Jack Johnson or Jack Dempsey

[CarlosG815]

How is nobody an authority but you have the ability to deduce Dempsey was defensively more skilled? And if you think Johnson just clinched, pulled back and grappled rhan you are woefully out of your depth here my friend.

Does this strengthen my point?

"Consider that Nat Fleischer, the founder of Ring Magazine, who saw Johnson fight and those up to the Ali era, said, in his book Black Dynamite Vol 4., p. 6), “Jack Johnson boxed on his toes, could block from most any angle, was lightning fast on his feet, could feint an opponent into knots…he possessed everything a champion could hope for punch, speed, brains, cleverness, boxing ability and sharp-shooting.”

"Fleischer also reported in 1958, that Johnson’s “mastery of ring science, his ability to block, counter, and feint, are still unexcelled.”
John Durant wrote in The Heavyweight Champions of Johnson, “He was a genius in the ring. He was a flawless boxer with an almost perfect defense, and he could hit hard with either hand. A superb counter puncher, he was never off balance, always in position to hit, and he was a master of the art of feinting."

Jack Dempsey said of Johnson, “He was the greatest catcher of punches that ever lived (glove blocker). And he could fight all night. He was a combination of Jim Corbett and Louis. I’m glad I didn’t have to fight him.”

Jack Johnson was called by veterans Nat Fleischer, Charley Rose and others as the "greatest defensive heavyweight" because of his skillful glove blocking.

Former Middleweight Champion Stanley Ketchel, who fought and lost to Johnson, agrees that Johnson was unparalleled as a defensive fighter. Writing before the Johnson-Jeffries fight in the July 2, 1910 San Francisco Chronicle Ketchel described Johnson as “clever, fast, and the best blocker the pugilistic world has ever seen.” Those who saw him always described Johnson's defensive skills in this manner.

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

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

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

I will respond to your initial comment as I did not take the time to read the rest. The answer to your question is that it is a matter of opinion and anybody can have an opinion. You have yours and others have theirs and I have mine. Nobody is an authority. I am not surprised you don't understand that, but do you kind of get it now?

Your opinion is not a fact regardless of who agrees with you.

[Debopam Roy]

As for Johnson ducking Langford, yeah I wouldnt argue with that. But Dempsey ducked a hell lot more. That was my original point. Very sharp of you to point out my mistake Barnburner.

[Barn]

As for Johnson ducking Langford, yeah I wouldnt argue with that. But Dempsey ducked a hell lot more. That was my original point. Very sharp of you to point out my mistake Barnburner.

Fair enough. Dempsey didn't want to fight Wills and Greb for sure.

[JAB5239]

I will respond to your initial comment as I did not take the time to read the rest. The answer to your question is that it is a matter of opinion and anybody can have an opinion. You have yours and others have theirs and I have mine. Nobody is an authority. I am not surprised you don't understand that, but do you kind of get it now?

Your opinion is not a fact regardless of who agrees with you.

My opinion certainly seems to be a fact since my initial comment was that you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree with you. I've supplied quotes from historians and fighters, including Dempsey, who saw Johnson fight. The real fact here is you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Johnson. And that you didn't bother reading the rest of what I posted just tell me you are uninterested in learning the facts and would rather remain ignorant than change your opinion.

[CarlosG815]

My opinion certainly seems to be a fact since my initial comment was that you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree with you. I've supplied quotes from historians and fighters, including Dempsey, who saw Johnson fight. The real fact here is you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Johnson. And that you didn't bother reading the rest of what I posted just tell me you are uninterested in learning the facts and would rather remain ignorant than change your opinion.

Exactly why it's pointless to talk boxing with you and why many people do not like you.

No Jab, no matter what your ego tells you nothing that you say is a fact. Being hard pressed to find somebody who thinks Dempsey was better defensively does not mean that my opinion in that matter is wrong - you are a fool as usual.

Regardless of what others think, it is all opinion. Again this may be tough for somebody of your wit to comprehend but there is no absolute authority when it comes to the sport of boxing and there are many ways of evaluating a boxer and ranking their skills each of which is at the sole discretion of the individual doing the evaluation. Who are you to say otherwise? It is always fun to come onto a forum and debate but when a swine like yourself comes out of the woodwork pretending that what you say is a fact, nobody wants to talk to you. Get over yourself - you are not who you think you are.

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE]

Exactly why it's pointless to talk boxing with you and why many people do not like you.

No Jab, no matter what your ego tells you nothing that you say is a fact. Being hard pressed to find somebody who thinks Dempsey was better defensively does not mean that my opinion in that matter is wrong - you are a fool as usual.

