How would Jack Johnson versus Joe Louis play out

[Sugarj]

well where was the bias against Johnson? He won some close decisons too. The referee gave the fight to O Brien but the 'biased' newspapers gave it to Johnson , atleast most of them. In the case of Hart, it doesn't appear so.

I don't care about books reporting fights , because I have myself read most of the reports...most books pick and choose the reports to suit their case.

I have read reports where it was stated that Johnson could not keep Hart away from the start and Hart was aggresive and landed the more chances, why should I believe the book...the referee also gave it to Hart, atleast he was the one closest to the action...

And no the bias was not as much back then as it was when Johnson was the champion you need to remember that.

As for Johnson's prime, it appears he was never in his prime...when was it when he was beating a 155lb Burns or a Fossil Jeffries or he was beating a teen ager Jeanette or Mcvey or was it against Hart or Klon***e?

I can turn this prime arguement on its head and say Johnson never faced a good fighter who was in his prime..Sam , Mcvey and Jeaneete were too young when he faced them ...When they matured he ducked them. He faced a old fossil of a Jeffries...could not beat a past it Griffin or an awkward Hart...got beaten by a guy who started boxing in his late twenties.

As for the film , yea we don't have it, but Hart won it, Johnson got outboxed...And fact is for all his cleverness Johnson could not put away middleweights like him or O Brien.

Not every champion gets the defining fights with other prime fighters, its life.......Joe Louis did face several fighters close to their prime. But realistically Johnson was probably the best heavyweight to walk the planet until arguably Jack Dempsey and then Joe Louis. Even then, there have been historians worth their salt who have favoured Johnson over both.

As for Johnson's prime, for me I'll say 1908-1910 where he varied between 205 and 210Lbs. He might have shown fantastic skills before then, but he was rather more spindly at 180lbs odd. I wouldn't throw a 185Lb Johnson in with prime Louis and be confident about the result at all.

As for the character of Johnson, he could be a lazy trainer. He turned up for some fights hungover and oversexed. Sometimes he would put little effort in, sometimes he would show very little aggression. I don't put any emphasis on the fact that much smaller men lasted the distance with him as being any reflection on his punching power. He often didn't care or even pursue knockouts.

Anyway, with all the negatives surrounding the perception of Johnson on the forum recently I'm going to watch a couple of old vids I have of him. Just to see if I'm remembering what I've seen in the past with rose tinted spectacles.......or if he is as good as I remember.

Adios

[Greatest1942]

Not every champion gets the defining fights with other prime fighters, its life.......Joe Louis did face several fighters close to their prime. But realistically Johnson was probably the best heavyweight to walk the planet until arguably Jack Dempsey and then Joe Louis. Even then, there have been historians worth their salt who have favoured Johnson over both.

As for Johnson's prime, for me I'll say 1908-1910 where he varied between 205 and 210Lbs. He might have shown fantastic skills before then, but he was rather more spindly at 180lbs odd. I wouldn't throw a 185Lb Johnson in with prime Louis and be confident about the result at all.

As for the character of Johnson, he could be a lazy trainer. He turned up for some fights hungover and oversexed. Sometimes he would put little effort in, sometimes he would show very little aggression. I don't put any emphasis on the fact that much smaller men lasted the distance with him as being any reflection on his punching power. He often didn't care or even pursue knockouts.

Anyway, with all the negatives surrounding the perception of Johnson on the forum recently I'm going to watch a couple of old vids I have of him. Just to see if I'm remembering what I've seen in the past with rose tinted spectacles.......or if he is as good as I remember.

Adios

1908 -1910 and when he could not dispose of O Brien and made a hash of it he was undoubtedly past it by then...I can make even Fulton look like a world beater this way...

Fact is throughout his career he struggled with good fighters...and was lucky enough that he had to face Burns for the title and never faced a good fighter in his championship reign, many say he was unlucky not to face any...looking into his whole career , I ,may say, that he was lucky he did not face better fighters at their prime...

As for many favouring him over Dempsey and Louis...well many favoured old timers like Burns over Louis or Dempsey too...take your pick...and many favoured Louis and Dempsey to knock Jack out cold.

[Sugarj]

1908 -1910 and when he could not dispose of O Brien and made a hash of it he was undoubtedly past it by then...I can make even Fulton look like a world beater this way...

