Aware of that, Tunney tried hard to knock out Loughran, but never came close after the opening round, and the fight appeared to have been even by the end. While there could be no official decision, the majority of sportwriters at ringside - most of them from the Philadelphia-area newspapers - gave their verdicts to Loughran.

"'Tommy Outclasses Gene in Sensational Bout After Weathering a Storm in First Round,' read the somewhat misleading sub-headline in the following day's Philadelphia Inquirer. As it was, it went into the record books as a no decision fight. Tunney himself knew it had been close, but felt he had won the bout, as did virtually all of the New York sportswriters who were present." Tunney, p. 168 (italics added)

A report below from the Newcastle Times, Penn.
PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 25.—Gene
Tunney, o£ New York, former llght-
heavyweight champion o£ America,
defeated Tommy Loughran of Philadelphia,
at the National League
baseball park here last night. TunnEy
weighed 173 pounds and Loughra,
was 10 pounds lighter.
Tunney landed a hard right on
Loughran's jaw in the first round
and Tommy went down for a count of
nine. Loughran came back gamely
and made a great battle, so much so
that some sport writers were inclined
to judge the match a draw.
Tunney was bleeding from the
mouth and nose much of the time.
Loughran took the offensive In the
last round, but Tunney's body blows
had him weak in the final minutes.

Having read that you'll be left with the impression that it was a close fight.

Now reading it on boxrec.com about two months ago (before the result was changed) you'd be left with the impression that Tunney had easily outpointed and knocked down Loughran.

But reading many newspaper reports will give you a clearer view of what happened in a fight than reading a result listed on boxrec.

Three newspaper reports of the Tunney-Loughran fight:
all I learned from that was that the first round was rough for Loughran. the only other thing the reports said was that it was a close fight that could have gone either way. which is how I treat NDs anyway.

so it didnt real do much for me, nor did it even tell me anything about the fighters in question. its not like there was a round by round either. they didnt agree on who won.

basically, reading these reports only really told me that the fight was close and could have gone either way based on scoring.
when I see a ND on boxrec, that tells me that the fight was close and could have gone either way based on scoring, unless there is a relevant footnote underneath.

theres not much difference there in the end.

I have done tons of research on Johnson in the past, and i broke down his record piece by piece on other sites. Im burnt out on talking about him.

He's definetly overrated, and it's pretty crazy to see him in the top ten on some people's lists.

cant imagine many people baising their facts or opinions on newspaper decisions. really how thick is that when you think about it.

old timers got their own opinion on what went on back in the days. if im rating somebody i need to see that fighter for myself. and not once or twice, and not in just a couple of fights either.

How do you rate Jack Johnson then when there only a couple of his fights are filmed?

Obviously by reading about him and the opposition he faced.

But reading many newspaper reports will give you a clearer view of what happened in a fight than reading a result listed on boxrec.

Three newspaper reports of the Tunney-Loughran fight:







Having read that you'll be left with the impression that it was a close fight.

Now reading it on boxrec.com about two months ago (before the result was changed) you'd be left with the impression that Tunney had easily outpointed and knocked down Loughran.
this is insightfull stuff, but it's not exactly a blow by blow commentary. all it says really, is tunney knocked down loughran, and then tommy got up and gave a good account of himself......and then they finish off with what they thought the official result was...

judges still cant figure out who won leonard-hagler fight, and no one would say either yes or a no unless they have seen it with their own eyes and decide for themselves.

newspaper account gives an idea, from there people base it however they wanna base it, that's why i never get into heated discussions with them. All it is from there are assumptions since there is no footage to support what another person says.

When boxers say 'never leave it in a judges hands' they mean it. it's a conflicting view of other people.

all I learned from that was that the first round was rough for Loughran. the only other thing the reports said was that it was a close fight that could have gone either way. which is how I treat NDs anyway.

so it didnt real do much for me, nor did it even tell me anything about the fighters in question. its not like there was a round by round either. they didnt agree on who won.

basically, reading these reports only really told me that the fight was close and could have gone either way based on scoring.
when I see a ND on boxrec, that tells me that the fight was close and could have gone either way based on scoring, unless there is a relevant footnote underneath.

theres not much difference there in the end.

My point was that boxrec used to list it as a win for Tunney for years which was incorrect.

It's listed as a no decision now which is right but there are surely other old fights that have an incorrect result or are not listed there at all.

I've had to explain to people that the fighters Jimmy Wilde fought were not complete bums / beginners because their records read 0-0 on boxrec, it's simply because none of their fights are listed there as it's hard to find information on that particular era of boxing.

Those newspaper reports were only examples, there are more detailed reports out there but you'll sometimes have to pay to read them (NY Times website archives).

How do you rate Jack Johnson then when there only a couple of his fights are filmed?

Obviously by reading about him and the opposition he faced.
obviously, and i never had any conflicts with that. my issue is not with that. i always maintained that fighters like tunney, johnson, dempsey should be rated by their own era, their time.

but when looking at the circumstances, the fighters, the times, and the events built up, you start to isolate the facts. when there's not much footage present, i rank fighters accordingly. guys like mcvey, langford, as well as wills were underated. and they are not mentioned in the same light as Johnson.

My point was that boxrec used to list it as a win for Tunney for years which was incorrect.

It's listed as a no decision now which is right but there are surely other old fights that have an incorrect result or are not listed there at all.

I've had to explain to people that the fighters Jimmy Wilde fought were not complete bums / beginners because their records read 0-0 on boxrec, it's simply because none of their fights are listed there as it's hard to find information on that particular era of boxing.

Those newspaper reports were only examples, there are more detailed reports out there but you'll sometimes have to pay to read them.
how do we know that the win for Tunney is incorrect? maybe he really did deserve to win the fight. boxrec is based on the newspaper decisions...which means that while boxrec is unreliable, its no less reliable than the newspapers it is based on.

and as for Jimmy Wilde, I get that most his 0-0 opponents werent actually 0-0, but if theres no information about them even in newspapers, they really couldnt have been very important or high level. I dont discredit a fighter for fighting no name fighters, but I dont give them credit for it either. If Im going to judge an old time fighter like Wilde, Im just going to ignore his win-loss record and instead concentrate on his big/worthwhile wins.

In that case yes, but in the case of Langford-Ketchel, the fight was listed as a draw for years by boxrec.com but it is now listed as a win for Langford although some newspaper reports gave it to Ketchel or had it a draw.

The majority of them gave it to Langford, though, so that's not such a bad listing by the site nowadays. This is what the six Philadelphian papers covering the fight thought about who had gotten the better;

Morning Telegraph - Draw
Philadelphia Press - Langford
Philadelphia Record - Langford
Philadelphia North Amercian - Draw
Philadelphia Inquirer - Langford (assuming by some margin as they said "All Langford")
Philadelphia Ledger - Ketchel by a shade

3-1-2 for Langford according to the papers out of the fight's location, and as I illustrated in the Ketchel thread (you may have not seen it, Machine), the prevailing opinion was that Langford wasn't trying to give his best effort...I could certainly quote those opinions if asked, but it would require some typing.

They also had seven papers out of New York covering the fight (American, World, Times, Sun, Press, Tribune, and Herald) and adding up the votes from them, Langford had a 4 to 3 edge based on the opinions of the NY papers.

The wired reports featured in other sources (different ones featured in the Washington Times, Times Dispatch, Ogden Standard, etc.) also seem to be in Langford's favour (2-0-1 out of the three listed there), albeit they refer to his advantage as "slight" and wording of that nature.

Going by the consensus, Langford seemed to have a shade the better of the bout, although considering Ketchel had a few supporters in the press and the vast majority thought it close, a draw would also be pretty fair.

how do we know that the win for Tunney is incorrect? maybe he really did deserve to win the fight. boxrec is based on the newspaper decisions...which means that while boxrec is unreliable, its no less reliable than the newspapers it is based on.

and as for Jimmy Wilde, I get that most his 0-0 opponents werent actually 0-0, but if theres no information about them even in newspapers, they really couldnt have been very important or high level. I dont discredit a fighter for fighting no name fighters, but I dont give them credit for it either. If Im going to judge an old time fighter like Wilde, Im just going to ignore his win-loss record and instead concentrate on his big/worthwhile wins.

Maybe he did deserve it or maybe he didn't. But boxrec listed it as a win for Tunney, changed it to a loss and now have it a no contest.

Basically it's not very reliable if you're trying to learn about old timers, some fight results change almost every month.

People could take a look at boxrec, see that Tunney had a win over Loughran and the next month they'll see it listed as a loss.

The majority of them gave it to Langford, though, so that's not such a bad listing by the site nowadays. This is what the six Philadelphian papers covering the fight thought about who had gotten the better;

Morning Telegraph - Draw
Philadelphia Press - Langford
Philadelphia Record - Langford
Philadelphia North Amercian - Draw
Philadelphia Inquirer - Langford (assuming by some margin as they said "All Langford")
Philadelphia Ledger - Ketchel by a shade

3-1-2 for Langford according to the papers out of the fight's location, and as I illustrated in the Ketchel thread (you may have not seen it, Machine), the prevailing opinion was that Langford wasn't trying to give his best effort...I could certainly quote those opinions if asked, but it would require some typing.

They also had seven papers out of New York covering the fight (American, World, Times, Sun, Press, Tribune, and Herald) and adding up the votes from them, Langford had a 4 to 3 edge based on the opinions of the NY papers.

The wired reports featured in other sources (different ones featured in the Washington Times, Times Dispatch, Ogden Standard, etc.) also seem to be in Langford's favour (2-0-1 out of the three listed there), albeit they refer to his advantage as "slight" and wording of that nature.

Going by the consensus, Langford seemed to have a shade the better of the bout, although considering Ketchel had a few supporters in the press and the vast majority thought it close, a draw would also be pretty fair.

I don't have a problem with the fight being listed by boxrec as a win for Langford but when a fight is changed from a win to a draw to a win again, it shows that the source of information is not all that reliable and shouldn't be taken as the absolute truth (as many do).

I'm not criticizing the posters in this thread but I've had a couple of arguments lately with people who only use boxrec to find information, even when film is available.

I did read the Ketchel thread and it was very informative.

I believe Langford was the better fighter of the two but I don't think this fight necessarily showed who the better man was as it only lasted 6 rounds and both men were supposedly ready to go more.

A rematch was to be scheduled but unfortunately it never happened for reasons you pointed out in the thread about Stanley Ketchel.

Maybe he did deserve it or maybe he didn't. But boxrec listed it as a win for Tunney, changed it to a loss and now have it a no contest.

Basically it's not very reliable if you're trying to learn about old timers, some fight results change almost every month.

People could take a look at boxrec, see that Tunney had a win over Loughran and the next month they'll see it listed as a loss.

all Im trying to say is that looking on boxrec and taking what it says for fact is unrealiable, but picking up an old newspaper report and taking what it says as fact is at least just as unreliable.

you have to take what you see on boxrec with a grain of salt, but you have to do that with all the newspaper decisions you see as well. even if you look at all of them in bulk its pretty unreliable, because look at the Leonard-Hagler fight for example. I believe the majority of the newspapers had Leonard winning, and yet I personally had Hagler winning.

to sum it all up, boxrec is not reliable when it comes to old fights. but when you compare it to the few other sources you have about old fights, its not too bad. overall they do a fairly respectable job representing old fights.

weve kind of gone off from the main topic, but this is a fun discussion, right? haha

but when a fight is changed from a win to a draw to a win again, it shows that the source of information is not all that reliable and shouldn't be taken as the absolute truth (as many do).

I couldn't agree more, Machine.

The newspaper accounts are in many cases the ONLY sources we have. Record keeping was non-existent back then. Does it mean we can't glean any knowledge from that era? No. We just need to use a grain of salt when it comes to sources and find as many sources as possible.

Poet

right, so everyone seems to have come to an agreement, no reports are completely reliable.

now, about the whole Johnson-Wills part....

right, so everyone seems to have come to an agreement, no reports are completely reliable.

now, about the whole Johnson-Wills part....

About the only footage we have of Harry Wills is him getting brutally knocked out by Paulino Uzcudun at the end of his career, that might hurt his status as well.

Atleast Jack Johnson and Dempsey have some of their great performances on film in which we can see how skilled they were. Sure Johnson held a lot and Dempsey got too wild in some of his fights but they were pioneers in many ways.

It could be a bit of a stretch but anyway, here's the video:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rgCdV_5F8ig&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rgCdV_5F8ig&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

all Im trying to say is that looking on boxrec and taking what it says for fact is unrealiable, but picking up an old newspaper report and taking what it says as fact is at least just as unreliable.

My big problem with BoxRec and their newspaper decision listings is that they so often are only listing a single source for their information/verdict, and are often listing a source like that that is very much in the minority, and in some cases likely factuably inaccurate when compared to many other sources covering the same fight.

e.g. Concerning the Langford/Jeannette fight I alluded to earlier (took place in 1908), BoxRec has it listed as a "draw" based on one report from the NY Times, which is also a source that states that Jeannette was knocked down in the 1st and 2nd rounds. But if you look at the other sources out of New York, whether it be the other NY papers (Tribune, Sun, Evening World, etc.) or the wired reports out of New York printed in many different sources (Washington Times & Herald, Trenton Evening News, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, etc.), they are all consistent in saying that Langford got the best of the fight, and most will say by some margin. Oh, and those other reports are also consistant in saying that Langford knocked Jeannette down twice in the first round, and once again in the fifth, which is completely different than what the singular source that BoxRec uses says.

i.e. If I'm like you and read one singular source listed BoxRec I'm thinking that fight was a newspaper draw. Yet, if I expand myself and look through about ten other sources that were covering the fight out of the fight's location, I find that that one singular source was very much in the minority and in fact, quite inaccurate to what every other source was reporting on what happened in that fight.