Exactly how am I a fool for saying you will be hard pressed to find someone who agrees with you? I have many sources who agree, including Dempsey himself. You have shown nothing accept to say its all about opinion.

Regardless of what others think, it is all opinion. Again this may be tough for somebody of your wit to comprehend but there is no absolute authority when it comes to the sport of boxing and there are many ways of evaluating a boxer and ranking their skills each of which is at the sole discretion of the individual doing the evaluation.

Some opinions carry more weight than others. For instance, people who actually saw both fight and dont have to rely on flicker film, or people who know Johnson did more than grapple, clinch and pull back as you claimed. And since there are so many ways to evaluate and rank skill, can you explain to me exactly how you've come to your conclusions? Because honestly, you're coming off sounding like you know very little of Johnson to even make this comparison.

Who are you to say otherwise? It is always fun to come onto a forum and debate but when a swine like yourself comes out of the woodwork pretending that what you say is a fact, nobody wants to talk to you. Get over yourself - you are not who you think you are.

Whats with the insults? If you don't want or can't debate me than don't bother answering. I've supplied proof and links to back my point up, you've shown nothing. Stop acting like a child, open your mind and do some research. Keep tossing unwarranted insults though and you're gonna find out I am exactly who I think I am.

[Barn]

To be fair, I don't think Carlos' point about opinions is wrong.

Realistically, former fighters are (in the absence of bad blood) very complimentary to each other. It comes as no surprise that fighters like Ketchel and Dempsey would have been vocal with respect for Johnson as a fighter. Not to mention the fact Ketchel was writing for a newspaper so he's going to resort to using flowery language to perhaps exaggerate someones skills. Also, the report was done at the Jeffries fight it says. So the Dempsey vs Johnson comparison is negated as he wouldn't have seen prime Dempsey in action.

Moreover, Nat Fleischer is a bonafide Johnson nuthugger and generally his viewpoints on fighters are skewed towards the past and at times baffling.

For example: His top 10 HW list just after the Fight of the Century.

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

Now that is just crazy.

[AlexKid]

Jack Johnson rates higher as a champion. He took on anyone anytime and against all odds. While, Dempsey ducked a lot of strong black contenders during his reign. However, I think if it were a head to head battle, Dempsey would take this, because his ferocious attacks would be too much for johnson to handle. Keep in mind that Jack Johnson had probably the best defensive technique in heavyweight history, so I say it will be a UD to Dempsey, simply because of the enormous number of punches he'll throw at him.

This is easy Dempsey, look what short work he made of the opponents they both had in common.

Dempsey had a horrific punch yes and he was an inside fighter yes but that dosnt mean he wasnt highly skilled and far more skillful than Johnson, the design of his art is revolutionary and he was the much smarter and harder hitting of the two.

Its an insult to Dempsey to make this comparrison, and it was an insult to rocky to comapre him to james toney, I think people are just trolling here.

[Barn]

This is easy Dempsey, look what short work he made of the opponents they both had in common.

Dempsey had a horrific punch yes and he was an inside fighter yes but that dosnt mean he wasnt highly skilled and far more skillful than Johnson, the design of his art is revolutionary and he was the much smarter and harder hitting of the two.

Its an insult to Dempsey to make this comparrison, and it was an insult to rocky to comapre him to james toney, I think people are just trolling here.

I think saying he was "far more skilled" than Johnson is pushing it though. Both employed their styles very well and (mostly) dominated their era as a result. Whatever your opinion is of who was more skilled it can't be said they're miles apart.

[JAB5239]

To be fair, I don't think Carlos' point about opinions is wrong.

Realistically, former fighters are (in the absence of bad blood) very complimentary to each other. It comes as no surprise that fighters like Ketchel and Dempsey would have been vocal with respect for Johnson as a fighter. Not to mention the fact Ketchel was writing for a newspaper so he's going to resort to using flowery language to perhaps exaggerate someones skills. Also, the report was done at the Jeffries fight it says. So the Dempsey vs Johnson comparison is negated as he wouldn't have seen prime Dempsey in action.

Moreover, Nat Fleischer is a bonafide Johnson nuthugger and generally his viewpoints on fighters are skewed towards the past and at times baffling.

For example: His top 10 HW list just after the Fight of the Century.

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

Now that is just crazy.

Thats fine and you make a some good points. But how many times have you ever heard Dempsey as a better defensive fighter than Johnson? I can say Johnson was a better swarmer than Dempsey and fall back on "well thats my opinion", but it doesn't make it true. Know what I mean?