Does Johnson deserve his standing

by Rowley Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:09 pm

Since the subject of Jack Johnson popped up in Colonial's Ali thread thought I would revisit a thread I originally posted on 606 sometime ago to get the opinions on Jack Johnson as based on the comments on there it certainly appears some people rate him a little higher than I can on occasions.

Like perhaps a lot of posters on here I spend perhaps more time than is healthy thinking about how I rank the top heavyweights of all time and reading as much as I can about the old timers of the division. In view of this have recently been thinking whether Jack Johnson deserves the exalted status he is often given amongst the heavies. I will admit I have often ranked Jack highly amongst the big men, but looking closely at his record as champion and learning more about the guys out there at the time who Jack was not facing I have found myself questioning whether I may in the past of been a little generous in my ranking.

If we look at the guys he faced during his reign it is not exactly awe inspiring. Philadelphia Jack O’Brien, Tony Ross, Al Kaufmann, Fireman Jim Flynn and Jim Johnson are not exactly awe inspiring defences and two of those in O’Brien and Johnson were draws. The only names that really leap off the page are Stanley Ketchel and James Jeffries and Ketchel was a middleweight and Jeff was six years retired when he lost to Jack so would argue neither win adds too much lustre to his record.

Now facing uninspiring opposition is not uncommon in the heavyweight division because as many have fairly reasonably argued the talent pool is not always that deep but this is where potentially my issue with Jack comes about because in Jack’s era there were decent heavies about such as Langford, McVea and Jeannette but Jack was not showing any inclination to face those guys. Realise it was not easy to match two black fighters for the biggest title in the sport back then but I know that a number of attempts were made to match Jack with Langford, and similarly I know of at least one attempt which was made to match him with Jeannette. Both of these attempts were for decent money at the time.

I have always been pretty willing to give Jack a pass on the relatively poor standard of his opposition during his reign as he did beat a number of decent fighters on his way up, however there is still a part of me questioning whether any other heavyweight would get such a pass on refusing to face their most qualified challengers during his reign and whether this should count against him in assessing his standing in the all time heavyweight listings. Would welcome any contributions as I genuinely struggle with this one and anything that can persuade me one way or the other is more than welcome.

by BALTIMORA Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:17 pm

I knew precious little about Johnson before I read a biography on him, and while I'm far from an expert since then, I do agree that his record is inconsistent, and threadbare in parts. It seems to be one of those situations whereby Johnson was and still is considered to have been head and shoulders above most all of his contemporaries, and is ranked in accordance with his perceived ability, rather than on his actual achievements. Arguably his last 'legit' opponent prior to Willard was Jeffries, and how legit Jeffries actually was, given his inaction through retirement, advanced age, and having been considerably out of shape in the gap between bouts (although admittedly he came in in decent shape) all play a factor.

Without checking I can't remember their nmes, but I'm pretty certain Johnson also refused to fight one or two of the top black contenders on the grounds that "no-one will pay to see two black boxers fighting". While that may be true-that there'd be little interest and therefore little profit-it does leave those opponents as question marks.

by azania Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:17 pm

by Rowley Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:20 pm

Thats the issue for me Balti the patchy nature of his record. Have no desire to revisit the topic but people give Marciano dogs abuse on here but what can be said of his record is they represented the best the era had to offer. Certainly cannot say the same of Jack and if we're being honest plenty of his opponents had no business being in a world heavyweight title ring bu I don't see him coming under anywhere near the same scrutiny

by **HumanWindmill** Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:20 pm

I struggle with it also, jeff.

Given that Jack was shafted on the way up, eventually getting a title shot about three years too late and at the age of thirty, I've always given him a pass for milking the title, but the problem is that in doing so Langford, in particular, doesn't get HIS dues.

Many from the day believed that Johnson WOULD have beaten Langford again, had they squared off for the title, but that isn't really sufficient to pass it all off, and particularly since I have a sneaky feeling that Johnson, any time after the Jeffries fight, had lost his urgency and ambition, while Sam was in the form of his life.

Most days I'd have Jack in the top four or five, ( as do most, ) but there are times when I get a bit peeved that he sold everybody short, and on those days I'd probably shove him down the order a little.

by Rowley Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:23 pm

It is where I tend to have him Windy but like you on my more contrary moments I struggle to see why he should end up above guys like Jeffries or even Lewis when, colour line aside for Jeffries guys like that were stepping up to the plate against anyone and everyone available.

by azania Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:27 pm

Colour line aside? By definition Jeffries was not prepared to step up against everyone available.

by samevans1 Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:27 pm

Johnson had a great style for his time to be fair. I get annoyed often when people bang on about old timers as if they are automatically superior.

