Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimboogie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
I'm a big Jack Johnson fan and reckon he could win this. He did struggle to get motivated for fights though.
A motivated Johnson would have been trouble for any fighter in history imo.
Even Larry Holmes said that he felt the only fighter in history who he would have struggled to beat was Jack Johnson.
Well Holmes must of been being nice to Johnson because no way Holmes would of struggled with Johnson he has very old boxing style that wouldn't work in newer eras Tunney by decision.
Have you ever even watched Johnson fight? Most fighters couldn't even lay a glove on him.
He was at least 50 years ahead of his time. If he would have lived and fought in another era he would have mastered the current level of boxing knowledge and built upon it again.
Do you think if Gallileo or Newton lived today they would be crap scientists and have less understanding of physics than the average high school student?
Of course not, they would absorb all of today's knowledge and build upon it. They would have been brilliant visonaries in any era, and so would have Jack Johnson.
Nice point but im not sure if Intelligence and Athleticism go hand in hand?
Athleticism wasn't what made Johnson great, it was a masterful understanding of the sweet science of the defensive arts. No matter what era he would have fought in his intuitive understanding of boxing would have made him a nightmare for anybody to face.
How anyone could possibly think his style wouldn't be any good today is completely beyond me to honest ???
Can anyone seriously imagine Sam Peter, Oleg Maskaev, Shannon Briggs and the like having a F****** cool about how to unlock his defense? He'd make most of today's heavies look silly.
I'd fancy his chances against any fighter who ever lived.
When did i say in todays era ?? i clearly stated i was on about 90s 80s 70s ect.
And he would lose to the following
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Muhammad Ali
Riddick Bowe
Lennox Lewis
Sonny Liston
George Foreman
Joe Louis
I'd fancy him to beat Tyson, Liston, Luis, Bowe and Foreman. Lennox Lewis and Ali would have been his hardest fights and Holmes. But I can't seriously see how you can think he wouldn't have lived in any of those eras ???
Johnson was the Ray Robinson of the heavyweight division. It's fighters like Johnson, Willie Pep, Ray Robinson etc who were the innovators and inspirations for all the fighters that came after them.
Johnson was light years ahead of his contemporaries.
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimboogie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
I'm a big Jack Johnson fan and reckon he could win this. He did struggle to get motivated for fights though.
A motivated Johnson would have been trouble for any fighter in history imo.
Even Larry Holmes said that he felt the only fighter in history who he would have struggled to beat was Jack Johnson.
Well Holmes must of been being nice to Johnson because no way Holmes would of struggled with Johnson he has very old boxing style that wouldn't work in newer eras Tunney by decision.
Have you ever even watched Johnson fight? Most fighters couldn't even lay a glove on him.
He was at least 50 years ahead of his time. If he would have lived and fought in another era he would have mastered the current level of boxing knowledge and built upon it again.
Do you think if Gallileo or Newton lived today they would be crap scientists and have less understanding of physics than the average high school student?
Of course not, they would absorb all of today's knowledge and build upon it. They would have been brilliant visonaries in any era, and so would have Jack Johnson.
Nice point but im not sure if Intelligence and Athleticism go hand in hand?
Athleticism wasn't what made Johnson great, it was a masterful understanding of the sweet science of the defensive arts. No matter what era he would have fought in his intuitive understanding of boxing would have made him a nightmare for anybody to face.
How anyone could possibly think his style wouldn't be any good today is completely beyond me to honest ???
Can anyone seriously imagine Sam Peter, Oleg Maskaev, Shannon Briggs and the like having a F****** cool about how to unlock his defense? He'd make most of today's heavies look silly.
I'd fancy his chances against any fighter who ever lived.
When did i say in todays era ?? i clearly stated i was on about 90s 80s 70s ect.
