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

Jeffries winning by the rope-a-dope would be the most meme-worthy outcome in boxing history, especially the idea of an extreme racist like Jeffries being cheered on by a huge stadium of Africans poor George can't catch a break!

 

Actually, already covered all this Mel.

Fitz was 36 yo, 2 years inactive for fight 1. The detailed descriptions belie the fanciful overviews. Jeff was well marked up by fights end and hurt on occasion from Fitz’s blows. Fitz was over the hill - and he did tire due to not being match form - just as an inactive Corbett tired against Fitz when a more active Bob won the title.

Fitz was a wonder, so even past his best he still had some good performances left in him - and the best were his KOs because he still had excellent power - Jeffries key to success wasn’t his defence - it was his ability to take Fitz’s punch - whereas so many others couldn’t. That was Fitz’s primary lament - not that Jeff couldn’t be hit but that that he simply couldn’t hurt Jeffries sufficiently - so in that regard. Jeff was invincible in Bob’s eyes.

At any rate, after losing the title, Fitz became more active and went on a tear in 1900 - that’s when Jeffries really should’ve rematched him - in and around that time.

BUT, instead, it didn’t come until 1902, with Fitz that much older and AGAIN, 2 years inactive - but Fitz still gave the easy to hit Jeffries a brutal going over - which, as already mentioned, refutes the alleged process Jeffries had made in his game.

When Jeffries granted Corbett the first match, Corbett had nothing to show for in and around that time since losing his losing title to Fitz - he was also already inactive in some measure.

Yet, he shined against Jeffries for so many rounds before wilting.

Fight 2 came a whole 3 + years later - again, Corbett had nothing to show for to warrant a shot - this time 3 years inactive - Corbett’s own deteriorations would be the far stronger argument than notions of any particular improvements in Jeffries game - that old, inactive Jim could have some good moments against Jeff is actually an indictment on Jeffries.

I’ve acknowledged before that Jeffries displayed fair levels of athleticism in the training films - but they don’t necessarily translate to real fights - particularly when there’s a non choreographed live body in front of you punching back and his name isn’t Charles “Jack” Jeffries.

I think Jeffries perhaps could’ve done better for himself - had his MO not been to lay in wait for so long, soaking up shots before coming on.

He wasn’t the most confident of fighters and apparently wasn’t in love with the game - but I can only judge him on his material fight complexions and outcomes and the smaller, ever ageing, increasingly inactive opposition that he chose to engage and prevail over - but they were the marquee names that very much comprise Jeff’s legend.

 

If you don’t mind me addressing your reply to Mc - so you’re rejecting Fitz’s observation? That’s fine, just to clarify.

Johnson vs Ketchel went into the 12th round - as compared to the 15th round, close enough for hand grenades.

Imo, Johnson undoubtedly carried Ketch - even literally holding him up on several occasions to prevent him from falling. The instant Johnson became p*ssed, no more fun and games, it was all over red rover upon Johnson’s whim.

The concept of Johnson carrying opponents for a protracted number of rounds is not absurd at all - part of it was due to Johnson’s propensity to twist the knife - but there were also fight films of reasonable and valuable length to consider.

As to Johnson’s election when to stop Jeffries - fight reports suggest that Johnson was beginning to feel the pinch of the heat himself on that very hot day.

The spectators were also becoming somewhat upset with and vocal about the prolonged torture of Jeffries - calling for the fight to be stopped.

Combining these concepts, Johnson wasn’t going to become the victim of his own protraction and he also wanted to put the pedal to the metal lest he be robbed of the ultimate KO victory he so desired over Jeffries.

I think the book (and associated proofs) is well and truly in on Johnson carrying certain opposition for well his own, well rationalised purposes. Jeffries was not an exception to that rule.

 

O Vey and Piggy?

Bad faith??...lol.

Sad little projecting clown boy aren’t you?

In lieu of exhibiting knowledge and commonsense sense, that’s all you’ve got.

Talk about being butt hurt - I hope it’s still possible for you to sit down - a donut cushion might help. You’re nowhere near the level of Jeff’s ability to absorb punishment.

