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 10-13-2007, 10:58 AM   #46
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
Was Gunboat Smith a big puncher? I think this is an exaggeration. While Smith did KO men like Flynn, and Ross faster than Jack Johnson, where are his Knockouts vs the better heavyweights?

The record stats that Smith only had 39 Ko's in 81 wins. This equates to him winning 48.14% or less than half of his fights by knockout. If I were calculate his true KO percentage until 1917 ( Smith went into a tail spin around this time ) , and add the losses and draws, it’s even lower.

If Willard really thought Smith could punch ( Please back this up Mcvey, as your humor seemed to be hit or miss ) then he's in trouble vs the better punchers. As I said before the two best punchers Willard fought stopped him inside of 8 rounds, he quit once, and could be out pointed.
Gunboat Smith had a real two toned career. Up through his fight with Pelkey, he scored 36 knockouts in 53 fights (according to the 1976 Ring Record Book)-After the Pelkey fight, he scored 3 knockouts in 68 fights, to reach a total of 39 in 121 fights.


While Jeffries obviously in most ways has by far the more impressive career, Willard was known to be a man who often dawdled through a fight if he could, not extending himself. But there are issues about the two which are intriguing.
1. Did Willard defeat a fighter as big or nearly as big as Jeffries and as skilled or even more skilled?--Well, yes, Jack Johnson.
2. Did Willard defeat a young fighter as big or close to as big as Jeffries who was considered very athletically gifted?--Well, yes, Luther McCarty.
3. Did Willard defeat a man as big or even bigger than Jeffries who was known for strength and roughhouse tactics?--Well, yes, Carl Morris.
4. Did Jeffries defeat anyone in even the same ballpark as Willard in size and strength?--Well, no.

Last edited by OLD FOGEY; 10-13-2007 at 11:21 AM.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-13-2007, 11:16 AM   #47
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,886
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

Quote:
OLD FOGEYGunboat Smith had a real two toned career. Up through his fight with Pelky, he scored 36 knockouts in 53 fights (according to the 1976 Ring Record Book)-After the Pelkey fight, he scored 3 knockouts in 68 fights, to reach a total of 39 in 121 fights.


While Jeffries obviously in most ways has by far the more impressive career, Willard was known to be a man who often dawdled through a fight if he could, not extending himself. But there are issues about the two which are intriguing.

1. Did Willard defeat a fighter as big or nearly as big as Jeffries and as skilled or even more skilled?--Well, yes, Jack Johnson.
>>But how old was Jack?

Quote:
2. Did Willard defeat a young fighter as big or close to as big as Jeffries who was considered very athletically gifted?--Well, yes, Luther McCarty.
While McCarty had something, he was not as good as he gets credit for these days. What about the other fighters Willard lost decisions to or extended?

Quote:
3. Did Willard defeat a man as big or even bigger than Jeffries who was known for strength and roughhouse tactics?--Well, yes, Carl Morris.
>>What about the Fripo fight? He was Jeffries size. I guess the same point applies here too. Willard was too old.

Quote:
4. Did Jeffries defeat anyone in even the same ballpark as Willard in size and strength?--Well, no.
>>There was no one for him to fight Willard size, save Dunkhorst who was not that good and knocked out by Jeffries in a sparring sessions. Size alone will not determine this match. 240 vs 220 is not a huge difference. Jeffires could easily be 225-230 if he wanted to.

A big size and weight difference is 240 vs 200. However if the smaller man has a lot of power, giving up weigh becomes less of an issue. See Dempsey or Louis. While Willard would have the size edge, Jeffries would have the edge in brute strength. I think Jeffries hits as hard as Fripo or Dempsey, who had their way with Willard. While Willard was older, he was finished rather early in these fights. Jeffries has too much in terms of skills for Willard to beat him on points. I’d give Willard maybe 1 chance in 8 to beat Jeffires.


It is my observation that punchers have the hardest fights vs speedy boxer types. Even Dempsey, Louis and Marciano. It's true. However put a slower guy in there who is not great on defense, and it’s a massacre. I beleive Jeffries is the same. Corbett was tough to catch, but the bigger fighters Jeffries fought in Ruhlin, Munroe, Jackson, ect....did not last as long as the quick movers such as Corbett or Choynski.

