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