You’re not even good at talking smack - how sad for you. A fail at all levels.

Now proudly tell us ALL the previous ALTs you’ve posted under - you should be able to self source that information for us - straight from the horses mouth.

 

Stop trying to sound clever it doesn't suit you.
You're making my heart bleed with that trash talk mate.
I'll leave you to your echo chamber.
Great theory. Your 'sources' are more accurate so I'll leave that to you.

 

“Echo chamber”. - ironically, sounds very familiar.

Sweet...stick to YOUR WORD. Happy days.

 

Jeffries being marked up by the end of his first fight with Fitzsimmons doesn't have to contradict that he showed good defense during the match, something most contemporary reports (including Fitzsimmons himself) agreed on. It's also important to keep in mind that they were also using 4-5 ounce gloves (same as modern day UFC fighters), and those notoriously cut very easily. If Bob Fitzsimmons has 11 rounds to hit you, odds are he's gonna land and he's going to cut you eventually like he did against Jeffries. I highly doubt Jeffries was showing Mayweather-tier defense, but it definitely seems like he made a good enough defensive performance to make an impression on spectators and Fitz, who spoke highly of Jeffries' speed and defense during the bout. How about we see what Jeffries himself said about his defensive abilities (to quote Adam Pollack):

"Some people remarked I was easy to reach because Ruhlin got to me several times. All I have to say is his blows did not hurt me. I am very watchful, or I think I am, and when a man starts a punch for my face or body I always gauge the force of it before doing anything. If I make up my mind it is not a damaging punch I allow it to land for the sake of getting in a counter. If it is a heavy blow I will get out of the way of it quick enough."

Jeffries also said, "I don't mean to say that I can't be hit. I believe, though, that my system of defense prevents me from receiving the full force of a blow."

Clearly, this isn't just someone relying on only absorbing punishment to win (doesn't mean he didn't do that on occasion though), Jeffries had performances where he can be defensive and often against fighters who were described as being quick and speedy themselves. Jeffries' defense was, at times, described as a specific reason as to what led to him winning.

With regard to Fitz and Corbett's inactivity impacting their performances against Jeffries, I feel like their other performances against Jeff would actually say the opposite. Fitzsimmons and Corbett arguably had their best performances against Jeffries, and a good reason for why is due to how they made him fight THEIR fights. Forcing Jeffries to fight on his front foot and chase you, as in Fitz 2 and Corbett 1, seems to be the most effective way to beat him. This didn't happen in Fitz 1 and Corbett 2, as Jeffries fought more reactively instead of getting out of his comfort zone by being forced to chase.

Some quotes from the second Corbett fight, specifically talking about Jeffries' improved technique:

Corbett:

"Jeffries surprised me. He made wonderful improvement. I never saw him so fast. 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 his crouch in the manner that he did in our previous contest."

"No man living today, nor was there ever one, has any business with Jeffries. He is in a class by himself. He is just as strong as he ever was, much cleverer and in the ring tonight his speed was a revelation to me. It was my ill fortune to find him at his best and I have paid the penalty."

"I was beaten by the blow to the stomach in the second round. That blow caused me to alter my entire plan of battle. Many thought that it had been my intention to make a runaway fight. It might have been too, but after that frightful body jolt in the second round there was no runaway in me"

"It's fifteen months gone out of my life, but I don't feel bad. I was in perfect condition."

Ed Graney

"Jeffries showed wonderful improvement. He fought better and faster than he did when he met Fitzsimmons in this city."

"Jeffries showed grand science, and great hitting power. He boxed as well as Corbett, and was a strong as a lion."

"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. His class is so absolute that no boxer in the world can hope to cope with him and a new generation of fighters must come up before the championship will leave his hands. He has ten years to go with that grand physique of his, and then I doubt that the equal of his present self will ever exist. I believe that many years will elapse before a new champion arrives."

Tommy Ryan

"Jeffries is a hard man to beat. He is so big and strong that one must conclude it is impossible to find a man that will be able to 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 am forced to take my hat off and acknowledge his superiority."

