Grading Jack Johnsons reign

[JAB5239]

How do you grade Johnsons TITLE REIGN And why?

Tommy Burns - The smallest heavyweight champion in history. Not that Johnson can be blamed for fighting him, but not that impressive just the same.

"Philadelphia" Jack O'Brien - Johnson fought the great light heavyweight champion to a draw in his first defense.

Tony Ross - Was a 11-6-2, had lost 4 of 6 when Jihnson won a 6 round newspaper decision.

Al Kaufman - was 18-1 going into the Johnson fight but ended his career at 21-7.

Stanley Ketchel - Middleweight champions knocks Johnson down only to be knocked out seconds later.

Jim Jeffries - Great former champ who hadn't had a fight in more than 6 years.

Jim Johnson - 17-6-1, fought Johnson to a draw and was roundly booed for the lack of action.

Jim Flynn - Flynn is DQ'd for head butts, but had been on a 10 fight win streak since being stopped by Langford. Was 28-9-14 at time of fight.

Frank Moran - Lost 2 of his last 6 and was 21-6-2. Easy win for Johnson

Jess Willard - Johnson loses title to man many think to be the worst heavyweight champion in history.

It also needs to be taken into account that Johnson Avoided Sam Langford shamelessly.

[Barn]

I feel it's a C to be honest, I also feel JJ gets horribly over-rated. Call me crazy but, I think it's debatable to even have him in the Top 10 based purely on accomplishments.

[joseph5620]

How do you grade Johnsons TITLE REIGN And why?

Tommy Burns - The smallest heavyweight champion in history. Not that Johnson can be blamed for fighting him, but not that impressive just the same.

"Philadelphia" Jack O'Brien - Johnson fought the great light heavyweight champion to a draw in his first defense.

Tony Ross - Was a 11-6-2, had lost 4 of 6 when Jihnson won a 6 round newspaper decision.

Al Kaufman - was 18-1 going into the Johnson fight but ended his career at 21-7.

Stanley Ketchel - Middleweight champions knocks Johnson down only to be knocked out seconds later.

Jim Jeffries - Great former champ who hadn't had a fight in more than 6 years.

Jim Johnson - 17-6-1, fought Johnson to a draw and was roundly booed for the lack of action.

Jim Flynn - Flynn is DQ'd for head butts, but had been on a 10 fight win streak since being stopped by Langford. Was 28-9-14 at time of fight.

Frank Moran - Lost 2 of his last 6 and was 21-6-2. Easy win for Johnson

Jess Willard - Johnson loses title to man many think to be the worst heavyweight champion in history.

It also needs to be taken into account that Johnson Avoided Sam Langford shamelessly.

I give Johnson a B-. Avoiding Sam Langford is a factor in his grade as well as his struggles with smaller fighters. As far as the Willard fight, I don't take that into consideration at all. Johnson had everything stacked against him to lose in that fight and was still beating Willard easily for 20 rounds. The fight was ridiculously scheduled for 45 rounds based on the hope that the old fighter would fade. And that's what happened.

[IronDanHamza]

I feel it's a C to be honest, I also feel JJ gets horribly over-rated. Call me crazy but, I think it's debatable to even have him in the Top 10 based purely on accomplishments.

You're crazy.

[Barn]

You're crazy.

Do you think his resume is greater than the likes of Lewis, Holmes, Marciano etc?

[IronDanHamza]

Do you think his resume is greater than the likes of Lewis, Holmes, Marciano etc?

In my opinion? Absolutely.

Firstly, we're just talking about his title reign? Why? We know that he didn't get an oppurtunity to win the World Title much longer than he should have. We know this. Why not take into consideration the other title reigns he had other than the actual one that he had to wait for? We do for Langford.

Why are we chosing to forget his multiple wins over McVea, Jenette, Peter Jackson, Sandy Ferguson? Amongst other solid wins. Yes some of those were very green, but even with their lack of experience, some of them already had sold names on there resume after only 5 or so fights. Obviously things worked differently in the 1900's.

