Jack Johnson's Fundamentals

Just for you Oxy. Jack Johnson's flawed fundermentals. I could easily post you his KO of ketchell of whoever if was who donated his teeth to JJ's gloves. That would be enough. Did you see the way he attached Ketchell shortly after climbing off the canvass? He was wide open with arms flailing. Not good. Fundermentally flawed.

But for me, his main flaw was his punch delivery. More like huge slaps from wide angles. That may be considered scientific then and innovative, but today, most amateurs can do (and often) do that.

Should I carry on?

azania wrote:Just for you Oxy. Jack Johnson's flawed fundermentals. I could easily post you his KO of ketchell of whoever if was who donated his teeth to JJ's gloves. That would be enough. Did you see the way he attached Ketchell shortly after climbing off the canvass? He was wide open with arms flailing. Not good. Fundermentally flawed.

But for me, his main flaw was his punch delivery. More like huge slaps from wide angles. That may be considered scientific then and innovative, but today, most amateurs can do (and often) do that.

Should I carry on?

He knocked Ketchel senseless with his very first punch after getting up off the floor.

Johnson had arguably the best uppercut in history until Tyson came along. His jab was straight and true and, while genuine combinations weren't the order of the day among heavies until the arrival of Dempsey, Johnson possessed incredibly fast hands when he threw his flurries. By way of evidence, check out the Flynn fight, or the Willard fight anything up to just over halfway through. Defensively, he made ' catching ' punches an art form and could parry and counter in his sleep, or make a man miss by pulling back, à la Ali, or conventional slipping and ducking. It's all there on the film, az, if you're prepared to look for it.

Whatever else he lacked, Johnson possessed the fundamental skills by the bucketload, and executed them to a very high degree of proficiency.

Oh he had the fundermental skills for that era when certain skills were neglected and fundermentals were in their infancy and pretty basic. Also his pulling back from punches was made to look all the more easy when you are fighting guys who sent a pony express before throwing a punch. Johnson was scientific in an era when science was in its infancy. Great boxer though. Extremely talented but most boxers (please dont name the fat plums) can do what he did.

Dare I say he was chinny given the type of judging we do to todays fighters who get knocked out?

"Skills were neglected"? What's your evidence for that please? Certainly - the opinion of those at the time was that the likes of Johnson were extremely skilled across all eras.

JJ has probably the second best uppercut in history - and he can deliver it with either hand.

Sure - he's "wide open" when delivering the punch to Ketchel. The punch that near decapitated him.

Funnily enough - most people don't complain about avoidance of textbook skills when something is effective. Vitali Klitschko/Pacquiao throw punches from odd angles - but no-one complains when they ice an opponent. And one punch?

JBW once posted a picture of Pernell Whittaker being punched in the face - with the tagline - "just because they blinked, didn't mean they never opened their eyes".

Its the same here - just because you saw him punch off balance once - didn't mean it happened often.

Watch Johnson training - he has a greater range of offensive punches than the boxers of today.

And in terms of skillset? Lest we forget - that our current HW champion survived on just 3 punches (jab, right cross, left hook) until the chambers fight, where he sometimes used a right uppercut.

Lewis had a less complete offensive armoury - with a looser defence. In a head to head - he has is size on his side.

PS - if you watch the footage of Johnson - you'll see him using a speedball. And knocking it off its bracket when he gets bored. Just in case you pretend that old timers can't use speedballs again

Oxy, much appreciated for making this worthy of its own thread.

I'll get back to you shortly. The missus has requested that I cook and I dont want to poison the family.

azania wrote:Oxy, much appreciated for making this worthy of its own thread.

I'll get back to you shortly. The missus has requested that I cook and I dont want to poison the family.

Don't forget the Creatine, whatever you do.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Oxy, much appreciated for making this worthy of its own thread.

I'll get back to you shortly. The missus has requested that I cook and I dont want to poison the family.

Don't forget the Creatine, whatever you do.

Thats for when the kids are not around

oxring wrote:"Skills were neglected"? What's your evidence for that please? Certainly - the opinion of those at the time was that the likes of Johnson were extremely skilled across all eras.

JJ has probably the second best uppercut in history - and he can deliver it with either hand.