Fact is throughout his career he struggled with good fighters...and was lucky enough that he had to face Burns for the title and never faced a good fighter in his championship reign, many say he was unlucky not to face any...looking into his whole career , I ,may say, that he was lucky he did not face better fighters at their prime...

As for many favouring him over Dempsey and Louis...well many favoured old timers like Burns over Louis or Dempsey too...take your pick...and many favoured Louis and Dempsey to knock Jack out cold.

I think most people would suggest that Johnson was prime 1908-1910. Even if his skills were at their best a couple of years previously, I feel that this would be the best version of Johnson, he looked very physically strong at 205-210Lbs. The O'Brien fight sounded like a right farce, its not one that I believe was filmed. God knows what Johnson turned up for that fight, his form did very much vary fight to fight.

Your clearly not much of a fan of Johnson and thats fine. But you don't write like someone who knows much really about the guy, where he came from, what made him tick. It looks like you've just looked at his record and made conclusions from results.

He didn't have the amateur background of Louis and the excellent management or trainers, poor Johnson was thrown in Battle Royales, He learned the hard way!

He wasn't the same type of fighter as Louis, he often was happy to toy around with opponents without seeking a knockout. He could be cruel with his verbal taunting, but he was seldom a ruthless finisher which did result in decision wins where really he should have knocked the guy out. He often turned up hungover, oversexed and undertrained for fights. His motivation wasn't always that high.....but he didn't lose in his prime!

Realistically he could have finished Burns off way before the 14th round. I watched the fight last night, but he was just happy doing his thing. He only really turned on the ruthless combinations after round 13 because the police were threatening to invade the ring......and the combinations did look ruthless!

However, you say Johnson struggled with good fighters his entire career......so did Louis!!! Schmelling, Braddock, Farr, Godoy, Buddy Baer, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano jump to mind. Its life! Pre, post prime or near shot......it happens.

But hell, we're not getting anywhere or learning anything so lets call it a day with this subject.

[Greatest1942]

I think most people would suggest that Johnson was prime 1908-1910. Even if his skills were at their best a couple of years previously, I feel that this would be the best version of Johnson, he looked very physically strong at 205-210Lbs. The O'Brien fight sounded like a right farce, its not one that I believe was filmed. God knows what Johnson turned up for that fight, his form did very much vary fight to fight.

Your clearly not much of a fan of Johnson and thats fine. But you don't write like someone who knows much really about the guy, where he came from, what made him tick. It looks like you've just looked at his record and made conclusions from results.

He didn't have the amateur background of Louis and the excellent management or trainers, poor Johnson was thrown in Battle Royales, He learned the hard way!

He wasn't the same type of fighter as Louis, he often was happy to toy around with opponents without seeking a knockout. He could be cruel with his verbal taunting, but he was seldom a ruthless finisher which did result in decision wins where really he should have knocked the guy out. He often turned up hungover, oversexed and undertrained for fights. His motivation wasn't always that high.....but he didn't lose in his prime!

Realistically he could have finished Burns off way before the 14th round. I watched the fight last night, but he was just happy doing his thing. He only really turned on the ruthless combinations after round 13 because the police were threatening to invade the ring......and the combinations did look ruthless!

However, you say Johnson struggled with good fighters his entire career......so did Louis!!! Schmelling, Braddock, Farr, Godoy, Buddy Baer, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano jump to mind. Its life! Pre, post prime or near shot......it happens.

But hell, we're not getting anywhere or learning anything so lets call it a day with this subject.

"ME not knowing about JOhnson"

I guarantee you I have forgotten more about Johnson than you ever knew...no offence intended.

I am picking holes in his career after he had 30- 40 fights...Quite reasonable IMO...excellent management and all, Louis never ducked deserving candidates like Johnson did..and he took on better fighters at a much younger age than Jack. If after 30-40-50 fights you are not mature you will never mature.Period. Tell me when he was immature against Hart or O Brien? Fact is even with his excellent management et all LOuis took on far more dangerous fighters during his title reign than JOhnson did...Nice try though.

As for not knowing about that era...I doubt many have read more first hand evidence like newspapers etc more than me...Books often are about hero worshipping and hidden agendas.

