What if Johnson and Jeffries

I think that far too much is made of their results vs common opponents.

For one thing, we would expect a puncher to dispose of common opponents more quickly than a defensive fighter, even if they were roughly on a par.

For another thing, most of these fights took place outside of either fighters prime. If green Jeffries did better than green Johnson, that might just prove that he matured more quickly.

You could make a case that Munroe fought a more or less prime version of both, but he hardly achieved anything against either of them, so it dosn't prove much.

 

All those are excuses for losing, but none of them really affect a man's strength to wrestle or push his opponent around. Strength is the last thing to go. I also don't but Jeffries having a bad training camp, he looked in excellent shape

 

Come on now.

You might as well use the Leon Spinks fight to try to identify weaknesses in Ali's gameplan.

 

Janitor I'm not talking about reactions, speed, stamina, movement, those are the things that leave a past prime fighter. Strength does not, many powerlifters reach their strength peaks in their 40s, barring injuries

 

Excuses for losing ? What's legit, fighting with a prosthetic leg ? You are 100% wrong.

 

I also think Johnson-Jeffries is too easily dismissed as Jeffries being 'shot'. Obviously 6years of inactivity takes a toll and he wasn't prime but it doesn't necessarily make him completely shot, Tyson had 4years out the ring, was he completely shot? Ray Leonard had 3 years out of the ring but it was 6years between any meaningful fights himself, was he shot against Hagler? Robinson had 3years out the ring. Was Ali considered shot after having 3 1/2years out of the ring? Was Vitali shot after 4years out of the ring? Jeffries was stepping up to fight the best opponent he faced, so calling him shot off that 1 fight, its circular logic

 

You should look the definition of 'excuse'. It is a reason for underperforming. I didn't comment whether the excuses were valid or not, I merely commented that strength is the last thing you lose as you age

 

Surely six years of an inactive lifestyle would effect even strength?

 

:dealTHIS IN A BIG WAY - Johnson would cake walk this one at whatever stage of eachs career - will try to add more later coz at work at the minute but in short Johnson was a genius and wouldn't allow himself to get beat at his best - or at least until he got old

 

That may be in Webster's but most use the term excuse as an unjustified cop out for under performing .. I'm all for honest debate. I just feel that parties involved have to honestly and accurately size up the circumstances ... the Jeffries who fought Johnson in Reno did not belong in the ring that day fighting a prime and highly motivated Jack Johnson. It was as big a mismatch as Holmes/Ali ...

 

At 27 he lost to Marvin Hart. Hart, while a courageous and tough fighter makes no one's list of top fifty heavyweights. Even if Johnson deserved a points decision the newspaper eyewitness accounts say it was a very tough, competitive fight ... at 23 years of age , an age when Ali, Louis, Patterson and Tyson were heavyweight champions, Johnson was flattened by old, super middleweight Joe Choynski ... let's not portray Johnson as unbeatable ... great on given nights, without question. Unbeatable, no.

 

You talk about honesty and them compare Jeffries to a brain damaged, overweight parkinsons sufferer :-(

How about were honest say Jeffries was past prime but the sitation is much more comparable to Tyson-Holyfield and Ali-Frazier who had 3 1/2 and 4 years out of the ring respectively. Jeffries himself admitted: "I could have never beaten Johnson even at my best."

 

Jeffries had a financial incentive to stop Griffin in their second encounter.
He undertook to stop Griffin inside the 4rds ,or forfeit $100.
Griffin in survival mode went the 4rds and collected the money.
Same thing with Jackson versus Johnson, even down to the fact both Griffin and Jackson were floored twice,[Griffin's first trip to the canvas was a push].
Johnson chased Jackson around the ring,stopped his chasing in the 7th round to address the audience,"I'd have liked to show you a fight, but I can't catch Jackson."
I see no prospect of us agreeing on Johnson.
Yes, he did love money, and spent it freely, on htose around him.
Jeffries loved money too , and never spent a dime, he was more tight fisted than Marciano.
He ran out on a series of gambling debts, an intermediary interceded on his behalf, and the creditors agreed to accept 50% of the money they had coming.:deal
I have explained in an earlier post that Johnson did not write that series of "memoirs" in which it is said he was beaten by Hart and floored by Langford.It was an unkown French hack who did it and it was translated into English at a later date and repackaged ,but you keep repeating it if you want to ,no **** will beleive it ,but it appears to comfort you.

 

This is a very poorly attested alleged quote. At least I've never seen anyone who could cite this 'quote' to earlier than the mid 1940's. If anyone knows any earlier citations, please pipe up!
Notice, in Ken Burns 'Unbearable Blackness', where the printed quote is shown, anything else on the page that might establish context has been blacked out. Geoffery Ward, who wrote the text for Burns docu. and then wrote a fine biography of Johnson -- and who should have been aware if Burns was using an earlier source for the quotation -- in the biography cites a mid-late 1940's issue of 'Sports Illustrated' as the source of that quote.
Also, Jeffries other remarks about how he might have done vs. Johnson (if Jef had been at his best) were mostly that he wouldn't say who'd have won, but it would ahve been a different fight.

Until anyone can show a substantially earlier citation for "I could have never beaten Johnson even at my best", very little weight should be given to this alleged quote.

 

I do remember you posting this before, maybe Mendoza believes the source to be correct, if not its pretty interlectually dishonest