Jack Johnson vs. Jeffries in 1905

And as for Fitz, if Jeffries had kod Langford and mcvey or even burns or maybe even Ketchell in 1908, (like fitz) the win would have meant something more. Even corbett was at least sparring contenders and had the wins (if dubious) over top contenders sharkey mccoy

 

I'm sorry B, I don't understand this.:huh

 

Jeffries sparred with Bob Armstrong a premier sparring partner of the times ,he also wrestled with Frank Gotch and Farmer Burns,and used Sam Berger for day to day sparring.

 

"After 1892 Jackson was unable to obtain fights.Past his prime,he was debiliated by fast living and probably even then tubercular.He taught boxing ,worked as a publican,toured as an actor in Uncle Tom,s Cabin,and boxed exhibitions.In March 1898,he was sacrificed to Jim Jeffries,who flattened him in 3 rds,and next year he suffered the 3rd of his losses in 37 fights,at the hands of a 4th rater in Vancouver.Money was raised to send him to Australia,where he toured with Fitzgeralds Circus,but was too ill to box."
This piece is an extract from Nat Fleischers "Black Dynamite".
"Regarded as the greatest boxer of his era, Jackson had met ,in Corbett,his equal,at least in cleverness.Those who witnessed the affair,were unanimous on two points,.Corbett was a far greater fighter than the American public had credited him with being,and that , Peter Jackson,had passed the meridian of his fighting days,success had gone to Peter,s brain,he had been living the life that an athlete could not afford to go through,without injury to his body."






I took this from Boxing Scene..
" Jackson stopped Jem Smith in 2 rds for the British Empire Championship,after this, in ,1892 he fought Frank Slavin,stopping him in 10rds,during this fight,however ,he suffered 2 broken ribs,which punctured his lung,this led to his tuberculosis."


They pose the question that Jackson was past prime even when he drew with Corbett seven years earlier.

 

1. Are you going to continously compare Jeffries to a Parkinsons sufferer? I mean seriously? You can't lose weight and show up with abbs unless you train it off. This is sounding like nothing more than excuse

2. How about Corbett - not a win in 6years, for some reason Jeffries supporters rate this win :huh

3. Yes he did, he had mixed feelings about fighting Johnson when he was in his pomp, he eventually took the fight and got owned. He could have taken it on in his pomp and ducked it

 

The double standard is obvious, Corbett hadn't got a win in 6years but had losses/draws in the interim, 33yo Corbett owns Jeffries for about 20rounds before wearing out and being stopped

Jackson was near deaths door when Jeffries stopped him

 

I agree there is a double standard invoked when assessing Jeffries career.
Supporters tell us Corbett was in fine form despite not having won a fight in 6 years,.Jackson had miraculously regained his form at 37[how they could evaluate that, being that he had not had a fight in 6 years is beyond me.] despite being alcoholic, and tubercular
Fitz was still in his prime at nearly 40.
The win over a 40 years old Joe Goddard is noteworthy etc.
Yet a 35 years old Jeffries after a year and a half's training is a "dead man walking"
Make your case by all means, but be consistent.

 

We know the level Fitz was at 2 years earlier when he obliterated the top contenders. And he continued with at least decent success

Jeffries (like Jackson) had no before measurement. You surely understand the difference between 2 year breaks and 5 year breaks and also the difference between a break where you stay in shape and one where you let yourself go.

 

Obviously not. McVey, SQListonJab and Kaput are all seriously trying to make a case that the 35 year old Jeffries , 72 months out of the ring followed by a inadequate training camp, was anywhere near as strong in a boxing sense, as he was in his prime. Then they are trying to make a case that maybe he wasn't so strong in the first place despite the universal opinion of the time that he was the strongest heavyweight that ever lived ... it's kind of funny ..

 

Don't mistake me for someone who ranks Jeffries very highly. I give him credit for being a novice who had a steep learning curve but his best victories leave a bit to be desired as far as prime, heavyweights are concerned.

 

I wasn't being censorous, I didn't grasp what you meant.

What Fitz did 2 years before does not give us a line to his form then . Fitz developed a drinking problem I don't say he had it before he fought Jeffries the second time because I don't know.
Two years out of the ring at age 37 to 39 is not conducive to retaining your athletic abilities.Two years can mean many things,Fitz remained active after being beaten by Jeffries,He stopped O Brien in 1904, less than a year and a half later O Brien stopped him ,beating him handily in the process,and O Brien was no puncher. Below ,Fitz and O Brien

This content is protected

 

Whats "kind of funny ,"is that you accept these myths unquestioningly without asking for any evidence to confirm them.

