He was a heavy hitter ,Id say that is undeniable. But,for the most part he was hitting men 25/45lbs lighter than himself,I think that must be taken into account. For example Rex Layne was good puncher,not an absolute dynamite puncher but a good banger.What would his record look like if he too he was punching guys 25/45lbs lighter? Men 160/170lbs,[Layne was around 202 when fit]. Wouldn't some of them be giving testimonies saying how hard Jeffries had hit them, particularly those getting into their late 30's?
He was an outstanding athlete weighing 220 pounds wearing bricks as gloves. He hit like a hammer and any opponent who would say otherwise cannot be taken seriously. The gloves of the day is one reason such lighter weight opponents could compete in those days.
Langford was scaling 145/ 150lbs at the time[1904] of Jeffries last fight as champion ,do you blame him for not taking him on?
So you consider the versions of Fitz that Jeffries beat to be a prime Fitz? I'm talking about each version of the foe that Jeffries faced, not the prime versions of every fighter, even if they weren't prime when Jeffries beat him. No way does Corbett beat him, that has to be a joke. Fitz would be the only one, and that version is a big maybe. Sharkey and Ruhlin... no way. What about his resume do you believe exactly. What sticks out and impresses you the most? It doesn't work that way, absence of proof isn't proof. You can't go, well, we don't have much footage of him, so we can only go by the stories written about him. Well.... that isn't true, we do have SOME footage of him, and we have writings of him for THOSE fights we do have the limited footage of. Guess what, the writings don't equal what we can visually see on camera. You can't explain away every poor punch thrown or plodding or poor defense and go.... it must be the footage isn't good!! Ummm no, that can only account for so much. The footage doesn't make his defense look bad with his hands low and leaning over to the side. The footage showing him slowly moving towards his foe, doesn't mean we take the opposite approach, well the writing says he was moving like a gazelle, so it must just be poor footage. No.... that can only explain so much. The footage simply doesn't match, even when you give it more leeway than needed, it still doesn't match.
On the flip side of the coin he has no padding on his resume worth speaking of. He was fighting gatekeepers and fringe contenders from his debut, and he was generally in against much more experienced men. This would have worked against him getting quick knockouts, and it is hard to find other examples to compare him to.
He only weighed 220lbs for one serious defence he was usually under this. Please elaborate on the underlined.
You are correct, he was a very precocious talent ,fighting the likes of Joe Choynski to a draw whilst still a comparative novice,but let's bear in mind he had a colossal 52lbs advantage over Choynski.
There are many people who say the same thing about Dempsey yet a critical look see reveals an incredibly talented fighter beyond anything today in the hwt division. Why? Poor film footage clouds judgement, a general severe lack of understanding of what great boxing is all about (holding hands low does not mean a poor defense or a unskilled fighter...just the opposite) and finally very very few people have spent the time to really watch all available footage. The quality is poor so not an easy watch. Few have the patience or desire to learn.
Who are you responding too? The difference being Dempsey was called The Giant Killer because he was destroying bigger men than himself .
Old man, he was measured many times at 6 foot one and 1/2 inches. There press said Jeffries was 240 for Finnegan. And you didn't; list he is weight for Johnson eithe, at 227 pounds. See how biased you are in trying to work the #'s? Chuvlao's reach [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Chuvalo[/url] 71", just like I said
I would like to ask you a question. Many men must have seen Willard and Fulton as well as Fitz and Corbett, as they were only fighting about twenty years apart. How many can you quote who thought Willard and Fulton, for all their size, were the better heavyweights? Why exactly is this? There is an assumption underlying these debates that beating large heavyweights is much more impressive than beating small ones, but if you think about it, Dempsey himself undercuts this. Both Dempsey and Tunney won the heavyweight championship weighing under 190. If Jeff fought and beat them, wouldn't these have been better wins than beating Willard and Fulton? Seems to me this is obvious. But then Jeff would have been beating two more smaller men of the size of many of the better men he did beat.
lack of proof doesn't exactly support your take either, I think. Jeff looks very limited in the film that exists (I think I have seen all there is). He never throws a jab. He never throws a right cross or overhand right. As you say he plods forward with his hands low and torso bent to the side going with left hook after left hook generally to the body (Ruhlin), or short arm rights to the body (Sharkey). The most extensive footage we have of him is against Johnson and Jeff in this one looks beyond merely awful if one watches the uncut footage. I don't think he lands a decent punch in all the footage which survives. He just falls into clinch after clinch, which last for up to 30 seconds of holding and shoving. Johnson is always the one who can get free to land punches and always gets off first when moving in. Jeff not only doesn't have a plan B, he doesn't appear to have a plan A. I guess the idea was to wear Johnson down by wrestling with him. My caveat though would be that we have very limited footage, and the most extensive is of an old Jeff making a comeback after laying off for six years and going hog fat. I don't think we can jump to the conclusion that this Jeff is automatically all there is. For example, if all the footage we had of Tom Brady is of the first part of Super Bowl 51 when his team fell behind 28-3 and he looked bad and threw a pick six, we might conclude his rep is all hype. Max Kellerman actually posted at halftime that Brady had gone off the cliff and was washed up. The film from the late third quarter and fourth quarter when Brady rallied his team to a 34-28 victory tells an entirely different story. Of course Brady has been so good so long in his sport that anyone can see he is great from the facts of his record. This is also true in boxing for Ali and Louis. It is less true of fighters with shorter careers such as Jeff and Dempsey or Tunney and Marciano. In these cases there is some room to quibble.
Jeffries was an even 6 foot ,There is no possible argument about this Ed Morbius posted the detailed measurement' Do you seriously want to include Jeffries weight for his come back fight with Johnson? I mean how desperate are you?lol
