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 02-21-2008, 10:30 AM   #46
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,116
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
While I think Nat would certainly think Jeffries fought better comp than Marciano (or Ali) given his old-timey leanings, he made this comment in 1950, so it did not include Marciano (or Ali).

Still, as best I can determine, Nat did not see Jeff or his competition in their prime. The first championship fight he attended was apparently Johnson-Jeffries in 1910. His is an interesting opinion, but I don't know if it should be given extra weight.

Do you think Jeffries faced tougher competition than Louis? Dempsey? Johnson? Dempsey and Johnson maybe, Louis no, but he did definitely clean out the division between 1898 and 1903 and only Johnson and Louis can also make that claim during the first half of the century.

One fact stands out when looking at Jeff's competition. The best opponents he defeated at the time he defeated them were probably Fitz, Corbett, Sharkey, and Ruhlin. Fitz knocked the other three out and actually looked better against them than Jeff did.
OLD FOGEY,

Nat had access to films, news articles, testimonials, and knew just about everyone in boxing. He saw the films of Jeffries vs Shareky II, Jeffries vs Corbett I, Jeffries vs Rhuhlin, and perhaps others. I’m sure Nat saw Jeffries work out at one time or another, most likely for the 1910 Johnson fight.

I am sure Fleisher also saw all Corbett and Fitz films too. Fitz vs Rhulin and Fitz vs Sharkey were filmed. And what he saw was 10x clearer than what’s left of the old films we are watching today.

Yes, I think Jeffries title fights with Sharkey, Corbett, and Fitzsimmons were a tougher than Dempsey's or Johnson's title matches for sure. Louis fought many people, so I would call that one about even. I tend to beleive Jeffries title opponents were had a bit more left in them, and were thought of to be better than Rocky's title opponents by those who lived in the era.

Fleisher himself was never a true fan of Jeffries. He was friendly with Jack Johnson, and had great admiration for Fitzsimmons.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-21-2008, 10:48 AM   #47
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
OLD FOGEY,

Nat had access to films, news articles, testimonials, and knew just about everyone in boxing. He saw the films of Jeffries vs Shareky II, Jeffries vs Corbett I, Jeffries vs Rhuhlin, and perhaps others. Iím sure Nat saw Jeffries work out at one time or another, most likely for the 1910 Johnson fight.

I am sure Fleisher also saw all Corbett and Fitz films too. Fitz vs Rhulin and Fitz vs Sharkey were filmed. And what he saw was 10x clearer than whatís left of the old films we are watching today.

Yes, I think Jeffries title fights with Sharkey, Corbett, and Fitzsimmons were a tougher than Dempsey's or Johnson's title matches for sure. Louis fought many people, so I would call that one about even. I tend to beleive Jeffries title opponents were had a bit more left in them, and were thought of to be better than Rocky's title opponents by those who lived in the era.

Fleisher himself was never a true fan of Jeffries. He was friendly with Jack Johnson, and had great admiration for Fitzsimmons.
Well, Nat certainly saw Jeff fight Johnson and probably watched Jeff work out. It is logical that he saw film of Corbett and Fitz in 1897. However, when Nat's evaluation of the 1890 to 1910 heavyweights was challenged by Jim Jacobs in the 1960's, Fleischer did not say he had seen better films in the old days, he said words to the effect that the films were from the stone age of cinema and did not give a fair representation of the old fighters.
Also, when asked about Corbett for the Murray Woroner radio broadcasts in the 1960's, he mentioned seeing Corbett spar in vaudeville, but not of seeing him on clear film.

Bottom line--It is difficult to say how available film was in Fleischer's early days, especially after the Jeffries-Johnson fight and the laws preventing the transporting of fight films across state lines. Saying Nat studied film is pure speculation. He never referred to such films, to my knowledge, and was as surprised as anyone when the Johnson-Willard fight was discovered in Australia in the early sixties.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2008, 10:57 AM   #48
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,116
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
Well, Nat certainly saw Jeff fight Johnson and probably watched Jeff work out. It is logical that he saw film of Corbett and Fitz in 1897. However, when Nat's evaluation of the 1890 to 1910 heavyweights was challenged by Jim Jacobs in the 1960's, Fleischer did not say he had seen better films in the old days, he said words to the effect that the films were from the stone age of cinema and did not give a fair representation of the old fighters.

Also, when asked about Corbett for the Murray Woroner radio broadcasts in the 1960's, he mentioned seeing Corbett spar in vaudeville, but not of seeing him on clear film.

Bottom line--It is difficult to say how available film was in Fleischer's early days, especially after the Jeffries-Johnson fight and the laws preventing the transporting of fight films across state lines. Saying Nat studied film is pure speculation. He never referred to such films, to my knowledge, and was as surprised as anyone when the Johnson-Willard fight was discovered in Australia in the early sixties.
Films such as Jeffries vs Sharkey II were in theaters for a while. The film was so poupular that Jeffries vs Shakkey III was on hold. Fleischer was a New York based boxing guy. He had to see this one.

Quote:
However, when Nat's evaluation of the 1890 to 1910 heavyweights was challenged by Jim Jacobs in the 1960's, Fleischer did not say he had seen better films in the old days, he said words to the effect that the films were from the stone age of cinema and did not give a fair representation of the old fighters.
It seems that Nat says he saw the films and called them stone age cinema.

I do know that Nat bought out the entire Police Gazette, which had very good boxing info before he became of age.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2008, 11:08 AM   #49
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
Films such as Jeffries vs Sharkey II were in theaters for a while. The film was so poupular that Jeffries vs Shakkey III was on hold. Fleischer was a New York based boxing guy. He had to see this one.



It seems that Nat says he saw the films and called them stone age cinema.

I do know that Nat bought out the entire Police Gazette, which had very good boxing info before he became of age.
There is some logic to Nat possibly seeing Fitz-Corbett and Jeff-Sharkey II, but he also would have been a boy at the time and perhaps overly impressed with boyhood heroes. And do you have a quote which proves he in fact saw them? Did he ever refer to these films? Without something like that, all this is speculation.
Jacobs took his films to New York in 1962 and had a public showing for the press. I read the accounts at the time with plenty of quotes from the veteran New York writers--one said "I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry" which was the title of the article. These writers comments showed they had clearly not seen films of the old timers such as Gans, Jeff, Fitz, Corbett, Johnson, Burns, etc.
Fleischer undoubtedly saw all these films at this time in 1962.

Last edited by OLD FOGEY; 02-21-2008 at 11:24 AM.
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 05:06 AM.


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