View Full Version : ''Official Poll'' Is Jack Johnson Overrated?


Perfect Plex
06-14-2011, 12:34 PM
Does Jack Johnson greatness get overrated and is he overrated?

Barn
06-14-2011, 12:58 PM
In my opinion, Yes. Some have him at 3 undeservedly in my opinion.

T.Horton
06-14-2011, 01:02 PM
In my opinion, Yes. Some have him at 3 undeservedly in my opinion.guilty ^^^

IronDanHamza
06-14-2011, 01:08 PM
Not particularly.

Terry A
06-14-2011, 02:20 PM
I've always felt that JJ was the 2nd most over-rated boxer ever so I voted "Yes".

It's my opinion that he does NOT belong in any all-time top 10 list of greatest heavyweights.

In no particular order, Ali, Holmes, Lennox Lewis, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Sonny Liston, George Foreman, Rocky Marciano, Joe Frazier, Mike Tyson, V & V Klitschko's, Holyfield, etc would all be my picks over JJ.

Marvin Hart (!) beat him, he won the title from a 168 lb (super-middleweight by today's standards) Tommy Burns, the great middleweight Stanley Ketchel dropped him with a punch on the chin, and I'll not even go into how old & little many of his opponants were.

Who's his greatest win over? Sam Langford when Sam weighed all of 156 lbs?
How about the old, unretired Jim Jeffries? He fought a draw with Jack O'Brien, who weighed in for that fight at about 163 lbs to JJ's 205.

Once upon a time, many, many years ago, somebody said that Jack Johnson was a defensive wizzard, an unbeatable all-time great heavyweight! And like a legend or fairy tale passed down over the generations, people hear that same story and then they tell someone & then that person tells someone and the band-wagon keeps getting more crowded.

When that was said, here's who had been the heavyweight champion of the world...
John L. Sullivan, James J. Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, Marvin Hart, James J. Jeffries & Lil' Tommy Burns. Then came Jack.

And compared to THAT bunch, he WAS great. But an honest look at all the really great heavyweights over the last 100 years shows a slew of fighters who would or could beat the much balleyhooed Jack Johnson.

The existing, very limited film of him really impressed you who have him in your top 10 that much? What books about him have you studied to familiarize yourself with him? "WHY" is he rated so high??? What DO you know about him?

I too have seen him listed anywhere from #1 on down thru 10. But on what basis???

Respectfully, I don't get it.

MRBOOMER
06-14-2011, 02:47 PM
I've always felt that JJ was the 2nd most over-rated boxer ever so I voted "Yes".

It's my opinion that he does NOT belong in any all-time top 10 list of greatest heavyweights.

In no particular order, Ali, Holmes, Lennox Lewis, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Sonny Liston, George Foreman, Rocky Marciano, Joe Frazier, Mike Tyson, V & V Klitschko's, Holyfield, etc would all be my picks over JJ.

Marvin Hart (!) beat him, he won the title from a 168 lb (super-middleweight by today's standards) Tommy Burns, the great middleweight Stanley Ketchel dropped him with a punch on the chin, and I'll not even go into how old & little many of his opponants were.

Who's his greatest win over? Sam Langford when Sam weighed all of 156 lbs?
How about the old, unretired Jim Jeffries? He fought a draw with Jack O'Brien, who weighed in for that fight at about 163 lbs to JJ's 205.

Once upon a time, many, many years ago, somebody said that Jack Johnson was a defensive wizzard, an unbeatable all-time great heavyweight! And like a legend or fairy tale passed down over the generations, people hear that same story and then they tell someone & then that person tells someone and the band-wagon keeps getting more crowded.

When that was said, here's who had been the heavyweight champion of the world...
John L. Sullivan, James J. Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, Marvin Hart, James J. Jeffries & Lil' Tommy Burns. Then came Jack.

And compared to THAT bunch, he WAS great. But an honest look at all the really great heavyweights over the last 100 years shows a slew of fighters who would or could beat the much balleyhooed Jack Johnson.

The existing, very limited film of him really impressed you who have him in your top 10 that much? What books about him have you studied to familiarize yourself with him? "WHY" is he rated so high??? What DO you know about him?

I too have seen him listed anywhere from #1 on down thru 10. But on what basis???

Respectfully, I don't get it.

Great post...
But not to be racist even tho I'm black it's cause the whole first african American champion thing people get stuck on that just saying.

