Why is Jack Johnson rated so high...

[Steak]

[

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.

so were allowed to give credit to fighters for how much pressure they went through? well then, time to redo all the rankings.

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.

ok then, what about all the fighters addicted to *******? they had to live with that day in and day out. should we give fighters like Rosario extra credit for having such a rough lifestyle? what about fighters who lost family members or killed someone in the ring? that screwed up their life, and they had to live with it day in and day out.

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.

is it Wills fault that he never got a title shot? Johnson was just lucky that he got a title shot and Wills never did. he never did anything extra to deserve a title shot. and Johnson beat mediocre fighters in his title defences and when he won the title...I dont think we should give him that much credit for that, and in fact him winning the title didnt help, since he refused to fight black fighters like Langford.

[JAB5239]

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?

Because he won the title. It amounts to historical significance. Wills was a fine fighter. But no one is going to rank somebody ahead of people who have acheived more whether it was thru no fault of their own that they weren't given that same opportunity. History remenbers Johnsons because of this fact, and more or less forgets Wills because of it.

[Kid McCoy]

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?

That he was able to win the championship at a time when it was deemed beyond the reach of blacks is an achievement.

Sonny Liston's best wins were also before he won the championship, but he usually ranks in the top ten these days.

Nat Fleischer, Charlie Rose and the others who saw them both rated Johnson higher than Wills. For what it's worth, those two also rated Johnson ahead of Ali. For their reasons, you'd have to ask them. I don't know of any historian who ranks Wills higher.

The IBRO rated Johnson at #3 a few years ago. Again, for their reasons, you'd have to ask them. They also had Rocky at #5 and Jeff #7. A lot of holes to pick there too. If Wills was ranked higher, you may well ask why is he ahead of Johnson, who beat the same opposition but with the added bonus of also winning the championship? Picking holes in all-time ratings, the gist of your initial post, is easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

[Poet682006]

That he was able to win the championship at a time when it was deemed beyond the reach of blacks is an achievement.

Sonny Liston's best wins were also before he won the championship, but he usually ranks in the top ten these days.

Nat Fleischer, Charlie Rose and the others who saw them both rated Johnson higher than Wills. For what it's worth, those two also rated Johnson ahead of Ali. For their reasons, you'd have to ask them. I don't know of any historian who ranks Wills higher.

The IBRO rated Johnson at #3 a few years ago. Again, for their reasons, you'd have to ask them. They also had Rocky at #5 and Jeff #7. A lot of holes to pick there too. If Wills was ranked higher, you may well ask why is he ahead of Johnson, who beat the same opposition but with the added bonus of also winning the championship? Picking holes in all-time ratings, the gist of your initial post, is easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

Up until the late 90s Bert Sugar also had Johnson rated over Ali. With Liston it seems to be a divided jury since he doesn't appear on a lot of peoples ATG lists. I personally rank him #6.

Poet

[Steak]

Because he won the title. It amounts to historical significance. Wills was a fine fighter. But no one is going to rank somebody ahead of people who have acheived more whether it was thru no fault of their own that they weren't given that same opportunity. History remenbers Johnsons because of this fact, and more or less forgets Wills because of it.

historical significance does not automatically make a fighter great. Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champ and very significant because of his popularity, but that doesnt make him one of the best fighters ever.

Johnson winning the title may have been important, but only in terms of him pushing the race barrier. in boxing terms, do you really think that him winning the title from Burns was very impressive?

I think when it comes to people rating Johnson, they tend to credit his personal accomplishments with his boxing career. which is something I dont think should be done.
at the end of the day, Johnson beat McVea, Jeanette, Langford, etc. and thats all he should be judged by, his in the ring accomplishments.

and for the millionth time, I DONT expect Wills to be rated higher than Johnson. I DO expect Johnson and Wills to be rated close together though, since he beat pretty much all the high class people that Johnson beat.

[Steak]

Up until the late 90s Bert Sugar also had Johnson rated over Ali. With Liston it seems to be a divided jury since he doesn't appear on a lot of peoples ATG lists. I personally rank him #6.

Poet

yea, well Bert Sugar also has Dempsey at #3 and Tunney at #5. thats a bit questionable, especially considering how short of time Tunney stayed at Heavyweight.

and as for Fleischer, the guy had Jeffries, Dempsey, Bob Fitzsimmons and Corbett over Joe Louis. that kind of makes scratch my head.

so...Im not sure what criteria these guys were using.

