Why is Jack Johnson rated so high...

[Kid McCoy]

My big problem with BoxRec and their newspaper decision listings is that they so often are only listing a single source for their information/verdict, and are often listing a source like that that is very much in the minority, and in some cases likely factuably inaccurate when compared to many other sources covering the same fight.

e.g. Concerning the Langford/Jeannette fight I alluded to earlier (took place in 1908), BoxRec has it listed as a "draw" based on one report from the NY Times, which is also a source that states that Jeannette was knocked down in the 1st and 2nd rounds. But if you look at the other sources out of New York, whether it be the other NY papers (Tribune, Sun, Evening World, etc.) or the wired reports out of New York printed in many different sources (Washington Times & Herald, Trenton Evening News, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, etc.), they are all consistent in saying that Langford got the best of the fight, and most will say by some margin. Oh, and those other reports are also consistant in saying that Langford knocked Jeannette down twice in the first round, and once again in the fifth, which is completely different than what the singular source that BoxRec uses says.

i.e. If I'm like you and read one singular source listed BoxRec I'm thinking that fight was a newspaper draw. Yet, if I expand myself and look through about ten other sources that were covering the fight out of the fight's location, I find that that one singular source was very much in the minority and in fact, quite inaccurate to what every other source was reporting on what happened in that fight.

Excellent point about Boxrec and newspaper decisions. While it's beyond dispute that Harry Greb was a great fighter, a lot of his Boxrec newspaper wins seem to have been allocated based on reports from the Pittsburgh Post, who apparently reckon he won virtually every fight he was in, even when he lost.

I always take newspaper reports with a pinch of salt, whether they were written yesterday or 100 years ago. Newspapers and journalists were the same back then as they are now. All had their own agendas and prejudices, and wrote their pieces with their audience in mind. I read newspaper reports of fights nowadays and sometimes wonder whether the journalist in question was even watching the same fight. Imagine if 100 years from now all we have of, say, the Hagler-Leonard fight, is the widely varying newspaper reports of it and it gives some idea of what a difficult task it is.

[JAB5239]

I wasnt judging boxrec rankings actually, I was judging the people in the top 10 Heavyweights list that had Johnson really high and didnt have Wills in the top ten at all.

and I know Ive said this before, but boxrec is as good as any other source when it comes to judging old fighters...its all secondary sources. either boxrec or newspapers...and newspapers cant even agree with each other on how the fight went a lot of the time. I mean, I seriously doubt even boxing historians have ever actually seen a full Jeanette fight before, because little to no footage even exists of him...at least in his early days.

and boxrec doesnt have all the fights listed for certain old fighters, but they probebly will have all the big/significant fights theyve been in, and thats mostly all that counts. I dont really care if a fighter's win over a bum is missing or not.

the thing is that Wills basically fought and beat a lot of Dempsey's and Johnson's best wins...and doesnt seem to get as much credit as either of them.
I dont care how you rate them, I just dont think it makes much sense that Johnson ought to be rated that much higher than Wills.

I think that being the first black man to hold the haevywqeight titile has huge significance in ranking Johnson so high in comparison to Wills. He was also the more talented fighter in most opinions.

[Steak]

I think that being the first black man to hold the haevywqeight titile has huge significance in ranking Johnson so high in comparison to Wills. He was also the more talented fighter in most opinions.

being the first black heavyweight champ means NOTHING. John Ruiz is this first hispanic heavyweight champion, that doesnt mean I give him any extra credit as a fighter. and how was Wills ever supposed to be a heavyweight champ when they never let him get a title shot?

and where are you getting this 'more talented fighter' type of thing? Theres almost no footage of Wills to compare him to Johnson, and their best wins are basically the same guys.

[Kid McCoy]

being the first black heavyweight champ means NOTHING. John Ruiz is this first hispanic heavyweight champion, that doesnt mean I give him any extra credit as a fighter. and how was Wills ever supposed to be a heavyweight champ when they never let him get a title shot?

and where are you getting this 'more talented fighter' type of thing? Theres almost no footage of Wills to compare him to Johnson, and their best wins are basically the same guys.

Ruiz didn't win the title at a time when Hispanics could still be lynched.

Most of the historians who saw them both rated Johnson ahead of Wills.

[Steak]

Ruiz didn't win the title at a time when Hispanics could still be lynched.

