A critical analysis of Jeffries vs Ruhlin

Kind of feels like a deprogramming session with these pro Jeff fans

Schmeling would beat Fitz H2H but then they quote experts in all time status as a reason why Jeff would beat the quality (not Ruhlin) heavyweights

Dempsey nearly killed Willard a bigger stronger more powerful man than Jeff but Willard though more dangerous is not an ATG but IMO in Jeff's era he dominates.....he shrugged off Johnson's most ardent efforts to KO him and KOd him....Johnson toyed with Jeff and extended a fight he could have ended in 5-8rds and didn't even go after Jeff until the 15th and ended it at will.....

Schmeling a former champion and a good fighter stops Louis an up and comer and how did the rematch go again? Was within 5-10lbs of Louis and pro Jeff fans compare it to the 50lbs he had over Fitz? Why because was not dropped or KOd How did the rematch go again that's right he took the same beating Jeff's learning curve seemed slow.....what is the definition of insanity?

Jeff did not beat quality heavyweights hell he never fought quality heavyweights can anyone imagine what Dempsey or Louis would have done to Ruhlin?

 

Upon close observation, I'm able to note how it distinctly differs from a hole in the ground.

 

Well yours would be a qualified opinion since your head is constantly up it!

 

"Schmeling would beat Fitz H2H"

I am glad you are sure of this. I can't be. Schmeling got blown out in one round by Gypsy Daniels. He went 7 rounds before getting rid of the 174 lb. Walker. Fitz KO'd men bigger than Schmeling. His only real losses between 1890 and 1905 were to a man much bigger than anyone Schmeling ever defeated. And Schmeling's inability to hurt Baer should cause anyone to pause in assuming he could handle Jeffries.

"Dempsey nearly killed Willard"

With Willard going down from the first real punch. Miske and Gibbons did much better, didn't they, at probably 185 and 175 respectively.

"Willard a bigger, stronger, more powerful man than Jeff."

Okay. Certainly bigger, especially taller. Stronger and more powerful is guesswork.

"Willard though more dangerous"

Why? Because he outlasted a 37 year old Johnson. What is the gimcrack logic here. Willard is more dangerous simply because he is bigger? Logic that makes Carnera more dangerous than Louis or Baer. Willard is more dangerous because he could survive at his peak against a 37 year old, out of shape Johnson, and after losing badly for 25 rounds, stop him in the 26th? While a 35 and long laid off Jeff was stopped by a finely conditioned 32 year old Johnson in 15 back in 1910? Logic that makes the Leon Spinks who bested a 36 year old Ali better than George Foreman who was stopped by a 32 year old Ali.

Willard lost to the 6' 2" 180 lb Gunboat Smith, and even worse, to the 5' 11" 175 lb Tom McMahon. McMahon was not only a light-heavyweight, but a not very exceptional one either who didn't even win half of his fights over his career. Willard also quit cold against Joe Cox. When did Jeff ever have fights like those? He is being criticized for not being dominant enough against guys he knocked out or outpointed.

"Johnson toyed with Jeff and extended a fight he could have ended in 5-8 rounds and didn't even go after Jeff until the 15th and ended it at will."

I have seen the film of rounds 1, 4, plus 12-15--which off the National Film Registry is all that exist--and your reading of the fight is crazy. Johnson was certainly hammering away on Jeffries through the 12th, 13th, and 14th. How did Jeff get a broken nose as he did before the 15th if he wasn't being hit. And don't forget that Jeffries conceivably could have fouled out to avoid a KO. (aside--it is to his credit that Jeff didn't take this out) There is really no evidence that Johnson could have stopped Jeffries any sooner than he did. And, anyway, a deliberate pace and slow breakdown of his opponent was Johnson's style.

"can anyone imagine what Dempsey or Louis would have done to Ruhlin"

Probably what they did to Willard and Baer.

Ruhlin likely losing badly to Dempsey or Louis proves nothing. He lost badly to Fitz, and to Jeff when Jeff was champion. None of this proves he wasn't a heavyweight contender of some achievement. He just wasn't a champion. And I recommend you go to boxrec and look up Bob Armstrong and his photo. Check out the physique of this 6' 3" heavyweight. Did Tunney, for example, ever meet anyone this physically imposing? Dempsey met bigger men, but I wonder if they were quite like that.