I didn't realise anyone did rate him highly! This is news to me. I thought he was just widely accepted as a historical figure.

I didn't realise anyone did rate him highly! This is news to me. I thought he was just widely accepted as a historical figure.

u mean jack???? better not!

anyways.....

jack is rated high because of many thing. dude as known to be so well schooled at boxing that he would toy with his opponent. and he was badass!

i know people read this or that about jack, bit i own unfirgiveable blackness)book and movie), copies of older fights, boxing day(book) etc and even his autobiography.

even ali in his hey-day said he was "a bad man."


so, jack is even uderrated IMO, but the other guy in question - is generally underrated as well. walcott underrated as well.

I didn't realise anyone did rate him highly! This is news to me. I thought he was just widely accepted as a historical figure.
check out the last 2 or so pages of the top 10 heavyweights of all time list on this forum. a lot of people put him at #3 or 4.

theres almost no footage of Wills, but on the other hand theres very little footage of Johnson's best wins. so I guess we just have to go by how they did record-wise, and Wills doesnt seem very far behind Johnson if you ask me.

This Is the Consensus that Hurricane Produced by asking people on this forum :

01. Muhammed Ali
02. Joe Louis
03. Lennox Lewis
04. Larry Holmes
05. Rocky Marciano
06. George Foreman
07. Jack Johnson
08. Mike Tyson
09. Jack Dempsey
10. Joe Frazier
11. Gene Tunney
12. Sonny Liston
13. Evander Holyfield
14. Harry Wills
14. Archie Moore
16. James J. Jeffries
17. Vitali Klitchko
17. Floyd Patterson
19. Wladimir Klitchko

Wills is up there, atleast in this list.

Then again Archie Moore (a great LHW but only a good HW) is up there as well.

My big problem with BoxRec and their newspaper decision listings is that they so often are only listing a single source for their information/verdict, and are often listing a source like that that is very much in the minority, and in some cases likely factuably inaccurate when compared to many other sources covering the same fight.

e.g. Concerning the Langford/Jeannette fight I alluded to earlier (took place in 1908), BoxRec has it listed as a "draw" based on one report from the NY Times, which is also a source that states that Jeannette was knocked down in the 1st and 2nd rounds. But if you look at the other sources out of New York, whether it be the other NY papers (Tribune, Sun, Evening World, etc.) or the wired reports out of New York printed in many different sources (Washington Times & Herald, Trenton Evening News, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, etc.), they are all consistent in saying that Langford got the best of the fight, and most will say by some margin. Oh, and those other reports are also consistant in saying that Langford knocked Jeannette down twice in the first round, and once again in the fifth, which is completely different than what the singular source that BoxRec uses says.

i.e. If I'm like you and read one singular source listed BoxRec I'm thinking that fight was a newspaper draw. Yet, if I expand myself and look through about ten other sources that were covering the fight out of the fight's location, I find that that one singular source was very much in the minority and in fact, quite inaccurate to what every other source was reporting on what happened in that fight.

Excellent point about Boxrec and newspaper decisions. While it's beyond dispute that Harry Greb was a great fighter, a lot of his Boxrec newspaper wins seem to have been allocated based on reports from the Pittsburgh Post, who apparently reckon he won virtually every fight he was in, even when he lost.

I always take newspaper reports with a pinch of salt, whether they were written yesterday or 100 years ago. Newspapers and journalists were the same back then as they are now. All had their own agendas and prejudices, and wrote their pieces with their audience in mind. I read newspaper reports of fights nowadays and sometimes wonder whether the journalist in question was even watching the same fight. Imagine if 100 years from now all we have of, say, the Hagler-Leonard fight, is the widely varying newspaper reports of it and it gives some idea of what a difficult task it is.

I wasnt judging boxrec rankings actually, I was judging the people in the top 10 Heavyweights list that had Johnson really high and didnt have Wills in the top ten at all.

and I know Ive said this before, but boxrec is as good as any other source when it comes to judging old fighters...its all secondary sources. either boxrec or newspapers...and newspapers cant even agree with each other on how the fight went a lot of the time. I mean, I seriously doubt even boxing historians have ever actually seen a full Jeanette fight before, because little to no footage even exists of him...at least in his early days.

and boxrec doesnt have all the fights listed for certain old fighters, but they probebly will have all the big/significant fights theyve been in, and thats mostly all that counts. I dont really care if a fighter's win over a bum is missing or not.

the thing is that Wills basically fought and beat a lot of Dempsey's and Johnson's best wins...and doesnt seem to get as much credit as either of them.
I dont care how you rate them, I just dont think it makes much sense that Johnson ought to be rated that much higher than Wills.

I think that being the first black man to hold the haevywqeight titile has huge significance in ranking Johnson so high in comparison to Wills. He was also the more talented fighter in most opinions.

I think that being the first black man to hold the haevywqeight titile has huge significance in ranking Johnson so high in comparison to Wills. He was also the more talented fighter in most opinions.

being the first black heavyweight champ means NOTHING. John Ruiz is this first hispanic heavyweight champion, that doesnt mean I give him any extra credit as a fighter. and how was Wills ever supposed to be a heavyweight champ when they never let him get a title shot?

and where are you getting this 'more talented fighter' type of thing? Theres almost no footage of Wills to compare him to Johnson, and their best wins are basically the same guys.

being the first black heavyweight champ means NOTHING. John Ruiz is this first hispanic heavyweight champion, that doesnt mean I give him any extra credit as a fighter. and how was Wills ever supposed to be a heavyweight champ when they never let him get a title shot?

and where are you getting this 'more talented fighter' type of thing? Theres almost no footage of Wills to compare him to Johnson, and their best wins are basically the same guys.

Ruiz didn't win the title at a time when Hispanics could still be lynched.

Most of the historians who saw them both rated Johnson ahead of Wills.

Ruiz didn't win the title at a time when Hispanics could still be lynched.

Most of the historians who saw them both rated Johnson ahead of Wills.
sorry if it sounds heartless, but I dont see why we should care about Johnson's life in regard to his ranking as a boxer. Kassim Ouma(and others) had a way, way worse life than Johnson did, but that doesnt mean Im going to rank him higher as a Light Middleweight. I dont think boxing historians would rate him any higher either, so why the double standards?
and Wills boxed in the same era as Johnson did anyway, except he wasnt even as privalaged as Johnson was because he never even got the chance at a title shot.

and I dont have a problem having Johnson over Wills. but having Johnson as #3, and not having Wills a top ten heavyweight at all? that makes no sense.

being the first black heavyweight champ means NOTHING. John Ruiz is this first hispanic heavyweight champion, that doesnt mean I give him any extra credit as a fighter. and how was Wills ever supposed to be a heavyweight champ when they never let him get a title shot?

and where are you getting this 'more talented fighter' type of thing? Theres almost no footage of Wills to compare him to Johnson, and their best wins are basically the same guys.

Ruiz didn't win the title at a time when Hispanics could still be lynched.

Most of the historians who saw them both rated Johnson ahead of Wills.

Thank you.

From what I remeber reading Wills was an upright fighter who was very strong and neither fast nor slow. Most from that era thought Dempsey would have beat him because of the big difference in both hand and foot speed.

Had Johnson have fought him (Wills) its my opinion based on everything I have read and seen that Johnson would have beat him with his speed, superior footwork and top notch defense. Wills usually held a good size advantage over his opposition. He would still have a slight advantage in size, yet would be trumped in almost every other catagory. JMO.

Thank you.

From what I remeber reading Wills was an upright fighter who was very strong and neither fast nor slow. Most from that era thought Dempsey would have beat him because of the big difference in both hand and foot speed.

Had Johnson have fought him (Wills) its my opinion based on everything I have read and seen that Johnson would have beat him with his speed, superior footwork and top notch defense. Wills usually held a good size advantage over his opposition. He would still have a slight advantage in size, yet would be trumped in almost every other catagory. JMO.
as Ive said before, I dont think Wills deserves to be ranked over Johnson, simply that Johnson should not be rated so much higher than Wills. and besides, top ten heavyweight lists arent determined by "who would beat who" anyway, theyre determined by accomplishments.

sorry if it sounds heartless, but I dont see why we should care about Johnson's life in regard to his ranking as a boxer.

Because as the first black champ, at that time in America, he had a bullseye on him in and out of the ring. The pressure had to hjave been extroadonairy.

Kassim Ouma(and others) had a way, way worse life than Johnson did, but that doesnt mean Im going to rank him higher as a Light Middleweight. I dont think boxing historians would rate him any higher either, so why the double standards?

Its true Ouma came from a rough beginning. But he came to America and didn't have those worries anymore everytime he fought. Johnsons problems were day in and day out, in his own country.

and Wills boxed in the same era as Johnson did anyway, except he wasnt even as privalaged as Johnson was because he never even got the chance at a title shot.

Why didn't he get the shot? Racism? Imagine what Johnson had to go thru because he was given the shot and actually won..

Im not saying it is right Wills never got his chance, I just think you are under selling what Johnson had to go thru and overcome.

and I dont have a problem having Johnson over Wills. but having Johnson as #3, and not having Wills a top ten heavyweight at all? that makes no sense.

The title itself means so much. It isn't Wills fault he didn't fight for it, but it doesn't mean that men that did fight for it should be looked past. Personally I have Wills around 13 or 14, which is very good still.

as Ive said before, I dont think Wills deserves to be ranked over Johnson, simply that Johnson should not be rated so much higher than Wills. and besides, top ten heavyweight lists arent determined by "who would beat who" anyway, theyre determined by accomplishments.

And the heavyweight championship is the biggest accomplishment one could hope to acheive. Johnson shouldn't be penelized for winning it, and Wills should be rated higher just because he didn't get the same shot to prove himself as Johnson.

[/B]

And the heavyweight championship is the biggest accomplishment one could hope to acheive. Johnson shouldn't be penelized for winning it, and Wills should be rated higher just because he didn't get the same shot to prove himself as Johnson.the heavyweight championship means nothing if your best wins came before you got it. Langford never won an official title...does that mean anything at all? nope.

Johnson's best wins are basically the same as Wills...why should he rated that much higher than him?

[

Because as the first black champ, at that time in America, he had a bullseye on him in and out of the ring. The pressure had to hjave been extroadonairy.so were allowed to give credit to fighters for how much pressure they went through? well then, time to redo all the rankings.



Its true Ouma came from a rough beginning. But he came to America and didn't have those worries anymore everytime he fought. Johnsons problems were day in and day out, in his own country.
ok then, what about all the fighters addicted to cocaine? they had to live with that day in and day out. should we give fighters like Rosario extra credit for having such a rough lifestyle? what about fighters who lost family members or killed someone in the ring? that screwed up their life, and they had to live with it day in and day out.

Why didn't he get the shot? Racism? Imagine what Johnson had to go thru because he was given the shot and actually won..

Im not saying it is right Wills never got his chance, I just think you are under selling what Johnson had to go thru and overcome.
is it Wills fault that he never got a title shot? Johnson was just lucky that he got a title shot and Wills never did. he never did anything extra to deserve a title shot. and Johnson beat mediocre fighters in his title defences and when he won the title...I dont think we should give him that much credit for that, and in fact him winning the title didnt help, since he refused to fight black fighters like Langford.

the heavyweight championship means nothing if your best wins came before you got it. Langford never won an official title...does that mean anything at all? nope.

Johnson's best wins are basically the same as Wills...why should he rated that much higher than him?

Because he won the title. It amounts to historical significance. Wills was a fine fighter. But no one is going to rank somebody ahead of people who have acheived more whether it was thru no fault of their own that they weren't given that same opportunity. History remenbers Johnsons because of this fact, and more or less forgets Wills because of it.

the heavyweight championship means nothing if your best wins came before you got it. Langford never won an official title...does that mean anything at all? nope.

Johnson's best wins are basically the same as Wills...why should he rated that much higher than him?

That he was able to win the championship at a time when it was deemed beyond the reach of blacks is an achievement.

Sonny Liston's best wins were also before he won the championship, but he usually ranks in the top ten these days.

Nat Fleischer, Charlie Rose and the others who saw them both rated Johnson higher than Wills. For what it's worth, those two also rated Johnson ahead of Ali. For their reasons, you'd have to ask them. I don't know of any historian who ranks Wills higher.

The IBRO rated Johnson at #3 a few years ago. Again, for their reasons, you'd have to ask them. They also had Rocky at #5 and Jeff #7. A lot of holes to pick there too. If Wills was ranked higher, you may well ask why is he ahead of Johnson, who beat the same opposition but with the added bonus of also winning the championship? Picking holes in all-time ratings, the gist of your initial post, is easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

That he was able to win the championship at a time when it was deemed beyond the reach of blacks is an achievement.

Sonny Liston's best wins were also before he won the championship, but he usually ranks in the top ten these days.

Nat Fleischer, Charlie Rose and the others who saw them both rated Johnson higher than Wills. For what it's worth, those two also rated Johnson ahead of Ali. For their reasons, you'd have to ask them. I don't know of any historian who ranks Wills higher.

The IBRO rated Johnson at #3 a few years ago. Again, for their reasons, you'd have to ask them. They also had Rocky at #5 and Jeff #7. A lot of holes to pick there too. If Wills was ranked higher, you may well ask why is he ahead of Johnson, who beat the same opposition but with the added bonus of also winning the championship? Picking holes in all-time ratings, the gist of your initial post, is easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

Up until the late 90s Bert Sugar also had Johnson rated over Ali. With Liston it seems to be a divided jury since he doesn't appear on a lot of peoples ATG lists. I personally rank him #6.

