I don't agree with this. I've read about an article published shortly before Tyson-Douglas which actually said Mike Tyson's build, and especially his neck, meant he physically could not be knocked out. There was an article in KO pitching him against ATGs from the past and he was overwhelmingly favoured. People thought Liston would reign for a decade. People thought Foreman would reign even longer.
So who was Jeffries? He was obviously ambidextrous. His manger said that he could sign his name with either hand. This is a condition associated with a lot of psychological traits, but none dominantly so. He gave fans the brush off fairly quickly, but he seems to have kept himself out of trouble, outside the ring. If you spilled your pint in his lap, you likely walked away unscathed! He said very openly that he didn't like boxing, and that hunting and fishing were his true passions. Of all of the dominant champion's who drew the color line, I think that he was the only one who genuinely believed in it! He refused to fight the weak and the strong alike, if it meant beaching the color line, even when he didn't know that the strong would ever exist! That is true conviction!
I doubt it. It's an alleged quote that can not be found in context. Jeffries clearly stated he was old, gave what he had and would have beaten Johnson if he was younger right after the fight to the press.
You can visibly see this in which fight? The only clear up close film of Jeffries shows a fleet-footed man with strength, skills, and a slip and duck type of defense in sparring in 1901, and he improved by 1903. Watch his trining film and you see what they were talking about. For the most part, filmed fights play out pretty close to to a decent round by round report.
You cannot visibly see Jeffries as a fleet footed man with skill ,and slip and duck defense in any fight can you? You can see him plodding and stalking after a retreating, reluctant Ruhlin ,who looks both faster and a better boxer,imo. You can also see him waiting for Sharkey to attack and countering the smaller man when he does so, To my knowledge there is no film of Jeffries, in a fight ,exhibiting the qualities you mention.
Watch the 1901 sparring clip I suggested then reply back. If you can’t find it on you tube I’ll post it for you. The film you referenced to runs slow and is grainy. