Why Jack Johnson is Not as Great as You We’re Told

[billeau2]

your going to find....

Bull****.

In 1908 Johnson was at the top of his game and became hwt champion of the world scaling just below 200 pounds. In 1908 Blackburn was fighting as a 147 pound welterweight. Any punch at any time from Johnson would end the fight.

I hate these threads. I like our little group here but it has to be said... First off, one can watch all the footage in the world, but they have to know what they are watching, and what to look for.

There is no way to look at modern boxing technique and see what Johnson was... YES HE WILL LOOK LIKE A FOOL because he is not using the same set of tools in the ring... The fighting distance, the range, the techniques are all different in Johnson's time compared to when BlackBurn and others changed prominent features of the approach in the ring.

Heres a very simple example: YOU CANNOT PUNCH A MAN the way you do with most strikes used pre classical boxing, and do anything with large gloves... the punches were designed to be used more like a martial artist... They transfer power in such a way that the connection, transfer of force is lost with large gloves. In other words, if we compare Johnson, or great technical guys like Choyinski to a modern fighter, with modern equipment, we would conclude they didn't know how to box!!

If you want to see the brilliance of Johnson, watch a fencer... watch how a superior swordsman, does not move his sword around, does not swing it... but rather uses small movements, and footwork. Then watch how a grappler works inside. With big gloves a fighter has to create momentum with sweeping shoulder movements, and large spinal rotations, swinging weight into the punch... Eventually a lead turned into a punch that has to rotate and snap, you know.... a jab. A proper lead in JOhnson's time could be thrown with just an inch of space and no rotation of the spine/hips.

It was not that guys did not throw combinations in JOhnson's time either... Distance changed quickly when you came in, guys did not square up, they moved constantly...a combination might start with a long range uppercut, and then a body blow when you had stepped through. Range was more dynamic because when you fight with swords, and eventually when fighting with fists that can swing down on you (that is how human beings anatomically throw punches) the ******est thing one can do is "stand there" in range... Would you like to get your spleen shishkabobed? so you could do likewise to an opponent in a sword match? Well... the same logic applied to the hands! Johnson was taught to hit and move in, or out, to attack and then defend... to parry and enter, to bridge inside and grapple, trap the hand, and hit... etc.

Now...Thats is not to say that boxing becoming more focused on the punch, squaring up, eventually using a bigger glove to allow people to do so, was a bad thing...It was just different. Instead of big strong movements with the legs, Guys were taught to use smaller movements with the legs, and to duck, weave, use the shoulders, rotate the spine/hips in a semi circle and strike back, etc.

My point is you cannot compare the two! In my opinion the best fighter that ever lived was Gene Tunney for one simple reason: he was mentored by Corbet, and came of age learning from the likes of Dempsey...Within his body and mind Tunney was unique: He was trained in both sets of methods! Thats why Gene could do so many things in the ring. Regardless. You cannot compare apples and oranges.

[HOUDINI563]

Excellent post. However the techniques of great boxing were well known in Johnson’s day. Slipping, parrying, ducking, blocking, countering, feinting were all skills termed the “finer points of the game” in those days and were well understood. Today at least in the hwt division these skills are lost. It’s all range fighting and comparatively very low
skill.

Fleischer wrote that in the old days a jab was thrown as a devastating blow that could lead to a KO vs more modern times where that same punch was transformed into a tap.

[GhostofDempsey]

Again. Complete bull****. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You are clueless.

[billeau2]

Excellent post. However the techniques of great boxing were well known in Johnson’s day. Slipping, parrying, ducking, blocking, countering, feinting were all skills termed the “finer points of the game” in those days and were well understood. Today at least in the hwt division these skills are lost. It’s all range fighting and comparatively very low
skill.

Fleischer wrote that in the old days a jab was thrown as a devastating blow that could lead to a KO vs more modern times where that same punch was transformed into a tap.

I think you misunderstood me on one aspect. Yes the skills were there, they were used differently, at different ranges, with different set ups. That "tap" versus a devasting blow is something Johnson, (not Jack J but a British boxing coach in the late 1800's wrote about as early as this time) and is something Dempsey also mentioned as being antagonist to the development of proper punching.

In point of fact, the KO was the lead, which could be thrown like an unpronated jab. The point was to catch the guy on the chin tip with the weight fowards and the arm just extending a few inches... it was a well know KO blow.

