Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-23-2012, 01:35 PM   #121
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,352
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
How about meeting some of the best fighters in the world as champion? I'd argue that his most heralded defence outside of a completely shot Jeffries was Ketchel. That is a disgrace.

If the Ketchel /Langford fight was kosher, I would suggest that Johnson dealt with Ketchel considerably more emphatically than did Sam.
I think the Kaufman defence is respectable, Kaufman had one loss in 20 fights ,with 16 stoppages.

Johnson gained his greatest success before he became champ, and the public got on his case to defend against white hopes.
No doubt Johnson was happy to skirt Langford ,and the vanilla supremacists ably assisted him in doing so..
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-23-2012, 01:51 PM   #122
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,081
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

I quite like Kauffman as a defence too, but it's hardly something to shout about given that talent that was floating about.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 02:43 PM   #123
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,352
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
I quite like Kauffman as a defence too, but it's hardly something to shout about given that talent that was floating about.
I won't argue on that score , but did America want Johnson defending against the best challengers?
Or only the white ones? Because, if the US was happy for Jack to be champ, and defend against other blacks , how come the White Hope era ever started?
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 03:21 PM   #124
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,152
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey View Post
If the Ketchel /Langford fight was kosher, I would suggest that Johnson dealt with Ketchel considerably more emphatically than did Sam.
I think the Kaufman defence is respectable, Kaufman had one loss in 20 fights ,with 16 stoppages.

Johnson gained his greatest success before he became champ, and the public got on his case to defend against white hopes.
No doubt Johnson was happy to skirt Langford ,and the vanilla supremacists ably assisted him in doing so..
Yeah, but isn't it pretty well accepted the Johnson-Ketchel fight was a carry-job and that Ketchel deviated from the script? How much credit is due in that case?
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 05:07 PM   #125
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,352
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
Yeah, but isn't it pretty well accepted the Johnson-Ketchel fight was a carry-job and that Ketchel deviated from the script? How much credit is due in that case?
Its accepted by me.
I think Jack could have laid Stanley out whenever he wanted to. The film shows me that Ketchel was trying his best, but that Johnson was carrying him.So the credit is merited,imo.
My point is if the Ketchel /Langford fight was genuine, and bearing in mind there was only 6 months between the fights, Johnson showed a lot better than Langford did against the same opponent.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 06:02 PM   #126
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,152
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey View Post
Its accepted by me.
I think Jack could have laid Stanley out whenever he wanted to. The film shows me that Ketchel was trying his best, but that Johnson was carrying him.So the credit is merited,imo.
My point is if the Ketchel /Langford fight was genuine, and bearing in mind there was only 6 months between the fights, Johnson showed a lot better than Langford did against the same opponent.
I think Moyle's book pretty much says the Langford-Ketchel bout was another carry to build up interest in a rematch.

Ketchel just doesn't impress me as much as he does some folks, at least in his potential to do damage north of middleweight. And he was on the downside toward the end of his short life, supposedly a big fan of drink and opium. Maybe I just need to read more on him.

But take nothing away from Johnson he knocked him the **** out and could have done it much earlier.
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 06:35 AM   #127
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,104
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
I think Moyle's book pretty much says the Langford-Ketchel bout was another carry to build up interest in a rematch.

Ketchel just doesn't impress me as much as he does some folks, at least in his potential to do damage north of middleweight.
I agree. Some view Ketchel as a smaller version of Jack Dempsey. Really? The two films on Ketchel disagree. Ketchel wasn't very dynamic in the films. He lacks skills, ring generalship and fundamentals. I think he was perhaps the most over rated filmed boxer who today makes top 10 lists.


Remember the story of the fix in the Johnson fight came out after Ketchel's death. Johnson of course told a few tall tales in his day, claming the Willard fight was fixed which is a lie. If one watches the Flynn fight, one could argue that one looks fixed too until Flynn goes off script at gets DQ.

