Who actually beats Johnson at his absolute prime?

[them_apples]

closer inspection of Johnsons style and temperament, he is one of the hardest fighters to bet against.

1: he's a master grappler, making him very very hard to hit flush

2: he's mean as hell, often holding opponents up, mocking them while beating on them, ensuring they walked away with a brutal beating and not letting them go down

3: he's quick as a cat and a master of hiding this until the last moment

4: his stamina combined with his energy efficient style made him a late round fighter

5: he's is completely fearless, probably due to his upbringing and temperament - to do what he was doing in his day means he lived only for the moment and had no fear of death

There is not too many ways to effectively beat him, you can't really get an offense going on a guy with the footwork, grappling and headmovement of Johnson (he rides and rolls shots like a master)

Sam Langford said he was so smooth and quick, and likely influenced his own style.

what do you all think, h2h, prime for prime vs anyone

[BKM-]

Loses to the tall movers with longer reach than him, they would just pepper him the whole fight. Ali, Holmes, Evander, Wlad. He wasn't used to that kind of opponent in his era. Would lose to the HW's who were strong grapplers themselves with a lot of firepower although he would also beat a lot of them, I think that's where he would shine against the more modern HW's. Would also lose to guys who could mix it up and do both like Lewis, Liston, Holyfield, Vitali, Fury etc.

[DeeMoney]

This is one of those instances, and I hate to play this card, where which eras rules are allowed, REALLY plays a big role in deciding the outcome.

Your first point in his greatness was his grappling, but that type of wrestling about would just get him losing points, and probably DQ'd, in more modern times.

Tyson Fury often got denounced for holding and hugging, Johnson did a lot more in his fights. Which is interesting because I always felt there was a similarity in the tactics used by the two of them.

[QueensburyRules]

closer inspection of Johnsons style and temperament, he is one of the hardest fighters to bet against.

1: he's a master grappler, making him very very hard to hit flush

2: he's mean as hell, often holding opponents up, mocking them while beating on them, ensuring they walked away with a brutal beating and not letting them go down

3: he's quick as a cat and a master of hiding this until the last moment

4: his stamina combined with his energy efficient style made him a late round fighter

5: he's is completely fearless, probably due to his upbringing and temperament - to do what he was doing in his day means he lived only for the moment and had no fear of death

There is not too many ways to effectively beat him, you can't really get an offense going on a guy with the footwork, grappling and headmovement of Johnson (he rides and rolls shots like a master)

Sam Langford said he was so smooth and quick, and likely influenced his own style.

what do you all think, h2h, prime for prime vs anyone

- - Haven't defined his prime years. He was beat plenty coming up, but got lucky with the baby versions of Langford, Jeannette, and McVey.

[MarbleFallsMauler]

This is one of those instances, and I hate to play this card, where which eras rules are allowed, REALLY plays a big role in deciding the outcome.

Your first point in his greatness was his grappling, but that type of wrestling about would just get him losing points, and probably DQ'd, in more modern times.

Tyson Fury often got denounced for holding and hugging, Johnson did a lot more in his fights. Which is interesting because I always felt there was a similarity in the tactics used by the two of them.

I think some of Johnsons grappling was due to carrying opponents to make the fight films long enough to sell and make some $$. If he ko'd guys early theatre's goers wouldn't pay for a 3 round fight. He and Ketchel had agreed on I think 10 rounds so that's how Stan caught him off guard for a second.

[them_apples]

- - Haven't defined his prime years. He was beat plenty coming up, but got lucky with the baby versions of Langford, Jeannette, and McVey.

Yeah prime Langford might get him. Langford might be the only one. Langford has speed, strength, skill, savvy, insane ko power and an iron beard, never tires. On top of that he’s a small target.

aside from him, Johnson - with the old rules of course, his style befuddles just about everyone

[them_apples]

I think some of Johnsons grappling was due to carrying opponents to make the fight films long enough to sell and make some $$. If he ko'd guys early theatre's goers wouldn't pay for a 3 round fight. He and Ketchel had agreed on I think 10 rounds so that's how Stan caught him off guard for a second.

He would hold guys up and beat on them cause he was mean, not to make the films longer. Knockouts sold back then too. Johnson was just straight up mean as hell. He liked beating on you.

[Bronson66]

Loses to the tall movers with longer reach than him, they would just pepper him the whole fight. Ali, Holmes, Evander, Wlad. He wasn't used to that kind of opponent in his era. Would lose to the HW's who were strong grapplers themselves with a lot of firepower although he would also beat a lot of them, I think that's where he would shine against the more modern HW's. Would also lose to guys who could mix it up and do both like Lewis, Liston, Holyfield, Vitali, Fury etc.

Johnson ko'd 6ft 3 1/2in in Denver Ed Martin who with his 80 1/2in reach was considered the best jabber of his era.

It's very difficult to know how Johnson's lay back ,block, and counter style ,would translate into today's era.

[BKM-]

Johnson ko'd 6ft 3 1.2in in Denver Ed Martin who with his 80 1/2in reach was considered the best jabber of his era.

It's very difficult to know how Johnson's lay back ,block, and counter style ,would translate into today's era.

Well since there's no footage of that fight it's hard to make the case he beat an opponent with the type of style I described earlier.

