-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by undefeated
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.
larry has to realize--he cant hold ali's jockstrap--he could have struggled to beat Jack--which i believe he could beat johnson. but he could never beat ali--ali would make him look bad..
i also think tunney would win against johnson by an sd
What ?? thats just silly Holmes would of give Ali a very tough fight Ali struggled with alot lesser fighters than Holmes and a Holmes on form would give Ali a very tough fight Ali isn't unbeatable.
Well your the same guy who had Norton winning the Holmes fight so ;D
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
He was definately a fine specimen for that era.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by undefeated
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.
larry has to realize--he cant hold ali's jockstrap--he could have struggled to beat Jack--which i believe he could beat johnson. but he could never beat ali--ali would make him look bad..
i also think tunney would win against johnson by an sd
What ?? thats just silly Holmes would of give Ali a very tough fight Ali struggled with alot lesser fighters than Holmes and a Holmes on form would give Ali a very tough fight Ali isn't unbeatable.
Well your the same guy who had Norton winning the Holmes fight so ;D
hey--holmes is a legend, an all time great......but if holmes believes he coulda beat a 1964-1975 ali, he is surly wrong. holmes has the best jab in boxing history, but ali is an overall better fighter, hes quicker ,better footwork and a bit more accurate, not 2 take anything away from holmes-i think holmes could beat any other great just not ali--
i think a 60's ali was unbeatable---he would run circles around holmes win by a UD. would win 3 of 3 against holmes
a 70's ali who was not the same fighter after coming outta retirement---would win by a sd --would win 2 of 3 against holmes.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by undefeated
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by undefeated
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.
larry has to realize--he cant hold ali's jockstrap--he could have struggled to beat Jack--which i believe he could beat johnson. but he could never beat ali--ali would make him look bad..
i also think tunney would win against johnson by an sd
What ?? thats just silly Holmes would of give Ali a very tough fight Ali struggled with alot lesser fighters than Holmes and a Holmes on form would give Ali a very tough fight Ali isn't unbeatable.
Well your the same guy who had Norton winning the Holmes fight so ;D
hey--holmes is a legend, an all time great......but if holmes believes he coulda beat a 1964-1975 ali, he is surly wrong. holmes has the best jab in boxing history, but ali is an overall better fighter, hes quicker ,better footwork and a bit more accurate, not 2 take anything away from holmes-i think holmes could beat any other great just not ali--
i think a 60's ali was unbeatable---he would run circles around holmes win by a UD. would win 3 of 3 against holmes
a 70's ali who was not the same fighter after coming outta retirement---would win by a sd --would win 2 of 3 against holmes.
Your not talking about same Ali that got sd against Doug Jones and was dropped by Cooper and almost koed and he was near enough at his peak im not saying Holmes would win but he would give Ali alot of trouble.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
What ?? he would have to completey change his style because i've seen his fights and style he had you actually think he would get away with that in modern boxing ?? he would get beaten to a pulp and now your saying he would be 3 inches taller ?? no lets say he was born with same parents in same era as modern greats with his old style which is dated yes very dated just say he was taught different way how can you know for sure that he would be more affective im not saying im completey right either but what im saying how can you know for sure ??
I'll say it again, if Gallieleo had been born in 1940 he wouldn't need to put away his 16 th century telescope he would never have had a 16 th century telescope! He would have spent his entire career dealing with modern telescopes!
Your comparing this to boxing ?? thats completey different and you know it.
Ice,Im pointing it out for the third time now
Johnson was between 6'1" and 6'3"
In comparison Marciano was 5'10",and Tyson was 5'11",and Holmes was 6'3"
So how would Johnson have been too small?
It isn't about height its about build... He wasn't built like the guys have been from the 60's-90's.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Jackson was overrated compared to Tunney who was superior than him. Who did Jack Johnson fight? A couple of puny farm boys?
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
What ?? he would have to completey change his style because i've seen his fights and style he had you actually think he would get away with that in modern boxing ?? he would get beaten to a pulp and now your saying he would be 3 inches taller ?? no lets say he was born with same parents in same era as modern greats with his old style which is dated yes very dated just say he was taught different way how can you know for sure that he would be more affective im not saying im completey right either but what im saying how can you know for sure ??
