View Full Version : How High do You rate Jack Johnson in your ATG heavyweight list?


murmagic
03-14-2010, 01:50 PM
Just wondering where people rate Jack Johnson on there heavyweight list

T3dBundy
03-14-2010, 02:10 PM
behind ali and louis on 3
he was 7 years long champ when he was past his prime.

Jim Jeffries
03-14-2010, 02:44 PM
I used to have him around the middle of my top 10, like most people. But I've been struggling to find his defining win.

An inactive 44 year old Bob Fitzsimmons - nope
Jim Jeffries after 6 years without a fight - nope
A 5'7", 168 pound Tommy Burns - nope
Middleweight Stanley Ketchel - nope
A young 156 pound Sam Langford (who he ducked along with every other great black fighter when Johnson was champ) - nope

Losing to Marvin Hart while in his prime hurts him.
Getting knocked out twice early in his career, I don't hold too much against him.

Almost 6 1/2 years as champ sounds great, till you look at the quality of the 8 total title defenses (even little Tommy Burns had 10 defenses of similar quality, no one mentions him in any top 10 ATG HW list.)

Sorry, I still have him at the bottom of my top 10, but the more I look, the further he drops.

RimmyDelicious
03-14-2010, 02:51 PM
Not nearly as highly as most others do. Hank made some real good points, you'd have to say that Ketchel was his best win TBH and that lose to Hart is pretty terrible. In a head to head sense he just wouldn't beat any of the great champions that came after him, Dempsey included.

sonnyboyx2
03-15-2010, 02:10 PM
Nat Fliescher said,"Johnson was the greatest of all times"

T.Horton
03-18-2010, 02:45 AM
number three and i would debate my position with anybody.

EzzardFan
03-18-2010, 06:56 AM
By all accounts at the end of the Hart fight Johnson was unscathed and Hart looked like he'd been run over by a train. Scoring wasn't so fair back then remember.

I place him in the top three. Not for wins against Ketchel or Fitzsimmons or Jeffries, but for his wins against the great black heavyweights of the time.

Fiasco
03-18-2010, 08:35 AM
I used to have him around the middle of my top 10, like most people. But I've been struggling to find his defining win.

An inactive 44 year old Bob Fitzsimmons - nope
Jim Jeffries after 6 years without a fight - nope
A 5'7", 168 pound Tommy Burns - nope
Middleweight Stanley Ketchel - nope
A young 156 pound Sam Langford (who he ducked along with every other great black fighter when Johnson was champ) - nope

Losing to Marvin Hart while in his prime hurts him.
Getting knocked out twice early in his career, I don't hold too much against him.

Almost 6 1/2 years as champ sounds great, till you look at the quality of the 8 total title defenses (even little Tommy Burns had 10 defenses of similar quality, no one mentions him in any top 10 ATG HW list.)

Sorry, I still have him at the bottom of my top 10, but the more I look, the further he drops.

You don't know too much about boxing history, do you?

Jim Jeffries
03-18-2010, 08:04 PM
You don't know too much about boxing history, do you?

Enlighten me please, oh wise one. And by all means, dispute anything I posted.


How do people penalize Jack Dempsey for not fighting black fighters and give Jack Johson, who avoided them like the plague for the 6 1/2 years he was champ, a free pass?

Johnson was the complete antithesis of a great American like Joe Louis. To have JJ as a top 3 ATG HW must surely be a joke.

Fiasco
03-18-2010, 09:02 PM
Enlighten me please, oh wise one. And by all means, dispute anything I posted.


How do people penalize Jack Dempsey for not fighting black fighters and give Jack Johson, who avoided them like the plague for the 6 1/2 years he was champ, a free pass?

Johnson was the complete antithesis of a great American like Joe Louis. To have JJ as a top 3 ATG HW must surely be a joke.

Believe me, I felt it was very selfish and very disrespectful for Johnson to not give any other top black fighter a heavyweight title shot. I felt that Sam Langford, who's one of my favorite fighters of all-time, had the best chance at beating him.

But that doesn't mean he didn't beat any of the top black fighters. In fact, the ones he beat were the same black fighters who were deserving of a title shot.

Here's some of the top black fighters that he beat:

Sam Langford (outweighed by a lot, but still a win)
Sam McVea
Joe Jeannette
Young Peter Jackson
Denver Ed Martin

There's more, as well.

As for your rundown analysis of most of the other fighters he beat, it's atrocious.

Jeffries - The fight the whole world wanted, with a lot of money in it. Jeffries was undefeated and many thought he would beat Johnson.

Burns - Yeah.. discredit Johnson for beating the reigning world champ.. gee.

Ketchel - It was not uncommon for fighters in lower weight classes to challenge for the title. See Fitzsimmons, for example.

He also defeated the light heavyweight champ George Gardner.

In the end, you wrongfully bashed Johnson for:

1) Winning the heavyweight title
2) Beating the former and undefeated heavyweight world champion
3) Beating the former middleweight and heavyweight world champion
4) Defending his title against one of the best fighters of his era and one of the best middleweights of all-time

The only thing I agree with you about is the fact that he didn't give any of the top black fighters a title shot.

Go ahead and rate Johnson wherever you want. But don't expect everyone to believe that Johnson didn't beat great opposition.

gran campeon
03-18-2010, 10:24 PM
its ironic how the same people who criticize johnson for beating lil midgets think sam langford could beat him, even after he got his ass beat before.....

i dont consider johnson top 5 hw....

Chief2ndzOnly!
03-18-2010, 10:32 PM
Top of the FOOD CHAIN bruh. To me he's the best HW to walk the earth. Thanks for the thread mayne.

Chief2ndzOnly!
03-18-2010, 10:55 PM
I will touch this thread completely tomorrow. There are some decent points that have been touched but some VERY important point left un-touched.

Jim Jeffries
03-19-2010, 01:27 AM
Believe me, I felt it was very selfish and very disrespectful for Johnson to not give any other top black fighter a heavyweight title shot. I felt that Sam Langford, who's one of my favorite fighters of all-time, had the best chance at beating him.

But that doesn't mean he didn't beat any of the top black fighters. In fact, the ones he beat were the same black fighters who were deserving of a title shot.

Here's some of the top black fighters that he beat:

Sam Langford (outweighed by a lot, but still a win)
Sam McVea
Joe Jeannette
Young Peter Jackson
Denver Ed Martin

There's more, as well.

As for your rundown analysis of most of the other fighters he beat, it's atrocious.

Jeffries - The fight the whole world wanted, with a lot of money in it. Jeffries was undefeated and many thought he would beat Johnson.

Burns - Yeah.. discredit Johnson for beating the reigning world champ.. gee.

Ketchel - It was not uncommon for fighters in lower weight classes to challenge for the title. See Fitzsimmons, for example.

He also defeated the light heavyweight champ George Gardner.

In the end, you wrongfully bashed Johnson for:

1) Winning the heavyweight title
2) Beating the former and undefeated heavyweight world champion
3) Beating the former middleweight and heavyweight world champion
4) Defending his title against one of the best fighters of his era and one of the best middleweights of all-time

The only thing I agree with you about is the fact that he didn't give any of the top black fighters a title shot.

Go ahead and rate Johnson wherever you want. But don't expect everyone to believe that Johnson didn't beat great opposition.

I thought you were going to dispute something I posted.