My $.02 I might start a thread on this.

Footnote: Super heavy boxer punchers ( 6'4" 78" reach 220+ ) with skills easily beat smaller boxer types.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 12:35 PM   #48
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
>>But how old was Jack?



While McCarty had something, he was not as good as he gets credit for these days. What about the other fighters Willard lost decisions to or extended?



>>What about the Fripo fight? He was Jeffries size. I guess the same point applies here too. Willard was too old.



>>There was no one for him to fight Willard size, save Dunkhorst who was not that good and knocked out by Jeffries in a sparring sessions. Size alone will not determine this match. 240 vs 220 is not a huge difference. Jeffires could easily be 225-230 if he wanted to.

A big size and weight difference is 240 vs 200. However if the smaller man has a lot of power, giving up weigh becomes less of an issue. See Dempsey or Louis. While Willard would have the size edge, Jeffries would have the edge in brute strength. I think Jeffries hits as hard as Fripo or Dempsey, who had their way with Willard. While Willard was older, he was finished rather early in these fights. Jeffries has too much in terms of skills for Willard to beat him on points. I’d give Willard maybe 1 chance in 8 to beat Jeffires.


It is my observation that punchers have the hardest fights vs speedy boxer types. Even Dempsey, Louis and Marciano. It's true. However put a slower guy in there who is not great on defense, and it’s a massacre. I beleive Jeffries is the same. Corbett was tough to catch, but the bigger fighters Jeffries fought in Ruhlin, Munroe, Jackson, ect....did not last as long as the quick movers such as Corbett or Choynski.

My $.02 I might start a thread on this.

Footnote: Super heavy boxer punchers ( 6'4" 78" reach 220+ ) with skills easily beat smaller boxer types.
The bigger fighters you mention were all in the 180 to 200 lb class and Ruhlin in fact lasted twenty in the first fight.

I don't think Jeff was in the same league as Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano as a puncher. In 1941 Hype Igoe wrote an article in Ring Magazine on the big punchers, led by Fitz, Dempsey, Langford, and Louis among the heavyweights, with Jeffries very notable by his absence. Ted Carroll, in discussing Jeffries attributes compared to other great champions, listed durability, stength, and stamina, but notably left off punching power. Jeff went twenty rounds or more in 25% of his fights. He went 15 rounds or more in 30% of his fights. He went ten or more in 45% of his fights. Fitz, a great fighter, but a super-middleweight, showed more power against common opponents, Corbett, Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Choynski.
Jeff certainly had power, but I think it was second-tier power, closer to a Schmeling or a Holyfield than a Louis or a Tyson.

There weren't any Willards in Jeff's day, and that is a point I made in my original post. The heavyweight division of Jeff's heyday was small compared to the heavyweight's of the Willard era. Not only were there the men Willard fought, Johnson, Morris, McCarty, Firpo, but also Wills and Fulton, among the top big fellows. Even the second-tier men, Coffey, Cowler, and Palzer, were sterner tests than the blubbery Dunkhorst or Plaake, both of whom lost frequently to middleweights.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 01:27 PM   #49
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 23,486
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
The bigger fighters you mention were all in the 180 to 200 lb class and Ruhlin in fact lasted twenty in the first fight.

I don't think Jeff was in the same league as Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano as a puncher. In 1941 Hype Igoe wrote an article in Ring Magazine on the big punchers, led by Fitz, Dempsey, Langford, and Louis among the heavyweights, with Jeffries very notable by his absence. Ted Carroll, in discussing Jeffries attributes compared to other great champions, listed durability, stength, and stamina, but notably left off punching power. Jeff went twenty rounds or more in 25% of his fights. He went 15 rounds or more in 30% of his fights. He went ten or more in 45% of his fights. Fitz, a great fighter, but a super-middleweight, showed more power against common opponents, Corbett, Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Choynski.
Jeff certainly had power, but I think it was second-tier power, closer to a Schmeling or a Holyfield than a Louis or a Tyson.

