View Full Version : History of the Heavyweights part 6 (Jack Johnson)


kerrminator
12-10-2005, 02:48 PM
Jack Johnson


There are boxing aficionados who put Jack Johnson above Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali in the all time list of heavyweight greats. The first black champion reigned for seven years, and it certainly would have been a lot longer had the likes of Jeffries and Burns not avoided meeting him for so long. As it was, Johnson had to wait until he was 30 to get his chance. It was only after six sucsessful defences and one draw that he relinquished the title, and then it has to be remembered that "L'il Arthur" had turned 37.
Johnson was born in Glaveston, Texas, on 31st March 1878. His early experience of boxing came in the infamous"Battles Royal". In this brutal activity, between six and a dozen black youngsters were thrown into a ring together for the entertainment of a white crowd. The sole survivor scooped the pool, which might consist of nickels and dimes tossed disdainfully by the spectators. It was an experience which burned deep into the aspiring heavyweight., and when he fought his way to the top, he showed that he had a long memory.


UNCANNY DEFENCE


Ironically, it was probably at least in part because of the Battles Royal that Johnson had developed a defence which verged on the uncanny. At a shade over 6 ft and 13 stone 10lb when he fought for the title, Johnson was no giant by modern standards. But he was a master of his craft, and the fact that the boxing fraternity rates him so highly nearly a hundred years on speaks volumes for his contribution to the sport.
By 1903 he had beaten all the top contenders and was regarded as the best black heavyweight in the world. He openly challenged Jeffries to the title, but the latter made it clear he wouldn't step into the ring with a negro. Several years later, he was to change his mind as far as Johnson was concerned, and take a terrible beating as a result.
When Tommy Burns became champion in 1906, Johnson embarked on a persuit that lasted two long years. One of the greatest chases in sporting history saw Johnson follow Burns from America to Britain, France and Australia. He finally pinned his man down to a contest in Sydney, on 26th Dec 1908.

POLICE INTERVENE


Ever the shrewd businessman, Burns negotiated a guranteed fee of $25,000, win, lose or draw. It was just as well. Johnson recieced just $5,000, but the coveted title at last was within his grasp. He knocked Burns down in the first round, and again in the seventh. It was clear that he could have finished off the champion any time he liked. Johnson didn't like, however. After all the years of racial abuse, all the years of being humiliatingly marginalised by the white boxing establishment, Johnson wanted to savour the moment. The fight was eventually stopped in the 14th round, the police intervening to prevent the game French-Canadian from taking further punishment.


HIGH LIVING


Johnson continued to enjoy the high life. He interrupted his hedonistic pursuits for the absolute minimum time necessary to remain on top of the boxing world. He often looked as if he'd come into the ring straight from a bar instead of a gym, yet no-one came close to making him pay for his lack of preperation.
The clamour from Jeffries to come out of retirement was now greater than ever, and the former champion finally relented. After six years out of the ring, he agreed to fight Johnson. The match - or mismatch as it is transpired - took place in Reno, on 4th of July 1910. Johnson did to Jeffries what he'd done to Burns. He cut him, taunted him and toyed with him, humiliated him. He finally smashed the previously unbeaten Jeffries to the canvas in the 15th round.
Unable to get the better of Johnson in the ring, his enemies turned to the law. The champion was charged under a new piece of legislation which made it illegal to transport white women across statelines for immoral purposes. It didn't matter whether - as in Johnson's case - the women were willing participants. Many were liable to prosecution under this ridiculous new law. Unsurprisingly Johnson was targeted. His guilt was never in doubt and he was sentenced to a year and a day's imprisonment. Released on bail, he manage to skip the country by joining a Canadian baseball team on tour in the USA. Johnson took the place of a lookalike in the team when it returned home.
From Canada he headed for Europe. After two defences of his title in Paris, and another in Buenos Aires, Johnson agreed to fight the latest great white hope, a 6ft 6in cowboy named Jess Willard. Johnson had turned 37 by the time they met in Havana, Cuba, on 5th of April 1915. Not only was Johnson at a disadvantage in terms of age, height and weight, his dissolute lifestyle was finally catching up with him. It was a fight too far for L'il Arthur.

j
12-12-2005, 11:26 PM
surprised that there are no comments here. if you guys get a chance to, pick up "unforgivable blackness" the companion book to the video documentary. it's a good inclusive read about jack and parallels many of the accounts of events that i've read from other books on jack johnson or books on boxing history around the very early 1900's. be warned though, it's not a book for the illiterate or people who have grade school reading levels.

Dempsey 1919
12-12-2005, 11:30 PM
yeah, jack johnson was a beast. he is the first fighter chronologically to be on my top ten list. i have him seventh, under ali, liston, holmes, foreman, frazier, and tyson.

kid dynamite
12-13-2005, 11:34 AM
what no joe louis, dempsey or rocky in your top ten..

Da Iceman
12-13-2005, 07:40 PM
your list is ****

Mike Tyson77
02-26-2006, 09:57 PM
Jack Johnson is #2 on my list. I love watching his fights.

