Why Jack Johnson Would Be King Today

For some considerable time I have wanted to write a technical appraisal of the magnificent and timeless Jack Johnson. I have refrained from doing so because Jack, the great Lil’ Arthur as he was known, comes with so much historically vital yet distracting baggage. His story – and ye gods, it is some story even now – is so crammed with political intrigue and controversy that his immense boxing skills are nearly always shoved onto the back burner and mentioned in passing.

http://fightbeat.com/article_detail.php?AT=618

 

Very interesting article and plenty of information, props for that.:clap:

However I can't agree with his conclusions such as

In fact, he says it well himself

He did great job developing his trade and thus he is one of the greatest ever(I have him in my heavyweight top-5) , but today a scientist who knows as much as Einstein isn't anything spectacular.

 

Suberb article, very interesting. The more of these historical articles the better, IMHO.

 

They should talk about levitation more though

 

good read:bears:

 

dsimon writes:

All I can say is wow!!! I haven't read anything this exciting and well written since Joe's Reign here haha.

The author makes note of actual technical points. No doubt these points will go over a lot of hater's heads but the author is absolutely correct about these points. Footwork is a lost art. Footwork is how a fighter does not get hit. A fencer's stance looks positively goofy but it allows one to move laterally in a fashion where distance and timing can't be judged properly by the opponent. As recently as the 60's and 70's Bruce Lee discovered why this fencer's stance is the correct basis for boxing footwork. You create the shortest line of attack and the smallest target for the opponent to hit.

Guys like James Toney and Floyd to some degree keep Johnson's approach alive. Bernard also, like Dempsey is a very underrated boxing mind. Dempsey was a brilliant strategist, his books on boxing are a great read.

I think Roy Jones depends too much on natural gifts but is similar to Johnson in his mastery of the game in his prime.

 

Johnson did not believe everything that tutorial books of his day said: He understood that some things did not work, were unnecessary etc. After him and some of his timers, the books were re-written. Fighters today don't have to follow every instruction either. Just like Roy Jones didn't yet he beat Toney (whom you mention) up very easily.

 

Jack Johnson KO 1 Samuel Peter

 

We need an article about Jesse Owens beating Donovan Bailey in a footrace too.

 

Yet you neglect that Owens was timed on a hand held human finger pressed stop watch which could and most certainly was off by at least a few hundreds of second ...
I'm betting if he was timed like runners are in this day and age , he might have pulled better times then he is given credit for ...

You know , 10.2 is not far from 9.84 .... That easily could be skued from human error ... Press the button at the start , press the button at the finish line .... Much different from how they time runners today ...
Not to mention Owens did all this while smoking a pack of cigarettes per day ....

 

Props for such admirable restraint, Ugo. ::

 

Cool article, but I honestly think David Haye would KO Jack Johnson in two rounds.

 

dsimon writes:

Jones is very talented, he can do things the way he wants to because of his natural ability, it has nothing to do with the relative merits of Toney versus Jones.

Fighters today have very little instruction that is the problem. Trainers are liks Buddy Mcgirt and Freddie Roach "you can do it son" or "here drink some water." When you look for example at something Dempsey wrote... anything he wrote in his books you will notice that everything he says is about weight distribution, body positioning, its a different language. Today's guys are athletes that box with some notable exceptions... not fighters.

It is why Toney, a fat middle weight could exerscize considerable control over the heavy weight division and embarass one of your favorite two ton wonders... "the Nigerian nightmare."

 

dsimon writes:

You know it would be a great article to compare what happens with Haye as compared to Johnson. Haye has a lot of talent that is obvious. So what happens now?

In the old days Haye would go through the guild. A lot of guys who had been around would work with him on the skill sets, on the way to maximize power and minimize movement. He would fight a bunch of cagey guys who were smart but not a threat, until he developed complete skills. Whether he had a good right or not he would learn to block, parry, jab and use both hands.

Now a days? The promoters are already knocking at his door and trying to get Haye in the heavyweight division based on his punch! How exactly is Haye going to get his skills together and develop as a fighter? If they don't do this they will do the opposite... give him the "I won't throw you in against a live body cause you would get KO'ed," Amir Khan treatment a la Frank Warren.

Some cultures are better than others that way. The Cubans and Puerto Rican fighters always seem to have knowledge of fundamentals. Its why Cotto can box when he wants to and why Cassmayor can handle a brute like Katsidas.

Alabama as good as Pacquio is, he would be ten times better if somoene had worked with him in a manner like the old days of boxing. So ina sense whether Pacquio could take Benny Leanard is beside the point. The real question is how good would Pacquio be if he had been trained as a fighter in technique and skills, instead of being a one trick poney?

 

Lennox Lewis would have knocked him out brutally in 1 sole round, infact, if Lewis hits him flush with an extended straight right, I think he could have actually lifted Johnson off the ground and over the top rope.

 

He would be if the rest of the field of his peers/colleagues didn't even know as much as Einstein did.