But the way he slipped, parried, blocked and avoided punches was a due to watch; it set the blueprint for many of the defensive fighters who came later. His tyle really was years ahead of its time.

by **HumanWindmill** Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:28 pm

azania wrote:Colour line aside? By definition Jeffries was not prepared to step up against everyone available.

The only legitimate opponent of African extraction would have been Johnson, the timeline being wrong for McVea and Jeannette.

by BALTIMORA Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:28 pm

Windy - that's exactly the problem, that being expected to beat someone is a big difference to ACTUALLY beating them. If Tyson never fought Douglas would we now be saying that Douglas was lucky he avoided a hiding?

Rowley - as you say, the fact he fought opponents who shouldn't have been in the ring is a pertinent one. Stanley Ketchel, anyone? There's a picture of the two side-by-side before the fight, and Ketchel is wearing a padded overcoat and think heels in order to minimise the size discrepancy. Bizarre really, that Johnson is forgiven these factors by many, when we all slate Haye for Audrey. Not QUITE the same, I know, but you get my drift.

by J.Benson II Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:29 pm

Just out of curiosity, how do others feel Johnson would have fared against Jefferies had the latter been in his prime years?

by samevans1 Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:31 pm

Johnson would have beaten Jeffries handily; his style was too advanced for Jeffries. Jeffries was a tough Bar Steward; but it would probably have been beaten widely on points.

by Rowley Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:31 pm

In all fairness Az whilst you have to consider the colour line for those guys in the case of Jeffries Johnson must shoulder some of the blame because just at the point he was getting close to securing a shot with Jeffries and there was a groundswell of support growing for him he lost to Marvin Hart which somewhat took the wind out of the sails of that campaign. Should say irrespective of this I don't think Jeffries faces him but must be considered when assessing the situation.

However this is another thing that riles me with the Johnson situation, a lot of people give the likes of Fitz, Sully, Corbett and Jeffries a rough deal for drawing the colour line but the same people have no problem proclaiming Johnson a great fighter. The truth is the best heavies in the world during Jack's reign such as Jeannette, Langford and McVea were all black and Jack shafted them as royally as any of his predecesors but he gets a pass on it.

by azania Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:33 pm

HumanWindmill wrote:
azania wrote:Colour line aside? By definition Jeffries was not prepared to step up against everyone available.

The only legitimate opponent of African extraction would have been Johnson, the timeline being wrong for McVea and Jeannette.

Whom he avoided. Those guys who drew the line should have an asterix next to their names as they clearly weren't the best. As Balti said anyway, who of note did Johnson? A middleweight and a retired alfafa farmer. Take off those rose tinted, nostalgic glasses please. For all his faults, Rocky at least fought and beat the best of his era (albeit that era was weaker tha now).

@rowley

I've said the same thing about JJ on another thread (Ali thread I think).

by **HumanWindmill** Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:35 pm

J.Benson II wrote:Just out of curiosity, how do others feel Johnson would have fared against Jefferies had the latter been in his prime years?

I'd favour Johnson, J.Benson.

Very few fighters would beat Jeffries over twenty five, in my opinion, but Johnson would be one of them.

Johnson fought at a very measured pace, a la Joe Louis, and would explode in short bursts. Therefore, he would have had the stamina to fight twenty five, and he certainly had the smarts to keep hinmself out of trouble and tot up the points. It isn't often mentioned, but Jack was phenomenally strong in the upper body - even Jeffries said so - so Jeffries wouldn't have had it all his way on the inside, either.

Johnson over the long haul, for me, but with the caveat that if he got careless Jeffries would put him to sleep.

by **HumanWindmill** Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:36 pm

azania wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:
azania wrote:Colour line aside? By definition Jeffries was not prepared to step up against everyone available.

The only legitimate opponent of African extraction would have been Johnson, the timeline being wrong for McVea and Jeannette.

Whom he avoided. Those guys who drew the line should have an asterix next to their names as they clearly weren't the best. As Balti said anyway, who of note did Johnson? A middleweight and a retired alfafa farmer. Take off those rose tinted, nostalgic glasses please. For all his faults, Rocky at least fought and beat the best of his era (albeit that era was weaker tha now).

