Let's talk about James Jeffries

All very true and impressive. Allmost all of his opponents were useful. One thing though, Jackson was more than a tad past his best, he was long finished.

 

didnt he have a bare knuckle boxing past thoguh

 

Jeffries only had a total of 22 fights overall ,he was precosciously successful early in his career but two of his noted victims from that time were themselves all but novices.Ruhlin was having his 3rd fight when he first met Jeffries ,and Hank Griffin his 7th.Jeffries stock in trade ,his size and strength ,plus durability coincided with the suns of two prior greats ,Corbett and Fitz ,beginning to set,not Jefries fault that is the way of boxing ,but big Jeff never really met a man as big as himself ,with anywhere near comparable ability,who was at or near his prime.Before putting the gloves on Jeffries had done a little wrestling in an informal way ,and knew he was prodigioulsy strong ,service as a sparring partner for Corbett helped him enormously and added to his confidence.Tommy Ryan put what polish there was on Jeffries when he added the crouch to his style.Beating men of the calibre of Sharkey and drawing with Choynsky so early in his career ,even though they were considerably out sized was the tip off he was the real deal.

 

I think he's one of the greatest fighters under his ruleset, and may have been the greatest bareknuckle fighter ever, if he was born 20 years earlier. His combination of ability, size, heart and strength was unheard of at the time.

That said, i think he'd do rather poorly under 15 or even 12 round rules, and while his boxing ability sufficed at the time, it would be poor compared to later, better developed gloved boxing champions of the 30's and on. Corbett hadn't won a fight in 5 years time and Fitzsimmons was getting old as well. You can't blame him for outweighing his contemporaries, but it does beg the question on how he'd do against a similar-sized opponent with good ability to go with it. Like Johnson, who he didn't fight. Again, perhaps not quite his fault due to a brutal racist society, but it is a fight missing on his resume (i don't think much of their actual fight when he was shot, though it is interesting that Johnson needed 15 rounds to stop him).

 

I'm not convinced that Johnson needed 15rds,I think he wanted 15rds,same with Burns. Jack had every reason to prolong the beating and I think he did .Cue ,Janitor and Mendoza to come galloping to the rescue of poor old Jeff!

 

I dont think that Johnson did carry Jeffries.

I think he just fought a safety first fight and made sure that Jeffries was softened up before he lowered the final curtain.

Going for a quick finish would have been the strategy that most favoured Jeffries.

 

Griffin had a load more fights than listed when he fought Jeff and Ruhlin had at least a few more. Armstrog, d Kennedy were fairly big themselves.

 

I suspect that, if Jeffries had come along at later times, he could have still ended up outstanding; but that he would have needed a bit more experience before fighting good fighters in fights of 15 rounds or less.

I get the impression that by 1903 Jeffries had polished up and was picking up the pace.

I don't think that the loss to Marvin did much to hurt Johnson's standing among cognosci. I think Jeffries-Johnson would have generated interest. I don't know who would have won. I think Johnson has a good style to fight Jeffries so long as Jack's strength and stamina hold -- but that's a very big qualifier against a guy like Jeffries. Johnson wouldn't have had much dickering clout, and might have had to accept a 45 round or finish fight. (Reno 1910, if I'm not mistaken, was a 45 rounder, anyways).

 

Is there anything to the stories of Fitz loading his gloves against Jeffries?

I thought Fitz was a decent kind of guy.