A critical analysis of Jeffries vs Ruhlin

We'll get used to it maybe, but we won't ever like it!
Lord Chesterton said these words a long time ago,but I believe they are still relevant today.

"Wear your learning like a watch and do not pull it out merely to show you have it. If you are asked for the time, tell it; but do not proclaim it hourly unasked."

 

I think you're confusing "succinct" with vacuous.

 

That's exactly what I do. Now why are you quoting Chesterton all of a sudden? Were you asked the time or did you decide what time it is?


It's a well chosen quote, and there's no reason you couldn't have been having moments like this twice a day.

 

Richdanahuff like yourself is very uneven on the topic, he thinks Jeffries should have beaten his better opponents sooner. When I ask him okay than what do you think of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, and Joe Louis, who was KO'd by sub 200-pound guys and in fact struggled a bit more than Jeffries did?!

At least Jeffries sub 200-pound opponents were hall of fame fighters. The excuses for the other guys who lost, were floored, or struggled with sub 200 pounds not even thought of as good as Jeffries opponents is what?

I find this illogical poorly thought out at best, and perhaps intellectually dishonest at worst. Richdanahuff has never given me a clear answer on the above.

 

Jeeeez your logic is the issue being hall of fame means nothing in this discussion....you are used criteria that has nothing to do with the disparity we are talking about 50 lbs vs none or a 5

 

Maybe this is less esoteric for yea...

This content is protected

 

Most historians view Fitzsimons as much better than the Choynski who KO'd Johnson, the Flynn or KO'd Dempsey and the Schemling who Ko'd Louis.

Further more all three champions mentioned post Jeffries were floored, or struggled vs sub 200 pound men in some other matches.

So please tell me Rich, why is Jeffries only held to your size standard? Should the others also be too? If your fair minded and aware of the history, the answer was be yes. But I don't want to put any words in your mouth, so a detailed answer on the above would be appreciated.

 

What's the view like from up your rectum?

 

Can you name some of these "most historians," who held this opinion and provide us with the relevant quotes?
You would be better employed trying to type a coherent sentence than continually making these unsubstantiated and untrue statements.
Any of those three champions fight 39 years old 172lbs men who was coming out of a 2 years retirement?
Any of them have their nose broke and both eyes cut above and under by those guys?
Any of them receiving 48lbs weight advantage from their opponents?
Today Jeffries would have been rescued by the referee giving Fitz a tko.

 

Thought it may have been a Devo reference.
Who knows, I'm just a mongoloid.

 

"Does ( ) rate all time status for beating ( )?"

Possibly a great win would cement ATG status. But ATG status rests for me on total career performance, not one performance. That is why Schmeling is not usually put in the top echelon of heavyweights despite beating Joe Louis decisively. Dempsey is often put in the top ten, but does he actually have two victories as impressive as Gunboat Smith's over a prime Langford and a young Willard? Louis beating Conn and Tyson beating Spinks certainly adds to their stature. Both would rate far lower if they lost to those men.

Of that group of victories you mention, what would any heavyweight beating Carpentier prove about ATG heavyweight status? Robinson was a middle, but the main reason it doesn't help Maxim much is because the victory is devalued on account of the heat.

"Dempsey and Louis fought and dominated near equals"

Who were far easier to find. Ruhlin was 6' 2" and about 200 lbs. He was bigger than Dempsey and as big as the pre-war Louis. In Dempsey's case, Ruhlin would have been bigger than title challengers Miske, Brennan, Carpentier, Gibbons, and Tunney, as well as Flynn, Gunboat Smith, Levinsky, and Sharkey. But he was not the physical equal of Jeffries. Only a couple of big lugs like Ed Dunkhorst and Jan Plaake would have been bigger than Jeff. Is your argument that fighting THEM would prove Jeff an ATG in a way that beating Fitz doesn't? Or is your argument that even beating everyone available would not have made Jeff an ATG because he was just too out of the ordinary as a physical specimen in his own time?

The gist of this argument seems to be that beating a 37 year old, fat Willard proves much more than beating a 36 year old Fitzsimmons. But can you point to even one man writing in the first half of the century who rated Willard above Fitz or even in Fitz's class? Or Corbett's? Why is that? I certainly am not convinced that if the 1919 Willard was the man Jeff had to beat for the title Jeff couldn't have done it.