Johnson had a decent resume before winning the title, but his defenses of that title were horrendous. Hype the Jeffries win all you want, but the fact that he hadn't fought in 6 years and had to lose 80 pounds cannot be denied. As for Ketchel, I'm not likely to give Wladimir Klitchko any credit for beating Kelly Pavlik either, especially if Pavlik doesn't put on any weight.

But you brought up some additional names. A few wins over an extremely green Sam McVea - not impressed. Had a bunch of fights against Joe Jeannette, but in none of those fights did Joe have over 10 fights worth of experience - not impressed. A fight with an aging, battleworn Young Peter Jackson, who was 1-4-1 in the 6 fights leading up to Johnson - not impressed. And lastly, Denver Ed Martin, who was a pretty good win the first time (though slightly green,) 1-3-1 in his last 5 fights in the rematch - slightly impressed. Plus you failed to mention that LHW George Gardner weighed only 155 lbs at the time and had lost 2 of his last 5 fights - not impressed.

Overall, I just don't see it. The more I look, the more he slides on my list, which I'm thankful of your permission to keep BTW.

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 01:38 AM
I will touch this thread completely tomorrow. There are some decent points that have been touched but some VERY important point left un-touched.

I look forward to hearing your points.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 01:39 AM
I thought you were going to dispute something I posted.

Johnson had a decent resume before winning the title, but his defenses of that title were horrendous. Hype the Jeffries win all you want, but the fact that he hadn't fought in 6 years and had to lose 80 pounds cannot be denied. As for Ketchel, I'm not likely to give Wladimir Klitchko any credit for beating Kelly Pavlik either, especially if Pavlik doesn't put on any weight.

But you brought up some additional names. A few wins over an extremely green Sam McVea - not impressed. Had a bunch of fights against Joe Jeannette, but in none of those fights did Joe have over 10 fights worth of experience - not impressed. A fight with an aging, battleworn Young Peter Jackson, who was 1-4-1 in the 6 fights leading up to Johnson - not impressed. And lastly, Denver Ed Martin, who was a pretty good win the first time (though slightly green,) 1-3-1 in his last 5 fights in the rematch - slightly impressed.

Overall, I just don't see it. The more I look, the more he slides on my list, which I'm thankful of your permission to keep BTW.

There's more to rating fighters than just resume: Resume's only one piece of the equation.

Poet

Jim Jeffries
03-19-2010, 02:17 AM
There's more to rating fighters than just resume: Resume's only one piece of the equation.

Poet

I agree, which is why Jack Dempsey was rated the #1 greatest HW back in the 50s. He turned people on to the sport and his fights were exciting.

I'm just missing why Johnson is getting rated so high. He wasn't exciting, his fights make John Ruiz look like Mike Tyson. And he seems to have been more myth than substance.

But hey, that's why I'm here, to learn from people more knowledgeable than me and in turn share whatever insight I may have.

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 02:27 AM
I agree, which is why Jack Dempsey was rated the #1 greatest HW back in the 50s. He turned people on to the sport and his fights were exciting.

I'm just missing why Johnson is getting rated so high. He wasn't exciting, his fights make John Ruiz look like Mike Tyson. And he seems to have been more myth than substance.

But hey, that's why I'm here, to learn from people more knowledgeable than me and in turn share whatever insight I may have.

My standard is ability tempered by resume. Namely, you get more credit for displaying those abilities against better fighters.

The problem that you run into watching Johnson is that the styles used back then were developed under the old London Ring Rules and it took some time to adjust to the new Queensbury rules. Under the old rules there was a LOT more wrestling involved and it really wasn't until the 1920s that boxing shook off those vestiges of the old style.

Poet

Jim Jeffries
03-19-2010, 02:56 AM
My standard is ability tempered by resume. Namely, you get more credit for displaying those abilities against better fighters.

The problem that you run into watching Johnson is that the styles used back then were developed under the old London Ring Rules and it took some time to adjust to the new Queensbury rules. Under the old rules there was a LOT more wrestling involved and it really wasn't until the 1920s that boxing shook off those vestiges of the old style.

Poet

Fair enough. But I can only judge how good those abilities were by the quality of the opponents he beat and who beat him. If forgive him the knockout losses early in his career, but losing to Marvin Hart in his prime and never avenging that loss knocks him down a notch. I still need a defining win over a prime, great fighter before I can rank him anywhere near where a lot of other people seem to.

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 09:55 AM
I thought you were going to dispute something I posted.

Johnson had a decent resume before winning the title, but his defenses of that title were horrendous. Hype the Jeffries win all you want, but the fact that he hadn't fought in 6 years and had to lose 80 pounds cannot be denied. As for Ketchel, I'm not likely to give Wladimir Klitchko any credit for beating Kelly Pavlik either, especially if Pavlik doesn't put on any weight.

But you brought up some additional names. A few wins over an extremely green Sam McVea - not impressed. Had a bunch of fights against Joe Jeannette, but in none of those fights did Joe have over 10 fights worth of experience - not impressed. A fight with an aging, battleworn Young Peter Jackson, who was 1-4-1 in the 6 fights leading up to Johnson - not impressed. And lastly, Denver Ed Martin, who was a pretty good win the first time (though slightly green,) 1-3-1 in his last 5 fights in the rematch - slightly impressed. Plus you failed to mention that LHW George Gardner weighed only 155 lbs at the time and had lost 2 of his last 5 fights - not impressed.

Overall, I just don't see it. The more I look, the more he slides on my list, which I'm thankful of your permission to keep BTW.

Tell me which other fighters he should've fought, then.

mickey malone
03-19-2010, 10:36 AM
I used to have him around the middle of my top 10, like most people. But I've been struggling to find his defining win.

An inactive 44 year old Bob Fitzsimmons - nope
Jim Jeffries after 6 years without a fight - nope
A 5'7", 168 pound Tommy Burns - nope
Middleweight Stanley Ketchel - nope
A young 156 pound Sam Langford (who he ducked along with every other great black fighter when Johnson was champ) - nope

Losing to Marvin Hart while in his prime hurts him.
Getting knocked out twice early in his career, I don't hold too much against him.

Almost 6 1/2 years as champ sounds great, till you look at the quality of the 8 total title defenses (even little Tommy Burns had 10 defenses of similar quality, no one mentions him in any top 10 ATG HW list.)

Sorry, I still have him at the bottom of my top 10, but the more I look, the further he drops.
Co-signed..

He doesn't make my top 10 for all the reasons you've mentioned..

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 10:56 AM
Fair enough. But I can only judge how good those abilities were by the quality of the opponents he beat and who beat him. If forgive him the knockout losses early in his career, but losing to Marvin Hart in his prime and never avenging that loss knocks him down a notch. I still need a defining win over a prime, great fighter before I can rank him anywhere near where a lot of other people seem to.

Not every fighter gets the opportunity for a career "defining win". What was Marciano's? What was Lennox's? It just doesn't always happen.

Poet

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 11:01 AM
Not every fighter gets the opportunity for a career "defining win". What was Marciano's? What was Lennox's? It just doesn't always happen.

Poet

Yet, you bash Wladimir's career.. lol.

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 11:07 AM
Yet, you bash Wladimir's career.. lol.

I'm not critical of Wlad because of a lack of a career defining win. You should actually READ what's being discussed before you open your pie-hole.

Poet

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 11:10 AM
I'm not critical of Wlad because of a lack of a career defining win. You should actually READ what's being discussed before you open your pie-hole.