And he would lose to the following
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Muhammad Ali
Riddick Bowe
Lennox Lewis
Sonny Liston
George Foreman
Joe Louis
I'd fancy him to beat Tyson, Liston, Luis, Bowe and Foreman. Lennox Lewis and Ali would have been his hardest fights and Holmes. But I can't seriously see how you can think he wouldn't have lived in any of those eras ???
Johnson was the Ray Robinson of the heavyweight division. It's fighters like Johnson, Willie Pep, Ray Robinson etc who were the innovators and inspirations for all the fighters that came after them.
Johnson was light years ahead of his contemporaries.
Well its pretty easy why he wouldn't his style was of olden time boxing his style would not fare well against skilled hws of 70s 80s and 90s plus they are much bigger and no he wasn't the Sugar Ray Robinson of hw division Robinson didn't have olden time style he was skilled fast and powerful and had similar style to young generations of boxers bit like Ray Leonard or ect Johnson on other hand was skilled but really and truthfully his style is very old boxing style that would not fare well against fighters i mentioned Lewis would beat him down so would Ali and Foreman ect i don't see how you can think he would give them fighters tough time or even beat them boxing has come along way Johnson was excellent for his time but sport has moved on and his style against elites of 70s 80s and 90s he would get bad beat down im sorry to say.
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimboogie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
I'm a big Jack Johnson fan and reckon he could win this. He did struggle to get motivated for fights though.
A motivated Johnson would have been trouble for any fighter in history imo.
Even Larry Holmes said that he felt the only fighter in history who he would have struggled to beat was Jack Johnson.
Well Holmes must of been being nice to Johnson because no way Holmes would of struggled with Johnson he has very old boxing style that wouldn't work in newer eras Tunney by decision.
Have you ever even watched Johnson fight? Most fighters couldn't even lay a glove on him.
He was at least 50 years ahead of his time. If he would have lived and fought in another era he would have mastered the current level of boxing knowledge and built upon it again.
Do you think if Gallileo or Newton lived today they would be crap scientists and have less understanding of physics than the average high school student?
Of course not, they would absorb all of today's knowledge and build upon it. They would have been brilliant visonaries in any era, and so would have Jack Johnson.
Nice point but im not sure if Intelligence and Athleticism go hand in hand?
Athleticism wasn't what made Johnson great, it was a masterful understanding of the sweet science of the defensive arts. No matter what era he would have fought in his intuitive understanding of boxing would have made him a nightmare for anybody to face.
How anyone could possibly think his style wouldn't be any good today is completely beyond me to honest ???
Can anyone seriously imagine Sam Peter, Oleg Maskaev, Shannon Briggs and the like having a F****** cool about how to unlock his defense? He'd make most of today's heavies look silly.
I'd fancy his chances against any fighter who ever lived.
When did i say in todays era ?? i clearly stated i was on about 90s 80s 70s ect.
And he would lose to the following
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Muhammad Ali
Riddick Bowe
Lennox Lewis
Sonny Liston
George Foreman
Joe Louis
I'd fancy him to beat Tyson, Liston, Luis, Bowe and Foreman. Lennox Lewis and Ali would have been his hardest fights and Holmes. But I can't seriously see how you can think he wouldn't have lived in any of those eras ???
Johnson was the Ray Robinson of the heavyweight division. It's fighters like Johnson, Willie Pep, Ray Robinson etc who were the innovators and inspirations for all the fighters that came after them.
Johnson was light years ahead of his contemporaries.
Well its pretty easy why he wouldn't his style was of olden time boxing his style would not fare well against skilled hws of 70s 80s and 90s plus they are much bigger and no he wasn't the Sugar Ray Robinson of hw division Robinson didn't have olden time style he was skilled fast and powerful and had similar style to young generations of boxers bit like Ray Leonard or ect Johnson on other hand was skilled but really and truthfully his style is very old boxing style that would not fare well against fighters i mentioned Lewis would beat him down so would Ali and Foreman ect i don't see how you can think he would give them fighters tough time or even beat them boxing has come along way Johnson was excellent for his time but sport has moved on and his style against elites of 70s 80s and 90s he would get bad beat down im sorry to say.