I'll say it again, if Gallieleo had been born in 1940 he wouldn't need to put away his 16 th century telescope he would never have had a 16 th century telescope! He would have spent his entire career dealing with modern telescopes!
Your comparing this to boxing ?? thats completey different and you know it.
Ice,Im pointing it out for the third time now
Johnson was between 6'1" and 6'3"
In comparison Marciano was 5'10",and Tyson was 5'11",and Holmes was 6'3"
So how would Johnson have been too small?
It isn't about height its about build... He wasn't built like the guys have been from the 60's-90's.
???
Jack Johnson has long been touted as one of the finest physical specimens ever to step into the ring, have you been smoking something?
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
What ?? he would have to completey change his style because i've seen his fights and style he had you actually think he would get away with that in modern boxing ?? he would get beaten to a pulp and now your saying he would be 3 inches taller ?? no lets say he was born with same parents in same era as modern greats with his old style which is dated yes very dated just say he was taught different way how can you know for sure that he would be more affective im not saying im completey right either but what im saying how can you know for sure ??
I'll say it again, if Gallieleo had been born in 1940 he wouldn't need to put away his 16 th century telescope he would never have had a 16 th century telescope! He would have spent his entire career dealing with modern telescopes!
Your comparing this to boxing ?? thats completey different and you know it.
Ice,Im pointing it out for the third time now
Johnson was between 6'1" and 6'3"
In comparison Marciano was 5'10",and Tyson was 5'11",and Holmes was 6'3"
So how would Johnson have been too small?
It isn't about height its about build... He wasn't built like the guys have been from the 60's-90's.
Ummmm sahib,you might want to page through the thread a little further and look at the pic of Johnson I posted.
Even using turning of the century training techniques the guy was built like a freaking Sherman Tank
With todays techniques hed be unreal
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Jackson was overrated compared to Tunney who was superior than him. Who did Jack Johnson fight? A couple of puny farm boys?
He beat almost everybody of his time...do some homework first
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preme
never really rated jack johnson really, ok i havnt see a massive amount of the guy fight...
tbh tho i think hes only really a 'legend' coz he was the first black champion... as a boxer i didn't think he was anythign special, sure boxing was in its early form then, and has developed alot... but i dunno, just don't see anyhting about johnson...
Now tunney, he was a great and would of out out thought and out boxed JJ... tunney was one of boxings first inteligent boxers.. a thinker, i don't think he gets the credit he deserves sometimes coz of his style...
Actually alot of guys really studied what they were up to before Tunney,including Johnson,every one of those guys advanced the sport at their time
Johnsons footwork was light years ahead of what was happening at the time
I disagree Gene had a lot better footwork around the same time as prime Jack.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Its actually kind of hard to say when was prime Jack Johnson because he fought for so long.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Its actually kind of hard to say when was prime Jack Johnson because he fought for so long.
Tunney's prime was after Johnson got back in the ring after his legal issues,long after his prime,his prime was more 1910-1920
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris N.
Poor Bilbo. It can be a pain in the a** to get your point across when there going on besides the point. By the way I bet that you could keep dishing out more analogies as long as you want to. :)
And Ice, no offense bro, but it's just the principle that he's explaining through the analogy. ;) A great man in his own time would most likely be a great man if not a greater man in our own time.
Given the means that today's fighter have, coupled with his athletisism, and good use of technical boxing knowledge he would have brought a lot too the ring. I think given the means he could do well in any era, as well as today.
Like other great fighters before him he built upon the foundations of expertise that preceded him. If he was to make full use of today's resources I believe with all my understanding that he'd excell in today's day and age, even if he was the other era's of Dempsey, Marciano, Liston, Ali, and so forth he would be able draw from all the knowledge of that day.
It's just common sense really. ;)
Thanks bro have a :coolclick:.
Sometimes I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall trying to explain things to these young'uns but at least one person understood what I was saying.