I didn't really see great movers with good jabs untill Gene Tunney, who I btw would also favor to beat Johnson. Not just only because of the movement on the outside but because Tunney wasn't that far away removed from Johnson's era and would have been familiar with Jack's grappling style in-close.

[Willow The Wisp]

It's been awhile since I've played fantasy boxing featuring an old timer. Harmless fun.
I've always held Johnson in very high esteem; both as a giant historical figure, helping the increasingly globalized world come to grips with parity amongst peoples of all kinds (in a not so subtle way), and as a fighter, possessed with unsurpassed instincts, reflexes, speed, athleticism, and what the youngsters today call "ring IQ".
Johnson's fights against the very best the world could throw at him in the personages of John "Klon***e" Haynes the "Black Hercules", Sam "The Boston Tar Baby" Langford, "Texas" Jim McCormick, Jim Scanlan, Billy Stift, "Mexican" Pete Everett, Hank Griffin, Joe Kennedy, Jack Jeffries, Frank Childs, George Gardner, Fred Russell, "Denver" Ed Martin, Sandy Ferguson, Joe Butler, Sam McVey, Claude "Black Bill" Brooks, Jim Jeffords, Joe Jeanette, Walter Johnson, Jack Monroe, Morris Harris, Joe Grim, "Young" Peter Jackson, Charlie Haghey, Billy Dunning, Peter Felix, Bill Lang, Bob Fitzsimmons, Charley "Kid" Cutler, Charles "Sailor" Burke, "Big" Ben Taylor, "Fireman" Jim Flynn, Tommy Burns, "Philadelphia" Jack O'Brien, Tony Ross, Al Kaufman, Stanley Ketchel, James J. Jeffries, "Battling" Jim Johnson, Frank Moran and others, demonstrated a superb natural instinct for combat in assembling a fine, fine body of work.
As a hobby outside of actual fighting, Johnson sharpened his conditioning and balance engaging in wrestling only matches, which provided him not only highly practical workouts, but sheer, punch-free pleasure. Johnson reigned during the correct time to do this, as Professional Wresting of the (mostly) real kind, saw it's high water mark between 1880 and 1914.
While living in Europe well into his tenure as champion, Jack found a very good side living winning and sometimes losing against some of the best grapplers on the continent, and in the long tradition of Vero Small (Samuel Hadley), Captain James Daly, Professor William Miller, Patty Ryan, Gus Lambert and many others before him, Johnson was, in addition to boxing, a skilled catch wrestler, competing against the likes of Willi Urbach, Jimmy Easson, Andre Sproul, Joe Rogers, Aimable de la Calmette, Fred Marcussen, Martin Zikoff, Charles Hansen, Rudolf Grüneisen, Iivari Tuomiso, Ernst Erlenkamp, Saki Hevonpää, Oswald Buchheim, Heinrich Lobmayer, Heinrich Weber, Buzovac Mourzouck, Paul Westergaard-Schmidt and Josef Smejkal, each among the best grapplers in Europe; and Johnson often won; showing a deeply developed athleticism in so doing.
In 1998, ESPN, located in Bristol, Connecticut, USA, finalized a $100 million purchase of the 16,000+ film library from manager, film editor and boxing impresario Bill Cayton, the owner of Big Fights, Inc, co-owned with his one time business partner, the late Jimmy Jacobs, and I was asked by then president George Bodenheimer to come in on a two year consulting contract to sort, catalog, restore and otherwise curate ESPN's massive library.
As it happened, as this enriching project was finishing up, I was contacted almost on queue by Englishman John Sheppard, in order to provide guidance on the construction of his own pet project, which would become BoxRec.com. That project would grow quickly utilizing existing resources and newer technologies for research, which had been my forte for many years. Soon enough, BoxRec would replace, for use by the common fan, the old Ring Record Book & Encyclopedia and the more contemporary FightFax, the original digital Boxing record keeper.
I mention these things in conjunction with this particular thread, on this beautiful Sunday in June, to warn fans and part-time researchers to avoid use of the partial records provided by BoxRec when assesing the quality of fighters within Johnson's pre WW I Era, as doing so presents a highly inaccurate account of fighters and their full record, and depth.
Now, as a (self proclaimed) erudite (Ha!) Fight film consuming fanboy accross the decades, it has occurred to me once or thrice, to compare Hall of Famer A with Hall of Famer B, and toss my conclusions into the wind of the silent forest.

My bold font comment, then, is this, Boxing Scene forums compadres:

If I make a grid. And I list 100 names down, and the same 100 names across. And I list who I believe are the 100 best heavyweights of all (modern rules) time from 1 to 100 in both the Vertical and Horizontal spaces.
And then, using my very best powers of deduction, detachment and wisdom to imagine each fight between the converging lines and rows, and I complete my grid; this is what I will discover:
Nobody on my grid list goes undefeated.
No one.
Not Johnson, nor Langford, nor McCarty, nor Dempsey, nor Louis, nor Marciano, or Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Klitschko, Fury or Usyk.

Jack Johnson, in conclusion, is found very near the top.

Of course; as has been pointed out to me many times on this and the other modern message boards; I don't know anything of great value about this sport.
So your guess is as good as mine.

But Johnson, set to 15 rounders under 21st century rules and regulations; would have beaten most.