Poet

Because he won the title. It amounts to historical significance. Wills was a fine fighter. But no one is going to rank somebody ahead of people who have acheived more whether it was thru no fault of their own that they weren't given that same opportunity. History remenbers Johnsons because of this fact, and more or less forgets Wills because of it.
historical significance does not automatically make a fighter great. Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champ and very significant because of his popularity, but that doesnt make him one of the best fighters ever.

Johnson winning the title may have been important, but only in terms of him pushing the race barrier. in boxing terms, do you really think that him winning the title from Burns was very impressive?

I think when it comes to people rating Johnson, they tend to credit his personal accomplishments with his boxing career. which is something I dont think should be done.
at the end of the day, Johnson beat McVea, Jeanette, Langford, etc. and thats all he should be judged by, his in the ring accomplishments.

and for the millionth time, I DONT expect Wills to be rated higher than Johnson. I DO expect Johnson and Wills to be rated close together though, since he beat pretty much all the high class people that Johnson beat.

Up until the late 90s Bert Sugar also had Johnson rated over Ali. With Liston it seems to be a divided jury since he doesn't appear on a lot of peoples ATG lists. I personally rank him #6.

Poet

yea, well Bert Sugar also has Dempsey at #3 and Tunney at #5. thats a bit questionable, especially considering how short of time Tunney stayed at Heavyweight.

and as for Fleischer, the guy had Jeffries, Dempsey, Bob Fitzsimmons and Corbett over Joe Louis. that kind of makes scratch my head.

so...Im not sure what criteria these guys were using.

so why the double standards?

** Bottomline has nothing to do with the record. Obviously Langford and Jeannette have superior records, and Wills at least a comparable record.

Boxing is one of the most traditional sports there is and respects tradition.

1. Johnson slew the first ever monster in Jeffries. Makes no difference how well past it Jeffries was, Jeff was BigFoot, Gilgamesh, and Paul Bunyan wrapped into one. Johnson's win destroyed the myth of white superiority that Jack London and others had endowed the heavyweight champion with.

2. Johnson was very good friends with Nat Fleischer who ranked him best ever. Nat was the first record keeper of note in the sport and arguably the biggest single contributor to boxing over his lifetime, a huge influence. Again, a tradition that few dared broach.

3. Johnson was as much or more a major news lead outside the ring as inside the ring. The guy sold papers big time, more so than previous charismatic champs Sullivan and Corbett.

4. Him being the first ever black heavy champ, well, you takes your life in your own hands if you disparage Johnson in the wrong crowd.

He has a HOF record for sure, but gets many extra boosts few other greats can claim. He also benefitted greatly from traditional myth making that gets passed on, like the idea that he could KO anybody anytime he wanted or was hated by whites when so many whites were his running buddies as he moved fairly freely around the country in an extremely flashy style.

yea, well Bert Sugar also has Dempsey at #3 and Tunney at #5. thats a bit questionable, especially considering how short of time Tunney stayed at Heavyweight.

and as for Fleischer, the guy had Jeffries, Dempsey, Bob Fitzsimmons and Corbett over Joe Louis. that kind of makes scratch my head.

so...Im not sure what criteria these guys were using.

I have Dempsey rated at #4 after Ali, Louis, and Johnson. I'm with you on Tunney: He had a 60+ fight career all but five were at Light-Heavyweight where he should be rated. Michael Spinks is a similer case: He had six fights at Heavyweight and usually doesn't come up for discussion in Heavyweight threads. To thinking if you spend the vast majority of your career at a particular weight that's where you should be rated at; not in weight classes where you made brief appearences.

Poet

historical significance does not automatically make a fighter great. Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champ and very significant because of his popularity, but that doesnt make him one of the best fighters ever.

Johnson was hated during his era while at the least Tyson was obsessed about. Also Tyson only won a portion of the heavyweight championship while Johnson won the worlds title that the majority thought should only belong to a white man. The differences are huge, my friend.
Johnson winning the title may have been important, but only in terms of him pushing the race barrier. in boxing terms, do you really think that him winning the title from Burns was very impressive?

Was Tyson beating Berbick impressive? Liston over Patterson? Marciano over Walcott? To say yes would be looking at only a very small part of the picture, no?
I think when it comes to people rating Johnson, they tend to credit his personal accomplishments with his boxing career. which is something I dont think should be done.
at the end of the day, Johnson beat McVea, Jeanette, Langford, etc. and thats all he should be judged by, his in the ring accomplishments.

I question many things about Johnson. But at the end of the day there are great names on his resume. ALL his personal accomplishments that he is noted for have to do with his boxing career. If you are being objective and reasonable they HAVE to be factored in.

and for the millionth time, I DONT expect Wills to be rated higher than Johnson. I DO expect Johnson and Wills to be rated close together though, since he beat pretty much all the high class people that Johnson beat.

The simple fact is Wills never accomplished what Johnson did. He was never held in the same regard as a fighter. That just can't be put to the wayside no matter how you look at it. If it was, Wills would be ranked higher.

Right for some reason you always question the greatness of Jack Johnson, The reason Jack Johnson is so great he beat the best of his era including Langford,Bob Fitzsimmons,Fireman Jim Flynn,Tommy Burns,James J Jeffries,Ketchel and a few more.

Having beat all these great fighters while so much was aginst him he had to follow and follow Burns round the globe for that title shot and even when he was champ the white race were always thinking of what they could do to disturb his title reign and they put all of the best white fighters up against him and in his prime he beat them all.

And please don't dare compare him to the likes of Ruiz as you have in the past becuase things in Johnson's era were so different etc fixed fights, so much hate against him, and fact Johnson was so much better. Johnson also went without a loss once for 10 years, and even when he was defeated for his title he was out of shape and ring rusty. Jack Johnson was a great and one of the best heavyweights of all time.

END OF!

Johnson was hated during his era while at the least Tyson was obsessed about. Also Tyson only won a portion of the heavyweight championship while Johnson won the worlds title that the majority thought should only belong to a white man. The differences are huge, my friend.being hated should not raise your stock as a fighter. I understand that Johnson had to work very hard to get a title shot, but he isnt the only one who was denied a title shot. Wills never got his, and is that his fault? did Johnson beat anyone better than Wills ever beat to deserve a title shot? no, it was simply impossible for Wills to get a shot at the title, there was nothing he could have done.
quite honestly, he deserved a shot at Johnson himself while Johnson was champion, but Johnson refused to fights blacks. thats fair, right?


Was Tyson beating Berbick impressive? Liston over Patterson? Marciano over Walcott? To say yes would be looking at only a very small part of the picture, no?Of course Liston beating Patterson was impressive, are you crazy? and Marciano over Walcott was also impressive. not so much Tyson vs. Berbick, and Johnson beating a very small Burns wasnt impressive either.

I question many things about Johnson. But at the end of the day there are great names on his resume. ALL his personal accomplishments that he is noted for have to do with his boxing career. If you are being objective and reasonable they HAVE to be factored in.

basically, youre saying that Johnson's life sucked because everyone was racist toward him, and that we should rate him much higher because of that. thats ridiculous. we base fighters on their boxing careers. who they beat, when and how.

The simple fact is Wills never accomplished what Johnson did. He was never held in the same regard as a fighter. That just can't be put to the wayside no matter how you look at it. If it was, Wills would be ranked higher.ok, Wills was never as popular/well known as Johnson. so what? popularity shouldnt make you a great fighter or not. in hindsight, his record is almost just as good as Johnson's.
most people will agree that Roy Jones at super middle looked clearly better than Calzaghe ever did at supper middle. but Calzaghe was the one who stayed there and had the successful career, and is generally rated higher at the weight by everyone. this means that we should mostly judge a fighter on who they beat.

Right for some reason you always question the greatness of Jack Johnson, The reason Jack Johnson is so great he beat the best of his era including Langford,Bob Fitzsimmons,Fireman Jim Flynn,Tommy Burns,James J Jeffries,Ketchel and a few more.Having beat all these great fighters while so much was aginst him he had to follow and follow Burns round the golbe for that title shot and even when he was champ the white race were always thinking of what they could do to disturb his title reign and they put all of the best white fighters up against him and in his prime he beat them all. And please don't dare compare him to the likes of Ruiz as you have in the past becuase things in johnson's era were so different etc fixed fights, so much hate against him, and fact Johnson was so much better. Johnson also went without a loss once for 10 years, and even when he was defeated for his title he was out of shape and ring rusty.Jack Johnson was a great and one of the best heavyweights of all time.

END OF!
Johnson beat Langford when Langford was below 160lbs. He went on to have a very successful career at Heavyweight, but he sure as hell was no heavyweight when Johnson fought him.
all the rest of those guys you named were pretty much Middleweights or smaller Light Heavyweights. would you have givin Larry Holmes credit for beating Marvin Hagler? Probebly not much credit, and Hagler is arguably the best Middleweight of all time. why should he be giving that much credit to Johnson for beating Middleweights who werent even the best of all time in their own weight class if you wouldnt have givin Larry Holmes credit for beating the best middleweight of all time?
Dont make me laugh with Jeffries. he hadnt fought in 5 or 6 years.

Im much more impressed with his wins over McVae and Jeanette. then again, McVae was only a teenager when Johnson beat him.(assuming his birth date is correct)

Im much more impressed with his wins over McVae and Jeanette. then again, McVae was only a teenager when Johnson beat him.(assuming his birth date is correct)

McVea may have been young (20 years old) but he was certainly no little kid when he fought Johnson.

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii209/jennetteboxer/JACKJOHNSON-SAMMCVEY.jpg

He already held a first round knockout win over Denver Ed Martin who was a very good fighter.

McVea may have been young (20 years old) but he was certainly no little kid when he fought Johnson.

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii209/jennetteboxer/JACKJOHNSON-SAMMCVEY.jpg

He already held a first round knockout win over Denver Ed Martin who was a very good fighter.

BTW, you do know that those 20 rounds may not have been 20 3 minute rounds? At that time Marquis de Queensberry rules weren't always universal and the old London Prize Fight rules were used. Under those a round lasted until someone made contact with the ropes or was knocked down which ever came first. So round could conceivably last 10 minutes.....or 10 seconds.

Poet

McVea may have been young (20 years old) but he was certainly no little kid when he fought Johnson.

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii209/jennetteboxer/JACKJOHNSON-SAMMCVEY.jpg

He already held a first round knockout win over Denver Ed Martin who was a very good fighter.I certainly consider it a good win, and Im not going to pretend Im an expert on McVea, but I have a hard time believing he was more in his prime when he was a teenager than when he was in his mid twenties. not even Pipino Cuevas or Benitez were in their primes then.

and I dont think he was quite 20 for their last fight, but it was close.

I certainly consider it a good win, and Im not going to pretend Im an expert on McVea, but I have a hard time believing he was more in his prime when he was a teenager than when he was in his mid twenties. not even Pipino Cuevas or Benitez were in their primes then.

and I dont think he was quite 20 for their last fight, but it was close.

I actually think both Benitez and Cuevas were in their primes at age 20. You could make the case that Tyson was too.

Maybe not at their absolute peak but pretty close to it.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KUiF8BdG9t0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KUiF8BdG9t0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
20 year old Benitez

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nOpSrXLnItg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nOpSrXLnItg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
20 year old Cuevas

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yMGzKcbCYPc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yMGzKcbCYPc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
20 year old Tyson

McVea was not in his prime but as you said, it was a solid win for Jack Johnson regardless. McVea was already 200-210 lbs at that age, not the under-sized teenager that some make him out to have been (not you).

McVea was already 200-210 lbs at that age, not the under-sized teenager that some make him out to have been (not you).

McVey was reported to have been weighed and measured (height, neck, chest, wrists, etc., etc.) by a Dr. Tillman just a day or two before the fight, and his listed weight going into that third fight with Johnson was at 208 pounds, as per the SF Call, Apr 21st, 1904.

Poet, that fight in April and the other ones between the two were under Queensberry rules with gloves and timed rounds at three minutes each, with the only clear knockdown in that fight happening in the first round when Johnson dropped McVey for a count towards the end of the first round (as he did in one of their first two fights). May have scored a knockdown in the 10th round, as well, but different reports are not unanimous in saying that, as some state that, for an example, "Johnson wrestled McVey down in the tenth".

One thing they are unanimous about, though, was the lack of action in the fight, with some reporting that a good portion of the crowd had left the club before the fight was halfway through, while those who stayed were reported to take part in some loud heckling and calling the fighters to produce some action.

I actually think both Benitez and Cuevas were in their primes at age 20. You could make the case that Tyson was too.

Maybe not at their absolute peak but pretty close to it.

personally, I actually think Benitez looked his best at Light Middleweight, but then went downhill pretty quickly after that, probebly cause of the cocaine. and Im pretty sure he was in his middle twenties around that time. when he was still 20, Im not positive but I think that was around the time when he was going to a draw with Weston and was having trouble with Bruce Curry...still a great fighter, but I think he was still undeveloped compared to the fighter he ended up becoming.

youre probebly right about Pipino though, the guy didnt change dramatically his whole career until he started to go downhill. So I think its pretty fair to say he was around 20 in his prime.

I thought prime Mike was around the time he beat Holmes and Spinks, I think he was only like 22 at the time, so thats very close.

so you make a good point.

Poet, that fight in April and the other ones between the two were under Queensberry rules with gloves and timed rounds at three minutes each, with the only clear knockdown in that fight happening in the first round when Johnson dropped McVey for a count towards the end of the first round (as he did in one of their first two fights). May have scored a knockdown in the 10th round, as well, but different reports are not unanimous in saying that, as some state that, for an example, "Johnson wrestled McVey down in the tenth".