There weren't any Willards in Jeff's day, and that is a point I made in my original post. The heavyweight division of Jeff's heyday was small compared to the heavyweight's of the Willard era. Not only were there the men Willard fought, Johnson, Morris, McCarty, Firpo, but also Wills and Fulton, among the top big fellows. Even the second-tier men, Coffey, Cowler, and Palzer, were sterner tests than the blubbery Dunkhorst or Plaake, both of whom lost frequently to middleweights.
very insight ful and objective post!
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 06:01 PM   #50
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,886
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
The bigger fighters you mention were all in the 180 to 200 lb class and Ruhlin in fact lasted twenty in the first fight.

I don't think Jeff was in the same league as Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano as a puncher. In 1941 Hype Igoe wrote an article in Ring Magazine on the big punchers, led by Fitz, Dempsey, Langford, and Louis among the heavyweights, with Jeffries very notable by his absence. Ted Carroll, in discussing Jeffries attributes compared to other great champions, listed durability, stength, and stamina, but notably left off punching power. Jeff went twenty rounds or more in 25% of his fights. He went 15 rounds or more in 30% of his fights. He went ten or more in 45% of his fights. Fitz, a great fighter, but a super-middleweight, showed more power against common opponents, Corbett, Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Choynski.
Jeff certainly had power, but I think it was second-tier power, closer to a Schmeling or a Holyfield than a Louis or a Tyson.

There weren't any Willards in Jeff's day, and that is a point I made in my original post. The heavyweight division of Jeff's heyday was small compared to the heavyweight's of the Willard era. Not only were there the men Willard fought, Johnson, Morris, McCarty, Firpo, but also Wills and Fulton, among the top big fellows. Even the second-tier men, Coffey, Cowler, and Palzer, were sterner tests than the blubbery Dunkhorst or Plaake, both of whom lost frequently to middleweights.
Many said Jeffires had great power. The hardest hitter they saw. Men like Rickard, Corbett, Diamond, Odd, and Keith said this. Jeffires record is not fattened up by journeyman like most other champions are. KOs are harder to come by as the competion increases in class.

Jeffries hit harder than Schmeling or Holyfield for sure. You took me by surprise with that comment.

Marciano needed on average over 9 rounds to win his title shots. He took Lowry the distance twice, Lastara the distance, and Charles the distance. If seems the better boxers gave Marciano trouble, but Rocky caught up to and Ko'd the slower fighters a bit easier..

Louis took a while to win in some matches, and other times went the distance. Pastor, Conn, Godoy, and Walcott gave Louis a lot of trouble. They were speedy boxer types. Big slow guys like Simon, Carnera, and Baer did give Louis much trouble.

Dempsey went some rounds a few times too, and also had some distance fights. Usually the quick boxer types such as Meehan, Tunney, and Gibbons gave Dempsey fits. But put jack in there vs a bigger / slower fighter such as Willard, Fulton, or Firpo, and its over soon. Can you smell what Im cooking?

My point on punchers having an easier time vs slower and less defensive targets is valid. Do you agree? Willard was a bigger and slower guy vs a more skilled puncher. Hes going to lose, and did lose vs the two best puncher he faced.

Ruhlin lasted 20...barely as he was down and out, saved by the bell. Besides Ruhlin was decent., and Jeffries had very few recorded fights under his belt for the first fight. In the title fight when both were in their primes, Jeffries hurt Ruhlin forcing him to quit inside 5 rounds.



If your interstested, I have an article on the white hopes of boxing being a sorry lot. The author says Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, and Jeffries would easily run the table on the entire lot of white hopes, which includes Willard.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 06:31 PM   #51
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
Many said Jeffires had great power. The hardest hitter they saw. Men like Rickard, Corbett, Diamond, Odd, and Keith said this. Jeffires record is not fattened up by journeyman like most other champions are. KO’s are harder to come by as the competion increases in class.

Jeffries hit harder than Schmeling or Holyfield for sure. You took me by surprise with that comment.

Marciano needed on average over 9 rounds to win his title shots. He took Lowry the distance twice, Lastara the distance, and Charles the distance. If seems the better boxers gave Marciano trouble, but Rocky caught up to and Ko'd the slower fighters a bit easier..

Louis took a while to win in some matches, and other times went the distance. Pastor, Conn, Godoy, and Walcott gave Louis a lot of trouble. They were speedy boxer types. Big slow guys like Simon, Carnera, and Baer did give Louis much trouble.

