View Full Version : How would Jack Johnson versus Joe Louis play out


chavez jr
10-12-2011, 06:14 PM
If these 2 had ever met up,how do you see this fight playing out?

DarkTerror88
10-12-2011, 07:48 PM
I think the fact that Joe Louis throws some of the crispest combinations in boxing history, combined with the fact that not many fighters of Johnson's era punched in combination.

It would be a technical game and i think Louis decisions him.

Capaedia
10-12-2011, 08:15 PM
Jack Blackburn went with Johnson, I will too. I think Johnson does very well H2H

Amazing fight though, best offensive heavyweight versus the best defensive heavyweight, in my opinion.

chavez jr
10-12-2011, 10:16 PM
I'd love to see this match up head to head.I know Joe was more technically advanced.but i think Johnson's defense and power would give Joe issues with his flatfooted style

Ziggy Stardust
10-12-2011, 11:26 PM
Johnson make it ugly and hard to score for a long time but Louis eventually stops him late.

Poet

JAB5239
10-13-2011, 03:03 AM
A Johnson win isn't out of the question but I lean toward Louis. Surprisingly I think Langford is a tougher styles match up for Joe. Any opinions on that?

Sugarj
10-13-2011, 06:09 AM
Jack Blackburn went with Johnson, I will too. I think Johnson does very well H2H

Amazing fight though, best offensive heavyweight versus the best defensive heavyweight, in my opinion.



You beat me to it, if Chappie Blackburn felt that Johnson would beat Louis (who he was almost like a father to), I'd tend to agree with him too.

Sugarj
10-13-2011, 06:12 AM
I think the fact that Joe Louis throws some of the crispest combinations in boxing history, combined with the fact that not many fighters of Johnson's era punched in combination.

It would be a technical game and i think Louis decisions him.


However, Johnson punched with superb combinations. Check out the films. The Burns fight and even some of the early rounds against Willard demonstrate that he was every bit as good a combination puncher as Louis.

winky's right
10-13-2011, 08:31 AM
However, Johnson punched with superb combinations. Check out the films. The Burns fight and even some of the early rounds against Willard demonstrate that he was every bit as good a combination puncher as Louis.

:lol1: :lol1: :lol1:

Mannie Phresh
10-13-2011, 08:35 AM
jack johnson would eat him alive and he could knock him out whenever he wanted after the 6th.

Sugarj
10-13-2011, 08:41 AM
:lol1: :lol1: :lol1:



Check out the films. Watch both men extensively and try to look past the flickervision before you scoff!!

Rockin'
10-13-2011, 08:41 AM
Louis' jab alone would have given Johnson fits. Joe had a superb jab and I don't need to mention the right hand that could have easily followed that jab.

Johnson was a wide swinger, right hook here, left hook there. Louis threw straight shots and would have been serving Johnson straight down the pipe all night long.

I don't see Johnson as a defensive genius as others do. After all, with the crude style that they fought in back then it's really not hard to slip or block the wide punches that were thrown back then, Louis' eyes would pick those wide shots up and he could easily evade them.

Over all Louis would control the fight with his superior jab and ring generalmanship. Johnson stays in constant pursuit but constantly comes up short while rushing in with his wide shots only to be met by Louis' jab and right hands. When Johnson does manage to get inside Louis quickly ties him up

Louis would accept some punishment in the fight but would pull out a unanimous decision by a wide margin over 10 rounds.........Rockin':boxing:

Kid McCoy
10-13-2011, 11:05 AM
Johnson make it ugly and hard to score for a long time but Louis eventually stops him late.

Poet

That's how I see it too. Johnson would probably make Louis look bad but I think Louis, with his power, handspeed and accuracy, is going to catch up to Jack at some point. Could be a bit like the Walcott rematch.

Jack Blackburn went with Johnson

Out of curiosity, when did Blackburn say that?

T.Horton
10-13-2011, 11:37 AM
I would pick Johnson. Physically bigger, defensively a wizard and I am not sure there are more than five or six more intelligent boxers than Johnson....in the "ring IQ" sense.

Of course the chance for Louis to knock him out is always there as well.

T.Horton
10-13-2011, 11:43 AM
That's how I see it too. Johnson would probably make Louis look bad but I think Louis, with his power, handspeed and accuracy, is going to catch up to Jack at some point. Could be a bit like the Walcott rematch.



Out of curiosity, when did Blackburn say that?i read it some where as well....i wish I could remember. lol

Sugarj
10-13-2011, 12:19 PM
i read it some where as well....i wish I could remember. lol

I last read it in Gerald Suster's 'Champions of the Ring'. The next paragraph is from that book:

Blackburn declared that much as it pained him to say it, Joe Louis, his beloved fighter, had severe problems with men who could move and so, in his opinion, Jack Johnson could beat Joe Louis every day of the week.

T.Horton
10-13-2011, 12:30 PM
I last read it in Gerald Suster's 'Champions of the Ring'. The next paragraph is from that book:

Blackburn declared that much as it pained him to say it, Joe Louis, his beloved fighter, had severe problems with men who could move and so, in his opinion, Jack Johnson could beat Joe Louis every day of the week.Ha! I have read that several times, it's one that was in the my "office" as reading material for quite a while. Now it's Nigel Collins book: Boxing Babylon.

Sugarj
10-13-2011, 12:40 PM
Ha! I have read that several times, it's one that was in the my "office" as reading material for quite a while. Now it's Nigel Collins book: Boxing Babylon.


Scary! I'm currently in my 'office' and that is the only boxing book I have here at the moment!!!

Kid McCoy
10-13-2011, 12:44 PM
I last read it in Gerald Suster's 'Champions of the Ring'. The next paragraph is from that book:

Blackburn declared that much as it pained him to say it, Joe Louis, his beloved fighter, had severe problems with men who could move and so, in his opinion, Jack Johnson could beat Joe Louis every day of the week.

I've heard the quote a few times but I wasn't sure if it had ever been traced back to an original source. Does the author give a source?

Sugarj
10-13-2011, 01:10 PM
I've heard the quote a few times but I wasn't sure if it had ever been traced back to an original source. Does the author give a source?

I can't see one. I've read this in other books too, possibly 'Crown of Thorns'.

I gather that Blackburn fell out with Johnson over a sparring matter decades before Louis.......and while Blackburn hated Johnson and would have loved to have a charge who he realistically felt would have handled him in the ring, he always held that Johnson was the best defensive boxer he had ever come across.

IronDanHamza
10-13-2011, 01:52 PM
How does it play out?

Not well for Jack Johnson.

RubenSonny
10-13-2011, 02:24 PM
However, Johnson punched with superb combinations. Check out the films. The Burns fight and even some of the early rounds against Willard demonstrate that he was every bit as good a combination puncher as Louis.

I don't understand why people say Johnson never punched in combination.

NChristo
10-13-2011, 04:04 PM
How does it play out?

Not well for Jack Johnson.

This, I wrote quite a big piece on this and quite a bit replying to Rockin's always negative criticism of old boxers and apparently how 'crude' they were but my electric went :/.

Now, I can't be bothered writing it all again, so just say that I think that it isn't Joe Louis' jab that would trouble Johnson as he could parry it away but Louis' combinations which would spell the end for Johnson in the mid rounds of an ugly fight.

GJC
10-13-2011, 04:09 PM
Think Louis should catch up with him but Johnson would give Louis a lot of trouble IMO not inconceivable that Louis might make a mistake and Johnson could beat him though. Very smart fighter Johnson if Schmelling could spot flaws in Louis, Johnson certainly could.

Sugarj
10-13-2011, 04:25 PM
I don't understand why people say Johnson never punched in combination.

I know, it doesn't take too much effort to watch a few films. You tube may well have a few highlight reels.

I seem to remember Johnson battering Tommy Burns from pillar to post with fusillades of uppercuts, straight rights and his speciality winging left hooks.

I also seem to remember him in one of the earlier rounds with Willard rattling off a spectacular eight to ten punch combination that sent Willard across the ring.

There were fights that he deliberately prolonged with clinching, showboating and single blows, the Jeffries fight jumps to mind. He would sometimes turn up for fights hungover and out of shape. But anyone who has seriously studied Johnson will know that he was decades ahead of his time......and that he was a seriously good combination puncher.

One or two have speculated that Louis's jab might have caused Johnson problems, well Johnson had a rapid rapier like jab himself.

Back in the 30s and 40s there were quite a few who had watched both fight in their primes. Many favoured Johnson over Louis.....

Sugarj
10-13-2011, 04:38 PM
Think Louis should catch up with him but Johnson would give Louis a lot of trouble IMO not inconceivable that Louis might make a mistake and Johnson could beat him though. Very smart fighter Johnson if Schmelling could spot flaws in Louis, Johnson certainly could.

Johnson spotted the same flaw in Louis before the Schmelling fight. He offered to help Louis and even offered to be his trainer, but was not even politely declined!

I gather that Johnson was quite churlish about Louis after the Schmelling loss.

As for Louis catching him up, I don't think 15 rounds would be enough for Louis to pull it off. Johnson was so good at mauling, clinching, slowing pace, moving and parrying and he'd been used to years of doing this for well over 15 rounds. Plus, for my money he was a touch bigger and stronger than Louis......he'd be boss in the clinches, and even if he did ship punishment; his chin was damn good too.

