How washed up was Jim Jeffries

I've comprehensively answered Klompton, but you lick his arse if you want.

PS With your tenuous grasp of English, it's a good job you did not try and spell Modus Operandi.

 

Are you stating that you have seen Jeffries sparring with Ryan?[1899]
Think very carefully before you answer this.



Have you seen the Jeffries re-enactment with Fitz made in 1899 , with the original fighters?
Have you seen the entire 11 rds fight ,including the ko, re-enacted,again with the real protagonists made in 1902 ?
Have you seen Corbett v Sharkey, re-enacted with the fighters portraying themselves[ 1898]?
McCoy v Maher, re -enacted 1899, with McCoy and Maher reprising their fight.

The Maher v Choynski re-enactment[ 1897] ?

http://zomobo.com/Jim-Jeffries-Bob-Fitzsimmons-1-1899-Jun-9-1899-Re-Enact

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVa0GNDAP8E[/ame]
This is the only film of Jeffries in an actual fight ,during his prime that shows him coming FORWARD and ,initiating the action.
Jeffries left hand is low and, half extended ,an open invitation to a right hand bomber.
Ruhlin looks the quicker afoot here too.

Stop patting yourself on the back , you are not privy to anything that cannot be trawled in a morning on the net.

Honest answers,[ if you can manage them]. Or ,in your case MANGE.

 

The photo below was taken on Jan 1st 1909 in Chicago ,by a Chicago Daily News photographer how much do you think Jeffries weighed here? Bear in mind it was 18months before his fight with Johnson.

This content is protected

Jeffries with Sam Berger early 1909.

This content is protected

Do you see 300lbs on him?

 

No he does not look like he's carrying 300 lbs or anything even close. But he still doesn't look like he's in fighting condition and just because he might not have weighed 300 within 18 months prior to facing Johnson doesn't mean that he didn't hit that number at some point during the 6 years that he was off. I think Jeff still had to lose a lot of weight to look convincing that he was still a force.

 

Nice try but wrong:

The top picture you list as being Jan 1, 1909 cant be for two reasons: 1. Jim Jeffries was in Los Angeles in January of 1909, below is a picture taken of him then and there:

This content is protected

Another dead giveaway that the photo in question is much earlier is the uniform of the ball player. Thats a 1904/1905 Chicago WhiteSox uniform. The uniform they wore in 1909 was different. Not to mention Jeffries face looks much younger and his hair fuller, even from what we can just see on the sides. Furthermore, while that is listed as being January 1, 1909 by the Chicago archive that is a generic, estimated date. When they couldnt come up with an exact month or day they list it as it as January 1. When they cant come up with a year they estimate based on the photographer etc if they even have that info. So no, the top picture at least is not 1909 and likely 4 to 5 years earlier. The bottom picture Ive seen tons of times without there ever being a solid date given for it and in fact Ive seen it listed as 1910 on several occasions.

 

But lets be honest here: Even if you believe this bottom picture is early 1909 does he seriously look like this guy:

This content is protected

If you are going to argue out of both sides of your mouth and pretend that on the one hand he was "diminished" and on the other he was a lot more ready for Johnson than history suggests all you have to do is compare the above two photos and see that he was a clearly a shell going into the Johnson fight and no longer a serious, professional athlete. Yes, he got into remarkable condition, which speaks volumes for his natural aptitude toward athletics and conditioning, but getting in a shape, and look good in your thirties is far different from being in fighting shape and facing the HW champion.

 

This content is protected

Here is a photo from march 1909, which clearly shows Jeffries in pretty pathetic condition.

 

Looking at all of the photos from above, one might conclude that Jim Jeffries was a man who aged rather poorly. In fact, from the one you posted in Los Angeles vs the photo taken on the bottom in his prime, he looks 15 years older.

 

True, and from the looks of things, one might conclude that some of the men he was sparring with might even have beaten him at that stage./

 

King Kong whooped that pasty ass

 

Why refer to Willard as King Kong and Johnson as pasty? I dont get it...

 

Pp, do you have any sources backing up your claim that

1) jeffries ducked johnson

2) johnson was robbed against hart

 

Since we are being honest here that clip you posted and the film you cite was not done with the actual fighters, the two men in the film are actors as can be clearly seen if you ever watch it.

 

He was definitely past it when he fought Johnson, but he did say that Johnson was simply too good for him and on his best day he would not have beaten Johnson.

 

I think two separate arguments are being made here ... Jeffries shape for Johnson and Jeffries as a fighter in is prime .... I simply say he was in zero condition to fight a near prime Johnson. Head to head, prime for prime is another matter but let's face it, if Hart even made a respectable showing against Johnson (forget the likely gift decision) a prime Jeffries is a hell of a tough match up ... it would have likely been a classic ... the Jeffries of Corbett 2 v.s. the Johnson of Burns ....