But this size argument just isn't good prior to the 1960's. You mentioned Louis and Conn. Louis was quoted once as saying Conn and Schmeling were his toughest opponents. This makes sense as he had a tough time with them. He did not have nearly as tough a time with the giants Carnera, Buddy Baer, and Simon, nor even Max Baer. The same is true of Dempsey. Willard was just a big target to be blasted down. Miske held Dempsey to a draw once. Gibbons went the full 15. Tunney outpointed him twice.

Now I don't see Jeffries or any of the other pre-1960's heavyweight hoping to compete with the best modern super-heavyweights, but the super-heavyweights of their time were NOT the strongest opposition out there. The best men more often than not were in the 170 to 200 lb. class. Most of Jeff's opponents fell into this group. He was bigger than that, and except for the older Johnson and the older Louis, he was the best 200 lb. plus fighter prior to the era of Liston and Ali.

What is Jeff's claim to ATG status? He managed to get to the title without a loss, held it for several years and defenses, and retired undefeated. His only loss was after a six year layoff to Jack Johnson, whom I would rate second only to Louis among heavies of the first half of the century. Not a hard to explain loss. Toughness, durability and stamina were his strong suits rather than explosive power or finishing ability, so his wins tended to go more rounds. But he was consistent, and the point that he was never knocked out or even down in his prime is a valid one.

What makes one an ATG? Dominating one's own era? Jeff qualifies. Being likely to handle much bigger fighters of generations later? I don't think anyone prior to Ali, except possibly Louis, qualifies. Sure I doubt Jeff on this score. But I also doubt Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, and Marciano, and frankly, I don't think Louis and Ali would be as successful in the modern world as they were in their own time.

 

Yes, McVey. Most historians feel Fitzsimmons was better than Choysnki, Fireman Flynn or Max Schmeling. I would say ALL say he was better than Choynski a Flynn, who have a KO 3 and KO1 over your favorites, and most say he was better than Schmeling pre-1960

I can bury you once against with various lists. to prove this.. you remain a punching bag here! You might as well make extra money in a clown circus and let people throw water bags at your face.

Fitz was 36 years old for the first with Jeffries, and proven to be a great older fighter, capable of bettering George Gardner, flooring him 3 times, and Jack O'Brien post-Jeffries II. So let's not attempt to muddy the waters by saying Fitz was shot. But you already did.

Eventually, age caught up to Fitz around 1905, and just to flip you on your mug one more time, a more shop worn O'Brien according to primary sources was the better than Jack Johnson who was in his absolute prime in 1909!!!

PS: Fitz likely did something to his gloves in the second match. Jeffries asked to see them, Fitz tossed them into a crowd. Hmmmm. and where can I see a picture of the aftermath of this fight? I'll ask for the photo, knowing you can't produce it, but will latch onto anything negative that was said about most former great white heavyweights.

 

Well I was thinking of the village comic relief sort of like Pompous Perry at least he uses the quote function unlike Perry whose posts always remind me of a guy standing in a corner talking to himself

 

Cmon man if they let Fitz fight with brass knuckles it wouldn't have leveled the scales of fair competition Jeffries was the size of Tyson while Fitz was the size of RJJ without the athletic movement and reflexes.

The aftermath is described by the same people you like to quote to favor your own argument......time to reason for yourself instead of depending on bias old timers parroting each other for an opinion.

Today Jeff would be heavily criticized for fighting a little old man if it was even allowed to today the main critique would be why a large powerful heavyweight like Jeff took such a beating and took so long to beat him.......sorry brudda that thinking is timeless

 

It is common knowledge that Johnson rarely tried for the ko,he was content to humiliate and out box his opponents.Jeffries didn't really have that option ,because he didn't possess anywhere near Johnson's skills.He always went for the ko. Jeffries was fortunate in that his 2 best opponents were:
1.So much smaller
2.Past prime
3. Coming out of retirement
4. Significantly older.

It isn't a condemnation of him just a fact.
You employing words like logic are akin to Hitler using terms like religious tolerance!