George Foreman ‘73 vs. James J. Jeffries ‘03

My bad I wasn't specific. I meant to say Blown-Up Cruiserweight.
I was only throwing his sentiments back at him.

 

He’s not the messiah, he was just a very haughty boy - and with good reason - and he would be be far too much for Jeffries.

The latter was actually framed as being much closer to a messiah than Foreman ever was or has been since: -

Read: carrying an Ox 10,000 miles on his shoulders, drinking a case of whiskey to cure pneumonia and last but definitely not least, having special, superior blood coursing though his veins that was unlike that of any and all other humans.

 

All good.

 

'-they upheld very good chins'
Why is that a virtue for them but a vice for Jeffries?

You keep ignoring prime v prime comparisons which is a glaring omission on your part.

Like when?

I clearly described the footage I was referencing - you’re clearly not understanding - footage of Jeff training for Ruhlin, 1901 - 4 mins plus worth. Combine that with the available footage from both the Sharkey and Ruhlin fights and quick check suggests 15 odd mins in total all up

My memory failed me in that case. I forgot that there was around 5 minutes of very blurry footage of the Ruhlin fight. My apologies.

My quoting Jeffries was THE statement - call that ridiculous if you want - my overlaid opinion made perfect sense.

Maybe he said it 'superfluously'
Like I said. You didn't cite your source, you're being pretty vague. How am I supposed to know the information is correct if you don't tell me where to find it? Enlighten me son.
The concept is pretty ridiculous in itself every fighter works out an idea of what they're gonna do with their trainers beforehand.

While we’re there - what then EXACTLY was Jeff’s strategy in RENO? Please illuminate.

I dunno I wasn't there. Were you?

'-but as I said, it was akin to describing a guy taking 50 punches in a round - and then covering off that round with a summation that he displayed terrific defence'

Please give me a recorded instance of this.

Why would Langford make a point of precluding him from the ad? Why mention him at all? Do you have an answer for that? Jeffries fought Peter Jackson and Bob Armstrong both of whom weren't exactly Caucasian. Jeffries supposed aversion to fighting blacks isn't the point of contention as it has nothing to do with Langford's statement, so your mentioning it is pretty superfluous.

I’m perfectly objective - but wait, are you inexplicably not understanding or pretending not to understand that there were race angles very much in play during that era?

No. I'm just curious as to why you feel the need to point out Bob Armstrong having a medicine ball thrown at him. Seems pretty irrelevant to our conversation (unless you want to paint Jeffries in a bad light). And you did project your feelings onto it.

 

I’m a big fan for Foreman’s performance vs Chuvalo.

For his age and relatively limited experience, I thought he did some very nice things in there - sort of approximating to the Foreman that Clancy was trying to re-invent or, conversely, get back on track.

What George also needed, just imo, was to be wise enough when to put the pedal to the metal or pull back and box more when appropriate.

All due respect to Joe but George probably could’ve got Frazier out earlier in their rematch but the purpose was to first, better drill Foreman on the boxing side of things - not so much required against Joe but for other fighter types in the future.

I actually like George’s discipline and control in the Frazier rematch a lot also.

 

I’ve already addressed and answered ALL these points. You’re going around in circles.

For one, I made the clear distinction between
displaying a good chin as opposed to being a chronic sponge for punishment.

For two, I said precluding Jeffries was superfluous - and it clearly was - repeating that term back at me as you did shows your lack of understanding of its actual meaning.

Black fighters were actually treated better when they displayed “due” deference to white folk, particularly so for Sam when that deference was being afforded to the White, Worlds HW Champ - Langford/Woodman did EXACTLY that by excepting Jeffries - Jeffries had already excepted himself otherwise. Very simple, very logical.

In Australia, Peter Jackson was revered but he also didn’t make waves - presenting exactly as the white folk expected him to. If Johnson played the “game” thusly, he too would’ve been afforded more favour - but Jack didn’t play the “game” - he wasn’t so much bad as he was non compliant to what the whites expected of him.

He merely acted and spoke as any white man would and was allowed to act and speak. He didn’t subordinate himself.

If you understood the era properly, you’d also understand that it was likely that Langford was duly subordinating himself - and Sam was viewed more favourably by the whites than Johnson was - hell, Sam even picked Jeff to beat Johnson in Reno - please, Sam knew much better than that - but it was what the whites wanted to hear.

