Who actually beats Johnson at his absolute prime?

[Bronson66]

It's sounds squeamish, I know; but I personally watch for when debates go insulting on message boards. I back off a little because I don't want to contribute (much) to any poster; well informed or not, purposely antagonistic or not; being driven away from the herd.
Why is this anything to care about for us, collectively?

Because an enormous amount of....lower tier intelligence persons exist on these boards. Finding people who know much about Boxing; especially the complex subset of Boxing history, is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
That's why the the History board, while the base for an infinitely better class of poster, is comparatively sparse.
The metaphor is eateries that use white table clothes I suppose. Less traffic, better cuisine.

Can we really spare anyone????????

Still and all; we do have to deal with some pretty hard heads, don't we?

Purposely antagonistic?

You might want to check out the Dome,and the thread dedicated to me.It's a hoot, and our mod describes it as a "great post"

[them_apples]

It's sounds squeamish, I know; but I personally watch for when debates go insulting on message boards. I back off a little because I don't want to contribute (much) to any poster; well informed or not, purposely antagonistic or not; being driven away from the herd.
Why is this anything to care about for us, collectively?

Because an enormous amount of....lower tier intelligence persons exist on these boards. Finding people who know much about Boxing; especially the complex subset of Boxing history, is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
That's why on the History board, while the base for an infinitely better class of poster, is comparatively sparse.
The metaphor is eateries that use white table clothes I suppose. Less traffic, better cuisine.

Can we really spare anyone????????

Still and all; we do have to deal with some pretty hard heads, don't we?

I love debating about boxing but not when it turns emotional. Then nobody learns. Nobody questions. Nobody has humility. It just becomes an argument and a waste of time

[QueensburyRules]

- - Y OP no define prime years?

JJ got beat plenty all through his career.

[Bronson66]

- - Y OP no define prime years?

JJ got beat plenty all through his career.

I'd say from1908 until 1912.
From Dec 1905 until July1915 nobody beat him.That's a pretty decent run imo.

[DeeMoney]

- - Y OP no define prime years?

JJ got beat plenty all through his career.

Depending on how long you like to deem a prime it could start as early as '03 with the Ed Martin fight, though I think late '05 or early '06 is probably more accurate though. Regardless, I think his prime has a clear end date and thats the Fight of the Century. He takes the next two years off after that, and only fights thrice over the next 4-and-a-half years. Prime clearly ends with FotC

[Bronson66]

Depending on how long you like to deem a prime it could start as early as '03 with the Ed Martin fight, though I think late '05 or early '06 is probably more accurate though. Regardless, I think his prime has a clear end date and thats the Fight of the Century. He takes the next two years off after that, and only fights thrice over the next 4-and-a-half years. Prime clearly ends with FotC

He was certainly never in the condition he was in against Jeffries ever again.

[DeeMoney]

He was certainly never in the condition he was in against Jeffries ever again.

Yeah, I think he kept winning after that, but taking into account his long time off and his advancing age I wouldn't consider him to be prime. The start of his prime is hard to pin down- its sometime after Choynski taught him how to box for certain, but exactly when.....

[Bronson66]

Yeah, I think he kept winning after that, but taking into account his long time off and his advancing age I wouldn't consider him to be prime. The start of his prime is hard to pin down- its sometime after Choynski taught him how to box for certain, but exactly when.....

He was probably as good as he was going to get after he thrashed Burns in1908 imo ,even then he added a further 14lbs of muscle to his frame afterwards.

[DeeMoney]

He was probably as good as he was going to get after he thrashed Burns in1908 imo ,even then he added a further 14lbs of muscle to his frame afterwards.

Yeah, its hard to pin down an actual prime with older fighters where we have less information to go on (even if we have a better sample size), or even know if everyone is working with the same definition.
For me, I think there is a difference between peak (the absolute best you were for one or two fights) and prime- a stretch of roughly 3-7 years for most fighters where you are at your best and consistently producing at roughly the same in ring ability. Peak is fun, but doesn't really give you as honest of a picture of who a fighter was as it lacks sample size; Douglas had a great peak, but his prime was not so much.

[Willow The Wisp]

Purposely antagonistic?

You might want to check out the Dome,and the thread dedicated to me.It's a hoot, and our mod describes it as a "great post"

Well Bronson66; You, I like.