Its a good match, I'd pay to watch it!

NChristo
10-13-2011, 04:56 PM
Johnson spotted the same flaw in Louis before the Schmelling fight. He offered to help Louis and even offered to be his trainer, but was not even politely declined!

I gather that Johnson was quite churlish about Louis after the Schmelling loss.

As for Louis catching him up, I don't think 15 rounds would be enough for Louis to pull it off. Johnson was so good at mauling, clinching, slowing pace, moving and parrying and he'd been used to years of doing this for well over 15 rounds. Plus, for my money he was a touch bigger and stronger than Louis......he'd be boss in the clinches, and even if he did ship punishment; his chin was damn good too.

Its a good match, I'd pay to watch it!

The longer the fight goes on the better it gets for Johnson for the reasons you named, don't know if he was bigger then Louis' though.

Getting into the clinches is where in the danger lies, Johnson definitely wins on the inside but too get the he has to get past Louis' comfortable range and Johnson's defense relied mostly on clinching, parrying and footwork. Parrying is not very good defense for combinations and where in Johnson had the footwork to get away he was always looking for that chance to eventually rush and get inside too rough his opponent up.

Imo Louis catches him coming in, Johnson's chin was good but Louis is putting away anyone with enough punches. If he doesn't catch him coming in then he is patient / good enough to capitalize on that moment after the clinch where Johnson backs of with his hands down.

Johnson would have to fight the perfect fight and box from the outside which just wasn't his style, any of his antics here spell the end for him.

Sugarj
10-13-2011, 05:35 PM
The longer the fight goes on the better it gets for Johnson for the reasons you named, don't know if he was bigger then Louis' though.

Getting into the clinches is where in the danger lies, Johnson definitely wins on the inside but too get the he has to get past Louis' comfortable range and Johnson's defense relied mostly on clinching, parrying and footwork. Parrying is not very good defense for combinations and where in Johnson had the footwork to get away he was always looking for that chance to eventually rush and get inside too rough his opponent up.

Imo Louis catches him coming in, Johnson's chin was good but Louis is putting away anyone with enough punches. If he doesn't catch him coming in then he is patient / good enough to capitalize on that moment after the clinch where Johnson backs of with his hands down.

Johnson would have to fight the perfect fight and box from the outside which just wasn't his style, any of his antics here spell the end for him.


To be fair their sizes are more similar than I'd remembered, in their respective primes Johnson outweighed Louis by around half a stone, but I suppose its not much.

As for the fight, I don't see Johnson being aggressor. I can see Louis shuffling forward having some success with the jab but not getting close enough to get combinations off. I think Johnson would be quick to tie up when in range and whip in the odd nasty uppercut when he had a free hand.

True, Louis's best chances would arrive when Johnson rushed him with uppercuts and hooks before clinching but I've got a feeling Louis would ship punishment at the same time. Louis had slightly the heavier hands but Johnson the better chin. I don't favour one over the other in terms of handspeed.

Another factor that hasn't been touched on is mental games. Johnson was a master at getting a man off his game, frustrating and humiliating opponents. Louis was so solid mentally, but I'm not sure how he would handle Johnson's taunts, applause and references to his mother etc. It might cause Louis to fight with more pace and reckless abandon than we'd be used to seeing.

Terry A
10-14-2011, 03:14 AM
[QUOTE=Sugarj;11287715]
I seem to remember Johnson battering Tommy Burns from pillar to post with fusillades of uppercuts, straight rights and his speciality winging left hooks.
QUOTE]

With all due respect SugarJ, Tommy Burns is no Joe Louis.

Joe Louis did that to most everybody he fought. Remember what he did to Schmeling the 2nd time out?

Joe Louis beats JJ in what most likely would be a distance fight. If there was to be a KO, naturally, it would be Joe KOing JJ.

GoogleMe
10-14-2011, 04:21 AM
Johnson by K.O in the 11th

Sugarj
10-14-2011, 06:08 AM
[QUOTE=Sugarj;11287715]
I seem to remember Johnson battering Tommy Burns from pillar to post with fusillades of uppercuts, straight rights and his speciality winging left hooks.
QUOTE]

With all due respect SugarJ, Tommy Burns is no Joe Louis.

Joe Louis did that to most everybody he fought. Remember what he did to Schmeling the 2nd time out?

Joe Louis beats JJ in what most likely would be a distance fight. If there was to be a KO, naturally, it would be Joe KOing JJ.


My comments were in reply to Rubensonny about Johnson's combination punching. The Tommy Burns reference was regarding combinations that Johnson threw that night. Nothing to do with Joe Louis or how a Louis vs Johnson match would go.

As for Louis vs Schmelling 2, that was one of the biggest no shows in boxing history. I'm a great admirer of Max, but all he attempted that night was one right hand......and it landed bless him!! The poor guy froze, he barely attempted to stop Louis treating him like a punching bag. He didn't let his hands go with reckless abandon when the going got tough. He accepted his beating without defiance.

Heaven knows why? Perhaps he knew that Louis would have cottoned on to his successes in the first match, perhaps he was sick of being used as a Nazi propaganda tool. Who knows?

JAB5239
10-14-2011, 06:30 AM
[QUOTE=Terry A;11290055]


My comments were in reply to Rubensonny about Johnson's combination punching. The Tommy Burns reference was regarding combinations that Johnson threw that night. Nothing to do with Joe Louis or how a Louis vs Johnson match would go.

As for Louis vs Schmelling 2, that was one of the biggest no shows in boxing history. I'm a great admirer of Max, but all he attempted that night was one right hand......and it landed bless him!! The poor guy froze, he barely attempted to stop Louis treating him like a punching bag. He didn't let his hands go with reckless abandon when the going got tough. He accepted his beating without defiance.

Heaven knows why? Perhaps he knew that Louis would have cottoned on to his successes in the first match, perhaps he was sick of being used as a Nazi propaganda tool. Who knows?

I think he knew he was in the Ring with a different Louis than the first go round. Joe wasn't out playing golf and banging every broad in town this time instead of training. He wanted this win more than any other (in my opinion) and Im sure Schmeling could sense that.

Sugarj
10-14-2011, 06:58 AM
[QUOTE=Sugarj;11290342]

I think he knew he was in the Ring with a different Louis than the first go round. Joe wasn't out playing golf and banging every broad in town this time instead of training. He wanted this win more than any other (in my opinion) and Im sure Schmeling could sense that.


Agreed on all counts.

Louis was a different guy altogether in the return. But so was Schmelling, I've never felt easy watching Max's performance that night......he clearly suffered badly and absorbed nasty punishment, so no question of him throwing the fight. But I've always felt that he willingly accepted the punishment for some strange reason.

No attempts to circle away from the onslaught, no attempts at clinching. He took his beating like an admonished teenager who rightfully knew that he deserved his Father's belting.

Schmelling was normally such a dignified warrior, that performance still leaves me feeling odd!

JAB5239
10-14-2011, 07:10 AM
[QUOTE=JAB5239;11290364]


Agreed on all counts.

Louis was a different guy altogether in the return. But so was Schmelling, I've never felt easy watching Max's performance that night......he clearly suffered badly and absorbed nasty punishment, so no question of him throwing the fight. But I've always felt that he willingly accepted the punishment for some strange reason.

No attempts to circle away from the onslaught, no attempts at clinching. He took his beating like an admonished teenager who rightfully knew that he deserved his Father's belting.

Schmelling was normally such a dignified warrior, that performance still leaves me feeling odd!

He didn't associate himself with the Nazi political party but besides the aura of Joe's determination he must have felt immense pressure knowing that not only Hitler but the vast majority of his country were counting on him to uphold the image of Aryan superiority. It must have taken great courage just to walk to the ring that night let alone know you're going to be locked in with a hungry, caged tiger. Schmeling was a great man, but I don't envy the position he was in that night one bit.

Kid McCoy
10-14-2011, 08:07 AM
To be fair their sizes are more similar than I'd remembered, in their respective primes Johnson outweighed Louis by around half a stone, but I suppose its not much.

As for the fight, I don't see Johnson being aggressor. I can see Louis shuffling forward having some success with the jab but not getting close enough to get combinations off. I think Johnson would be quick to tie up when in range and whip in the odd nasty uppercut when he had a free hand.

True, Louis's best chances would arrive when Johnson rushed him with uppercuts and hooks before clinching but I've got a feeling Louis would ship punishment at the same time. Louis had slightly the heavier hands but Johnson the better chin. I don't favour one over the other in terms of handspeed.

Another factor that hasn't been touched on is mental games. Johnson was a master at getting a man off his game, frustrating and humiliating opponents. Louis was so solid mentally, but I'm not sure how he would handle Johnson's taunts, applause and references to his mother etc. It might cause Louis to fight with more pace and reckless abandon than we'd be used to seeing.

Johnson having a better chin is arguable. I'd say Louis was the much harder hitter. Johnson's punch was solid but he couldn't starch people the way Louis did. I still say Louis' quick short combinations are going to make the difference here. Louis struggled with guys who had quick feet (ie Conn), but Johnson doesn't have the type of footwork. He was more a flat-footed counterpuncher.