I prefer to view the Johnson's matches with Ketchel and Flynn for what they are, a heavyweight in his prime with skills who likes to clinch and doesn't take many risks in the ring matched vs. shorter and lighter men without skills.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 06:38 AM   #128
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,081
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Ketchel cleared out one of the most murderous MW divisions in history. It's insane to write him off as a fighter "without skills".
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 06:41 AM   #129
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,104
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
Ketchel cleared out one of the most murderous MW divisions in history. It's insane to write him off as a fighter "without skills".
Watch his flimed fight with Papke if you dare, and be honest if you think he has skills.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 11:40 AM   #130
guilalah
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 930
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

I think Jeffries is somewhat underrated.

I am impressed by Jeffries the wins Jeffries obtained in '99-'02, albiet not allways looking stellar. Sharkey made perhaps the fight of his life and Jeffries was hampered early by a reagrievated a left elbow injury; Corbett was judged to have performed his best since his challenge of Sullivan; Fitzsimmons (1902) was the most dangerous fighter at that time and was judged to have fought wonderously vs Jeffries. Ruhlin was a decent contender. I think getting the W's against this line-up would be good work for any heavyweight, on the supposition that they had developed in the environment of Jeffries time. And 03/04 Jeffries was judged to have improved further in defense, pace, footwork and punching form.

I think 1899/1900 Jeffries should be atleast considered a 'regular unleaded' grade of great; by 1903/1904 I think he was getting into a higher octane rating.
guilalah is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 01:05 PM   #131
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,352
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by guilalah View Post
I think Jeffries is somewhat underrated.

I am impressed by Jeffries the wins Jeffries obtained in '99-'02, albiet not allways looking stellar. Sharkey made perhaps the fight of his life and Jeffries was hampered early by a reagrievated a left elbow injury; Corbett was judged to have performed his best since his challenge of Sullivan; Fitzsimmons (1902) was the most dangerous fighter at that time and was judged to have fought wonderously vs Jeffries. Ruhlin was a decent contender. I think getting the W's against this line-up would be good work for any heavyweight, on the supposition that they had developed in the environment of Jeffries time. And 03/04 Jeffries was judged to have improved further in defense, pace, footwork and punching form.

I think 1899/1900 Jeffries should be atleast considered a 'regular unleaded' grade of great; by 1903/1904 I think he was getting into a higher octane rating.

I was rather dubious about Jeffries chin being so invincible, because it was never proved against big heavyweights.
After reading what a terrible beating Fitz gave Ruhlin, leaving him in a semi coma ,with blood coming out of his ears, the doctor being obliged to stay with him through the night ,I'm convinced, Fitz fought Jeffries twice ,yet Fitz never had Jeffries down .
I have to beleive his chin was like concrete.


Jeffries power I feel is overated, his stoppage of Ruhlin was a corner retirement and in a fight after Fitz had ruined Gus.

Likewise, Jeffries could not stop the considerably smaller Sharkey in two fights. a man Fiz halted with a one punch finish.

Jeffries was a precocious talent but if you dig a bit deeper into his record ,the names on it are for the most part, members of the slightly over the hill gang.The only top young man he beat who was prime, was Sharkey ,and he not only outweighed him considerably ,he outsized him in all departments.
Ruhlin had been ruined by Fitz, both the former champs Jeff beat Corbett ,and Fitz were on the downward slope,and coming out of extended periods of inactivity.

Goddard was 40 years old,Jackson was a physical wreck.

Jeffries early career is always accompanied with the rider ," he was only a novice at the time".Well, Ruhlin was 6-2-0 when he drew with Jeffries,and when Corbett came out of two years retirement to challenge Jeffries he had the same amount of fights as the young champion ,15.