We both weren’t there?? Such a lame reply. Lol.

So you’re not so attuned to Jeffries style and MO as to be able suggest what the “plan” for Johnson might’ve been?

I already did, in fact Jeffries already did years ago - the plan was to soak up punishment and, as implied and as per his history, primarily outlast his opponent. This is a no brainer. You’ve seen the films, EXACTLY what was Jeff trying to do in there?

Jeffries did throw a medicine ball at Armstrong - as to mentioning same, so what? - it was disrespectful - try not to swallow too hard on the mere facts or play yourself as falsely indignant.

Jeffries was a racist - fact. It figured heavily in the conduct of his career - who he chose to defend against and who he precluded.

Armstrong - good enough for spar partner but if eligible for a shot - he would never have been granted same by good old Jeff. This was the reality.

Did Foreman invoke such preclusions - no - so in practical terms without even touching on morality, Foreman was more broadly (read: absolutely) applied than Jeffries also - the latter feasting on smaller, lighter and older white men - his main claims to fame.

You might want to try a bit of your own research instead of asking everyone at every turn to enlighten you or provide you with proofs that are already well known by people who have sufficiently researched before engaging at this level of discussion.

You’re speaking with such conviction as to suggest that you know what you’re talking about - but clearly there are quite a few gaps in your knowledge.

 

'try not to swallow too hard on the mere facts or play yourself as falsely indignant.'

I didn't deny that just pointed out that it had nothing to do with our conversation. You have personal issues with it so you mentioned it. Stop trying to act like you didn't have any other motive for doing so, its silly. Your pretty preoccupied with race.

We both weren’t there?? Such a lame reply. Lol.

A lame reply to a lame question.

Black fighters were actually treated better when they displayed “due” deference to white folk, particularly so for Sam when that deference was being afforded to the White, Worlds HW Champ - just as Langford/Woodman did by excepting Jeffries - Jeffries had already excepted himself otherwise. Very simple, very logical.

You make a lot of unproven assumptions and label them as 'logical'. Very intelligent analysis.
Apparently every old-school boxing fact has to be seen through the dialectical prism of race.

You might want to try a bit of your own research instead of asking everyone at every turn to enlighten you or provide you with proofs that are already well known by people who have sufficiently researched before engaging at this level of discussion.

I have. I just asked you to give me the source for your information instead of being vague. I'm curious to see where your getting your 'information' from. How am I supposed to see you or McVey's side if you don't want to share it? Its common courtesy when having a debate with someone to provide sources for your information. Ultimately thats very convenient for you because you can just say I don't know what I'm saying, and make 'factual statements' without ever having to back them up, people who do that are usually talking BS.

You’re speaking with such conviction as to suggest that you know what you’re talking about - but clearly there are quite a few gaps in your knowledge.

So you say. If I supposedly have a gap why not help me fill it? Why be so indignant? Aren't you Mr. Rational?

Its pretty clear through your statements that you are arguing in bad faith.

 

That would depend on if you consider Jeffries a consistent performer. While it did seem like Jeffries absorbed punishment in the majority of his fights, there are also fights where they describe him as more defensively minded:

Fitz-Jeffries 1

Jeffries was cautious to the end. There was but one period when he cut loose, but as soon as he found that Fitz was still dangerous he let up. He fought the Cornishman at long range almost entirely, and when the end came he did not rush in to close, but fired the left at Bobs head from a rather distant point”.

New York Sun

“Less than a year ago Jeffries appeared in New York a great awkward ungainly boy. Today he is a lithe active alert trained athlete. The men who prepared him for this fight worked wonders with him. Taught him a nearly perfect defence, instructed him in the methods of inflicting punishment. The transition has been little short of miraculous”.

Ashbury Park Dailey Press

I never saw a fellow get away so well from a punch or show so much speed on his feet. He was quick as a flash and his light footwork made me guess a great deal. I made desperate leads. I tried every ruse at my command to beat him but it was to no avail.”

Bob Fitzsimmons

There are also performances where Jeffries is even described as not only technically competent, but effective:

Corbett-Jeffries 2

Jeffries showed wonderful improvement. He fought better and faster than he did when he fought Bob Fitzsimmons in this city. Jeffries showed grand science and great hitting power. I was not prepared to see Jeffries outbox Corbett. He lost none of his overpowering strength by taking on the newly acquired cleverness and every blow told.”

