Why Jack Johnson Would Be King Today

F Dsimon!!:: :: :: you seriously SERIOUSLY made me just spit out coffee:: ::
I love this forum!

 

CYC - cool it with the insults. No need.

Jaws, the rest....do NOT respond.

Keep it clean, please.

It's a shame a thread this potentially good has gone this way. But if it must, at least debate without getting personal.

Peace.

 

Mike Tyson in his prime would KO Jack Johnson and Joe Louis back to back in 1 round a piece

 

I love the way back then it seems like it's totally cool to hit a guy in the ribs and then just push him to the ground:bears:

 

dsimon writes:

:: ::

 

dsimon writes:

Or hit the guy as he is getting up! And all the grappling to try to get position inside.

 

dsimon writes:

Here is how it would go down:

Due to time travel in the future Ugo and Alabama go back.... they both defeat Johnson and then Louis because of how much boxing has evolved... Tyson goes back in his prime and KO's both Ugo and Alabama in one day! Alabama, having been cursed by Latin Queen has a receding hairline and when he is KO'ed by Tyson he looks like Marquez, with his legs flying up in one direction and his Saturn looking head in the other.

Meanwhile Lok realizing the pickens takes on Stanley Ketchup Ketchel and just like Johnson winds up with a few of of Ketchel's teeth in his glove.

 

Interesting debate....would have been more so if we'd avoid sweeping generalizations and inflammatory remarks like "the worst heavyweight today <INSERT name>would KO Johnson in 2 rounds" and the like.

Alot of folks (rightly so) question the amount of grappling in bouts of that era - and specifically in this case, Johnson's bouts.

Two questions we should look at:

1. Who is initiating? Johnson tends to initiate when moving forward after he has gotten off jabs and combinations. But have we noticed how much of the clinching is initiated by his opponents in an attempt to get inside?

Many of his opponents were smaller and were better on the inside than outside (nobody at that time would 'outbox' Johnson at distance)...so they rushed/weaved/lunged in to try to make it a phone booth fight.

Even then, it was a bad idea because Johnson was very good at short-punching inside and counterpunching/smothering and grappling himself. Which leads me to my next point:

2. The style. Johnson would feint, jab, counterpunch at distance and move laterally...and when opponents would get close, he would tie them up and clinch/grapple and walk them back. What is soooo different in that regards from today's Heavyweights???

How did Lewis fight? How did Ali fight? How do Wlad and Vitali Klitschko fight? Holmes? How did taller/bigger opponents counteract Tysons' rushes? Marciano's? Holyfields?

These guys did EXACTLY the same thing....and still do.

Having their hands down? How many of today's HWTs actually keep their hands UP??? Ali, Lewis, the Klitschkos, Foreman, Marciano, Holmes....and let's not even get into the CONTENDERS of the 80's, 90's and today.

That said...you certainly see these guys bring their hands up when they felt they needed to at points.

What you'll find is that the ones that most consistently keep their hands up (they all do at one time or another) are the shorter fighters who need to be able to weave/lunge to get inside against taller bigger opponents.

Also, I'd take into account that fighters of earlier decades depended MUCH, MUCH more on head/waist movement and feinting and footwork....whereas "modern" fighters have lost some of that art and to a much greater degree depend on blocking and parrying.

Talk to any experienced trainer today and they will tell you that head/waist movement and feinting are relatively lost arts.

Many of the 'greats' of this modern era will admit they lifted alot of things from past generations, which were lifted from guys like Johnson.

The cross-defense (Mayweather); the lateral and backwards stepping while jabbing/countering (Mayweather, Ali, Robinson, others); blocking punches with open gloves; parrying away from the body - take a look at the Johnson-Flynn and Johnson-Jeffries fights and Ketchel fights. You will see them all there.

Using the shoulder to hide the chin and roll with shots? Locche, Kid Chocolate, Robinson.

Do I believe all fighters of the 60's and earlier beat all fighters today? No.

Do I believe all "modern" fighters beat all fighters from the 60's and before? No.

Case-by-case basis.

I do believe that we tend to generalize too much. For example, I see alot of Johnson's footwork, hand positioning, combinations (watch him fire uppercut/hooks with leverage, short jab/cross/hooks inside, and 1-2), feinting, and defense to be similar to what I see today. In some cases, quite better. In some cases - worse or more awkward.

Other fighters of that era or up to the 60's....Kid Chocolate, Robinson, Jofre, Napoles, Tunney, Dempsey, ....same issue. Much better than given credit for and sometimes better than fighters today...worse on other things.