Forza
06-14-2011, 03:02 PM
As a boxer he wasn't that great, not his fault most white guys ducked him though.

As an athlete he set the bar for african americans.

kendom
06-14-2011, 03:07 PM
I feel many highy underrate him because he was an old timer he had incredible talent the greatest blocking and feinting ability amongst the heavyweights.

New England
06-14-2011, 03:31 PM
he had a very modern style
and he was huge.

the guy fought over a century ago


at his best he was a very dominant HW champion and i don't have a problem with him in anybody's HW top ten in terms of accomplishments


h2h i'd say he might be a tad overrated

Control-
06-14-2011, 03:40 PM
Yes, he gets rated highly because of being more skilled than he predecessors and because he was the first black champ. But his competition was not that great and I don't see his style working as well against the best heavyweights of the past 100 years.

Wild Blue Yonda
06-14-2011, 08:47 PM
He's over-rated, undoubtedly. I cannot find room for him in my top-10 of all-time at Heavy.

I'd also have been very interested to see Johnson's vaunted defense pitted against something it never was --- the multi-angled, short & swift combination punching of a Louis, or a Dempsey. Johnson never faced anything like that at all.

Obama
06-14-2011, 08:52 PM
He's actually become under rated. People just don't understand how good Sam Langford, Sam McVea, Joe Jeannette, Harry Wills (schooled him sparring, something he'd later repeat when ancient against future Demspey opponent Firpo), and hell even Tommy Burns were.

Perfect Plex
06-14-2011, 11:01 PM
He's actually become under rated. People just don't understand how good Sam Langford, Sam McVea, Joe Jeannette, Harry Wills (schooled him sparring, something he'd later repeat when ancient against future Demspey opponent Firpo), and hell even Tommy Burns were.

How would you respond to people saying those fighters were green/pre prime & undersized?

Terry A
06-15-2011, 01:03 AM
He's actually become under rated. People just don't understand how good Sam Langford, Sam McVea, Joe Jeannette, Harry Wills (schooled him sparring, something he'd later repeat when ancient against future Demspey opponent Firpo), and hell even Tommy Burns were.

What credibility does he warrant for beating Sam Langford when Sam only weighed in at 156 lbs? And if he did have the better over Wills in "sparring", why didn't he ever fight him? (I think Wills would have beaten him).

No disrespect intended at all towards you or Tommy Burns, but seriously, "People just don't understand how good......even Tommy Burns were." Really?

Curious as to exactly where you rate Tommy Burns on the all-time 100 Heavyweight boxer list? He's not on mine. Guys who never won the title, like Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle, dare I even say Gerry Cooney, would have destroyed him. And the alphabet fellas, Greg Page (may he R.I.P.), Mike Dokes, Tim Witherspoon, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker & Tony Tubbs would have beaten him up!

James Toney would have beaten him, as would Roy Jones. I really think even John Ruiz beats Tommy Burns. Mac Foster beats him, as does BOB Foster! Mr. Burns was 5'7" and never weighed more than a beefy cruiserweight. Fought his best fights as a light heavyweight.

Imagine matching him up in his prime and at his height & weight against a true heavyweight of the modern era? First off, the commissions wouldn't allow it. Second of all, Tommy Burns is no Mickey Walker.

Sorry to rant a little. But gee-miny-crickets, Tommy Burns was not all that good in the pantheon of really good fighters.

No disrespect intended. Just a fair debate of the facts.

Steak
06-15-2011, 05:47 AM
I dont like the word 'overrated', because a fighter can be overrated or underrated depending on who you asked.


however, those who put him as a top 3 heavyweight undoubtedly overrate the hell out of him. His resume flat out does not cut it. McVea was a teenager, Jeanette was clearly very green, and Langford didnt even weigh 160lbs. not to mention Johnson refused to fight all three of them when they actually were at their best, when he was champion.

People that rate Johnson top 3 whilst not even having Wills in their top ten without a shadow of a doubt overrate the hell out of Johnson. Wills actually fought McVea, Jeanette and Langford in their primes(or at the very least closer to it) and beat them multiple times. Add in the fact that Wills beat a number of top conteders such as Fred Fulton, Jackson, Firpo and Weinhart and I dont think its a big stretch to say that Wills beat more top competition.

as for Johnson's title reign? subpar. he feasted on second raters, old men(Jeffries) and middleweights. and yet these natural 160lbers actually took him to a draw and dropped him. Imagine Sergio Martinez dropping/drawing Wladimir, or Monzon dropping/drawing Ali. come on. the guy didnt face the best heavyweights of his era during his title reign, period.

