Yeah, you're right. I wasn't thinking, since Fitz had two long layoffs. My mistake. (Not enough sleep on my part, probably.) With that being said, Fitz remained an amazing fighter into his old age. I would certainly grant you that he was much more skilled than Jeffries.
Common Opponent Comparison: James J. Jeffries-Hank Griffin KO 14 and NC 4 in a fight dominated by Jeffries. Jeffries-Joe Choyniski Draw 20. Jeffries-Pete Everett TKO 3. Jeffries-Bob Fitzsimmons KO11 and KO8. Jeffries-Munroe-KO2 Jack Johnson-Hank Griffin L20 D15 D20-Johnson Joe Choyniski KO by 3-Johnson-Pete Everett D20-Johnson-Fitzsimmons KO2 Johnson-Monroe W6 Totals Jeffries 5-0-1-1 (NC could really be Jeffries 6th W) Totals Johnson2-2(1)-3 Now this doesn't necessarily confirm to me that Jeffries would win but most certaintly clearly shows the man in 1910 was not nearly the force he was before retirement. Source BoxREC
No one with any sense would claim that Jeffries was not very diminished in his comeback at Reno. It must be remembered though that tales of Jeffries losing over 100lbs in 6 months are bull ****. Jeffries was down to weight when he came back from Carlsbad. The link below confirms that Jeffries was in shape in October 1909 thats 9 months before the fight. Jeffries also signed to fight Johnson on the 11th of August 1909 that alone would give him nearly a year to prepare. Sam Berger acting on his behalf had signed a contract many months before and Jeffries went into light training he was giving nightly exhibitions as part of his stage act so his lack of condition is seriously overstated. .Jeffries had nearly a year and a half to prepare for the fight.The fact that he was making a fortune touring in vaudeville made him reluctant to give it up ,and go into hard training, but that was his choice . http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...3ggAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fWcFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3244,3160484 Those that think a prime Jeffries beats a prime Johnson can make a solid case. He was as tough as old boots, and unbeaten when he returned to the ring I throw out the common opponent scenario because it does not factor in the respective form and age of each individual.
This is true. It is also true that Johnson's holds some dubious distinctions for a heavyweight champion. John Ruiz was beaten by Roy Jones, and its a stain on his record. Yet Johnson was Ko'd by a super Middle weight ( Choynski ), drew with a super middle weight ( O'Brien ) , and was knocked down by another super middle weight ( Ketchel ) and he skates? Could you imagine if Hopkins some how did anything like that to Wlad? OMG. You could also say Johnson quit in the ring. Some say he participated in arranged agreements, and he lied about fights he lost and claimed a fix. He also clearly avoided the best challengers out there as champion. Such a man isn't beating Jeffries from 1899-1905 while Jeffries was champion and active.
Let us examine these tired old statements. 1. Johnson was green and a super middleweight himself when Choynski kod him. 2.The O Brien fight was a no dec 6 rounder ,over 6 rds O Brien who was the reigning lhvy champ, was quite capable of holding his own with anyone over that distance..Johnson did not train for this fight and was out partying the night before.Jeffries drew with a super middle weight too ,and he outweighed him by 67lbs! 3.The bona - fides of the Ketchel knockdown are still being debated today, what is not being debated is that Johnson got up and immediately kod Ketchel for 12 minutes . 4. Johnson carried several fighters but has never been accused of having one of them carry him. 5.What fights Johnson may have lied about, or who he avoided has precisely nothing to do with how he would fare in his prime against a prime Jeffries. Johnson signed to defend against Joe Jeannette 3 times and Langford twice the authorities vetoed all the Jeannete fights and one of the Langford ones , Langford and his manager, Joe Woodman could not come up with the necessary cash binder for the other one. The NSC wanted to promote a Johnson v Langford fight but would only offer £3000 to Johnson , and he would have had to pay his own expenses and travel. Whilst in exile , Johnson offered to defend his title against the best White Hope challenger Luther McCarty in Canada,Tommy Burns, who was Mr Boxing in Canada at the time, was anxious to promote his meal ticket Arthur Pelkey against McCarty and refused to put it on .These statements can be verified via news reports, and indeed I have posted them on here several times. 6.Jeffries defended against possibly the worst challenger on record,Jack Munroe ,all the while ignoring Denver Ed Martin, Sam McVey,and Jack Johnson ,all of whom had much better credentials for a title shot than Munroe. Jeffries lost money on this defence ,clearing just £900 He was guaranteed $30,000 to fight the winner of Martin or Johnson ,and $20,000 to defend against McVey but he went deaf when their names were mentioned. I believe I have rebutted these old chestnuts.:good
BS! He had 20 + fights under his belt. You DO NOT know Johnson's weight here so stop with the lies... In addition the fight was in Johnson's home town. Jeffries had how many fights when he met Choynski? Under 9! And this was a prime Choynski. Jeffries knocked him down 3 times ( Source two fisted Jeff ), and had him playing defense the 2nd half of the fight. The draw was dubious. By comparison, Johnson was in his prime for O'Brien, who had zero power. O'Brien out landed Johnson ( Hmmm where's the famous defense?? ), and according to some primary sources was the better. Partying is an excuse. Johnson bigots like yourself offer for Johnson. What about excuses for his opponents? Here's one....in truth, O'briens career would go south shortly after this fight. He was in decline! Sure, he had to roll over, brace himself, and lost balance when he delivered the KO blow. Fighters who are hurt tend to lose their balance ya know. After he fell and got up, Johnson was holding the ropes. I have shown you news papers that say he was hurt. He said the Willard fight was fixed. BS. He said he floored Griffin whom he lost to ( Source Unforgivable Blackness ), and this was also a lie. Good enough for you? Munroe the worst possible challenger? Hardly. He lasted four rounds in a EX match, and was never off his feet vs anyone else, and had already beat older name fighters. In addition he used the press and lied about the Ex match. As I told you Sam Mcvey QUIT boxing after losing to Martin for a year so he wasn't a good choice. Johnson was, but that changed in 1905 when Hart beat him. Munroe lasted but 2 rounds, and judging by Johnson being hurt by super middles, he's taking the count vs. Jeffries in 1904 or 1905.
