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

[mickey malone]

I used to have him around the middle of my top 10, like most people. But I've been struggling to find his defining win.

An inactive 44 year old Bob Fitzsimmons - nope
Jim Jeffries after 6 years without a fight - nope
A 5'7", 168 pound Tommy Burns - nope
Middleweight Stanley Ketchel - nope
A young 156 pound Sam Langford (who he ducked along with every other great black fighter when Johnson was champ) - nope

Losing to Marvin Hart while in his prime hurts him.
Getting knocked out twice early in his career, I don't hold too much against him.

Almost 6 1/2 years as champ sounds great, till you look at the quality of the 8 total title defenses (even little Tommy Burns had 10 defenses of similar quality, no one mentions him in any top 10 ATG HW list.)

Sorry, I still have him at the bottom of my top 10, but the more I look, the further he drops.

Co-signed..

He doesn't make my top 10 for all the reasons you've mentioned..

[Poet682006]

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.

Not every fighter gets the opportunity for a career "defining win". What was Marciano's? What was Lennox's? It just doesn't always happen.

Poet

[Fiasco]

Not every fighter gets the opportunity for a career "defining win". What was Marciano's? What was Lennox's? It just doesn't always happen.

Poet

Yet, you bash Wladimir's career.. lol.

[Poet682006]

Yet, you bash Wladimir's career.. lol.

I'm not critical of Wlad because of a lack of a career defining win. You should actually READ what's being discussed before you open your pie-hole.

Poet

[Fiasco]

I'm not critical of Wlad because of a lack of a career defining win. You should actually READ what's being discussed before you open your pie-hole.

Poet

Why are you ctitical of him, then?

For losing fights by knockouts? Like when a prime Louis got knocked out by an old, past-prime Schmeling?

For fighting in a weak era? Much like Louis, with his "Bum Of The Month Club" members.

[Poet682006]

Why are you ctitical of him, then?

For his lack of chin, lack of stamina, low work-rate, lack of toughness, lack of wins over any fighter with a pulse that didn't look like the Pillsbury Dough-Boy ect.

For losing fights by knockouts? Like when a prime Louis got knocked out by an old, past-prime Schmeling?

Schmeling was hardly old and it's even arguable that he was still prime when they fought. At WORST he was slightly past-prime. Past-prime Schmeling > Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster combined.

For fighting in a weak era? Much like Louis, with his "Bum Of The Month Club" members.

Try for fighting in the absolute WORST Heavyweight era ever. As opposed the rather average era Louis fought in. I can only suppose you're congenitally ignorant of boxing prior to your own lifetime.

Poet

[EzzardFan]

but losing to Marvin Hart in his prime and never avenging that loss knocks him down a notch.

As already stated... by all accounts at the end of that contest Hart looked like he's been hit by a train, and Johnson was unscathed and had barely broken sweat. Judging was less than fair back then. Had Johnson 'won' he'd probably have been lynched anyway so it's academic.

[The_Demon]

top 15 imo

[Jim Jeffries]

As already stated... by all accounts at the end of that contest Hart looked like he's been hit by a train, and Johnson was unscathed and had barely broken sweat. Judging was less than fair back then. Had Johnson 'won' he'd probably have been lynched anyway so it's academic.

Clottey looked unscathed and had barely broken a sweat against Pacquiao (whose face was swollen and marked) last week, but you'd have to be pretty generous to give him more than a round. Perhaps if Josh or Jack had tried harder, they'd have gotten the win.

Johnson wasn't lynched for the other white fighters he beat (or white women he dated,) so your "probably" doesn't hold any weight at all. Just more revisionist history.

[Fiasco]

For his lack of chin, lack of stamina, low work-rate, lack of toughness, lack of wins over any fighter with a pulse that didn't look like the Pillsbury Dough-Boy ect.

Lack of a chin? Much like Louis, right?

He doesn't have a lack of stamina or toughness.

Since when does a fighter's work-rate decide whether or not he's a great fighter?

And I would say that Wladimir's opponents seem to look in much better condition than the average looking Joe's that Louis fought.

Schmeling was hardly old and it's even arguable that he was still prime when they fought. At WORST he was slightly past-prime. Past-prime Schmeling > Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster combined.

Schmeling was past his prime. And no one is saying that Wladimir is better than Louis.

Try for fighting in the absolute WORST Heavyweight era ever. As opposed the rather average era Louis fought in. I can only suppose you're congenitally ignorant of boxing prior to your own lifetime.

Louis' era was far from average. In terms of physical condition, this era is better than Louis'.