Jack Johnson vs. Jeffries in 1905

Obviously Jim Corbett was pretty far past his best when he first fought Jeffries in 1900.

His performance was lauded though, so he'd obviously got himself into excellent condition - mentally as well as physically. I'd rate him as closer to his prime than Jeffries was in 1910. Corbett 100% believed he could win, and had prepared accordingly.
But he was still a rusty and past-prime version of the man he'd been 8 or 9 years earlier.

In all likelihood prime Corbett would beat a prime Jeffries.

The Corbett who fought Jeffries in 1903 was washed-up beyond all recognition.

 

The writer posed the question that Jackson may have been past prime when he fought Corbett ,not me.

You know nothing about TB, I know a little, so shut the ****up trying to lecture me on it.

I lost two of my family to it. Jackson was tubercular and ,an alcoholic, he was 37 years old and had not fought in 6 years , stop trying to pretend he had somehow miraculously regained his form of 1892. " News reads say he was in top shape and had regained his form".
And they based this on what ?
Are you aware he did no sparring ,and only fought Jeffries because he was destitute? Jackson did not even weigh in, he gave an arbitrary ballpark figure of 195lbs, which was his prime weight,and it was accepted without verification.

I've seen all the Jeffries/ Johnson footage that survives.

Let's examine your position here, you contend that Jeffries at 35 was totally washed up ,but even so, held Johnson even in the early going.
No ringside papers agree with you but that's to be expected.
I produce multiple ringside accounts of the fight that state Jeffries only managed to win the 4th round of the fight, and most of them made it even.

You produce NO evidence to support your claim ,but again ,that is to be expected.
I produce the referees account of the fight.

He states . " Jeffries could not hit Johnson ,but Johnson could hit him when he liked"

" Johnson won as he pleased"


You produce NO rebuttal,again as expected.

I give you primary sources of ringside accounts and,several times ask for yours in rebuttal,you ignore the request.
I asked multiple times for your primary sources regarding you stating Tommy Burns was suffering from jaundice when he fought Johnson. Ditto you stating Burns asked for a postponement of their fight again you ignored my requests.
You did the same thing to McGrain,and you have done it countless times to me ,and others in the past.

In short you propagate lies ,then when you are called on them, you ignore the requests for verifiable proof.


Now Jackson, 37 years old, not having a real fight for 6 years ,being an alcoholic ,[which he was when he left the UK, his sparring partner, Con Riordan wrote a letter to the Times expressing his concern over what he called "the physical wreck that is Jackson"] and, in the early stages of the TB that would kill him within 3 years.

This , Jackson miraculously regains his top form ,and condition for his fight with Jeffries,he does this without benefit of training or sparring, he shakes off his alcoholism and his consumption?
Newspapers of the time , [which I produced,]described Jackson as being, "sacrificed to Jeffries".

ARE YOU ON MEDICATION?

Lets now look at your fan club.
You idolise Jim Jeffries ,praise Corbett, idolise Vitali ,and Wlad.
You denigrate Johnson and Louis at every opportunity,and only praise Langford.

Is it coincidence that the four fighters you praise are white?
And the only black fighter I have seen you praise was termed a good n****r who knew his place,and is therefore acceptable ,or am I missing something here?:think

 

Just to correct Mendoza ,yet again it was Langford and Armstrong who picked Jeffries to win at Reno, not Jeannette ,McVey and Langford.
Armstrong was a paid sparring partner for Jeffries ,and Langford had been thrashed by Johnson ,so hardly impartial voters.

 

Delaney was NOT hired to help Johnson ,nor was he in Johnson's corner. Delaney fell out with Jeffries because of their wives.

 

BURGER!

Are you getting Sam Berger mixed up with Ham Burger?:rofl

 

Bozo, why don't you admit who you really are ? I have never communicated with you before this thread and you are brand new based on posts, your lack of knowledge and thought process is childlike and you have made it a point to keep singling me out so net/net you're playing games (while likely playing w yourself) . If I respected you I'd take the time to easily dissect your rants but you're positions are so weak it's boring Kaput. JUst letting you know your simply another troll using an alias and fooling no one.

 

Pretty much agreed although Corbett always kept himself in some form of shape while Jeffries completely let himself go for many years ... a steeper road back ...

 

I'm making the point that looking good in trunks and having the goods when the bell rings are apples and oranges. How'd Ron Lyle look at 38 v.s. Gerry Cooney ? Good enough for you?

The Corbett point is irrelevant.

Point three proves our emotionally attached to the argument and not posting out of logic.

 

Two arguments keep getting blurred ... Jeffries in 1910 opposed to 1905 v.s. Jeffries as a quality fighter at all ... as far as strength it wasn't just that he defeated hi opponents it was by the margins ... be it Ruhlin, Armstrong, Sharkey, Monroe, Goddard , he threw them around like rag dolls .. there is little doubt that Fitz was a much bigger hitter than JOhnson as was Choynski and he took their best time and again without blinking ... agreed he did not fight huge guys but he physically dominated the men he did fight. Also, where was Johnson's terrific strength against Marvin Hart ?

 

Correction to this it was Kid Cotton, not Kid Culter ,I am getting him mixed up with Monte Cutler, another sparmate.
See Mendoza ,the sky doesn't fall in if you admit you are wrong.:good

 

I pretty much figured out who you are ... predictable ... the give away constant is the irrational behavior and lack of an intelligent argument ... like I knew, a troll.

 

Jeffries was clearly one of the strongest heavyweight champions.

The problem is that Johnson was another of them.

Hard to say who was stronger in their prime.