Okay cool! It's not always clear from the newspaper reports what rules were being fought under back then.

Poet

Johnson beat Langford when Langford was below 160lbs. He went on to have a very successful career at Heavyweight, but he sure as hell was no heavyweight when Johnson fought him.
all the rest of those guys you named were pretty much Middleweights or smaller Light Heavyweights. would you have givin Larry Holmes credit for beating Marvin Hagler? Probebly not much credit, and Hagler is arguably the best Middleweight of all time. why should he be giving that much credit to Johnson for beating Middleweights who werent even the best of all time in their own weight class if you wouldnt have givin Larry Holmes credit for beating the best middleweight of all time?
Dont make me laugh with Jeffries. he hadnt fought in 5 or 6 years.

Im much more impressed with his wins over McVae and Jeanette. then again, McVae was only a teenager when Johnson beat him.(assuming his birth date is correct)

Yes but what you don't understand that was the best of Johnson's era,and don't tryin compare that era with the holmes era becuase things were so different back then, a lot more fights back then were made and weight weren't really a issue some of the time, and also ok jeffries had been out a long time 6 years to be exact but he did train properly for the fight and got some good sparring aswell, also Langford was not your average 160lb guy that man was a freak who could knock anyone out from lightweight to heavyweight,and also you don't understand how good of a win tommy burns, burns had made 13 defences up untill that point and after avoding Johnson for years Jack finally got his shot in sidney austrailla and stopped him in 14 and here's why sometimes you can't comapre era becuase the whites were so mad of what Johnson was doing to the great Burns just when Johnson was about to stop him they turned the film off. Insane.I don't think that would happen in the holmes or Hagler era? And also going into the first Johnson fight Mcvea was 6-0 and Johnson was 12-3-5 So Johnsn weren't at his best either and it was for the 'colored' heavyweight title which was a subtistue for the black race to fight over and johnson beats on a 20 round decision the first time and then Mcvea coimes back on a 2 fight wi streak with a win including Kid Carter who beat the great Joe Walcott twice and Mcvea ko'd him in 11 and then him and Johnson have the return fight and yet again Johnson beats him on 20 round decision. So great wins for Johnson and you can say all you want but anyone that knows there boxing will say Jack Johson was a great fighter.

I certainly consider it a good win, and Im not going to pretend Im an expert on McVea, but I have a hard time believing he was more in his prime when he was a teenager than when he was in his mid twenties. not even Pipino Cuevas or Benitez were in their primes then.

and I dont think he was quite 20 for their last fight, but it was close.

Well Benitez peaked twice first at light welter when yes he was a teenager beating Antonio Cervantes for the WBA title,(17 yeras of age) making two title defences at the weight and going 12-0 also, then stepping up to welterweight to beat Carlos Palomino for the WBC title and making one defence of that beofre under training and getting stopped by Ray Leanord in 79.He had done all this and was only aged 21, Unbeliveable. But after getting stooped by leanord he also peaked again this time at jr middle, were he knocked out Marice Hope for the WBC,made one defence of that beating the great Roberto Duran Convincely before giving dropping a close decision to Tommy Hearns, and after that just going down hill.

Well Benitez peaked twice first at light welter when yes he was a teenager beating Antonio Cervantes for the WBA title,(17 yeras of age) making two title defences at the weight and going 12-0 also, then stepping up to welterweight to beat Carlos Palomino for the WBC title and making one defence of that beofre under training and getting stopped by Ray Leanord in 79.He had done all this and was only aged 21, Unbeliveable. But after getting stooped by leanord he also peaked again this time at jr middle, were he knocked out Marice Hope for the WBC,made one defence of that beating the great Roberto Duran Convincely before giving dropping a close decision to Tommy Hearns, and after that just going down hill.

there is no way that Benitez 'peaked' at 140lbs. he was still struggling with Bruce Curry and Harold Weston Jr at that time, and while the Cervantes win was amazing, it was still a close fight and not Benitez's best performance.
to me, he looked the best at 154lbs, by far. his performances against Hope and Duran were ridiculous, although I didnt think the Hearns fight was as close as the scorecards indicated.

there is no way that Benitez 'peaked' at 140lbs. he was still struggling with Bruce Curry and Harold Weston Jr at that time, and while the Cervantes win was amazing, it was still a close fight and not Benitez's best performance.
to me, he looked the best at 154lbs, by far. his performances against Hope and Duran were ridiculous, although I didnt think the Hearns fight was as close as the scorecards indicated.

I think he was probaly better at 154 becuase he was older and more exprienced, when he was beating the likes of Cervantes he was still a pup,and Cervantes was a crafty vetran but just to be winning world titles at 17 was breath taking and also for most fights Benitez found it hard to get motivation to train for the likes of Curry he also never really trained for Leanord either.

I certainly consider it a good win, and Im not going to pretend Im an expert on McVea, but I have a hard time believing he was more in his prime when he was a teenager than when he was in his mid twenties. not even Pipino Cuevas or Benitez were in their primes then.

and I dont think he was quite 20 for their last fight, but it was close.

Yes you can peak at a very early age Pipeno Cuevas won the world title at 19
and when he was 20 had made 3 defences and stopped all of them.This was Cuevas at his peak.

Also here's a bit of a prodigy story, at the age of 14 Tony Ayala Jr and Pipeno Cuevas had a sparring session when Cuevas was world champ by the way with witness's there and Ayala is belived to have not just got the better of him but actually put a bit of a beatin on him.Insane!
Here's ya source!
http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/2228/tony-ayala-best-prospect-all-time/

unbelievable!!! asking why jack was ranked so high!!!! that is borderline retarded.

why he fought no blacks in major fights? who do you think a majority white crowd who wanted nothing more but to see johnson KO'd would've paid to see?

jack johnson is one of the few fighters i have thoroughly researched to a high degree. even went to buy his autobiography. he is a fascinating fighter. one who was gifted with inside fighting, outside fighting, and had the juice in both hands.

if some of you knew even a bit about johnson, you would not be asking that question.

he was not just a boxer, but also a business man. he made fights with the legends(at the time) of the white race because it made headlines, sold tickets, and to disprove the myth that black fighters were inferior.

he loved to get back at racists. this seems to be somewhat major motivation as to who he fought. even getting down with white women when blacks would be lynched for such a thing seems to indicate that.

but, johnson also seemed far ahead of his time. he was not a racist, despite a majority of the white race rooting against him and doing much more than just booing.
he opened club de champion i think is name of his place. it was open to all races. despite so much hate, he maintained being not racist at all. and all gold teeth, where do we see those? many rappers emulate that golden smile today. but he is the first i have seen with all permanent gold caps.
and his flashy dressing - has been emulated since then.

fighting wise, everything i have seen on jack, which is quite a bit, indicates a highly intelligent, highly capable fighter who preferred to toy with opponents if only to make them eat thier words or cause drama. but, he seemed to have also done so in a non-a-hole like way. even the article i read that has him beating ali i would highly consider. jack was no joke - as eveident in his one hit KO many have seen.

as far as footage tells, jack didn't use full force much - as he would rather show superior boxing skills rather than brute cuncussive force. he was even a jail house champion. in jail, he met a fellow jewish boxer named joe choyinski. from chyonski, he learned many tricky defencive tactics. so, willing to learn, and work to where he got(many people may not realize how hard the deal to get his first world title fight was), he rightly deserves to be ranked up there with anyone. regardless of anything.


forgive if i have mispelled, or mixed anything up - i wrote all from memory.

unbelievable!!! asking why jack was ranked so high!!!! that is borderline retarded.

why he fought no blacks in major fights? who do you think a majority white crowd who wanted nothing more but to see johnson KO'd would've paid to see?

jack johnson is one of the few fighters i have thoroughly researched to a high degree. even went to buy his autobiography. he is a fascinating fighter. one who was gifted with inside fighting, outside fighting, and had the juice in both hands.

if some of you knew even a bit about johnson, you would not be asking that question.

he was not just a boxer, but also a business man. he made fights with the legends(at the time) of the white race because it made headlines, sold tickets, and to disprove the myth that black fighters were inferior.
ok, why the hell should I care at all about this part. thats like saying that De La Hoya should be a top 10 ATG because hes the most successful business man in boxing. I really dont care what you do out of the ring and dont rate you by it...otherwise Ray Robinson wouldnt be considered the #1 so unanimously, since he wasnt the nicest guy ever.

and the excuse that you used for him never fighting blacks in title fights is ridiculous. I mean, you basically said 'because the fights wouldnt sell'. thats nice, unfortuately I dont care, at the end of the day he stopped fighting the best black fighters.

he loved to get back at racists. this seems to be somewhat major motivation as to who he fought. even getting down with white women when blacks would be lynched for such a thing seems to indicate that.

but, johnson also seemed far ahead of his time. he was not a racist, despite a majority of the white race rooting against him and doing much more than just booing.
he opened club de champion i think is name of his place. it was open to all races. despite so much hate, he maintained being not racist at all. and all gold teeth, where do we see those? many rappers emulate that golden smile today. but he is the first i have seen with all permanent gold caps.
and his flashy dressing - has been emulated since then.
yea, I dont really care about any of that. again, I only rate boxers by what they do in the ring.

fighting wise, everything i have seen on jack, which is quite a bit, indicates a highly intelligent, highly capable fighter who preferred to toy with opponents if only to make them eat thier words or cause drama. but, he seemed to have also done so in a non-a-hole like way. even the article i read that has him beating ali i would highly consider. jack was no joke - as eveident in his one hit KO many have seen.

as far as footage tells, jack didn't use full force much - as he would rather show superior boxing skills rather than brute cuncussive force. he was even a jail house champion. in jail, he met a fellow jewish boxer named joe choyinski. from chyonski, he learned many tricky defencive tactics. so, willing to learn, and work to where he got(many people may not realize how hard the deal to get his first world title fight was), he rightly deserves to be ranked up there with anyone. regardless of anything.


forgive if i have mispelled, or mixed anything up - i wrote all from memory.give me a break, Johnson's main strategy was to lean on the smaller man until they were exhausted and then start beating them up.

and as good as Johnson may have been, we can only rank him based on who he beat...thats how it goes for all fighters. and the people he beat were not much better than the people Wills beat. to rate Johnson so high and to rank Wills so low is a joke.

give me a break, Johnson's main strategy was to lean on the smaller man until they were exhausted and then start beating them up.

and as good as Johnson may have been, we can only rank him based on who he beat...thats how it goes for all fighters. and the people he beat were not much better than the people Wills beat. to rate Johnson so high and to rank Wills so low is a joke.

OK. This is phenomenon I've seen too many times here on Boxing Scene: The attitude that "if I never heard of his opposition then they must have sucked". You simply are NOT going to get a lot of footage from that era so you need to READ about instead of complaining that opponents suck because they ain't on film.

The stategy of "lean(ing) on the smaller man until they were exhausted and then start beating them up." is used by most Heavyweights today, in part because they lack conditioning and want to wear their opponents down before they run out of gas themselves. In Johnson's day when you had 20+ round fights you couldn't just run out there and try to let it all hang out in the first 5 rounds because if your opponent didn't go then it was YOU who were in big trouble. More wrestling was involved as well because this wasn't far removed from when the London Ring Rules were in use and rounds ended when a fighter made contact with ropes. Simple strategy: You muscle your opponent to the ropes, the round ends and the ref separates you, you try and gain a tactical advantage from the separation. Fighters today use clinches to achieve the same thing: Mike Tyson was a past-master at using clinches to get a tactical avantage from the ref separating him and his opponent. As Archie Moore once said: "That's called good thinking."

Poet

OK. This is phenomenon I've seen too many times here on Boxing Scene: The attitude that "if I never heard of his opposition then they must have sucked". You simply are NOT going to get a lot of footage from that era so you need to READ about instead of complaining that opponents suck because they ain't on film.

The stategy of "lean(ing) on the smaller man until they were exhausted and then start beating them up." is used by most Heavyweights today, in part because they lack conditioning and want to wear their opponents down before they run out of gas themselves. In Johnson's day when you had 20+ round fights you couldn't just run out there and try to let it all hang out in the first 5 rounds because if your opponent didn't go then it was YOU who were in big trouble. More wrestling was involved as well because this wasn't far removed from when the London Ring Rules were in use and rounds ended when a fighter made contact with ropes. Simple strategy: You muscle your opponent to the ropes, the round ends and the ref separates you, you try and gain a tactical advantage from the separation. Fighters today use clinches to achieve the same thing: Mike Tyson was a past-master at using clinches to get a tactical avantage from the ref separating him and his opponent. As Archie Moore once said: "That's called good thinking."

Poet

What's left to say? The man is absolutely right

What's left to say? The man is absolutely right

** Except that he left out that Mike was never a clincher with his original team at the top of his game.

He was instead, pure boxer/puncher/swarmer.

He was in fact fairly mediocre at the clinch and grapple, even when he employed it to rest in the final 15 yr 3 ring circus act part of his career.

Johnson was a HOFer, but take away Jeffries where he made a fortune and could afford to coast, and he'd be forced to defend against prime versions of McVey, Wills, Jeannette, and most importantly, Langford......ouch!

Yeah, take away Jeffries, and Johnson would be a trivia footnote, the first black champ quickly forgotten.

Johnson is falling in history no matter how many docs are produced. The only question is how far since as a "brand name" in modern parlance, Jack Johnson has a very high public recognition, at least for now.

OK. This is phenomenon I've seen too many times here on Boxing Scene: The attitude that "if I never heard of his opposition then they must have sucked". You simply are NOT going to get a lot of footage from that era so you need to READ about instead of complaining that opponents suck because they ain't on film.