Langford gets credit for some of those names, why doesn't Johnson? Alot of those names went on to do very well and beat excellent fighters.

He ducked Sam Langford, we know this. That was bad. But that doesn't mean we should just discredit his actual win over Langford, green or not. He did beat him.

Fitzsimmons, obviously past his prime but still a solid name for his resume.

This is all before his title reign, a reign in which was atleast decent. No matter how much it's nitpicked. They way it's been nitpicked in this thread you could literally do with almost anyone. Ironically, ESPECIALLY with the names you mentioned (Lewis, Marciano and Holmes)

I don't get why its being nitpicked so much. I mean, we are going to throw his loss to Willard in there? Why? It's obvious what the intentions were in that fight that Joseph did an excellent job in highlighting.

I don't get why were putting the magnifying glass so closely on Johnson for, looking for every little weakness in his resume for some reason. By God could we do the same thing with Larry Holmes for starters, Sonnyboy has already done it to death with Lewis, Marciano we could easily pick apart just like what's been done here.

I'm not even a big fan of Jack Johnson. Infact, I'm not really a fan of his at all. I don't like how he acted outside the ring, personally.

But to say he's argubally not top 10? Absurd in my book.

But that's just me.

[joseph5620]

In my opinion? Absolutely.

Firstly, we're just talking about his title reign? Why? We know that he didn't get an oppurtunity to win the World Title much longer than he should have. We know this. Why not take into consideration the other title reigns he had other than the actual one that he had to wait for? We do for Langford.
Why are we chosing to forget his multiple wins over McVea, Jenette, Peter Jackson, Sandy Ferguson? Amongst other solid wins. Yes some of those were very green, but even with their lack of experience, some of them already had sold names on there resume after only 5 or so fights. Obviously things worked differently in the 1900's.

Langford gets credit for some of those names, why doesn't Johnson? Alot of those names went on to do very well and beat excellent fighters.

He ducked Sam Langford, we know this. That was bad. But that doesn't mean we should just discredit his actual win over Langford, green or not. He did beat him.

Fitzsimmons, obviously past his prime but still a solid name for his resume.

This is all before his title reign, a reign in which was atleast decent. No matter how much it's nitpicked. They way it's been nitpicked in this thread you could literally do with almost anyone. Ironically, ESPECIALLY with the names you mentioned (Lewis, Marciano and Holmes)

I don't get why its being nitpicked so much. I mean, we are going to throw his loss to Willard in there? Why? It's obvious what the intentions were in that fight that Joseph did an excellent job in highlighting.

I don't get why were putting the magnifying glass so closely on Johnson for, looking for every little weakness in his resume for some reason. By God could we do the same thing with Larry Holmes for starters, Sonnyboy has already done it to death with Lewis, Marciano we could easily pick apart just like what's been done here.

I'm not even a big fan of Jack Johnson. Infact, I'm not really a fan of his at all. I don't like how he acted outside the ring, personally.

But to say he's argubally not top 10? Absurd in my book.

But that's just me.

That's a good point and if we were including his other fights I would grade Johnson much higher than I did. I was only going by Jab's list of opponents.

[Barn]

In my opinion? Absolutely.

Firstly, we're just talking about his title reign? Why? We know that he didn't get an oppurtunity to win the World Title much longer than he should have. We know this. Why not take into consideration the other title reigns he had other than the actual one that he had to wait for? We do for Langford.

Why are we chosing to forget his multiple wins over McVea, Jenette, Peter Jackson, Sandy Ferguson? Amongst other solid wins. Yes some of those were very green, but even with their lack of experience, some of them already had sold names on there resume after only 5 or so fights. Obviously things worked differently in the 1900's.

Langford gets credit for some of those names, why doesn't Johnson? Alot of those names went on to do very well and beat excellent fighters.

