Why is Jack Johnson rated so high...

[phallus]

even if Wills had Langfords number(which we dont know, aint footage of it) it doesnt mean we should give him any less credit for the wins.

and I guess we'll just have to disagree with the historical signficance thing. I personally dont think you should get any extra credit for how popular or revolutionary you were...otherwise, lists would be totally screwed up. Id have guys like De La Hoya, Tyson and Corbett ranked super high. just a difference in our rankings I guess.

I dont blame Johnson for going after the title, no way. but I dont really respect him either. I cant imagine his situation, so I honestly cant say I would act any better than him or anything...I havent had to go through what he did. maybe under the circumstances, almost all of us would have acted the way he did.
but dont expect me to respect him. when he won the title, he turned around and acted no better than the people that were discriminating against him. the fact that Langford ended up broke and blind after 300+ fights and that Johnson never even gave him the chance to win a title or make lots of money is not something to be proud of. he was in a position where he could have done a lot of good for blacks, but he did totally the opposite.

i think in the bold parts you answered your own question... most people have no morals anyway, even though it's not fair to judge johnson from our times, most of today's fighters act more like johnson

[Steak]

i think in the bold parts you answered your own question... most people have no morals anyway, even though it's not fair to judge johnson from our times, most of today's fighters act more like johnson

what I meant is this...I dont fault Johnson for his choices in life. It was messed up back then, he had to go through a lot of unfair things. he acted like most other normal man would in his position.
but I dont hold him in high esteem. he is no hero. as a person, I give him no more respect than I would any other man. he looked after just himself, no more and no less.

[JAB5239]

Just some numbers on Langford-Wills. Lanford and wills were repectively 31 and 25 years old the first time they fought. It was Wills 19th fight compared to Sams 144th. They fought a total of 18 times (as far as I can tell) with the last coming in sams 261st fight at the age of 38.

[phallus]

what I meant is this...I dont fault Johnson for his choices in life. It was messed up back then, he had to go through a lot of unfair things. he acted like most other normal man would in his position.
but I dont hold him in high esteem. he is no hero. as a person, I give him no more respect than I would any other man. he looked after just himself, no more and no less.

exactly, i respect johnson for his skills in the ring only but in everything else he's just a man

[lexelterrible]

It's too bad that all we have to judge Johnson's record is boxrec and some old grainy clips. I've seen some of his fights through Ken Burns' documentary, and i have to say,the majority of his foes couldn't fight worth Jack. They had no technique and weren't schooled at all in compaarison to today's fighters.
The game has changed immensly since the turn of the 20th century. And from the looks of Johnson's fight clips, it appears he knew how to fight; he knew how to move around the ring; he was big strong, agile champion. But i believe he wouldv'e had tons of trouble with some more modern day fighters.
One thing that is interesting however, is that the founder of Ring Magazine, Nat Fleischer , said that none of the other fighters he had seen could've taken Johnson, including Joe Louis. Fleischer was one of the leading boxing journalist of his time. so i think his opinon counts for something.

[Kid McCoy]

Ali was never knocked out, even when he was old. As i have stated, i understand that Langford fought way more times than Ali did, and i also said that we cannot say ''what if'' Ali fought as many times as Langford did, because it never happened, and we don't know how Ali would have done in that era so its a moot point. We can only use the facts that are here, and that is that Ali remained a dominate heavyweight champion, avenged all of his losses in his hay day( up until he was completely shot against Berbick and Holmes) and is the greatest heavyweight champion of all time. What Langford lacked is the consistency of Ali. To remain dominate without losing to lesser opponents, something that Ali never did even when he was old. For example i read in one of my old ring magazine's that a prime Langford was upset by a fighter( who was a big underdog) named Dave Holly and lost his color title by upset in the hands of Bill Tate. These are not exactly hall of famers.

Not getting knocked out is not proof of greatness. Floyd Mayweather's never been knocked out. He's never lost either. Can't get much more dominant and consistent than that. But that doesn't make him better than Ali and Langford. You keep accepting that Langford fought much more often than Ali, yet you're still hammering him for a handful of stoppage losses in a 300 fight career. If Langford was fighting a lot more often and against a lot more Hall of Famers (often at a size disadvantage) than Ali, doesn't it stand to reason that he'd lose a few more?

Dave Holly was a good fighter, who had competitive fights with Gans and Jack Blackburn, another Hall of Famer who Langford beat. But since we're nitpicking, not many greats were more inconsistent than Ali. Dumped on his arse by Henry Cooper and put in a lacklustre showing against Doug Jones in the two bouts prior to Liston. Upset by Norton, who he never beat decisively in three attempts (and imo Norton also won the third fight), beaten handily by Frazier when closest to their primes, a mediocre effort against Lyle, to whom he was trailing on the cards before pulling out the stoppage, a poor showing against Jimmy Young (another fight I thought Ali lost), ugly wins against Wepner, Lubbers, Evangelista and a few other Euro champs, then the two Spinks fights. Were they the performances of a "dominant" champion? Most of those weren't Hall of Famers either.