The stategy of "lean(ing) on the smaller man until they were exhausted and then start beating them up." is used by most Heavyweights today, in part because they lack conditioning and want to wear their opponents down before they run out of gas themselves. In Johnson's day when you had 20+ round fights you couldn't just run out there and try to let it all hang out in the first 5 rounds because if your opponent didn't go then it was YOU who were in big trouble. More wrestling was involved as well because this wasn't far removed from when the London Ring Rules were in use and rounds ended when a fighter made contact with ropes. Simple strategy: You muscle your opponent to the ropes, the round ends and the ref separates you, you try and gain a tactical advantage from the separation. Fighters today use clinches to achieve the same thing: Mike Tyson was a past-master at using clinches to get a tactical avantage from the ref separating him and his opponent. As Archie Moore once said: "That's called good thinking."

Poet
yes, I have heard of Johnson's opposition. yes, I have read about them. whats one thing I noticed? all of Johnson's top wins are shared by Wills! no one seems to have a good answer to that.

as for clinching, yes it can be tactical. but I dont see much skill in a big man leaning on middleweights. smart move? sure. but that kind of thing wouldnt work nearly as well on guys the same size as him.

not even most boxing historians will even try to say that Johnson's title defences were impressive wins.

yes, I have heard of Johnson's opposition. yes, I have read about them. whats one thing I noticed? all of Johnson's top wins are shared by Wills! no one seems to have a good answer to that.

Misleading. You should check the fine print. There's a 15 odd year difference between Johnson's and Wills respective primes. If Jack Johnson fights Joe Jeanette prime on prime then Harry Wills fights a washed up version of Joe Jeannette. Simple.

as for clinching, yes it can be tactical. but I dont see much skill in a big man leaning on middleweights. smart move? sure. but that kind of thing wouldnt work nearly as well on guys the same size as him.

Do I really need to explain this again or are you being willfully truculant and disregarding what I wrote? Fighters do this sort of thing all the time today and it works quite well with fighters of equal size. You keep harping on Middleweights over and over again. Sam Langford, a WELTERWEIGHT routinely KOed Heavyweights and MIDDLEWEIGHT Bob Fitzsimmons won the Heavyweight title. Ruby Robert was, in fact, kicking the living **** out of the era's "monster" Jim Jeffries before breaking his hands on Jeffries face. Middleweight Jack Burns won the Heavyweight title by KOing yet another Heavyweight.

not even most boxing historians will even try to say that Johnson's title defences were impressive wins. And you know this how? The fact of the matter is Johnson's most impressive wins came BEFORE he won the title.

Poet

Misleading. You should check the fine print. There's a 15 odd year difference between Johnson's and Wills respective primes. If Jack Johnson fights Joe Jeanette prime on prime then Harry Wills fights a washed up version of Joe Jeannette. Simple.Jeanette Ill give you.
but McVea was 18 and 19 when Johnson beat him...hardly a prime age. Wills beat him when he was more experienced.
Johnson beat Langford when Langford only weighed 156lbs...while Wills beat him multiple times when Langford was a real heavyweight.

Do I really need to explain this again or are you being willfully truculant and disregarding what I wrote? Fighters do this sort of thing all the time today and it works quite well with fighters of equal size. You keep harping on Middleweights over and over again. Sam Langford, a WELTERWEIGHT routinely KOed Heavyweights and MIDDLEWEIGHT Bob Fitzsimmons won the Heavyweight title. Ruby Robert was, in fact, kicking the living **** out of the era's "monster" Jim Jeffries before breaking his hands on Jeffries face. Middleweight Jack Burns won the Heavyweight title by KOing yet another Heavyweight.
even if it was common practice back in the day, 170lb guys beating 200+ lb guys is not a very good sign. If that happened today, even against the smaller heavyweights like Chagaev or Ibragimov, they would get laughed at.

sh*t, even Ali has jack in his top ten.

find any footage from anyone who saw jack fight, then challenge that opinion.


i am not even going to respond to this thread anymore. this is pure BS.

Jeanette Ill give you.
but McVea was 18 and 19 when Johnson beat him...hardly a prime age. Wills beat him when he was more experienced.
Johnson beat Langford when Langford only weighed 156lbs...while Wills beat him multiple times when Langford was a real heavyweight.
even if it was common practice back in the day, 170lb guys beating 200+ lb guys is not a very good sign. If that happened today, even against the smaller heavyweights like Chagaev or Ibragimov, they would get laughed at.

yeah, 'cause fighting back then was exactly like it is today. :rolleyes:

Because of his unforgiveable blackness! he is a historic figure more than anything. When looking at past fighters compare them to what they acheived at the time rather than think what they could do V ATG's. Especially when you go that far back when not just boxing but society was primitive.

Because of his unforgiveable blackness! he is a historic figure more than anything. When looking at past fighters compare them to what they acheived at the time rather than think what they could do V ATG's. Especially when you go that far back when not just boxing but society was primitive.

I told you Junior to go back to your troll threads and leave the intellectual discussions to the people who are actually suited to hold them ie. NOT you.

Poet

Ignored For Gross Homosexuality And Being A Bore:
poet682006


Broken records are so 1950's, just like your ugly hero from Brockton Massacheusettes!

yes, I have heard of Johnson's opposition. yes, I have read about them. whats one thing I noticed? all of Johnson's top wins are shared by Wills! no one seems to have a good answer to that.

as for clinching, yes it can be tactical. but I dont see much skill in a big man leaning on middleweights. smart move? sure. but that kind of thing wouldnt work nearly as well on guys the same size as him.

not even most boxing historians will even try to say that Johnson's title defences were impressive wins.

*I remember when i explained to you about Johnson's greatness and about him becoming the first black heavyweight champion, and you basically ignored it and said that it meant nothing. *

I think you forget the fact that Johnson is one of the first to put offense and defense together and have a full arsenal of weapons. That was a point when boxing was still developing, and Johnson was so ahead of his time that he outclassed most of the champions back then and came up with his own craft. It seems to me like people just like to look at someone's losses, while totally ignoring their wins and the fact that they fought over 12 times a year. He holds wins over some of the best black boxers of that era, and beat Joe Jeanette about 9 times and 6 in one year if i am remembering correctly.

You have already stated in that thread that i was referring to, that you did not know that much about Johnson. Well why are you spewing things about him not being great and shouldn't be rated that high? No offense, but you should learn about him before coming to conclusions. Its easy to look on boxrec and see losses, but not know the circumstances. This is a sports website that was doing a top 10 great heavyweight's list, and i thought that their analysis of Johnson was spot on.

''Jack Johnson-- He was the first "modern" heavyweight champion. In Johnson's era, boxing began to move its venues from the alleys and backstreets, to more public areas. He was an excellent counter-puncher, and he often preferred not to knock his opponents out in order to continue his punishment. He did have power and could knock an adversary out if pushed. He held the heavyweight title for almost 7 years without a defeat. Of course, being a black heavyweight champion in America in the early 1900s was a challenge to say the least. He had to deal with shady judges and various "great white hopes" who came to challenge him at every turn. His love for white women and taunting white men only exacerbated his problems. He would make life much more difficult for African-American heavyweights who would come after him, as white America did not ever want another Jack Johnson. His ring legacy could not be denied and that is why he makes the list.''

Ignored For Gross Homosexuality And Being A Bore:
poet682006


Broken records are so 1950's, just like your ugly hero from Brockton Massacheusettes!

:haha: Naw! I wasn't getting under his skin was I? Of course after his next ban and new alt I'll know longer be ignored and can drive him ape-**** again :D

Poet

Johnson is one of the first to put offense and defense together and have a full arsenal of weapons.

** Blithering!

Way too many pioneers before Johnson that put the science in boxing. 'Bout the only thing he added to boxing science was improving the art of the clinch which he used to protect a soft chin and wear out and frustrate
smaller opponents.

His forte is as a historical figure that's been grown into myth. Now he's chopping down cherry trees, 'rasslin' grizzly b'ars, and ropin' tornados.

Burns was a good win, but no rematch which Burns wanted. Typical challenges from the established LH and MW champs as can be expected in that era, but forever stained by ignoring the challenges of the top heavy contenders of his day, a stable full of storied HOFers.

Don't mind putting him in the HOF, but criminy, he was beatable at various points, yet the ususal yazoos have him moonwalking on water and curing syphilus. Go compare the record of Sam Langford from the date of their only fight and until Johnson is beat by Willard. Johnson's pales to that of Jeannette and Langford.

Little Sam whooped every fighter he could find that beat, drew or otherwise KOed or KDed Johnson. In fact, Sam has a HOF career fighting and whooping those fighters alone. Give you something to think about while you're gilding nonsense.

** Blithering!

Way too many pioneers before Johnson that put the science in boxing. 'Bout the only thing he added to boxing science was improving the art of the clinch which he used to protect a soft chin and wear out and frustrate
smaller opponents.

His forte is as a historical figure that's been grown into myth. Now he's chopping down cherry trees, 'rasslin' grizzly b'ars, and ropin' tornados.

Burns was a good win, but no rematch which Burns wanted. Typical challenges from the established LH and MW champs as can be expected in that era, but forever stained by ignoring the challenges of the top heavy contenders of his day, a stable full of storied HOFers.

Don't mind putting him in the HOF, but criminy, he was beatable at various points, yet the ususal yazoos have him moonwalking on water and curing syphilus. Go compare the record of Sam Langford from the date of their only fight and until Johnson is beat by Willard. Johnson's pales to that of Jeannette and Langford.

Little Sam whooped every fighter he could find that beat, drew or otherwise KOed or KDed Johnson. In fact, Sam has a HOF career fighting and whooping those fighters alone. Give you something to think about while you're gilding nonsense.

I said he was ONE of the first( which he was) skilled fighters, not the first. He was so ahead of his time, and if he wasn't then he wouldn't have outmatched everyone skill wise at that time. he had different ways of pacing himself and catching punches on his glove, control distance and could end the fight anytime he wanted to. That was rare back then.

I said he was ONE of the first( which he was) skilled fighters, not the first. He was so ahead of his time, and if he wasn't then he wouldn't have outmatched everyone skill wise at that time. he had different ways of pacing himself and catching punches on his glove, control distance and could end the fight anytime he wanted to. That was rare back then.

slicksouthpaw I wouldn't waste my breath on this ignorant ****. This is a dude who's life-mission is to discredit Muhammed Ali and apparently he has Johnson in his cross-hairs too. Not sure exactly why mind you, but I notice he targets fighters that actually have skills and nuthugs idiots that just stand in the middle of the ring and brawl like fools.

Poet

slicksouthpaw I wouldn't waste my breath on this ignorant ****. This is a dude who's life-mission is to discredit Muhammed Ali and apparently he has Johnson in his cross-hairs too. Not sure exactly why mind you, but I notice he targets fighters that actually have skills and nuthugs idiots that just stand in the middle of the ring and brawl like fools.

Poet

Yeah :lol1:, i remember when he tried to tell me that Langford had better wins than Ali did, and when i asked him to go through Langford's resume and tell me which ones, he didn't respond to the post. In another post he said that Ivan Calderon's footwork made Ali's look bad. Calderon has great footwork, but he forgets that Ali was a heavyweight that had footwork like a welterweight. That was one of the things that was so impressive about it.

Yeah :lol1:, i remember when he tried to tell me that Langford had better wins than Ali did, and when i asked him to go through Langford's resume and tell me which ones, he didn't respond to the post. In another post he said that Ivan Calderon's footwork made Ali's look bad. Calderon has great footwork, but he forgets that Ali was a heavyweight that had footwork like a welterweight. That was one of the things that was so impressive about it.

I'm pretty sure the only footwork he's an expert on is slamming his foot in his mouth LOL!. Naw, in the days before I finally ignored the douche I tried to get him to actually substanciate his idiotic claims and got just as much silence as you did.

Poet

the fact of the matter is that Wills has wins over all the top guys that Johnson beat, and when he beat them they were pretty much just as good or even better than when Johnson beat them. yall have no answer to that, and dont even try to address the point, even when thats the thing that matters most.

and how was he 'way ahead of his time' when he learned a lot of his skills from Choynski? apparently, these skills had already been developed partly.

and if we are going to give huge amounts of credit for developing boxing, then why arent guys like Abe Attell, Joe Walcott, Jack OBrien etc rated at the very top of their divisions? their styles must have been waaaay ahead of their time, and they fought before Johnson did I believe. hell, why dont we rate John Sullivan really high? he put down the fundamentals for gloved heavyweights boxers, Im sure he had a huge influence on the progression of boxing skills, much bigger than Johnson.

was Johnson an important and talented fighter? absolutely. but his legacy has been blown out of proportions because of his controversy and popularity(negatively popularity, but he was very well known).

I mean really, yall talk about how impressive it was for him as a black man to become champ, but Dixon did it way before him, and he doesnt he much credit at all nowadays. I understand that heavyweight wasnt as important as featherweight, but I doubt Dixon had an easy time getting a title shot himself. I dislike these double standards.

Jack Johnson is a pioneer and a historic figure, even though he was no Ali he deserves respec' for breaking down barriers. Plus he is dead so leave him alone.

Jack Johnson is a pioneer and a historic figure, even though he was no Ali he deserves respec' for breaking down barriers. Plus he is dead so leave him alone.of course I respect Johnson, but he gets a little too much credit for what hes done compared to how much credit someone like Wills does.

and he hardly broke down barriers, the guy pretty much built new ones for other blacks by making blacks look bad and for refusing to allow black fighters to fight him.

i remember when he tried to tell me that Langford had better wins than Ali did, and when i asked him to go through Langford's resume and tell me which ones, he didn't respond to the post.