San Francisco Bulletin

"Like Alexander of old, he has conquered the pugilistic realm and is sighting for new fields to invade, but just now none appear on the horizon. There is absolutely not a fighter in America Europe or Australia who is worthy of the big boilermakers attention, and he is right in the prime of his life too. Jeffries stands alone in a class by himself."

"In the year since he beat Bob Fitzsimmons down and out, he has added wonderful science to his his enormous bulk and unbeatable strength. He could have acquired this knowledge only one way, from Bob Fitzsimmons, with who he toured the country and boxed almost nightly".

National Police Gazette

Clearly Bob had an influence on Jeffries' technique in the time they spent, and many observers appeared to notice the impact it had on Jeffries as well. Jeffries even credited Fitzsimmons with improving his offense.

Before this fight, Fitzsimmons said:

"I will either defeat Jim Jeffries or make him into the greatest heavyweight the world has ever seen."

And that is exactly what he did. After the fight, Fitzsimmons acted as trainer for Jeffries and improved his offense and finishing ability. And judging from his next fight, and every contemporary report I've seen from it, that appears to be the case. Corbett was described as being in shape both by himself and by contemporaries, and as we can see from Corbett's later years he maintained his speed and athleticism. I wouldn't say it's a knock on Jeffries that Corbett had his moments during the fight.

 

I don't think Corbett was as shot at perceived, he sparred Bob Fitzsimmons in 1902 for 3 rounds and seemed to make a decent showing for himself technique-wise:

In late April or early May 1902 at Wood's Gymnasium in New York, Bob Fitzsimmons and Jim Corbett sparred 3 lively and fast rounds. In the 1st round, Jim was quick, dancing around, jabbing, side-stepping and swinging. Fitz retaliated and they engaged in pretty exchanges. A Corbett left to the lips left its impression and another blow puffed up Bob's nose, but he took it well. Jim was a little slower in the 2nd. Fitz landed a few stiff punches in the wind and Corbett clinched. On the break, he tapped Bob on the ear with a left and hit him hard in the ribs. Fitz sidestepped twice and puzzled Jim with some feints. Neither lost their heads. In the 3rd round, Jim moved well and landed on the face and mouth. Bob hit the jaw and body with his right. They went at it during the final minute with many quick blows. Corbett was puffing at the finish, while Bob seemed fresh.

National Police Gazette, May 17, 1902.

Fitz was still regularly competing with the best in the world at this point, and Corbett was able to keep up with him. Imo this is further evidence that Corbett was better than we think toward the end of his career. We even have footage of him after his career where he looks very quick, and we also have fighters like Tunney commending his speed and technical abilities. I find it very impressive that Jeffries was able to keep up with him technically and speed-wise.

 

Plenty of boxers have injured one of their hands and did not become "cavemen" brawlers. Even Earnie ****ing Shavers once won a fight with an injured hand and he didn't resort to brawling.

Having an injured hand is no excuse for getting hit by the same punch multiple times in one round. Having an injured hand should have the opposite effect and make a boxer even more cautious attempting a decision win/counter punching style/etc. The fact Jeff chose to brawl like a "caveman" means he obviously WASN'T very versatile.

The writing describing Jeff as a brawler who absorbed tons of punishment is consistent with other fights besides the Sharkey fights. Your posts are simply not based on reality. Nothing I read on Jeff ever described him as having particularly good defense, technique, or ring IQ.

 

Foreman got hit by lead right hands repeatedly (which is indicative of below par defense) against Ali and fought like a cavemen against Lyle and was famous for his wild swings so don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.
Sometimes you get forced into a situation where you have to brawl. There are many technical fighters that found themselves in fights were they had to brawl. Look at Ray Robinson v Basilio or LaMotta, look at Ali v Frazier or Moore v Marciano, sometimes you don't have much of a choice. I'm not saying that he was as technical as those guys, I'm just giving you examples boxers that had to brawl.
Secondly, I provided you with a link in our initial exchange and I would advise you to read through the newspaper articles which do a play-by-play of some of his fights - you will find some of them on BoxRec. Melankomas has also provided quotes which do not paint the same picture you did - maybe you missed them, maybe your being selective. I don't know.
The link you posted said that the fight 'devolved into caveman-like brawling' (i.e. it didn't start that way).
I don't think I said he was some kind of technical genius, I don't know what gave you that impression.
I don't think there's a single great fighter who lacked defense, technique and ring IQ, I think any great fighter would have at least one of those qualities. Can you think of any substantial champion that lacked all three of those? Corbett praised Jeff for his superb generalship in his account of their second fight.
Funny how the words of his opponents and live spectators don't mean anything when they go against your perspective.

