Jack Johnson VS Joe Louis

[edgarg]

Johnson was a good puncher but not in Louis's class for power. Louis was one of the best punchers ever at heavyweight, the films show this. McVea was physically very strong, but certainly not as fast and accurate with his punches as Louis. Johnson was very good at dealing with the likes of McVea, who looked for single shots, often telegraphed. Louis was no brawler, but he got many of his opponents out of there early and went for the finish when needed to, and he was arguably the best finisher of all time. His combinations were impossible to stop when he had his man hurt, and Louis could certainly hurt Johnson, who never had a great chin although it was difficult to get to him because of his cautious approach.

Louis never truly got frustrated, he took his time and remained a threat in the late rounds. Even his expression hardly ever changed. Johnson would not be able to clown with Louis as he could with middleweight-sized Tommy Burns and an old Jeffries. He would have to take the fight seriously which he rarely did. Whether his best effort would be enough to win, it's difficult to say. I'd say that Louis dealt with more men who were comparable to Johnson than Johnson did with men who were comparable to Louis. There weren't many combination punchers with the power of Louis around the heavyweight division in the early 1900's. Johnson took on young versions of McVea, Langford and Jeannette, but refused to grant them rematches as they got more experienced. The films of Jack Johnson against Jeffries, Flynn and Ketchel don't show much compared to all the films of Joe Louis.

That's because of the very primitive film industry of the time. It's well known, although you don't mention it that Johnson, who was years ahead of his times, always had a big interest in the films of his fights, which, shown in the theatres, brought him in a large income.

Because of this, he ensured that his fights went on for a sufficient number of rounds. He sometimes can be seen, after hitting his opponent, clinching with him and actually holding him up from falling. He was therefore, a lavish spender, and lived a very high life, an original Tyson-like life.

As for fighting other blacks, he was the Negro Heavyweight World Champion for a number of years, and fought all the top guys many times, always making sure (as they all did-if they could) that the fights lasted long enough to give the customers their money's worth.

Does anyone really think that he couldn't have disposed of Tommy Burns and Jim Jeffries in only a few rounds??

The Father of The Bible of Boxing, (Ring Magazine, which he founded and published for nearly 50 years) and recognised world expert, Nat Fleischer, was adamant that Jack Johnson was the No. 1 of all time. This after being deeply involved with the eras of Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano (whom I think very little of) and Muhammed Ali,

As for beating Joe Louis, you can't get around the fact that Chappie Blackburn, his mentor, teacher and trainer, always said that "Jack Johnson would beat you badly" ( I think I'm quoting the exact words) that Johnson had the knack of reaching out to his opponent, and touching him, just when he was ready to punch, putting him off balance and unable to follow through.

Even with the very poor, erratic movie pictures, Johnson can be seen playing with his opponents, no matter who they were; he treated boxing as a joke that he enjoyed, and was never without a big smile, even in the ring. He often would carry on conversations with the ringsiders whilst in the process of fighting. He was a consummate practitioner of the Noble Art of Self Defence, as it was described.

As for him only being able to pick off one or two thrown punches and that he would be helpless against combinations, does anyone really think that he would not immediately adapt his style to deal with it. In fact I firmly believe that if he felt he were in trouble, with a very tough opponent, he would abandon his fan friendly conversations and proceed to get his opponent out of there rather like he did with Ketchell.

His fight against Jess Willard, in which he lost his title, was notable, if anyone recalls, by the fact that Johnson, a MUCH smaller man than the 6'6" Willard, and badly out of condition, (actually with a stomach) beat Willard all around the ring, for 25 rounds, before he succumbed to fatigue in the 26th. If it had been a 25 rd fight he would have won overwhelmingly, but the fight organizers, determined to get the title away from Johnson, insisted on it being a 45 rd fight, literally a fight to a finish...So........... It was a fight to a finish.

[edgarg]

oooooo wow what a big difference

you cant be serious to think louis would bomb out a good defender like johnson...i think louis is the better more active fighter and would win by decision...

CARLOS SLIM- I think that Johnson would beat Louis. Not from any personal expertise, but accepting the words of experts like Chappie Blackburn and Nat Fleischer amongst others.

I'm really replying to you because I am about to invest in one of your companies, and want to keep you in good humour, because I'll be relying on you............

[JAB5239]

That's because of the very primitive film industry of the time. It's well known, although you don't mention it that Johnson, who was years ahead of his times, always had a big interest in the films of his fights, which, shown in the theatres, brought him in a large income.