I don't understand you at all? Johnson was lightyears AHEAD of his time so why would you think that if he fought in the 70's that he would fight the way people fought 50 years before ???
If Johnson would have fought in the 70's he'd have been an innovator then, fighting with a defense tighter than B Hop.
Again I go back to my previous analogy. If Galilleo lived today he wouldn't be studying the universe looking through a telescope built in the 1500's so why would you assume that Jack Johnson would be fighting as if boxing had only been invented 30 years or so before?
I'll give you a modern example. Look at Floyd. His defensive skills will doubtless inspire some of the best boxers of the next generation one of whom may well go on to improve his technique. Does that mean that if Floyd were to have fought in a future era that he wouldn't have been able to learn those skills? Of course not it's absurd to even think that. Floyd would have been just as talented in any era. He has the ability to master the boxing fundamentals and fight with the best possible defensive style for his era. If he fought in a different era where boxers had different styles he would have mastered a defensive strategy suitable for that era.
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
Bilbo has a good point Jack did have trouble becoming motivated for somwe fights but in Jacks defense a lot had to do with the fact even on his worst day the best of that era could not be decent sparring partners for the Galveston Giant.......
It was not until after a long long layoff and age Johnson was beaten soundly....When in shape and prepared Johnson was a 100 yrs ahead of his time.....Tough fight for 6 or so rds then Johnson imposes his will on Tunney for the win......
That is not meant to take anything away from Gene though...Tunney was a great boxer and tough as nails
Nice to see another Johnson fan :coolclick:
We also have to remember that when he lost to Willard he was stopped in the 27th round and was winning up to the 15th.
Under any rules post 1930's he would have won and nowadays there's probably not a heavyweight around who could even go 20 rounds let alone 27.
CC# 867.....And your right no HW hell I will go on a limb and say 95% of the guys today period could not go that long...And with the gloves they used as well...I don't see it
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
Bilbo has a good point Jack did have trouble becoming motivated for somwe fights but in Jacks defense a lot had to do with the fact even on his worst day the best of that era could not be decent sparring partners for the Galveston Giant.......
It was not until after a long long layoff and age Johnson was beaten soundly....When in shape and prepared Johnson was a 100 yrs ahead of his time.....Tough fight for 6 or so rds then Johnson imposes his will on Tunney for the win......
That is not meant to take anything away from Gene though...Tunney was a great boxer and tough as nails
Nice to see another Johnson fan :coolclick:
We also have to remember that when he lost to Willard he was stopped in the 27th round and was winning up to the 15th.
Under any rules post 1930's he would have won and nowadays there's probably not a heavyweight around who could even go 20 rounds let alone 27.
CC# 867.....And your right no HW hell I will go on a limb and say 95% of the guys today period could not go that long...And with the gloves they used as well...I don't see it
The only reason he lost that fight was going for the knockout,it was 105 degrees in the ring,and he just punched himself out,not to mention Willard was a counter puncher,who just started unleashing bombs on Johnsons body in the 20s
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Willard was a what?
;D I think your giving the big lump far far too much credit.
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Willard was a what?
;D I think your giving the big lump far far too much credit.
Don't knock Jess Willard. In his own way he was just as much an innovator as Johnson.
I'd go so far to say that if there had been no Jess Willard there would have been no Primo Carnera.
Even the great Nicolai Valuev owes a lot that former cowboy.
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Johnson knew the sweet science down to a tee. Johnson is over-rated but is till top 50 of all-time. If Johnson was motivated,in top shape and the fight was over 15 or 12 rounds Johnson would win a close UD. Tunney never thought some one who was as big as Jack Johnson. Tunney's style was perfectly suited to smaller brawlers like Jack Dempsey, i dont think he could deal with Johnson.
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimboogie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
I'm a big Jack Johnson fan and reckon he could win this. He did struggle to get motivated for fights though.