It's interesting that Nat Fleischer the founder of Ring magazine and who had a chance to see not only Jack Johnson fight live but also all the greats upto and including Ali rated Jack Johnson as the greatest of them all ;)
Agreed its so hard to explain things to you oldies ;D
Nat would have been like 10-15 in Jack Johnson's physical prime which of course would make JAck look more impressive, and he missed Ali-Frazier 2, Ali-Foreman, Ali-Fraizer III which really raises his stock all time.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Its actually kind of hard to say when was prime Jack Johnson because he fought for so long.
Tunney's prime was after Johnson got back in the ring after his legal issues,long after his prime,his prime was more 1910-1920
He did start a little later maybe 1920-1930 was Gene, but he still was around the same era, and had a lot better defense than Jack. The video's of Jack were with such bad camera's that everything appeared quicker than it was on camera.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Its actually kind of hard to say when was prime Jack Johnson because he fought for so long.
Tunney's prime was after Johnson got back in the ring after his legal issues,long after his prime,his prime was more 1910-1920
He did start a little later maybe 1920-1930 was Gene, but he still was around the same era, and had a lot better defense than Jack. The video's of Jack were with such bad camera's that everything appeared quicker than it was on camera.
That was a wasted and done Johnson
Look at the pics from the Jeffries fight,in 1910 for the title,everybody was still fighting dead flat footed,Jonson was one of the first guys to actually get up on his toes and slip
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris N.
Poor Bilbo. It can be a pain in the a** to get your point across when there going on besides the point. By the way I bet that you could keep dishing out more analogies as long as you want to. :)
And Ice, no offense bro, but it's just the principle that he's explaining through the analogy. ;) A great man in his own time would most likely be a great man if not a greater man in our own time.
Given the means that today's fighter have, coupled with his athletisism, and good use of technical boxing knowledge he would have brought a lot too the ring. I think given the means he could do well in any era, as well as today.
Like other great fighters before him he built upon the foundations of expertise that preceded him. If he was to make full use of today's resources I believe with all my understanding that he'd excell in today's day and age, even if he was the other era's of Dempsey, Marciano, Liston, Ali, and so forth he would be able draw from all the knowledge of that day.
It's just common sense really. ;)
Thanks bro have a :coolclick:.
Sometimes I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall trying to explain things to these young'uns but at least one person understood what I was saying.
It's interesting that Nat Fleischer the founder of Ring magazine and who had a chance to see not only Jack Johnson fight live but also all the greats upto and including Ali rated Jack Johnson as the greatest of them all ;)
Agreed its so hard to explain things to you oldies ;D
Nat would have been like 10-15 in Jack Johnson's physical prime which of course would make JAck look more impressive, and he missed Ali-Frazier 2, Ali-Foreman, Ali-Fraizer III which really raises his stock all time.
Yes Taeth, you are correct. The great ring analysist and boxing hall of fame legend Nat Fleischer was unable to correctly evaluate a fighter's worth, despite living contemporary with many of the greatest heavyweights in history.
It takes a young causal fan like yourself to point out Fleischer's lack of knowledge and ignorance of boxing.
Thanks for sharing your wisdom with us humble folk on the boards.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Great clip :coolclick:
I love his beaming smile when he's fighting Tommy Burns and Jim Jeffries at the start, and when he holds Fireman Jim Flyn at arms length and punches him repeatedly in the face!
Nice little combo at the end too.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Great clip :coolclick:
I love his beaming smile when he's fighting Tommy Burns and Jim Jeffries at the start, and when he holds Fireman Jim Flyn at arms length and punches him repeatedly in the face!
Nice little combo at the end too.
Fireman earned that whuppin
There are certain times you think your getting under your opponents skin,when all your really doing is pissing him off,like Patterson refusing to call Ali anything but Cassius
Fireman was calling Johnson all kinds of racial crap all through the fight
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Great clip :coolclick:
I love his beaming smile when he's fighting Tommy Burns and Jim Jeffries at the start, and when he holds Fireman Jim Flyn at arms length and punches him repeatedly in the face!
Nice little combo at the end too.