Kid Achilles
02-26-2006, 10:27 PM
How can you rate Holmes above Joe Louis? The only thing Holmes has going for him is longevity as champion (title defenses) and Louis beats him in that category too. I am curious to read how you can possibly justify this.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-26-2006, 10:48 PM
yeah, jack johnson was a beast. he is the first fighter chronologically to be on my top ten list. i have him seventh, under ali, liston, holmes, foreman, frazier, and tyson.
and you call other ppl racist :rolleyes:

lol no some of those guys were good fighters

Da Iceman
02-26-2006, 11:00 PM
How can you rate Holmes above Joe Louis? The only thing Holmes has going for him is longevity as champion (title defenses) and Louis beats him in that category too. I am curious to read how you can possibly justify this.
if holmes didnt have a long title reign nobody would really care about him nowadays.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-26-2006, 11:22 PM
the only other thing he has is nearly beating Marciano's record (49-0)

holmes was 48-0 going into the spinks fight but lost

he did all that bad mouthing of marciano being horrible for nothing

smasher
02-27-2006, 01:12 AM
How can you rate Holmes above Joe Louis? The only thing Holmes has going for him is longevity as champion (title defenses) and Louis beats him in that category too. I am curious to read how you can possibly justify this.

Butterfly can't rate Louis any higher because Joe must have been a racist, only defending against 2 black fighters in 12 years.

LondonRingRules
02-27-2006, 08:05 AM
=========There are boxing aficionados who put Jack Johnson above Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali in the all time list of heavyweight greats. The first black champion reigned for seven years, and it certainly would have been a lot longer had the likes of Jeffries and Burns not avoided meeting him for so long. As it was, Johnson had to wait until he was 30 to get his chance.===================================

** The rest of your article is equally littered with unsupported suppositions and misrepresentations. Did you write it yourself?

You assume Johnson would hold the title longer had he met Burns and Jeffries sooner. You're welcome to come up with your reasoning. Fact is that Johnson was busy losing to fringe contenders and novice fighters. Jeffries beat Griffin twice, knocking him out in one of Jeff's first fights. Johnson never could beat Griffin, losing to him once.

One of Jeff's earliest fights included a prime Choynski who Jeff held to a draw. A fading Choynski laid out Johnson cold. Johnson managed to overcome those losses and put together a 3 yr win streak, but then lost a title eliminator to Hart in a poor performance. He then preceded to lose his cool to an improving novice fighter, HOFer Jeannette, and lost by DQ. He lost his opportunity to fight for Jeff's vacant title with those losses.

Obviously Jeff met several of the top black contenders in his short career, so your comments regarding Jeff not fighting black fighters are also easily dismissed. Did you get your article from the introduction of A Great White Hope? Surely you must realize that was a fictionalized account of Johnson adapted for the stage.

Mike Tyson77
02-27-2006, 05:13 PM
I dont care what you people say, Jack Johnson was of the greatest of all time. After he lost the belt, he didnt lose another fight for over a DECADE. He was still knocking people out when he was in his fiftys.

Dempsey 1919
02-27-2006, 05:17 PM
Butterfly can't rate Louis any higher because Joe must have been a racist, only defending against 2 black fighters in 12 years.

well, now i have louis above johnson.

LondonRingRules
02-27-2006, 05:50 PM
I dont care what you people say, Jack Johnson was of the greatest of all time. After he lost the belt, he didnt lose another fight for over a DECADE. He was still knocking people out when he was in his fiftys.
** When Johnson turned 50 he was KOed by Bearcat Wright and Bill Hartwell. He was KOed by a novice featherweight in his last fight at age 60. He was KOed plenty before those dates. Facts are than only NeonLeon has been KOed more of all the heavy champs.

BBKing
02-27-2006, 06:22 PM
yeah, jack johnson was a beast. he is the first fighter chronologically to be on my top ten list. i have him seventh, under ali, liston, holmes, foreman, frazier, and tyson.

Liston number 2 all time but no Louis. :rolleyes:

Dempsey 1919
02-27-2006, 06:25 PM
Liston number 2 all time but no Louis. :rolleyes:

louis is number seven on my list.

Kid Achilles
02-27-2006, 07:18 PM
Again I ask, explain to me why Holmes was a better champion. Why does he deserve to be ranked above Louis when both men fought during weak eras and yet Louis was more dominant over his own era and held on to the belt longer.

Dempsey 1919
02-27-2006, 07:26 PM
Again I ask, explain to me why Holmes was a better champion. Why does he deserve to be ranked above Louis when both men fought during weak eras and yet Louis was more dominant over his own era and held on to the belt longer.

because if they actually fougght each other, then holmes would win.

Yogi
02-27-2006, 07:37 PM
because if they actually fougght each other, then holmes would win.

A head-to-head ranking has to be about the studiest way of ranking fighters out there, and if you ask me it is nothing more than a simple copout to cover up a lack of knowledge (****, my wife can see two fighters and pick who she sees as the winner of a fantasy fight, and she rarely ever watches any of my fights...doesn't mean she has a clue as to who the "greater" fighter was though).

Personally, I think fighters should be ranked on what they actually did in the ring during their respective eras, not what they may or may not be able to do with others of different times.

Dempsey 1919
02-27-2006, 07:43 PM
A head-to-head ranking has to be about the studiest way of ranking fighters out there, and if you ask me it is nothing more than a simple copout to cover up a lack of knowledge (****, my wife can see two fighters and pick who she sees as the winner of a fantasy fight, and she rarely ever watches any of my fights...doesn't mean she has a clue as to who the "greater" fighter was though).

Personally, I think fighters should be ranked on what they actually did in the ring during their respective eras, not what they may or may not be able to do with others of different times.

c'mon, so louis should get more credit than holmes, just because louis fought small bums? :rolleyes:

Yogi
02-27-2006, 07:53 PM
c'mon, so louis should get more credit than holmes, just because louis fought small bums? :rolleyes:

Is "bums" your favourite word now, Butterfly, because it seems you like to label any Heavyweight contender that didn't fight in Ali's era as such?