** I don't normally bother too much with the 8th grade brigade.

It's good that you got your little glee club to fallback on for support, but your question could be easily answered by reviewing boxrec which anyone can do. Of course you need to know basic math and numbers to figure this stuff out which may be beyond the average 8th grader, so here it is condensed for you.

Sam was 16-1-6 when he beat his first HOFer, Joe Gans, 123-7-5 and 11th on Ibro p4p list. Now Ali was around the same development when he beat Moore, 17th on Ibro, but Moore was also 50+ yrs old at the very end of his career. Gans went on to beat more top contenders of his day, having his greatest moment in the first superfight in Nevada by Tex Ritter when he beats HOF great Battling Nelson in a 40+ rd classic on the 4th of July.

Ali, indeed, no raw up and coming prospect I can think of has a greater victory on his record, and that's just for starters for Sam. Ali goes 9-3 against Ibro mentioned fighters compared to Langford's 14-6-13 to the point of Jack Johnson's defeat by Willard. Half of those fights are against naturally bigger, stronger greats. By then he's half blind and his record starts to reverse and he finishes 23-19-17-4, but put another way, Langford fought more fights against Ibro fighters alone as Ali has fights period.

His last fight against an Ibro fighter is against future middleweight great Tiger Flowers who 40 yr old Sam flattens by the 2nd rd in spite of seeing only shadows he was so blind.

Kid, I don't care if you rank Johnson in the top 10 heavies or big up Ali, but don't ever get crossed up with Sam Langford doing so unless you got someone to change out your diapers.

** I don't normally bother too much with the 8th grade brigade.

It's good that you got your little glee club to fallback on for support, but your question could be easily answered by reviewing boxrec which anyone can do. Of course you need to know basic math and numbers to figure this stuff out which may be beyond the average 8th grader, so here it is condensed for you.


I looked at boxrec, and i didn't see anything that says he beat better fighters than Ali did. He was a great fighter and was one of the most underrated of any era, but by no means does he beat the opposition that Ali beat.

Sam was 16-1-6 when he beat his first HOFer, Joe Gans, 123-7-5 and 11th on Ibro p4p list. Now Ali was around the same development when he beat Moore, 17th on Ibro, but Moore was also 50+ yrs old at the very end of his career. Gans went on to beat more top contenders of his day, having his greatest moment in the first superfight in Nevada by Tex Ritter when he beats HOF great Battling Nelson in a 40+ rd classic on the 4th of July.

Ali, indeed, no raw up and coming prospect I can think of has a greater victory on his record, and that's just for starters for Sam. Ali goes 9-3 against Ibro mentioned fighters compared to Langford's 14-6-13 to the point of Jack Johnson's defeat by Willard. Half of those fights are against naturally bigger, stronger greats. By then he's half blind and his record starts to reverse and he finishes 23-19-17-4, but put another way, Langford fought more fights against Ibro fighters alone as Ali has fights period. His last fight against an Ibro fighter is against future middleweight great Tiger Flowers who 40 yr old Sam flattens by the 2nd rd in spite of seeing only shadows he was so blind.


His won over Gans was a great one, but explain to me how that one win surpasses everyone that Ali beat? Ali only had about 15 fights when he beat Moore and even though Archie was clearly past his prime, he got his first shot at the light heavyweight title( his first title shot) at the age of 39, so he peaked late and he was on a winning streak(coming off of wins such as Pastrano, Rinaldi ect) at the time of his loss to Ali. In his 17th fight he beat the experienced Doug Jones, who consider one of the most underrated contenders of that era and was coming off of wins of Folley and Foster. It was a good win over an experienced veteran. Also, who is to say that Gans wasn't as prime his prime as Moore was? He had 135 fights and had been in some hard fights.

It took Ali up to post exile to finally lose, and that was to an unbeaten Frazier, and many heavyweights would have loss to that version as well, and not only did Ali avenge it but he did it two times and with the last one being by stoppage. That's something that Langford couldn't claim, because as great as he is even in his prime he had quite a few losses and stoppage ones at that. Ali was never stopped in his entire career, even when he was 200 years old fighting a prime Holmes. It was more of a corner retirement thing.

Another thing is that if you include the win that Langford had over Gans, then you might as well talk about the win that Johnson had over Sam because Langford was 35-4-16 at the time had had already beaten experienced fighters and was on his way up.


Kid, I don't care if you rank Johnson in the top 10 heavies or big up Ali, but don't ever get crossed up with Sam Langford doing so unless you got someone to change out your diapers.

You have an agenda against both of them, and you don't hide it very well. Its a shame how you boost up Calderon and others without mentioning Ali and Johnson, who i both rank in my top 5 greatest heavyweights. As i said, Langford is one of the greatest fighters of all time and probably the second greatest puncher, but he did not beat the kind of fighters that Ali beat or the way that he beat them.

It took Ali up to post exile to finally lose, and that was to an unbeaten Frazier, and many heavyweights would have loss to that version as well, and not only did Ali avenge it but he did it two times and with the last one being by stoppage. That's something that Langford couldn't claim, because as great as he is even in his prime he had quite a few losses and stoppage ones at that. Ali was never stopped in his entire career, even when he was 200 years old fighting a prime Holmes. It was more of a corner retirement thing.

Langford was past his peak, half-blind and about 180 fights into his career when he suffered most of his stoppage losses. Make Ali fight 15-20 bouts with Foreman, Norton and Frazier, as Langford did with Wills, Jeannette and McVey, all within a few months of each other, and he'd have a few more losses (even KO ones) on his record too.

Langford was past his peak, half-blind and about 180 fights into his career when he suffered most of his stoppage losses. Make Ali fight 15-20 bouts with Foreman, Norton and Frazier, as Langford did with Wills, Jeannette and McVey, all within a few months of each other, and he'd have a few more losses (even KO ones) on his record too.

Well that's based on opinion. We can only go by the facts that are there, and that is a prime Ali has never been stopped and hes beaten his share of all of famers too, even in trilogies. Langford in his hay day was stopped twice, once by Peter Jackson and another by Harry Wills. Another thing is that Langford was blind in one eye for most of his fights, and he didn't become fully blind until after he retired.

Also, i have always defended the great fighters of that era and the reason why they had so many losses, however Ali in his prime didn't get hit much and even when he noticeably slowed down and fighting the best and dangerous fighters of that time like ( Frazier, Foreman, Ellis, Shavers, Lyle ect) he did not get stopped.

Langford in his hay day was stopped twice, once by Peter Jackson and another by Harry Wills.

I'm assuming you are meaning the losses to Jackson and Jeannette earlier in his career, correct? I would hope so, because any stoppages later in his career when he was fat and blind would have been some time after his "hay day". Even those early stoppage losses could be argued as happening a couple of years before his 'hay day', as he was reported to have improved much from then til his real 'hay day' between apx 1908 and 1912 (after that you'll start seeing him being refered to as "untrained", "overweight", "fat", etc. in the papers reporting on his fights). Even Johnson himself counted as one of those acknowledging his significant improvement from 1906 til the time he was supposed to fight him in 1909.

Anyways...

"Ali was never stopped in his entire career. It was more of a corner retirement thing."

That's what you said about Ali, Slickster, and that would have also been the case with Langford in those losses to Jackson and Jeannette earlier in his career.

I don't know if it was because of having his eyes cut up, or more likely, because he had them swelled up, but the loss to Jeannette was also a corner retirement after the 8th round with the reports out of the fight's location stating that Langford was "scarcely able to see" by the end of the fight. He was applauded for his "gameness" and "hung on tenaciously" in the fight, and also was reported to have knocked Jeannette down along the way before "his physical condition would no longer permit of his continuing". However, like I said, that was entirely a loss via corner retirement, which, according to your statement on Ali, doesn't really count as a real stoppage apparently.

And the loss to Jackson? Well, that one was described as such by the author of the recent Langford bio, Clay Moyle;

"Sam Langford suffered a technical knockout to Young Peter Jackson in Southbridge, Massachusetts, under somewhat mysterious circumstances. Sam sat down on the stool in the fifth round and refused to continue. He declared that he had been struck a low blow and injured, but the referee claimed not to have witnessed it and proceeded to count him out while he remained in his corner. Many believed that Sam's contentions must have been correct, as he had nothing to fear from Young Peter and should have been able to put him away."

I would like to have a source from the time describing the fight, but that is one that I've never found a single mention of during my searches through the papers of the time. Moyle's description does make sense, though, as I've read other fights between the two from the time, and Jackson's whole style in fighting Langford was reportedly to have been to crouch down low, look to engage in clinches, and throw to the body of Sam while they came together in those. Very little in the way of any outside work was said to have been done by Jackson in those fights with Langford, who was described as having a big advantage when there was space and distance between them.

Well that's based on opinion. We can only go by the facts that are there, and that is a prime Ali has never been stopped and hes beaten his share of all of famers too, even in trilogies. Langford in his hay day was stopped twice, once by Peter Jackson and another by Harry Wills. Another thing is that Langford was blind in one eye for most of his fights, and he didn't become fully blind until after he retired.

Also, i have always defended the great fighters of that era and the reason why they had so many losses, however Ali in his prime didn't get hit much and even when he noticeably slowed down and fighting the best and dangerous fighters of that time like ( Frazier, Foreman, Ellis, Shavers, Lyle ect) he did not get stopped.

So a few stoppage losses in a 300+ fight career compromising some 60 fights against fellow Hall of Famers alone, as well as plenty in between against Jimmy Ellis-level contenders, puts Ali ahead of Langford? Ali has one stoppage loss in his career. Plenty of guys were never stopped, James Toney, Pancho Villa, Rocky Marciano, Marvin Hagler, Mike McCallum, Pete Sanstol, Barney Ross, Ismael Laguna. George Chuvalo was never knocked down in 93 fights. Are they all better then Ali?

I'm assuming you are meaning the losses to Jackson and Jeannette earlier in his career, correct? I would hope so, because any stoppages later in his career when he was fat and blind would have been some time after his "hay day". Even those early stoppage losses could be argued as happening a couple of years before his 'hay day', as he was reported to have improved much from then til his real 'hay day' between apx 1908 and 1912 (after that you'll start seeing him being refered to as "untrained", "overweight", "fat", etc. in the papers reporting on his fights). Even Johnson himself counted as one of those acknowledging his significant improvement from 1906 til the time he was supposed to fight him in 1909.

Anyways...

"Ali was never stopped in his entire career. It was more of a corner retirement thing."

That's what you said about Ali, Slickster, and that would have also been the case with Langford in those losses to Jackson and Jeannette earlier in his career.

I don't know if it was because of having his eyes cut up, or more likely, because he had them swelled up, but the loss to Jeannette was also a corner retirement after the 8th round with the reports out of the fight's location stating that Langford was "scarcely able to see" by the end of the fight. He was applauded for his "gameness" and "hung on tenaciously" in the fight, and also was reported to have knocked Jeannette down along the way before "his physical condition would no longer permit of his continuing". However, like I said, that was entirely a loss via corner retirement, which, according to your statement on Ali, doesn't really count as a real stoppage apparently.

And the loss to Jackson? Well, that one was described as such by the author of the recent Langford bio, Clay Moyle;

"Sam Langford suffered a technical knockout to Young Peter Jackson in Southbridge, Massachusetts, under somewhat mysterious circumstances. Sam sat down on the stool in the fifth round and refused to continue. He declared that he had been struck a low blow and injured, but the referee claimed not to have witnessed it and proceeded to count him out while he remained in his corner. Many believed that Sam's contentions must have been correct, as he had nothing to fear from Young Peter and should have been able to put him away."

I would like to have a source from the time describing the fight, but that is one that I've never found a single mention of during my searches through the papers of the time. Moyle's description does make sense, though, as I've read other fights between the two from the time, and Jackson's whole style in fighting Langford was reportedly to have been to crouch down low, look to engage in clinches, and throw to the body of Sam while they came together in those. Very little in the way of any outside work was said to have been done by Jackson in those fights with Langford, who was described as having a big advantage when there was space and distance between them.

Good post. I should start bookmarking some of this stuff. One thing that caught my attention though was that Sam was blind in one eye for a lot( if not all) of his fights, and was still winning a lot of those fights as well, which is why i i don't understand why it is such an issue when he gets stopped. Holmes was holding back against Ali so he wasn't busted up badly, it was just a case where a great fighter had nothing left and his corner realizing it. Langford as you stated, was possibly cut and beaten, so you know its a legit stoppage especially since there were not quick stoppage referee's in that era.

So a few stoppage losses in a 300+ fight career compromising some 60 fights against fellow Hall of Famers alone, as well as plenty in between against Jimmy Ellis-level contenders, puts Ali ahead of Langford? Ali has one stoppage loss in his career. Plenty of guys were never stopped, James Toney, Pancho Villa, Rocky Marciano, Marvin Hagler, Mike McCallum, Pete Sanstol, Barney Ross, Ismael Laguna. George Chuvalo was never knocked down in 93 fights. Are they all better then Ali?

I didn't say anything about Ali being better than Langford because he was never stopped. I brought that up because it adds on to his accomplishments, especially since he has faced the biggest hitters of that era and was NEVER stopped even in the trilogies. Holmes didn't even stop Ali, it was more of a corner retirement. I said that Ali beat better opposition than Langford, which he did. Hes a three time heavyweight champion and he beat about 3 top 10 greatest heavyweights of all time and a lot of hall of famers. Could Sam claim hes the greatest heavyweight of all time and dominated a single division in the best era of that division?

if beating McVey, Jeanette and Stanley Ketchel can make Jack Johnson a top 3 heavyweight of all time, then surely a natural Welterweight beating them + Gans, Jack O'Brien and Harry Wills + drawing with Joe Walcott would make him better than Ali on the ATG scale.