I am tyler
06-15-2011, 08:48 AM
I don't think he should be overated. He was way ahead of his time in terms of style and skills. He also was the first black heavyweight champ which can't be overated. I think it would be unfair to match him with todays Heavy's because they would probably mince him. But if they fought back then in that era with that era of styles I would say Jack beats them.

Ziggy Stardust
06-15-2011, 10:53 AM
What credibility does he warrant for beating Sam Langford when Sam only weighed in at 156 lbs? And if he did have the better over Wills in "sparring", why didn't he ever fight him? (I think Wills would have beaten him).

No disrespect intended at all towards you or Tommy Burns, but seriously, "People just don't understand how good......even Tommy Burns were." Really?

Curious as to exactly where you rate Tommy Burns on the all-time 100 Heavyweight boxer list? He's not on mine. Guys who never won the title, like Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle, dare I even say Gerry Cooney, would have destroyed him. And the alphabet fellas, Greg Page (may he R.I.P.), Mike Dokes, Tim Witherspoon, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker & Tony Tubbs would have beaten him up!

James Toney would have beaten him, as would Roy Jones. I really think even John Ruiz beats Tommy Burns. Mac Foster beats him, as does BOB Foster! Mr. Burns was 5'7" and never weighed more than a beefy cruiserweight. Fought his best fights as a light heavyweight.

Imagine matching him up in his prime and at his height & weight against a true heavyweight of the modern era? First off, the commissions wouldn't allow it. Second of all, Tommy Burns is no Mickey Walker.

Sorry to rant a little. But gee-miny-crickets, Tommy Burns was not all that good in the pantheon of really good fighters.

No disrespect intended. Just a fair debate of the facts.

Actually Burns was a very good to great Middleweight, he just wasn't all that great at Heavy. Imagine if Marvin Hagler had challenged Larry Holmes.....I would expect Holmes to win given in big reach advantage but I could see one of the commisions making the matchup back in the early 80s so it isn't THAT far-fetched. Back around the turn of the century it was routine for Middleweights to fight Heavies and one of them, Bob Fitzsimmons, legitimately won the Heavyweight title.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
06-15-2011, 10:56 AM
I dont like the word 'overrated', because a fighter can be overrated or underrated depending on who you asked.


however, those who put him as a top 3 heavyweight undoubtedly overrate the hell out of him. His resume flat out does not cut it. McVea was a teenager, Jeanette was clearly very green, and Langford didnt even weigh 160lbs. not to mention Johnson refused to fight all three of them when they actually were at their best, when he was champion.

People that rate Johnson top 3 whilst not even having Wills in their top ten without a shadow of a doubt overrate the hell out of Johnson. Wills actually fought McVea, Jeanette and Langford in their primes(or at the very least closer to it) and beat them multiple times. Add in the fact that Wills beat a number of top conteders such as Fred Fulton, Jackson, Firpo and Weinhart and I dont think its a big stretch to say that Wills beat more top competition.

as for Johnson's title reign? subpar. he feasted on second raters, old men(Jeffries) and middleweights. and yet these natural 160lbers actually took him to a draw and dropped him. Imagine Sergio Martinez dropping/drawing Wladimir, or Monzon dropping/drawing Ali. come on. the guy didnt face the best heavyweights of his era during his title reign, period.

I have Johnson ranked 3rd all-time at Heavy but I also have Wills bouncing around from 9-12 depending on my mood. Guys like Jeanette, McVea, and Godfrey routinely make my top-20.

Poet

IronDanHamza
06-15-2011, 11:15 AM
Actually Burns was a very good to great Middleweight, he just wasn't all that great at Heavy. Imagine if Marvin Hagler had challenged Larry Holmes.....I would expect Holmes to win given in big reach advantage but I could see one of the commisions making the matchup back in the early 80s so it isn't THAT far-fetched. Back around the turn of the century it was routine for Middleweights to fight Heavies and one of them, Bob Fitzsimmons, legitimately won the Heavyweight title.

Poet

Bob was weighing in less than 160 Lbs also.

Would you agree that it Jack Johnson is atleast a Top 10 HW? I certainly do. Which suprisingly seems to be against the consensus here.