Ah ****...forget it, man, because I've about had enough of your completely stupid & biased bull**** on here.

Kid Achilles
02-27-2006, 07:58 PM
A head-to-head ranking has to be about the studiest way of ranking fighters out there, and if you ask me it is nothing more than a simple copout to cover up a lack of knowledge (****, my wife can see two fighters and pick who she sees as the winner of a fantasy fight, and she rarely ever watches any of my fights...doesn't mean she has a clue as to who the "greater" fighter was though).

Personally, I think fighters should be ranked on what they actually did in the ring during their respective eras, not what they may or may not be able to do with others of different times.

Yogi is 100% correct. These fantasy fights are mired in bias but comparing the careers of these fighters is a more objective way to assess and compare the greatness of these champions. Who knows, maybe Marciano KO's Foreman early and maybe Tyson sends Ali into a coma in the first round. These fantasy matchups are a lot of fun but it's just what the name suggests, fantasy. We'll never know for sure.

Hey, we have our hands full just trying to predict fights that occur in the current era and no one can say for certain what would happen in any of these fights. We can make educated guesses, and swear by them, but please don't think for a second that anything in boxing, or life, is set in stone.

Dempsey 1919
02-27-2006, 07:59 PM
Is "bums" your favourite word now, Butterfly, because it seems you like to label any Heavyweight contender that didn't fight in Ali's era as such?

Ah ****...forget it, man, because I've about had enough of your completely stupid & biased bull**** on here.

look, the fighters holmes fought were better than the fighters louis fought when he was champ.

Yogi
02-27-2006, 08:17 PM
look, the fighters holmes fought were better than the fighters louis fought when he was champ.

Sure, nothing says greatness like defeating a washed-up & china chinned Earnie Shavers (who almost KO'd Holmes), a human punching bag Muhammad Ali, and a bunch of complete "bums" like Scott Ledoux, Lorenzon Zanon, Tex Cobb, Scott Frank, Lucien Rodriguez, Renaldo Snipes (almost KO'd Holmes), Ossie Ocasio, etc., etc.

Says a lot when your signature title defenses is against someone like the much overhyped Gerry Cooney, who on film & with these eyes, doesn't look any better than does a Buddy Baer (who could at least avoid taking a punch with his chin tucked into his shoulder, unlike Cooney who you couldn't miss with a punch if you tried).

Dempsey 1919
02-27-2006, 08:23 PM
Sure, nothing says greatness like defeating a washed-up & china chinned Earnie Shavers (who almost KO'd Holmes), a human punching bag Muhammad Ali, and a bunch of complete "bums" like Scott Ledoux, Lorenzon Zanon, Tex Cobb, Scott Frank, Lucien Rodriguez, Renaldo Snipes (almost KO'd Holmes), Ossie Ocasio, etc., etc.

Says a lot when your signature title defenses is against someone like the much overhyped Gerry Cooney, who on film & with these eyes, doesn't look any better than does a Buddy Baer (who could at least avoid taking a punch with his chin tucked into his shoulder, unlike Cooney who you couldn't miss with a punch if you tried).

on average louis fought smaller guys than holmes.

Yogi
02-27-2006, 08:31 PM
on average louis fought smaller guys than holmes.

Yeah so?

On average Ali fought smaller guys than did Lennox Lewis, so what's your point?

Dempsey 1919
02-27-2006, 08:34 PM
Yeah so?

On average Ali fought smaller guys than did Lennox Lewis, so what's your point?

holmes would beat louis in a fight. louis always had trouble with that style, ala billy conn! :D

Yogi
02-27-2006, 08:45 PM
holmes would beat louis in a fight. louis always had trouble with that style, ala billy conn! :D

You're a waste of one's time, Butterfly...You really are.

LondonRingRules
02-27-2006, 08:58 PM
c'mon, so louis should get more credit than holmes, just because louis fought small bums? :rolleyes:
Johnson must be well overrated since very few are talking about him on his own thread.

Yeah, kid, I thought you were slowly coming along, but you've regressed lately. Louis fought far bigger guys than did Holmes, and he fought a couple of smaller guys than did Holmes. Louis didn't discriminate, unlike Holmes who failed to meet almost a dozen of the best in his era.

Dempsey 1919
02-28-2006, 02:27 PM
Johnson must be well overrated since very few are talking about him on his own thread.

Yeah, kid, I thought you were slowly coming along, but you've regressed lately. Louis fought far bigger guys than did Holmes, and he fought a couple of smaller guys than did Holmes. Louis didn't discriminate, unlike Holmes who failed to meet almost a dozen of the best in his era.

how come louis ducked watcott, then?

Yogi
02-28-2006, 02:32 PM
how come louis ducked watcott, then?

And when did Louis duck Walcott, Butterfly?

Dempsey 1919
02-28-2006, 02:48 PM
And when did Louis duck Walcott, Butterfly?

well, they fought in '47 and they're about the same age. put two and two together, yogi. :rolleyes:

Yogi
02-28-2006, 02:54 PM
well, they fought in '47 and they're about the same age. put two and two together, yogi. :rolleyes:

I could either do that, or...what I could do is check the Heavyweight ratings from Louis' whole title reign and see that it wasn't until after the war when Walcott was even ranked inside the top ten for the division (both Conn & Mauriello were ranked higher than him, as well, when Louis fought them after the war...both the then #1 ranked contender).

