Do you consider James J Jeffries an ATG?

I have swapped them round more than once, so I would have to agree.

Reasonable enough.

Would there not then be a case for saying that his title opposition was better than Johnson's, and Dempsey's?

In which case far from being weakness in his legacy, it becomes a veritable asset.

Did anybody have a better title reign before Joe Louis, and if so who?

I personally have Fitzsimmons and Schmeling at a similar level, and Corbett significantly lower.

That is my slightly eccentric take.

 

He had good ,but not terrific power.
Does he look technically better than Ruhlin on the footage available and remember Ruhlin froze in that fight.

 

I think most that have any grounding in the old-timers would class Jeffries as great ,I certainly do, and I'm very sparing with the word,all time great is another matter.

 

Obviously a lot of these variables are very hard to prove either way.

I think that it would be hard to find heavyweights who were stronger than Jeffries physically before the steroid era.
He would compare favourably to other ATGs before the 1990s in this respect.

His training ethic, and psychological toughness, would have been a very good starting point in any era.

Not much to fault with his chin.

The rest is about playing "fill in the gaps".

 

Not really disagreeing with too much here. My question is, who do you think was the tougher challenge, in order between Burns, Fitz 2 and Corbett 2

 

The fighters he fought, and historians/promoters disagree.

For example, Tex Richard who while promoting Jack Dempsey ( and making a lot of money on him ) said Jeffries was the hardest hitter he every saw and that includes Dempsey.

So in your book, does Dempsey have terrific power?

71%+ in this poll have it right. I wonder who the others were. Too bad its not a public poll.

 

I'm no stranger to being in the ring with gloves in a gym or in front of a crowd but that is immaterial to the conversation. If you want, you can find some archived posts of mine in the training section of the forum. Back to this thread...

I asked you a question twice, so please skip the perineal Whitaker duck and answer my question.

It seems your opinion is Jeffries fought smaller opponents. There were no world class fighters bigger than he in his time, but as I pointed out he beat them all, save his lame comeback fight.

So If Jeffries is penalized for fighting smaller men as you mentioned several times, please give me some insight on how you view Johnson, Dempsey, and Louis to losing multiple times to sub 200-pound opponents, and in all cases getting knocked out by them.

The floor is your Rich.

 

On Jeffries power, there is evidence both ways.

His detractors point to the number of rounds that he needed to break down smaller fighters.

You do see a few contemporary commentators say things like "he is a fine fighter, but he doesn’t hit like Sullivan", or "he is a fine fighter, but he doesn’t hit like Fitzsimmons".

On the other hand, you occasionally get chilling testimonies about his power, from the people on the receiving end.
A punch test was actually done on a pressure sensor Rocky 4 style, and he outperformed Fitzsimmons, but lost to Sam McVea.

The bottom line is that he might have been a convincing puncher, in an era populated with smaller fighters, or he might have hit as hard as Liston and Foreman.

 

Not my question, but I will offer my answer.

Fitz 2, by a big margin!

 

Fitz would have demolished Burns. Corbett 1 would have out boxed him. Corbett by the 2nd Jeffries fight was past his prime, but if its a 10-12 round match, who knows.

Burns for Johnson was 5'7" tall, and 168 pounds. Way too short to reach Johnson, and too light to do anything in the clinches / wrestling portion of the match.

It is my contention that Fitz and Corbett were better than ANY fighter Johnson beat, and before someone says Langford, MCvey or Jeanette, check their ages, weight and experiences level when Johnson meet them

Langford, estimated to be 20 years old and 156 pounds

McVey a teenager, with limited experience.

Jeannette a raw novice, with a sometimes losing record, and winner of 10 of 21 matches in his last fight vs Johnson.

Martin? Just 21 for the first match and Martin was ahead on points after 10 rounds. Based on this news clip at box rec, you wonder if the decision was correct.

" Martin was ahead on points after 10 rounds. Johnson had Martin down 4 times in the 11th round, but couldn't finish him. According to the San Francisco Call, the fight was even from the 14th round to the finish"

You could argue either Burns or Martin was Johnson best win.

 

He trained with real dedication, for the bouts that mattered,Ive no doubt he was freakishly strong, and as tough as old boots. I can't in all conscience say he was an all time great because I don't think his style and ability would translate well to the game in the years that came after his retirement.

 

Okay, but what about Burns compared to Corbett 2?

 

I believe Dempsey hit harder than Jeffries and he was certainly more explosive. I think Sullivan very probably hit harder than Jeffries,and I'm very confident that Fitz did. I couldn't care less what the poll says I haven't even counted it.After the Johnson fight Rickard stated publicly and in print that Johnson was the greatest fighter he had ever seen, If you take one quote as true then you must take them all.Sam Langford who was in Jeffries 1910 camp ,said Jack Dempsey was the greatest puncher he ever saw and he included Jeffries.

 

I don't place much store in static punching meters I've seen too many strange results including one on UK TV the other week involving Anthony Joshua.
Hitting a static target is totally different to timing a moving chin . I dont think many of Jeffries opponents could go 7 /8 rounds with either Liston or Foreman.