Jack Johnson in Color

[Rusty Tromboni]

Johnson seems to have had a tremendous height and reach advantage over his opponents. He used it well.

How would such a style do today? Was it the gloves that made the style so different then, or was it the acceptance of grappling? Or what?

You know those restaurants you can't afford? Where you have to ask the waiter how much a dish costs?


Well it's the same here, if you have to ask...



I'll throw you a bone, though. Your dumb, but harmless. Johnson wasn't that good. He wasn't horrible, but he's not good. He won because he could out-muscle smaller men.

Gibbons, Dempsey, Loughran, Tunney, they illustrate how the great "big" men of the era fought.

As a general note:
Watch MMA, and kickboxing, and this style of Boxing is more easily digestible. (you'll see how these old timers really resemble McGregor and Jones). These are real fighters. Guys like Whiatker and Mayweather are masters in the modern era, but clearly their skills aren't practical. In fact, they're more likely to get you hurt.

[travestyny]

Your dumb

lmao. Every time I see someone go for this exact insult and make this same basic mistake... it just cracks me up every time.


By the way, I don't think anything you say about Jack J can be taken seriously when you've already been outed as a racist, as can be backed up by your recent ban for racism. You know...that kind of comes with the territory when you are a racist. That people shouldn't take you seriously when you discuss the people you were outed as being racist against.

And also by the way, I often see Jack J ranked higher than every one of those heavyweights you've mentioned. Every single one. By reputable sources. I've actually never seen him ranked lower than any one of them on any reputable list.

[BattlingNelson]

You know those restaurants you can't afford? Where you have to ask the waiter how much a dish costs?


Well it's the same here, if you have to ask...



I'll throw you a bone, though.

]Your dumb,

but harmless. Johnson wasn't that good. He wasn't horrible, but he's not good. He won because he could out-muscle smaller men.

So you rate him lower because he was bigger than his opponents? You do know that it's heavyweights we are talking about? Or maybe you always downgrade a win if the winner is bigger than his opponent and upgrade a win if the shorter man prevails? Really?

Gibbons, Dempsey, Loughran, Tunney, they illustrate how the great "big" men of the era fought.

As a general note:
Watch MMA, and kickboxing, and this style of Boxing is more easily digestible. (you'll see how these old timers really resemble McGregor and Jones). These are real fighters. Guys like Whiatker and Mayweather are masters in the modern era, but clearly their skills aren't practical. In fact, they're more likely to get you hurt.

Johnson wasn't very good you say….. Lol. He is an all time top 10 heavy on most peoples list. It says a ton about your knowledge. That your posting style is obnoxious well, we knew that already.

[Rusty Tromboni]

lmao. Every time I see someone go for this exact insult and make this same basic mistake... it just cracks me up every time.


By the way, I don't think anything you say about Jack J can be taken seriously when you've already been outed as a racist, as can be backed up by your recent ban for racism. You know...that kind of comes with the territory when you are a racist. That people shouldn't take you seriously when you discuss the people you were outed as being racist against.

It's amazing how one typo can get Auntie T so triggered.

What ban are you referencing? The time I was censured for questioning whether the flock of Fury haters weren't just pederast activists? It's well known that pederasts collectively take to the internet to smear the name of those who condemn them. Fury was brave for speaking out. It's not strange to you that the greatest Heavyweight we have EVER seen attracts a legion of detractors? People who don't know ANYTHING about Boxing suddenly appear to criticize him whenever his name is brought up. Not su****ious at all, huh?

I applaud Fury for his bravery. People should be killed for ******ing kids. I am not going to apologize for calling out creepers. If you want to defend them (surprise, surprise), then go for it. But your (did I spell that correctly?) reputation is already trash. You're a broken record. You don't contribute anything meaningful. No one respects your opinion.

Buuuut since exposing you is such a pleasure, I will address that single topic which you cannot release, your single obsession, and sole purpose for being here: Jack Johnson.

And also by the way, I often see Jack J ranked higher than every one of those heavyweights you've mentioned. Every single one. By reputable sources. I've actually never seen him ranked lower than any one of them on any reputable list.

Honestly, this is much bigger than Johnson. It applies to ALL of Boxing. We're experiencing a paradigm shift. Johnson provides a perfect example, though. I know this all goes over your head, but it's quite interesting that someone so useless could highlight such an important, universal point. This really isn't directed at you anymore, Auntie T, so you can stop reading now.

Johnson is ranked high because:

1) Rankings are often published not simply for posterity or a form of artistic expression, but to be seen. There's some other motivation than just saying here's how the best fighters ever rank in order of greatness.

2) People will reflexively repeat what others have said without questioning it.

