Jack Johnson vs Jim Flynn

Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • bklynboy
    Undisputed Champion
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • Aug 2007
    • 1256
    • 78
    • 149
    • 8,406

    #11
    Originally posted by OG Iron Fist
    I have seen a few of Jack Johnson's fights and he is always huge compared to his opponent. So i was shocked to learn recently that he is only 6"1!

    6"1 is a midget in todays heavyweight division. Most the pre-war heavyweights would be middleweights today.

    Boxing really was a brutal and dangerous sport back then and makes todays boxers look like p*ssys.
    How well would midgets like
    Mike Tyson (5'10")
    Ernie Shavers (6'0")
    Joe Frazier (5'11")

    would do against Arreola, Adamek, Haye, WK and VK?


    Didn't Tyson smoke guys 5 and 6 inches taller than him?

    And yes middleweights fought heavys back then. As far as Jim Flynn he was 5'10", the same height as Mike Tyson.

    Comment

    • *OG Wenger*
      Paid da cost 2 be da boss
      • Jun 2010
      • 4851
      • 241
      • 207
      • 16,604

      #12
      Originally posted by bklynboy
      How well would midgets like
      Mike Tyson (5'10")
      Ernie Shavers (6'0")
      Joe Frazier (5'11")

      would do against Arreola, Adamek, Haye, WK and VK?


      Didn't Tyson smoke guys 5 and 6 inches taller than him?

      And yes middleweights fought heavys back then. As far as Jim Flynn he was 5'10", the same height as Mike Tyson.
      I'm talking pre-war heavyweights. Boxing was a different sport in Tyson's era.

      Wasn't Tommy Burns the smallest ever heavyweight champion at 5"7? How do you think he would fare in todays heavyweight division?

      Thats why i hate people comparing fighters from different era's. You can't really compare any pre-war and post-war fighters as like i mentioned the sport was vastly different back then.

      Comment

      • bklynboy
        Undisputed Champion
        Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
        • Aug 2007
        • 1256
        • 78
        • 149
        • 8,406

        #13
        Originally posted by OG Iron Fist
        I'm talking pre-war heavyweights. Boxing was a different sport in Tyson's era.

        Wasn't Tommy Burns the smallest ever heavyweight champion at 5"7? How do you think he would fare in todays heavyweight division?

        Thats why i hate people comparing fighters from different era's. You can't really compare any pre-war and post-war fighters as like i mentioned the sport was vastly different back then.
        OK - good point. I just read what you wrote as: 6-1 equals midget therefore they can't compete with today's big men.

        I don't think Burns would have a chance in hell. Boxing has changed so much that, like you, I find it hard to compare fighters from pre-WWI with those afterwards. Fights went from being illegal to legal; judges not newspaper accounts were used; went away from fight-until-KOed 45 round fights to 15 round fights; neutral corner rule started being implemented; refs actually started inforcing no butting, gouging, wrestling rules. (Yeah there were numerous exceptions like the Max Baer - Carnera wrestling match.)

        There are some pre-WWI giants that ought to be included but I feel that the game has changed so much that 1920 is my cutoff.

        Comment

        Working...
        TOP