A motivated Johnson would have been trouble for any fighter in history imo.
Even Larry Holmes said that he felt the only fighter in history who he would have struggled to beat was Jack Johnson.
Well Holmes must of been being nice to Johnson because no way Holmes would of struggled with Johnson he has very old boxing style that wouldn't work in newer eras Tunney by decision.
Have you ever even watched Johnson fight? Most fighters couldn't even lay a glove on him.
He was at least 50 years ahead of his time. If he would have lived and fought in another era he would have mastered the current level of boxing knowledge and built upon it again.
Do you think if Gallileo or Newton lived today they would be crap scientists and have less understanding of physics than the average high school student?
Of course not, they would absorb all of today's knowledge and build upon it. They would have been brilliant visonaries in any era, and so would have Jack Johnson.
Nice point but im not sure if Intelligence and Athleticism go hand in hand?
Athleticism wasn't what made Johnson great, it was a masterful understanding of the sweet science of the defensive arts. No matter what era he would have fought in his intuitive understanding of boxing would have made him a nightmare for anybody to face.
How anyone could possibly think his style wouldn't be any good today is completely beyond me to honest ???
Can anyone seriously imagine Sam Peter, Oleg Maskaev, Shannon Briggs and the like having a F****** cool about how to unlock his defense? He'd make most of today's heavies look silly.
I'd fancy his chances against any fighter who ever lived.
When did i say in todays era ?? i clearly stated i was on about 90s 80s 70s ect.
And he would lose to the following
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Muhammad Ali
Riddick Bowe
Lennox Lewis
Sonny Liston
George Foreman
Joe Louis
I'd fancy him to beat Tyson, Liston, Luis, Bowe and Foreman. Lennox Lewis and Ali would have been his hardest fights and Holmes. But I can't seriously see how you can think he wouldn't have lived in any of those eras ???
Johnson was the Ray Robinson of the heavyweight division. It's fighters like Johnson, Willie Pep, Ray Robinson etc who were the innovators and inspirations for all the fighters that came after them.
Johnson was light years ahead of his contemporaries.
Well its pretty easy why he wouldn't his style was of olden time boxing his style would not fare well against skilled hws of 70s 80s and 90s plus they are much bigger and no he wasn't the Sugar Ray Robinson of hw division Robinson didn't have olden time style he was skilled fast and powerful and had similar style to young generations of boxers bit like Ray Leonard or ect Johnson on other hand was skilled but really and truthfully his style is very old boxing style that would not fare well against fighters i mentioned Lewis would beat him down so would Ali and Foreman ect i don't see how you can think he would give them fighters tough time or even beat them boxing has come along way Johnson was excellent for his time but sport has moved on and his style against elites of 70s 80s and 90s he would get bad beat down im sorry to say.
I don't understand you at all? Johnson was lightyears AHEAD of his time so why would you think that if he fought in the 70's that he would fight the way people fought 50 years before ???
If Johnson would have fought in the 70's he'd have been an innovator then, fighting with a defense tighter than B Hop.
Again I go back to my previous analogy. If Galilleo lived today he wouldn't be studying the universe looking through a telescope built in the 1500's so why would you assume that Jack Johnson would be fighting as if boxing had only been invented 30 years or so before?
I'll give you a modern example. Look at Floyd. His defensive skills will doubtless inspire some of the best boxers of the next generation one of whom may well go on to improve his technique. Does that mean that if Floyd were to have fought in a future era that he wouldn't have been able to learn those skills? Of course not it's absurd to even think that. Floyd would have been just as talented in any era. He has the ability to master the boxing fundamentals and fight with the best possible defensive style for his era. If he fought in a different era where boxers had different styles he would have mastered a defensive strategy suitable for that era.