3) Rankings follow many criteria.

Breakdown:

1) Jack Johnson's life tells a good story. At least as how people of late would consider it a great story. Back in the 90's when I was a teen outside Pittsburgh I started training at a gym. An old head who was real smart about the game was asked who the best Heavyweight ever was (we wanted to know where Holyfield stacked up, this guy loved Evander). He said "Jack Johnson... everything he had to go through in his day just to be champ".
That's ******ed. It's not true that Johnson had it harder than others. And it's not a good reason.
There's footage of I believe Foreman being asked who he thought the best Heavyweight was and he said Louis, because "as a kid I always looked up to him".

Can you imagine people saying Jim Abbott was the best pitcher ever? Or Jose Feliciano is the best guitarist ever? Those guys defied odds. They're inspiring. But you wouldn't make those sort of assertions because they cannot be supported by fact.

2) Newton said, "I stand on the shoulders of giants," whatever he meant, it sounds good here. Writers would rather piggyback off of other journalists than defy their work. Sometimes it's just the fallacy of appeal to authority, a lot of times it's just naivety. Writers might (strategically) suggest something controversial to get attention. But seldom does anyone wish to upset dogma, it often ends badly. At best, it's lots of work to defend yourself and can forever haunt you.

Try telling people diminutive Gretzky wouldn't make it in today's NHL. You'd probably be right, but you'd be preaching from a cross.

3) Now here comes the crescendo: rankings are always going to look at least a little different because it's not a science. It's highly subjective. But humans, naturally, want a sense of finality and consensus.

The criteria used vary, and even their application varies. The one criterion, though, which seems to generally be absent is the eye-test. That's right, the thing that matters most features least. Ironic, but true. And it ties into the other two points.

That's why Jack P's work is so important. For decades we didn't have access to footage. Sure, some people did. But you really had to do your leg work. With the arrival of the internet we suddenly had BoxRec, and eventually YouTube.

Now you can't just say, "Old Man X said this..." and "fighters y and Z recalled that.." You can actually make first hand evaluations. It has moved us forward light-years.

Johnson still satisfies other important criteria: long-undefeated; successful championship reign; lots of finishes.
Let's leave Jack Johnson and turn to Joe Louis: You can see for yourself, Gene Tunney looks better on Jack P's film. He'd definitely be the betting favorite over Louis if you could match them. But how do you rank a guy with 3 Heavyweight fights over the longest reigning champion, and one of the best punchers ever, at any weight?
Those are questions that can be forever debated, and probably have no answer. But we can't just keep repeating old fables. We have to be more responsible than that.

I apologize for the rant. But Jack P's work is phenomenal. It's part of an overhaul of our collective Boxing conscious.

[BattlingNelson]

Rusty Tromboni and travestyny

No more mudslinging and personal attacks here. If you guys have beef then take it to the dome.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Rusty Tromboni and travestyny

No more mudslinging and personal attacks here. If you guys have beef then take it to the dome.

But what if I like it when he talks dirty?


Kidding aside, I'll put away the insults. I really respect Jack P's work. It's something all Boxing fans can learn from.

[BattlingNelson]

But what if I like it when he talks dirty?


Kidding aside, I'll put away the insults. I really respect Jack P's work. It's something all Boxing fans can learn from.

Yes this colorization is awesome.

[travestyny]

It's amazing how one typo can get Auntie T so triggered.

What ban are you referencing? The time I was censured for questioning whether the flock of Fury haters weren't just pederast activists? It's well known that pederasts collectively take to the internet to smear the name of those who condemn them. Fury was brave for speaking out. It's not strange to you that the greatest Heavyweight we have EVER seen attracts a legion of detractors? People who don't know ANYTHING about Boxing suddenly appear to criticize him whenever his name is brought up. Not su****ious at all, huh?

I applaud Fury for his bravery. People should be killed for ******ing kids. I am not going to apologize for calling out creepers. If you want to defend them (surprise, surprise), then go for it. But your (did I spell that correctly?) reputation is already trash. You're a broken record. You don't contribute anything meaningful. No one respects your opinion.

Buuuut since exposing you is such a pleasure, I will address that single topic which you cannot release, your single obsession, and sole purpose for being here: Jack Johnson.




Honestly, this is much bigger than Johnson. It applies to ALL of Boxing. We're experiencing a paradigm shift. Johnson provides a perfect example, though. I know this all goes over your head, but it's quite interesting that someone so useless could highlight such an important, universal point. This really isn't directed at you anymore, Auntie T, so you can stop reading now.