On the subject of mental games, Tony Galento tried the trash talk with Louis and it didn't do him much good. For his part, Louis' deadpan emotionless expression was enough to leave some of his opponents scared sh#tless before they even stepped in the ring. Max Baer had a panic attack in the dressing room.


No attempts to circle away from the onslaught, no attempts at clinching. He took his beating like an admonished teenager who rightfully knew that he deserved his Father's belting.

I don't think Louis gave Schmeling a chance to get away. One of those punches fractured his vertebrae, just froze him.

JAB5239
10-14-2011, 08:10 AM
Johnson having a better chin is arguable. I'd say Louis was the much harder hitter. Johnson's punch was solid but he couldn't starch people the way Louis did. I still say Louis' quick short combinations are going to make the difference here. Louis struggled with guys who had quick feet (ie Conn), but Johnson doesn't have the type of footwork. He was more a flat-footed counterpuncher.

On the subject of mental games, Tony Galento tried the trash talk with Louis and it didn't do him much good. For his part, Louis' deadpan emotionless expression was enough to leave some of his opponents scared sh#tless before they even stepped in the ring. Max Baer had a panic attack in the dressing room.

"The definition of fear. Standing across the Ring from Joe Louis and knowing he wants to go home early." -Max Baer

New England
10-14-2011, 08:31 AM
[QUOTE=Terry A;11290055]


My comments were in reply to Rubensonny about Johnson's combination punching. The Tommy Burns reference was regarding combinations that Johnson threw that night. Nothing to do with Joe Louis or how a Louis vs Johnson match would go.

As for Louis vs Schmelling 2, that was one of the biggest no shows in boxing history. I'm a great admirer of Max, but all he attempted that night was one right hand......and it landed bless him!! The poor guy froze, he barely attempted to stop Louis treating him like a punching bag. He didn't let his hands go with reckless abandon when the going got tough. He accepted his beating without defiance.

Heaven knows why? Perhaps he knew that Louis would have cottoned on to his successes in the first match, perhaps he was sick of being used as a Nazi propaganda tool. Who knows?



joe louis is arguably the most potent puncher ever, considering his size, power, and level of offensive craft


in other words, he's the last guy on the planet against whom you can take sustained punishment


it had nothing to do with nazi's, i'll assure you


the better fighter went out there and imposed his gameplan (that involved punches that no man can sustain)

Sugarj
10-14-2011, 08:49 AM
[QUOTE=Sugarj;11290402]

He didn't associate himself with the Nazi political party but besides the aura of Joe's determination he must have felt immense pressure knowing that not only Hitler but the vast majority of his country were counting on him to uphold the image of Aryan superiority. It must have taken great courage just to walk to the ring that night let alone know you're going to be locked in with a hungry, caged tiger. Schmeling was a great man, but I don't envy the position he was in that night one bit.


It could be argued that no man other than possibly Jim Jeffries (in his match with Jack Johnson) has been subject to more pressure over a fight. I quite agree, not an enviable position at all.

Even still, he didn't look like a bucket of nerves (not in the Michael Spinks or Bruno 2 sense when facing Mike Tyson for example)......and he seemed to do nothing to make Louis's punishment any less painful. Strange.......

He was a great man though, and certainly no Nazi.

And he did a good job of outliving everyone who beat him in the ring too!!!!!

Sugarj
10-14-2011, 09:02 AM
Johnson having a better chin is arguable. I'd say Louis was the much harder hitter. Johnson's punch was solid but he couldn't starch people the way Louis did. I still say Louis' quick short combinations are going to make the difference here. Louis struggled with guys who had quick feet (ie Conn), but Johnson doesn't have the type of footwork. He was more a flat-footed counterpuncher.

On the subject of mental games, Tony Galento tried the trash talk with Louis and it didn't do him much good. For his part, Louis' deadpan emotionless expression was enough to leave some of his opponents scared sh#tless before they even stepped in the ring. Max Baer had a panic attack in the dressing room.



I don't think Louis gave Schmeling a chance to get away. One of those punches fractured his vertebrae, just froze him.



Granted, I believe Louis hit harder than Johnson, but I don't think it was that much greater. Johnson of course hit Stanley Ketchell hard enough to leave his teeth embedded in his glove. (Middleweight or no middleweight, that takes some doing).

As for the subject of chins, Louis had plenty of heart......and came back to win from most of his knockdowns. But he was knocked down more times than Johnson in their respective primes......and 'out' once. Also Johnson absorbed some nasty blows from opponents and applauded them in the middle of the ring. The guys chin looked pretty solid to me.

'Flat footed counter puncher?' A counter puncher certainly. But flat footed? I always found Johnson to be pretty mobile and quite quick on his feet.

As for Galento, true his trash talk didn't work in the end. However, Louis was more reckless that night......he was decked too! Against Johnson he would have come off far worse with reckless abandon.

And Schmelling did have chances to get away, the fight wasn't as frantic as say Tyson Spinks. The punch that allegedly broke one of Schmelling's vertebre was thrown while Max was on the ropes.

Terry A
10-14-2011, 01:30 PM
In post #32 & post #37, I'm quoted but it's not me who wrote what was quoted. Those quotes are from other quotes not quoted correctly by those who quoted my other quotes.

I'm on Joe Louis's side in this debate.

All you fellas are making good points, so please, continue to have at it! :D

***NOTE TO JAB5239.....That's an awesome quote by max Baer that you posted! I never heard that one before. And ain't it true!

Sugarj
10-14-2011, 07:29 PM
In post #32 & post #37, I'm quoted but it's not me who wrote what was quoted. Those quotes are from other quotes not quoted correctly by those who quoted my other quotes.

I'm on Joe Louis's side in this debate.

All you fellas are making good points, so please, continue to have at it! :D

***NOTE TO JAB5239.....That's an awesome quote by max Baer that you posted! I never heard that one before. And ain't it true!



Yes, the quoting system was all over the show this afternoon!!!

Kid McCoy
10-15-2011, 08:33 AM
Granted, I believe Louis hit harder than Johnson, but I don't think it was that much greater. Johnson of course hit Stanley Ketchell hard enough to leave his teeth embedded in his glove. (Middleweight or no middleweight, that takes some doing).

Johnson was a solid hitter, sure. But I wouldn't rate him near Louis as a puncher. Most of Johnson's KOs were through attrition. He wasn't the kind of fighter who took you out with one punch or demolished hard-chinned guys like Baer and Uzcudun in a few rounds. Look how Johnson was unable to budge Hart and Willard. I'd back Louis to stop a 156lb Sam Langford with a 30lb+ weight advantage.


As for the subject of chins, Louis had plenty of heart......and came back to win from most of his knockdowns. But he was knocked down more times than Johnson in their respective primes......and 'out' once. Also Johnson absorbed some nasty blows from opponents and applauded them in the middle of the ring. The guys chin looked pretty solid to me.

Johnson was also dropped and knocked out a few times. Choynski KO'd him, Willard KO'd him, Ketchel dropped him. I don't see chin giving Johnson any kind of edge here, especially as his was never tested by a Joe Louis level puncher.


'Flat footed counter puncher?' A counter puncher certainly. But flat footed? I always found Johnson to be pretty mobile and quite quick on his feet.

In the films I've seen of him Johnson tended to sit down on his punches and counterpunch aggressive guys. He didn't have the type of quick footwork that Billy Conn caused Louis problems with.


As for Galento, true his trash talk didn't work in the end. However, Louis was more reckless that night......he was decked too! Against Johnson he would have come off far worse with reckless abandon.

It didn't really work at all. Louis got careless and suffered a flash knockdown but he quickly gathered himself and it ended up a one-sided pasting. By the same token, if Johnson was as careless against Louis as he was against Ketchel, he likely wouldn't have got up.


And Schmelling did have chances to get away, the fight wasn't as frantic as say Tyson Spinks. The punch that allegedly broke one of Schmelling's vertebre was thrown while Max was on the ropes.

I remember Ali saying that about Schmeling in his one to one with Cus D'Amato (was it aka Cassius Clay?) and Cus replied wait til you get hit like that and your legs turn to jelly. I think Max was just frozen by that first onslaught and never recovered. Like Mike Tyson said everyone has a plan until they get hit.

Sugarj
10-15-2011, 09:05 PM
Johnson was a solid hitter, sure. But I wouldn't rate him near Louis as a puncher. Most of Johnson's KOs were through attrition. He wasn't the kind of fighter who took you out with one punch or demolished hard-chinned guys like Baer and Uzcudun in a few rounds. Look how Johnson was unable to budge Hart and Willard. I'd back Louis to stop a 156lb Sam Langford with a 30lb+ weight advantage.



Johnson was also dropped and knocked out a few times. Choynski KO'd him, Willard KO'd him, Ketchel dropped him. I don't see chin giving Johnson any kind of edge here, especially as his was never tested by a Joe Louis level puncher.



In the films I've seen of him Johnson tended to sit down on his punches and counterpunch aggressive guys. He didn't have the type of quick footwork that Billy Conn caused Louis problems with.