Poet

Why are you ctitical of him, then?

For losing fights by knockouts? Like when a prime Louis got knocked out by an old, past-prime Schmeling?

For fighting in a weak era? Much like Louis, with his "Bum Of The Month Club" members.

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 11:22 AM
Why are you ctitical of him, then?

For his lack of chin, lack of stamina, low work-rate, lack of toughness, lack of wins over any fighter with a pulse that didn't look like the Pillsbury Dough-Boy ect.


For losing fights by knockouts? Like when a prime Louis got knocked out by an old, past-prime Schmeling?

Schmeling was hardly old and it's even arguable that he was still prime when they fought. At WORST he was slightly past-prime. Past-prime Schmeling > Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster combined.


For fighting in a weak era? Much like Louis, with his "Bum Of The Month Club" members.

Try for fighting in the absolute WORST Heavyweight era ever. As opposed the rather average era Louis fought in. I can only suppose you're congenitally ignorant of boxing prior to your own lifetime.

Poet

EzzardFan
03-19-2010, 11:31 AM
but losing to Marvin Hart in his prime and never avenging that loss knocks him down a notch.

As already stated... by all accounts at the end of that contest Hart looked like he's been hit by a train, and Johnson was unscathed and had barely broken sweat. Judging was less than fair back then. Had Johnson 'won' he'd probably have been lynched anyway so it's academic.

The_Demon
03-19-2010, 11:37 AM
top 15 imo

Jim Jeffries
03-19-2010, 11:42 AM
As already stated... by all accounts at the end of that contest Hart looked like he's been hit by a train, and Johnson was unscathed and had barely broken sweat. Judging was less than fair back then. Had Johnson 'won' he'd probably have been lynched anyway so it's academic.

Clottey looked unscathed and had barely broken a sweat against Pacquiao (whose face was swollen and marked) last week, but you'd have to be pretty generous to give him more than a round. Perhaps if Josh or Jack had tried harder, they'd have gotten the win.

Johnson wasn't lynched for the other white fighters he beat (or white women he dated,) so your "probably" doesn't hold any weight at all. Just more revisionist history.

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 12:03 PM
For his lack of chin, lack of stamina, low work-rate, lack of toughness, lack of wins over any fighter with a pulse that didn't look like the Pillsbury Dough-Boy ect.
Lack of a chin? Much like Louis, right?

He doesn't have a lack of stamina or toughness.

Since when does a fighter's work-rate decide whether or not he's a great fighter?

And I would say that Wladimir's opponents seem to look in much better condition than the average looking Joe's that Louis fought.

Schmeling was hardly old and it's even arguable that he was still prime when they fought. At WORST he was slightly past-prime. Past-prime Schmeling > Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster combined.

Schmeling was past his prime. And no one is saying that Wladimir is better than Louis.

Try for fighting in the absolute WORST Heavyweight era ever. As opposed the rather average era Louis fought in. I can only suppose you're congenitally ignorant of boxing prior to your own lifetime.

Louis' era was far from average. In terms of physical condition, this era is better than Louis'.

crold1
03-19-2010, 12:09 PM
Clottey looked unscathed and had barely broken a sweat against Pacquiao (whose face was swollen and marked) last week, but you'd have to be pretty generous to give him more than a round. Perhaps if Josh or Jack had tried harder, they'd have gotten the win.

Johnson wasn't lynched for the other white fighters he beat (or white women he dated,) so your "probably" doesn't hold any weight at all. Just more revisionist history.

A thread at CBZ covered this a while back with some links back to news coverage of the times which HEAVILY FAVORED an easy Johnson win: http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum/showthread.php?t=6705

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 12:15 PM
Lack of a chin? Much like Louis, right?

Louis didn't gety KTFO by Ross Fvcking Purrity.


He doesn't have a lack of stamina or toughness.


Yes he does. Guess you didn't watch the first Brewster fight huh? You know, the one where Wlad gassed?


Since when does a fighter's work-rate decide whether or not he's a great fighter?

Maybe since one actually has to SCORE to win fights? Fighters lose all the time because they get out-worked by opponents.


Schmeling was past his prime. And no one is saying that Wladimir is better than Louis.

Then don't bring Louis up in the first place.


And I would say that Wladimir's opponents seem to look in much better condition than the average looking Joe's that Louis fought.

Louis' era was far from average. In terms of physical condition, this era is better than Louis'.

Guess you haven't been watching Heavyweight boxing since you're trying to pass off the obese tubs of goo that qualify as "Heavyweight Contenders" these days as being in "superior condition" to those of the 40s. Go Google a photo of Buddy Baer and compare his physique to that of Lamon Brewster......'nuff said.

Poet

T.Horton
03-19-2010, 12:24 PM
Enlighten me please, oh wise one. And by all means, dispute anything I posted.


How do people penalize Jack Dempsey for not fighting black fighters and give Jack Johson, who avoided them like the plague for the 6 1/2 years he was champ, a free pass?

Johnson was the complete antithesis of a great American like Joe Louis. To have JJ as a top 3 ATG HW must surely be a joke.this topic seems to make you far too emotional.

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 12:50 PM
Louis didn't gety KTFO by Ross Fvcking Purrity.

Wladimir didn't get knocked down against Galento.

Yes he does. Guess you didn't watch the first Brewster fight huh? You know, the one where Wlad gassed?

What about in his recent fights? Any signs of stamina problems? Didn't think so.

Maybe since one actually has to SCORE to win fights? Fighters lose all the time because they get out-worked by opponents.

Except Wladimir keeps his opponents at bay. He's also the one that lands more punches, between him and his opponents.

Then don't bring Louis up in the first place.

Then don't try and discredit Wladimir for fighting in a weak era, when Louis did too. Don't try and discredit Wladimir for not having a great chin, when Louis didn't have one, as well.

Guess you haven't been watching Heavyweight boxing since you're trying to pass off the obese tubs of goo that qualify as "Heavyweight Contenders" these days as being in "superior condition" to those of the 40s. Go Google a photo of Buddy Baer and compare his physique to that of Lamon Brewster......'nuff said.[/QUOTE]

You're comparing his physical condition:

http://www.convictedartistmagazine.com/images/stories/lamon_brewster_boxing_01.jpg

To his:

http://static.boxrec.com/wiki/6/61/Baer.Buddy.1940.jpg

???

Wow. No more discussions, with you. You clearly haven't grasped the concept of reality.

Jim Jeffries
03-19-2010, 12:57 PM
this topic seems to make you far too emotional.

Not in the slightest.

You're a guy who has him at 3. Maybe you could give me some insight as to why? Because try as I might, I just don't see it. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm just here to educate myself from those more knowledgeable on the subject.

Instead I keep getting attacked. Even worse, by people that so far have contributed zero to this thread, like yourself.

Calilloyd
03-19-2010, 02:15 PM
Clottey looked unscathed and had barely broken a sweat against Pacquiao (whose face was swollen and marked) last week, but you'd have to be pretty generous to give him more than a round. Perhaps if Josh or Jack had tried harder, they'd have gotten the win.

Johnson wasn't lynched for the other white fighters he beat (or white women he dated,) so your "probably" doesn't hold any weight at all. Just more revisionist history.

No, he was just run out of the country by the bogus "mann act". More revisionist ignorance from you. But I don't expect much from a guy who still calls Muhammad Ali "Clay".