"deprogramming"

I don't think I'm actually that much of a Jeffries fan. I rate him 3rd behind Louis and Johnson of the pre-1950 heavyweights. The problem here is that reasonable criticisms, and there are plenty, slop over into any stick to beat this dog type captiousness, denying what he actually accomplished.

And as for changing my take, you will have to make better arguments than you are making.

 

I'm not sure Schmeling beats Fitz.

 

Jeff is severely overrated he could not handle a quality heavyweight because he never did.....Ruhlin proved he could not even handle a hard hitting middleweight he was a weak minded guy who could not handle the rough tough sport when people fought back....Bob Armstrong lol how good was he again? that's right not very and as an opponent he was good for one thing....a sparring partner.

Mickey Walker was KOd by Schmeling....he didn't take a beating he just took too long to stop Walker. Schmeling was a good fighter with good skills much better than Jeffries and since Jeff never tangled with anyone as good and powerful as Baer or Louis and Schmeling did hmmmmm....Jeff's entire greatness seems to hinge on a KO against a little old middleweight who was an ATG as an overall fighter but is not even close to great as an actual heavyweight....

Willard was known for his strength, durability and power he did break a man's neck and killed him with an uppercut....did Jeff? Oh yeah he refused to hit as hard as he could....he lacked killer instinct? So he overpowered rudimentary fighters who were so much smaller than him the fights weren't sporting they knew this then as well.....had there been more decent 220lb men they would have created a cruiserweight division then......

Jeff was a big strong man with a decent chin and average power for his size stamina is negligible because he never had a big man outmuscle and overpower him sapping his strength and energy he was the big man of his time with no one his own size to test him.....his chin or power.....those that did should never have gone as long as they did if he had power he waz a Liston clone.

Willard beat the best big men of his time and lost a few he lacked skills not bad for a cowboy who never fought til the age of 29. Johnson felt much more threatened by Willard as he felt Willard was more dangerous to him hence he did everything in his power to KO Willard who hardly flinched. With Jeff he showed the world why Jeff refused to fight he was better, stronger and hit hard enough even while holding back to beat up a very solid, well prepared and conditioned Jeff......the first time he fights a near peer in size, strength and power and is beat up........if Jeff gets credit for beating a washed up retired smaller and old Corbett then Johnson gets credit for beating up Jeff and Willard gets credit for beating up Johnson and so on.

 

EM,

you make an interesting point asking why didnt Jeffries look for the DQ. Interesting because technically he should have been DQd when Corbett assisted him to his feet.

The common documentaries mention that it was an attempt not to let the negro knock him out, but when you think about it, if the ref had intervened and DQd him, many (proabably including me) probably argue that he had won from worse positions before and probably could have continued in the fight. I also wonder how people's perceptions of the fight would have changed if Jeff was on his feet maybe even protesting the DQ once he got his senses back. I dare say we would have also seen documentaries highlighting different parts of the fight and giving a different view of how it went (not that i think jeffries was winning it or anything but i dont think we would have people claiming Johnson carried him).

 

Bob Fitzsimons who was as big a booster for Jeffries as anyone at Reno, said Johnson could have finished the fight anytime he liked.Want to call that into question? Jeffries didn't know where the f*ck he was when he was floored he was in no position to make choices about how he would lose. Corbett wanted to pull him out during the 7th rd!
ps. Two people picked up Jeffries, one was a second ,the other a newspaper man!

 

"Willard . . . did break a man's neck and killed him with an uppercut. Did Jeff?"

For me, this is the most distasteful argument boxing fans make. Yes, Jeff didn't kill a man in the ring. Neither did Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Liston, Foreman, or Tyson. But Carnera did. So did Ezzard Charles. The men who die in the ring might have died because of physical flaws rather than the "killing power" of the other guy. I hope you learn to leave this argument alone some day. As for this tragedy, why Bull Young was in the ring with a contender like Willard might be the question. Young's record was 1-2 with two KO's already by Willard. He took a bad pounding for 11 rounds with the ref visiting his corner several times between rounds but deciding not to stop it. In the 11th he ran into an uppercut, sagged into a sitting position for a bit, and then toppled over backward. It sounds a bit like how it went with Ernie Schaaf.
Here is a contemporary newspaper comment-
"Neither boxer knew much of the game, but Young was a rank novice."
As for the cause of death, I have read secondary sources talking about a broken neck, but the primary source available on the internet I read said this two days after the fight--
"Young suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and concussion of the brain." The usual cause of death in these cases. There is no mention of a broken neck.