It didn't really work at all. Louis got careless and suffered a flash knockdown but he quickly gathered himself and it ended up a one-sided pasting. By the same token, if Johnson was as careless against Louis as he was against Ketchel, he likely wouldn't have got up.



I remember Ali saying that about Schmeling in his one to one with Cus D'Amato (was it aka Cassius Clay?) and Cus replied wait til you get hit like that and your legs turn to jelly. I think Max was just frozen by that first onslaught and never recovered. Like Mike Tyson said everyone has a plan until they get hit.



Hell, I agree that Louis hit harder; But lets consider the examples you've given. I don't get the impression that you've read too much about Jack Johnson, rather than look at his career record and stated results without reading much into them. The more film of Johnson you see, the more you'll notice his footspeed and mobility. He wasn't a Billy Conn, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ali style dancer......but he did have fast feet and could close the distance very quickly or evade attacks very well. Granted, there were times when he'd spend a lot of time holding and clinching.......but he could be very lazy at times.

Jack Johnson was a novice pro in 1901 when he met Joe Choynski. He was barely more than a light heavyweight learning his craft. I seem to recall that they were both arrested after the fight and Choynski actually taught Johnson a few tricks to help him on his way.

Jess Willard 1915!!! where Johnson was 37 and had just fought 26 rounds in the Havana heat. A poor example of his chin!!! I won't go into the controversy regarding Johnson throwing the fight either, its not necessary.

Likewise, the fight Johnson had with Langford in 1906. Johnson was only 180 odd pounds! A solid 'prime' 208Lb Johnson from 1910 would most likely have stopped Langford. Would Joe Louis have stopped Langford if he were only a fraction above the light heavyweight limit? Much is made of Louis's weight draining before the first Conn fight (and we know that it took 13 rounds to knock out Conn). Plus Sam Langford was some fighter!

As for the Marvin Hart fight in 1905, the joke was that in the heat of the moment and spirit of the occasion the referee pointed to the wrong guy. Again though, Johnson was a good few years off his prime or peak fighting weight. We know from accounts wrote about Johnson that he would carry opponents, pose, hold and taunt. He wasn't normally a ruthless finisher like Joe Louis, but Johnson could certainly hit hard.

Ketchell 1909: True, I wouldn't have expected a middleweight to knock down a prime Johnson. The story of the fight was that for the benefit of the movie cameras Johnson was to allow the fight to go into the late rounds. The punch that knocked him down didn't half look sore though, Ketchell threw everything into that punch. We know that two seconds after Ketchell was unconscious with several of his teeth in Johnson's glove.

But Johnson was (to my knowledge) only knocked down twice in his title reign of over 10 fights......contrast that with Joe Louis.

As for Aka Cassius Clay: Yea, great documentary. As for Louis vs Schmelling, I guess we all see different things.

Kid McCoy
10-16-2011, 08:23 AM
Hell, I agree that Louis hit harder; But lets consider the examples you've given. I don't get the impression that you've read too much about Jack Johnson, rather than look at his career record and stated results without reading much into them. The more film of Johnson you see, the more you'll notice his footspeed and mobility. He wasn't a Billy Conn, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ali style dancer......but he did have fast feet and could close the distance very quickly or evade attacks very well. Granted, there were times when he'd spend a lot of time holding and clinching.......but he could be very lazy at times.

I never said Johnson didn't have footspeed or mobility, I said he didn't have the quick feet of a Billy Conn. On the film of him (and I've seen most of what's extant), he doesn't show that type of footwork. Generally he preferred to stay flat footed and counterpunch his opponents. Look at him fighting Burns for instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ_Dguh9hEE


Jack Johnson was a novice pro in 1901 when he met Joe Choynski. He was barely more than a light heavyweight learning his craft. I seem to recall that they were both arrested after the fight and Choynski actually taught Johnson a few tricks to help him on his way.

Jess Willard 1915!!! where Johnson was 37 and had just fought 26 rounds in the Havana heat. A poor example of his chin!!! I won't go into the controversy regarding Johnson throwing the fight either, its not necessary.

The Choynski and Willard examples were to show that Johnson was not KO proof either. He could be dropped and he could be KO'd. Choynski himself was barely more than a middleweight and was on the downside of his career when he fought Johnson. As for Ketchel, whether Johnson was carrying him or not, he still got careless and was dropped by a middleweight.


Likewise, the fight Johnson had with Langford in 1906. Johnson was only 180 odd pounds! A solid 'prime' 208Lb Johnson from 1910 would most likely have stopped Langford. Would Joe Louis have stopped Langford if he were only a fraction above the light heavyweight limit? Much is made of Louis's weight draining before the first Conn fight (and we know that it took 13 rounds to knock out Conn). Plus Sam Langford was some fighter!

When do you think Johnson was in his prime? Against Langford he was 28, he'd already beaten the likes of McVey, Jeannette, Ferguson etc and was only two years from winning the title. Give a 28 year old Joe Louis a 30lb weight advantage (at least) against a 156lb Sam Langford who had only just moved up to heavyweight and I'd pick Joe to win by KO. Johnson hit Langford with everything but the kitchen sink and couldn't get him out of there. Louis' problem was more that Conn wouldn't stand still long enough to get KO'd. When he finally did catch up with Conn it was over in a matter of seconds.


As for the Marvin Hart fight in 1905, the joke was that in the heat of the moment and spirit of the occasion the referee pointed to the wrong guy. Again though, Johnson was a good few years off his prime or peak fighting weight. We know from accounts wrote about Johnson that he would carry opponents, pose, hold and taunt. He wasn't normally a ruthless finisher like Joe Louis, but Johnson could certainly hit hard.

The referee pointed to the guy who he thought won. Johnson was 27 when he fought Hart. Pretty close to his peak years I'd say. If it had been a prime Louis fighting Hart that day I doubt the referee would have been needed for anything but the ten count.


But Johnson was (to my knowledge) only knocked down twice in his title reign of over 10 fights......contrast that with Joe Louis.


Louis was down, what, six times in 27 title fights. Three of those were against Walcott in his final bouts as champion. Against Braddock, Buddy Baer and Galento he got up and resumed beating them up. That hardly suggests a major chin issue. Did Johnson face anyone who hit as hard as Walcott in his title run? In fact in those seven years he didn't fight many who were even likely to test his chin. As I said, I don't see Johnson's chin giving him any kind of advantage over Louis here.

Greatest1942
10-16-2011, 09:26 AM
Hell, I agree that Louis hit harder; But lets consider the examples you've given. I don't get the impression that you've read too much about Jack Johnson, rather than look at his career record and stated results without reading much into them. The more film of Johnson you see, the more you'll notice his footspeed and mobility. He wasn't a Billy Conn, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ali style dancer......but he did have fast feet and could close the distance very quickly or evade attacks very well. Granted, there were times when he'd spend a lot of time holding and clinching.......but he could be very lazy at times.

Jack Johnson was a novice pro in 1901 when he met Joe Choynski. He was barely more than a light heavyweight learning his craft. I seem to recall that they were both arrested after the fight and Choynski actually taught Johnson a few tricks to help him on his way.

Jess Willard 1915!!! where Johnson was 37 and had just fought 26 rounds in the Havana heat. A poor example of his chin!!! I won't go into the controversy regarding Johnson throwing the fight either, its not necessary.

Likewise, the fight Johnson had with Langford in 1906. Johnson was only 180 odd pounds! A solid 'prime' 208Lb Johnson from 1910 would most likely have stopped Langford. Would Joe Louis have stopped Langford if he were only a fraction above the light heavyweight limit? Much is made of Louis's weight draining before the first Conn fight (and we know that it took 13 rounds to knock out Conn). Plus Sam Langford was some fighter!

As for the Marvin Hart fight in 1905, the joke was that in the heat of the moment and spirit of the occasion the referee pointed to the wrong guy. Again though, Johnson was a good few years off his prime or peak fighting weight. We know from accounts wrote about Johnson that he would carry opponents, pose, hold and taunt. He wasn't normally a ruthless finisher like Joe Louis, but Johnson could certainly hit hard.

Ketchell 1909: True, I wouldn't have expected a middleweight to knock down a prime Johnson. The story of the fight was that for the benefit of the movie cameras Johnson was to allow the fight to go into the late rounds. The punch that knocked him down didn't half look sore though, Ketchell threw everything into that punch. We know that two seconds after Ketchell was unconscious with several of his teeth in Johnson's glove.

But Johnson was (to my knowledge) only knocked down twice in his title reign of over 10 fights......contrast that with Joe Louis.

As for Aka Cassius Clay: Yea, great documentary. As for Louis vs Schmelling, I guess we all see different things.


Johnsons chin better than Louis is laughable...

Johnson was KO'd cold multiple times.. Against Chonyski who was hardly over 170...and against Willard who never was a big puncher.

Reports suggests he was down against a 156 lb Langford when he was 28...do you any middleweight knocking down Louis? I doubt even Hagler would survive 12 rounds with Louis, forget about knocking him down...I know what Nat found but there were other reports which suggested that Sam had troubled Johnson so badly that he ducked him when he matured...and yea there were many newspapers which said so.