Its totally different boxing has pretty much reached its limit like running Johnson has the old boxing style and you think he could beat modern greats who are much bigger and more athletic like Ali Holmes ect i'll give you an example prime Roy Jones was almost perfect in speed and power its totally different boxing has come along way since the old boxing in late 1800s to early 1900s
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Ice,Jack was between 6'1" and 6'3"
Now give him the same training techniques,and the same fighting techniques
A frightening thought
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimboogie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
I'm a big Jack Johnson fan and reckon he could win this. He did struggle to get motivated for fights though.
A motivated Johnson would have been trouble for any fighter in history imo.
Even Larry Holmes said that he felt the only fighter in history who he would have struggled to beat was Jack Johnson.
Well Holmes must of been being nice to Johnson because no way Holmes would of struggled with Johnson he has very old boxing style that wouldn't work in newer eras Tunney by decision.
Have you ever even watched Johnson fight? Most fighters couldn't even lay a glove on him.
He was at least 50 years ahead of his time. If he would have lived and fought in another era he would have mastered the current level of boxing knowledge and built upon it again.
Do you think if Gallileo or Newton lived today they would be crap scientists and have less understanding of physics than the average high school student?
Of course not, they would absorb all of today's knowledge and build upon it. They would have been brilliant visonaries in any era, and so would have Jack Johnson.
Nice point but im not sure if Intelligence and Athleticism go hand in hand?
Athleticism wasn't what made Johnson great, it was a masterful understanding of the sweet science of the defensive arts. No matter what era he would have fought in his intuitive understanding of boxing would have made him a nightmare for anybody to face.
How anyone could possibly think his style wouldn't be any good today is completely beyond me to honest ???
Can anyone seriously imagine Sam Peter, Oleg Maskaev, Shannon Briggs and the like having a F****** cool about how to unlock his defense? He'd make most of today's heavies look silly.
I'd fancy his chances against any fighter who ever lived.
When did i say in todays era ?? i clearly stated i was on about 90s 80s 70s ect.
And he would lose to the following
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Muhammad Ali
Riddick Bowe
Lennox Lewis
Sonny Liston
George Foreman
Joe Louis
I'd fancy him to beat Tyson, Liston, Luis, Bowe and Foreman. Lennox Lewis and Ali would have been his hardest fights and Holmes. But I can't seriously see how you can think he wouldn't have lived in any of those eras ???
Johnson was the Ray Robinson of the heavyweight division. It's fighters like Johnson, Willie Pep, Ray Robinson etc who were the innovators and inspirations for all the fighters that came after them.
Johnson was light years ahead of his contemporaries.
Well its pretty easy why he wouldn't his style was of olden time boxing his style would not fare well against skilled hws of 70s 80s and 90s plus they are much bigger and no he wasn't the Sugar Ray Robinson of hw division Robinson didn't have olden time style he was skilled fast and powerful and had similar style to young generations of boxers bit like Ray Leonard or ect Johnson on other hand was skilled but really and truthfully his style is very old boxing style that would not fare well against fighters i mentioned Lewis would beat him down so would Ali and Foreman ect i don't see how you can think he would give them fighters tough time or even beat them boxing has come along way Johnson was excellent for his time but sport has moved on and his style against elites of 70s 80s and 90s he would get bad beat down im sorry to say.
I don't understand you at all? Johnson was lightyears AHEAD of his time so why would you think that if he fought in the 70's that he would fight the way people fought 50 years before ???
If Johnson would have fought in the 70's he'd have been an innovator then, fighting with a defense tighter than B Hop.
Again I go back to my previous analogy. If Galilleo lived today he wouldn't be studying the universe looking through a telescope built in the 1500's so why would you assume that Jack Johnson would be fighting as if boxing had only been invented 30 years or so before?
I'll give you a modern example. Look at Floyd. His defensive skills will doubtless inspire some of the best boxers of the next generation one of whom may well go on to improve his technique. Does that mean that if Floyd were to have fought in a future era that he wouldn't have been able to learn those skills? Of course not it's absurd to even think that. Floyd would have been just as talented in any era. He has the ability to master the boxing fundamentals and fight with the best possible defensive style for his era. If he fought in a different era where boxers had different styles he would have mastered a defensive strategy suitable for that era.