"Willard beat the best big men of his time"

Only Johnson of the top six. The others? He went to a draw with Luther McCarty. He was KO'd by Firpo. He didn't fight Wills, Fulton, or McVea. Next to Johnson, the next best big men he beat were the 205 lb. Moran and the 234 lb. Morris. Decent contenders perhaps, but not the best out there.

"He refused to hit as hard as he could."

You know this for a fact, eh. What does come off is that bigger guys tended to last longer with him. Here's his record against 200 or bigger men.
Joe Cox (about 210)--quit in 5
Arthur Pelkey (204)--Won in 10 (20 lb weight pull for Willard)
Luther McCarty (203)--Draw in 10 (21 lb weight pull)
Al Williams (205)--KO 8 (20 lb weight pull, Williams 1-13 for career with 10 KO defeats)
Carl Morris (234)--W in 10 (2 lb weight pull. Only guy within 10 lbs)
Dan Daily (207)--KO 9 (29 lb. weight pull. Decent KO victory)
Frank Moran (205)--W in 10 (50 to 55 lb. weight pull)
Luis Angel Firpo (214)--KO by in 8 (28 lb. weight pull)
Jack Johnson (225)--KO in 26 (13 lb. weight pull

So Willard went 6-2-1 with 3 KO's against men over 200 lbs. He went 19-5-1 with 17 KO's with men under 200 lbs. or for whom we have no weights. Overall, he was 25-7-2 with 20 KO's.

"Bob Armstrong" "Not very good" "A sparring partner"

Jeffries was once a sparring partner. So was Denver Ed Martin with Ruhlin. And Dempsey, George Godfrey, Jersey Joe Walcott, and Muhammad Ali, that I know of. So what. Many fighters have served as sparring partners. Armstrong KO'd Frank Slavin (2), Denver Ed Martin (2), Joe Butler (2), and Pete Everett among others. Matt Donnellen, who studied the era and devised top ten ratings starting in 1892, had Armstrong rated in the top ten four times. I think he probably was good enough to stand on equal footing with anyone Willard beat with the exception of Jack Johnson.

"Not bad for a cowboy who never fought till the age of 29."

This does make him remarkable to get to the championship. It is just a fact of life though and doesn't make the Willard of history any better.

"If Jeff gets credit for beating a washed up smaller and old Corbett than Johnson gets credit for beating up Jeff and Willard gets credit for beating up Johnson"

Doesn't Willard get gobs of credit for beating Johnson. What else are you hanging your whole case on except a peak Willard outlasted an old Johnson while an old and long laid off Jeffries lost to a prime Johnson. Willard's career certainly doesn't match Jeff's top to bottom and losing to someone like McMahon isn't something which happened to Jeff.

This sort of old and small criticism is somewhat fair for Jeff, but can be done for others. Langford and Ketchell were middles when Johnson beat them. Jeannette and McVea were green. Jeff and Fitz totally washed up. The other victims lesser fighters. But still Johnson was dominant for such a long time that he rates high and should. But does Johnson have a victory such as Schmeling's over Louis, or Walcott's over Charles. I don't think so.

"Johnson felt much more threatened by Willard."

Which is why he hardly trained and came in at a blubbery 225, while he was a well-trained 208 for Jeff. Sure, as the fight dragged on and Johnson realized that while Willard wasn't very skillful, he was hard to knock out, he undoubtedly began to take it seriously. But who knows what the 1910 Johnson would do with Willard. I at least am not convinced Willard would have beaten that Johnson even in a finish fight.

 

This is a mistaken post, but I will take this space to just give my overview. I think much of what McVey and you say about Jeff has some validity, but perspective must be kept. Jeff did in fact, at least up to 1903, fight the best out there, including African-Americans. Johnson did also, but his big wins were over guys who were small, or old, or green. Dempsey didn't fight or beat the best. Tunney didn't do all that much with actual heavyweights. It wasn't until Louis came along that you had a fighter who dominated the division and beat a whole bunch of young and/or big guys.

 

Jeffries undoubtedly cleared his path of credible white challlengers.Whilst ignoring the challenges of worthy black opponents in doing so he was following the accepted tenet of the times.