Who did Johnson face in his title reign who could KO him? An Old Jeffries was his best opponent. Was there any Max or Buddy Baer? Any Walcott..Hell even Any Tony Galento ?(who Nat and a lot of others rated as having the best left hook ever)..and in 7 odd fights he was KO'd cold once...Louis fought 25 times for his title, roughly three times more and against better punchers, by a wide margin. Care to argue about the quality of Smith vs even Buddy Baer or Tony Galento? Forget Walcott.

But why concerntrate on title reign only..surely what you do outside that matters also..and your chin does not change with your title. In his whole life Louis was KO'd twice.

Johnson was TKo'd by Klon***e....never heard of him as a great puncher , albeit early in his career...but then the last KO of Louis came at his last fight against an ATG puncher, the like of which Johnson never faced.

It is well known that Johnson turned a defensive boxer to protect his chin...

In 25 fights Louis was down 6 times...

A percentage of 25%...and most of them were flash knock downs when he got up immediately, without any danger...He seemed to be really hurt against Schemelling, against Conn once though he was never down and recovered quickly and against the Rock...otherwise I have never seen him in real trouble.

Take Johnson now..KO'd by Choynski, TKO'd by Klon***e, KO'd by Willard, towards the end KO'd by Bearcat Wright. In the book "In this Corner', Smith says that he floored Johnson in an exhibition and he was clearly hurt. But his manager stopped the fight. Against Jeanette it was alleged that he fouled out once ...The man was outpointed by an aged Griffin and was held to two draws...Never beat him...If that Griffin comes up against Louis he would have been murdered in the ring.

I know the patented response...Johnson was not mature or cr@p like it..come on neither was Louis when he faced Carnera or Sharkey or Max Baer...Everyone is not mature from birth...Then we should only count loses in their prime? Fact is Johnson got his a$$ handed him to him a lot of times by average fighters by the age LOuis was knocking out Sharkey, Carnera, Max Baer or Levinski...I will take even the version of Sharkey who Louis faced to clean out Griffin or Klon***e. I am comparing these guys because they came about the same stage in their career, i,e early.

So in summary even by pure maths...Johnson KO percentage loss in total career is 7 and Louis is 2...I am not even going into the punchers faced...and the weight advantages etc etc. Neither bring up his loses against Lawson and the like as he was OLD by then. You might argue , but maths says Johnson had the WEAKER CHIN...forget about subjective analysis like quality of punchers etc etc...In titles Louis had a knock down percentage 0f 25% and Johnson 25%..while Louis faced bums like Galento, Baer, Walcott, Conn, Farr, Pastor, Simon etc etc...while Johnson faced legendary punchers like Philadelphia Jack O'Brien (162 pounds and also was given the decision by the ref), Tony Ross (not considred to be a title fight even by some newspapers), Al Kaufman,Battling Jim Johnson a draw etc etc..an Ancient Jeffries was his best opponent.

You talk about Ketchel...hell Louis actually never hit a middle weight...But he did worse to heavy weights, even destroying gold, destroying mouth guards(which were better than Johnsons time) ,Breaking back bones I doubt Johnson hit remotely as hard..Films atleast do not show it...

One last point while Johnson was 183 lbs Sam was 156 lbs. A clear 30 pounds advantage...How big was Louis when he destroyed Sharkey ? Yes I would have backed Louis to KO Sam with 30 pounds advantage, that Sam Langford was not the man who he became in 1908....Louis got KO'd when he was 37 too...By Marciano and I have counted them..ultimately this things even out. Fact is Johnson got dropped most probably, contrary to what NAt says against Sam...but I wont go into it.

Your two arguements Louis had worse chin and Johnson was a comparative puncher does not hold water, atleast by pure facts...may be in hypothesis.

And lastly where do you come up with that Hart arguement? The referee pointed to the guy who won simple..may be the referee was wrong with O Brien too, where he did give the fight to him, by a slight margin or against Griffin too...my god :chomp:

Sugarj
10-16-2011, 05:57 PM
Johnsons chin better than Louis is laughable...

Johnson was KO'd cold multiple times.. Against Chonyski who was hardly over 170...and against Willard who never was a big puncher.

Reports suggests he was down against a 156 lb Langford when he was 28...do you any middleweight knocking down Louis? I doubt even Hagler would survive 12 rounds with Louis, forget about knocking him down...I know what Nat found but there were other reports which suggested that Sam had troubled Johnson so badly that he ducked him when he matured...and yea there were many newspapers which said so.

Who did Johnson face in his title reign who could KO him? An Old Jeffries was his best opponent. Was there any Max or Buddy Baer? Any Walcott..Hell even Any Tony Galento ?(who Nat and a lot of others rated as having the best left hook ever)..and in 7 odd fights he was KO'd cold once...Louis fought 25 times for his title, roughly three times more and against better punchers, by a wide margin. Care to argue about the quality of Smith vs even Buddy Baer or Tony Galento? Forget Walcott.

But why concerntrate on title reign only..surely what you do outside that matters also..and your chin does not change with your title. In his whole life Louis was KO'd twice.

Johnson was TKo'd by Klon***e....never heard of him as a great puncher , albeit early in his career...but then the last KO of Louis came at his last fight against an ATG puncher, the like of which Johnson never faced.

It is well known that Johnson turned a defensive boxer to protect his chin...

In 25 fights Louis was down 6 times...

A percentage of 25%...and most of them were flash knock downs when he got up immediately, without any danger...He seemed to be really hurt against Schemelling, against Conn once though he was never down and recovered quickly and against the Rock...otherwise I have never seen him in real trouble.

Take Johnson now..KO'd by Choynski, TKO'd by Klon***e, KO'd by Willard, towards the end KO'd by Bearcat Wright. In the book "In this Corner', Smith says that he floored Johnson in an exhibition and he was clearly hurt. But his manager stopped the fight. Against Jeanette it was alleged that he fouled out once ...The man was outpointed by an aged Griffin and was held to two draws...Never beat him...If that Griffin comes up against Louis he would have been murdered in the ring.

I know the patented response...Johnson was not mature or cr@p like it..come on neither was Louis when he faced Carnera or Sharkey or Max Baer...Everyone is not mature from birth...Then we should only count loses in their prime? Fact is Johnson got his a$$ handed him to him a lot of times by average fighters by the age LOuis was knocking out Sharkey, Carnera, Max Baer or Levinski...I will take even the version of Sharkey who Louis faced to clean out Griffin or Klon***e. I am comparing these guys because they came about the same stage in their career, i,e early.

So in summary even by pure maths...Johnson KO percentage loss in total career is 7 and Louis is 2...I am not even going into the punchers faced...and the weight advantages etc etc. Neither bring up his loses against Lawson and the like as he was OLD by then. You might argue , but maths says Johnson had the WEAKER CHIN...forget about subjective analysis like quality of punchers etc etc...In titles Louis had a knock down percentage 0f 25% and Johnson 25%..while Louis faced bums like Galento, Baer, Walcott, Conn, Farr, Pastor, Simon etc etc...while Johnson faced legendary punchers like Philadelphia Jack O'Brien (162 pounds and also was given the decision by the ref), Tony Ross (not considred to be a title fight even by some newspapers), Al Kaufman,Battling Jim Johnson a draw etc etc..an Ancient Jeffries was his best opponent.

You talk about Ketchel...hell Louis actually never hit a middle weight...But he did worse to heavy weights, even destroying gold, destroying mouth guards(which were better than Johnsons time) ,Breaking back bones I doubt Johnson hit remotely as hard..Films atleast do not show it...

One last point while Johnson was 183 lbs Sam was 156 lbs. A clear 30 pounds advantage...How big was Louis when he destroyed Sharkey ? Yes I would have backed Louis to KO Sam with 30 pounds advantage, that Sam Langford was not the man who he became in 1908....Louis got KO'd when he was 37 too...By Marciano and I have counted them..ultimately this things even out. Fact is Johnson got dropped most probably, contrary to what NAt says against Sam...but I wont go into it.

Your two arguements Louis had worse chin and Johnson was a comparative puncher does not hold water, atleast by pure facts...may be in hypothesis.

And lastly where do you come up with that Hart arguement? The referee pointed to the guy who won simple..may be the referee was wrong with O Brien too, where he did give the fight to him, by a slight margin or against Griffin too...my god :chomp:



It would take along time to reply to the last two posts.

We all have our opinions, and have formed these by films we've seen and reports we've read and more knowledgeable historians than us three favour Johnson to beat Louis......Louis's own trainer would favour Johnson to have beaten Louis.

But on the subject of the Marvin Hart fight, you might want to read some of the newspaper reports Greatest 1942. We don't have film to judge, but what I have read indicated that Johnson was rather more deserving of the verdict.

Steak
10-17-2011, 12:03 AM
With Louis knocking out Johnson dominantly.

Johnson predominantly won his fights using his size, and by constantly grabbing and pushing around his smaller opponents.

Louis slaughtered his larger opponents, and his combinations and punching power would have been far better than anyone that Johnson faced. The leverage he could get within a short range would murder Johnson if Johnson tried manhandling Louis and shoving him around.

Greatest1942
10-17-2011, 09:08 AM
It would take along time to reply to the last two posts.