Calilloyd
03-19-2010, 02:21 PM
Enlighten me please, oh wise one. And by all means, dispute anything I posted.


How do people penalize Jack Dempsey for not fighting black fighters and give Jack Johson, who avoided them like the plague for the 6 1/2 years he was champ, a free pass?

Johnson was the complete antithesis of a great American like Joe Louis. To have JJ as a top 3 ATG HW must surely be a joke.

Your agenda is clear. Joe Louis was a "great American" but Johnson wasn't? Pleae explain. I would love to see you dig a hole for yourself here lol.

Jim Jeffries
03-19-2010, 02:34 PM
No, he was just run out of the country by the bogus "mann act". More revisionist ignorance from you. But I don't expect much from a guy who still calls Muhammad Ali "Clay".

That's not exactly lynching, now is it?

I don't call Ali Clay, I just don't think a guy deserved to be almost blinded for doing so.

Your agenda is clear. Joe Louis was a "great American" but Johnson wasn't? Pleae explain. I would love to see you dig a hole for yourself here lol.

Simple. Louis undid the decades of damage that Johnson did for black fighters in the sport. Johnson went out of his way to make whites hate him and provoke racism. Louis had more white fans than black.

Are you seriously comparing their impact on the sport?

If your intention is to continue to flame me, take it to the Dome.

Southpaw16BF
03-19-2010, 02:38 PM
Very Highly
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/johnson.html

Calilloyd
03-19-2010, 02:44 PM
That's not exactly lynching, now is it?

I don't call Ali Clay, I just don't think a guy deserved to be almost blinded for doing so.



Simple. Louis undid the decades of damage that Johnson did for black fighters in the sport. Johnson went out of his way to make whites hate him and provoke racism. Louis had more white fans than black.


Are you seriously comparing their impact on the sport?

If your intention is to continue to flame me, take it to the Dome.

Oh I see. Getting run out of the country on bogus charges was ok because he wasn't "lynched". Johnson "made" whites hate him. It was Johnson's fault that racist people hated him for living as he pleased? It was Johnson's fault that black fighters were shut out from title shots? Joe Louis was a hero to the black community so I don't know what your implication there is. Also, Joe Louis lived during the era of segregation. So your theory that "everybody loved Louis and everything was great" shows how stupid you really are. Even more so than I thought. And you still haven't explained what made Jack Johnson less "American" than Louis? Also, your evaluation of Johnson's boxing career shows you don't know much about boxing history either. Johnson fought of the black fighters you claim he "ducked" when he held the "black heavyweight championship". When Johnson won the world heavyweight championship, it was pretty clear that a fight between a black fighter and a white fighter would generate far more money than a fight between two black fighters. And yes I do compare their "impact" on the sport. Johnson's impact on the sport was huge. Too bad that you're too ignorant to realize that. I'll debate you in here. I don't go to the "dome"

crold1
03-19-2010, 04:38 PM
Wladimir didn't get knocked down against Galento.


No, he just had to come off the floor to beat Steve Pannell.

crold1
03-19-2010, 04:40 PM
Oh I see. Getting run out of the country on bogus charges was ok because he wasn't "lynched". Johnson "made" whites hate him. It was Johnson's fault that racist people hated him for living as he pleased? It was Johnson's fault that black fighters were shut out from title shots? Joe Louis was a hero to the black community so I don't know what your implication there is. Also, Joe Louis lived during the era of segregation. So your theory that "everybody loved Louis and everything was great" shows how stupid you really are. Even more so than I thought. And you still haven't explained what made Jack Johnson less "American" than Louis? Also, your evaluation of Johnson's boxing career shows you don't know much about boxing history either. Johnson fought of the black fighters you claim he "ducked" when he held the "black heavyweight championship". When Johnson won the world heavyweight championship, it was pretty clear that a fight between a black fighter and a white fighter would generate far more money than a fight between two black fighters. And yes I do compare their "impact" on the sport. Johnson's impact on the sport was huge. Too bad that you're too ignorant to realize that. I'll debate you in here. I don't go to the "dome"

Johnson regularly beat wives/women so bad they were laid up in hospitals. That's all I need to know to see him as both a worthwhile public symbol against a social evil and a worthless prick as a human being.

Calilloyd
03-19-2010, 04:57 PM
Johnson regularly beat wives/women so bad they were laid up in hospitals. That's all I need to know to see him as both a worthwhile public symbol against a social evil and a worthless prick as a human being.

So did Jake Lamotta. But are we talking about boxing or Nobel peace prize nominees?

Chief2ndzOnly!
03-19-2010, 05:06 PM
I thought you were going to dispute something I posted.

Johnson had a decent resume before winning the title, but his defenses of that title were horrendous. Hype the Jeffries win all you want, but the fact that he hadn't fought in 6 years and had to lose 80 pounds cannot be denied. As for Ketchel, I'm not likely to give Wladimir Klitchko any credit for beating Kelly Pavlik either, especially if Pavlik doesn't put on any weight.

But you brought up some additional names. A few wins over an extremely green Sam McVea - not impressed. Had a bunch of fights against Joe Jeannette, but in none of those fights did Joe have over 10 fights worth of experience - not impressed. A fight with an aging, battleworn Young Peter Jackson, who was 1-4-1 in the 6 fights leading up to Johnson - not impressed. And lastly, Denver Ed Martin, who was a pretty good win the first time (though slightly green,) 1-3-1 in his last 5 fights in the rematch - slightly impressed. Plus you failed to mention that LHW George Gardner weighed only 155 lbs at the time and had lost 2 of his last 5 fights - not impressed.

Overall, I just don't see it. The more I look, the more he slides on my list, which I'm thankful of your permission to keep BTW.

There is so much to comment on with your view of these fighters that I dont know where to begin.

If you consider the Denver Ed bouts to be "pretty good" then I probably shouldn't bother typing because I'm not sure HOW familiar you are with him and other pugilists like Sam Langford, Sam Mcvea, Joe Jeanette, Frank Childs, and Klon***e Haines.

As for Denver Ed being "green" I dont buy that in the least bit; he was already the HW "colored" champ by the time he met Jack Johnson(Denver Ed had beaten Frank Childs by then)so your excuse for Ed being "green" is useless there. Young Peter Jackson was not battle worn as you suggest, as he in his very next fight after his loss to Jack; went on to beat Sam Langford by TKO(who he lost to twice before Jack).

As for the 1st Joe Jeanette fight; you do realize that Jack Johnson fought TWO men that day, and KO'd Walter Johnson after going the distance with Joe Jeanette(name me another HW who had a better day at the office.......I'll be waiting for your reply).

On to Sam McVea. I'll give you that Sam was fairly "green" in the 1st fight but not the 2nd or 3rd, as he had KO'd Denver Ed one month before Jack decisioned him again(for 20 rds no less).

Marvin Hart was no push over as he won the vacant HW title that Jefferies left behind. And many felt that Jack Johnson was robbed in that fight. If you want to talk about a valid loss talk about the Joe Choynski fight(as I'm sure you know who he is and what he is remembered for(1st LHW among some of his accomplishments). These are just some points if you like I can go on all day about Jack Johnson, but I'd like you to take these facts of Jack that I've posted into consideration, and once you've thought them over please do respond. I'll come back to this thread to check to see what you have to say potna.

Calilloyd
03-19-2010, 05:14 PM
There is so much to comment on with your view of these fighters that I dont know where to begin.