Fireman earned that whuppin
There are certain times you think your getting under your opponents skin,when all your really doing is pissing him off,like Patterson refusing to call Ali anything but Cassius
Fireman was calling Johnson all kinds of racial crap all through the fight
Not to mention all those leaping headbutts. Amazing how restrained Johnson was to not retaliate.
Fly makes Sakio Bika and Edison Miranda look like amatuers.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Thanks Trainer Monkey. ;D :coolclick: That guy was tough and had a good sense of humor. The clip was great too, you can't tell me you can't even smile when you see Johnson's big grin with that music in the background. ;D
Johnson showed that he was tough and had class.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris N.
Poor Bilbo. It can be a pain in the a** to get your point across when there going on besides the point. By the way I bet that you could keep dishing out more analogies as long as you want to. :)
And Ice, no offense bro, but it's just the principle that he's explaining through the analogy. ;) A great man in his own time would most likely be a great man if not a greater man in our own time.
Given the means that today's fighter have, coupled with his athletisism, and good use of technical boxing knowledge he would have brought a lot too the ring. I think given the means he could do well in any era, as well as today.
Like other great fighters before him he built upon the foundations of expertise that preceded him. If he was to make full use of today's resources I believe with all my understanding that he'd excell in today's day and age, even if he was the other era's of Dempsey, Marciano, Liston, Ali, and so forth he would be able draw from all the knowledge of that day.
It's just common sense really. ;)
Thanks bro have a :coolclick:.
Sometimes I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall trying to explain things to these young'uns but at least one person understood what I was saying.
It's interesting that Nat Fleischer the founder of Ring magazine and who had a chance to see not only Jack Johnson fight live but also all the greats upto and including Ali rated Jack Johnson as the greatest of them all ;)
Agreed its so hard to explain things to you oldies ;D
Nat would have been like 10-15 in Jack Johnson's physical prime which of course would make JAck look more impressive, and he missed Ali-Frazier 2, Ali-Foreman, Ali-Fraizer III which really raises his stock all time.
Yes Taeth, you are correct. The great ring analysist and boxing hall of fame legend Nat Fleischer was unable to correctly evaluate a fighter's worth, despite living contemporary with many of the greatest heavyweights in history.
It takes a young causal fan like yourself to point out Fleischer's lack of knowledge and ignorance of boxing.
Thanks for sharing your wisdom with us humble folk on the boards.
Casual? I spend more time than almost anyone on here studying film, and actually fighting. I've been fighting since iwas little. I am not saying that he didn't know about the sport I am saying that when someone is young they over exaggerate fighters. I thought Jerry Rice was fast when I was young because he could break tackles, and always was open, but he wasn't fast at all by NFL standards. First of All he started the magazine in 1922 so who knows how into the sport he was 12 years before that, and second of all It's hard to compare fighters in the early years because nobody was on their skill level. Ali was in the deepest heavyweight division we have ever seen which would make him look worse in comparsion to his opposition than Jack. Also people think Jim Brown is the best football player ever even though he isn't even close to as good as Barry Sanders or LT at running back he is slower, not as powerful as LT at weight lifting, and played against lineman his own weight pretty much. Being before your time doesn't make you better than people who came around with a great crop surrounding them.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
well not to deviate, but Jim Brown with current weight lifting and training practices would still be one of the greatest RB's of all time.....5.2 yds per carry for a career and a 104.3 yds per game is pretty damn impressive against any competition....I'll tell you who is underated though is Gale Sayers...w/o the knee injuries he might have rewritten all of the records
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Its actually kind of hard to say when was prime Jack Johnson because he fought for so long.
Tunney's prime was after Johnson got back in the ring after his legal issues,long after his prime,his prime was more 1910-1920
Johnson would have been 32 in 1910, are you sure his prime was not before that?
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Its actually kind of hard to say when was prime Jack Johnson because he fought for so long.
Tunney's prime was after Johnson got back in the ring after his legal issues,long after his prime,his prime was more 1910-1920
Johnson would have been 32 in 1910, are you sure his prime was not before that?