We all have our opinions, and have formed these by films we've seen and reports we've read and more knowledgeable historians than us three favour Johnson to beat Louis......Louis's own trainer would favour Johnson to have beaten Louis.

But on the subject of the Marvin Hart fight, you might want to read some of the newspaper reports Greatest 1942. We don't have film to judge, but what I have read indicated that Johnson was rather more deserving of the verdict.

Oh let me get this straight Sugraj I have no problem if you favour Johnson on styles....as for trainers and historians I can name 3 for every three you named who favoured Louis over Johnson. That is immaterial here.

I came into the discussion because you pointed to the chin and power issues etc...which I thought is not right...Louis probably had the better chin and in terms of power its non disputable Louis was the over all better puncher, not only in terms of power but also combinations, accuracy , delivery timing etc.

Lastly on the newspaper reports with Hart...I have done the ground work...a few favoured Hart and a few Johnson , but since you wanna know read this

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OtpYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9fMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5235,5386906&dq=jack+johnson+marvin+hart&hl=en

While it says that Hart won it also says "Johnsons much vaunted cleverness did not count for much"


Or here is the Los Angeles Time heading :-

GAME HART WINS FIGHT.
Gets Decision Over Johnson After Twentieth Round; Is Awkward and Shows He's No Match for Jeff; Lincolnshire Handicap Run Begins--White Arrives

So Johnson loses to an awkward fighter.

Or the Sun:-

MARVIN HART WINS
Defeats Jack Johnson In Fight At San Francisco IT GOES THE TWENTY ROUNDS The White Victor Will Now Have His Chance At Jeffries--Negro Was Favorite In Betting

Or this reports :-

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=v-FJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2IQMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3248,7048983&dq=jack+johnson+marvin+hart&hl=en

In the above Battling Nelson declares that Hart is the next best man to Jeffries..after the Johnson - Hart fight ofcourse.

There were some who favoured Johnson too, but the ref and most did favour Hart...And no matter what amount of suggesstion you make of me reading the report fact is Johnson lost to Hart.

Sugarj
10-17-2011, 01:19 PM
Oh let me get this straight Sugraj I have no problem if you favour Johnson on styles....as for trainers and historians I can name 3 for every three you named who favoured Louis over Johnson. That is immaterial here.

I came into the discussion because you pointed to the chin and power issues etc...which I thought is not right...Louis probably had the better chin and in terms of power its non disputable Louis was the over all better puncher, not only in terms of power but also combinations, accuracy , delivery timing etc.

Lastly on the newspaper reports with Hart...I have done the ground work...a few favoured Hart and a few Johnson , but since you wanna know read this

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OtpYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9fMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5235,5386906&dq=jack+johnson+marvin+hart&hl=en

While it says that Hart won it also says "Johnsons much vaunted cleverness did not count for much"


Or here is the Los Angeles Time heading :-

GAME HART WINS FIGHT.
Gets Decision Over Johnson After Twentieth Round; Is Awkward and Shows He's No Match for Jeff; Lincolnshire Handicap Run Begins--White Arrives

So Johnson loses to an awkward fighter.

Or the Sun:-

MARVIN HART WINS
Defeats Jack Johnson In Fight At San Francisco IT GOES THE TWENTY ROUNDS The White Victor Will Now Have His Chance At Jeffries--Negro Was Favorite In Betting

Or this reports :-

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=v-FJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2IQMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3248,7048983&dq=jack+johnson+marvin+hart&hl=en

In the above Battling Nelson declares that Hart is the next best man to Jeffries..after the Johnson - Hart fight ofcourse.

There were some who favoured Johnson too, but the ref and most did favour Hart...And no matter what amount of suggesstion you make of me reading the report fact is Johnson lost to Hart.


On the subject of the Hart fight, its sad that there are not any films. I had read in a number of books that Johnson was more deserving of the decision, that he had easily dominated the first 14 rounds but tired down the stretch, but should have still got the decision.

We need to be mindful that Johnson was very much hated back then and the newspaper reporters might have been less than objective than the modern sports writers. The colour issue was obviously a factor back then, not helped by Johnson's behaviour at times. Of course Joe Louis did a great job of being everything Johnson wasn't.

To be honest though prime for prime, I'm sure Marvin Hart would have been an easy fight for Johnson.

Greatest1942
10-17-2011, 02:45 PM
On the subject of the Hart fight, its sad that there are not any films. I had read in a number of books that Johnson was more deserving of the decision, that he had easily dominated the first 14 rounds but tired down the stretch, but should have still got the decision.

We need to be mindful that Johnson was very much hated back then and the newspaper reporters might have been less than objective than the modern sports writers. The colour issue was obviously a factor back then, not helped by Johnson's behaviour at times. Of course Joe Louis did a great job of being everything Johnson wasn't.

To be honest though prime for prime, I'm sure Marvin Hart would have been an easy fight for Johnson.

Johnson won some close decisons too. The referee gave the fight to O Brien but the 'biased' newspapers gave it to Johnson , atleast most of them. In the case of Hart, it doesn't appear so.

I don't care about books reporting fights , because I have myself read most of the reports...most books pick and choose the reports to suit their case.

I have read reports where it was stated that Johnson could not keep Hart away from the start and Hart was aggresive and landed the more chances, why should I believe the book...the referee also gave it to Hart, atleast he was the one closest to the action...

And no the bias was not as much back then as it was when Johnson was the champion you need to remember that.

As for Johnson's prime, it appears he was never in his prime...when was it when he was beating a 155lb Burns or a Fossil Jeffries or he was beating a teen ager Jeanette or Mcvey or was it against Hart or Klon***e?

I can turn this prime arguement on its head and say Johnson never faced a good fighter who was in his prime..Sam , Mcvey and Jeaneete were too young when he faced them ...When they matured he ducked them. He faced a old fossil of a Jeffries...could not beat a past it Griffin or an awkward Hart...got beaten by a guy who started boxing in his late twenties.

As for the film , yea we don't have it, but Hart won it, Johnson got outboxed...And fact is for all his cleverness Johnson could not put away middleweights like him or O Brien.

Sugarj
10-17-2011, 03:48 PM
well where was the bias against Johnson? He won some close decisons too. The referee gave the fight to O Brien but the 'biased' newspapers gave it to Johnson , atleast most of them. In the case of Hart, it doesn't appear so.

I don't care about books reporting fights , because I have myself read most of the reports...most books pick and choose the reports to suit their case.

I have read reports where it was stated that Johnson could not keep Hart away from the start and Hart was aggresive and landed the more chances, why should I believe the book...the referee also gave it to Hart, atleast he was the one closest to the action...

And no the bias was not as much back then as it was when Johnson was the champion you need to remember that.

As for Johnson's prime, it appears he was never in his prime...when was it when he was beating a 155lb Burns or a Fossil Jeffries or he was beating a teen ager Jeanette or Mcvey or was it against Hart or Klon***e?

I can turn this prime arguement on its head and say Johnson never faced a good fighter who was in his prime..Sam , Mcvey and Jeaneete were too young when he faced them ...When they matured he ducked them. He faced a old fossil of a Jeffries...could not beat a past it Griffin or an awkward Hart...got beaten by a guy who started boxing in his late twenties.

As for the film , yea we don't have it, but Hart won it, Johnson got outboxed...And fact is for all his cleverness Johnson could not put away middleweights like him or O Brien.



Not every champion gets the defining fights with other prime fighters, its life.......Joe Louis did face several fighters close to their prime. But realistically Johnson was probably the best heavyweight to walk the planet until arguably Jack Dempsey and then Joe Louis. Even then, there have been historians worth their salt who have favoured Johnson over both.

As for Johnson's prime, for me I'll say 1908-1910 where he varied between 205 and 210Lbs. He might have shown fantastic skills before then, but he was rather more spindly at 180lbs odd. I wouldn't throw a 185Lb Johnson in with prime Louis and be confident about the result at all.

As for the character of Johnson, he could be a lazy trainer. He turned up for some fights hungover and oversexed. Sometimes he would put little effort in, sometimes he would show very little aggression. I don't put any emphasis on the fact that much smaller men lasted the distance with him as being any reflection on his punching power. He often didn't care or even pursue knockouts.

Anyway, with all the negatives surrounding the perception of Johnson on the forum recently I'm going to watch a couple of old vids I have of him. Just to see if I'm remembering what I've seen in the past with rose tinted spectacles.......or if he is as good as I remember.

Adios

Greatest1942
10-17-2011, 04:54 PM
Not every champion gets the defining fights with other prime fighters, its life.......Joe Louis did face several fighters close to their prime. But realistically Johnson was probably the best heavyweight to walk the planet until arguably Jack Dempsey and then Joe Louis. Even then, there have been historians worth their salt who have favoured Johnson over both.

As for Johnson's prime, for me I'll say 1908-1910 where he varied between 205 and 210Lbs. He might have shown fantastic skills before then, but he was rather more spindly at 180lbs odd. I wouldn't throw a 185Lb Johnson in with prime Louis and be confident about the result at all.

As for the character of Johnson, he could be a lazy trainer. He turned up for some fights hungover and oversexed. Sometimes he would put little effort in, sometimes he would show very little aggression. I don't put any emphasis on the fact that much smaller men lasted the distance with him as being any reflection on his punching power. He often didn't care or even pursue knockouts.