How many of them were in their prime or champions at the time? Ali was the first to beat Frazier, the first to beat Foreman and the only one to beat Liston during his reign and only lost to Frazier when he was close to his prime( which he avenged twice) and also beat Foster, Patterson and Moore( which is just as good as Langford's win over Gans and Wills). Another thing is that Wills fought Langford 22 times, and went 6-2 with 14 no decisions so Sam lost more than he won in that trilogy.

On all time great listings i have seen, and every sports show that i have seen that was doing a countdown on the all time greats in order, none has had Langford ahead of Ali.

I didn't say anything about Ali being better than Langford because he was never stopped. I brought that up because it adds on to his accomplishments, especially since he has faced the biggest hitters of that era and was NEVER stopped even in the trilogies. Holmes didn't even stop Ali, it was more of a corner retirement. I said that Ali beat better opposition than Langford, which he did. Hes a three time heavyweight champion and he beat about 3 top 10 greatest heavyweights of all time and a lot of hall of famers. Could Sam claim hes the greatest heavyweight of all time and dominated a single division in the best era of that division?

Then I don't see what the point of bringing it up was. Sam got stopped more times than Ali, but as noted mostly at the tail end of his career. He also had five times as many fights, about four times as many KOs, more fights against Hall of Famers, more wins against Hall of Famers. He didn't dominate one division, he dominated several, so well in fact that numerous champions wouldn't face him. This despite him being not much more than a middleweight at his peak. What would Ali's standing be now if he never got a title shot? Like I said, make Ali fight Foreman, Frazier and Norton 15-20 times over a ten year period and he'd have a lot more Ls and stoppages on his record too.

Young Langford beating Joe Gans, top 20 p4p and up there with Duran and Benny Leonard for being the greatest lightweight ever, is the equivalent of young Cassius Clay beating a prime Joe Louis. Foreman and Frazier, though great, were not on his level. I'd be interested to know why you think Ali beating 50 year-old Archie Moore is "just as good as" Langford beating Gans.

In saying that Langford lost the series with Wills, bear in mind that Wills was both younger and bigger, and that Langford was well over the hill for most of their fights - he was nearly 40 when they last met, older than Ali was when he faced Holmes.

Imo it's also pretty self-defeating to big up Ali over Langford with the "three-time champion" line, since it means acknowledging his loss to Leon Spinks, who had seven pro fights to his name and is arguably the worst heavyweight champ ever.

How many of them were in their prime or champions at the time? Ali was the first to beat Frazier, the first to beat Foreman and the only one to beat Liston during his reign and only lost to Frazier when he was close to his prime( which he avenged twice) and also beat Foster, Patterson and Moore( which is just as good as Langford's win over Gans and Wills). Another thing is that Wills fought Langford 22 times, and went 6-2 with 14 no decisions so Sam lost more than he won in that trilogy.

On all time great listings i have seen, and every sports show that i have seen that was doing a countdown on the all time greats in order, none has had Langford ahead of Ali.
How am I supposed to know? I never saw them fight, I couldnt tell you when their primes were.

what I can say is that Jack Johnson went to a draw with Jack O'Brien, and two years later Langford knocked him out.
Langford beat Ketchel less than a year after his last Middeweight title fight, also less than a year after Johnson him beat him(after being dropped by him).
Johnson beat McVea when Vea was still a teenager, Langford and Wills beat him in his mid through late 20s.
Gans went on to beat Battling Nelson, one of his most important fights.

all Im saying is that if Johnson's wins make him a top 3 heavyweight of all time, and that a welterweight (Langford) beat most of his top wins, then I would think that those wins would be better than Ali's on a p4p scale.

His won over Gans was a great one, but explain to me how that one win surpasses everyone that Ali beat? Ali only had about 15 fights when he beat Moore and even though Archie was clearly past his prime, he got his first shot at the light heavyweight title( his first title shot) at the age of 39, so he peaked late and he was on a winning streak(coming off of wins such as Pastrano, Rinaldi ect) at the time of his loss to Ali. In his 17th fight he beat the experienced Doug Jones, who consider one of the most underrated contenders of that era and was coming off of wins of Folley and Foster. It was a good win over an experienced veteran. Also, who is to say that Gans wasn't as prime his prime as Moore was? He had 135 fights and had been in some hard fights.

!!!!!!!!!!!Blithering!!!!!!!!!!!!

ive seen some videos of johnson, and he was most definitely ahead of his time


but he fought many smaller men

Then I don't see what the point of bringing it up was. Sam got stopped more times than Ali, but as noted mostly at the tail end of his career. He also had five times as many fights, about four times as many KOs, more fights against Hall of Famers, more wins against Hall of Famers. He didn't dominate one division, he dominated several, so well in fact that numerous champions wouldn't face him. This despite him being not much more than a middleweight at his peak. What would Ali's standing be now if he never got a title shot? Like I said, make Ali fight Foreman, Frazier and Norton 15-20 times over a ten year period and he'd have a lot more Ls and stoppages on his record too.



Ali was never knocked out, even when he was old. As i have stated, i understand that Langford fought way more times than Ali did, and i also said that we cannot say ''what if'' Ali fought as many times as Langford did, because it never happened, and we don't know how Ali would have done in that era so its a moot point. We can only use the facts that are here, and that is that Ali remained a dominate heavyweight champion, avenged all of his losses in his hay day( up until he was completely shot against Berbick and Holmes) and is the greatest heavyweight champion of all time. What Langford lacked is the consistency of Ali. To remain dominate without losing to lesser opponents, something that Ali never did even when he was old. For example i read in one of my old ring magazine's that a prime Langford was upset by a fighter( who was a big underdog) named Dave Holly and lost his color title by upset in the hands of Bill Tate. These are not exactly hall of famers.

Show me all of the accomplishments that Langford had that makes him greater than Ali? Ali was champion, and a dominate one, and that's something that Langford's cannot claim.

Young Langford beating Joe Gans, top 20 p4p and up there with Duran and Benny Leonard for being the greatest lightweight ever, is the equivalent of young Cassius Clay beating a prime Joe Louis. Foreman and Frazier, though great, were not on his level. I'd be interested to know why you think Ali beating 50 year-old Archie Moore is "just as good as" Langford beating Gans.

In saying that Langford lost the series with Wills, bear in mind that Wills was both younger and bigger, and that Langford was well over the hill for most of their fights - he was nearly 40 when they last met, older than Ali was when he faced Holmes.


You make it seem like Gans was in his prime when Langford beat him( he had about 135 fights at the time and his career defining achievements was pretty much over by that point), and you are most likely one of those people that don't acknowledge Ali's win over Patterson and Moore and just say that they were '' past their prime''. Moore was on a winning streak when he lost to Ali and so was Patterson, including a win over Bonevena, who i rate as one of the most underrated contenders of all time.

Another thing is that Ali was ''past his prime'' when he got out of exile and completely shot when he was in his late 30's. He beat younger fighters like Frazier, Foreman, Lyle and many others. You all bring up the blind excuse for Sam, but just take a look at the people he while he was blind. I remember watching a documentary about Langford, and it stated that he was always blind in one eye, and didn't become fully blind until he had retired.


Imo it's also pretty self-defeating to big up Ali over Langford with the "three-time champion" line, since it means acknowledging his loss to Leon Spinks, who had seven pro fights to his name and is arguably the worst heavyweight champ ever.

Its also ''self-defeating'' that you would bring up that fight( which Ali avenged) even though he was shot, and then make excuses when Langford loses when he was past his prime even though he went on to beat some good fighters after those losses. :thinking: Double standards.

I am a fan of Langford, and i try to get my hands on any fight that i could find of him and any footage as well. The thing is, is that you are trying to convince that he was greater than Ali, which is not at all true. Maybe if he become champion( which he didn't) then you could have made a decent case. Ali is known as the greatest heavyweight champion, and on many list as second greatest fighter of all time. You mention that he dominated many division, show me a division that he dominated the way Ali dominated heavyweight and stayed at the top for many years?

Okay. Just to clear up any confusion there may be here; here are Johnson's and Wills record against the opponentes in question. No decisions have been removed and the record contains the age and record of the respective fighters at the date of the fight.

Johnson

Date Opponent Result #Fights Age Tally

04-26-06 Langford W DEC 15 43 - 52 28 - 23 1-0-0 (0-0)

11-25-05 Jeannette L DQ 2 38 - 10 27 - 26 0-1-0 (0-0)
01-16-06 Jeannette W DEC 3 39 - 12 27 - 26 1-1-0 (0-0)
03-14-06 Jeannette W DEC 15 41 - 13 27 - 26 2-1-0 (0-0)
09-20-06 Jeannette W DEC 6 46 - 16 28 - 27 3-1-0 (0-0)
11-26-06 Jeannette D DEC 10 48 - 17 28 - 27 3-1-1 (0-0)

02-26-03 McVea W DEC 20 20 - 6 24 - 18 1-0-0 (0-0)
10-27-03 McVea W DEC 20 23 - 9 24 - 18 2-0-0 (0-0)
04-22-04 McVea W KO 20 26 - 10 26 - 21 3-1-0 (1-0)


Wills

Date Opponent Result # Fights Age Tally

05-01-14 Langford W DEC 10 16 - 130 24 - 31 1-0-0 (0-0)
11-26-14 Langford L KO 14 26 - 146 25 - 31 1-1-0 (0-1)
12-03-15 Langford W DEC 10 31 - 149 26 - 32 2-1-0 (0-1)
01-03-16 Langford W DEC 20 32 - 150 26 - 32 3-1-0 (0-1)
02-11-16 Langford L KO 19 33 - 151 26 - 32 3-2-0 (0-2)
03-07-16 Langford W DEC 10 34 - 154 26 - 33 4-2-0 (0-2)
04-25-16 Langford W DEC 8 36 - 158 26 - 33 5-2-0 (0-2)
05-11-17 Langford D DEC 6 42 - 168 27 - 34 5-2-1 (0-2)
09-20-17 Langford W DEC 10 45 - 173 28 - 34 6-2-1 (0-2)
11-12-17 Langford W DEC 12 46 - 174 28 - 34 7-2-1 (0-2)
04-14-18 Langford W KO 6 49 - 176 28 - 35 8-2-1 (1-2)
05-19-18 Langford W KO 7 50 - 177 29 - 35 9-2-1 (2-2)
07-04-19 Langford W DEC 8 53 - 191 29 - 36 10-2-1 (2-2)
11-05-19 Langford W DEC 15 56 - 196 29 - 36 11-2-1 (2-2)
04-23-20 Langford W DEC 15 61 - 206 29 - 37 12-2-1 (2-2)
01-17-22 Langford W DEC 10 76 - 239 32 - 38 13-2-1 (2-2)

07-01-13 Jeannette D DEC 10 11 - 99 24 - 33 0-0-1 (0-0)
06-09-14 Jeannette W DEC 10 17 - 109 25 - 34 1-0-1 (0-0)
10-20-19 Jeannette W DEC 8 55 - 145 30 - 40 2-0-1 (0-0)

1914-12-20 McVea L DEC 20 27 - 62 25 - 30 0-1-0 (0-0)
1915-05-19 McVea L DEC 10 29 - 65 26 - 31 0-2-0 (0-0)
1915-09-07 McVea W DEC 12 30 - 69 26 - 31 1-2-0 (0-0)
1918-02-17 McVea W KO 5 48 - 84 28 - 33 2-2-0 (1-0)

Poet

Okay. Just to clear up any confusion there may be here; here are Johnson's and Wills record against the opponentes in question. No decisions have been removed and the record contains the age and record of the respective fighters at the date of the fight.

Johnson

Date Opponent Result #Fights Age Tally

04-26-06 Langford W DEC 15 43 - 52 28 - 23 1-0-0 (0-0)

11-25-05 Jeannette L DQ 2 38 - 10 27 - 26 0-1-0 (0-0)
01-16-06 Jeannette W DEC 3 39 - 12 27 - 26 1-1-0 (0-0)
03-14-06 Jeannette W DEC 15 41 - 13 27 - 26 2-1-0 (0-0)
09-20-06 Jeannette W DEC 6 46 - 16 28 - 27 3-1-0 (0-0)
11-26-06 Jeannette D DEC 10 48 - 17 28 - 27 3-1-1 (0-0)

02-26-03 McVea W DEC 20 20 - 6 24 - 18 1-0-0 (0-0)
10-27-03 McVea W DEC 20 23 - 9 24 - 18 2-0-0 (0-0)
04-22-04 McVea W KO 20 26 - 10 26 - 21 3-1-0 (1-0)


Wills

Date Opponent Result # Fights Age Tally

05-01-14 Langford W DEC 10 16 - 130 24 - 31 1-0-0 (0-0)
11-26-14 Langford L KO 14 26 - 146 25 - 31 1-1-0 (0-1)
12-03-15 Langford W DEC 10 31 - 149 26 - 32 2-1-0 (0-1)
01-03-16 Langford W DEC 20 32 - 150 26 - 32 3-1-0 (0-1)
02-11-16 Langford L KO 19 33 - 151 26 - 32 3-2-0 (0-2)
03-07-16 Langford W DEC 10 34 - 154 26 - 33 4-2-0 (0-2)
04-25-16 Langford W DEC 8 36 - 158 26 - 33 5-2-0 (0-2)
05-11-17 Langford D DEC 6 42 - 168 27 - 34 5-2-1 (0-2)
09-20-17 Langford W DEC 10 45 - 173 28 - 34 6-2-1 (0-2)
11-12-17 Langford W DEC 12 46 - 174 28 - 34 7-2-1 (0-2)
04-14-18 Langford W KO 6 49 - 176 28 - 35 8-2-1 (1-2)
05-19-18 Langford W KO 7 50 - 177 29 - 35 9-2-1 (2-2)
07-04-19 Langford W DEC 8 53 - 191 29 - 36 10-2-1 (2-2)
11-05-19 Langford W DEC 15 56 - 196 29 - 36 11-2-1 (2-2)
04-23-20 Langford W DEC 15 61 - 206 29 - 37 12-2-1 (2-2)
01-17-22 Langford W DEC 10 76 - 239 32 - 38 13-2-1 (2-2)

07-01-13 Jeannette D DEC 10 11 - 99 24 - 33 0-0-1 (0-0)
06-09-14 Jeannette W DEC 10 17 - 109 25 - 34 1-0-1 (0-0)
10-20-19 Jeannette W DEC 8 55 - 145 30 - 40 2-0-1 (0-0)

1914-12-20 McVea L DEC 20 27 - 62 25 - 30 0-1-0 (0-0)
1915-05-19 McVea L DEC 10 29 - 65 26 - 31 0-2-0 (0-0)
1915-09-07 McVea W DEC 12 30 - 69 26 - 31 1-2-0 (0-0)
1918-02-17 McVea W KO 5 48 - 84 28 - 33 2-2-0 (1-0)

Poet
when you do it like that, Wills almost looks like the better fighter.
nice job with the list.

when you do it like that, Wills almost looks like the better fighter.
nice job with the list.