What do you think is the better way to go?

Dempsey 1919
02-28-2006, 02:58 PM
I could either do that, or...what I could do is check the Heavyweight ratings from Louis' whole title reign and see that it wasn't until after the war when Walcott was even ranked inside the top ten for the division (both Conn & Mauriello were ranked higher than him, as well, when Louis fought them after the war...both the then #1 ranked contender).

What do you think is the better way to go?

because he wasn't ranked means what? did that stop louis from fighting other guys?

Yogi
02-28-2006, 03:18 PM
because he wasn't ranked means what? did that stop louis from fighting other guys?

Holy ****, you're a simpleton sometimes (most times, maybe?), man!

If a guy isn't/wasn't ranked inside the top ten then that means he was not considered worthy of a title shot, nor should he be given one...Duh!

Hindsight proves different, but even at the time the first Louis/Walcott fight was announced nobody really thought Walcott had really any chance (first scheduled as a simple exhibition match, but later changed over to a title fight when tickets sales were slow...Louis was an 8-1 favourite, regardless).

And I already pointed out to you in the past that the majority of Louis' title defenses were against one of the top three ranked contders at the time of the title fight, and many of those were against the #1 ranked contender...the guy considered the second best in the division. But hey, do your own research, and then tell me if you can find more than one fighter who wasn't a ranked contedner when given a chance at Louis' title...Good luck with that!

Dempsey 1919
02-28-2006, 03:27 PM
Holy ****, you're a simpleton sometimes (most times, maybe?), man!

If a guy isn't/wasn't ranked inside the top ten then that means he was not considered worthy of a title shot, nor should he be given one...Duh!

Hindsight proves different, but even at the time the first Louis/Walcott fight was announced nobody really thought Walcott had really any chance (first scheduled as a simple exhibition match, but later changed over to a title fight when tickets sales were slow...Louis was an 8-1 favourite, regardless).

And I already pointed out to you in the past that the majority of Louis' title defenses were against one of the top three ranked contders at the time of the title fight, and many of those were against the #1 ranked contender...the guy considered the second best in the division. But hey, do your own research, and then tell me if you can find more than one fighter who wasn't a ranked contedner when given a chance at Louis' title...Good luck with that!

tell me if jack roper, al mccoy, or red burman were ranked? i'm just wondering looking at their records before they fought louis.

Yogi
02-28-2006, 03:58 PM
tell me if jack roper, al mccoy, or red burman were ranked? i'm just wondering looking at their records before they fought louis.

Apparently you missed the part where I said "do your own research".

Dempsey 1919
02-28-2006, 04:02 PM
Apparently you missed the part where I said "do your own research".

whatever, man.

Yogi
02-28-2006, 04:20 PM
whatever, man.

Why do you say that?

Let me guess the answer...you'd much rather stick to your ways of simply making **** up in your mind, rather than spending some time looking that info up for yourself, yes?

Dempsey 1919
02-28-2006, 04:22 PM
Why do you say that?

Let me guess the answer...you'd much rather stick to your ways of simply making **** up in your mind, rather than spending some time looking that info up for yourself, yes?

that didn't mean that i wouldn't do it. :rolleyes:

Yogi
02-28-2006, 04:36 PM
that didn't mean that i wouldn't do it. :rolleyes:

Ok, good to hear that you're willing to do your own research and since you said that, I could at least help you out just a little with your previous questions;

Al McCoy: - "National Boxing Association's 8th ranked heavyweight" at the time of the fight with Louis.

Red Burman - 3rd ranked contender in Ring Magazine's 1940 annual ratings in the Heavyweight division (Louis/Burman fight took place in Jan of 1941).

I've covered two of the guys you mentioned, now it's up to you to check up on the third guy, whomever that was.

SuzieQ49
03-02-2006, 12:59 AM
u are correct yogi...........


as for jack roper, He was one of 5 fighters louis faced in his 25 title defenses who WEREN'T ranked in the top 10 at the time.

however roper was no bum. far from it. he was a highly experienced fringe contender who knew all the tricks of the trade. He wasn't much of a skillful fighter at all, but one thing roper could do was BANG. ask joe louis if he hit hard. in the first round, roper nearly floored the brown bomber with a thunderous left hook which shook the champion all the way down to the knees. Of course once louis shook the affects of that punch off, roper had found doing that to louis was like waking a grizzly bear from a deep sleep. louis then tore into roper knocking the 204lb veteran out cold.

smasher
03-02-2006, 01:27 AM
as for jack roper, He was one of 5 fighters louis faced in his 25 title defenses who WEREN'T ranked in the top 10 at the time.

however roper was no bum. far from it. he was a highly experienced fringe contender who knew all the tricks of the trade. He wasn't much of a skillful fighter at all, but one thing roper could do was BANG. ask joe louis if he hit hard. in the first round, roper nearly floored the brown bomber with a thunderous left hook which shook the champion all the way down to the knees. Of course once louis shook the affects of that punch off, roper had found doing that to louis was like waking a grizzly bear from a deep sleep. louis then tore into roper knocking the 204lb veteran out cold.

Are you serious? Roper was 39 years old when he fought Louis and had a 54-40-9 record and had been KO'd 13 times, 11 times for the 10 count. He retired with only 28 KO's in 109 fights, some BANGER.

