Prime James J. Jeffries vs Jack Johnson

I would have to say that Johnson’s record is pretty strong in terms of bigger opponents.

He fought more world class fighters over 200lbs than any champion before the 70s, with the possible exception of Louis.

This is simply not something that can legitimately be raised as a mark against him, when assessing him in hypothetical fights.

 

Question,if it was just because of the gloves ,:huhhow come they all weren't big punchers?

 

The men Johnson faced as champion.
McLaglen 6' 3" 195lbs
O Brien 5'10.5" 170lbs
Moran 6'1" 190-206lbs
Flynn 5' 9.5" 188lbs
Ross 5'9.5" 195-214lbs
Kaufman 6'1" 190-206lbs
Johnson 6'3" 220lbs
Ketchel 5'9" 170lbs
Jeffries 6'2.5" 227lbs
Willard 6'6,25" 226lbs

Burns was 5'7" 168lbs for the title fight, should Johnson have said ,he is too small and refused his title chance?

The part of your post I have underlined fits Jeffries to a tee , this is without factoring in that the two best defences he made were against two men, one 34 ,one 39 both coming out of 2 years retirement , and men that he greatly outweighed.

Who is trying to skew things?

 

"They" meaning the entire heavyweight division?

Several things. First, everybody did have more power, relatively speaking. Not everybody was going for it and risking getting KO'd themselves, though. Longer engagement ranges, a more cautious style, more wrestling in the clinches, fewer punches thrown a round, less combination punching inside the pocket, etc.

Second, even heavyweights aren't always blessed with power. It's just that some of the lighter-punching heavies still have the durability, strength, and size to compete anyway.

Third, not all heavyweights have the timing and skill to deliver those punches like Fitzsimmons, Langford, Choynski, and Burns did.

Somebody like Julian Jackson or Gerald McClellan might punch pretty darn hard, even by heavyweight standards. They certainly punch hard enough that they'd be dangerous if they landed right with small gloves.

But when the gloves get larger, the chances of any one punch KO'ing you decreases. When each single punch becomes less threatening, the heavier fighters' advantages in size, durability, strength, and staying power make a much bigger difference. Heavyweights can walk through a couple power punches if they need to. Middleweights can't.

Early 20th century conditions allowed the really hard middleweight punchers to stand at long range and use their biggest asset -- their superior skill -- to land pinpoint punches with small gloves. Because the threat that their (and everybody's) punching power posed was greater, their opponents couldn't walk them down as easily.

That, in turn, meant that the heavies couldn't impose their advantages quite as easily. So you saw plenty of middleweight punchers.



I suppose you could dismiss my analysis as weighting one factor too heavily, but that would make the large number of middleweights blasting out top heavies in this period rather bizarre.

(Not to mention that Ketchel knocked down Johnson a lot more easily than Willard's 220-something-pound shellacking did to an aged version).

 

This pre-supposes that the Ketchel kd was legit.I understand about gloves I boxed.

 

Neither McLaglen nor Jim Johnson were very good. Journeymen, really. Ketchel and O'Brien were basically the same size as Fitzsimmons. Flynn was basically the same size as Sharkey or Corbett. Less of a tank than Sharkey and a few pounds heavier, but that's it. Jeffries was shot.

So as far as championship fights against big contender-class fighters go, Jeffries has Ruhlin. Johnson has Moran, Kaufman, Ross (if I'm being generous to Ross) and Willard. That's an edge, but it's not an overwhelming one. A lot of Jeffries' opposition came before winning the title. As did Johnson's.

Except for Willard, none of Johnson's larger contender victims were as good as Langford, Burns, or Fitzsimmons. Willard beat Johnson, but you could easily argue that Johnson put up a great effort for an old man. I don't really hold the Willard loss against him.

 

Johnson is the more proven of the two against bigger opponents, for whatever it is worth.

Probably not very much.

A better argument would be Johnson being proven against a wider range of styles.

