Jeffries v Sullivan

jeffries,he,s constantly underrated

 

i like the ay your really formal in the first post then in the second your normal

 

A couple years ago we had a similar thread:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3866&page=2

apollack gave an analysis, post #23, favoring Sullivan, but with some moderating factors. apollack had finished his Sullivan bio; he's now finishing his Jeffries bio.

 

Apollack is a wealth of knowledge, thats for sure. I'm surprised, though, he would pick Sullivan over Jeffries, considering Tracy Callis has Jeff as the #1 HW of all time.

 

Historians like Apollack (and indeed anoraks like myself) can tend to give a higher rating to the fighter they have researched most recently.

I asked Adam how his opinions of his subjects had changed as a result of researching them for his books and he said.

Sullivan up a lot.

Corbett down.

Fitzsimmons up.

Ultimately Apollacks legacy will be as the man who redefined perceptions of Sullivan for a genaration.

 

What were his reasonings behind each, Janitor?

 

He did not list his reasonings but I can make an educated guess in each case:

Many people today think that Sullivan is little more than a glorified bar brawler. Even historians like Tracy Callis emphasise his power and toughness but do not look at the subtlties of his technique. They are not the most helpfull kind of advocates. Apollack meticulously researched Sullivan's style to the point that you could virtualy build a clone from his book. He demonstrated that Sullivan was a scientific ofensive fighter in the mould of Dempsey and Tyson who was blowing out oponents who should have given him serious problems.

History has been kind to Jim Corbett because he wrote it. He did not invent the left hook for example and he did not win every round of his first fight with Jeffries before being stopped. He was undobtedly a great fighter but he had close fights or losses with some oponents that the older Sullivan steamrolled. Bottom line he was a great fighter but also a great self publisict.

Bob Fitzsimmons is a fighter who you will only gain a higher opinion of through researching him. When I fist looked at him the writings of Nat Fleischer and others seemed rather silly. This is a 167 lb fighter after all. When you read contemporary and subsequent acounts about Fitzsimmons you get taken to a place you never expected to be. You dont agree with Nat Fleischers asesment that he was the No3 all time heavyweight but you think: F**k. This 167 lb guy was actualy one of the better heavyweight finishers of all time. You might not agree with Fleischer but you wouyld understand why he had Fitz at No3.

 

That is the hard part.

If this fight was going down tomorrow I would not know what was going to happen.

I do agree with adam Pollack that Jeffries could not win this as a war of atrition where he took a one sided beating and then came back to win after Sullivan had exhausted himself. Using such a strategy against Sullivan would be like trying to use it against Jack Dempsey or Mike Tyson.

Sullivan is a far more destructive puncher than anybody Jeffries has ever faced. Bob Fitzsimmons might have had comparable power and might even have been a better finisher but he could not match Sullivan for sheer destructive offensive capability. Sullivan would in my opinion take the version of Jeffries that fought Fitzsimmons for the title which is not the best version.

This fight is going to turn on two key questions:

A. Can Jeffries neutralise Sullivans offense in the clinches and force him into a longer fight?

I would actualy give Jeffries a better chance of beating Mike Tyson than Jack Dempsey precisely because Tyson was easier to tie up. For contrast it is a little unclear how effectivley Sullivan can be neutralised in the clinches.

B. Can Jeffries use his own offense to punish Sullivan for coming forward and can he make him consistently pay a high pice for doing so?

He was able to hold off Tom Sharkey and punish him badly for 25 rounds with his left hand out of action. Jeffries would probably have used a body attack to try to break Sullivan down and when he was getting the worst of the exchanges he would use his strength to try and throw Sullivan or force him back.

If the answers to A and B are yes then Jeffries wins.

If the answers to A and B are no then Sullivan wins.

 

I would love to watch this fight. If I had to bet, I'd bet on Jeffries.

 

This is a very tough match to pick. Common sense says Jeffries due to the physical stats, but then again there is no way that Jeffries could do what Sullivan did in his career.

Stylistically, this a Tyson vs Foreman type of match, so who knows, because stylistically, you would give the foreman type fighter the advantage. Much comes down to the speed of the two fighters imo, which is impossible to judge.

At the moment, i think that Jeffries would be there to be hit by Foreman and would keep coming forward. This should play into John L s hands, and John L was probably the best KO artist ever. I think I take John L by midround KO, at the moment, but i know this will change the next time i think about the fight. In a series of 10 fights, i think 3-3-4 is the most likely scenario.