By the experts of his time....at the time of his reign, there had been only 3 previous champs based on the new boxing rules: Sullivan, Corbett, Fitzsimmons. So experts in his day had only 3 guys to judge him against. Even at Tunney's time (1926-1928) there had been only 10 (TEN) HW champs. So yeah, he was a top ten ATG in 1928. Now...maybe top 100. Maybe.
You can't use an argument about Willard getting stopped three times, when two of those times, he was past his best and inactive. That is a poor argument to use, in reality, and percentages wise. If we're going that direction, and since we've brought up their power, Jeffries literally didn't faze Johnson with anything he threw; and on the contrary, Johnson toyed with Jeffries and finished him rather easily. If we're using older versions to make a case, it would be game set match in Johnson favor on who had more power. Though, that would be missing vital context wouldn't it. Though I'd submit, Strength and power are usually some of the last things to go. I'm sure Jeffries was just about as strong as he ever was for that bout. What he was likely missing was his timing, reflexes, and feel more than anything. Same thing with his chin, it wasn't getting dented while on the Alfalfa farm, yet Johnson, rather easily stopped him. Again, and the proof is there, when Johnson wanted to end fights, he did, and convincingly so, Jeffries often struggled to end fights when he was the bigger guy. Even then, they weren't KO unconscious, they were methodically wore out, much like Marciano did. So this notion that Jeffries packed more of a punch than a going all out Johnson is vastly overstated when you look at the actually results. Jeffries couldn't put a Sharkey way who was on the attach, Johnson KO'd men like Sharkey with relative easy after toying with them for most of the fight. Your analysis of analogy of Douglas vs. Willard is missing vital context again. First and foremost, it's based on your premise of continuing citing Jeffries being rated higher All Time. I correctly, and without any ambiguity point out that, Jeffries is rated higher all time because of his reign and title defenses. That is why. Nobody is arguing otherwise. However, we're talking about their all time ratings are we, we're talking about a specific Willard against a specific Jeffries. All time ranking for the most part become null and void then. We only look at them, under the microcosm of that specific scenario; and in doing so, the Douglas analogy couldn't be more true. Douglas isn't considered an all time great fighter. He did have one night where he was extremely focused, stuck to a great gameplan, and showcased his skills; and exact same thing holds true for Willard, and his showing against Johnson. In the case of the above, it's totally applicable to use that analogy, and by proxy, it doesn't matter that Jeffries is rated higher All Time when viewing it through the terms of the OP Jeffries style was in no way shape or form like Dempsey's, and I'm not sure where that analogy came from Edward. Jeffries more preferred style was that of a counter puncher, who could at times being a little more aggressive. That was his preferred style, so you're envisioning a Jeffries who fought in a way that wasn't standard for him, nor typical of him, so I'm a little skeptical of this actually working as you say it would. In the fights he did get aggressive in (few and far between), he was always the bigger guy, which as you know makes that a little easier to accomplish; but that would be far from the case here, and I'm not seeing the same success here with that against Willard. Jeffries wasn't the least bit hard to hit, and Willard would be no different here. Jeffries can't continue to take right hands from Willard while pawing with his left out extended. Willard could certainly crack, and of that, there is no doubt in my mind. How hard, who's to say, but certainly hard enough to stop Jeffries if enough of them land imo.
so your argument is surviving Johnson and Gunboat Smith proves you have a top chin. So Frank Moran had a top chin? But why was he stopped 7 times by other men? "I didn't think there was a man capable of taking my shots if I really went after him." Well, he thought wrong. But whom actually did Johnson stop that impressively after 1910? After all, this is going from the same age as Joe Louis from 1946 to 1951, and I recall the arguments you make about Louis.
You picked three times Willard didnt finish a fight,the first time he quit without being floored,the second time he was 37 years old and hadn't fought in3 years,the other time he was nearly 42 years old having his second fight in 4 years. If you want to discuss Louis make a separate thread about him.
Willard--but those last two knockouts are the two big punchers he faced. So when did he prove he had the great chin he's being credited with? Louis--I was just comparing Johnson and Louis at the same age, and how most consider Louis losing a lot of his punch over those five years. "If you want to discuss Louis make a separate thread about him." I will make any comparison I want when I want to make it, thank you.
Nope, Smith was a recognized big puncher, so was Moran,ditto.Morris, Kearns, and McCarty. I meant if you want to discuss Louis with me I don't give a stuff what comparisons you make.