The California Athletic State Commision was criticized for sanctioning this fight and Roper's title shot came under investigation by the state legislative commitee. When called to task on sanctioning this fight the Commission representative rationalized Roper getting the title fight by stating he thought Roper was getting better with age!

After getting clobbered by Louis he lost 3 out of his next 5 before retiring. Roper was probably the worst fighter Louis ever defended against.

SuzieQ49
03-02-2006, 01:45 AM
i never said roper was a good fighter, but he was no bum. he was an highly experienced veteran who knew the tricks of the trade, though he wasnt a top 10 contender nor a good fighter, he most certainly could bang. Roper knocked out some pretty good contenders during his career and louis himself testafied roper could hit.

SuzieQ49
03-02-2006, 01:49 AM
Roper was also 35 years old, not 39 like you proclaimed.

as for the good contenders he knocked out during his career


pasty perroni
art lasky

both top 10 contenders and he defeated the underated unkown avoided black fighter Seal Harris(joe louis sparring partner). throw seal harris' record out the window. harris was involved in a lot of staged fights.

smasher
03-02-2006, 07:37 AM
Roper was also 35 years old, not 39 like you proclaimed.

as for the good contenders he knocked out during his career


pasty perroni
art lasky

both top 10 contenders and he defeated the underated unkown avoided black fighter Seal Harris(joe louis sparring partner). throw seal harris' record out the window. harris was involved in a lot of staged fights.

The 39 was a misprint, the rest was not. A whopping total of 2 contenders defeated in 109 fights and a state commision inquiry and investigation into the validity of Roper's title shot.

" A highly skilled veteran who knew the tricks of the trade". Nice generic comment and positive spin spin on a guy who barely won half of his 109 fights and was KO'd 15 times by the time he retired a year after the Louis annihilation.

How about calling this stiff "a weak chinned, powder punching, and often beaten fringe journeyman who was undeserving of a title fight".

If this guy "was no bum" then I'm curious if you would call ANYONE a bum who has contended for the heavyweight championship.

Who then do you think was the worst opponent Louis dfended against?

SuzieQ49
03-02-2006, 02:42 PM
once again u did not read my post carefully,

I said roper was a "highly EXPERIENCED veteran, who knew the tricks of the trade." that is a very accurate assesment.



powder punching? ask joe louis if he was a powder puncher, because jack roper certainly was not!


i never said roper "deserved a title shot" but he was no bum. a bum is a guy who is not even good enough to be considered a journeyman. roper was a very good journeyman.





If I had to pick the worst fighter louis defended again, it would be jack roper or tony musto.

Kid Achilles
03-02-2006, 02:52 PM
If Joe Louis said Jack Roper could punch, I'm sure he could punch. You talk as if anyone with a huge punch would have a winning record when there's guys even today who could knock out a horse but don't have the complete package to be successful in boxing. No one's saying that Roper was a good fighter, just that the guy could swat.

I don't know why you insist on arguing otherwise, what's the point? Do you want someone to concede that Roper couldn't hit worth a damn when that'd be a lie?

Zab06
03-02-2006, 03:04 PM
Personally, I think fighters should be ranked on what they actually did in the ring during their respective eras, not what they may or may not be able to do with others of different times.

I totally agree with this. Fighters are better ranked on someone's list when they take accomplishments into consideration. If they beat the best that was offered to them then I feel that has a lot to do with it.

SuzieQ49
03-02-2006, 04:23 PM
agreed kid achilles. just because someone is not a good fighter doesnt mean he can't like a mule. the reason why a guy like roper didnt have a high KO percentage was due to the fact he was not a good fighter or great all around puncher. When roper faced skilled top contenders, it was a lot harder for him to land his big punches home because they were better defensivley and smarter. Roper had a lot of force in his punches, but they were slow, not accurate, and he didnt put together good combinations. roper was simply a hard hitting journeyman.

was roper a good fighter? no. but the man could hit and the reason why he got a title shot vs louis was he beat good contenders pasty perroni and jorge brescia. Roper certainly was not a bum like u are impyling, and a tough hard working exerpeinced journeyman like roper deserves a lot of credit for going right after louis, rather than just falling over like any bum could do and take the money and go home. roper earned louis respect and showed louis that he better not take him lightly because he was no bum. roper had balls.


Roper had nearly 100 fights when he fought louis. he had been fighting for years. its not a false assumption to make when i say 'roper knew all the tricks of the trade', because he defintley had picked up a thing or two in his 15 years in the ring entering the louis fight.

heres what joe louis said about the fight "the fight was over fast but ill be dammed if roper didnt nearly knock me down with a left hook in the first round. he was a southpaw but changed up his style in the middle of the first round. first he'd lead with a left and then he'd change up his style and lead with a left. i said to myself '**** let me get this tricky guy out of the way' so i kayoed him in the first round."

smasher
03-02-2006, 05:52 PM
agreed kid achilles. Roper certainly was not a bum like u are impyling, and a tough hard working exerpeinced journeyman like roper deserves a lot of credit for going right after louis, rather than just falling over like any bum could do and take the money and go home. roper earned louis respect and showed louis that he better not take him lightly because he was no bum. roper had balls.


he defintley had picked up a thing or two in his 15 years in the ring entering the louis fight.

So he goes after Louis and gets obliterated in one round. Whoopee. "Roper had balls." Why? Because he was overmatched and got starched in one round? You might as well call any fighter that doesn't just fall over and take the money, a fighter with balls.

As for "picking up a thing or two" in 15 years, yeah I would think so. Another generic non-commital positive spin statement.

