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

[billeau2]

No offense to anyone else but this fella is my favorite poster on this forum. I usually am left kicked back in thought after reading a billeau post. Often I even forget to give him the courtesy of a response because I'll be there in thought until a distraction pulls my attention from this place.

This is both an acknowledgement and apology for that. I do mean to respond I just forget to and that silence is not disrespect but rather upmost respect.

That said, only thing I can add to this is if anyone want science's explanation take a look at kinesiology more specifically kinematic chains.

Kinematic chains are very similar to AikiJutsu "communicative locking." The idea being that any joint lock is designed to form a chain locking in all parts of the body from the joint to the balance of the individual. So, I grab your wrist, twist, and instead of trying to break the wrist, or cause pain, which to those of us who have been joint locked in our sleep lol, the pain won't mean much... Rather, one uses the wrist lock to attack the elbow which is then positioned so it attacks the shoulder, and the shoulder is attacked to move the body as a whole.

Thank you for the compliment, I recognize a fellow enthusiast. The knowledge is fascinating and once someone delves in, its hard to pull out! Kind of like that thread on Kim Bassinger LOL.

My prejudice is when people automatically discount older historians, theories, etc. Someone like Jack Johnson was a very rational guy. He once told an interviewer that his father had a great physique and taught Jack how to take care of his health and develop physically. He also was fond of Joe choyinski who was part of the fighters who were using technique to overcome brute force back in those days. Apparently Jack, for all his occasional insolence, took Judge Judy's words to heart: "God gave us two ears and only one mouth for a reason." LOL.

By the way: it was common for actors to mime the boxers and at times one may think they are looking at the fighters and see horrible boxing. That is because the actors were filmed and eventually someone forgot to make the distinction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hluDsCrzL2g

Fitz versus Joe! Wow they sure don't look too good Moe!

[Anthony342]

Anthony, correct me if im wrong: Isn't the rubber guard something Eddie Bravo invented?

I do believe so, yes. And former lightweight champ and best lightweight in the sport so far, BJ Penn was a master at it.

[HOUDINI563]

A huge mistake is made when watching Johnson fight. Clinching is not what Johnson is doing. He is controlling his opponent. Watch his bout with Flynn. Flynn struggles to get inside. When he gets inside Johnson senses via pressing upon his elbows when body punches are being launched. By tapping Flynn’s elbows the power of these blows is negated. All the while Johnson is countering with uppercuts.

[HOUDINI563]

The ref of the Johnson Flynn fight stated after the bout....”Johnson was not holding. Flynn was always free to punch”. Read that comment then watch the bout.

[HOUDINI563]

Ghost is lying once again.

Johnson completely dominated Langford sending him to the hospital at fights end. There is eye witness testimony and an admiral from Langford’s Manager that illustrate that the bout was a one sided affair. You are either ignorant or a liar which is it?

[billeau2]

A huge mistake is made when watching Johnson fight. Clinching is not what Johnson is doing. He is controlling his opponent. Watch his bout with Flynn. Flynn struggles to get inside. When he gets inside Johnson senses via pressing upon his elbows when body punches are being launched. By tapping Flynn’s elbows the power of these blows is negated. All the while Johnson is countering with uppercuts.

A very necessary skill in the preclassical form of the sport. Boxing in many respects had as much grappling as punching. And the elbow is the fulcrom of control for those techniques.

[GhostofDempsey]

So what is the main argument here? That Jack Johnson was great for his time, but is now not an ATG? That's he's just a pioneer, because he's the first black world heavyweight boxing champion, but overall was never really that good? Then why the biographies and documentaries on the guy and why is he always mentioned among the greats? Some people here are making him sound overrated, like he should be more in the Aaron Pryor or Arturo Gatti category.

Or is it more he was good in the early days, when technique hadn't yet evolved as much, like the early days of the UFC, when the Gracies dominated before everyone else caught up or when Ronda Rousey was dominant, before a former boxer and then another grappler with boxing skills kept the fight on the feet and was also able to get the TKO?

Like any other fighter, he is not immune to criticism. If historians, fans, sports writers, etc., can dissect every other HOF'ers resume, then Johnson is fair game. His claim to fame is that he was the first black HW champion, in an era that was not at all ready to embrace a black champion. For what he had to endure I extend my respect to the man.

That said, if we break down his wins/losses, and quality of opposition, we see a man who fought a lot of much smaller opponents or less experienced ones. Name one fighter in his prime who we give all this praise and accolades to for taking on a journeyman who is 0-3 (Jeanette) and then fighting him a half dozen times until he is 10-9? How many HWs get credit for their best wins being against middleweights?

If Tyson padded his record against Hagler, Hearns, Joppy...would be receive the same degree of praise and respect as Johnson does for fighting Burns, Ketchel, Langford, who were small middleweights? What if Lewis or Holyfield or even the new champs today decided they would fight journeymen and LHWs over and over, are they still deserving of all the glory?

If Lewis lost to a guy like Botha, the way Johnson lost to Willard, would he ever live that down?

I apologize, I did a poor job asking that question.

I meant more the evolution of defense rather than where defense was at his time. To be honest I am struggling to find the proper wording for this....I might end up posting a very long post, don't take that as ranting or angry I'd just be trying to hit all the marks that way I get you covered.


So not so much in ring examples of what worked and what didn't or in ring explanations as to why what worked worked but rather out of ring examples and explanations as to why fighters felt pressure to fight a certain way and how those pressures changed by time, nation, and race.

Does that make sense?

For me it doesn't correlate because the quality of the wins just isn't there. I always cite Sam Langford as one of the greatest HWs of that era, even though he was a MW. He was the antithesis of Johnson. He fought everyone and anyone, regardless of how big, strong or fast they were. Sam Langford was really ahead of his time, and I credit him with evolving the sport and demonstrating the style that has developed in modern fighters. Bobbing, weaving, feinting, ducking, side to side lateral movement, timing, combinations, it was all there! Compare his resume Johnson and it isn't even close. But, Langford was not a champion so he stands in the shadow of Johnson in the history books.

[HOUDINI563]

It was typically understood during Johnson’s time that he was head and shoulders above Langford, Jeanette, McVey. It’s only 110 years later that a few want to change that very well known history.

[GhostofDempsey]

It was typically understood during Johnson’s time that he was head and shoulders above Langford, Jeanette, McVey. It’s only 110 years later that a few want to change that very well known history.

Says you. Jeanette and McVey were crude and had their names elevated in the history books for having fought Johnson so many times.

Langford was far and away the superior boxer in every respect. You are hung up on nostalgia and folk lore.

[HOUDINI563]

Again, as typical. You are 100% incorrect. Johnson in his time was perceived to be the superior of Langford. Head and shoulders superior.