Because of this, he ensured that his fights went on for a sufficient number of rounds. He sometimes can be seen, after hitting his opponent, clinching with him and actually holding him up from falling. He was therefore, a lavish spender, and lived a very high life, an original Tyson-like life.

As for fighting other blacks, he was the Negro Heavyweight World Champion for a number of years, and fought all the top guys many times, always making sure (as they all did-if they could) that the fights lasted long enough to give the customers their money's worth.

Does anyone really think that he couldn't have disposed of Tommy Burns and Jim Jeffries in only a few rounds??

The Father of The Bible of Boxing, (Ring Magazine, which he founded and published for nearly 50 years) and recognised world expert, Nat Fleischer, was adamant that Jack Johnson was the No. 1 of all time. This after being deeply involved with the eras of Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano (whom I think very little of) and Muhammed Ali,

As for beating Joe Louis, you can't get around the fact that Chappie Blackburn, his mentor, teacher and trainer, always said that "Jack Johnson would beat you badly" ( I think I'm quoting the exact words) that Johnson had the knack of reaching out to his opponent, and touching him, just when he was ready to punch, putting him off balance and unable to follow through.

Even with the very poor, erratic movie pictures, Johnson can be seen playing with his opponents, no matter who they were; he treated boxing as a joke that he enjoyed, and was never without a big smile, even in the ring. He often would carry on conversations with the ringsiders whilst in the process of fighting. He was a consummate practitioner of the Noble Art of Self Defence, as it was described.

As for him only being able to pick off one or two thrown punches and that he would be helpless against combinations, does anyone really think that he would not immediately adapt his style to deal with it. In fact I firmly believe that if he felt he were in trouble, with a very tough opponent, he would abandon his fan friendly conversations and proceed to get his opponent out of there rather like he did with Ketchell.

His fight against Jess Willard, in which he lost his title, was notable, if anyone recalls, by the fact that Johnson, a MUCH smaller man than the 6'6" Willard, and badly out of condition, (actually with a stomach) beat Willard all around the ring, for 25 rounds, before he succumbed to fatigue in the 26th. If it had been a 25 rd fight he would have won overwhelmingly, but the fight organizers, determined to get the title away from Johnson, insisted on it being a 45 rd fight, literally a fight to a finish...So........... It was a fight to a finish.

Im a big fan of Jonson and hold him in high regard, but I think he caught Mcvey, Jenette and Langford early in their careers. He should have given them opportunities after he won the title, especially Langford who he openly ducked in my opinion.

As far as Burns and Jeffries go.....Burns he would have always beat Jeff on the other hand, in his prime, presents much more trouble than the one who fought him in 1910. Not saying he wins, but this wouldn't be an easy fight.

[edgarg]

Im a big fan of Jonson and hold him in high regard, but I think he caught Mcvey, Jenette and Langford early in their careers. He should have given them opportunities after he won the title, especially Langford who he openly ducked in my opinion.

As far as Burns and Jeffries go.....Burns he would have always beat Jeff on the other hand, in his prime, presents much more trouble than the one who fought him in 1910. Not saying he wins, but this wouldn't be an easy fight.

Yes it's true he did fight them early, but he fought for the Coloured Heavyweight title 17 times, and he clearly beat Langford who was no match for him and was very undersized too.
You can see an instance in this fight where Johnson KD's Langford, then shortly after, when Langford it going down, Johnson holds him up. He did the same thing with Ketchell.

It is VERY noticeable from his Boxrec record (admittedly short of a couple of hundred fights) that he must have held the world record for knocking down opponents MULTIPLE times, even 3-4 times in 1 round, yet, they nearly ALL survived to the final bell, often a 20 rounder. This was, in my opinion, because he kept the fight going to give the customers value.

[TheGreatA]

That's because of the very primitive film industry of the time. It's well known, although you don't mention it that Johnson, who was years ahead of his times, always had a big interest in the films of his fights, which, shown in the theatres, brought him in a large income.

Because of this, he ensured that his fights went on for a sufficient number of rounds. He sometimes can be seen, after hitting his opponent, clinching with him and actually holding him up from falling. He was therefore, a lavish spender, and lived a very high life, an original Tyson-like life.