Call a spade a spade. Louis obliterated an overmatched, un-ranked stumblebum. Don't heap accolades on a guy for getting blasted out in one round.

You never answered my question. Who would you consider a bum that fought for the heavyweight championship?

smasher
03-02-2006, 06:01 PM
If Joe Louis said Jack Roper could punch, I'm sure he could punch. You talk as if anyone with a huge punch would have a winning record when there's guys even today who could knock out a horse but don't have the complete package to be successful in boxing. No one's saying that Roper was a good fighter, just that the guy could swat.

I don't know why you insist on arguing otherwise, what's the point? Do you want someone to concede that Roper couldn't hit worth a damn when that'd be a lie?

Did you ever consider that Louis may have been embarrassed by the fact that he demolished the over matched Roper so he generously threw an accolade his way?

I'm not saying every puncher has a winning record, but let's get serious here. The guy's KO record is anemic over a lengthy career against many un-ranked fighters. A fighter's reputation as a puncher should be based on more than one fighter's generous accolade.

Joe Louis isn't above reproach. He fought some bums in his career. Accept that.

LondonRingRules
03-02-2006, 08:34 PM
=======Joe Louis isn't above reproach. He fought some bums in his career. Accept that.==============

** Will do when I see Ali fans acknowledge he was beat up by a glass jawed little cracked out amateur fighter. Joe never disgraced his title.

smasher
03-02-2006, 08:46 PM
=======Joe Louis isn't above reproach. He fought some bums in his career. Accept that.==============

** Will do when I see Ali fans acknowledge he was beat up by a glass jawed little cracked out amateur fighter. Joe never disgraced his title.

Leave it to you to take a discussion on Jack Roper and swing it around into a slur on Muhammad Ali. What's the obsession?

LondonRingRules
03-02-2006, 09:28 PM
Leave it to you to take a discussion on Jack Roper and swing it around into a slur on Muhammad Ali. What's the obsession?
** There are few fighters who's careers are above reproach. Joe is one of them. The sooner the diaper brigade learns this the better things will be for lesser greats like Ali.

smasher
03-02-2006, 09:32 PM
** There are few fighters who's careers are above reproach. Joe is one of them. The sooner the diaper brigade learns this the better things will be for lesser greats like Ali.

As soon as the geritol generation accepts that greatness didn't end with the rotary phone...

smasher
03-02-2006, 09:42 PM
my wife can see two fighters and pick who she sees as the winner of a fantasy fight, and she rarely ever watches any of my fights...

...and she would have a 50% chance of being right!

Dempsey 1919
03-02-2006, 11:45 PM
** There are few fighters who's careers are above reproach. Joe is one of them. The sooner the diaper brigade learns this the better things will be for lesser greats like Ali.

how about the fact that a close to prime louis was smashed by a washed up max "friggin" schmeling!! lol! :D

i guess you have nothing to say about that, do you? :D

RockyMarcianofan00
03-02-2006, 11:58 PM
how about the fact that a close to prime louis was smashed by a washed up max "friggin" schmeling!! lol! :D

i guess you have nothing to say about that, do you? :D

yea he was prime 1937 ya know 2 years before he won the title for his near 10 year title reign

Dempsey 1919
03-03-2006, 12:01 AM
yea he was prime 1937 ya know 2 years before he won the title for his near 10 year title reign

i didn't say prime i said close to prime.

RockyMarcianofan00
03-03-2006, 12:04 AM
i didn't say prime i said close to prime.

o
doesn't matter cause just over 2 years later he nearly killed Schmeling in the first round

that fight was ridiculous lasted like 1 and a half minutes and Louis really only landed two shots to take everything away from schmelling

one jaw shot one body

his corner thought Louis had broke schmelings neck

Dempsey 1919
03-03-2006, 12:06 AM
o
doesn't matter cause just over 2 years later he nearly killed Schmeling in the first round

that fight was ridiculous lasted like 1 and a half minutes and Louis really only landed two shots to take everything away from schmelling

one jaw shot one body

his corner thought Louis had broke schmelings neck

but my point is that this guy says that louis' career is unblemished, when there are plenty of blemishes.

Yogi
03-03-2006, 02:36 AM
how about the fact that a close to prime louis was smashed by a washed up max "friggin" schmeling!! lol! :D

i guess you have nothing to say about that, do you? :D

Yeah, I got something to say about that and the first thing is that was not a "washed up" version of a mere 30 year-old Max Scmeling...If it's not very obvious to you by the fight footage that you probably didn't even watch (which shows Schmeling looking as good or better than he ever did), then check out some of the articles written by the boxing/sports writers during his time. After a rough patch a couple years previous, Schmeling got right back on track and the second fight before the first Louis bout saw Schmeling knock out the then #1 ranked Ring Magazine contender, Steve Hamas. After that knockout, Schmeling was right back near the very top the title picture (Ring Magazine, NYSAC, NBA...all ranked Schmeling as one of the two best contnders, and he held at least that position right up 'til the Louis rematch) and even though a title fight never came to pass, all it takes is a little bit of research to see that there was PLENTY of talks about pitting Schmeling in title fights or at the very least, title eliminators.