Sure - he's "wide open" when delivering the punch to Ketchel. The punch that near decapitated him.

Funnily enough - most people don't complain about avoidance of textbook skills when something is effective. Vitali Klitschko/Pacquiao throw punches from odd angles - but no-one complains when they ice an opponent. And one punch?

JBW once posted a picture of Pernell Whittaker being punched in the face - with the tagline - "just because they blinked, didn't mean they never opened their eyes".

Its the same here - just because you saw him punch off balance once - didn't mean it happened often.

Watch Johnson training - he has a greater range of offensive punches than the boxers of today.

And in terms of skillset? Lest we forget - that our current HW champion survived on just 3 punches (jab, right cross, left hook) until the chambers fight, where he sometimes used a right uppercut.

Lewis had a less complete offensive armoury - with a looser defence. In a head to head - he has is size on his side.

PS - if you watch the footage of Johnson - you'll see him using a speedball. And knocking it off its bracket when he gets bored. Just in case you pretend that old timers can't use speedballs again

When people say that X boxer from the sepia age had the best xyz and I point out certain flaws its blames on the film and its speed. I see an average boxer (but way ahead of his time) with pretty basic skillsets. Defending straight punching was virtually unheard of and probably deemed cowardly to duck.

With the ketchell punch. A more skilled boxer would have avoided it. Even Rocky would have avoided that telegraphed punch.

Yes Lewis, Wlad and even ali had a limited range of punches. You never saw Ali go to the body or stand and trade. But they were/are exceptional in their limited skillset in a way JJ wasn't in comparison to those guys.

azania wrote:When people say that X boxer from the sepia age had the best xyz and I point out certain flaws its blames on the film and its speed. I see an average boxer (but way ahead of his time) with pretty basic skillsets. Defending straight punching was virtually unheard of and probably deemed cowardly to duck.

With the ketchell punch. A more skilled boxer would have avoided it. Even Rocky would have avoided that telegraphed punch.

Yes Lewis, Wlad and even ali had a limited range of punches. You never saw Ali go to the body or stand and trade. But they were/are exceptional in their limited skillset in a way JJ wasn't in comparison to those guys.

OK. So all these fighters who fought in colour are limited - but exceptional at being limited? Please explain that comment - as it seems strange.

You manage to make meaningful interpretations - that fly in the face of logic, I might add - from 1912 black and white film?

Here's some 1916 black and white film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tv5gBa9DQs

I wouldn't presume to pretend that I could understand or draw meaningful interpretations about the battle or the quality of explosive array at the time.

Point out those flaws Az. I see a guy with a practically watertight defence and a fantastic array of punches. I see a guy who can jab - and counterjab. I see a guy with a pretty solid chin who always boxes on his toes.

Good grief Oxy. You are one persistant bloke. Let me explain. Those guys had a limited skillset in that the skills they had were pretty basic and limited. JJ stood out in that his skillset was more developed or refined even. Its like the case of the land of the blind with JJ being the one eyes man (half opened also).

That vid is a little unfair and I wont comment on it for fear of being grossly misinterpritted. Exceptionally brave men who stared death in the face. Far superior to guys of today and I find it a tad disengenious of you to use that vid to make your point. Poor show old chap.

YOu see in JJ a guy with water tight defence but that defence was water-tight against guys you didn't have the knowledge of how to circumvent it.

Its like when the first jab was used. Other boxers didn;t know what to do with it until some bright spark decided to move out of the way.

Its called evolution of the sport old chap.

[With the ketchell punch. A more skilled boxer would have avoided it. Even Rocky would have avoided that telegraphed punch.

Az , you could say that about hundreds of punches in history, and to deny Ketchell's skill because of failure to duck one punches is pretty harsh. Sorry but I don't see any evidence to back up your critisms of JJ- For me, his fundamantal skills were first class-good balance, good defence, good foot work, good jab, good power - can't really see any poor fundamnetals at all.

I wanna see a clip of someone taking 100 jabs in succession and then the eureka moment of deciding to move.

horizontalhero wrote:[With the ketchell punch. A more skilled boxer would have avoided it. Even Rocky would have avoided that telegraphed punch.