You make it seem like Gans was in his prime when Langford beat him( he had about 135 fights at the time and his career defining achievements was pretty much over by that point), and you are most likely one of those people that don't acknowledge Ali's win over Patterson and Moore and just say that they were '' past their prime''. Moore was on a winning streak when he lost to Ali and so was Patterson, including a win over Bonevena, who i rate as one of the most underrated contenders of all time.

Gans didn't have another official loss for five years and continued to successfully defend his 135lb title, including his legendary 42 rounder with Battling Nelson after his loss to Langford. Moore was about 50, had already lost his light-heavy title and retired soon after. Patterson was 37, in his final fight, and fighting with a serious back injury. Big difference.

Another thing is that Ali was ''past his prime'' when he got out of exile and completely shot when he was in his late 30's. He beat younger fighters like Frazier, Foreman, Lyle and many others. You all bring up the blind excuse for Sam, but just take a look at the people he while he was blind. I remember watching a documentary about Langford, and it stated that he was always blind in one eye, and didn't become fully blind until he had retired.

You're the one who brought up the number of losses and stoppages Langford had (most of which came when he was past his peak and going blind) as proof that Ali was greater. Are you really going to hammer him for losing fights when all he could see was shadows? You seem happy to excuse Ali's losses to Holmes and Berbick on similar grounds.

Its also ''self-defeating'' that you would bring up that fight( which Ali avenged) even though he was shot, and then make excuses when Langford loses when he was past his prime even though he went on to beat some good fighters after those losses. Double standards.

You used the "three time champion" line as a reason for putting Ali over Langford. Well but for a loss to fairly limited novice, who morphed into a win a few, lose a few journeyman, he never would have been a three time champion. Not really a feather in the cap is it?

I am a fan of Langford, and i try to get my hands on any fight that i could find of him and any footage as well. The thing is, is that you are trying to convince that he was greater than Ali, which is not at all true. Maybe if he become champion( which he didn't) then you could have made a decent case. Ali is known as the greatest heavyweight champion, and on many list as second greatest fighter of all time. You mention that he dominated many division, show me a division that he dominated the way Ali dominated heavyweight and stayed at the top for many years?

Which, for the last time, was through no fault of his own. The champions of the day (including your top three heavyweight Johnson), wouldn't fight him. What was he supposed to do? Between losing to Johnson in 1906 and Johnson losing his title to Willard in 1915, Langford went on a streak of 60+ wins and only 4 official losses (all subsequently avenged). He went through all of Johnson's best pre-title wins, most of Johnson's title opponents and all the other top heavy contenders who would fight him, most of them multiple times. I'd call that pretty damn dominant. But the champ wouldn't give him a shot. Where would Ali rate now if all the champs of his day refused to fight him?

[QueensburyRules]

It's too bad that all we have to judge Johnson's record is boxrec and some old grainy clips. I've seen some of his fights through Ken Burns' documentary, and i have to say,the majority of his foes couldn't fight worth Jack. They had no technique and weren't schooled at all in compaarison to today's fighters.
The game has changed immensly since the turn of the 20th century. And from the looks of Johnson's fight clips, it appears he knew how to fight; he knew how to move around the ring; he was big strong, agile champion. But i believe he wouldv'e had tons of trouble with some more modern day fighters.
One thing that is interesting however, is that the founder of Ring Magazine, Nat Fleischer , said that none of the other fighters he had seen could've taken Johnson, including Joe Louis. Fleischer was one of the leading boxing journalist of his time. so i think his opinon counts for something.

- -Pretty much it as regards the video evidence.

However, JJ was a bit of a slick sociopath by way of ingratiating himself with anyone he could get something out of, and so established a friendship with Nat such at when JJ came to him broke post prison with his autobio, Nat purchased it and shelved it know much of it to be false. That's a lot of loyalty to JJ given Nat was not a wealthy man.

I do believe many years later, perhaps after the Nat death, the JJ penned autobio was published, but I cannot say for certain if or when.

[The Old LefHook]

Johnny was a champ! Harry was a big slowpoke. In a better world he gets his shot, though, and maybe he wins.

[Super Laszlo]

Johnny was a champ! Harry was a big slowpoke. In a better world he gets his shot, though, and maybe he wins.

jack johnson was a lucky bum.

[HOUDINI563]

Just taking a knowledgeable look at both fighters and it’s obvious Johnson was head and shoulders above Wills. Johnson was all about a subtle well honed inside game. Really incredible once you realize what you’re looking at. He is controlling his opponents on the inside by parry’s and blocks at their elbows and upper arms buffering body attacks and keenly blocking punches brought to the head. He also had a wonderful jab and a killer uppercut both from the left and right side. Just a brilliant technical fighter. None of these skills are apparent when watching what we have of Wills on film which is not much unfortunately.