And one could argue that is most definitely the case today in the Heavyweight divsion. And indeed in alot of boxing.

The article states something that is absolutely true: the idea that boxing can be measured on the same scale as track records and baseball averages is simply false. If you just think about it, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Peace.

 

True, but you could argue there is excessive reliance on athleticism, speed and reflexes...which don't hold up as the body ages and/or takes a pounding from too many fights...

Jones, Ali and some like them basically ditched the 'textbook' in favor of simply using their feet or reflexes more to move way out of position or avoid having to block/parry entirely....

Whereas "reworking" things in the textbook that allow you to conserve balance, weight transference, position to counter, and economy of energy/motion and allow you to compete even when the natural gifts decay (though of course there will always be decline)...is different.

That was what Johnson did. His stance and just as importantly, the way he held his hands and used them were modified from the 'textbook'....but allowed him to be constantly in balance and in position and to shift from parrying and blocking to attacking and countering with minimal motion and wasted energy. He was a master of the short punch and short counter.

He smothered you with his arms extended before you could really even get your shots off at times.

Mayweather applies this a little bit in the way he uses his hands and positions his arms when blocking/countering inside. See the N'dou, Chavez and Hatton fights for great examples. His shoulders are leverage and he can switch from parry to punch quickly...and he 'smothers' guys inside without having to hold.

Even from the outside he sometimes does something that is a facet of this...when he leads and then seems to almost 'push' his opponent off-balance with his gloves or shoulders - and then follow-up with short inside shots - leaving the opponent in no position to counter.

You know who else does at least a part of that, ironically enough? Vitali Klitschko. Watch him when he punches - he lets his punch "stay on" his opponent for an extra mili-second or two and uses it to slightly shove or push his opponent off-balance or into a different position.

I'll tell you who else of the more 'modern eras' approaches that kind of subtlety and balance....Mike McCallum. His offensive footwork was brilliant as was his ability to control distance in 'sections' while moving his opponent laterally and using his waist movement to widen or shorten distance without 'leaning in' or 'falling forward'.

That's one of the things I like about Locche...how damned subtle he was. Pep moved, moved, moved (brilliant in its own right)....but Locche didn't need to. Subtle shifts, taunting, setting up traps, narrow profile of the body to his opponent, shoulders and elbows to block, deflect, parry....all within a tight radius.

Whitaker had that down too. He was all defense, but he never out and out RAN. He was right in front or close to his opponent and used the turning and pivoting to great effect. His opponets were rarely able to get leverage on their shots when they did launch. And one thing Whitaker had over MOST of the modern guys is the art of feinting.

If there is one really lost art, it's feinting.

Peace.

 

you know nothing about track and field and this is obvious.

Handheld times are usually .4 faster than electronic on average. Ask anyone you know who has a hand in track.

Bailey isn't a little bit faster, he's absurdly faster.

I just want to add, this makes Owens about a 10.6 electronic on his best day, which is slower than Reggie Bush was IN HIGH SCHOOL. After all when Bush was in HS he logged a 10.2 handheld.

 

Well it has been said before that Reggie Bush is the greatest uncrowned heavyweight champion of all time.

 

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

 

dsimon writes:

Great observations. I had forgotten about Mccallum, indeed one of the throwbacks.

 

::

 

That's true...it was in that thread! ::

 

All correct.

But if you just compare how good Owens looks on film (how easily he destroyes all his opponents) then it looks very plausible that he could indeed defeat Donovan Bailey too

 

Being as he's going to carve through the current heavyweight division in that fashion, I'd be inclined to agree.

 

What is the opinion of the Johnson willard fight? I've read a few times that johnson threw the fight but having watched it, it seems that it was a legit KO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn3NdwKtUqk

 

LOL , you're an idiot ..... You know nothing and constantly blab your mouth without thinking first ....

Hand held times are faster ... :doh: :: Yeah , prove it .... It's human nature to have a delayed reaction , especially since you can not click until after the fact - after the gun , after the finish... Maybe even a longer delay if you don't particularly care for African Americans in the 1930's ....

You're a fuckin idiot and you consistantly prove this over and over ...

 

dude, dont talk about something you know nothing about and then play it off on me. Ask ANYONE you know with a hand in track which are faster, handheld times or electronic.

I would appreciate it if this retard was disciplined for stupidity. I mean one fact check with anyone knows anything about track will completely disprove this imbecile's trash in this thread.

 

Nope. Hand held times are indeed faster because there is the reaction delay at the start but it is not as great in the end because the guy usually clicks the watch in advance

 

So in other words you can not prove it and you have nothing to really say ..

Fuckin retard ... I already proved you wrong in which you welched on the bet that you would leave here for three months ...
Instead you continue to flood the boards with your stupidity ...

FACT - humans have a delayed reaction when reacting to something.
Then you come here and tell me hand held times are faster yet offer no proof or evidence ...