Its totally different boxing has pretty much reached its limit like running Johnson has the old boxing style and you think he could beat modern greats who are much bigger and more athletic like Ali Holmes ect i'll give you an example prime Roy Jones was almost perfect in speed and power its totally different boxing has come along way since the old boxing in late 1800s to early 1900s
Ah mate you ain't getting it at all, Johnson didn't fight an old style he fought 50 years ahead of his time. He was an innovator he created his own style. If he had been active in the 70's he would still have been every bit as naturally talented and would have developed a defensive style to fit that era. How can you not see that?
Do you think if Jesus would have been born in the USA today he'd be wearing sandels and a piece of goats skin slung around him? He dressed like that because it was the style in that part of the world at that time.
Why do you insist that if Johnson fought in the 70's he would fight the way he did in 1910? He'd be fighting the way B Hop fights in this present millenium.
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
I don't know Bilbo, he was also a product of his time. No doubt he was ahead of his time, but I don't think he would have turned out the same if he didn't have a good pro to show him the the finer points of the ring. No doubt he was talented, he could hit and take a hit but he needed someone to help him develop right. I'm not discounting Johnson at all. Just ask any experienced trainer how many talented and skilled prospects that they've been known get mishandled and I'm sure they tell you of a few.
Hopkins is a good fighter himself but he's also a product of what he learned, you can't really make a good comparison between Johnson and Hopkins, they're two different people from one another.
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris N.
I don't know Bilbo, he was also a product of his time. No doubt he was ahead of his time, but I don't think he would have turned out the same if he didn't have a good pro to show him the the finer points of the ring. No doubt he was talented, he could hit and take a hit but he needed someone to help him develop right. I'm not discounting Johnson at all. Just ask any experienced trainer how many talented and skilled prospects that they've been known get mishandled and I'm sure they tell you of a few.
Hopkins is a good fighter himself but he's also a product of what he learned, you can't really make a good comparison between Johnson and Hopkins, they're two different people from one another.
Mate that is absurd. He 'learnt' if you can call it that from a veteran heavyweight who tought him moves whilst they were in prison for a month.
If you think he learnt and mastered the style that would make him one of the all time greats in under 30 days than you my friend are a buffoon.
When Johnson was around there were no masterful defensive fighters, he invented the style.
Any fighters who have fought in the last 40 years or so have the accumulated wisdom of a hundred years of professional boxing to draw from.
And if you think Johnson's 4 weeks inside was the preperation he needed to become a great it's worth reminding yourself that B Hop was inside for 6 YEARS and was a prison boxing state champion. He was coached inside for 6 years and fought other prisoners from all over the US.
Sorry but that was the most retarted post I've ever read.
No offense ;D
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Tunney beats him EASILY... he was a lot better, and I as well think Jack was overrated.
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris N.
I don't know Bilbo, he was also a product of his time. No doubt he was ahead of his time, but I don't think he would have turned out the same if he didn't have a good pro to show him the the finer points of the ring. No doubt he was talented, he could hit and take a hit but he needed someone to help him develop right. I'm not discounting Johnson at all. Just ask any experienced trainer how many talented and skilled prospects that they've been known get mishandled and I'm sure they tell you of a few.
Hopkins is a good fighter himself but he's also a product of what he learned, you can't really make a good comparison between Johnson and Hopkins, they're two different people from one another.
Mate that is absurd. He 'learnt' if you can call it that from a veteran heavyweight who taught him moves whilst they were in prison for a month.
If you think he learnt and mastered the style that would make him one of the all time greats in under 30 days than you my friend are a buffoon.
When Johnson was around there were no masterful defensive fighters, he invented the style.
Any fighters who have fought in the last 40 years or so have the accumulated wisdom of a hundred years of professional boxing to draw from.