Most of the historians who saw them both rated Johnson ahead of Wills.

sorry if it sounds heartless, but I dont see why we should care about Johnson's life in regard to his ranking as a boxer. Kassim Ouma(and others) had a way, way worse life than Johnson did, but that doesnt mean Im going to rank him higher as a Light Middleweight. I dont think boxing historians would rate him any higher either, so why the double standards?
and Wills boxed in the same era as Johnson did anyway, except he wasnt even as privalaged as Johnson was because he never even got the chance at a title shot.

and I dont have a problem having Johnson over Wills. but having Johnson as #3, and not having Wills a top ten heavyweight at all? that makes no sense.

[JAB5239]

being the first black heavyweight champ means NOTHING. John Ruiz is this first hispanic heavyweight champion, that doesnt mean I give him any extra credit as a fighter. and how was Wills ever supposed to be a heavyweight champ when they never let him get a title shot?

and where are you getting this 'more talented fighter' type of thing? Theres almost no footage of Wills to compare him to Johnson, and their best wins are basically the same guys.

Ruiz didn't win the title at a time when Hispanics could still be lynched.

Most of the historians who saw them both rated Johnson ahead of Wills.

Thank you.

From what I remeber reading Wills was an upright fighter who was very strong and neither fast nor slow. Most from that era thought Dempsey would have beat him because of the big difference in both hand and foot speed.

Had Johnson have fought him (Wills) its my opinion based on everything I have read and seen that Johnson would have beat him with his speed, superior footwork and top notch defense. Wills usually held a good size advantage over his opposition. He would still have a slight advantage in size, yet would be trumped in almost every other catagory. JMO.

[Steak]

Thank you.

From what I remeber reading Wills was an upright fighter who was very strong and neither fast nor slow. Most from that era thought Dempsey would have beat him because of the big difference in both hand and foot speed.

Had Johnson have fought him (Wills) its my opinion based on everything I have read and seen that Johnson would have beat him with his speed, superior footwork and top notch defense. Wills usually held a good size advantage over his opposition. He would still have a slight advantage in size, yet would be trumped in almost every other catagory. JMO.

as Ive said before, I dont think Wills deserves to be ranked over Johnson, simply that Johnson should not be rated so much higher than Wills. and besides, top ten heavyweight lists arent determined by "who would beat who" anyway, theyre determined by accomplishments.

[JAB5239]

[

QUOTE=blackirish137;4286409]sorry if it sounds heartless, but I dont see why we should care about Johnson's life in regard to his ranking as a boxer.

Because as the first black champ, at that time in America, he had a bullseye on him in and out of the ring. The pressure had to hjave been extroadonairy.

Kassim Ouma(and others) had a way, way worse life than Johnson did, but that doesnt mean Im going to rank him higher as a Light Middleweight. I dont think boxing historians would rate him any higher either, so why the double standards?

Its true Ouma came from a rough beginning. But he came to America and didn't have those worries anymore everytime he fought. Johnsons problems were day in and day out, in his own country.

and Wills boxed in the same era as Johnson did anyway, except he wasnt even as privalaged as Johnson was because he never even got the chance at a title shot.

Why didn't he get the shot? Racism? Imagine what Johnson had to go thru because he was given the shot and actually won..

Im not saying it is right Wills never got his chance, I just think you are under selling what Johnson had to go thru and overcome.

and I dont have a problem having Johnson over Wills. but having Johnson as #3, and not having Wills a top ten heavyweight at all? that makes no sense.[/QUOTE]

The title itself means so much. It isn't Wills fault he didn't fight for it, but it doesn't mean that men that did fight for it should be looked past. Personally I have Wills around 13 or 14, which is very good still.

[JAB5239]

as Ive said before, I dont think Wills deserves to be ranked over Johnson, simply that Johnson should not be rated so much higher than Wills. and besides, top ten heavyweight lists arent determined by "who would beat who" anyway, theyre determined by accomplishments.

And the heavyweight championship is the biggest accomplishment one could hope to acheive. Johnson shouldn't be penelized for winning it, and Wills should be rated higher just because he didn't get the same shot to prove himself as Johnson.

[Steak]

[/B]

And the heavyweight championship is the biggest accomplishment one could hope to acheive. Johnson shouldn't be penelized for winning it, and Wills should be rated higher just because he didn't get the same shot to prove himself as Johnson.

the heavyweight championship means nothing if your best wins came before you got it. Langford never won an official title...does that mean anything at all? nope.

Johnson's best wins are basically the same as Wills...why should he rated that much higher than him?