"Schmelling, Braddock, Farr, Godoy, Buddy Baer, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano"

You are the only one who will equal Burns, hart, O Brien with the above...some of them are still rated as top 30 heavy weights...where are JOhnsons opponents in that scale in his title reign and prime ? I don't give him a slack for the Klon***e Loss, but it shows that his chin was vulnerable from the start to the end...always dodgy.If Louis failed to KO Hart or O Brien within 12 rounds, I doubt many would call him a puncher...and these were not elusive guys (Hart particularly), they were come forward types.

Still which books have you read, which I haven't? You presume a lot sir. I have read teh following, I presume you have read them all too.

1)The rise and fall of Jack Johnson
2)Papa Jack
3) Unforgivable Blackness
4)"My Life and Battles" _ in which he admits he was down against Sam , if i remember correctly...might be off though.

Which one disputes my claim? I have read all cover to cover.

And you can build up his 210-212 pound frame, but I doubt he was better than previous years..he weighed more though...Atleast most people thought he was better in 1906-07...Read "50 years at ringside".


Beating a middle weight version of Langford,a man who was not active for 6 years is his claim to fame...hell I can talk of Sharkey and Carnera too in that case...In his prime whom did he face who could remotely test his abilities? You can always look like a world beater if you avoid the best.

I am not saying Jack can't win or Louis wont loose...what I was disputing was you trying to build up Jack's chin as something stellar while somehow trying to diminish Louis's...And honestly to me knocking out a middle weight (with teeths)et all does not show stellar punching ability...I think Ali would have done same to SRR, though it would not have proved a damn thing about Ali's punch, his simply knocking out Bonavena proves more IMO. Fact is JOhnson heard the ten count against lesser opponents than Schemlling or Marciano than Louis ever did in his life time. Twist it as much as you will...its a fact.


Lastly previosuly for you the Hart fight was a farce, now the O Brien one is...I think your ill researched record glossing freind showed you some reports you never saw, which he bothred looking into and finding instead of cramming up a book, looking at boxrec and a film and making up your mind....and he can do the same for another fight you are calling farce.

You are right lets not continue...after all everytime Johnson did badly his form fluctuated from fight to fight and anyone who disputes his greatness does not know his stuff.

[Kid McCoy]

Oh let me get this straight Sugraj I have no problem if you favour Johnson on styles....as for trainers and historians I can name 3 for every three you named who favoured Louis over Johnson. That is immaterial here.

I came into the discussion because you pointed to the chin and power issues etc...which I thought is not right...Louis probably had the better chin and in terms of power its non disputable Louis was the over all better puncher, not only in terms of power but also combinations, accuracy , delivery timing etc.

Lastly on the newspaper reports with Hart...I have done the ground work...a few favoured Hart and a few Johnson , but since you wanna know read this

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...vin+hart&hl=en

While it says that Hart won it also says "Johnsons much vaunted cleverness did not count for much"


Or here is the Los Angeles Time heading :-

GAME HART WINS FIGHT.
Gets Decision Over Johnson After Twentieth Round; Is Awkward and Shows He's No Match for Jeff; Lincolnshire Handicap Run Begins--White Arrives

So Johnson loses to an awkward fighter.

Or the Sun:-

MARVIN HART WINS
Defeats Jack Johnson In Fight At San Francisco IT GOES THE TWENTY ROUNDS The White Victor Will Now Have His Chance At Jeffries--Negro Was Favorite In Betting

Or this reports :-

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...vin+hart&hl=en

In the above Battling Nelson declares that Hart is the next best man to Jeffries..after the Johnson - Hart fight ofcourse.

There were some who favoured Johnson too, but the ref and most did favour Hart...And no matter what amount of suggesstion you make of me reading the report fact is Johnson lost to Hart.

Just to add on Johnson-Hart, there was no consensus for Johnson being robbed. Overall it seems to have been a pretty uneventful fight. Hart was the aggressor, Johnson was the more effective when he opened up but also passive for much for the bout. Johnson was ahead after about 15 rounds but either gassed or tried to sit on his lead and the fight slipped away from him in those last few rounds. The consensus was that based on that showing, neither man deserved a shot at Jeffries. Note how Jeff didn't bother to face Hart either.

Furthermore, Greggains the referee was also the promoter. A few of his recent fights had been stinkers and conscious of fan demands for action packed fights, he warned both men that he would favour the one who tried to make the fight. I don't think that was bias so much as wanting to make sure it was a good fight for his paying punters.

