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

His skin color.

Plus he lasted 15 when he had not fought ANYBODY in half a decade and was a spent shell of himself vs the best Heavy on the planet at that time and no , Johnson did not carry him for 15 that is absurd, he just played it safe to not get caught with something crazy...........same when Lewis faced the shot beyond shot Ghost of Tyson, no point to be brave when you have a relic in front of you.

 

I would guess that Jeffries had more than 24 fights in his career, not that it matters that much in evaluating him, at least for me. I tend to look at their fights against quality competition more when evaluating a fighter where I have little film evidence. George Foreman looks like the probably winner on paper, but I hesitate to say a fight against James J. Jeffries would be easy for him. What if a prime George Foreman finds James Jeffries still hanging around in round 10? That is not an impossibility in my view. Where does George go from there? I tend to favor George Foreman slightly, but I would not be shocked if it went the other way.

 

I appreciate the provision of the quotes but again, they are overviews that conflict with the more detailed, round by round descriptions.

Jeffries copped plenty enough punishment in the first Fitz fight and more so in the 2nd fight - easily hit.

Also consider that Bob was already 36 first time around and 39 second time with 2 years inactivity behind him each time.

Both fights were marked by the much smaller and older Fitz fatiguing in the later rounds, allowing Jeffries to come on.

Corbett boxed rings around Jeffries for a good number of rounds the first time around, meting out punishment along the way, even staggering Jeffries at one point.

That was when Corbett was already 34 himself with just 1 fight in the last 3 years.

Jeffries didn’t rematch Corbett until 3 + years later, when Jim was 37. Jim was again inactive for 3 years prior to the granting of the rematch.

For the rematch, Corbett’s strategy was to move less in order to better set himself to punch harder. Certainly it would be a stretch for Corbett to entertain the movement be displayed in the first fight.

It was clear early in the fight that Jim’s best days were past him - naturally Jeffries appeared to perform better - but of course, for obvious reasons, it was Corbett himself who was not consistent with his first fight performance, older, slower, rusty and with a lot less stamina.

To suggest that Jeffries ever exhibited “near perfect” defence was obvious hyperbole - the detailed fight descriptions do not suggest that he ever came close to such self protection.

For the era, that is description reserved for Jack Johnson only. Jeff’s claim to fame was how much punishment he could take, no matter how many times and hard you hit him.

In describing his perception of Jeff’s invincibility, promoter James “Sunny Jim” Coffroth aptly described Jeffries as a glutton for punishment.

Gene Tunney was also none too impressed by Jeffries propensity to consistently absorb heavy punishment.

 

You don’t have to keep posting hot air to me to prove how very little you know -

I’m already well and truly sold on the fact.

I’ve already called out your BS on several points - you’re a time waster.

See how your disingenuous positions float with anyone else - the proof in the pudding - go forth and broaden your horizons.

 

"Footwork: This is easily in Foremans favor. He knew how to cut the ring off and could actually be agile in his prime. Jeff was described by writers of his era as having fairly slow feet and was easily getting outboxed by Corbett for over a dozen rounds. Footwork during Jeff's era wasn't that evolved and he was no speed demon by any means."

I suppose this is where I'm most in disagreement. It seems to me that Jeffries 'slowness' was in his unhurried approach to attrittioning his opponent, something of a 'starfish vs. clam' approach more viable in days of 20, 25, 45 round and finish fight. But as to his ability (capacity, potential) to move quickly, most of what I've read from contemporaries is that it was quite surprising for a (at that time) very big man, and rather in line with his 'California Grizzly' monicker.
As for your general analysis, I think you make many good points that ought to be made for Foreman, though I also feel that you're pitting the strongest construction of Foreman against the weakest for Jeffries. I'd give it a 'A-minus', i.e. excellent with qualification.
I DO AGREE that a hurt/shaken Jeffries -- even on the strongest construction of his abilities -- would not likely be able to avoid (by maneuver) Foreman's follow-up, even on a conservative construal of George's abilities.

 

Nah, your thread won’t be tainted mate. I like your threads re the old timers.

 

But Johnson was very much known to carry opponents - Burns and Ketchel being two other prime examples.

Per the films, it does appear that Johnson carried Jeff - as early as the 4th round, after bending Jeff’s arm back, Johnson hit Jeff with a sizzling right cross that saw Jeff literally stumble into Johnson’s waiting arms at the bell.

Many felt Johnson was protracting the torture - and they wanted the fight stopped much sooner - so obviously hopeless was Jeff’s plight early into the fight.

I believe both Fitz and Sharkey, in attendance, watching it live, believed that Johnson could’ve ended it much sooner if he was so inclined. Even as early as round 2 IIRC.

 

Good Lord an attrition fighter like Jeffries, who prided himself on the punishment he could withstand and was bruised and bludgeoned by a couple of old rinky-dink opponents, would be eaten alive by Foreman. This one is over quick.

 

I have it on good authority that Pro Bronc Buster Willard carried Johnson for 25 rounds until he finished him off the next round, Willard always carried opponents and Johnson actually was not stopped because he threw the fight, he just knew @26 it's lay down time.

How do I know ? Well I was there, first hand experience.

 

Damn, you have to be at least 123-124 yo, right?

Doing well my friend but still, you have put forth some conflicting notions there.

That’s okay. I recently read a 1943 IV with Joe Choynski and boy, did he have some facts *** up - and he was ONLY 74!

As it pertained to his recollections, he was “there” also, good ol’ “first hand experience” -but his recollections somehow got severely corrupted along the way -be it from age, punches to the head or both.

I hope you haven’t taken any punches to the head. They’re not good for you.

Fitz and Sharkey were at the RENO fight and expressed their opinions shortly thereafter.

Tell me, in Havana, 1915, do remember if it was really “hotter than hell”, like Big Jess said?

 

Fitzsimmons ,sitting ringside, said Johnson could have taken Jeffries out in the opening round if he had ,"gone for it".

 

You've," dotted the i's and crossed the t's,"especially with your two closing paragraphs.

 

I was in Havana in April about 5 years ago,it was in the 80's and the humidity was very heavy.I was near the sea,about 3 streets back from the Malecon sea wall.Just walking around in a T shirt and shorts,stopping when I wanted , I found I was changing and showering 3 times a day.
Johnson was in the ring with a giant for about a hour and a half,and fighting for nearly 72 minutes of that,he was 37 and not in very good shape ,carrying a spare tire and surplus around his butt.
His performance in that fight may actually have been his greatest.imo

 

None of which changes the fact that he had a face pretty marked up from his 24 fights, a twice broken nose, scar tissue above both eyes and a cauliflower ear .

Jeffries did not have good defence, that is a fact,he was famous for his ability to absorb punishment,"to take a licking and keep on ticking",you don't get that rep unless you are pretty easy to hit!
Ali died of complications due to his condition,Frazier died of cirrhosis.

 

Your posts are the ones that come across as condescending.
I think Pugguy knows more about this subject than you do ,for that matter I think I do too.
Instead of asking for sources why don't you take the time to reference them yourself, as we have done?
After which you will be as informed on the subject as you seem to feel you already are at present.