@rowley

I've said the same thing about JJ on another thread (Ali thread I think).

The rose tinted specs thing is pretty insulting coming from a guy who hasn't even seen the fights.

Go top up the creatine.

by Rowley Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:39 pm

Would probably have to favour Johnson but it is by no means a formality. What you have to bear in mind is at the time, rightly or wrongly fights were often scored on who was the aggressor or even on the perception of who would have won the fight had it been to the finish.

Now for all his gifts Jack did like to fight a measured pace and aggression was never one of his assets. Is not impossible that were the fight scored on these criteria Jeffries could get the nod because aggression was something he never lacked for and he was one of those rare fighters who seemed to get stronger as the fight progressed so would still be on the front foot at the end of the fight.

by Guest Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:40 pm

I think that people have mixed his sociological import up with his ability and have ranked him accordingly.To me, his as his defensive ability has been noted as genius, and he was merciless when he decided to punish an opponent, coupled also with the fact that Ali borrowed a lot so must have been good!
With your points taken on board, I think we do elevate Jack a wee bit too much, as for whether he's a top ten all-time great , I say "probably,yes", although I must admit I can think of a list of five I would say beat him for sure, and another five who would give him a very good argument.For the record I would put him way below Ali, Louis, and definitely behind my second tier which include Holyfield, Lewis. Hand on heart, I'd back Ken Norton to decision him, however I do consciously rate him higher than his achievements merit-for the reason that I think he was one of the most naturally gifted and talented heavyweights ever.

by BALTIMORA Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:48 pm

Az, I wasn't dismissing the guy - on his way up his record is much better than post-championship win.

by azania Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:52 pm

BALTIMORA wrote:Az, I wasn't dismissing the guy - on his way up his record is much better than post-championship win.

I know. But his record was still dodgy. He wouldn't be in my top 10. A talented fighter no doubt, but also a ducker (using modern language - hey I have to include something modern into this debate)

by azania Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:53 pm

HumanWindmill wrote:
azania wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:
azania wrote:Colour line aside? By definition Jeffries was not prepared to step up against everyone available.

The only legitimate opponent of African extraction would have been Johnson, the timeline being wrong for McVea and Jeannette.

Whom he avoided. Those guys who drew the line should have an asterix next to their names as they clearly weren't the best. As Balti said anyway, who of note did Johnson? A middleweight and a retired alfafa farmer. Take off those rose tinted, nostalgic glasses please. For all his faults, Rocky at least fought and beat the best of his era (albeit that era was weaker tha now).

@rowley

I've said the same thing about JJ on another thread (Ali thread I think).

The rose tinted specs thing is pretty insulting coming from a guy who hasn't even seen the fights.

Go top up the creatine.

I've seen his "fight" with ketchel. Would Haye get any credit for beating Pascal in a HW fight?

by **HumanWindmill** Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:55 pm

azania wrote:
BALTIMORA wrote:Az, I wasn't dismissing the guy - on his way up his record is much better than post-championship win.

I know. But his record was still dodgy. He wouldn't be in my top 10. A talented fighter no doubt, but also a ducker (using modern language - hey I have to include something modern into this debate)

Try absence from it. That would be novel, and most welcome, since you don't know the first thing about most of the fighters you routinely dismiss.

by **HumanWindmill** Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:57 pm

azania wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:
azania wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:
azania wrote:Colour line aside? By definition Jeffries was not prepared to step up against everyone available.

The only legitimate opponent of African extraction would have been Johnson, the timeline being wrong for McVea and Jeannette.

Whom he avoided. Those guys who drew the line should have an asterix next to their names as they clearly weren't the best. As Balti said anyway, who of note did Johnson? A middleweight and a retired alfafa farmer. Take off those rose tinted, nostalgic glasses please. For all his faults, Rocky at least fought and beat the best of his era (albeit that era was weaker tha now).

@rowley

I've said the same thing about JJ on another thread (Ali thread I think).

The rose tinted specs thing is pretty insulting coming from a guy who hasn't even seen the fights.

Go top up the creatine.

I've seen his "fight" with ketchel. Would Haye get any credit for beating Pascal in a HW fight?

Wow ! One fight.