I think we tend to forget just how average HWTs can be, especially today.

Take a look at Peter-Maskaev.

Peace.

 

Floyd Mayweather Jr would have a good chance at getting a stoppage over Jack Johnson.

 

dsimon writes:

The biggest difference is the most important though. The footwork, feinting and grappling skills that were part of fighting that are lost now. You say that guys fight inside today but in the heavyweight division I can't think of one guy who knowlegably employs these techniques Donny.

 

John Ruiz "employs" grappling technique and he sucks.

 

I know some wont agree here..

but if you have RJ

that's Roy's alter (more aggresive) ego..

he could possible destroy some of these old HW champs in 1 round

 

LOL , So I guessed he raced against all the top runners in every race he ran .... You know , I'm sure the best of the best just followed him around to be sure they ran against him....
I guess they had 50 lane track then ....

Idiot , you should die .... Stop beathing precious air and wasting tastefull food in your mouth ....

 

CYC and Jaws, knock it off. Last time. If you can't post without insulting each other, don't post.

 

Anyone with even an elementary grasp of heavyweight boxing history knows that Tommy Burns, even at the time, was a lame-duck champion.

Just figured I would point that out. Tommy Burns wasn't good, even for HIS era. ::

 

You know what? Heavyweight boxing today is so bad that I wouldn't count Johnson out.

Johnson, however, would not have heavyweight champion in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s. I'm a believer in learning from past guys and improving on their techniques. There will always be a guy ahead of his time, but that doesn't mean he would have the same impact on a later era.

 

Tommy burns would knock out Lemmon the loser in 3 rounds

 

this troll came into this thread saying something with the equivalent intelligence value of "Slugs produce blueberry's from their mucus" and this retard continuously initiates the insults and I'm being told to knock it off?

again, for the ump-teenth time, if someone says something that is that stupid and blatantly incorrect they need to be disciplined. This is something that is not debatable, handheld times are inaccurate in the runner's favor, every single person involved in track would not dispute this, the fact that CYC came in here insulting me from the start merits discipline

 

Sorry Jaws but you are the one who constantly follows me. Everyone knows this ... Weren't you already banned a couple of times for such things ??? I just figured I'd give you a taste of your own medicine in this thread.
As it is you already lost a bet where you were supposed to be banned for 3 months ....
Now go do us all a favor and go die already ... Loser ...

 

dsimon writes:

How do you know? You think it is absurd that Burns could be a champ today and yeah thats true, he wouldn't be a heavyweight. Think how absurd it is to assume that boxers hit harder today than yesterday. How so? What has changed? I can cotton to the argument that a guy who is bigger hits harder. Yes in certain fundamental respects size equals greater mass which affects force. Fair enough. So the argument goes guys who are bigger hit harder. Size is only one part of the equation but ok.

The thing about Fitz was that he was a heavy from the waist up. His upper body was bigger than Tysons. He devistated a lot of fighters with one punch power as well. So why is it so inconceviable that he hit as hard as Tyson?

 

dsimon writes:

you know everytime you comment even humerously you demonstrate the extent of your knowledge of combat. I thought you were a purple belt Gracie, but this is getting harder to believe by the post.::


Ruiz hugs, so do the rest of the palookas that go for the heavyweight division now a days. They do not fight, punch, control from the inside. There is a big difference. Its how the gracies neutralize a puncher By the way!

 

:notallthere:

 

dsimon writes:

Donny does a much better job and is flaweless as a diplomat when it comes to gently pointing out your lack of fundamental logic and your idiocycratic hyperbolic nonsense that substitutes for such. I am neither as charitable in this regard, nor as tolerant.

Again, lets do a line to demonstrate the point ok simple minded one?

________________________________________________________

The following line demonstrates the time when modern human beings evolved to the present. Cro Magnon prehistory roughly to today. Lets say people have been punching each other for most of that time.... a pretty good assumption.... that would look like this:

_______________________________________________________

Assuming for a couple of hundred years or so people lived in total bliss and did not punch each other ok?

Now lets see how much the mechanics of punching have improved in allllllllll that time to the present. Here is what you would say simpleton:

No improvement no improvement no improvement etc etc etc_____

Until we get to some very small fraction of the line that could not even be graphed and then suddenly human beings could hit each other harder...._

Something like that. _ Again. even smaller actually, much smaller.

Now if you don't see a problem with that you should be teaching retards its that simple. Here is why:

If people improved at the rate you site consistently then people presumably were powder fists for most of our history and could not even throw a punch. Thats how it would have to be for humans to be able to punch harder in the last hundred years.... think about it.