Johnson is ranked high because:

1) Rankings are often published not simply for posterity or a form of artistic expression, but to be seen. There's some other motivation than just saying here's how the best fighters ever rank in order of greatness.

2) People will reflexively repeat what others have said without questioning it.

3) Rankings follow many criteria.

Breakdown:

1) Jack Johnson's life tells a good story. At least as how people of late would consider it a great story. Back in the 90's when I was a teen outside Pittsburgh I started training at a gym. An old head who was real smart about the game was asked who the best Heavyweight ever was (we wanted to know where Holyfield stacked up, this guy loved Evander). He said "Jack Johnson... everything he had to go through in his day just to be champ".
That's ******ed. It's not true that Johnson had it harder than others. And it's not a good reason.
There's footage of I believe Foreman being asked who he thought the best Heavyweight was and he said Louis, because "as a kid I always looked up to him".

Can you imagine people saying Jim Abbott was the best pitcher ever? Or Jose Feliciano is the best guitarist ever? Those guys defied odds. They're inspiring. But you wouldn't make those sort of assertions because they cannot be supported by fact.

2) Newton said, "I stand on the shoulders of giants," whatever he meant, it sounds good here. Writers would rather piggyback off of other journalists than defy their work. Sometimes it's just the fallacy of appeal to authority, a lot of times it's just naivety. Writers might (strategically) suggest something controversial to get attention. But seldom does anyone wish to upset dogma, it often ends badly. At best, it's lots of work to defend yourself and can forever haunt you.

Try telling people diminutive Gretzky wouldn't make it in today's NHL. You'd probably be right, but you'd be preaching from a cross.

3) Now here comes the crescendo: rankings are always going to look at least a little different because it's not a science. It's highly subjective. But humans, naturally, want a sense of finality and consensus.

The criteria used vary, and even their application varies. The one criterion, though, which seems to generally be absent is the eye-test. That's right, the thing that matters most features least. Ironic, but true. And it ties into the other two points.

That's why Jack P's work is so important. For decades we didn't have access to footage. Sure, some people did. But you really had to do your leg work. With the arrival of the internet we suddenly had BoxRec, and eventually YouTube.

Now you can't just say, "Old Man X said this..." and "fighters y and Z recalled that.." You can actually make first hand evaluations. It has moved us forward light-years.

Johnson still satisfies other important criteria: long-undefeated; successful championship reign; lots of finishes.
Let's leave Jack Johnson and turn to Joe Louis: You can see for yourself, Gene Tunney looks better on Jack P's film. He'd definitely be the betting favorite over Louis if you could match them. But how do you rank a guy with 3 Heavyweight fights over the longest reigning champion, and one of the best punchers ever, at any weight?
Those are questions that can be forever debated, and probably have no answer. But we can't just keep repeating old fables. We have to be more responsible than that.

I apologize for the rant. But Jack P's work is phenomenal. It's part of an overhaul of our collective Boxing conscious.

Lots of mumbo jumbo and excuses being made.


Here's one discussion with clear parameters.

https://www.******.com/488242-ring-g...vyweight-time/


Here is the results:

Here's the panelists

THE PANELISTS
Trainers: Teddy Atlas, Pat Burns, Virgil Hunter and Don Turner.

Matchmakers: Eric Bottjer, Don Chargin, Don Elbaum, Bobby Goodman, Ron Katz, Mike Marchionte, Russell Peltz and Bruce Trampler.

Media: Al Bernstein, Ron Borges, Gareth A Davies, Norm Frauenheim, Jerry Izenberg, Harold Lederman, Paulie Malignaggi, Dan Rafael and Michael Rosenthal

Historians: Craig Hamilton, Steve Lott, Don McRae, Bob Mee, Clay Moyle, Adam Pollack and Randy Roberts

And here is the breakdown.

Yea, I'm going to look at their opinion with respect, and take your opinion with a grain of salt. Enjoy.

[travestyny]

Rusty Tromboni and travestyny

No more mudslinging and personal attacks here. If you guys have beef then take it to the dome.

Understood, and my apologies!

[QueensburyRules]

Lots of mumbo jumbo and excuses being made.


Here's one discussion with clear parameters.

https://www.******.com/488242-ring-g...vyweight-time/


Here is the results:

Here's the panelists



And here is the breakdown.

- -Any panel with looney Teddy in it is automatically a stinker.

He only works to cover all his losses betting against the Ks.

Dismissed summarily by Cus for pulling a gun on Tyson and tried to do the same with Lalonde but for not finding him when he needed him.

Nat rated JJ #1, but he also refused to publish his bio script that Nat had purchased, so plenty of monkey wrenches jamming up them works.

And still I give you free reign on my threads...only in boxing!!!