Colour yourself expert historian.

by Rowley Thu 21 Apr 2011, 1:59 pm

So the one fight you have seen is a fight most everyone agress was either a fix or was being prolonged to boost the revenue when the film was shown in theatres. Seems a more than reasonable basis to dismiss a whole career on.

by azania Thu 21 Apr 2011, 2:00 pm

Ha. Nah, I've seen more fights, but the ketchel; one is the one that springs to mind because of the tango they danced prior to ketchel spoiling the script (allegedly).

by **HumanWindmill** Thu 21 Apr 2011, 2:02 pm

azania wrote:Ha. Nah, I've seen more fights, but the ketchel; one is the one that springs to mind because of the tango they danced prior to ketchel spoiling the script (allegedly).

'Cause that never happens in modern rings, right ? ( Runs off to find several snooze fest fights from the A.A - Anno Azani - years. )

by Guest Thu 21 Apr 2011, 2:03 pm

Changing subject for a second here, guys, do you really think Jeffries is head and shoulders above Gene Tunney, say, or even Max Baer? A big strong guy for sure, but not sure if you don't over-rate him a tad on occasion.

by Rowley Thu 21 Apr 2011, 2:04 pm

HumanWindmill wrote:
azania wrote:Ha. Nah, I've seen more fights, but the ketchel; one is the one that springs to mind because of the tango they danced prior to ketchel spoiling the script (allegedly).

'Cause that never happens in modern rings, right ? ( Runs off to find several snooze fest fights from the A.A - Anno Azani - years. )

Haye Harrison springs to mind. Unless not throwing a punch so your mates can win a few quid at the bookies is a different thing.

by **HumanWindmill** Thu 21 Apr 2011, 2:11 pm

andygf wrote:Changing subject for a second here, guys, do you really think Jeffries is head and shoulders above Gene Tunney, say, or even Max Baer? A big strong guy for sure, but not sure if you don't over-rate him a tad on occasion.

I believe he's the most UNDER rated of the champions, andy.

There is a perception amomg some, ( the Azanites, as I like to call them, ) that Jeffries was a slow, plodding carthorse. Well, he may well have been a carthorse early on, but he was not by any means slow. Fight footage proves it ; training footage proves it, and he was able to run 100 yards in under eleven seconds and high jump six feet.

He was a murderous puncher and pretty much impervious to punishment. Also a quick learner, Jeffries, at Fitzsimmons' bidding, abandoned the early crouching style to learn the rudiments of orthodox technique, and learned so well that by the time of the second Corbett fight at least one newspaper described his boxing as being ' scientific.'

World champ as a rookie ; utterly dominant in his era ; one third of his fights against HOFers and never off his feet until the Johnson fight.

Definite top ten heavy, for me.

by azania Thu 21 Apr 2011, 2:13 pm

HumanWindmill wrote:
andygf wrote:Changing subject for a second here, guys, do you really think Jeffries is head and shoulders above Gene Tunney, say, or even Max Baer? A big strong guy for sure, but not sure if you don't over-rate him a tad on occasion.

I believe he's the most UNDER rated of the champions, andy.

There is a perception amomg some, ( the Azanites, as I like to call them, ) that Jeffries was a slow, plodding carthorse. Well, he may well have been a carthorse early on, but he was not by any means slow. Fight footage proves it ; training footage proves it, and he was able to run 100 yards in under eleven seconds and high jump six feet.

He was a murderous puncher and pretty much impervious to punishment. Also a quick learner, Jeffries, at Fitzsimmons' bidding, abandoned the early crouching style to learn the rudiments of orthodox technique, and learned so well that by the time of the second Corbett fight at least one newspaper described his boxing as being ' scientific.'

World champ as a rookie ; utterly dominant in his era ; one third of his fights against HOFers and never off his feet until the Johnson fight.

Definite top ten heavy, for me.

windy, you're a star mate. Hug

by Rowley Thu 21 Apr 2011, 2:13 pm

Andy on the question of whether I personally over rate Jeffries I may have to plead guilty as charged. However if I do indeed do this I think I only do it to mitigate how much I feel people frequently under rate him. Have said it before Jeffries was nigh on the perfect fighter for his times. In an era when fights were scored on aggression and the perception of who would win were the fight to go to the finish a fighter like Jeffries who possessed almost limitless stamina, carried his power late and had almost super human powers of recovery could not have been a better match.