I have obtained some pretty decent quality footage of Jack Johnson. I know everything about him carrying opponents and living the life, and take it into account while watching his films, sometimes he is way out of shape, but regardless he doesn't look as impressive as Joe Louis, even when he was in great condition against Ketchel and Jeffries. Louis's punching technique was years ahead his time also. Johnson was still very much a product of his time, conserving energy, using footwork sparingly and throwing a low amount of punches per round.

This is no insult to Johnson as I rate Louis the second greatest heavyweight of all time, with Johnson following him not much further behind, but still a clear edge between the two for me.

As for fighting other blacks, he was the Negro Heavyweight World Champion for a number of years, and fought all the top guys many times, always making sure (as they all did-if they could) that the fights lasted long enough to give the customers their money's worth.

When he was the actual world champion however he refused to give the likes of Langford and Jeannette the title shot that they deserved. Langford was only 156 pounds at the time he faced Johnson, still far from the 180 lb destroyer that wrecked many 200+ lb heavyweights, Jeannette was a relative novice compared to Johnson and McVea was 20 years of age, although already strong and well-built like a young Tyson.

Does anyone really think that he couldn't have disposed of Tommy Burns and Jim Jeffries in only a few rounds??

He could have, which is why I said he'd have to take Louis a lot more seriously than Burns and Jeffries. Trying to dispose of Burns and Jeffries early also meant taking more risks, and Johnson never liked taking any risks.

The Father of The Bible of Boxing, (Ring Magazine, which he founded and published for nearly 50 years) and recognised world expert, Nat Fleischer, was adamant that Jack Johnson was the No. 1 of all time. This after being deeply involved with the eras of Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano (whom I think very little of) and Muhammed Ali,

Fleischer also didn't rate the likes of Willie Pep and Archie Moore very highly. He was biased towards the fighters of his youth, understandably, but biased still. No doubt he knew about the old timers more than anyone today as he saw them fight with his own eyes, but he thought Pep and Ali were "clowns".

As for beating Joe Louis, you can't get around the fact that Chappie Blackburn, his mentor, teacher and trainer, always said that "Jack Johnson would beat you badly" ( I think I'm quoting the exact words) that Johnson had the knack of reaching out to his opponent, and touching him, just when he was ready to punch, putting him off balance and unable to follow through.

Blackburn lived in an era where Jack Johnson was thought to be the greatest fighter in the world for many years. He hated Johnson for his actions, but respected him for his skills. Ray Arcel always thought Dempsey would've beaten everybody. People tend to rate the fighters of their youth the highest, while Louis was only a student of his to whom he taught everything Louis knew. Johnson however was far from unbeatable and rarely took fighting entirely serious. There's no way that O'Brien or Battling Jim could've drawn with Louis. Johnson did not give any effort against these men and if he ever showed up in such shape against Louis, his night could end early.

Even with the very poor, erratic movie pictures, Johnson can be seen playing with his opponents, no matter who they were; he treated boxing as a joke that he enjoyed, and was never without a big smile, even in the ring. He often would carry on conversations with the ringsiders whilst in the process of fighting. He was a consummate practitioner of the Noble Art of Self Defence, as it was described.

A prime Joe Louis however was no joke comparable to a 168 lb Tommy Burns and a drained aging Jeffries.

As for him only being able to pick off one or two thrown punches and that he would be helpless against combinations, does anyone really think that he would not immediately adapt his style to deal with it. In fact I firmly believe that if he felt he were in trouble, with a very tough opponent, he would abandon his fan friendly conversations and proceed to get his opponent out of there rather like he did with Ketchell.

I doubt he would be helpless against just any combination, but fighters who were adept at defending combinations were helpless against Louis's combinations. He was pin-point accurate. I agree that Johnson would take Louis more serious, but taking him more serious would also mean taking more chances and abandoning his cautious style in favour of a more offensive one. This could be in favour of Louis.

[boxing boy]

If Jack Johnson never fought fighters who threw punches in combination how do we know he couldn't have picked off there punches? Or how do we know he could have picked off there punches? Isn't it just speculation?

I quess you pick what fighter you like the best.Just like a Muhammad Ali-Joe Louis fight.Normally you pick who you like?

[NChristo]

If Jack Johnson never fought fighters who threw punches in combination how do we know he couldn't have picked off there punches? Or how do we know he could have picked off there punches? Isn't it just speculation?

I quess you pick what fighter you like the best.Just like a Muhammad Ali-Joe Louis fight.Normally you pick who you like?