I mean, I have read arguments for the likes of the Klitschko brothers and a few other names to be in the Top 10 over him.

That, I can't understand.

Ziggy Stardust
06-15-2011, 11:24 AM
Would you agree that it Jack Johnson is atleast a Top 10 HW? I certainly do. Which suprisingly seems to be against the consensus here.

Of course. I have Johnson ranked 3rd all-time at Heavyweight.


I mean, I have read arguments for the likes of the Klitschko brothers and a few other names to be in the Top 10 over him.

That, I can't understand.

It's because there are too many posters around here that are hung up on on size and can't get past it in any discussion. People put WAY too much emphasis on weight.

Poet

Terry A
06-15-2011, 10:26 PM
. He also was the first black heavyweight champ which can't be overated.


I think it would be unfair to match him with todays Heavy's because they would probably mince him. But if they fought back then in that era with that era of styles I would say Jack beats them.


Two comments BamBam.

1. With regard to him being the 1st black hvyweight champ.....THAT merits him special status? Would that also apply to the first Italian heavyweight? Or Polish heavyweight? Is the first Siberian heavyweight also accorded that type of special recognition?

Giving him a lofty place among the all-time greats because he was black is not fair to every other race.

2. The whole idea of the fantasy match ups is to take two fighters from whatever era, somehow lift them each out in their absolute prime or when they were at their best, and place them in a ring & ring the bell. THAT'S how I believe these match ups should be down. You can't alter things for one fighter to give him an advantage & then say that's a fair match up.

There's a very good reason why you say it would be unfair to match him with today's heavyweights & feel that "today's heavyweights would probably mince him."

Terry A
06-15-2011, 10:31 PM
Actually Burns was a very good to great Middleweight, he just wasn't all that great at Heavy. Imagine if Marvin Hagler had challenged Larry Holmes.....I would expect Holmes to win given in big reach advantage but I could see one of the commisions making the matchup back in the early 80s so it isn't THAT far-fetched. Back around the turn of the century it was routine for Middleweights to fight Heavies and one of them, Bob Fitzsimmons, legitimately won the Heavyweight title.

Poet


I agree that Burns was not "all that great at heavyweight." Which is exactly part of my argument against JJ being considered so great. The fact that so many of the men he fought were vastly outweighed or well before or past their respective primes is a main contention of mine as to why I don't rank him higher.

I know about the catch weight fights. That's why I mentioned Stanley Ketchel & Mickey Walker in this thread.

Terry A
06-15-2011, 11:10 PM
Of course. I have Johnson ranked 3rd all-time at Heavyweight.




It's because there are too many posters around here that are hung up on on size and can't get past it in any discussion. People put WAY too much emphasis on weight.

Poet

Poet,
There are a good dozen or so members who routinely post in our vaunted "History" section who I have great respect for in regards to their boxing knowledge, how they right & also that those who I consider really elite members who always conduct themselves in a very proper manner. To me, you're one of those. I enjoy reading what you've written, as your posts are so often well reasoned.

But I'm honestly surprised when I read that you have JJ rated so high! Which is ok because that's your honest opinion. Part of the fun here is that we all have our own thoughts & perceptions of various fighters & fights. But I'm really surprised that YOU would have rated him so high.

With regard to your comments on weight.....it IS a significant part of any match up. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be divisions in boxing to help keep things somewhat fair. Big differences in weight between two fighters always draws comments from those in the know who prognosticate on match ups. It IS an important consideration in match ups. How many times have we all seen fighters who were a mere half a pound over-weight have to either sweat it off to make the mandatory weight, or, in cases where they did not lose the extra 1 pound, have their fight reduced to a non-title affair?

Let me give you an example of something that hopefully makes my point. JJ weighed 205 when he fought to a DRAW vs 163 lb Jack O'Brien. A weight disparity of 42 lbs. So let's take that same advantage & give it an equal percentage on smaller fighters.

Let's take, for example, Miguel Canto, the great Flyweight champ. He fought his career around 112 lbs. Since he's about half the size of Jack Johnson, let's cut the 42 lb weight advantage in have and give him a fight with someone who outweighed him by 21 lbs. In other words, match him with a lightweight world champion.

So Miguel Canto vs Roberto Duran, Henry Armstrong, Lou Ambers, Ike Williams,
Sammy Angott, Benny Leonard, etc. Now what kind of realistic chance does Canto have? And when one of these lightweights beats him, we don't laud it as a great, historic accomplishment. It was expected.

