i like him as a person but as a fighter hes boring to watch...all he does catch catch jab wrestle laugh....rinse n repeat.....its like he got a kick outta being as boring as possible.....

The difference is that Johnson could throw combo's. Once an opponent came in or he got close he was going to open up and at that point you were probably going to get dropped. That guy had a rare physique for his time, he was pure power.

I thought Johnson was lighter on his feet and had a more imposing jab but there were a few simularities I guess.

i like him as a person but as a fighter hes boring to watch...all he does catch catch jab wrestle laugh....rinse n repeat.....its like he got a kick outta being as boring as possible.....

agreeded

if not worse then ruiz, i really dont think any modern day ref would ever let johnson clinch as much or remain in the clinches as long as he did.

i like him as a person but as a fighter hes boring to watch...all he does catch catch jab wrestle laugh....rinse n repeat.....its like he got a kick outta being as boring as possible.....
Good point, Ive watched some of his fights they are very Ruiz-lite.

i like him as a person but as a fighter hes boring to watch...all he does catch catch jab wrestle laugh....rinse n repeat.....its like he got a kick outta being as boring as possible.....

He was supposed to be the master of the feint, but we can't see these feints on the film. The frames per second were much lower back then and the time between frames wasn't constant. The result is the hurky-jerky footage and faster, then slower, than real life images.

Footage from the 1910s and 1920s are close to useless in evaluating a fighter.

He was supposed to be the master of the feint, but

he was the master of the clinch.

he existed in an era where fight films were not allowed to be transfered across state lines and many of his fights were not seen by most the public till after he stopped fighting. what was said about him and was really happened are 2 different things.

he was the master of the clinch.

he existed in an era where fight films were not allowed to be transfered across state lines and many of his fights were not seen by most the public till after he stopped fighting. what was said about him and was really happened are 2 different things.

Can't say. I can't tell anything from the film. He was criticized for being a defensive fighter but I never heard him criticized for excessive clinching. It could be.

However Nat Fleischer who saw everybody from Johnson to Ali said he was a master feinter.

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


http://coxscorner.tripod.com/johnson.html

He was supposed to be the master of the feint, but we can't see these feints on the film. The frames per second were much lower back then and the time between frames wasn't constant. The result is the hurky-jerky footage and faster, then slower, than real life images.

Footage from the 1910s and 1920s are close to useless in evaluating a fighter.

I think as well that Johnson was at his peak before he won the title and I don't believe there is any footage of his fights pre Burns?
I would of course love to be proved wrong and get some lovely footage to totally refute me :)

Jack Johnson fought according the rules of his day. He was worse than a latter day Ali but not by much and in his own era holding was allowed unlike in Ali's era.

Brief clips of his sparring sessions show that he was also adept at fighting at distance but he preferred to stay in close and work over his opponents with the uppercut from the clinch. He'd punish them with the jab and as they got inside his reach he'd wear them down in the clinches.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s5ntK49v_5g&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s5ntK49v_5g&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BWJNa93ndZE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BWJNa93ndZE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
2:10

Ruiz' boring style is a myth. Although he lost to Valuev his workrate was quite impressive. I've seen worse.

Looking at Johnson's style out of context could lead to this conclusion. But there is context. Ruiz fought the way he did because he HAD to. Johnson fought that way by choice for critical reason$. And the $ is there for a reason. Fighters often made MORE on film deals then gates then. Blowouts made fight film harder sell because of the already choppy reels. A longer fight was needed to make the movies worth the audience dollar. There were of course other reasons but considering that Johnson essentially toyed with everyone he fought in winning and keeping the title, it's probably the biggest one.

Ruiz was struggling to win. Johnson was carrying guys and struggling not to beat them as bad as he could.

Fighting like somebody and being as good as them is two different things.Alot of fighters tried to immitate Muhammad Ali but were no where as close as the Greatest.

Jack Johnson would "toy" with Ruiz.