 

EM unless you have followed every argument we have made regarding Jeff then you would already know we have been down the path you discuss. The argument had little to do with Willard it is a connecting link to Jeff....I notice Jeff fans like to go down rabbit holes redirecting the focus I am simply answering the mail. As far as the Young fight the death is accredited to Willard strength and power he wasn't a skilled boxer, fast or experienced he was a big strong great white hope who learned on the job and what he lacked in skill due to his size had had in toughness and power.

Jeff is often described as the fastest big man they ever saw and Foreman like in strength and power and Chuvalo like in toughness....does the rubber meet the road in his record and his opponents.....did he earn the distinction in his fights to compare with these men in those ways Chuvalo took flush sledgehammer shots from Foreman and was still lucid when the ref stopped it....Foreman was not the fastest guy but decently athletic and destroyed people he hit flush....Jeffries either hit the relatively stationary Fitz solid or was too slow to catch him either way he doesn't seem to live up to the hype which puts the descriptionss into question as exaggeration or relative to the situation...IMO his power and skills should be in question when it takes him
as many rounds as it did to catch and KO Fitz while the entire time in range there is no other way to get hit.....he lacked the power to discourage Fitz.

Johnson was by this fight older and heavier and homesick....he had been travelling as well and was tired when he fought Willard....he even fat was tougher and better than Jeffries who looked about as fit and solid as he ever was in fact I read an interview in which Jeff thought he had been drugged because he was the fittest and strongest he had ever been in training great sparring and preparation but was weak and tired in the ring.....was Jeff to proud to admit he was not as strong, powerful or durable as he had been built up to be?? or better yet compared to Johnson he wasn't near the man the white public thought he was after all he wasn't fighting the washed up 183lb Corbett or the washed up 40yr old 170lb Fitz this fight he was fighting a quality big man....maybe he believed the hype himself

It is widely accepted that Schaafs death was the result of the Baer beating and Carnera finished it with a nothing jab....Killing a man in the ring is not to be looked upon lightly and in the same era that Fleischer was so fond of marketed this to boost fighters reps increasing the danger factor.....sensationalism of a ring death. The fact is outside of body punching Jeff didn't exactly create the same destruction of other men even when they were the drunk, fat, small, washed, up, retired or old men receiving the beating in an era that arguably was less humane that even 10 yrs later.....

The question I have is how does being hit hard by a middleweight or ltheavyweight equate to the damage a heavyweight puncher can do and how does this propel Jeff into a Chuvalo chin category?? how does going rounds with fighters such as Corbett and Fitz in which comparatively Jeffs size and strength more than likely made even his jab harder show the Foreman power spoken of....how does he rate Foreman strength when he was being chased around the ring by Sharkey a man he outweighed by 25-35lbs and 4 inches of height who could not handle Fitz power where is the great display of Foreman strength after all Foreman could with a slight shove throw a man across the ring...run pulling a car and lift a live 400-600lb calf on his shoulders not the same as a dead animal or deadweight.

There is nothing he did that makes him comparable to the greats no great displays of power, strength or endurance not even the Sharkey fight in which it was Sharkey who was the small iron man trying to force Jim to fight him for 45 total rds shows anything an ATG 220lb man does......now fight a 183lb man for 45rds an average 220lb man more than likely can.

 

Jeffries was 35 ,hardly ancient.

 

In and of itself, 35 is not ancient for an athlete. I can name all kinds of competitors who performed very well past 35 in not only boxing, but other sports I follow like baseball and American football. Ted Williams in baseball for example. Tom Brady in football. But really the list is very long.

But all of those I can think of off the top of my head were regular performers in their sports who did not lay off. I can't think of one man who laid off five or more years in his thirties and then came back to perform well. Sugar Ray Robinson would be the closest, laying off two and one-half years and then coming back starting at 33. But Robinson was a professional dancer during his off years and dancers keep in tip-top shape.

Also, Jeff's come forward slugging style doesn't lend itself to longevity. Most of the guys who fought like that I can think of--Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, Tyson among the heavies--Greb, Walker, LaMotta, Fullmer, Basilio among the lighter men--didn't last all that long once past thirty. Fighters who rely on skill, like Moore, Walcott, Robinson, etc., tend to perform much better in old age.