If you consider the Denver Ed bouts to be "pretty good" then I probably shouldn't bother typing because I'm not sure HOW familiar you are with him and other pugilists like Sam Langford, Sam Mcvea, Joe Jeanette, Frank Childs, and Klon***e Haines.

As for Denver Ed being "green" I dont buy that in the least bit; he was already the HW "colored" champ by the time he met Jack Johnson(Denver Ed had beaten Frank Childs by then)so your excuse for Ed being "green" is useless there. Young Peter Jackson was not battle worn as you suggest, as he in his very next fight after his loss to Jack; went on to beat Sam Langford by TKO(who he lost to twice before Jack).

As for the 1st Joe Jeanette fight; you do realize that Jack Johnson fought TWO men that day, and KO'd Walter Johnson after going the distance with Joe Jeanette(name me another HW who had a better day at the office.......I'll be waiting for your reply).

On to Sam McVea. I'll give you that Sam was fairly "green" in the 1st fight but not the 2nd or 3rd, as he had KO'd Denver Ed one month before Jack decisioned him again(for 20 rds no less).

Marvin Hart was no push over as he won the vacant HW title that Jefferies left behind. And many felt that Jack Johnson was robbed in that fight. If you want to talk about a valid loss talk about the Joe Choynski fight(as I'm sure you know who he is and what he is remembered for(1st LHW among some of his accomplishments). These are just some points if you like I can go on all day about Jack Johnson, but I'd like you to take these facts of Jack that I've posted into consideration, and once you've thought them over please do respond. I'll come back to this thread to check to see what you have to say potna.

Nice response. The poster you are responding to doesn't bother to truly check a fighters history. He googles their records and weights from boxrec.com and types a story based on that. He knows absolutely nothing about Johnson's opponents other than the records and weights he sees..

Chief2ndzOnly!
03-19-2010, 11:35 PM
Nice response. The poster you are responding to doesn't bother to truly check a fighters history. He googles their records and weights from boxrec.com and types a story based on that. He knows absolutely nothing about Johnson's opponents other than the records and weights he sees..

Thanks potna. I kinda figured that from looking at his previous posts. The post that you have of his in your sig shows me that the is not taking the atmosphere of the times in that particular era into consideration. No other fighter would have been able to shoulder the burdens that Jack Johnson placed on his shoulders at the time. Otherwise they would have chased Tommy Burns around the world(literally) and got up the $30,000 fee that Tommy demanded in order to even consider the fight like Jack did. Oh and Tommy DID beat Marvin Hart in the ring to gain the HW title. And Jack beat Tommy so bad the police stopped the fight and the film crew from filming Jack finishing Tommy off. I'm still gonna check for Hank to show up on the thread cause I really would like to debate with him about MY ATG HW Jack Johnson. He might not be high on everybody elses list but he's head and shoulders above Joe Louis on mine.

Chief2ndzOnly!
03-19-2010, 11:43 PM
So did Jake Lamotta. But are we talking about boxing or Nobel peace prize nominees?

Good response Calilloyd. There are plenty of Boxers who were guilty of domestic violence from back then to this very day. And I agree with you. I dont think it's my place to decide if a Boxer should be canonized as a Saint at home, but it is my place as a fan to comment on a Boxers actions in and around the ring.

Chief2ndzOnly!
03-20-2010, 12:43 AM
Clottey looked unscathed and had barely broken a sweat against Pacquiao (whose face was swollen and marked) last week, but you'd have to be pretty generous to give him more than a round. Perhaps if Josh or Jack had tried harder, they'd have gotten the win.

Johnson wasn't lynched for the other white fighters he beat (or white women he dated,) so your "probably" doesn't hold any weight at all. Just more revisionist history.

No they didn't lynch Jack; they just made up a law for him(Mann Act).

Chief2ndzOnly!
03-20-2010, 01:57 AM
That's not exactly lynching, now is it?

I don't call Ali Clay, I just don't think a guy deserved to be almost blinded for doing so.



Simple. Louis undid the decades of damage that Johnson did for black fighters in the sport. Johnson went out of his way to make whites hate him and provoke racism. Louis had more white fans than black.

Are you seriously comparing their impact on the sport?

If your intention is to continue to flame me, take it to the Dome.

Please explain. What damage did Jack do? And what damage did Joe fix?

Ziggy Stardust
03-20-2010, 10:37 AM
You're comparing his physical condition:

I think this is the pic he was looking for:
http://i.wp.pl/a/f/pjpeg/8472/golota_brewster17_384.jpg

He's got moobies! 'Nuff said :D

Poet

gran campeon
03-20-2010, 05:24 PM
Johnson regularly beat wives/women so bad they were laid up in hospitals. That's all I need to know to see him as both a worthwhile public symbol against a social evil and a worthless prick as a human being.

its ok, they were prostitutes....i guess joe louis ray robinson monzon tyson etc arent legends either....

razzledaz 38
03-21-2010, 01:51 PM
he was great in his time but would be out worked against any decent modern heavyweight

T.Horton
03-24-2010, 10:45 AM
There is so much to comment on with your view of these fighters that I dont know where to begin.

If you consider the Denver Ed bouts to be "pretty good" then I probably shouldn't bother typing because I'm not sure HOW familiar you are with him and other pugilists like Sam Langford, Sam Mcvea, Joe Jeanette, Frank Childs, and Klon***e Haines.

As for Denver Ed being "green" I dont buy that in the least bit; he was already the HW "colored" champ by the time he met Jack Johnson(Denver Ed had beaten Frank Childs by then)so your excuse for Ed being "green" is useless there. Young Peter Jackson was not battle worn as you suggest, as he in his very next fight after his loss to Jack; went on to beat Sam Langford by TKO(who he lost to twice before Jack).

As for the 1st Joe Jeanette fight; you do realize that Jack Johnson fought TWO men that day, and KO'd Walter Johnson after going the distance with Joe Jeanette(name me another HW who had a better day at the office.......I'll be waiting for your reply).

On to Sam McVea. I'll give you that Sam was fairly "green" in the 1st fight but not the 2nd or 3rd, as he had KO'd Denver Ed one month before Jack decisioned him again(for 20 rds no less).

Marvin Hart was no push over as he won the vacant HW title that Jefferies left behind. And many felt that Jack Johnson was robbed in that fight. If you want to talk about a valid loss talk about the Joe Choynski fight(as I'm sure you know who he is and what he is remembered for(1st LHW among some of his accomplishments). These are just some points if you like I can go on all day about Jack Johnson, but I'd like you to take these facts of Jack that I've posted into consideration, and once you've thought them over please do respond. I'll come back to this thread to check to see what you have to say potna.oh my! green k.

T.Horton
03-24-2010, 10:48 AM
No they didn't lynch Jack; they just made up a law for him(Mann Act).Technically the Mann Act was in place Johnson, I am not sure if Johnson was the first person charged with it.

great debate though.

T.Horton
03-24-2010, 10:52 AM
Not in the slightest.

You're a guy who has him at 3. Maybe you could give me some insight as to why? Because try as I might, I just don't see it. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm just here to educate myself from those more knowledgeable on the subject.

Instead I keep getting attacked. Even worse, by people that so far have contributed zero to this thread, like yourself.if you're saying that i attacked you then i was in fact correct - you are too emotional.