 

Cheers but I have previously read all the quotes you have provided.

It’s an inescapable fact that both Fitz and Corbett were already old and getting older and inactive and even more inactive for each and every bout against Jeffries.

What did Corbett do to broadly recommend himself (against other opposition) as being viable for the first Jeffries bout? - nothing. Likewise for their second go around.

The only recommendation after the fact of the first fight was how well he did against ONE Jim Jeffries.

The quality of Corbett’s performance was tethered to the quality of Jeffries’ performance (or lack thereof) - so it’s kinda circular to suggest that Jim necessarily rose to the occasion or put on a performance that would trouble other contenders as much as it troubled Jeffries.

Did it take a big edge of Corbett’s follow up chances by not rematching him until 3 years later, allowing him to become even older and more inactive? I would say of course it did.

Picking up his own activity (Fitz was 2 years inactive when he first faced Jeffries in 1899) Fitz was streaking in 1900.

The rematch with Fitz should’ve happened in 1900/1901 - but no, it came in 1902 with Fitz AGAIN 2 years inactive - with Jeffries alleged improvements and Fitz likely not in match form - it should’ve been a whole lot easier - but it wasn’t, it was in fact worse. In both fights, Jeff was notably marked up because he was in fact hit often and hard.

Then Jeff again faces a woefully inactive and even older version of Corbett that has to be logically concluded as that much inferior to the 1900 model - surprise, surprise, Jeff does better.

It doesn’t make sense to say that Corbett was wonderful in absolute terms in 1900 when he ONLY appeared wonderful against Jeffries - even less sense to deduce that Jeffries somehow improved markedly against an obviously lesser version of the Corbett he first faced - 3 years after the fact of the first fight.

I already stated that Corbett elected to be more static for the rematch - pretty obvious imo that Jim didn’t have the wind to move as he did in 1900. Right there, Corbett had lost his main asset, mobility and the stamina to drive it, thus making him far more easy pickings for Jeffries. Corbett, by his own admission in his auto bio, was also afforded several long counts by a ref who was apparently a family acquaintance - so the fight probably should’ve ended even sooner.

Given their age and inactivity, Fitz and Corbett would be in defiance of all boxing history to have been in their best or near best form vs Jeffries - particularly in the rematches - Fitz had a good win here and there after his rematch with Jeff but his record around that time does not support/justify Jeffries having the trouble that he did have in the Fitz rematch - that’s IF Jeff was worthy of the praise that some afforded him - particularly the claim that he had “near perfect” defence.

Fitz and Corbett sparring and for only a scant number of rounds isn’t really strong evidence of what either man really had at that stage of the game.

 

Yeah, imagine if Jeffries had made a similar claim like, say, someone deliberately slipping him drugged tea before his fight with Johnson.

Lol, that would’ve been crazy! Nah, Big Jeff didn’t roll that way.

Another good one - George having the audacity to wonder, “Is Jeff even gonna fight me, I mean, I am black after all”.

Hello George, this is a “fantasy” fight - all colour lines waived, Big Jeff has to fight you whether he likes it or not.

Yeah, keep ‘em coming George, you’re a hoot!

 

Fine work.

Excellent work!

 

Foreman did not lack stamina that statement confirms you as lacking in knowledge.Foreman went the distance without using his stool against young men when he was well into his forties and carrying surplus weight.What he lacked in his first career was pacing,this was corrected when he came back,his loss to Young was a freak event caused by the humidity,similar to Robinson v Maxim anyone think Ray lacked stamina?

 

Jeffries corner said he was as good as he ever was when he came back for Johnson,how did that work out?