Dempsey went some rounds a few times too, and also had some distance fights. Usually the quick boxer types such as Meehan, Tunney, and Gibbons gave Dempsey fits. But put jack in there vs a bigger / slower fighter such as Willard, Fulton, or Firpo, and its over soon. Can you smell what I’m cooking?

My point on punchers having an easier time vs slower and less defensive targets is valid. Do you agree? Willard was a bigger and slower guy vs a more skilled puncher. He’s going to lose, and did lose vs the two best puncher he faced.

Ruhlin lasted 20...barely as he was down and out, saved by the bell. Besides Ruhlin was decent., and Jeffries had very few recorded fights under his belt for the first fight. In the title fight when both were in their primes, Jeffries hurt Ruhlin forcing him to quit inside 5 rounds.



If your interstested, I have an article on the white hopes of boxing being a sorry lot. The author says Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, and Jeffries would easily run the table on the entire lot of white hopes, which includes Willard.
I agree with several points you are making:
1. Real power is tested against world class opposition--running up impressive statistics against tomato cans proves nothing.
2. Jeffries has less fat on his record than any of his peers. He did not fight that many set-ups.
3. It is not clear at all historically that it is easier to knock out big men than smaller men. The smaller men have proven more elusive, and I don't believe there is even convincing historical proof that big men actually take a punch better. Did Fulton take a punch better than Gibbons? Did Firpo take a punch better than Miske?
4. The great sluggers of heavyweight history, Dempsey, Baer, Louis, Marciano, Liston, etc never ran into a ceiling above which they encountered men too big to be knocked out. All tended to do better against the big men.

The problem I would have with Jeffries is that he certainly often went a long way. 25% of his fights going over 20 rounds makes one wonder why a man with his vaunted athletic gifts and agility, as well as stamina, couldn't catch even fast-steppers if he had the power of a Louis or Dempsey or Marciano. And Sharkey was right there to be hit for 45 rounds.

No way we can solve this issue, but a fight with a peak Willard might have answered a lot of questions about Jeffries, and certainly one test one would like answered about a puncher is that he could and did prove himself capable of knocking out men as big as himself. Jeffries did not.

On the author who posits that Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, and Jeff would run the table on the White Hopes--but the white hopes were not necessarily even the best fighters of the teens, and he is comparing them with champions from a 25 year period. The top fighters of the teens were Johnson, Langford, Wills, Jeannette, McVea, and Dempsey, only then followed by Willard, Fulton, Smith, Moran, Morris, etc. I don't think any of these old champions would be favored to run the table against opposition like this and neither the 1880's or the 1890's had such a concentration of talent.

Last edited by OLD FOGEY; 10-13-2007 at 09:28 PM.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 06:31 PM   #52
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 23,486
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
Many said Jeffires had great power. The hardest hitter they saw. Men like Rickard, Corbett, Diamond, Odd, and Keith said this. Jeffires record is not fattened up by journeyman like most other champions are. KOs are harder to come by as the competion increases in class.

Jeffries hit harder than Schmeling or Holyfield for sure. You took me by surprise with that comment.

Marciano needed on average over 9 rounds to win his title shots. He took Lowry the distance twice, Lastara the distance, and Charles the distance. If seems the better boxers gave Marciano trouble, but Rocky caught up to and Ko'd the slower fighters a bit easier..

Louis took a while to win in some matches, and other times went the distance. Pastor, Conn, Godoy, and Walcott gave Louis a lot of trouble. They were speedy boxer types. Big slow guys like Simon, Carnera, and Baer did give Louis much trouble.

Dempsey went some rounds a few times too, and also had some distance fights. Usually the quick boxer types such as Meehan, Tunney, and Gibbons gave Dempsey fits. But put jack in there vs a bigger / slower fighter such as Willard, Fulton, or Firpo, and its over soon. Can you smell what Im cooking?

My point on punchers having an easier time vs slower and less defensive targets is valid. Do you agree? Willard was a bigger and slower guy vs a more skilled puncher. Hes going to lose, and did lose vs the two best puncher he faced.