When one adds in a ledger that includes the likes of Fitz, Corbett, Ruhlin and Sharkey and you have a collection of opponents that stands comparison with virtually anyone in heavyweight history. Will concede Jeffries was not a stylist by any stretch but what people often forget is he won the title after something like his 13th fight and so was improving all the time and was even reported to have outboxed Corbett in their second fight.

When he retired Jeffries was still improving and only retired due to a lack of qualified challengers (white ones at least) Perhaps I do over rate him a little but I promise far more people under rate him than the few of us who over rate him

by azania Thu 21 Apr 2011, 2:15 pm

rowley wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:
azania wrote:Ha. Nah, I've seen more fights, but the ketchel; one is the one that springs to mind because of the tango they danced prior to ketchel spoiling the script (allegedly).

'Cause that never happens in modern rings, right ? ( Runs off to find several snooze fest fights from the A.A - Anno Azani - years. )

Haye Harrison springs to mind. Unless not throwing a punch so your mates can win a few quid at the bookies is a different thing.

That's why I pick Wlad to flatten haye in quick time. Haye likes to "look" at his opponent. But those 2 were looking at each other like they were on a date.

by The Galveston Giant Thu 21 Apr 2011, 2:15 pm

Nice article Rowley.

First off i agree with you that Johnson did not fight all he could during his era, Sam Langford being the main one and someone who would have pushed Johnson all the way had he got his chance again, a real 50/50 fight for me. I would start him the favourite against McVea and Jeanette, though both were excellent fighters. Not only were those two denied a shot at the title along with Langford, they are all but forgotten about. Johnson knew how hard he had to work to get his chance, and seems strange that he wouldn't offer his fellow black professionals their long overdue shot, once he held the greatest prize of all. Although he fought all three, none were contested once Jack won the title, and a few of these fighters, especially Langford, had come on leaps and bounds since their first meeting. Johnson was more than happy to continue taking on the white boys, Fireman Jim Flynn, a few lighter guys in Stanley Ketchel and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien. It's what the public wanted as the title had to be taken back for the white race. These fights were a lot easier than any of the coloured fighters would have given him, and allowed him to milk the title. Would a heavyweight title fight been allowed had Johnson decided to defend against one of the above i do not know, at the time it seemed the whole country was determined to find the next 'Great white hope', which is why Jeffries obviously came out of retirement. I don't know what the reaction would be if two coloured fellows were to contest the title, it was still hurting to most that a coloured man had won the Heavyweight title, let alone two contesting for it so soon, i'm not saying that's the reason these fights didn't come off, but it certainly gave Johnson a easy ride/excuse avoiding these fights. If we look at the opposition faced then Johnson doesn't fare very high. If we take his whole career into account though, the times he fought in, the circumstances he fought under, he was a special fighter to me, and so much more than a boxer, i'm not sure there was any other black man with as big a set of balls as Johnson in day, he basically did what he wanted as a black man at the start of the 20th century, which is crazy. If Johnson had beaten these coloured fighters, i have no doubt he would be placed even higher today. I personally would have him at the lower end of my top twenty, and in the top five of the heavyweights, i believe he could have fought in any era. People will always be divided over him and i don't have a problem with people who don't rate him, as long as they accept he was a great fighter, even though he was seen as arrogant by most, i'm sure the times and cricumstances could have affected this slightly, i'm sure he wasn't happy being a second class citizen, although i do wish he would have shown his fellow coloured professionals a bit more respect and sympathy. H ewill make a lot of peoples top ten, top twenty for me, and would still be good in any top 30, any lower is wrong though.

by **HumanWindmill** Thu 21 Apr 2011, 2:17 pm

azania wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:
andygf wrote:Changing subject for a second here, guys, do you really think Jeffries is head and shoulders above Gene Tunney, say, or even Max Baer? A big strong guy for sure, but not sure if you don't over-rate him a tad on occasion.

I believe he's the most UNDER rated of the champions, andy.

There is a perception amomg some, ( the Azanites, as I like to call them, ) that Jeffries was a slow, plodding carthorse. Well, he may well have been a carthorse early on, but he was not by any means slow. Fight footage proves it ; training footage proves it, and he was able to run 100 yards in under eleven seconds and high jump six feet.

He was a murderous puncher and pretty much impervious to punishment. Also a quick learner, Jeffries, at Fitzsimmons' bidding, abandoned the early crouching style to learn the rudiments of orthodox technique, and learned so well that by the time of the second Corbett fight at least one newspaper described his boxing as being ' scientific.'