They were having a debate no reason to say what's in the bold, because with single shots he can pick of the single shot and fire straight back or control the fight however he wants but with a combination he can pick of one of the shots but will have another coming at him straight away which he will immediately have to parry again and he won't be able to control the fight as well as he could against people only doing single shots, parrying wouldn't work so effectively against a combination puncher as great as Louis.

GreatA isn't picking his favorite at all, he has given reasons as to why he would think Louis would win, while you haven't really said anything at all in terms of styles and how they would of fought.

Do you normally pick who you like ?

[TheGreatA]

If Jack Johnson never fought fighters who threw punches in combination how do we know he couldn't have picked off there punches? Or how do we know he could have picked off there punches? Isn't it just speculation?

I quess you pick what fighter you like the best.Just like a Muhammad Ali-Joe Louis fight.Normally you pick who you like?

I'm picking the fighter I'd favour to win. Doesn't mean I'm right but I've stated my case.

It's for the same reason that I think Marciano would have problems with big 220 lb fighters like George Foreman for example, because he never fought one that was world class and his style doesn't match up well against a bigger, stronger man that he can't push around.

Combination punching was hardly invented by Louis but he was one of the best at it and Johnson, who was used to picking off one or two punches, would surely have some problems dealing with Louis.

[Chief2ndzOnly!]

That's because of the very primitive film industry of the time. It's well known, although you don't mention it that Johnson, who was years ahead of his times, always had a big interest in the films of his fights, which, shown in the theatres, brought him in a large income.

Because of this, he ensured that his fights went on for a sufficient number of rounds. He sometimes can be seen, after hitting his opponent, clinching with him and actually holding him up from falling. He was therefore, a lavish spender, and lived a very high life, an original Tyson-like life.

As for fighting other blacks, he was the Negro Heavyweight World Champion for a number of years, and fought all the top guys many times, always making sure (as they all did-if they could) that the fights lasted long enough to give the customers their money's worth.

Does anyone really think that he couldn't have disposed of Tommy Burns and Jim Jeffries in only a few rounds??

The Father of The Bible of Boxing, (Ring Magazine, which he founded and published for nearly 50 years) and recognised world expert, Nat Fleischer, was adamant that Jack Johnson was the No. 1 of all time. This after being deeply involved with the eras of Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano (whom I think very little of) and Muhammed Ali,

As for beating Joe Louis, you can't get around the fact that Chappie Blackburn, his mentor, teacher and trainer, always said that "Jack Johnson would beat you badly" ( I think I'm quoting the exact words) that Johnson had the knack of reaching out to his opponent, and touching him, just when he was ready to punch, putting him off balance and unable to follow through.

Even with the very poor, erratic movie pictures, Johnson can be seen playing with his opponents, no matter who they were; he treated boxing as a joke that he enjoyed, and was never without a big smile, even in the ring. He often would carry on conversations with the ringsiders whilst in the process of fighting. He was a consummate practitioner of the Noble Art of Self Defence, as it was described.

As for him only being able to pick off one or two thrown punches and that he would be helpless against combinations, does anyone really think that he would not immediately adapt his style to deal with it. In fact I firmly believe that if he felt he were in trouble, with a very tough opponent, he would abandon his fan friendly conversations and proceed to get his opponent out of there rather like he did with Ketchell.

His fight against Jess Willard, in which he lost his title, was notable, if anyone recalls, by the fact that Johnson, a MUCH smaller man than the 6'6" Willard, and badly out of condition, (actually with a stomach) beat Willard all around the ring, for 25 rounds, before he succumbed to fatigue in the 26th. If it had been a 25 rd fight he would have won overwhelmingly, but the fight organizers, determined to get the title away from Johnson, insisted on it being a 45 rd fight, literally a fight to a finish...So........... It was a fight to a finish.

Thank you. You hit majority of thpoints that I was going to make and one point that I didn't think to make.

@The Great. I know all about Tommy and Stanley and their stature(as MW's) as well as McVea, Joe Jeanette, Denver Ed and anyone else on Johnson's resume. I dont have Jack and Joe in my sig for nothing. And Joe holds a special place in my heart for what he did for Jack.

One point to add, and this has always been my belief. Jack never granted the other Black contenders a shot at the title as the danger of them holding that title(in the event that they DID beat Jack)would have been more than they could bare.

[TheGreatA]

That's a very optimistic view, but Johnson did defend his title against Battling Jim, a black contender who was inferior to Langford, Jeannette and McVea. Johnson nearly lost as his arm was broken during the bout.