But JJ has this type weight advantages routinely....35 lbs over Ketchel, 24 lbs over Tommy Burns, 29 lbs over Sam Langford, the 42 lb weight advantage over Jack O'Brien, etc.

You know I always respect everybody on here, so don't take this wrong. Can you please share who your top 3 all-time heavyweights are? I'm super-duper curious as to who else you have as #1 & #2.

Because if Jack Johnson is your for real #3 man, that means he's the very best heavyweight who ever lived or fought, in any era, with the exception of the two ranked above him.

$BloodyNate$
06-15-2011, 11:11 PM
As far as people putting him top 3 or top 5, I think that may be a lil overrating him, but I don't see a problem with putting him in the bottom top 10. His resume wasn't special enough to up top with the likes of Ali or Louis but I don't think it's that terrible where you couldn't possibly ever accept him being a bottom top 10 heavyweight of all time.

Ziggy Stardust
06-15-2011, 11:39 PM
Poet,
There are a good dozen or so members who routinely post in our vaunted "History" section who I have great respect for in regards to their boxing knowledge, how they right & also that those who I consider really elite members who always conduct themselves in a very proper manner. To me, you're one of those. I enjoy reading what you've written, as your posts are so often well reasoned.

But I'm honestly surprised when I read that you have JJ rated so high! Which is ok because that's your honest opinion. Part of the fun here is that we all have our own thoughts & perceptions of various fighters & fights. But I'm really surprised that YOU would have rated him so high.

With regard to your comments on weight.....it IS a significant part of any match up. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be divisions in boxing to help keep things somewhat fair. Big differences in weight between two fighters always draws comments from those in the know who prognosticate on match ups. It IS an important consideration in match ups. How many times have we all seen fighters who were a mere half a pound over-weight have to either sweat it off to make the mandatory weight, or, in cases where they did not lose the extra 1 pound, have their fight reduced to a non-title affair?

Let me give you an example of something that hopefully makes my point. JJ weighed 205 when he fought to a DRAW vs 163 lb Jack O'Brien. A weight disparity of 42 lbs. So let's take that same advantage & give it an equal percentage on smaller fighters.

Let's take, for example, Miguel Canto, the great Flyweight champ. He fought his career around 112 lbs. Since he's about half the size of Jack Johnson, let's cut the 42 lb weight advantage in have and give him a fight with someone who outweighed him by 21 lbs. In other words, match him with a lightweight world champion.

So Miguel Canto vs Roberto Duran, Henry Armstrong, Lou Ambers, Ike Williams,
Sammy Angott, Benny Leonard, etc. Now what kind of realistic chance does Canto have? And when one of these lightweights beats him, we don't laud it as a great, historic accomplishment. It was expected.

But JJ has this type weight advantages routinely....35 lbs over Ketchel, 24 lbs over Tommy Burns, 29 lbs over Sam Langford, the 42 lb weight advantage over Jack O'Brien, etc.

You know I always respect everybody on here, so don't take this wrong. Can you please share who your top 3 all-time heavyweights are? I'm super-duper curious as to who else you have as #1 & #2.

Because if Jack Johnson is your for real #3 man, that means he's the very best heavyweight who ever lived or fought, in any era, with the exception of the two ranked above him.

01. Muhammad Ali
02. Joe Louis
03. Jack Johnson
04. Jack Dempsey
05. Larry Holmes
06. Sonny Liston
07. Evander Holyfield
08. George Foreman
09. Rocky Marciano
10. Mike Tyson
11. Joe Frazier
12. Harry Wills

Terry A
06-15-2011, 11:50 PM
01. Muhammad Ali
02. Joe Louis
03. Jack Johnson
04. Jack Dempsey
05. Larry Holmes
06. Sonny Liston
07. Evander Holyfield
08. George Foreman
09. Rocky Marciano
10. Mike Tyson
11. Joe Frazier
12. Harry Wills


That's an interesting list. Thank you for posting it.

The_Demon
06-16-2011, 10:17 AM
He's top 10 for me,his resume doesnt warrant a top 5 spot

$BloodyNate$
06-17-2011, 03:55 AM
Two comments BamBam.