World champ as a rookie ; utterly dominant in his era ; one third of his fights against HOFers and never off his feet until the Johnson fight.

Definite top ten heavy, for me.

windy, you're a star mate.

Why thank you, az.

You and the Azanites are, also. And hugely entertaining.

by The Galveston Giant Thu 21 Apr 2011, 2:18 pm

The Galveston Giant wrote:Nice article Rowley.

First off i agree with you that Johnson did not fight all he could during his era, Sam Langford being the main one and someone who would have pushed Johnson all the way had he got his chance again, a real 50/50 fight for me. I would start him the favourite against McVea and Jeannette, though both were excellent fighters. Not only were those two denied a shot at the title along with Langford, they are all but forgotten about. Johnson knew how hard he had to work to get his chance, and seems strange that he wouldn't offer his fellow black professionals their long overdue shot, once he held the greatest prize of all. Although he fought all three, none were contested once Jack won the title, and a few of these fighters, especially Langford, had come on leaps and bounds since their first meeting. Johnson was more than happy to continue taking on the white boys, Fireman Jim Flynn, a few lighter guys in Stanley Ketchel and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien. It's what the public wanted as the title had to be taken back for the white race. These fights were a lot easier than any of the coloured fighters would have given him, and allowed him to milk the title. Would a heavyweight title fight been allowed had Johnson decided to defend against one of the above i do not know, at the time it seemed the whole country was determined to find the next 'Great white hope', which is why Jeffries obviously came out of retirement. I don't know what the reaction would be if two coloured fellows were to contest the title, it was still hurting to most that a coloured man had won the Heavyweight title, let alone two contesting for it so soon, i'm not saying that's the reason these fights didn't come off, but it certainly gave Johnson a easy ride/excuse avoiding these fights. If we look at the opposition faced then Johnson doesn't fare very high. If we take his whole career into account though, the times he fought in, the circumstances he fought under, he was a special fighter to me, and so much more than a boxer, i'm not sure there was any other black man with as big a set of balls as Johnson in day, he basically did what he wanted as a black man at the start of the 20th century, which is crazy. If Johnson had beaten these coloured fighters, i have no doubt he would be placed even higher today. I personally would have him at the lower end of my top twenty, and in the top five of the heavyweights, i believe he could have fought in any era. People will always be divided over him and i don't have a problem with people who don't rate him as highly, as long as they accept he was a great fighter, even though he was seen as arrogant by most, i'm sure the times and cricumstances could have affected this slightly, i'm sure he wasn't happy being a second class citizen, although i do wish he would have shown his fellow coloured professionals a bit more respect and sympathy. H e will make a lot of peoples top ten, top twenty for me, and would still be good in any top 30, any lower is wrong though.

by azania Thu 21 Apr 2011, 2:19 pm

You can swap Jeffries' name to Rocky and you would be equally accurate.

by Rowley Thu 21 Apr 2011, 2:21 pm

Good response Galveston, although with your user name if you can't comment with insight on this of all threads there ain't much hope is there mate.

It is a fair point about how difficult it would have been to match two black fighters for a title but it is an acknowledged fact Australian promoter Hugh Macintosh offered Jack $50,000 to face Sam in Australia. Now this is good money and people talk about how white America would have responded but for me to use this as an excuse only works if you assume a position that Jack gave two figs about what the white powers that be thought and if anything what we know of Jack would suggest the opposite was the case.

by azania Thu 21 Apr 2011, 2:25 pm

rowley wrote:Good response Galveston, although with your user name if you can't comment with insight on this of all threads there ain't much hope is there mate.

It is a fair point about how difficult it would have been to match two black fighters for a title but it is an acknowledged fact Australian promoter Hugh Macintosh offered Jack $50,000 to face Sam in Australia. Now this is good money and people talk about how white America would have responded but for me to use this as an excuse only works if you assume a position that Jack gave two figs about what the white powers that be thought and if anything what we know of Jack would suggest the opposite was the case.