And even though Louis was the heavy favourite, that was more to do with how highly Louis was thought of during that time, rather than a way of belittling Schmeling...Louis was on a role & ripping through some of the elite fighters of the division, which had very rarely if ever been seen before during a fighter's pre title challenging days. Look through the newspaper reports before the first Louis/Schmeling fight and see what they were saying about the buildup to the fight...A quick glance of those contemporary reports doesn't once indicate Schmeling as being "washed up" or past his prime, and instead much is written on how excellant Schmeling had looked through the vast majority of his training & sparring sessions and how much confidence he had...Even the Heavyweight champion at the time, James Braddock, was VERY impressed with how Schmeling looked in training and he stated in print that it wouldn't suprise him if Schmeling was the one with his hand raised at the end of the night (which is what happened, not to Braddock's suprise)

Babble, babble, babbble...yeah I know, but the film, contemporary reports, etc., etc. all suggest that Schmeling was still in his prime for the first Louis fight, and that performance by both fighters shouldn't be looked upon as a black mark against Louis, but as a HUGE compliment to what Schmeling was capable of doing as a fighter...and Ring Magazine, IBRO, etc., all give Schmeling that credit, because he's most often ranked amongst the 20-25 best Heavyweights of all-time by those "experts".

RockyMarcianofan00
03-03-2006, 03:04 AM
there's no fighter in history thats record went with out blemishes

SuzieQ49
03-03-2006, 03:22 AM
Yeah, I got something to say about that and the first thing is that was not a "washed up" version of a mere 30 year-old Max Scmeling...If it's not very obvious to you by the fight footage that you probably didn't even watch (which shows Schmeling looking as good or better than he ever did), then check out some of the articles written by the boxing/sports writers during his time. After a rough patch a couple years previous, Schmeling got right back on track and the second fight before the first Louis bout saw Schmeling knock out the then #1 ranked Ring Magazine contender, Steve Hamas. After that knockout, Schmeling was right back near the very top the title picture (Ring Magazine, NYSAC, NBA...all ranked Schmeling as one of the two best contnders, and he held at least that position right up 'til the Louis rematch) and even though a title fight never came to pass, all it takes is a little bit of research to see that there was PLENTY of talks about pitting Schmeling in title fights or at the very least, title eliminators.

And even though Louis was the heavy favourite, that was more to do with how highly Louis was thought of during that time, rather than a way of belittling Schmeling...Louis was on a role & ripping through some of the elite fighters of the division, which had very rarely if ever been seen before during a fighter's pre title challenging days. Look through the newspaper reports before the first Louis/Schmeling fight and see what they were saying about the buildup to the fight...A quick glance of those contemporary reports doesn't once indicate Schmeling as being "washed up" or past his prime, and instead much is written on how excellant Schmeling had looked through the vast majority of his training & sparring sessions and how much confidence he had...Even the Heavyweight champion at the time, James Braddock, was VERY impressed with how Schmeling looked in training and he stated in print that it wouldn't suprise him if Schmeling was the one with his hand raised at the end of the night (which is what happened, not to Braddock's suprise)

Babble, babble, babbble...yeah I know, but the film, contemporary reports, etc., etc. all suggest that Schmeling was still in his prime for the first Louis fight, and that performance by both fighters shouldn't be looked upon as a black mark against Louis, but as a HUGE compliment to what Schmeling was capable of doing as a fighter...and Ring Magazine, IBRO, etc., all give Schmeling that credit, because he's most often ranked amongst the 20-25 best Heavyweights of all-time by those "experts".



spot on yogi. i might add schmeling also didnt show any signs of aging during the 2 years before his title fight louis in 1938. he was still the # 1 contender who was fighting as good as ever. louis ruined schmeling, and you dont need to be an expert to know that. just look at the physical injuries schmeling suffered in this fight. its amazing even after the louis fight, schmeling was able to knockout a good contender like adolf hueser in one round.

smasher
03-03-2006, 08:46 AM
louis ruined schmeling, and you dont need to be an expert to know that. just look at the physical injuries schmeling suffered in this fight. its amazing even after the louis fight, schmeling was able to knockout a good contender like adolf hueser in one round.

What's so amazing that Schmeling was able to score a 1 round KO victory after losing to Louis? Schmeling was starched in under a round from Joe and thus did not recieve ANY sustained beating. Schmeling was actually hit with very few punches in that fight, so precise and accurate was the execution by Louis.

The physical injury Schmeling recieved in the Louis fight was to his back. This was most likely caused when Schmeling was staggered and responded by grabbing the top rope and turning sideways from Louis who hammered Schmeling with right hands to his kidney and back area.

Fighters throughout the history of boxing have taken serious beatings in fights and returned to have success. This was not a beating. It was a very quick KO. Schmeling did himself no favours by not throwing a meaningful punch then grabbing the top rope and turning away from Joe when hurt.

You wouldn't be a biased Joe Louis fan by any chance would you?

Kid Achilles
03-03-2006, 01:01 PM
If Louis beating Schmeling was not a beating than Foreman beating Frazier wasn't either. That was a TERRIBLE battering and Schmeling was lucky to have been able to fight again, let alone against pretty good competition. Ringsiders remarked that Schmeling squeeled like a pig when he was struck in the side by Louis. The whole thing was sickening and if that's not a beating I don't know what is. Schmeling went straight to the hospital and it was soon discovered that Louis's punches had fractured two of his vertebrae.

Needless to say (well on this forum perhaps it does need to be reiterated), that fight destroyed Schmeling as a world class boxer.

SuzieQ49
03-03-2006, 01:05 PM
Schmeling was starched in under a round from Joe and thus did not recieve ANY sustained beating.