1. With regard to him being the 1st black hvyweight champ.....THAT merits him special status? Would that also apply to the first Italian heavyweight? Or Polish heavyweight? Is the first Siberian heavyweight also accorded that type of special recognition?

Giving him a lofty place among the all-time greats because he was black is not fair to every other race.

2. The whole idea of the fantasy match ups is to take two fighters from whatever era, somehow lift them each out in their absolute prime or when they were at their best, and place them in a ring & ring the bell. THAT'S how I believe these match ups should be down. You can't alter things for one fighter to give him an advantage & then say that's a fair match up.

There's a very good reason why you say it would be unfair to match him with today's heavyweights & feel that "today's heavyweights would probably mince him."

It's not really his fault he didn't give black fighters their shot. You don't know how important it is to take into account the racial hatred back then. He was the best fighter in the world at the time which the white wanted that type of glory for themselves, not to mention his lifestyle which THEY HATED. So why would they want to him to fight another black fighter? The only reason they watched him was to pray to see a white fighter finally beat him, shut him up and take that title.

He already beat Langford so whites back then probably would have *****'d on him even more for taking that fight because he already beat him so they'd think he was trying for an easy defense. Not to mention he beat some of that era's if not all of that era's greatest white fighters. Philly Obrien only got a draw because he was white, the majority of the reporters at that fight thought Johnson won but didn't agree on the margin of victory.

Also take into account what the CREATOR of the Ring Magazine thought about him. He said...

Nat Fleischer, the founder of Ring Magazine, who saw Johnson fights and those up to the Ali era, said, “Jack Johnson boxed on his toes. he could block from most any angle, was lightning fast on his feet, could feint an opponent into knots. Jack Johnson possessed everything a boxing champion could hope for, he had excellent boxing ability, cleverness, speed, brains and sharp-shooting punching. Jack Johnson was “years ahead of his time stylistically, he transfigured boxing footwork, defense, and the concept of ring generalship of boxing science.

Source (http://www.muhammad-ali-boxing.org.uk/era-of-jack-johnson.htm)

Terry A
06-17-2011, 05:34 PM
Also take into account what the CREATOR of the Ring Magazine thought about him. He said...


Bloody,

Don't know if you're aware of this or not, but Nat Fleischer did NOT rank Muhammad Ali in his all-time top heavyweight list. And he ranked Joe Louis #6 all-time! His opinions have been laughed at for years.
Look at this article.......
http://ezinearticles.com/?Thank-Heavens-Nat-Fleischers-Opinions-No-Longer-Influence-the-Boxing-World&id=1472228

Here are Nat's "All-time" ranking lists. (Note, for example, that at 175, he leaves out Ezzard Charles & Archie Moore!!! At heavyweight, he has Bob Fitzsimmons & James Corbett over Joe Louis, Marciano & Gene Tunney!!! And he rated Henry Armstrong #8 at Welterweight!!! That's out & out insane.)

Look thru this & then see if you want to use him as a source to prove a point.

Heavyweights:
1 - Jack Johnson
2 - James J. Jeffries
3 - Bob Fitzsimmons
4 - Jack Dempsey
5 - James J. Corbett
6 - Joe Louis
7 - Sam Langford
8 - Gene Tunney
9 - Max Schmeling
10- Rocky Marciano

Light Heavyweights:
1 - Kid McCoy
2 - Philadelphia Jack O'Brian
3 - Jack Dillon
4 - Tommy Loughran
5 - Jack Root
6 - Battling Levensky
7 - Georges Carpentier
8 - Tom Gibbons
9 - Jack Delaney
10- Paul Berlenbach

Middleweights:
1 - Stanley Ketchell
2 - Tommy Ryan
3 - Harry Greb
4 - Mickey Walker
5 - Ray Robinson
6 - Frank Klaus
7 - Billy Papke
8 - Les Darcy
9 - Mike Gibbons
10- Jeff Smith

Welterweights:
1 - Joe Walcott
2 - Mysterious Billy Smith
3 - Jack Britton
4 - Ted Kid Lewis
5 - Dixie Kid
6 - Harry Lewis
7 - Willie Lewis
8 - Henry Armstrong
9 - Barney Ross
10- Jimmy McLarnin

Lightweights:
1 - Joe Gans
2 - Benny Leonard
3 - Owen Moran
4 - Freddy Welsh
5 - Battling Nelson
6 - George Kid Lavigne
7 - Tony Canzoneri
8 - Willie Ritchie
9 - Lew Tendler
10- Ad Wolgast