Ruhlin lasted 20...barely as he was down and out, saved by the bell. Besides Ruhlin was decent., and Jeffries had very few recorded fights under his belt for the first fight. In the title fight when both were in their primes, Jeffries hurt Ruhlin forcing him to quit inside 5 rounds.



If your interstested, I have an article on the white hopes of boxing being a sorry lot. The author says Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, and Jeffries would easily run the table on the entire lot of white hopes, which includes Willard.
I see you come astern on your recent assertion that Jeffries kod Ruhlin in their title fight,after I called you on it,you didnt admit your error,par for the course, but have slipped it in now,partially correct,actually Ruhlins corner threw in the sponge between the 5th and 6th round,as a self appointed "historian",you should have known that ,but perhaps you did,just wanted to put your "little spin " on it.
You mention Gilbert Odd in your post,he is considered Englands premier boxing historian ,this is what he sais about Jack Johnson in the book "The Life and Times Of Jack Johnson,which I have before me."I firmly beleive that JOHN ARTHUR JOHNSON,born in Galveston,Texas,USA,on March31st1878,was the superlative exponentof the noble art among the big men that the world of boxing has ever seen.",this was written after Ali s reign .By the way Odd rated Dempsey and Louis as the hardest hitters ,NOT JEFFRIES,more spin?
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 06:33 PM   #53
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 23,486
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey
I see you come astern on your recent assertion that Jeffries kod Ruhlin in their title fight,after I called you on it,you didnt admit your error,par for the course, but have slipped it in now,partially correct,actually Ruhlins corner threw in the sponge between the 5th and 6th round,as a self appointed "historian",you should have known that ,but perhaps you did,just wanted to put your "little spin " on it.
You mention Gilbert Odd in your post,he is considered Englands premier boxing historian ,this is what he sais about Jack Johnson in the book "The Life and Times Of Jack Johnson,which I have before me."I firmly beleive that JOHN ARTHUR JOHNSON,born in Galveston,Texas,USA,on March31st1878,was the superlative exponentof the noble art among the big men that the world of boxing has ever seen.",this was written after Ali s reign .By the way Odd rated Dempsey and Louis as the hardest hitters ,NOT JEFFRIES,more spin?
And Rickard rated Dempsey NOT JEFFRIES as the hardest hitter.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 06:35 PM   #54
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 23,486
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
I agree with several points you are making:
1. Real power is tested against world class opposition--running up impressive statistics against tomato cans proves nothing.
2. Jeffries has less fat on his record than any of his peers. He did not fight that many set-ups.
3. It is not clear at all historically that it is easier to knock out big men than smaller men. The smaller men have proven more elusive, but I don't believe there is even convincing historical proof that big men actually take a punch better. Did Fulton take a punch better than Gibbons? Did Firpo take a punch better than Miske?
4. The great sluggers of heavyweight history, Dempsey, Baer, Louis, Marciano, Liston, etc never ran into a ceiling above which they encountered men too big to be knocked out. All tended to do better against the big men.

The problem I would have with Jeffries is that he certainly often went a long way. 25% of his fights going over 20 rounds makes one wonder why a man with his vaunted athletic gifts and agility, as well as stamina, couldn't catch even fast-steppers if he had the power of a Louis or Dempsey or Marciano. And Sharkey was right there to be hit for 45 rounds.

No way we can solve this issue, but a fight with a peak Willard might have answered a lot of questions about Jeffries.
Fitz didnt have any difficulty kayoing Sharkey.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 06:39 PM   #55
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,886
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey
I see you come astern on your recent assertion that Jeffries kod Ruhlin in their title fight,after I called you on it,you didnt admit your error,par for the course, but have slipped it in now,partially correct,actually Ruhlins corner threw in the sponge between the 5th and 6th round,as a self appointed "historian",you should have known that ,but perhaps you did,just wanted to put your "little spin " on it.
You mention Gilbert Odd in your post,he is considered Englands premier boxing historian ,this is what he sais about Jack Johnson in the book "The Life and Times Of Jack Johnson,which I have before me."I firmly beleive that JOHN ARTHUR JOHNSON,born in Galveston,Texas,USA,on March31st1878,was the superlative exponentof the noble art among the big men that the world of boxing has ever seen.",this was written after Ali s reign .By the way Odd rated Dempsey and Louis as the hardest hitters ,NOT JEFFRIES,more spin?
McVey, once again, stop trying to call me out. Its pie in the face time for you.
Ruhlin threw in his own sponge vs Jeffries in the title fight Would you like me to post the report? Say the word, and I'll color you stupid.