I've told you I accept that Jeffries was a shell of the fighter he had been in his prime.
I've posted this opinion prevously several times.
What more do you want? An engraved stone tablet ?
Read all the accounts of Jeffries fights that you can find,[as I have.]
Pick out ANY that detail his strength ,and how he outmuscled,/manhandled / threw around ,ANY of his opponents.

Then post them here and I will give credence to this theory that he was possessing of extraordinary strength.
I'm happy to accept that this man at 28, was stronger than the 36 man opposite especially as at 218lbs he was 30lbs heavier than the 188lbs Corbett,his arms look bigger than Corbett's legs!

This content is protected

This content is protected

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/sports/year_in_sports/08.14.html


I am also happy to accept that he was stronger than the 39 years old 172lbs version of the man below, particularly as he was 27 years old and scaled 219lbs.

A 47lbs weight difference, and a 12 years age difference might have a bearing on this I feel, throw in the near 40 years old being retired for 2 years,and yes, I think I might have to agree with you Jeffries was stronger!atsch

This content is protected

[If I could be arsed, I would have dug out a photo of a 40 year old Fitz , instead of this one,but you have allready made your mind up what I am going to say before I say it, so what's the point?]


What I do entertain however, is that he might not be necessarily stronger than this man below.


If he was not, or if they were roughly on a par for strength, [and unlike Jeffries,there are multiple accounts we can draw on of Johnson outmuscling opponents and bulling them around], its not beyond the realm of possibility [at least to me] that the reason Jeffries had no success in the early rounds was because he was matched for strength ,not because he had lost all of his.

This content is protected

The average weight of Jeffries title challengers was 184lbs.
The average weight of Jeffries in his title defences was 218lbs.
Therefore, Jeffries had an average weight advantage of 34lbs over his opponents.

As Champion, Jeffries NEVER fought a man who was within 18lbs of his own weight.

Jeffries also had the advantage of a significant age discrepancy, add to that the inactivity of his two best challengers,[Fitz and Corbett].
This,[ to me at least,] is something to factor in when assessing his vaunted strength.


But you carry on accepting the tales of running with bull moose on his back , lifting cars up etc.And ,before you say you dont believe them , what am I talking about?


ASK YOURSELF THIS, WHAT PROOF HAVE YOU, EITHER IN FOOTAGE, OR WRITTEN ACCOUNT OF AN ACTUAL FIGHT , THAT DEMONSTRATES THIS STRENGTH OF JEFFRIES?

ps I think it's also ," kind of funny" you saying how Jeffries was" hunted".
Jeffries refused to talk to reporters for months he was totally inaccessible to the media. Johnson had a guy fire a rifle at him as he sat on the porch of his camp two days before the fight, that's , " being hunted".

I expect a curt , sarcastic reply saying yes well," wonderful and meaningless", from you,it's so much easier than addressing the facts isn't it?

 

And this meant little. In fact it hurt him as these guys were out of the game, or in the case of Burger seldom active. Corbett summed it up best. He said when he sparred with Jeffries in 1910, Jeffries lost the snap and power in his punches. But the real thing that bothered Jeffries was his old trainer Delaney. The two had an acrimonious parting while Jeffries was champion. Delaney was hired to help Johnson, and was in Johnson's corner for the fight. If anyone knew Jeffries well, it was Delaney.

 

Jackson past his prime for the Corbett match? You really go out of your way to make some white fighters of the time look bad.

Jackson was mentioned by Slavin to only being in stage 1 of TB when he fought Jeffries. As I showed you stage 1 has little effect on the individual. While Jackson was past his best at when he meet Jeffries, news reads say he was in top shape, and had regained his form. I have posted this before here. The match was essentially over in round two, so stamina had little play here. It was Jeffries power, and Jackson's mistake to mix it early.


When a top level fighter or champ in his prime year faces a washed up has been, it should be a short match, not 15 rounds. Since you have not likely seen most of the footage, I'll fill you in that Johnson unloaded many body shots and uppercuts before Jeffries gave in. He just waited until round 5 when Jeffries began to tire, and really went to work in the later rounds of the match.