Jeffries draw with the seasoned Choynski is commendable , but Choynski was conceding a whopping 63 pounds to Jeffries.
Jeffries is undeniably one of the giants of the old era,and that is precisely what he was to just about everyone he fought, a giant.
I don't think his abilities would translate too well into the modern era, where he would be a rather small heavyweight trading ,on his durabilty.
A recipe for disaster I feel. he makes the top 20 cut , but I can't put him in the top ten.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 02:14 PM   #132
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 39,875
vCash: 75
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
Watch his flimed fight with Papke if you dare, and be honest if you think he has skills.
Didn't you maintain Graham-Gavilan III was a Graham win even with the film pushed under your nose? Sorry if I'm mixing you up with someone else.
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 03:11 PM   #133
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,352
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
Ketchel cleared out one of the most murderous MW divisions in history. It's insane to write him off as a fighter "without skills".
Ketchel beats Papke 3 out of 4, Klaus,both the Sullivan twins.O Brien , one of the most skillful boxers of that era twice,Willie Lewis,and Hugo Kelly, loses just 4 of 60 fights ,[and one of them to the heavyweight champ,]scores 48 kos in his 51 wins, yet has no skill?
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 08:06 PM   #134
guilalah
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 930
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey View Post
I was rather dubious about Jeffries chin being so invincible, because it was never proved against big heavyweights.
After reading what a terrible beating Fitz gave Ruhlin, leaving him in a semi coma ,with blood coming out of his ears, the doctor being obliged to stay with him through the night ,I'm convinced, Fitz fought Jeffries twice ,yet Fitz never had Jeffries down .
I have to beleive his chin was like concrete.


Jeffries power I feel is overated, his stoppage of Ruhlin was a corner retirement and in a fight after Fitz had ruined Gus.

Likewise, Jeffries could not stop the considerably smaller Sharkey in two fights. a man Fiz halted with a one punch finish.

Jeffries was a precocious talent but if you dig a bit deeper into his record ,the names on it are for the most part, members of the slightly over the hill gang.The only top young man he beat who was prime, was Sharkey ,and he not only outweighed him considerably ,he outsized him in all departments.
Ruhlin had been ruined by Fitz, both the former champs Jeff beat Corbett ,and Fitz were on the downward slope,and coming out of extended periods of inactivity.

Goddard was 40 years old,Jackson was a physical wreck.

Jeffries early career is always accompanied with the rider ," he was only a novice at the time".Well, Ruhlin was 6-2-0 when he drew with Jeffries,and when Corbett came out of two years retirement to challenge Jeffries he had the same amount of fights as the young champion ,15.

Jeffries draw with the seasoned Choynski is commendable , but Choynski was conceding a whopping 63 pounds to Jeffries.
Jeffries is undeniably one of the giants of the old era,and that is precisely what he was to just about everyone he fought, a giant.
I don't think his abilities would translate too well into the modern era, where he would be a rather small heavyweight trading ,on his durabilty.
A recipe for disaster I feel. he makes the top 20 cut , but I can't put him in the top ten.
McVey, I do think that Sullivan might translate, cross eras, a bit better than Jeffries. Perhaps also Johnson, with his skill and cleverness. Jeffries had a great era-match, a time period where a durable and attritioning fighter got full mileage out of those attributes. And I do think Jeffries was a formidable attrition fighter when his physical equiptment was in good shape. I do believe an all there Jeffries could stop Tom Sharkey. Jeffries hands were common knowledge a mess in his first fight agaisnt Sharkey, and he aggrevated a bum elbow early in his defense against Sharkey (Sharkey, too, hurt his own shoulder, but only about 60% through the challenge). I can't give Jeffries a pass on the bad hands, as they were due to poor punching habits; I can cut him more slack for the elbow, as it was got from Roebler medicine ball brain fart. I do think the all there Jeffries of 03/04 would have stopped the Sharkey of '98 and '00, I think the '00 Jeffries was normally capable of stopping Sharkey. But I'm digressing a bit .... I do think prime, all cylinders firing Jeffries could lay on a beating, but I don't think he was an opportunistic KO puncher on the order of Sullivan, Dempsey, Louis, Liston, Foreman or Tyson, or sometimes Marciano too. So I'm not sure he translates quite as well into shorter rounds eras; I think he could have become a great in other times, but I think he would have needed to have more time to become a big force.
Also, valid question, does Jeffries resilliance translate against bigger elite punchers, guys nearer to his own size? No doubt, though, Jeffries was very tough, conditioned, and it was commonly remarked that he gaurded his vital spots well.
guilalah is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013