Actually if you look closely at the ages, Wills was fighting guys who were past it most of the time.

Actually if you look closely at the ages, Wills was fighting guys who were past it most of the time.
McVea was in his early 30s.
Jeanette for most of their fights was in his early 30s.
He beat Langford multiple times in his early 30s.

they werent exactly old men, but I do understand that they had a ton of fights and that probebly wore down their career.

but considering the fact that Johnson was only beating McVea when Vea was a teenager and that Langford was naturally weighing in the 150s when Johnson beat him, I dont think its really a stretch to say that its pretty close. overall, the best of the three is probebly Langford, right?(judging by their fights against one another) Wills beat him 13 times over 7 years. maybe Langford might not have been at his best then, but Wills at least fought a real heavyweight version of Langford, something Johnson refused to do.

McVea was in his early 30s.
Jeanette for most of their fights was in his early 30s.
He beat Langford multiple times in his early 30s.

they werent exactly old men, but I do understand that they had a ton of fights and that probebly wore down their career.

but considering the fact that Johnson was only beating McVea when Vea was a teenager and that Langford was naturally weighing in the 150s when Johnson beat him, I dont think its really a stretch to say that its pretty close. overall, the best of the three is probebly Langford, right?(judging by their fights against one another) Wills beat him 13 times over 7 years. maybe Langford might not have been at his best then, but Wills at least fought a real heavyweight version of Langford, something Johnson refused to do.

I will never dismiss the fact that Johnson never gave Langford a deserved rematch, but Im afraid you're stuck with a bit of a conundrum. Whether one excuses the fact that Johnson didn't give deserving black contenders a shot or not (I don't) it doesn't change the fact that he had fought them before.

Styles make fights, we both know this. So Wills beating Langford all those times means little except that he had a great fighters number. Holyfield had Tysons number, but does anyone believe Mike would have struggled against the likes of Bert Cooper, Vaughn Bean or Micheal Moorer?

That championship Johnson won is EXACTLY why he ranks higher than Wills. Just the historical significance and importance of it sets them apart. That isn't Wills fault, but you can hardly blame Johnson for doing what every heavyweight of color wanted to do at the time too. Ya feel me?

I will never dismiss the fact that Johnson never gave Langford a deserved rematch, but Im afraid you're stuck with a bit of a conundrum. Whether one excuses the fact that Johnson didn't give deserving black contenders a shot or not (I don't) it doesn't change the fact that he had fought them before.

Styles make fights, we both know this. So Wills beating Langford all those times means little except that he had a great fighters number. Holyfield had Tysons number, but does anyone believe Mike would have struggled against the likes of Bert Cooper, Vaughn Bean or Micheal Moorer?

That championship Johnson won is EXACTLY why he ranks higher than Wills. Just the historical significance and importance of it sets them apart. That isn't Wills fault, but you can hardly blame Johnson for doing what every heavyweight of color wanted to do at the time too. Ya feel me?even if Wills had Langfords number(which we dont know, aint footage of it) it doesnt mean we should give him any less credit for the wins.

and I guess we'll just have to disagree with the historical signficance thing. I personally dont think you should get any extra credit for how popular or revolutionary you were...otherwise, lists would be totally screwed up. Id have guys like De La Hoya, Tyson and Corbett ranked super high. just a difference in our rankings I guess.

I dont blame Johnson for going after the title, no way. but I dont really respect him either. I cant imagine his situation, so I honestly cant say I would act any better than him or anything...I havent had to go through what he did. maybe under the circumstances, almost all of us would have acted the way he did.
but dont expect me to respect him. when he won the title, he turned around and acted no better than the people that were discriminating against him. the fact that Langford ended up broke and blind after 300+ fights and that Johnson never even gave him the chance to win a title or make lots of money is not something to be proud of. he was in a position where he could have done a lot of good for blacks, but he did totally the opposite.

even if Wills had Langfords number(which we dont know, aint footage of it) it doesnt mean we should give him any less credit for the wins.

and I guess we'll just have to disagree with the historical signficance thing. I personally dont think you should get any extra credit for how popular or revolutionary you were...otherwise, lists would be totally screwed up. Id have guys like De La Hoya, Tyson and Corbett ranked super high. just a difference in our rankings I guess.

I dont blame Johnson for going after the title, no way. but I dont really respect him either. I cant imagine his situation, so I honestly cant say I would act any better than him or anything...I havent had to go through what he did. maybe under the circumstances, almost all of us would have acted the way he did.
but dont expect me to respect him. when he won the title, he turned around and acted no better than the people that were discriminating against him. the fact that Langford ended up broke and blind after 300+ fights and that Johnson never even gave him the chance to win a title or make lots of money is not something to be proud of. he was in a position where he could have done a lot of good for blacks, but he did totally the opposite.

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree on some things. But the bold type isn't one of them. That has always been a sore spot with me about Johnson.

even if Wills had Langfords number(which we dont know, aint footage of it) it doesnt mean we should give him any less credit for the wins.

and I guess we'll just have to disagree with the historical signficance thing. I personally dont think you should get any extra credit for how popular or revolutionary you were...otherwise, lists would be totally screwed up. Id have guys like De La Hoya, Tyson and Corbett ranked super high. just a difference in our rankings I guess.

I dont blame Johnson for going after the title, no way. but I dont really respect him either. I cant imagine his situation, so I honestly cant say I would act any better than him or anything...I havent had to go through what he did. maybe under the circumstances, almost all of us would have acted the way he did.
but dont expect me to respect him. when he won the title, he turned around and acted no better than the people that were discriminating against him. the fact that Langford ended up broke and blind after 300+ fights and that Johnson never even gave him the chance to win a title or make lots of money is not something to be proud of. he was in a position where he could have done a lot of good for blacks, but he did totally the opposite.

i think in the bold parts you answered your own question... most people have no morals anyway, even though it's not fair to judge johnson from our times, most of today's fighters act more like johnson

i think in the bold parts you answered your own question... most people have no morals anyway, even though it's not fair to judge johnson from our times, most of today's fighters act more like johnson
what I meant is this...I dont fault Johnson for his choices in life. It was messed up back then, he had to go through a lot of unfair things. he acted like most other normal man would in his position.
but I dont hold him in high esteem. he is no hero. as a person, I give him no more respect than I would any other man. he looked after just himself, no more and no less.

Just some numbers on Langford-Wills. Lanford and wills were repectively 31 and 25 years old the first time they fought. It was Wills 19th fight compared to Sams 144th. They fought a total of 18 times (as far as I can tell) with the last coming in sams 261st fight at the age of 38.

what I meant is this...I dont fault Johnson for his choices in life. It was messed up back then, he had to go through a lot of unfair things. he acted like most other normal man would in his position.
but I dont hold him in high esteem. he is no hero. as a person, I give him no more respect than I would any other man. he looked after just himself, no more and no less.

exactly, i respect johnson for his skills in the ring only but in everything else he's just a man

It's too bad that all we have to judge Johnson's record is boxrec and some old grainy clips. I've seen some of his fights through Ken Burns' documentary, and i have to say,the majority of his foes couldn't fight worth Jack. They had no technique and weren't schooled at all in compaarison to today's fighters.
The game has changed immensly since the turn of the 20th century. And from the looks of Johnson's fight clips, it appears he knew how to fight; he knew how to move around the ring; he was big strong, agile champion. But i believe he wouldv'e had tons of trouble with some more modern day fighters.
One thing that is interesting however, is that the founder of Ring Magazine, Nat Fleischer , said that none of the other fighters he had seen could've taken Johnson, including Joe Louis. Fleischer was one of the leading boxing journalist of his time. so i think his opinon counts for something.

Ali was never knocked out, even when he was old. As i have stated, i understand that Langford fought way more times than Ali did, and i also said that we cannot say ''what if'' Ali fought as many times as Langford did, because it never happened, and we don't know how Ali would have done in that era so its a moot point. We can only use the facts that are here, and that is that Ali remained a dominate heavyweight champion, avenged all of his losses in his hay day( up until he was completely shot against Berbick and Holmes) and is the greatest heavyweight champion of all time. What Langford lacked is the consistency of Ali. To remain dominate without losing to lesser opponents, something that Ali never did even when he was old. For example i read in one of my old ring magazine's that a prime Langford was upset by a fighter( who was a big underdog) named Dave Holly and lost his color title by upset in the hands of Bill Tate. These are not exactly hall of famers.

Not getting knocked out is not proof of greatness. Floyd Mayweather's never been knocked out. He's never lost either. Can't get much more dominant and consistent than that. But that doesn't make him better than Ali and Langford. You keep accepting that Langford fought much more often than Ali, yet you're still hammering him for a handful of stoppage losses in a 300 fight career. If Langford was fighting a lot more often and against a lot more Hall of Famers (often at a size disadvantage) than Ali, doesn't it stand to reason that he'd lose a few more?

Dave Holly was a good fighter, who had competitive fights with Gans and Jack Blackburn, another Hall of Famer who Langford beat. But since we're nitpicking, not many greats were more inconsistent than Ali. Dumped on his arse by Henry Cooper and put in a lacklustre showing against Doug Jones in the two bouts prior to Liston. Upset by Norton, who he never beat decisively in three attempts (and imo Norton also won the third fight), beaten handily by Frazier when closest to their primes, a mediocre effort against Lyle, to whom he was trailing on the cards before pulling out the stoppage, a poor showing against Jimmy Young (another fight I thought Ali lost), ugly wins against Wepner, Lubbers, Evangelista and a few other Euro champs, then the two Spinks fights. Were they the performances of a "dominant" champion? Most of those weren't Hall of Famers either.


You make it seem like Gans was in his prime when Langford beat him( he had about 135 fights at the time and his career defining achievements was pretty much over by that point), and you are most likely one of those people that don't acknowledge Ali's win over Patterson and Moore and just say that they were '' past their prime''. Moore was on a winning streak when he lost to Ali and so was Patterson, including a win over Bonevena, who i rate as one of the most underrated contenders of all time.

Gans didn't have another official loss for five years and continued to successfully defend his 135lb title, including his legendary 42 rounder with Battling Nelson after his loss to Langford. Moore was about 50, had already lost his light-heavy title and retired soon after. Patterson was 37, in his final fight, and fighting with a serious back injury. Big difference.


Another thing is that Ali was ''past his prime'' when he got out of exile and completely shot when he was in his late 30's. He beat younger fighters like Frazier, Foreman, Lyle and many others. You all bring up the blind excuse for Sam, but just take a look at the people he while he was blind. I remember watching a documentary about Langford, and it stated that he was always blind in one eye, and didn't become fully blind until he had retired.

You're the one who brought up the number of losses and stoppages Langford had (most of which came when he was past his peak and going blind) as proof that Ali was greater. Are you really going to hammer him for losing fights when all he could see was shadows? You seem happy to excuse Ali's losses to Holmes and Berbick on similar grounds.


Its also ''self-defeating'' that you would bring up that fight( which Ali avenged) even though he was shot, and then make excuses when Langford loses when he was past his prime even though he went on to beat some good fighters after those losses. :thinking: Double standards.

You used the "three time champion" line as a reason for putting Ali over Langford. Well but for a loss to fairly limited novice, who morphed into a win a few, lose a few journeyman, he never would have been a three time champion. Not really a feather in the cap is it?


I am a fan of Langford, and i try to get my hands on any fight that i could find of him and any footage as well. The thing is, is that you are trying to convince that he was greater than Ali, which is not at all true. Maybe if he become champion( which he didn't) then you could have made a decent case. Ali is known as the greatest heavyweight champion, and on many list as second greatest fighter of all time. You mention that he dominated many division, show me a division that he dominated the way Ali dominated heavyweight and stayed at the top for many years?

Which, for the last time, was through no fault of his own. The champions of the day (including your top three heavyweight Johnson), wouldn't fight him. What was he supposed to do? Between losing to Johnson in 1906 and Johnson losing his title to Willard in 1915, Langford went on a streak of 60+ wins and only 4 official losses (all subsequently avenged). He went through all of Johnson's best pre-title wins, most of Johnson's title opponents and all the other top heavy contenders who would fight him, most of them multiple times. I'd call that pretty damn dominant. But the champ wouldn't give him a shot. Where would Ali rate now if all the champs of his day refused to fight him?