Ed Graney (referee).

“He is so big and strong that one must conclude that it is impossible to find a man who can take his measure. Before last nights encounter I thought that a clever strong man could beat him, but when he stepped into the ring and showed as much science as Corbett I was forced to take my hat off to him.”

Tommy Ryan

“His clumsy leads were absent; his awkward efforts to set himself after missing were a thing of the past. In the year since he beat Bob Fitzsimmons down and out he has added wonderful science to his enormous bulk and unbeatable strength. He could have acquired his knowledge in but one way-from Bob Fitzsimmons, with who he toured the country and boxed almost nightly.”

National Police Gazette

“Jeffries surprised me. I am certain that he was not that quick when he fought Fitzsimmons. His footwork has improved and his hitting is cleaner. He did not employ the crouch as he did in our previous contest. He is just as strong as he ever was, much cleverer, and in the ring tonight his speed was a revelation. It was my ill fortune to meet him at his best and I have paid the penalty.”

Jim Corbett

It seems like Jeffries was capable of both overly absorbing punishment and having effective defense, depending on the night.

 

Yeah I remember watching the 2nd Frazier fight with my father by accident. This was when YouTube was relatively new and I wasn't a hardcore boxing fan. Neither of us even knew they had a 2nd fight and we were surprised at how composed and methodical Foreman was. Jab, stalk, pressure, take it easy, parry, circle, throw a few heavy shots, back off, jab some more, use a few shoves for old time sake. Even when he knocked Frazier down, he didn't immediately go nuts swinging for the fences.

Nearly anytime you read about 70's Foreman in articles, forum posts, etc, it's like people are describing some drunk amateur in a bar winding up haymakers from another zip code. They see what they wanted to see. Was he crude at times? Yes. Could he slug away or aggressively pursue the KO? Also yes. Did he win? Quite often. So obviously he was doing something right. People cherry pick what they want to focus on.

I agree Gill was trying to have him dial it down a notch and go back to how he was against Chuvalo, Johnson, etc. Pump his jab more and don't be in such a hurry to get the KO. Throw combinations. 70's Foreman was very much an unfinished product even when he had his last fight and you could start to see some of the puzzle pieces starting to fit into something potentially great. His ceiling was very high. If he had mastered relaxing and knowing when to pressure vs when to just box, he could've been one of the most formidable h2h fighters of all time. By his own admission he had hypertension issues and had fallen in love with scoring KOs and trying to scare people which really derailed his career. Thankfully we were treated to a pretty remarkable 2nd career where he attempted to set things right and learned from his mistakes.

 

The way I see it phrased seems to indicate otherwise but that might just be me.

 

No problems at this end. You clearly have your own clear issues, including the fact that you don’t actually know what you’re talking about - thus you continue to write in pointless circles. You don’t even know enough about Jeffries to give an informed opinion on the strategy you assume he must’ve had - therefore it’s a lame question to ask you. Okay, I see..Lol.

 

Excellent post and (not because) I agree with all points.

 

Very convenient. You get to grant yourself the autocratic position of deciding whats true and false without providing any justification. Bad faith.
You clearly have historical racial grievances which your holding against him. So much so that you project them unto individual instances that may or may not have anything to do with racism. You just assume things.
You don't seem to know much about Jeffries either. You just make unqualified statements and expect me to meekly accept them as fact. I at least gave a link in one of my initial comments when arguing Jeffries' case. You haven't done anything except condescend and balk at requests for sources - probably because you don't have any.
You can't always tell what a fighters game-plan was especially in a fight were they were stifled at every turn. I would have to have been in the Jeffries camp to know what they were planning and I wasn't. Hence the rhetorical question.
It's all good.

 

Yet another Jeffries thread has developed into a flame war, hooray!

What is it about Jeffries that pisses everyone off so much? Science may never know.

 

Jeffries only had 24 fights how come Frazier,Foreman and Ali with much more fights , didnt have cauliflower ears,and broken noses?

Jeffries outlived both Ali and Frazier. He died at 78. He was in good health after his career ended - there is footage of him play-sparring with Sailor Tom in 1926.