Az , you could say that about hundreds of punches in history, and to deny Ketchell's skill because of failure to duck one punches is pretty harsh. Sorry but I don't see any evidence to back up your critisms of JJ- For me, his fundamantal skills were first class-good balance, good defence, good foot work, good jab, good power - can't really see any poor fundamnetals at all.

JJ carried him during that fight. Ketchel got uppity and forgot the rules and decked JJ. JJ just walked up to him and hit him. It wasn't a desperation a la Eubank/Watson. An angry JJ just hit him and fell over him afterwards. JJ could have KO'd him at any time. Lets not pretend that fight was anything other than a glorified exhibition until Ketchell forgot the rules.

That JJ could just walk up to him and deck him speaks volumes about his defence or lack of it.

Scottrf wrote:I wanna see a clip of someone taking 100 jabs in succession and then the eureka moment of deciding to move.

Moving images didn;t exist then. But ask Windy. I'm sure he was ringside at some of them. He marvelled at the freakish new fangled style called avoiding a punch.

azania wrote:That vid is a little unfair and I wont comment on it for fear of being grossly misinterpritted. Exceptionally brave men who stared death in the face. Far superior to guys of today and I find it a tad disengenious of you to use that vid to make your point. Poor show old chap.

Its not unfair - its not to comment on the bravery of their deeds! ARGH!

az - the point is - events in 1915/6 - whilst we have some limited footage of battle in those years, its so limited to make it nearly unusable alone if we wanted to gain a reasonable and objective understanding of what occurred. Instead, we are forced to use a combination of written and eyewitness testimony combined with the precious footage that we have.

Its the same with Jack Johnson. The limited footage that we have shows an incredibly talented and able fighter - and the written testimony has him almost untouchable in his peak.

To use the old example, oft quoted on here - there isn't a soldier left alive who served under Wellington. There isn't a man left alive who saw Da Vinci's Battle of Anghiari. There's no footage of Ip Man fighting. I need not see these things to know they occurred - and further - I can see the deeds and I can see the influence of all 3 and I can read the testimony of those who saw all 3 - and use that to make a balanced judgement.

Its no different with Fleischer and Futch, surely?

Still don't think you've explained how Johnson lacked the basic fundamentals, you've simply said he had a limited skill set, what was specifically so limited about it? Lets not forget that one of the greatest technicians of all time in Gene Tunney started boxing before Johnson lost his heavyweight title but I suppose he too lacked the fundamentals.

azania wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:[With the ketchell punch. A more skilled boxer would have avoided it. Even Rocky would have avoided that telegraphed punch.

Az , you could say that about hundreds of punches in history, and to deny Ketchell's skill because of failure to duck one punches is pretty harsh. Sorry but I don't see any evidence to back up your critisms of JJ- For me, his fundamantal skills were first class-good balance, good defence, good foot work, good jab, good power - can't really see any poor fundamnetals at all.

JJ carried him during that fight. Ketchel got uppity and forgot the rules and decked JJ. JJ just walked up to him and hit him. It wasn't a desperation a la Eubank/Watson. An angry JJ just hit him and fell over him afterwards. JJ could have KO'd him at any time. Lets not pretend that fight was anything other than a glorified exhibition until Ketchell forgot the rules.

That JJ could just walk up to him and deck him speaks volumes about his defence or lack of it.

ok so the end was more like FMJ decking Ortiz, and the fact that is was an exhibition rather than a real fight does it to enhance your arguement anyway- please explain how a fighter with good speed, balance, power, jab and defence can be said to be lacking fundamentals?

azania wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:[With the ketchell punch. A more skilled boxer would have avoided it. Even Rocky would have avoided that telegraphed punch.

Az , you could say that about hundreds of punches in history, and to deny Ketchell's skill because of failure to duck one punches is pretty harsh. Sorry but I don't see any evidence to back up your critisms of JJ- For me, his fundamantal skills were first class-good balance, good defence, good foot work, good jab, good power - can't really see any poor fundamnetals at all.

JJ carried him during that fight. Ketchel got uppity and forgot the rules and decked JJ. JJ just walked up to him and hit him. It wasn't a desperation a la Eubank/Watson. An angry JJ just hit him and fell over him afterwards. JJ could have KO'd him at any time. Lets not pretend that fight was anything other than a glorified exhibition until Ketchell forgot the rules.