[LondonRingRules]

so why the double standards?

** Bottomline has nothing to do with the record. Obviously Langford and Jeannette have superior records, and Wills at least a comparable record.

Boxing is one of the most traditional sports there is and respects tradition.

1. Johnson slew the first ever monster in Jeffries. Makes no difference how well past it Jeffries was, Jeff was BigFoot, Gilgamesh, and Paul Bunyan wrapped into one. Johnson's win destroyed the myth of white superiority that Jack London and others had endowed the heavyweight champion with.

2. Johnson was very good friends with Nat Fleischer who ranked him best ever. Nat was the first record keeper of note in the sport and arguably the biggest single contributor to boxing over his lifetime, a huge influence. Again, a tradition that few dared broach.

3. Johnson was as much or more a major news lead outside the ring as inside the ring. The guy sold papers big time, more so than previous charismatic champs Sullivan and Corbett.

4. Him being the first ever black heavy champ, well, you takes your life in your own hands if you disparage Johnson in the wrong crowd.

He has a HOF record for sure, but gets many extra boosts few other greats can claim. He also benefitted greatly from traditional myth making that gets passed on, like the idea that he could KO anybody anytime he wanted or was hated by whites when so many whites were his running buddies as he moved fairly freely around the country in an extremely flashy style.

[Poet682006]

yea, well Bert Sugar also has Dempsey at #3 and Tunney at #5. thats a bit questionable, especially considering how short of time Tunney stayed at Heavyweight.

and as for Fleischer, the guy had Jeffries, Dempsey, Bob Fitzsimmons and Corbett over Joe Louis. that kind of makes scratch my head.

so...Im not sure what criteria these guys were using.

I have Dempsey rated at #4 after Ali, Louis, and Johnson. I'm with you on Tunney: He had a 60+ fight career all but five were at Light-Heavyweight where he should be rated. Michael Spinks is a similer case: He had six fights at Heavyweight and usually doesn't come up for discussion in Heavyweight threads. To thinking if you spend the vast majority of your career at a particular weight that's where you should be rated at; not in weight classes where you made brief appearences.

Poet

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE]

historical significance does not automatically make a fighter great. Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champ and very significant because of his popularity, but that doesnt make him one of the best fighters ever.

Johnson was hated during his era while at the least Tyson was obsessed about. Also Tyson only won a portion of the heavyweight championship while Johnson won the worlds title that the majority thought should only belong to a white man. The differences are huge, my friend.

Johnson winning the title may have been important, but only in terms of him pushing the race barrier. in boxing terms, do you really think that him winning the title from Burns was very impressive?

Was Tyson beating Berbick impressive? Liston over Patterson? Marciano over Walcott? To say yes would be looking at only a very small part of the picture, no?

I think when it comes to people rating Johnson, they tend to credit his personal accomplishments with his boxing career. which is something I dont think should be done.
at the end of the day, Johnson beat McVea, Jeanette, Langford, etc. and thats all he should be judged by, his in the ring accomplishments.

I question many things about Johnson. But at the end of the day there are great names on his resume. ALL his personal accomplishments that he is noted for have to do with his boxing career. If you are being objective and reasonable they HAVE to be factored in.

and for the millionth time, I DONT expect Wills to be rated higher than Johnson. I DO expect Johnson and Wills to be rated close together though, since he beat pretty much all the high class people that Johnson beat.[/

QUOTE]

The simple fact is Wills never accomplished what Johnson did. He was never held in the same regard as a fighter. That just can't be put to the wayside no matter how you look at it. If it was, Wills would be ranked higher.

[Southpaw16BF]

Right for some reason you always question the greatness of Jack Johnson, The reason Jack Johnson is so great he beat the best of his era including Langford,Bob Fitzsimmons,Fireman Jim Flynn,Tommy Burns,James J Jeffries,Ketchel and a few more.

Having beat all these great fighters while so much was aginst him he had to follow and follow Burns round the globe for that title shot and even when he was champ the white race were always thinking of what they could do to disturb his title reign and they put all of the best white fighters up against him and in his prime he beat them all.

And please don't dare compare him to the likes of Ruiz as you have in the past becuase things in Johnson's era were so different etc fixed fights, so much hate against him, and fact Johnson was so much better. Johnson also went without a loss once for 10 years, and even when he was defeated for his title he was out of shape and ring rusty. Jack Johnson was a great and one of the best heavyweights of all time.

END OF!