Or, Something happened genetically that suddenly changed human beings quite fundamentally I may add. That obviously has not happened yet. Unless you think, quite incorrectly that Lennox Lewis and Klitschko somehow represent an evolutionary leap, and there is hardly a basis for this. There is no indication that either man was superior in some fundamental way to champions in the past.

So now I have broken it down and drew pictures for you. If you don't get it now you never will. Its that simple. Vis a vis there is nothing ilogical about a champion like Fitsimmons who dropped guys regularly being able to hit as hard as Tyson. :notallthere: :notallthere: Live and learn dude, you really should know better. Its sad. I hope you don't teach science.

 

I have already acknowledged that CYC initiatied it by calling you an "idiot" on page 2.

That said, you BOTH have continued to take it to Smacktalk levels - and before he called you a name, you said he "knew nothing." Not a reason for him to actually call you a name, but you certainly weren't the most cordial in your response to his opinion, which was completely neutral and devoid of offense.

For the "umpteenth time", how informed or ignorant a person's post is does not determine whether they are to be 'disciplined' or insulted.

An opinion - no matter of what quality - is an OPINION, and as long as it follows forum rules, it is legitimate.

An uninformed opinion - or simply one that is different from yours - does not give you the right to insult the person.

You can disagree vehemently with it and say so, but at no time are you allowed to make it personal and insult a fellow poster simply because you disagree.

Lastly...it is not your place to "discipline" anyone.

I feel like I'm explaining things to my 9-year-old every time you people whine and bitch and complain about being reminded to keep it clean.

BOTH of you knock it off. Now.

Stop posting if you need to.

 

Dsimon, make your points and posts without the insults.

 

People have ran even longer than they have fought. And yet, people ran now so much faster than they did 100 yers ag it is ridiculous. People have also lifted weights forever, yet now they lift much bigger weights than before. Unless you are willing to assume that boxing invloves no physical skills, there is no logic in assuming that it hasn't changed as well.

Donny has never proven me wrong anymore than I have proven him wrong, we both have stats. The difference is, we have had good discussions, which apparently you don't like too much on this subject (usuallu I like and respect you as a poster btw)

 

I don't know man. Royce Gracie has pretty bad standing technique. Sakuraba basically cracked his legs in half with low kicks.

 

What he said was completely wrong, and only someone who knew nothing about track could say racism and bias made his time slower, or that he would be comparable with Donovan Bailey. So my comment about "knew nothing" is just a fact, not an insult.

This isn't even a middle ground type of thing, its an absolute know-nothing's attempt to come on and be condescending. That shit shouldn't fly, there was no humor, no anything, just an absolutely dimwitted and ignorant response followed by personal attacks.

Again, if someone initiates shit with me im gonna respond, as always, but when you let some dumbfuck who knows nothing about a subject and come on and be condescending with people who know what they're talking about its just wrong, w-r-o-n-g wrong. How could there be a dispute here, i just don't understand. I mean this might as well have been the conversation

person A: "Orchids are a type of flower"

person B: "I think orchids are people with less body mass"

person A: "No man, that is completely false."

person B: "LOL, You are an idiot, all you do is blab your mouth...your a fucking idiot and you constantly prove it."

Lets just stop there and apply logic to who is at fault and who should be the one disciplined for ignorant attacks.

 

dsimon writes:

people have lifted weights forever? ::

We don't know how any runner in the past would do if they had the bar raised. What if we found out tomorrow that people can run a lot faster? It is a psychological thing. Thats the nature of records and how they are broken. Do you honestly think you know for a fact that because of some nebulous concept of modernity that a runner at Marathon would lag behind his modern counterpart from kenya? :dunno: Think about it for a second. Why can a Japanese guy eat 51 hotdogs in 3 minutes when the record in 190 was 10? Its because people need a record to break to set a new record. People run just as well today as they ever did.

There are some sports where progress is in a straight line and many times that is because of social factors more than physical. Football players and baseball players used to be college kids and degenerates respectively, when serious athletes got in the game it changed and evolved ever since. You see a better class of athlete in these sports.

Listen before you become defensive you started with the :notallthere: smiley. Would it had been more appropriate for me to simply :flip: or :notallthere: instead of call you simpleton? If you dish it out take it, fair is fair.

 

dsimon writes:

Is this an insult?

"Ok Donny" :notallthere: :notallthere: Like as if we had been engaging in a debate for some time and my response to your point was :notallthere:?

I understand it is not a callable offense BTW, just a rhetorical question.