If we take something like a classical parry, such as the one Johnson used, if you catch a puncher with this parry at "swords length" (3 feet or so apart) you can actually throw the other man's balance off completely. Later when guys are punching at a fist's length from each other exclusively, the parry gets shortened to set up the counter punch exclusively, etc. Different range leading to different possabilities.

To get an idea of this difference if anyone is interested: First have a guy throw a cross at you, with your weight on your back leg, and at a distance where he has to come towards you a half a foot or so. As his punch comes, when you see the shoulder turning, catch his arm at the midway point between his elbow and wrist, push on the arm and turn him. That is similar to a Johnson parry....

Now have weight on your front, square up and you should be in range of the same guy who throws the same cross at a closer distance, this time, duck slightly off line, turn your shoulder and drop it away from the punch and after the punch is just past your face, push it up into the guy... This is at a closer range.

[johnbook]

I think you misunderstood me on one aspect. Yes the skills were there, they were used differently, at different ranges, with different set ups. That "tap" versus a devasting blow is something Johnson, (not Jack J but a British boxing coach in the late 1800's wrote about as early as this time) and is something Dempsey also mentioned as being antagonist to the development of proper punching.

In point of fact, the KO was the lead, which could be thrown like an unpronated jab. The point was to catch the guy on the chin tip with the weight fowards and the arm just extending a few inches... it was a well know KO blow.

If we take something like a classical parry, such as the one Johnson used, if you catch a puncher with this parry at "swords length" (3 feet or so apart) you can actually throw the other man's balance off completely. Later when guys are punching at a fist's length from each other exclusively, the parry gets shortened to set up the counter punch exclusively, etc. Different range leading to different possabilities.

To get an idea of this difference if anyone is interested: First have a guy throw a cross at you, with your weight on your back leg, and at a distance where he has to come towards you a half a foot or so. As his punch comes, when you see the shoulder turning, catch his arm at the midway point between his elbow and wrist, push on the arm and turn him. That is similar to a Johnson parry....

Now have weight on your front, square up and you should be in range of the same guy who throws the same cross at a closer distance, this time, duck slightly off line, turn your shoulder and drop it away from the punch and after the punch is just past your face, push it up into the guy... This is at a closer range.

Excellent posts. Do modern guys who KD opponents with a jab do it differently? Or just have really fast ones, etc.?

[HOUDINI563]

You are clueless if you are trying to imply that a 145 pound welterweight would be any challenge for prime Jack Johnson an ATG hwt champion. You’re BLATANT prejudice reeks from every post. Grow up.

[Marchegiano]

I'd suggest doing some more reading.

I believe it is a mistake to judge a man based off of what he is not trying to do.

[Zmerai Khan]

I hate these threads. I like our little group here but it has to be said... First off, one can watch all the footage in the world, but they have to know what they are watching, and what to look for.

There is no way to look at modern boxing technique and see what Johnson was... YES HE WILL LOOK LIKE A FOOL because he is not using the same set of tools in the ring... The fighting distance, the range, the techniques are all different in Johnson's time compared to when BlackBurn and others changed prominent features of the approach in the ring.

Heres a very simple example: YOU CANNOT PUNCH A MAN the way you do with most strikes used pre classical boxing, and do anything with large gloves... the punches were designed to be used more like a martial artist... They transfer power in such a way that the connection, transfer of force is lost with large gloves. In other words, if we compare Johnson, or great technical guys like Choyinski to a modern fighter, with modern equipment, we would conclude they didn't know how to box!!

If you want to see the brilliance of Johnson, watch a fencer... watch how a superior swordsman, does not move his sword around, does not swing it... but rather uses small movements, and footwork. Then watch how a grappler works inside. With big gloves a fighter has to create momentum with sweeping shoulder movements, and large spinal rotations, swinging weight into the punch... Eventually a lead turned into a punch that has to rotate and snap, you know.... a jab. A proper lead in JOhnson's time could be thrown with just an inch of space and no rotation of the spine/hips.

It was not that guys did not throw combinations in JOhnson's time either... Distance changed quickly when you came in, guys did not square up, they moved constantly...a combination might start with a long range uppercut, and then a body blow when you had stepped through. Range was more dynamic because when you fight with swords, and eventually when fighting with fists that can swing down on you (that is how human beings anatomically throw punches) the ******est thing one can do is "stand there" in range... Would you like to get your spleen shishkabobed? so you could do likewise to an opponent in a sword match? Well... the same logic applied to the hands! Johnson was taught to hit and move in, or out, to attack and then defend... to parry and enter, to bridge inside and grapple, trap the hand, and hit... etc.