I know that Johnson scaled around 170lbs AFTER that fight, I know that he scaled under 170lbs a year previously. I know that 5 years later he still only scaled 185lbs. Johnson as soon as the fight was over with Choynski, was imprisoned with his opponent. The idea that Johnson being born in Galveston did him any favours in this fight is fatuously laughable.As soon as he was released Johnson took the train to Denver. Jeffries has a handful of fights at his AC that are not on box rec. No one besides your bigoted self believes that Johnson was dazed, or hurt by Ketchel and the fact that he kod him with the very first punch he threw on arising, emphatically supports this. Munroe was a joke he beat a thoroughly washed up Sharkey and had been dropped by an equally thoroughly washed up Maher, so much for his never having been off his feet. McVey had a years hiatus after losing to Denver Ed Martin on 12th August 1904.He had previously kod him in 1 round Jeffries last defended his title against Munroe that same month and the same year ,in fact only two weeks separated the fights , so that is another load of crap. As I've just said Jeffries had his last fight as champion on August the 28th 1904. Johnson did not lose a highly questionable decision to Hart until a year later he had plenty of time to defend against either Johnson or Mcvey but instead chose no hoper Munroe. Immediatly after losing to Willard Johnson stated that he was beaten by the better man and that he had no kick coming, he was a damn sight more gracious than Jeffries who was battered from pillar to post by Johnson , who refused to shake his opponents hand, either before, or after the fight, refused to congratulate him, and blamed his defeat on drugged tea!
Both sides of this dispute seem to be using the middleweights/supermiddleweight card only as it suits them. Jeffries and Johnson both had lots of small opponents. Neither did as well against those opponents as you'd expect from a man of that size today. I don't think that it's as important as either is letting on. I would argue that size mattered less in those days because the gloves allowed fighters to punch above their weight. In a world where Fitzsimmons, Choynski, Burns and the smaller incarnation of Langford were all big punchers, you really have to reevaluate just how much being a larger man meant for punching power. The same goes for the Ketchel knockdown(?), light cruiserweight Tom Sharkey, etc.
I did not use it to make a derogatory point against Jeffries ,I mentioned it to illustrate how Mendoza tries to spin the facts. Johnson was relatively green against Choynski he was also around 35lbs lighter than he would be when ,according to himself, he was at his best [against Jeffries]. Johnson's average title challengers were 20bs heavier than Jeffries. Jeffries never faced a challenger as big or bigger than himself ,he enjoyed massive size , and weight advantages in 5 of his 6 major fights and in 4 of them nearly 10 years age advantage. These are facts not insinuations. The biggest decent man that Jeffries beat, Ruhlin had been absolutely ruined by Fitzsimmons previously . The two best men he beat, Fitz and Corbett were coming off of two years retirements. Corbett was nearly 34 and 37, Fitz 37 and 39 going on 40. Jeffries other best win was over Sharkey who was 27lbs lighter and 6 inches shorter. Jeffries feasted on older ,smaller, coming out of retirement ex champions,and that is another fact. I have absolutely no problem with anyone picking Jeffries to win this match based on his toughness and durability. I have a big problem with people telling me that Jeffries was clever , good defensively , or hard to hit etc,when it is glaringly obvious that he was not. That is my argument.
This is all true, but as I said: it matters less when you're fighting in an environment where a murderous heavyweight puncher can scale 168 pounds. Sharkey and Fitzsimmons were outright better than most of Johnson's large opponents. Conversely, Burns and Langford were two of Johnson's best scalps. Ketchel was unimpressive, but that's because he only had the frightening power without the skill to back it up. The age issue is stronger ground, though.
Which heavy punchers did Jeffries met who were true heavyweights? Johnson met McVey, Willard,Moran, Johnson, Russell, Martin,Klondike,Kaufman.
The credit some of you give Johnson for beating a guy that had been out of the ring for half a decade drinking beer and eating like a pig is laughable. Also the credit you give him for fighting all these smaller challengers and acting like beating them was some feat. How much credit would you give Wlad Klitschko (or even his brother) for beating Lennox in 2013 or fighting and beating Andre Ward? :roflatsch
What credit have I given Johnson for beating Jeffries? And how is the fact that he did so relevant to the question posed by the thread maker? Johnson's challengers average weight was around 200lbs that was the heaviest average until into the 30's. We previously credited you with being able to read and digest posts,perhaps we were wrong? Maybe you should take a look at Johnson's challengers, how big they were, and what they weighed?
Irrelevant, since middleweights in that period were considered top-flight heavyweight punchers. Again, because of the gloves. Fitzsimmons, Langford, Burns, and Choynski were all capable of flattening 200 lb. men as well as any other punchers in the period.
That is great and all but very misleading. His biggest and most relevant fights of the day as champion were against much smaller men. An example would be the man he took the title from. Willard was an outlier during his reign. You know this but are trying to skew it.