He ducked Sam Langford, we know this. That was bad. But that doesn't mean we should just discredit his actual win over Langford, green or not. He did beat him.

Fitzsimmons, obviously past his prime but still a solid name for his resume.

This is all before his title reign, a reign in which was atleast decent. No matter how much it's nitpicked. They way it's been nitpicked in this thread you could literally do with almost anyone. Ironically, ESPECIALLY with the names you mentioned (Lewis, Marciano and Holmes)

I don't get why its being nitpicked so much. I mean, we are going to throw his loss to Willard in there? Why? It's obvious what the intentions were in that fight that Joseph did an excellent job in highlighting.

I don't get why were putting the magnifying glass so closely on Johnson for, looking for every little weakness in his resume for some reason. By God could we do the same thing with Larry Holmes for starters, Sonnyboy has already done it to death with Lewis, Marciano we could easily pick apart just like what's been done here.

I'm not even a big fan of Jack Johnson. Infact, I'm not really a fan of his at all. I don't like how he acted outside the ring, personally.

But to say he's argubally not top 10? Absurd in my book.

But that's just me.

Langford was fighting miles out of his optimum weightclass and was sometimes still horribly outweighed the same cannot be said for Johnson.

Saying Joe Jeanette was green is arguably the biggest understatement of all time, less than 10 fights in and still Johnson lost on one occasion due to a diqualification? Sam McVey also less than 10 fights into his career sometimes.

He also has unavenged losses to people like Hank Griffin, and didn't follow up his draw with the 168ib Obrien with a victory over him.

Before facing Johnson for the first time who had Jeanette beaten? The same goes for Mr McVey.

Yes, my estimation of Top 10 debatable was a deliberate exaggeration but, he would definitely be in the latter half of mine.

[JAB5239]

In my opinion? Absolutely.

Firstly, we're just talking about his title reign? Why? We know that he didn't get an oppurtunity to win the World Title much longer than he should have. We know this. Why not take into consideration the other title reigns he had other than the actual one that he had to wait for? We do for Langford.

Why are we chosing to forget his multiple wins over McVea, Jenette, Peter Jackson, Sandy Ferguson? Amongst other solid wins. Yes some of those were very green, but even with their lack of experience, some of them already had sold names on there resume after only 5 or so fights. Obviously things worked differently in the 1900's.

Langford gets credit for some of those names, why doesn't Johnson? Alot of those names went on to do very well and beat excellent fighters.

He ducked Sam Langford, we know this. That was bad. But that doesn't mean we should just discredit his actual win over Langford, green or not. He did beat him.

Fitzsimmons, obviously past his prime but still a solid name for his resume.

This is all before his title reign, a reign in which was atleast decent. No matter how much it's nitpicked. They way it's been nitpicked in this thread you could literally do with almost anyone. Ironically, ESPECIALLY with the names you mentioned (Lewis, Marciano and Holmes)

I don't get why its being nitpicked so much. I mean, we are going to throw his loss to Willard in there? Why? It's obvious what the intentions were in that fight that Joseph did an excellent job in highlighting.

I don't get why were putting the magnifying glass so closely on Johnson for, looking for every little weakness in his resume for some reason. By God could we do the same thing with Larry Holmes for starters, Sonnyboy has already done it to death with Lewis, Marciano we could easily pick apart just like what's been done here.

I'm not even a big fan of Jack Johnson. Infact, I'm not really a fan of his at all. I don't like how he acted outside the ring, personally.

But to say he's argubally not top 10? Absurd in my book.

But that's just me.

I think his title reign is c+ at best. Yet I have him at number 3 or 4 all time because of the rest of his resume.

[IronDanHamza]

I think his title reign is c+ at best. Yet I have him at number 3 or 4 all time because of the rest of his resume.

That's fair enough.

I give his reign a B to B-.

Including the rest of his resume to that I have him in the top 5 of my HW ranking.