Jeffries clearly has the better title reign, and probably fought slightly the better fighters overall.

Johnson clearly has it in terms of depth of world class opposition, and longevity at world level.

Jeffries was more consistent at every stage of his career.

These are the facts, make of them what you will.

 

If the Ketchel kd wasn't legit, it doesn't really change the argument. Ketchel is just one of many small guys KOing heavyweights from that period.

:huh

I never said you didn't understand gloves. Nor did I impugn your boxing experience.

You asked me to explain why the gloves made such a big difference. I gave you as thorough a response as I could.

 

Ketchel only kod one heavyweight I believe Porky Flynn , and he and Johnson were the only two he fought weren't they? My boxing experience is nothing to shout about, I just mentioned it to show I understood a little about gloves.

 

Ketchel didn't fight much at heavyweight. I only mentioned him as an example, but yes -- the other guys like Langford and Burns work a lot better.

Fair enough. :good

 

I've only listed them to show Rica that he is incorrect in asserting that Johnson fought mainly small challengers. I do think Jim Johnson was better than he is given credit for.
Wins over Tate,Cowler,Pelkey,Taylor,Smith and draws with Jeannette ,McVey,and Langford are not too shabby.
It could of course be argued that Johnson should have defended against McVey whom he had already thrashed three times. but I've read that McVey did not pursue a title fight with his friend Jack.
Johnson signed to fight Jeannette three times but each time the authorities vetoed the matches this can be verified quite easily.They did the same for one proposed Langford bout ,another never got off the ground because Woodman could not raise the necessary cash.

The NSC offered a derisory £3000 for Johnson to defend against Langford in London,so I can cut Jack some slack for those non fights.

Plus White America was not interested in having two blacks fight for the heavy weight title.
Jack Curley said they would not draw flies,and Jim Coffroth agreed with him.

Johnson's losing defence against Willard may just be his defining fight as Champion.

 

Right. Johnson has a good resume, as you'd expect from a world champion. Ditto Jeffries.

I think this sometimes gets lost in the epic 61-round Mendoza vs. McVey duel.

 

We have debated without any animosity and I've done the same with Janitor and Boilermaker on this subject many times.
I don't respect Mendoza , he is a proven liar, a coward , and a bigot.

He is incapable of admitting his is ever wrong and in the time I have been on this site has never produced a primary source to back up his biased and outlandish claims, such as the following
Burns badly damaged Johnson's ribs ,and hospitalized him
Burns wanted to postpone his defence against Johnson because he had jaundice.
Burns was at a very low weight which indicated his" illness."
Langford floored Johnson.
Johnson v Johnson was originally for 20 rds but was halved to save the champions crown.
The champion was in danger of losing when the final bell tolled.
The French boxing authorites deprived Johnson of his title because of his performance against Battling Jim.
Johnson deliberatly fouled Jeannette because he was losing.

Johnson ducked Gunboat Smith.
Johnson was so badly hurt against Ketchel he had to grab the ropes to support himself.
Jeffries was even with Johnson until he tired around the halfway mark .
Referee George Siler had a low opinion of Johnson.
I left the forum because he challenged me.
Louis was the beneficiary of a crooked referee and a close relationship with MSG.
Louis was allied with gangsters.
These are just some of the lies that he repeats ad nauseum.
I do not hate him , he is not worth that intense an emotion, but I do feel complete contempt for him.
I hope this explains my position regarding the waste of oxygen that is Mendoza.
.

 

Thanks, and likewise. :good

Out of all of those, I find the "Johnson was badly hurt against Ketchel" most plausible. If (a big "if) you assume that the KD was legit, Johnson still looks wobbly when he half-trips into Ketchel fist-first.

 

Gunboat Smith who was at ringside and served as a sparring partner to Johnson said that the KD was faked by Johnson. Note how Johnson positions himself so the KD is in full view of the motion picture camera.