Now...Thats is not to say that boxing becoming more focused on the punch, squaring up, eventually using a bigger glove to allow people to do so, was a bad thing...It was just different. Instead of big strong movements with the legs, Guys were taught to use smaller movements with the legs, and to duck, weave, use the shoulders, rotate the spine/hips in a semi circle and strike back, etc.

My point is you cannot compare the two! In my opinion the best fighter that ever lived was Gene Tunney for one simple reason: he was mentored by Corbet, and came of age learning from the likes of Dempsey...Within his body and mind Tunney was unique: He was trained in both sets of methods! Thats why Gene could do so many things in the ring. Regardless. You cannot compare apples and oranges.

This is actually a very good post. I had written you off based on your reference to that loon, Bernal. But when it comes to Martial Arts you know your stuff.

As Boxing rules and equipment have changed, so have the techniques. Probably it's symbiotic, rather than a one-way street.

Boxing started as two men fighting while standing up. The point was to pummel the opponent out. Obviously not a true street fight or no-holds-barred contest, but one with very permissive rules.

Look at Kickboxing and then MMA. You'll see how certain Boxing skills are incredibly advantageous, but most are a great a detriment. But then McGregor couldn't really do anything against Mayweather in a Boxing match.

I love Lomachenko. He's one of the next ever. But he actually uses his oversized gloves to his advantage. He would never be able to keep opponents in the dark if he were fighting under the same conditions of a century ago.

That being said, Johnson fought when men like Langford, MacFarland, McGovern, and Gans were active - TRUE all time greats. His fight with Frank Moran is pretty damning, as well.

[billeau2]

This is actually a very good post. I had written you off based on your reference to that loon, Bernal. But when it comes to Martial Arts you know your stuff.

As Boxing rules and equipment have changed, so have the techniques. Probably it's symbiotic, rather than a one-way street.

Boxing started as two men fighting while standing up. The point was to pummel the opponent out. Obviously not a true street fight or no-holds-barred contest, but one with very permissive rules.

Look at Kickboxing and then MMA. You'll see how certain Boxing skills are incredibly advantageous, but most are a great a detriment. But then McGregor couldn't really do anything against Mayweather in a Boxing match.

I love Lomachenko. He's one of the next ever. But he actually uses his oversized gloves to his advantage. He would never be able to keep opponents in the dark if he were fighting under the same conditions of a century ago.

That being said, Johnson fought when men like Langford, MacFarland, McGovern, and Gans were active - TRUE all time greats. His fight with Frank Moran is pretty damning, as well.

Don't call Bernal a loon, it makes you look really silly, it does not affect my thinking. Lets say for the sake of argument he is deluded beyond reproach: Well he could not be beyond reproach whether you agree with him, or not. Your referring to a man who studied China and Egypt for more years than you have probably been alive. Calling scholars loons is a prerequesite to society getting dummer, then they tell you all professors are ********, save your money and go to college on line... Want to know some of the results of this?

You can't pick up a journal like Scientific American and read a decent article... They have been shortened so your generation does not get bored...and so press releases, advertising could be more prominant, etc... And nobody gets the keys to the kingdom without understanding the value of education. People who save their money might as well purchase blinders for the sides of their head, because thats how you go through life with no education and no scholars like Bernal.

You can disagree with the man but he is a credible source to discuss because of his experience in the field. Before Bernal you only had the English transcriptionists, Egyptologists like Budge... and real loons who proposed all kinds of ideas based on creative nonsense.

Regarding Boxing. In Johnson's time it was more "martial" with the understanding that strictly speaking there are rules, refs, etc. One aspect of this is if you take a fist and hit the chin on point, or hook the ribs, there is a connection that a martial artist trains for: The weight comes down and settles just as the arm extends and catches the target. You see it in older Chinese boxing systems like Hsin YI. With a larger glove this connection is entirely lost, so now more momentum is necessary to hit the target hard, hence instead of perfecting technique, timing, etc one trains on a variety of punches, to hit with swinging force.

But Dempsey actually retains the same timing in his book on punching!

[GhostofDempsey]

You are clueless if you are trying to imply that a 145 pound welterweight would be any challenge for prime Jack Johnson an ATG hwt champion. You’re BLATANT prejudice reeks from every post. Grow up.

Yet a 156 lb Langford took it to him. Johnson ducked him afterwards. Blackburn fought Langford to five draws. Bone up on your history.