You could make a case it started in 1905,but he allways had a title from then until the Willard loss in 1915,and didnt lose again in that decade
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
well not to deviate, but Jim Brown with current weight lifting and training practices would still be one of the greatest RB's of all time.....5.2 yds per carry for a career and a 104.3 yds per game is pretty damn impressive against any competition....I'll tell you who is underated though is Gale Sayers...w/o the knee injuries he might have rewritten all of the records
Not when your as big as the linemen of the time. People keep on saying using current training, and weight lifting, but a lot of the stuff they do the same as they always did. Mayweather trains old school, and he still brings a new form of athlete, same with Roy JOnes Jr. he was a farm boy, and he learnt how to box from his dad, but his core strength and everything wasn't built through weight lifting, but through doing pushups, sit ups, etc. He didn't even do weightlifting until he went up to heavyweight. Better athletes are being born at a higher percentage as time progresses. THere are a few exceptions along the way Robinson, Ali, Chamberlain, OJ Simpson, Brown etc. who were before their time.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Look man my pops and two uncles all played DI college football in the late 50's and early 60's, and one uncle would have been drafted had he not blown out his knee. They all attest that weight lifting and speed training was not done and this is at Oklahoma State University/Missipi State University not some scrub school. Hell my pops says that water wasn't allowed at practice so that players got tough. His senior year they got to have ice during practice, and that was a huge deal. Of my 3 close friends who played DI football they all had big gains in just about every athletic characteristic over their 5 years in college. A typical DI college prospect gains 10-20(lineman sometimes gain even more) pounds of muscle during a college career and sees big improvements in speed and strength. The science of improving athletes speed, strength, agility etc has come leaps and bounds since Jim Brown played ball. It is almost sickening the efforts even at the HS level (in Tx at least) that players go through to chop a tenth of a second off their 40 time or add an inch to their vertical. After the OC and DC most HC will tell you that their strength/conditioning coach is the most important guy on staff. There really isn't a correlation between training in boxing and football. No boxer would want to carry around the type of bulk and muscle required for the power and fast twitch muscle needed in football. I dont recall seeing 40 yd dash times, bench press and squats listed under any boxer's stats. Would Jim Brown have such awesome stats had he played in the 90's to present? Maybe not, but he would still be at the top of the list somewhere hands down.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Yoh its not just the science. PEOPLE ARE becoming better athletes. The 100,200 meters are being broken all the time, and sports atheltes are getting bigger, stronger, faster. I agree lifting improves on that, but my point with Roy Jones Jr. is that people are becoming better athletes regardless of superior training.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Yoh its not just the science. PEOPLE ARE becoming better athletes. The 100,200 meters are being broken all the time, and sports atheltes are getting bigger, stronger, faster. I agree lifting improves on that, but my point with Roy Jones Jr. is that people are becoming better athletes regardless of superior training.
But again Johnson wasnt just a superior athlete for his time,his figures match THIS time favourably
He had plenty of size weight,and speed and build to compete in any era
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Yoh its not just the science. PEOPLE ARE becoming better athletes. The 100,200 meters are being broken all the time, and sports atheltes are getting bigger, stronger, faster. I agree lifting improves on that, but my point with Roy Jones Jr. is that people are becoming better athletes regardless of superior training.
Mate PEOPLE arn't getting fitter or stronger. The vast majority of the population in America and the UK at least are fatter and more unhealthy than they were a 100 years ago.
As for athletics that has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with the greater quality of life we enjoy now allowing for a talented individual to devote themselves full time to the sport of their choosing, to have the best possible diet, trainers and sports supplements etc.
And anyway the 100 & 200 metre records arnt' being broken all the time. The last current record holder is Justin Gatlin got an 8 year ban for testing positive for steroids, same as Ben Johnson did, same as Tim Montgomery ;)
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
think my theard has gone off topic but after reading every reply i still go with tunney winning.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Firstly, CC to everbody who took part in this thread :coolclick:. It has been the most fun thread that I have read here in a long time.
I disagree with the few posts describing Jack Johnson as small. I remember visiting a web page listing the stats of all the linear heavyweight champions for height, weight, reach, neck girth etc. Jack Johnson's stats were amongst the most impressive.