Telepath
03-24-2010, 02:33 PM
A thread at CBZ covered this a while back with some links back to news coverage of the times which HEAVILY FAVORED an easy Johnson win: http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum/showthread.php?t=6705So, Hank, are you going to conveniently ignore this response from a person who actually knows what he's talking about, or are you going to man up and confess you're full of ****?

oaklandstephen
03-25-2010, 05:33 AM
Nat Fliescher said,"Johnson was the greatest of all times"

he lied ............

EzzardFan
03-25-2010, 07:03 AM
And Jack beat Tommy so bad the police stopped the fight and the film crew from filming Jack finishing Tommy off.

I'm with you here. I too think JJ was in the top three and perhaps at number one spot.

If you watch the video f the Burns fight, every time Tommy passes out Jack clinches with him and holds him up until he comes round again, just so that he can resume the punishment.

Chief2ndzOnly!
03-26-2010, 01:28 PM
Technically the Mann Act was in place Johnson, I am not sure if Johnson was the first person charged with it.

great debate though.

Whats goin on Tim my man? The Mann act was brought into existance in 1910. Johnson won the HW title in 1908. They made that law up just for him, as he ruffled the alot of feathers when he got off the boat in British Columbia(if I'm not mistaken....I'm going off of memory, no google.lol.) with a white woman in arm. He was refused a room in all of BC, because of this and it cascaded down hill from there. But to confirm your suspicions; Yes Jack Johnson is the 1st to be prosecuted tried and convicted of the Mann act, thanks to the testimony of Belle, who had no problem traveling to see Jack when he was in or out of state.

Chief2ndzOnly!
03-26-2010, 01:30 PM
I'm with you here. I too think JJ was in the top three and perhaps at number one spot.

If you watch the video f the Burns fight, every time Tommy passes out Jack clinches with him and holds him up until he comes round again, just so that he can resume the punishment.

I love that fight!!!!!!! It's a shame they cut the cameras off before he finished Tommy off.

Jim Jeffries
03-26-2010, 02:02 PM
if you're saying that i attacked you then i was in fact correct - you are too emotional.

I'm here to discuss boxing, not to be flamed. Period, end of story. Have you yet any insight into this thread, or is it all about me?

A thread at CBZ covered this a while back with some links back to news coverage of the times which HEAVILY FAVORED an easy Johnson win: http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum/showthread.php?t=6705

Fair enough, but from that same thread.

The Police Gazette made the interesting observation that the fight should cost both men a shot at Jim Jeffries: Hart because he looked so bad winning, and Johnson because his effort was so lackadaisicle.

"Prior to last night there were two men who were considered eligible to be pitted against Champion Jeffries, but when the smoke of battle had cleared away after twenty rounds of mediocre fighting, it was the unanimous opinion of the spectators that neither Marvin Hart, who was declared the winner, nor Jack Johnson would have a look in with the big boilermaker.

"There is no doubt that Jeff could take the two men on the same evening, fighting each man alternate rounds, and put them both away inside ten rounds. . ." (Chicago Tribune, 3/30/1905 p. 6.)



And by all accounts, Hart was the aggressor the whole night and Johnson did absolutely nothing for at least the last 3 rounds. Leading to the comparison of the Tito/Oscar fight.


Can anyone give me Johnson's top 5 wins?

Calilloyd
03-26-2010, 04:38 PM
I'm here to discuss boxing, not to be flamed. Period, end of story. Have you yet any insight into this thread, or is it all about me?



Fair enough, but from that same thread.

The Police Gazette made the interesting observation that the fight should cost both men a shot at Jim Jeffries: Hart because he looked so bad winning, and Johnson because his effort was so lackadaisicle.

"Prior to last night there were two men who were considered eligible to be pitted against Champion Jeffries, but when the smoke of battle had cleared away after twenty rounds of mediocre fighting, it was the unanimous opinion of the spectators that neither Marvin Hart, who was declared the winner, nor Jack Johnson would have a look in with the big boilermaker.

"There is no doubt that Jeff could take the two men on the same evening, fighting each man alternate rounds, and put them both away inside ten rounds. . ." (Chicago Tribune, 3/30/1905 p. 6.)



And by all accounts, Hart was the aggressor the whole night and Johnson did absolutely nothing for at least the last 3 rounds. Leading to the comparison of the Tito/Oscar fight.


Can anyone give me Johnson's top 5 wins?

Are you going to change the subject? Or can you answer the question directed towards your original uniformed comments on this subject? I didn't think so.

Jim Jeffries
03-26-2010, 04:49 PM
Are you going to change the subject? Or can you answer the question directed towards your original uniformed comments on this subject? I didn't think so.

Give me Johnson's 5 greatest wins, or do you not have a clue?

Calilloyd
03-26-2010, 06:29 PM
Give me Johnson's 5 greatest wins, or do you not have a clue?

I already know. You're the one that doesn't have a clue and most people in this thread can see that. And it's already been pointed out. All you've done is run away from the questions regarding your comments and hide behind the "I don't want to flame" excuse. You have something to prove, not me.

Jim Jeffries
03-26-2010, 08:13 PM
I already know. You're the one that doesn't have a clue and most people in this thread can see that. And it's already been pointed out. All you've done is run away from the questions regarding your comments and hide behind the "I don't want to flame" excuse. You have something to prove, not me.

Who would you like me to respond to? The guy who was banned, or the one spamming this thread with stuff like this:


Top of the FOOD CHAIN bruh. To me he's the best HW to walk the earth. Thanks for the thread mayne.

What were his top 5 wins? I'll give you a chance to browse Boxrec.

Calilloyd
03-27-2010, 12:33 AM
Who would you like me to respond to? The guy who was banned, or the one spamming this thread with stuff like this:




What were his top 5 wins? I'll give you a chance to browse Boxrec.

Boxrec is your source,not mine. I don't need to look up something I already know. Your question is irrelevant and has no relation to your false statements earlier. Why did you lie about Denver Ed being "green" when he fought Johnson? Why do you overlook the talents of fighters like Sam Langford, Sam Mcvea, Joe Jeanette, Frank Childs, and Klon***e Haines? All fighters that Johnson beat. Why make statements about something you obviously know nothing about? why did you leave out that Johnson dominated fireman Jim Flynn? A man that not only beat Jack Dempsey, but knocked him cold? Why do you speak on things you know nothing about? That's not even half of what I can throw at you. But considering that you still have not come up with an answer for your earlier false statements, I wont overwhelm you. Boxrec.com won't help you with this so don't even bother. I'll let you read and think about it.



THE CHAMPIONS REPORT ON THEIR BIGGEST MOMENTS


Jack Johnson Cuts Down Jim Jeffries (1910)


Jeffries gamely hung on and, in the 11th, sent a flurry of blows to Johnson's body, bringing the crowd to its feet. But Johnson just kept on smiling. It ended in the 15th, with the black man sending Jeffries to the canvas time and again. Corbett was now pleading with Johnson to stop. "Don't let the Negro knock him out!" screamed the crowd. Jeffries got up again, and Johnson put him back down. A towel was thrown into the ring from Jeffries's corner, but Rickard didn't see it. When one of Jeffries's seconds illegally stepped into the ring, Rickard stopped the count at seven and raised Johnson's arm in victory. Jeffries had at least been spared the crowning shame of being counted out.