Anyway, with all the negatives surrounding the perception of Johnson on the forum recently I'm going to watch a couple of old vids I have of him. Just to see if I'm remembering what I've seen in the past with rose tinted spectacles.......or if he is as good as I remember.

Adios


1908 -1910 and when he could not dispose of O Brien and made a hash of it he was undoubtedly past it by then...I can make even Fulton look like a world beater this way...

Fact is throughout his career he struggled with good fighters...and was lucky enough that he had to face Burns for the title and never faced a good fighter in his championship reign, many say he was unlucky not to face any...looking into his whole career , I ,may say, that he was lucky he did not face better fighters at their prime...

As for many favouring him over Dempsey and Louis...well many favoured old timers like Burns over Louis or Dempsey too...take your pick...and many favoured Louis and Dempsey to knock Jack out cold.

Sugarj
10-18-2011, 07:36 AM
1908 -1910 and when he could not dispose of O Brien and made a hash of it he was undoubtedly past it by then...I can make even Fulton look like a world beater this way...

Fact is throughout his career he struggled with good fighters...and was lucky enough that he had to face Burns for the title and never faced a good fighter in his championship reign, many say he was unlucky not to face any...looking into his whole career , I ,may say, that he was lucky he did not face better fighters at their prime...

As for many favouring him over Dempsey and Louis...well many favoured old timers like Burns over Louis or Dempsey too...take your pick...and many favoured Louis and Dempsey to knock Jack out cold.


I think most people would suggest that Johnson was prime 1908-1910. Even if his skills were at their best a couple of years previously, I feel that this would be the best version of Johnson, he looked very physically strong at 205-210Lbs. The O'Brien fight sounded like a right farce, its not one that I believe was filmed. God knows what Johnson turned up for that fight, his form did very much vary fight to fight.

Your clearly not much of a fan of Johnson and thats fine. But you don't write like someone who knows much really about the guy, where he came from, what made him tick. It looks like you've just looked at his record and made conclusions from results.

He didn't have the amateur background of Louis and the excellent management or trainers, poor Johnson was thrown in Battle Royales, He learned the hard way!

He wasn't the same type of fighter as Louis, he often was happy to toy around with opponents without seeking a knockout. He could be cruel with his verbal taunting, but he was seldom a ruthless finisher which did result in decision wins where really he should have knocked the guy out. He often turned up hungover, oversexed and undertrained for fights. His motivation wasn't always that high.....but he didn't lose in his prime!

Realistically he could have finished Burns off way before the 14th round. I watched the fight last night, but he was just happy doing his thing. He only really turned on the ruthless combinations after round 13 because the police were threatening to invade the ring......and the combinations did look ruthless!

However, you say Johnson struggled with good fighters his entire career......so did Louis!!! Schmelling, Braddock, Farr, Godoy, Buddy Baer, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano jump to mind. Its life! Pre, post prime or near shot......it happens.

But hell, we're not getting anywhere or learning anything so lets call it a day with this subject.

Greatest1942
10-18-2011, 09:09 AM
I think most people would suggest that Johnson was prime 1908-1910. Even if his skills were at their best a couple of years previously, I feel that this would be the best version of Johnson, he looked very physically strong at 205-210Lbs. The O'Brien fight sounded like a right farce, its not one that I believe was filmed. God knows what Johnson turned up for that fight, his form did very much vary fight to fight.

Your clearly not much of a fan of Johnson and thats fine. But you don't write like someone who knows much really about the guy, where he came from, what made him tick. It looks like you've just looked at his record and made conclusions from results.

He didn't have the amateur background of Louis and the excellent management or trainers, poor Johnson was thrown in Battle Royales, He learned the hard way!

He wasn't the same type of fighter as Louis, he often was happy to toy around with opponents without seeking a knockout. He could be cruel with his verbal taunting, but he was seldom a ruthless finisher which did result in decision wins where really he should have knocked the guy out. He often turned up hungover, oversexed and undertrained for fights. His motivation wasn't always that high.....but he didn't lose in his prime!

Realistically he could have finished Burns off way before the 14th round. I watched the fight last night, but he was just happy doing his thing. He only really turned on the ruthless combinations after round 13 because the police were threatening to invade the ring......and the combinations did look ruthless!

However, you say Johnson struggled with good fighters his entire career......so did Louis!!! Schmelling, Braddock, Farr, Godoy, Buddy Baer, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano jump to mind. Its life! Pre, post prime or near shot......it happens.

But hell, we're not getting anywhere or learning anything so lets call it a day with this subject.

"ME not knowing about JOhnson"

I guarantee you I have forgotten more about Johnson than you ever knew...no offence intended.

I am picking holes in his career after he had 30- 40 fights...Quite reasonable IMO...excellent management and all, Louis never ducked deserving candidates like Johnson did..and he took on better fighters at a much younger age than Jack. If after 30-40-50 fights you are not mature you will never mature.Period. Tell me when he was immature against Hart or O Brien? Fact is even with his excellent management et all LOuis took on far more dangerous fighters during his title reign than JOhnson did...Nice try though.

As for not knowing about that era...I doubt many have read more first hand evidence like newspapers etc more than me...Books often are about hero worshipping and hidden agendas.

"Schmelling, Braddock, Farr, Godoy, Buddy Baer, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano"

:sleeping: You are the only one who will equal Burns, hart, O Brien with the above...some of them are still rated as top 30 heavy weights...where are JOhnsons opponents in that scale in his title reign and prime ? I don't give him a slack for the Klon***e Loss, but it shows that his chin was vulnerable from the start to the end...always dodgy.If Louis failed to KO Hart or O Brien within 12 rounds, I doubt many would call him a puncher...and these were not elusive guys (Hart particularly), they were come forward types.

Still which books have you read, which I haven't? You presume a lot sir. I have read teh following, I presume you have read them all too.

1)The rise and fall of Jack Johnson
2)Papa Jack
3) Unforgivable Blackness
4)"My Life and Battles" _ in which he admits he was down against Sam , if i remember correctly...might be off though.

Which one disputes my claim? I have read all cover to cover.

And you can build up his 210-212 pound frame, but I doubt he was better than previous years..he weighed more though...Atleast most people thought he was better in 1906-07...Read "50 years at ringside".


Beating a middle weight version of Langford,a man who was not active for 6 years is his claim to fame...hell I can talk of Sharkey and Carnera too in that case...In his prime whom did he face who could remotely test his abilities? You can always look like a world beater if you avoid the best.

I am not saying Jack can't win or Louis wont loose...what I was disputing was you trying to build up Jack's chin as something stellar while somehow trying to diminish Louis's...And honestly to me knocking out a middle weight (with teeths)et all does not show stellar punching ability...I think Ali would have done same to SRR, though it would not have proved a damn thing about Ali's punch, his simply knocking out Bonavena proves more IMO. Fact is JOhnson heard the ten count against lesser opponents than Schemlling or Marciano than Louis ever did in his life time. Twist it as much as you will...its a fact.


Lastly previosuly for you the Hart fight was a farce, now the O Brien one is...I think your ill researched record glossing freind showed you some reports you never saw, which he bothred looking into and finding instead of cramming up a book, looking at boxrec and a film and making up your mind....and he can do the same for another fight you are calling farce.

You are right lets not continue...after all everytime Johnson did badly his form fluctuated from fight to fight and anyone who disputes his greatness does not know his stuff.

Kid McCoy
10-18-2011, 11:07 AM
Oh let me get this straight Sugraj I have no problem if you favour Johnson on styles....as for trainers and historians I can name 3 for every three you named who favoured Louis over Johnson. That is immaterial here.

I came into the discussion because you pointed to the chin and power issues etc...which I thought is not right...Louis probably had the better chin and in terms of power its non disputable Louis was the over all better puncher, not only in terms of power but also combinations, accuracy , delivery timing etc.

Lastly on the newspaper reports with Hart...I have done the ground work...a few favoured Hart and a few Johnson , but since you wanna know read this

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OtpYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9fMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5235,5386906&dq=jack+johnson+marvin+hart&hl=en

While it says that Hart won it also says "Johnsons much vaunted cleverness did not count for much"


Or here is the Los Angeles Time heading :-

GAME HART WINS FIGHT.
Gets Decision Over Johnson After Twentieth Round; Is Awkward and Shows He's No Match for Jeff; Lincolnshire Handicap Run Begins--White Arrives

So Johnson loses to an awkward fighter.

Or the Sun:-

MARVIN HART WINS
Defeats Jack Johnson In Fight At San Francisco IT GOES THE TWENTY ROUNDS The White Victor Will Now Have His Chance At Jeffries--Negro Was Favorite In Betting

Or this reports :-

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=v-FJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2IQMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3248,7048983&dq=jack+johnson+marvin+hart&hl=en

In the above Battling Nelson declares that Hart is the next best man to Jeffries..after the Johnson - Hart fight ofcourse.

There were some who favoured Johnson too, but the ref and most did favour Hart...And no matter what amount of suggesstion you make of me reading the report fact is Johnson lost to Hart.