And if you think Johnson's 4 weeks inside was the preperation he needed to become a great it's worth reminding yourself that B Hop was inside for 6 YEARS and was a prison boxing state champion. He was coached inside for 6 years and fought other prisoners from all over the US.
Sorry but that was the most retarted post I've ever read.
No offense ;D
Easy Bilbo, put the safety back on before you shoot someone's eye out with your with your opinions. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
When Johnson was around there were no masterful defensive fighters, he invented the style.
Are you saying that he came up with the feint, parrying and catching punches and moving all on his own. ??? I guess that guy's like Corbett had nothing on Johnson when it came to defense, and maybe you're thinking that Joe Gans (who was from Johnson's own era) was not on Jack Johnson's level of defense either. Here's a thought wasn't Corbett supposedly bring the age in boxing, particularly defense and new moves?
Here's a serious question, how much have you had to drink Bilbo? ;) No seriously here... I didn't mean to buy you another drink when I just made a simple point that maybe Johnson had to learn his boxing from somewhere? Is that really too hard for you to believe? Do you think that his moves were on account of some kind of immaculate conception? :lol: If that's the case then you're the buffoon and I'll I need 6 more beers before I can see what you're looking at.
Shall I continue?? :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
If you think he learnt and mastered the style that would make him one of the all time greats in under 30 days than you my friend are a buffoon.
Where did you come up with this part? I didn't say that Jack Johnson learned all his ring craft out of a 30-day crash course in the pen, every man needs his beginning. Aristotle had his Plato, and Jack Johnson just so happened to have Joe Choynski for a while.
Now was Joe Choynski just some 'veteran heavyweight' as you make to seem so nonchalant and not out of the ordinary? ;D He was one of Corbett's nemesi, he was as skilled as they come. And a more pleasing note, we can all thank Choyski's skull for forcing Corbett's hand in inventing the much celebrated 'left-hook.' :D
Since you've probably watched the Jack Johnson documentary in-numerous times then you know that the aged Choynski stopped Johnson in the 3rd round. Not bad for a old small Jewish heavyweight, I guess Johnson wasn't always as great as the pedestal that you place him on. Anyways after his '23' day stint behind bars Johnson was able to able to learn a thing or two from a guy that went head to head with the defensive master Corbett that you have made no mention of in your 'retarted' post. ;)
Am I getting though to you yet? Anyways have another beer to soften your ego and I'll finish this before somebody might start pissing and moaning and inventing more hilarious analogies to promote their overstated opinions. :)
Simply put, Jack Johnson was not the Jack Johnson that you've come to love before he met Joe Choynski. Now who knows what happened after that, but before that incident you and I know that Jack Johnson was a rough fighter that didn't have the moves that many have accredited to him. And we know all that bag of tricks, and those polished moves just didn't happen out of nothing.
Now are we seeing eye to eye on any of this? :P
Anyways with comparing Jack Johnson to Bernard Hopkins when I said they're too different people, I meant their respective styles although they also have simularties both in the ring and out. Your reminder accepted, but I should also remind you that Hopkins didn't have some immaculate conception when it came to boxing the way he does. Obviously there's over 40 years of boxing to draw upon which I should have brought up earlier, but Hopkins didn't invent boxing or the way that he boxes for that matter.
I'll say this though, they both had a spark, things clicked and they've shown that they both have a real knack for boxing. Jack Johnson really improved the moves such as feinting, blocking, moving in a way that best suited him, he didn't "invent" defensive boxing. But through his dedication and his best abilities he really made defensive boxing look good. He wasn't alone though, there were great men before him and there were great men after him. As for another fighter that seems ahead of his time take a good look at Joe Gans. ;)
Now I can't buy a drunk a drink, but maybe I can give you a CC and a taxi ride home, all of course after you've moved your big head from your a**.
You're right by the way, what a 'retarted post' :D
Should I rest my case? I'd still have Johnson to win over Tunney, so maybe, just maybe we can agree on something here.
No offense taken ;D