As I Saw It


Johnson's first words after the fight were "I could have fought for two hours longer. It was easy. Where is my lucky bathrobe? Somebody wire to my mother. I wish it was longer. I was having lots of fun. Not one blow hurt me. He can't hit."


Later he would be more gracious. "One thing I must give Jeffries credit for is the game battle he made. He came back at me with the heart of a true fighter. No man can say he did not do his best. I believe we both fought fairly. There was nothing said between us which was rough. He joked me and I joked him. I told him I knew he was a bear, but I was a gorilla and would defeat him."


Jeffries, while still in the ring, his bruised face being attended to by his physician, bowed his head in his hands and groaned, "I was too old to come back."


After returning to his training camp, Jeffries said, "I guess it's all my own fault. I was getting along nicely and living peacefully on my alfalfa farm, but when they started calling for me and mentioning me as 'the white man's hope,' I guess my pride got the better of my good judgment. . . .Six years ago the result would have been different, but now--well, I guess the public will let me alone after this."


Yet, despite the sports-page theorizing about what he might have done to Johnson when he was still in his prime, Jeffries would later admit, "I could never have whipped Jack Johnson at my best. I couldn't have hit him. No, I couldn't have reached him in a thousand years."


Still later, when Jeffries was informed that the $192,066 he made on the fight was far more than he'd ever earned previously, he would say that the beating he took was not worth it.

Jim Jeffries
03-27-2010, 12:42 AM
Boxrec is your source,not mine. I don't need to look up something I already know. Your question is irrelevant and has no relation to your false statements earlier. Why did you lie about Denver Ed being "green" when he fought Johnson? Why do you overlook the talents of fighters like Sam Langford, Sam Mcvea, Joe Jeanette, Frank Childs, and Klon***e Haines? All fighters that Johnson beat. Why make statements about something you obviously know nothing about? why did you leave out that Johnson dominated fireman Jim Flynn? A man that not only beat Jack Dempsey, but knocked him cold? Why do you speak on things you know nothing about? That's not even half of what I can throw at you. But considering that you still have not come up with an answer for your earlier false statements, I wont overwhelm you. Boxrec.com won't help you with this so don't even bother. I'll let you read and think about it.



THE CHAMPIONS REPORT ON THEIR BIGGEST MOMENTS


Jack Johnson Cuts Down Jim Jeffries (1910)


Jeffries gamely hung on and, in the 11th, sent a flurry of blows to Johnson's body, bringing the crowd to its feet. But Johnson just kept on smiling. It ended in the 15th, with the black man sending Jeffries to the canvas time and again. Corbett was now pleading with Johnson to stop. "Don't let the Negro knock him out!" screamed the crowd. Jeffries got up again, and Johnson put him back down. A towel was thrown into the ring from Jeffries's corner, but Rickard didn't see it. When one of Jeffries's seconds illegally stepped into the ring, Rickard stopped the count at seven and raised Johnson's arm in victory. Jeffries had at least been spared the crowning shame of being counted out.


As I Saw It


Johnson's first words after the fight were "I could have fought for two hours longer. It was easy. Where is my lucky bathrobe? Somebody wire to my mother. I wish it was longer. I was having lots of fun. Not one blow hurt me. He can't hit."


Later he would be more gracious. "One thing I must give Jeffries credit for is the game battle he made. He came back at me with the heart of a true fighter. No man can say he did not do his best. I believe we both fought fairly. There was nothing said between us which was rough. He joked me and I joked him. I told him I knew he was a bear, but I was a gorilla and would defeat him."


Jeffries, while still in the ring, his bruised face being attended to by his physician, bowed his head in his hands and groaned, "I was too old to come back."


After returning to his training camp, Jeffries said, "I guess it's all my own fault. I was getting along nicely and living peacefully on my alfalfa farm, but when they started calling for me and mentioning me as 'the white man's hope,' I guess my pride got the better of my good judgment. . . .Six years ago the result would have been different, but now--well, I guess the public will let me alone after this."


Yet, despite the sports-page theorizing about what he might have done to Johnson when he was still in his prime, Jeffries would later admit, "I could never have whipped Jack Johnson at my best. I couldn't have hit him. No, I couldn't have reached him in a thousand years."


Still later, when Jeffries was informed that the $192,066 he made on the fight was far more than he'd ever earned previously, he would say that the beating he took was not worth it.

I pointed out the inexperience of most of those fighters at the time they faced Johnson.

What is the rest of this copy/paste nonsense that you didn't even provide a link to?

Top 5 wins and please don't say a Jim Jeffries that hadn't fought in SIX YEARS.


How many complete Johnson fights have you seen BTW?

Calilloyd
03-27-2010, 02:33 AM
I pointed out the inexperience of most of those fighters at the time they faced Johnson.

What is the rest of this copy/paste nonsense that you didn't even provide a link to?
Top 5 wins and please don't say a Jim Jeffries that hadn't fought in SIX YEARS.


How many complete Johnson fights have you seen BTW?

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/boxing-history-jack-johnson-beats-jim-jeffries-in-their-own-words-part-2.htm


There is your link. What other excuses are you going to come up with now? You said Denver Ed was "green" when Johnson fought him which was a flat out lie and was proven as such. You also completely ignored the list of fighters I gave you. Still grasping at straws I see lol.

Jim Jeffries
03-27-2010, 02:36 AM
http://www.trivia-library.com/b/boxing-history-jack-johnson-beats-jim-jeffries-in-their-own-words-part-2.htm


There is your link. What other excuses are you going to come up with now? You said Denver Ed was "green" when Johnson fought him which was a flat out lie and was proven as such. You also completely ignored the list of fighters I gave you. Still grasping at straws I see lol.

I said a guy with 15 pro fights was fairly green, and I stand by that comment.

Though I guess he was a seasoned veteran in comparison to some of the other top fighters that Johnson faced (and that you give him full credit for.)

Why would I need to grasp at straws when there isn't a single post in this thread that lends any credence as to why Johnson should be ranked the third greatest HW of all time.

I have him near the bottom of my top 10 list, so I am by no means calling him a bum. But the more I look, the lower he slips.

Chief2ndzOnly!
03-27-2010, 11:04 AM
I said a guy with 15 pro fights was fairly green, and I stand by that comment.

Though I guess he was a seasoned veteran in comparison to some of the other top fighters that Johnson faced (and that you give him full credit for.)

Why would I need to grasp at straws when there isn't a single post in this thread that lends any credence as to why Johnson should be ranked the third greatest HW of all time.

I have him near the bottom of my top 10 list, so I am by no means calling him a bum. But the more I look, the lower he slips.

Hank. I am surprised to see that you consider what I have to offer to this thread spam. I posted a comment directed to you later on in the thread that was laced with facts about Jack Johnson and the fights that you mentioned as well as a name or two that you left out(for what ever reason, maybe you didn't realize how significant to the history of Boxing they were). I have awaited your return to this thread so that I could RESPECTFULLY engage you in a debate about Jack's accomplishments, but I see that you still offer nothing concrete to help your arguement.

Now I respect you as a human being, but I find it a little bit disheartening that you shot down MY feelings on MY ranking of Jack Johnson in the ATG HW conversation that is this thread, and refered to it as mere SPAM. I am a man of my word and told you that I would be checking this thread for your return, you have completely disappointed me with your responses thus far, and now YOU(my friend)are slipping as a respectable poster in MY view.

But I DO have faith in you Hank. And truely do await for you to contribute a post with some substance so that I can RESPECTFULLY engage you in an intelligent conversation about Jack Johnson and his place in Boxing history.