To describe Jack Johnson as a "defensive fighter" is like calling a ferrari that is stuck in traffick a "slow car". He was so superior to his opposition that he used to play with them and the sporting crowd did not want to see Jack completely destroy opponents, so i don't think we ever got to see the best of him.
In terms of his fighting style, no doubt he would be very adaptable due to his build. Stocky fighters like Tyson,Frazier and Marciano can only fight one way due to their physical limitations. Johnson didn't have any physical limitations. He was the perfect build for a fighter.
I will further support Bilbo's assertion that Jack Johnson could adapt mordern techniques and strategies(By the way Bilbo you get a CC for your arguments :coolclick: ). After he retired he worked with several top fighters. How do you think Max Schmeling beat the unbeatable Joe Louis?
I admit that I am biased, as Jack Johnson is my favourite sportsman ever. I pick Jack Johnson to totally outclass Tunney and end the fight whenever he wanted.
Styles make fights and I only see a pre prison Ali, pre prison Tyson being able to beat him. None of the other stand up straight fighters mentioned in the other posts would be able to beat him.
Chris, i diisagreed with some of your arguments, but you argued them so well and supported them with examples that you earned your CC :coolclick: .
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Yoh its not just the science. PEOPLE ARE becoming better athletes. The 100,200 meters are being broken all the time, and sports atheltes are getting bigger, stronger, faster. I agree lifting improves on that, but my point with Roy Jones Jr. is that people are becoming better athletes regardless of superior training.
Mate PEOPLE arn't getting fitter or stronger. The vast majority of the population in America and the UK at least are fatter and more unhealthy than they were a 100 years ago.
As for athletics that has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with the greater quality of life we enjoy now allowing for a talented individual to devote themselves full time to the sport of their choosing, to have the best possible diet, trainers and sports supplements etc.
And anyway the 100 & 200 metre records arnt' being broken all the time. The last current record holder is Justin Gatlin got an 8 year ban for testing positive for steroids, same as Ben Johnson did, same as Tim Montgomery ;)
DO you follow track? If not then you don't know what your talking about because people have been breaking records the past few years at both distances. It is not just the greater quality of life that is making these athletes... Its the fact that the children of two good athletes are often better than their parents. One of the ways humans evolve(I've taken this in anthropology) is by becoming superior in each successive generation. There are kids who are getting fat because of the over abundance of food, but that doesn't mean they not more athletic than their skinnier parents. It just means they didn't work as hard.
Anyways getting back to the point Tunney was too slick for Johnson.
-
Re: Jack Johnson vs Gene Tunney
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob7022000
Firstly, CC to everbody who took part in this thread :coolclick:. It has been the most fun thread that I have read here in a long time.
I disagree with the few posts describing Jack Johnson as small. I remember visiting a web page listing the stats of all the linear heavyweight champions for height, weight, reach, neck girth etc. Jack Johnson's stats were amongst the most impressive.
To describe Jack Johnson as a "defensive fighter" is like calling a ferrari that is stuck in traffick a "slow car". He was so superior to his opposition that he used to play with them and the sporting crowd did not want to see Jack completely destroy opponents, so i don't think we ever got to see the best of him.
In terms of his fighting style, no doubt he would be very adaptable due to his build. Stocky fighters like Tyson,Frazier and Marciano can only fight one way due to their physical limitations. Johnson didn't have any physical limitations. He was the perfect build for a fighter.
I will further support Bilbo's assertion that Jack Johnson could adapt mordern techniques and strategies(By the way Bilbo you get a CC for your arguments :coolclick: ). After he retired he worked with several top fighters. How do you think Max Schmeling beat the unbeatable Joe Louis?
I admit that I am biased, as Jack Johnson is my favourite sportsman ever. I pick Jack Johnson to totally outclass Tunney and end the fight whenever he wanted.
Styles make fights and I only see a pre prison Ali, pre prison Tyson being able to beat him. None of the other stand up straight fighters mentioned in the other posts would be able to beat him.
Chris, i diisagreed with some of your arguments, but you argued them so well and supported them with examples that you earned your CC :coolclick: .
:coolclick: back.