That JJ could just walk up to him and deck him speaks volumes about his defence or lack of it.

ok so the end was more like FMJ decking Ortiz, and the fact that is was an exhibition rather than a real fight does it to enhance your arguement anyway- please explain how a fighter with good speed, balance, power, jab and defence can be said to be lacking fundamentals?

I was all happy logging onto v2 got the little message that you get when it's your birthday:
From all the team at 606v2 we would like to wish you a most fantastic birthday! Now go and enjoy yourself!

Then I come on and see az talking complete codswallop, completely ruined my mood.

Happy birthday Alex!

Happy birthday Alex

AlexHuckerby wrote:I was all happy logging onto v2 got the little message that you get when it's your birthday:
From all the team at 606v2 we would like to wish you a most fantastic birthday! Now go and enjoy yourself!

Then I come on and see az talking complete codswallop, completely ruined my mood.

I didn't get a birthday message! This is an outrage.

No one likes you.

Happy birthday Alex, savour these teeenage years as having zero responsibility is a bliss i miss.

I'm 20 now, it's all over...

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:No one likes you.

True as that is, they could at least spare a banner advert on the homepage.

AlexHuckerby wrote:I'm 20 now, it's all over...

I'm 30 in Jan, am considering ending it all

coxy0001 wrote:

I'm 30 in Jan

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

I'm 30 in Jan

Was the second part of the comment that got me excited.

AlexHuckerby wrote:I was all happy logging onto v2 got the little message that you get when it's your birthday:
From all the team at 606v2 we would like to wish you a most fantastic birthday! Now go and enjoy yourself!

Then I come on and see az talking complete codswallop, completely ruined my mood.

Happy Birthday Alex. As my gift to you I'll start praising the oldies for a day.

rowley wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

I'm 30 in Jan

Was the second part of the comment that got me excited.

Would of much preferred if he used decided as opposed to considering.

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I wanna see a clip of someone taking 100 jabs in succession and then the eureka moment of deciding to move.

Moving images didn;t exist then. But ask Windy. I'm sure he was ringside at some of them. He marvelled at the freakish new fangled style called avoiding a punch.

Whereas az prefers the freakish new fangled style called avoiding an opponent.

trottb wrote:

rowley wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

I'm 30 in Jan

Was the second part of the comment that got me excited.

Would of much preferred if he used decided as opposed to considering.

I'm just concerned my boyish good looks will disappear overnight when the big 3 0 comes along. Rowley is 4 decades ahead of me though, so am guessing it won't be too bad.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I wanna see a clip of someone taking 100 jabs in succession and then the eureka moment of deciding to move.

Moving images didn;t exist then. But ask Windy. I'm sure he was ringside at some of them. He marvelled at the freakish new fangled style called avoiding a punch.

Whereas az prefers the freakish new fangled style called avoiding an opponent.

In fairness though Windy Jack Johnson is a bit guilty of that...

coxy0001 wrote:

trottb wrote:

rowley wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

I'm 30 in Jan

Was the second part of the comment that got me excited.

Would of much preferred if he used decided as opposed to considering.

I'm just concerned my boyish good looks will disappear overnight when the big 3 0 comes along. Rowley is 4 decades ahead of me though, so am guessing it won't be too bad.

I think somewhere in there, there was some form of compliment for you, Rowley.

This is nonsense. Cannot judge a fighter by one punch he throws or takes.

Look at Leonard's terrible defense here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=umXLH89b9Bo#t=238s

Wow he should have ducked he must have been rubbish !

AlexHuckerby wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I wanna see a clip of someone taking 100 jabs in succession and then the eureka moment of deciding to move.

Moving images didn;t exist then. But ask Windy. I'm sure he was ringside at some of them. He marvelled at the freakish new fangled style called avoiding a punch.

Whereas az prefers the freakish new fangled style called avoiding an opponent.

In fairness though Windy Jack Johnson is a bit guilty of that...

