How High do You rate Jack Johnson in your ATG heavyweight list?

[gran campeon]

its ironic how the same people who criticize johnson for beating lil midgets think sam langford could beat him, even after he got his ass beat before.....

i dont consider johnson top 5 hw....

[Chief2ndzOnly!]

Top of the FOOD CHAIN bruh. To me he's the best HW to walk the earth. Thanks for the thread mayne.

[Chief2ndzOnly!]

I will touch this thread completely tomorrow. There are some decent points that have been touched but some VERY important point left un-touched.

[Jim Jeffries]

Believe me, I felt it was very selfish and very disrespectful for Johnson to not give any other top black fighter a heavyweight title shot. I felt that Sam Langford, who's one of my favorite fighters of all-time, had the best chance at beating him.

But that doesn't mean he didn't beat any of the top black fighters. In fact, the ones he beat were the same black fighters who were deserving of a title shot.

Here's some of the top black fighters that he beat:

Sam Langford (outweighed by a lot, but still a win)
Sam McVea
Joe Jeannette
Young Peter Jackson
Denver Ed Martin

There's more, as well.

As for your rundown analysis of most of the other fighters he beat, it's atrocious.

Jeffries - The fight the whole world wanted, with a lot of money in it. Jeffries was undefeated and many thought he would beat Johnson.

Burns - Yeah.. discredit Johnson for beating the reigning world champ.. gee.

Ketchel - It was not uncommon for fighters in lower weight classes to challenge for the title. See Fitzsimmons, for example.

He also defeated the light heavyweight champ George Gardner.

In the end, you wrongfully bashed Johnson for:

1) Winning the heavyweight title
2) Beating the former and undefeated heavyweight world champion
3) Beating the former middleweight and heavyweight world champion
4) Defending his title against one of the best fighters of his era and one of the best middleweights of all-time

The only thing I agree with you about is the fact that he didn't give any of the top black fighters a title shot.

Go ahead and rate Johnson wherever you want. But don't expect everyone to believe that Johnson didn't beat great opposition.

I thought you were going to dispute something I posted.

Johnson had a decent resume before winning the title, but his defenses of that title were horrendous. Hype the Jeffries win all you want, but the fact that he hadn't fought in 6 years and had to lose 80 pounds cannot be denied. As for Ketchel, I'm not likely to give Wladimir Klitchko any credit for beating Kelly Pavlik either, especially if Pavlik doesn't put on any weight.

But you brought up some additional names. A few wins over an extremely green Sam McVea - not impressed. Had a bunch of fights against Joe Jeannette, but in none of those fights did Joe have over 10 fights worth of experience - not impressed. A fight with an aging, battleworn Young Peter Jackson, who was 1-4-1 in the 6 fights leading up to Johnson - not impressed. And lastly, Denver Ed Martin, who was a pretty good win the first time (though slightly green,) 1-3-1 in his last 5 fights in the rematch - slightly impressed. Plus you failed to mention that LHW George Gardner weighed only 155 lbs at the time and had lost 2 of his last 5 fights - not impressed.

Overall, I just don't see it. The more I look, the more he slides on my list, which I'm thankful of your permission to keep BTW.

[StarshipTrooper]

I will touch this thread completely tomorrow. There are some decent points that have been touched but some VERY important point left un-touched.

I look forward to hearing your points.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

I thought you were going to dispute something I posted.

Johnson had a decent resume before winning the title, but his defenses of that title were horrendous. Hype the Jeffries win all you want, but the fact that he hadn't fought in 6 years and had to lose 80 pounds cannot be denied. As for Ketchel, I'm not likely to give Wladimir Klitchko any credit for beating Kelly Pavlik either, especially if Pavlik doesn't put on any weight.

But you brought up some additional names. A few wins over an extremely green Sam McVea - not impressed. Had a bunch of fights against Joe Jeannette, but in none of those fights did Joe have over 10 fights worth of experience - not impressed. A fight with an aging, battleworn Young Peter Jackson, who was 1-4-1 in the 6 fights leading up to Johnson - not impressed. And lastly, Denver Ed Martin, who was a pretty good win the first time (though slightly green,) 1-3-1 in his last 5 fights in the rematch - slightly impressed.

Overall, I just don't see it. The more I look, the more he slides on my list, which I'm thankful of your permission to keep BTW.

There's more to rating fighters than just resume: Resume's only one piece of the equation.

Poet

[Jim Jeffries]

There's more to rating fighters than just resume: Resume's only one piece of the equation.

Poet

I agree, which is why Jack Dempsey was rated the #1 greatest HW back in the 50s. He turned people on to the sport and his fights were exciting.

I'm just missing why Johnson is getting rated so high. He wasn't exciting, his fights make John Ruiz look like Mike Tyson. And he seems to have been more myth than substance.

But hey, that's why I'm here, to learn from people more knowledgeable than me and in turn share whatever insight I may have.

[StarshipTrooper]

I agree, which is why Jack Dempsey was rated the #1 greatest HW back in the 50s. He turned people on to the sport and his fights were exciting.

I'm just missing why Johnson is getting rated so high. He wasn't exciting, his fights make John Ruiz look like Mike Tyson. And he seems to have been more myth than substance.

But hey, that's why I'm here, to learn from people more knowledgeable than me and in turn share whatever insight I may have.

My standard is ability tempered by resume. Namely, you get more credit for displaying those abilities against better fighters.

The problem that you run into watching Johnson is that the styles used back then were developed under the old London Ring Rules and it took some time to adjust to the new Queensbury rules. Under the old rules there was a LOT more wrestling involved and it really wasn't until the 1920s that boxing shook off those vestiges of the old style.

Poet

[Jim Jeffries]

My standard is ability tempered by resume. Namely, you get more credit for displaying those abilities against better fighters.

The problem that you run into watching Johnson is that the styles used back then were developed under the old London Ring Rules and it took some time to adjust to the new Queensbury rules. Under the old rules there was a LOT more wrestling involved and it really wasn't until the 1920s that boxing shook off those vestiges of the old style.

Poet

Fair enough. But I can only judge how good those abilities were by the quality of the opponents he beat and who beat him. If forgive him the knockout losses early in his career, but losing to Marvin Hart in his prime and never avenging that loss knocks him down a notch. I still need a defining win over a prime, great fighter before I can rank him anywhere near where a lot of other people seem to.

[Fiasco]

I thought you were going to dispute something I posted.

Johnson had a decent resume before winning the title, but his defenses of that title were horrendous. Hype the Jeffries win all you want, but the fact that he hadn't fought in 6 years and had to lose 80 pounds cannot be denied. As for Ketchel, I'm not likely to give Wladimir Klitchko any credit for beating Kelly Pavlik either, especially if Pavlik doesn't put on any weight.

But you brought up some additional names. A few wins over an extremely green Sam McVea - not impressed. Had a bunch of fights against Joe Jeannette, but in none of those fights did Joe have over 10 fights worth of experience - not impressed. A fight with an aging, battleworn Young Peter Jackson, who was 1-4-1 in the 6 fights leading up to Johnson - not impressed. And lastly, Denver Ed Martin, who was a pretty good win the first time (though slightly green,) 1-3-1 in his last 5 fights in the rematch - slightly impressed. Plus you failed to mention that LHW George Gardner weighed only 155 lbs at the time and had lost 2 of his last 5 fights - not impressed.

Overall, I just don't see it. The more I look, the more he slides on my list, which I'm thankful of your permission to keep BTW.

Tell me which other fighters he should've fought, then.