The real mystery is Johnson's performance. He was a better fighter than Hart, he'd campaigned hard for this fight, he knew what was on the line and yet he turned in such a lacklustre performance.

[Sugarj]

"ME not knowing about JOhnson"

I guarantee you I have forgotten more about Johnson than you ever knew...no offence intended.

I am picking holes in his career after he had 30- 40 fights...Quite reasonable IMO...excellent management and all, Louis never ducked deserving candidates like Johnson did..and he took on better fighters at a much younger age than Jack. If after 30-40-50 fights you are not mature you will never mature.Period. Tell me when he was immature against Hart or O Brien? Fact is even with his excellent management et all LOuis took on far more dangerous fighters during his title reign than JOhnson did...Nice try though.

As for not knowing about that era...I doubt many have read more first hand evidence like newspapers etc more than me...Books often are about hero worshipping and hidden agendas.

"Schmelling, Braddock, Farr, Godoy, Buddy Baer, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano"

You are the only one who will equal Burns, hart, O Brien with the above...some of them are still rated as top 30 heavy weights...where are JOhnsons opponents in that scale in his title reign and prime ? I don't give him a slack for the Klon***e Loss, but it shows that his chin was vulnerable from the start to the end...always dodgy.If Louis failed to KO Hart or O Brien within 12 rounds, I doubt many would call him a puncher...and these were not elusive guys (Hart particularly), they were come forward types.

Still which books have you read, which I haven't? You presume a lot sir. I have read teh following, I presume you have read them all too.

1)The rise and fall of Jack Johnson
2)Papa Jack
3) Unforgivable Blackness
4)"My Life and Battles" _ in which he admits he was down against Sam , if i remember correctly...might be off though.

Which one disputes my claim? I have read all cover to cover.

And you can build up his 210-212 pound frame, but I doubt he was better than previous years..he weighed more though...Atleast most people thought he was better in 1906-07...Read "50 years at ringside".


Beating a middle weight version of Langford,a man who was not active for 6 years is his claim to fame...hell I can talk of Sharkey and Carnera too in that case...In his prime whom did he face who could remotely test his abilities? You can always look like a world beater if you avoid the best.

I am not saying Jack can't win or Louis wont loose...what I was disputing was you trying to build up Jack's chin as something stellar while somehow trying to diminish Louis's...And honestly to me knocking out a middle weight (with teeths)et all does not show stellar punching ability...I think Ali would have done same to SRR, though it would not have proved a damn thing about Ali's punch, his simply knocking out Bonavena proves more IMO. Fact is JOhnson heard the ten count against lesser opponents than Schemlling or Marciano than Louis ever did in his life time. Twist it as much as you will...its a fact.


Lastly previosuly for you the Hart fight was a farce, now the O Brien one is...I think your ill researched record glossing freind showed you some reports you never saw, which he bothred looking into and finding instead of cramming up a book, looking at boxrec and a film and making up your mind....and he can do the same for another fight you are calling farce.

You are right lets not continue...after all everytime Johnson did badly his form fluctuated from fight to fight and anyone who disputes his greatness does not know his stuff.

You are notorious for claiming things people have never posted. I think you genuinely enjoy doing this and have seen you do it far to often with other posters too. My quote is in bold below, since when did I compare these these Louis opponents with Johnson's????

However, you say Johnson struggled with good fighters his entire career......so did Louis!!! Schmelling, Braddock, Farr, Godoy, Buddy Baer, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano jump to mind. Its life! Pre, post prime or near shot......it happens.

All I said is that Louis struggled with good fighters too......and that was in response to your quote that 'Fact is throughout his career he struggled with good fighters' in respect of Johnson. Of course Louis's opponents were better, I'd never equal them!!!

I never said Johnson's chin was 'stellar', just for me a bit better than Louis's. Neither had amazing chins.

You seem to have far too much time on your hands, the length of your posts clearly indicate this. I'm glad that you admit that you have 'forgotten' much more than you feel I ever knew about Johnson. If you'd remembered much of what you'd clearly read about Johnson you wouldn't be saying things like Louis was fighting better opponents at a younger age. Louis was a pretty decorated amateur in his teens!!!! By 21 he was a superb fighting machine. Johnson didn't have a nice amateur pedigree, he had it tough, he peaked much later.