Quote:
Gilbert Odd said. " Jeffries was the strongest of heavyweight champions in build and hitting power.
There you have it.


There are plenty of good historians on this forum. I don't rank posters but rest assured I know a bit more than you on boxing.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 06:39 PM   #56
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 23,486
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
I agree with several points you are making:
1. Real power is tested against world class opposition--running up impressive statistics against tomato cans proves nothing.
2. Jeffries has less fat on his record than any of his peers. He did not fight that many set-ups.
3. It is not clear at all historically that it is easier to knock out big men than smaller men. The smaller men have proven more elusive, but I don't believe there is even convincing historical proof that big men actually take a punch better. Did Fulton take a punch better than Gibbons? Did Firpo take a punch better than Miske?
4. The great sluggers of heavyweight history, Dempsey, Baer, Louis, Marciano, Liston, etc never ran into a ceiling above which they encountered men too big to be knocked out. All tended to do better against the big men.

The problem I would have with Jeffries is that he certainly often went a long way. 25% of his fights going over 20 rounds makes one wonder why a man with his vaunted athletic gifts and agility, as well as stamina, couldn't catch even fast-steppers if he had the power of a Louis or Dempsey or Marciano. And Sharkey was right there to be hit for 45 rounds.

No way we can solve this issue, but a fight with a peak Willard might have answered a lot of questions about Jeffries.
Jeffries doesnt have much fat on his resume ,true,he doesnt have many men in their prime on it either,his big wins over Corbett and Fitz were victories over older men who were coming back fron retirement, fights against prime men of comparable size would have ,as you say answered a lot of questions.Not Jeffries fault he got them when he got them,but imagine where he would be rated if he had taken Johnson on and beaten him before he retired.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 06:42 PM   #57
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 23,486
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
McVey, once again, stop trying to call me out. Its pie in the face time for you.
Ruhlin threw in his own sponge vs Jeffries in the title fight Would you like me to post the report? Say the word, and I'll color you stupid.

There you have it.


There are plenty of good historians on this forum. I don't rank posters but rest assured I know a bit more than you on boxing.
Two posts ago you said Jeffries kod Ruhlin,one post ago you said he stopped him INSIDE 5 rounds ,any more "alterations"?
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 06:45 PM   #58
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 23,486
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

Im not calling you out you fool ,Im exposing your bluster andbull**** for what it is ,the ramblings of a pedant who is a legend in his own mind.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 06:56 PM   #59
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,886
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey
Im not calling you out you fool ,Im exposing your bluster andbull**** for what it is ,the ramblings of a pedant who is a legend in his own mind.
Youre a real dumb ass McVey. So you think Ruhlin's seconds threw in the sponge. BS. Here's the fight report on Jeffries vs Ruhlin II, the title fight. Read it. You will see that Ruhlin quit on his own.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Or if you prefer, read Unforgivable Blackness if you have not already done so. It should be an orgy of a read for you. Be sure to check out Ruhlin vs Jeffries as the book says Jeffires nearly broke Ruhlin in two with a body shot, and Ruhlin quit on his own accord. That is it.

And no, I think don’t think I am better than anyone here. Once again, you have zip so you lie and make things up.

You're exposed as usual...... please stop calling me out. It does you no good. I'll spare you the embarrassment on what Odd said.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 07:01 PM   #60
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey
Jeffries doesnt have much fat on his resume ,true,he doesnt have many men in their prime on it either,his big wins over Corbett and Fitz were victories over older men who were coming back fron retirement, fights against prime men of comparable size would have ,as you say answered a lot of questions.Not Jeffries fault he got them when he got them,but imagine where he would be rated if he had taken Johnson on and beaten him before he retired.
You have a very good point here. Jeff can hardly be really criticized for not fighting someone of Willard's size as there was no one around in his time of that size with any ability. He could, however, have fought Johnson, which would have answered some nagging questions.
OLD FOGEY 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 01:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2015