Oh I know, Alex, and I said so, earlier. Some of us can see both sides of an argument when comparing fighters.

azania can't. His carte blanche dismissal of any pre war fighter is without reason, logic or any flexibility. Individuals don't count; if a man fought before 1939 he was a clumsy rank amateur, pure and simple.

Pity nobody ever told Benny Leonard, Gene Tunney, Jim Driscoll, Joe Gans, Young Griffo and a couple of hundred others.

That's being a bit generous Windy, i'd have said pre 1960 personally. And lets not forget the 1960 version of boxing had evolved beyond the 1920 version, yet when Rowley (or you, whoever it was) said that Wlad beats Ali he wasn't having any of it....

coxy0001 wrote:That's being a bit generous Windy, i'd have said pre 1960 personally. And lets not forget the 1960 version of boxing had evolved beyond the 1920 version, yet when Rowley (or you, whoever it was) said that Wlad beats Ali he wasn't having any of it....

And you would be wrong as usual. Consistant by the way I'll give you that. Stubborn as a mule and never take a hint.

HumanWindmill wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I wanna see a clip of someone taking 100 jabs in succession and then the eureka moment of deciding to move.

Moving images didn;t exist then. But ask Windy. I'm sure he was ringside at some of them. He marvelled at the freakish new fangled style called avoiding a punch.

Whereas az prefers the freakish new fangled style called avoiding an opponent.

In fairness though Windy Jack Johnson is a bit guilty of that...

Oh I know, Alex, and I said so, earlier. Some of us can see both sides of an argument when comparing fighters.

azania can't. His carte blanche dismissal of any pre war fighter is without reason, logic or any flexibility. Individuals don't count; if a man fought before 1939 he was a clumsy rank amateur, pure and simple.

Pity nobody ever told Benny Leonard, Gene Tunney, Jim Driscoll, Joe Gans, Young Griffo and a couple of hundred others.

Of course I see both sides of the argument windy. I'm a huge fan of JJ. I just recognise that the styles back in the day were not on par to styles which later followed.

And before you go all nuts and pass out. I am a massive Benny Leonard after I did some reading on him when I read a Ring article called "The other Leonard who would have beaten Duran". Wonderful fighter and technician. No doubts.

azania wrote:

And before you go all nuts and pass out. I am a massive Benny Leonard after I did some reading on him when I read a Ring article called "The other Leonard who would have beaten Duran". Wonderful fighter and technician. No doubts.

Good man.

There is yet hope.

azania wrote:

Of course I see both sides of the argument windy. I'm a huge fan of JJ. I just recognise that the styles back in the day were not on par to styles which later followed.

As a fan it is humbling and truly gratifying to live in an era where we can marvel at the conditioning or athleticism of heavyweights such as Aurello and Peter, or immerse ourselves in the splendour of a guy like Kelly Pavlik's all round game and adaptability, truly a priviledge.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

Of course I see both sides of the argument windy. I'm a huge fan of JJ. I just recognise that the styles back in the day were not on par to styles which later followed.

As a fan it is humbling and truly gratifying to live in an era where we can marvel at the conditioning or athleticism of heavyweights such as Aurello and Peter, or immerse ourselves in the splendour of a guy like Kelly Pavlik's all round game and adaptability, truly a priviledge.

But Duran would have won. Better training with more modern equipment. Slightly bettter fundermentals also.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

Of course I see both sides of the argument windy. I'm a huge fan of JJ. I just recognise that the styles back in the day were not on par to styles which later followed.

As a fan it is humbling and truly gratifying to live in an era where we can marvel at the conditioning or athleticism of heavyweights such as Aurello and Peter, or immerse ourselves in the splendour of a guy like Kelly Pavlik's all round game and adaptability, truly a priviledge.

Its the nutrition. More calories in todays diets and improper mental aptitude to train properly.

Think Duran beats Leonard seven times out of ten but it has nothing to do with the eras they fought in I simply think he's a better fighter who loses very few at lightweight. Likewise I would pick Leonard to beat almost every other lightweight out including the current king of the division Marquez let alone Rios or Soto. He like Johnson and many others including Gans and Langford had the style and ability to transcend any generation much like Mayweather, Hopkins and Pacquiao have going back in time. A great fighter is a great fighter regardless of when they fought.