Yes, many felt Johnson was better in 1906-07. Skillwise he may have been! But I don't think he was quite as strong back then......

The O'Brien farce!!!! The fight reports vary so much in their content that I don't know what to believe. I gather it was a nasty, mauling, falling to the floor sort of fight where Johnson did next to nothing and O'Brien was given credit for at least making an effort. Who knows what condition and focus Johnson brought into the fight, he was an odd guy!

I'm going to leave this thread now. Laters amigo......

[Greatest1942]

You are notorious for claiming things people have never posted. I think you genuinely enjoy doing this and have seen you do it far to often with other posters too. My quote is in bold below, since when did I compare these these Louis opponents with Johnson's????

However, you say Johnson struggled with good fighters his entire career......so did Louis!!! Schmelling, Braddock, Farr, Godoy, Buddy Baer, Conn, Walcott, Charles and Marciano jump to mind. Its life! Pre, post prime or near shot......it happens.

All I said is that Louis struggled with good fighters too......and that was in response to your quote that 'Fact is throughout his career he struggled with good fighters' in respect of Johnson. Of course Louis's opponents were better, I'd never equal them!!!

I never said Johnson's chin was 'stellar', just for me a bit better than Louis's. Neither had amazing chins.

You seem to have far too much time on your hands, the length of your posts clearly indicate this. I'm glad that you admit that you have 'forgotten' much more than you feel I ever knew about Johnson. If you'd remembered much of what you'd clearly read about Johnson you wouldn't be saying things like Louis was fighting better opponents at a younger age. Louis was a pretty decorated amateur in his teens!!!! By 21 he was a superb fighting machine. Johnson didn't have a nice amateur pedigree, he had it tough, he peaked much later.

Yes, many felt Johnson was better in 1906-07. Skillwise he may have been! But I don't think he was quite as strong back then......

The O'Brien farce!!!! The fight reports vary so much in their content that I don't know what to believe. I gather it was a nasty, mauling, falling to the floor sort of fight where Johnson did next to nothing and O'Brien was given credit for at least making an effort. Who knows what condition and focus Johnson brought into the fight, he was an odd guy!

I'm going to leave this thread now. Laters amigo......

Calling Hart, Klon***e, O Brien good was my mistake, may be I should have called them medicore, which they were, atleast Schemelling, Walcott , Conn would have been saved the embarrssment.

To restate it throughout his career Johnson got troubled by extremely medicore opponents, even getting beaten by some, which Louis didn't.It took Schemelling, Marciano and Charles all top 30 heavies to actually beat him...One when he was young(though already a very good fighter, I give Max credit for this one), and two after he had retired once...Big difference.

You can't be polite to old fighters these days.

O Brien fight :-Johnson often was so cautious about getting hit, he did next to nothing. BUt he did have O Brien on the ground, wrestled him down it seems. Pity, forgot to punch.

@Kid :- Yea, the Hart fight was difficult..I think Johnson sometimes was overly cautious, and may be put off by Hart's aggression, if he was a bit more
aggresive he might have won it...but he might have wanted to simply outbox Hart , but it did not work out as expected, may be.

But yea it was a big upset. Johnson was the clear cut betting favourite anyways.

[Greatest1942]

Just to add on Johnson-Hart, there was no consensus for Johnson being robbed. Overall it seems to have been a pretty uneventful fight. Hart was the aggressor, Johnson was the more effective when he opened up but also passive for much for the bout. Johnson was ahead after about 15 rounds but either gassed or tried to sit on his lead and the fight slipped away from him in those last few rounds. The consensus was that based on that showing, neither man deserved a shot at Jeffries. Note how Jeff didn't bother to face Hart either.

Furthermore, Greggains the referee was also the promoter. A few of his recent fights had been stinkers and conscious of fan demands for action packed fights, he warned both men that he would favour the one who tried to make the fight. I don't think that was bias so much as wanting to make sure it was a good fight for his paying punters.

The real mystery is Johnson's performance. He was a better fighter than Hart, he'd campaigned hard for this fight, he knew what was on the line and yet he turned in such a lacklustre performance.

The consensus was that both sucked in that fight and Hart sucked a bit less than Johnson...

Most papers criticized Johnson heavily for his performance, even telling "that his much vaunted cleverness did not help him"