I agree. I mean fracturing your vertabae is not a bad injury right? ;)

i mean, schmeling was only beaten unmercifully for 2 minutes that had schmeling screaming out like a little school girl

smasher
03-03-2006, 01:35 PM
The whole thing was sickening and if that's not a beating I don't know what is.

Gimme a break. "The whole thing was sickening?" Maybe you're too much of a humanitarian and don't have the stomach to be watching boxing then. That or a drama queen.

Louis quickly and efficiently executed Schmeling. It was not 2 minutes of a sustained beating. After a feeling out process of over a minute which saw Louis as the agressor, Schmeling backed towards the ropes and was hurt by a right hand to the head. Schmeling's punishment was then recieved when he turned away, grabbed the rope and failed to defend himself.

Schmeling's injury was the result of Louis landing a punch to Schmeling's back. I'm not criticizing Louis for it, a fighter must defend himself at all times, but judging from the look on Schmeling's face when that punch landed, it's likely that's how the injury occurred.

Once the referee let Schmeling off the ropes he was doubled over from the back injury and Louis was able to drop him with a single right cross. Schmeling got up was hit by a combination and his gloves touched the canvass. Schmeling was sent down a third time, the towel was thrown in and the fight was then over.

Not a sustained beating but instead a quick and efficient execution by the best finisher in heavy-weight history. Case closed.

Kid Achilles
03-03-2006, 02:28 PM
A beating does not have to be sustained. Otherwise the phrase "sustained beating" would be redundant which it is not. I don't quite know what you're trying to argue here, the definition of the word beating?

The punches Schmeling takes, especially to the back and sides are brutal and to anyone at ringside it was sickening. Obviously the film of it is no more sickening than Patterson sending Ingo into a a near coma or any other brutal knockdown but to everyone who was there to see it live, it was terrifying and sickening. I don't know the name of the gentleman who gave an account of the fight but he said he'll never forget the screams of agony that Schmeling made when struck while against the ropes.

I think that was a more devastating battering than Frazier received at the hands of Foreman (briefer yes, but Louis was a better and more effective puncher than Foreman). Frazier himself considered that fight a stoppage more than a demolition job. He believed he could have gone on. With Louis and Schmeling there was no chance of Max even conceiving that he'd be able to continue.

smasher
03-03-2006, 02:38 PM
I think that was a more devastating battering than Frazier received at the hands of Foreman (briefer yes, but Louis was a better and more effective puncher than Foreman). Frazier himself considered that fight a stoppage more than a demolition job. He believed he could have gone on. With Louis and Schmeling there was no chance of Max even conceiving that he'd be able to continue.

After sending Schmeling to the ropes, Louis landed 4 body punches and 4 head shots.

When the referee seperated them Louis dropped Schmeling with 1 head shot.

When Schmeling got up he was sent down with 1 jab and 1 right hand, both head shots. Louis did not go to a neutral corner and stood a few feet back while the referee wiped Schmeling's gloves.

Schmeling was sent back down by 1 body punch and 1 right hand to the head.

That's 7 power shots to the head and one jab, and 5 body shots.

Surprisingly I was able to watch it without a barf bag.

Dempsey 1919
03-03-2006, 04:42 PM
After sending Schmeling to the ropes, Louis landed 4 body punches and 4 head shots.

When the referee seperated them Louis dropped Schmeling with 1 head shot.

When Schmeling got up he was sent down with 1 jab and 1 right hand, both head shots. Louis did not go to a neutral corner and stood a few feet back while the referee wiped Schmeling's gloves.

Schmeling was sent back down by 1 body punch and 1 right hand to the head.

That's 7 power shots to the head and one jab, and 5 body shots.

Surprisingly I was able to watch it without a barf bag.

dang! that's some powerful punching there by the brown bomber.

smasher
03-03-2006, 05:14 PM
dang! that's some powerful punching there by the brown bomber.

Joe's body punches were 2 left hooks to the pit of the stomach and two rights to the kidney/back area. The second right hand to the back was likely was the one that caused Schmeling's injury. Schmeling can noticeably be seen to yell out after this shot.

Schmeling was unable to defend himself after the injury and was essentially a sitting duck. All of Joe's power head shots were with the right hand.

Dempsey 1919
03-03-2006, 05:34 PM
Joe's body punches were 2 left hooks to the pit of the stomach and two rights to the kidney/back area. The second right hand to the back was likely was the one that caused Schmeling's injury. Schmeling can noticeably be seen to yell out after this shot.

Schmeling was unable to defend himself after the injury and was essentially a sitting duck. All of Joe's power head shots were with the right hand.

joe louis was a baaaaaad man!

mokele
03-23-2006, 12:45 PM
How can you rate Holmes above Joe Louis? The only thing Holmes has going for him is longevity as champion (title defenses) and Louis beats him in that category too. I am curious to read how you can possibly justify this.

People who don't look carefully at the career of Joe Louis might overlook the fact that he lost 4 solid years off of his career to World War II (March 1942 through June 1946). Right before he enlisted he demonstrated a level of dominance of the heavyweight division that even Dempsey or Jack Johnson didn't achieve. If it wasn't for the war, Louis would in all probability have chalked up another 10 to 15 wins during that period. After the war ended Louis was not as dominant as he had been 4 years earlier. Although he beat Billy Conn easily and Tami Mauriello by 1st round ko he nearly lost to Jersey Joe Walcott in Dec. 1947. I remember watching an old talk show with Louis, Walcott and Tony Galento years after they all had retired, and Walcott still claimed that he won the 1st fight between himself and Louis. :D