And since I have not seen you answer any of the questions that I have posed to you I will one up this discussion and answer you question about some of the top fighters that Jack has faced and defeated before he won the HW title:

Klon***e
Sam McVea
Sam Langford
Frank Childs
Denver Ed
Joe Jeanette
"Young" Peter Jackson
Claude Brooks
Bob Fitzsimmons
"Fireman" Jim Flynn
Jim Jeffords

The last fighter is a cookie for you, as Jim Jeffords greatest victory is over none other than the legendary Peter Jackson(you do know that even "The Boston Strong Boy" ducked Peter Jackson right????????).

Again I await your response; BUT do not disrespect me or posts again as I try my best to share my knowledge of Boxing respectfully and only ask that I recieve the same in return.

Jim Jeffries
03-27-2010, 12:46 PM
Hank. I am surprised to see that you consider what I have to offer to this thread spam. I posted a comment directed to you later on in the thread that was laced with facts about Jack Johnson and the fights that you mentioned as well as a name or two that you left out(for what ever reason, maybe you didn't realize how significant to the history of Boxing they were). I have awaited your return to this thread so that I could RESPECTFULLY engage you in a debate about Jack's accomplishments, but I see that you still offer nothing concrete to help your arguement.

Now I respect you as a human being, but I find it a little bit disheartening that you shot down MY feelings on MY ranking of Jack Johnson in the ATG HW conversation that is this thread, and refered to it as mere SPAM. I am a man of my word and told you that I would be checking this thread for your return, you have completely disappointed me with your responses thus far, and now YOU(my friend)are slipping as a respectable poster in MY view.

But I DO have faith in you Hank. And truely do await for you to contribute a post with some substance so that I can RESPECTFULLY engage you in an intelligent conversation about Jack Johnson and his place in Boxing history.

And since I have not seen you answer any of the questions that I have posed to you I will one up this discussion and answer you question about some of the top fighters that Jack has faced and defeated before he won the HW title:

Klon***e
Sam McVea
Sam Langford
Frank Childs
Denver Ed
Joe Jeanette
"Young" Peter Jackson
Claude Brooks
Bob Fitzsimmons
"Fireman" Jim Flynn
Jim Jeffords

The last fighter is a cookie for you, as Jim Jeffords greatest victory is over none other than the legendary Peter Jackson(you do know that even "The Boston Strong Boy" ducked Peter Jackson right????????).
Again I await your response; BUT do not disrespect me or posts again as I try my best to share my knowledge of Boxing respectfully and only ask that I recieve the same in return.

I asked for Jack Johnson's top 5 wins and you offer up an inactive, 44 year old Fitzsimmons as a response? Props to Johnson for avenging the Klon***e loss, but you don't seriously expect me to give him credit for beating a world class fighter, do you?

As for McVea and Jeanette, try as I may, these guys had 10 pro fights or less in all of their bouts with Johnson, hardly worth mentioning for a guy vying for the number 3 ATG HW spot. Surely you're kidding with the Jeffords response, and as for "Young" Peter Jackson, he was coming off a serious losing streak and was a WW/MW after all.

Maybe that's why I get such hatred when I ask questions about Johnson, there really doesn't seem to be much there. I am curious about his fight with Ketchel. On the one hand, people claim it was just an exhibition, as a way of excusing Jack being knocked down. But on the other hand, they demand credit for the win. People say Jack threw the fight against Willard, as an excuse for losing to such an inferior fighter, when surely the fact that Johnson was 37 at the time, would be excuse enough. And wouldn't proof of throwing fights hurt the reputation of a HOFer like Johnson?

Chief2ndzOnly!
03-27-2010, 04:13 PM
I asked for Jack Johnson's top 5 wins and you offer up an inactive, 44 year old Fitzsimmons as a response? Props to Johnson for avenging the Klon***e loss, but you don't seriously expect me to give him credit for beating a world class fighter, do you?

As for McVea and Jeanette, try as I may, these guys had 10 pro fights or less in all of their bouts with Johnson, hardly worth mentioning for a guy vying for the number 3 ATG HW spot. Surely you're kidding with the Jeffords response, and as for "Young" Peter Jackson, he was coming off a serious losing streak and was a WW/MW after all.

Maybe that's why I get such hatred when I ask questions about Johnson, there really doesn't seem to be much there. I am curious about his fight with Ketchel. On the one hand, people claim it was just an exhibition, as a way of excusing Jack being knocked down. But on the other hand, they demand credit for the win. People say Jack threw the fight against Willard, as an excuse for losing to such an inferior fighter, when surely the fact that Johnson was 37 at the time, would be excuse enough. And wouldn't proof of throwing fights hurt the reputation of a HOFer like Johnson?

You are obviously not trying to understand the way fighters where moved along in the time period that we are discussing. But on to your points. Sam McVea had 8 pro contests before he fought Jack. Sam was an up and coming HW who had beaten a gatekeeper in Fred Russell, so his shot at Jack was warrented. Jeanette started his career off extremely rough his 1st 4 fights were against some of the best fighters at the time: Morris Harris(twice), Claude "Black Bill" Brooks, and Jack Johnson(That is how Boxers were groomed in those days, hell Jack Johnson fought "Utah" Bob in his 3rd fight......can we say thrown to the wolves?). As for Young Peter; he lost to Philidelphia Jack(he actually KO'd him but the ref took the victory from him), he went the distance with Sam Langford all three times and also with Larry Temple as well as doing these fights with in a span of 7-8 months(name me a fighter after this era that stood up to that type of "stiff" competition and remained competitive). Also staying with in the confines of your respective weight class was not a common practice of the time period. You fought the best out there no matter the weight class they where in(see Stanley Ketchel). As for Jeffords......no I'm not joking. Just because YOU dont know who he is does not erase his victory over "THE" Peter Jackson(not to be confused with "Young" Peter Jackson.

The Ketchel fight was a pre arranged fight. There were supposed to be NO knock downs and it was supposed to go the distance and be called a draw(not uncommon at that time). Well Stanley didn't stick to the script and dropped Jack. Jack promptly got up from the KD and flattened Ketchel knocking out a few teeth along the way. Jack and Stanley were friends and thats how the bout was brought into being in the 1st place. Jack and Stanley used to drink and run women together, so you can see why Jack was pissed after Stanley violated the agreement. As for the Willard fight, it is common knowledge that Jack asked to throw the fight so that he wouldn't face prosecution for the Mann Act violation, as his mother was moving along in age and he wanted to be able to see her. They agreed to drop the charges but they crawfished the deal and locked him up in Levenworth anyway. The reason for him throwing the fight is the reason why it's not looked down on. As for Bob Fitz, alot of his bouts that are listed on box rec(which doesn't mention his bout with Peter Felix 'The Peter Jackson's 1st cousin') were called exhibitons as Boxing was illegal in most states so you can take his career anyway you want to. I would hardly call Bob inactive as he fought one fight from '04 to '06 after coming off a nation wide take all on-comers tour with Jim Jeffries in '03. He may have not been Jack's age but men were built of a different stock in those days.

I don't hate(that would mean I could wish you dead, and I don't) you homie. I respect you as a man and a poster on this site. I just didn't appreciate my post being refered to as "spam" and felt I should let that ***** be known. You aiight with me slick. I look forward to your response, as always.