I'll add that Jack drew the colour line because for fear of losing to another black man in that he (Jack) loved the "rogue" attitude he portrayed and lived. It is doubtful that other black champions would be as anti establishment as he was. They probably would have been like Joe Louis (a credit to the human race blah blah blah but knew his place in society at that time).

by The Galveston Giant Thu 21 Apr 2011, 2:38 pm

Good points Jeff and when you look at the way Jack handled himself regarding the law, i don't believe for one second he would be afraid of the backlash had Johnson decided to match himself against any of the black challengers, you are spot on that Johnson was offered big money to take on Sam by Hugh Macintosh, and i believe this wasn't the only time the fight was close to being made, with Johnson either in trouble with the law or some other excuse, the same as Sugar Ray didn't need Charley Burley, Johnson didn't need Sam Langford. If Sam Langford was white the whole country would have been screaming for the matchup, but they wanted a white man in charge of the title, so like i said, the black fighters were easily avoidable. Sam Langford should have had his shot.

by Guest Thu 21 Apr 2011, 4:16 pm

I only knew of Jeffries as an aside to the Jack Johnson story.I knew that a lot of the public thought that he was the only able one to "lick" Jack Johnson,so his legend was already sealed.
Having "wikipedia'd" him of late( hey, I can't be the only person to do this on the forum??!) I was impressed with Jeffries.
And did he not come into the Johnson fight in great shape?Beating Jeffries is not a bad result to my eyes.There is the six year layoff I know, but reckon it does enhance his record and cement some claim to a decent ahem "legacy" to have won so leisurely against the guy.

Anyway, if I am honest ,I'll say that a top ten ATG to me is partly about potentiality.Hence including Jack Johnson. However I can see why there is a great claim for Jeffries to be high in your ATG lists. You can probably see my bias by now- Sully as toughest s.o.b. out there until Dempsey. However, what a great tier of fighters, around him ,eh?-Johnson, Corbett,Jeffries(would love to include Ketchell, but really a heavy) .
I DEFINITELY see this as a brilliant era that pi55es all over the last ten or so years of Heavyweight snoozefests.

by BALTIMORA Thu 21 Apr 2011, 5:08 pm

Andy, I can see what you mean by 'potentiality', but I think once you start talking about the difference between potential and achievement, or between perceived skill and opponents beaten, then we almost have to define two separate lists; one for achievement and one for talent.

by Guest Fri 22 Apr 2011, 2:30 pm

Sure, but I guess this is why JJ has got the standing he has, if we pick apart why certain boxers are our favourites, we sometimes find it to be the case that it is not all about who they fought. I don't think that Joe Louis, for example, has a great rollcall to his c.v., even though he has longevity.
Yet why do we still talk about him and not so much Eusebio Pedroza, who had a great run of victories and held the title for years? Probably because we think, "well, I believe that he would have beaten so-and-so".
Jeff I know how highly you rate Louis.I have a little niggling doubt about putting him in my top three a.t.g's...do you put Joe "up there" on the merits of his results, cos in a lot of them it has to be said, he looked good against mediocre opposition. Don't want to whip up debate about Joe Lois, as we have done that to death recently, but perhaps there is a correlation?

by Guest Fri 22 Apr 2011, 2:44 pm

By the way of course I appreciate the main theme to your thread was, Jack did NOT fight the best available to him ,and this is a good point.
I'll be honest though and say that when i weigh up the heavies division, on a good day, i place The Rock in a top ten post when my mind is telling me that deep down I wouldn't fancy him against half a dozen fighters post 1960 to be honest.Yet ,his record "is what it is," and it HAS to be respected.As with Joe,and I would argue ,likewise Jack. Unravelling your motives for rating these guys can be a bit of a nightmare.

by jimdig Fri 22 Apr 2011, 3:05 pm

Dempsey is another who's reign can be unravelled. Its one of the fun and infuriating sides to boxing.

On Johnson though he'll always make my top 10, I've read previously that the film footage availible on Johnson was selective at best, that fight footage was destroyed due to the prevailent politics of the time that were set against his promotion.

And while the oposistion in his reign were all white, an aged Jefferies and middleweight great Ketchel deserves some credit, along with Langford, Jeanette, McVea and (dave's favourite) Jackson while in his prime.

Important to remember that Johnson was past prime while reigning heavyweight champ, Losing to Willard at 37.

by Jukebox Timebomb Fri 22 Apr 2011, 7:02 pm

Johnson deserves to be in the Super 6 every bit as much as the next guy. He's been at or around the top pf 175 for a very long time and has always been competitive. I think he further proved his standing by KO'ing Green last time out.

by Sponsored content