Featherweights:
1 - Terry McGovern
2 - Jim Driscoll
3 - Abe Attell
4 - Willie Pep
5 - Johnny Dundee
6 - Young Griffo
7 - Johnny Kilbane
8 - Kid Chocolate
9 - George K.O. Chaney
10- Louis Kid Kaplan

Bantamweights:
1 - George Dixon
2 - Pete Herman
3 - Kid Williams
4 - Eder Jofre
5 - Joe Lynch
6 - Bud Taylor
7 - Johnny Coulon
8 - Frankie Burns
9 - Eddie Campi
10- Panama Al Brown

Flyweight:
1 - Jimmy Wilde
2 - Pancho Villa
3 - Frankie Genaro
4 - Fidel La Barba
5 - Benny Lynch
6 - Elky Clark
7 - Johnny Buff
8 - Midget Wolgast
9 - Peter Kane
10- Pascual Perez

(From the 1972 edition of The Ring Record Book and Boxing Encyclopedia)

Greatest1942
06-20-2011, 05:45 AM
It's not really his fault he didn't give black fighters their shot. You don't know how important it is to take into account the racial hatred back then. He was the best fighter in the world at the time which the white wanted that type of glory for themselves, not to mention his lifestyle which THEY HATED. So why would they want to him to fight another black fighter? The only reason they watched him was to pray to see a white fighter finally beat him, shut him up and take that title.

He already beat Langford so whites back then probably would have *****'d on him even more for taking that fight because he already beat him so they'd think he was trying for an easy defense. Not to mention he beat some of that era's if not all of that era's greatest white fighters. Philly Obrien only got a draw because he was white, the majority of the reporters at that fight thought Johnson won but didn't agree on the margin of victory.

Also take into account what the CREATOR of the Ring Magazine thought about him. He said...
Johnson beat a 156lb Sam...Sam's best weight at heavy was 180 around. When Sam became a true heavy contender Johnson ducked him...there were considerable clamour to mak ethem fight outside US.

Read this, it might help you

December 27, 1913 ***8211; The Winnipeg Tribune published quotes from the Director of French Boxing, Mr. Vienne. Mr. Vienne had proclaimed the fight between Jeannette and Langford as a world***8217;s championship contest. He explained his reasoning for doing so as follows:

***8216;People say to me, ***8216;If a world***8217;s boxing championship is organized between two qualified men, why is the winner of the title not entitled to hold if forever?***8217; I reply, not in words, but with facts, clear and distinct, and then ask the public to judge. The title held by Jack Johnson is held vacant because it is not admissable in sport for a man to legitimately hold all his life, or at least as long as he pleases, a title which he obstinately refuses to defend against qualified aspirants. Nobody can contest that principle. Now, I have repeatedly offered Jack Johnson an opportunity of defending his title in Paris, under the usual conditions of a participation in the receipts, with a guarantee of $25,000, then $30,000. Jack Johnson has always refused.

In an interview Jack Johnson had in Paris with Victor Breyer, then my associate, and later with Leon See, Director of Boxing and Boxers, he made the same public declaration which remains still without denial. ***8216;I will not box again, ever for a million.***8217; Since coming to Paris, Jack Johnson refused an engagement to meet with me. He wouldn***8217;t come himself, but his representative came, only to declare to me that Johnson did not wish really to meet a capable adversary in order to maintain his title, but only adversaries of a secondary nature. Under those conditions no one can be expected to submit to Johnson***8217;s fantastic (financial) demands. The sporting public has ever right to rebel and place the title open for public competition that which the holder, because it is too much trouble, does not wish to defend.***8221;

House of Stone
06-21-2011, 04:05 AM
I think he's overrated, he brought in a new style and was very dominant in his time and for that he deserves credit but so many of his famous wins came against guys that were either way way smaller than him either moving up in weight or just small heavyweights like burns (Imagine if wlad took on say hopkins 5 or 6 years ago and then claimed it was one of his great wins) or against the famed jefferies win v a guy who was coming back from retirement etc (again a bit like Lewis coming out of retirement now to face wlad) you can say its not his fault and he can only beat who is out there ... but eh you could say the same about the klits who are just as dominant ... does that make them top 2 or 3 ATGs? short answer = NO. And in fairness did he really beat everybody? prime heavyweight Langford is conspicously absent.