"You can't use an argument about Willard getting stopped three times" But those last two stoppages were to the two men who could be legitimately compared to Jeff as a puncher. Not lasting against them leaves the same hole in Willard's resume for me that you see in Jeff's. With Jeff it is not fighting a big man. With Willard it is not surviving a first tier puncher. On that score, Jeff rates higher, at least with the folks back then, as they considered Fitz, Sharkey, and Choynski big hitters, for good or ill, and didn't rate Johnson as high as a puncher, if higher as an overall fighter. Therefore the loss as an old man to Johnson doesn't quite create the question mark over Jeff's chin that is left over Willard. "Douglas and Willard" I never mentioned Jeff in my discussion of these two. I just pointed out that Douglas beat up and KO'd a young Tyson and pretty much dominated the fight except for the knockdown. Willard outlasted an old and out of shape Johnson. I judge Douglas' feat much the greater. "Jeffries style was in no way shape or form like Dempsey's" Yes it was at least compared to Johnson's style. Watch the Ruhlin fight. Jeff carries the fight to the taller Ruhlin in somewhat the same way as Marciano would. Dempsey tended to come quicker and bobbed and weaved more, but all of them are much more like each other than the Corbett-Johnson-Tunney types. I think Ruhlin is probably the best example of how Jeff would have tried to fight Willard. It makes no sense to try to stand off from such a taller and rangier man. Jeff would try to plow in, I think. Sharkey is mentioned, but a couple of points. Jeff going so many rounds with Sharkey certainly raises questions, but in fairness he seems to have had an injured left arm (off the film) in the second fight. Also, Sharkey being a swarmer might have put Jeff off his game. Ringsiders pointed out in Dempsey's fight with Meehan in 1918 that Meehan swarmed Dempsey and this gave Dempsey more problems than routine boxers did. He was not used to someone coming at him. "Jeff wasn't the least bit hard to hit" More or less true. But I don't think Willard was a defensive whiz either. Losing fights with the 180 lb. Smith and the 175 lb. Bearcat McMahon show a man who wasn't that hard to hit. *I am not claiming this is an out fight. Willard might win. But for me a victory for Jeffries is much more likely.
Again though, who else would've survived that onslaught from Dempsey? I'm not talking about fighting your way out of it, or holding, I'm talking, taking it like Jess did? Many likely wouldn't have even got up from the first huge left hook, let alone continued to get up after the beating he took. EVEN THEN, he wasn't KO'd, and walked out of the ring. That'd be like me saying, That guy isn't all that tough, he was hurt after getting hit by a car, um no, he just got hit by a fing car!!
Smith KO'd 38 men in 140 fights Kearns KO'd 19 men in 45 fights Moran KO'd 31 men in 68 fights Morris KO'd 40 men in 84 fights McCarty KO'd 15 men in 25 fights So they were contenders with some punch, but only McCarty in an abbreviated career managed a 50% KO ratio. None rate with Dempsey, Firpo, or Jeffries for me.
I got hit by a car once. Flew right over the thing and landed on the sidewalk. Got up and walked away, mad as hell at the driver. But I don't think I am tough at all. That was beside the point--yes, Willard was game and courageous. I think Jeff was also. But Jeff did stand up to men who were considered bigger punchers than anyone Jess actually lasted with, and Jeff could at least reasonably be considered a bigger puncher than anyone that Willard lasted with. I don't know how many who saw both back then would consider Willard the bigger hitter than Fitz. "surviving Dempsey's onslaught" Some might have been able to use much better defensive tactics than Willard did. I admit there is no reason to think Jeff would be one of them. But it is possible he would take the original punches better or fight back better.
I checked the humidity for Havana. It reaches an average low of 43% in late January, but a high of 100% in late August. April is in the middle, coming in at about 63% but increasing to about 70% during the month. This Weather site judges January and February and March to be okay as far as the Dew Point. April is when it begins to shift. June to August are oppressive. The odds seem to favor a moderate temperature of about 80 F and a moderate humidity of about 65% or so for April 5, 1915. All guesswork unless someone has the actual figures from a newspaper.
Kearns had 19 wins all by ko, that is a puncher. Moran had 35 wins 31 by ko,a puncher. Morris 52 wins 40 by ko another puncher. McCarty had 15 wins,all by ko =puncher. Smith 38kos in52 wins. You're better than this, I think you are letting your personal dislike cloud your objectivity.