Just to add on Johnson-Hart, there was no consensus for Johnson being robbed. Overall it seems to have been a pretty uneventful fight. Hart was the aggressor, Johnson was the more effective when he opened up but also passive for much for the bout. Johnson was ahead after about 15 rounds but either gassed or tried to sit on his lead and the fight slipped away from him in those last few rounds. The consensus was that based on that showing, neither man deserved a shot at Jeffries. Note how Jeff didn't bother to face Hart either.

Furthermore, Greggains the referee was also the promoter. A few of his recent fights had been stinkers and conscious of fan demands for action packed fights, he warned both men that he would favour the one who tried to make the fight. I don't think that was bias so much as wanting to make sure it was a good fight for his paying punters.

The real mystery is Johnson's performance. He was a better fighter than Hart, he'd campaigned hard for this fight, he knew what was on the line and yet he turned in such a lacklustre performance.

Sugarj
10-18-2011, 11:23 AM
"ME not knowing about JOhnson"

I guarantee you I have forgotten more about Johnson than you ever knew...no offence intended.

I am picking holes in his career after he had 30- 40 fights...Quite reasonable IMO...excellent management and all, Louis never ducked deserving candidates like Johnson did..and he took on better fighters at a much younger age than Jack. If after 30-40-50 fights you are not mature you will never mature.Period. Tell me when he was immature against Hart or O Brien? Fact is even with his excellent management et all LOuis took on far more dangerous fighters during his title reign than JOhnson did...Nice try though.

As for not knowing about that era...I doubt many have read more first hand evidence like newspapers etc more than me...Books often are about hero worshipping and hidden agendas.

"Schmelling, Braddock, Farr, Godoy, Buddy Baer, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano"

:sleeping: You are the only one who will equal Burns, hart, O Brien with the above...some of them are still rated as top 30 heavy weights...where are JOhnsons opponents in that scale in his title reign and prime ? I don't give him a slack for the Klon***e Loss, but it shows that his chin was vulnerable from the start to the end...always dodgy.If Louis failed to KO Hart or O Brien within 12 rounds, I doubt many would call him a puncher...and these were not elusive guys (Hart particularly), they were come forward types.

Still which books have you read, which I haven't? You presume a lot sir. I have read teh following, I presume you have read them all too.

1)The rise and fall of Jack Johnson
2)Papa Jack
3) Unforgivable Blackness
4)"My Life and Battles" _ in which he admits he was down against Sam , if i remember correctly...might be off though.

Which one disputes my claim? I have read all cover to cover.

And you can build up his 210-212 pound frame, but I doubt he was better than previous years..he weighed more though...Atleast most people thought he was better in 1906-07...Read "50 years at ringside".


Beating a middle weight version of Langford,a man who was not active for 6 years is his claim to fame...hell I can talk of Sharkey and Carnera too in that case...In his prime whom did he face who could remotely test his abilities? You can always look like a world beater if you avoid the best.

I am not saying Jack can't win or Louis wont loose...what I was disputing was you trying to build up Jack's chin as something stellar while somehow trying to diminish Louis's...And honestly to me knocking out a middle weight (with teeths)et all does not show stellar punching ability...I think Ali would have done same to SRR, though it would not have proved a damn thing about Ali's punch, his simply knocking out Bonavena proves more IMO. Fact is JOhnson heard the ten count against lesser opponents than Schemlling or Marciano than Louis ever did in his life time. Twist it as much as you will...its a fact.


Lastly previosuly for you the Hart fight was a farce, now the O Brien one is...I think your ill researched record glossing freind showed you some reports you never saw, which he bothred looking into and finding instead of cramming up a book, looking at boxrec and a film and making up your mind....and he can do the same for another fight you are calling farce.

You are right lets not continue...after all everytime Johnson did badly his form fluctuated from fight to fight and anyone who disputes his greatness does not know his stuff.



You are notorious for claiming things people have never posted. I think you genuinely enjoy doing this and have seen you do it far to often with other posters too. My quote is in bold below, since when did I compare these these Louis opponents with Johnson's????

However, you say Johnson struggled with good fighters his entire career......so did Louis!!! Schmelling, Braddock, Farr, Godoy, Buddy Baer, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano jump to mind. Its life! Pre, post prime or near shot......it happens.

All I said is that Louis struggled with good fighters too......and that was in response to your quote that 'Fact is throughout his career he struggled with good fighters' in respect of Johnson. Of course Louis's opponents were better, I'd never equal them!!!

I never said Johnson's chin was 'stellar', just for me a bit better than Louis's. Neither had amazing chins.

You seem to have far too much time on your hands, the length of your posts clearly indicate this. I'm glad that you admit that you have 'forgotten' much more than you feel I ever knew about Johnson. If you'd remembered much of what you'd clearly read about Johnson you wouldn't be saying things like Louis was fighting better opponents at a younger age. Louis was a pretty decorated amateur in his teens!!!! By 21 he was a superb fighting machine. Johnson didn't have a nice amateur pedigree, he had it tough, he peaked much later.

Yes, many felt Johnson was better in 1906-07. Skillwise he may have been! But I don't think he was quite as strong back then......

The O'Brien farce!!!! The fight reports vary so much in their content that I don't know what to believe. I gather it was a nasty, mauling, falling to the floor sort of fight where Johnson did next to nothing and O'Brien was given credit for at least making an effort. Who knows what condition and focus Johnson brought into the fight, he was an odd guy!

I'm going to leave this thread now. Laters amigo......

Greatest1942
10-18-2011, 03:17 PM
You are notorious for claiming things people have never posted. I think you genuinely enjoy doing this and have seen you do it far to often with other posters too. My quote is in bold below, since when did I compare these these Louis opponents with Johnson's????

However, you say Johnson struggled with good fighters his entire career......so did Louis!!! Schmelling, Braddock, Farr, Godoy, Buddy Baer, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano jump to mind. Its life! Pre, post prime or near shot......it happens.

All I said is that Louis struggled with good fighters too......and that was in response to your quote that 'Fact is throughout his career he struggled with good fighters' in respect of Johnson. Of course Louis's opponents were better, I'd never equal them!!!

I never said Johnson's chin was 'stellar', just for me a bit better than Louis's. Neither had amazing chins.

You seem to have far too much time on your hands, the length of your posts clearly indicate this. I'm glad that you admit that you have 'forgotten' much more than you feel I ever knew about Johnson. If you'd remembered much of what you'd clearly read about Johnson you wouldn't be saying things like Louis was fighting better opponents at a younger age. Louis was a pretty decorated amateur in his teens!!!! By 21 he was a superb fighting machine. Johnson didn't have a nice amateur pedigree, he had it tough, he peaked much later.

Yes, many felt Johnson was better in 1906-07. Skillwise he may have been! But I don't think he was quite as strong back then......

The O'Brien farce!!!! The fight reports vary so much in their content that I don't know what to believe. I gather it was a nasty, mauling, falling to the floor sort of fight where Johnson did next to nothing and O'Brien was given credit for at least making an effort. Who knows what condition and focus Johnson brought into the fight, he was an odd guy!

I'm going to leave this thread now. Laters amigo......

Calling Hart, Klon***e, O Brien good was my mistake, may be I should have called them medicore, which they were, atleast Schemelling, Walcott , Conn would have been saved the embarrssment.

To restate it throughout his career Johnson got troubled by extremely medicore opponents, even getting beaten by some, which Louis didn't.It took Schemelling, Marciano and Charles all top 30 heavies to actually beat him...One when he was young(though already a very good fighter, I give Max credit for this one), and two after he had retired once...Big difference.

You can't be polite to old fighters these days.:no1:

O Brien fight :-Johnson often was so cautious about getting hit, he did next to nothing. BUt he did have O Brien on the ground, wrestled him down it seems. Pity, forgot to punch.

@Kid :- Yea, the Hart fight was difficult..I think Johnson sometimes was overly cautious, and may be put off by Hart's aggression, if he was a bit more
aggresive he might have won it...but he might have wanted to simply outbox Hart , but it did not work out as expected, may be.

But yea it was a big upset. Johnson was the clear cut betting favourite anyways.

Greatest1942
10-18-2011, 04:38 PM
Just to add on Johnson-Hart, there was no consensus for Johnson being robbed. Overall it seems to have been a pretty uneventful fight. Hart was the aggressor, Johnson was the more effective when he opened up but also passive for much for the bout. Johnson was ahead after about 15 rounds but either gassed or tried to sit on his lead and the fight slipped away from him in those last few rounds. The consensus was that based on that showing, neither man deserved a shot at Jeffries. Note how Jeff didn't bother to face Hart either.

Furthermore, Greggains the referee was also the promoter. A few of his recent fights had been stinkers and conscious of fan demands for action packed fights, he warned both men that he would favour the one who tried to make the fight. I don't think that was bias so much as wanting to make sure it was a good fight for his paying punters.

The real mystery is Johnson's performance. He was a better fighter than Hart, he'd campaigned hard for this fight, he knew what was on the line and yet he turned in such a lacklustre performance.


The consensus was that both sucked in that fight and Hart sucked a bit less than Johnson...

Most papers criticized Johnson heavily for his performance, even telling "that his much vaunted cleverness did not help him"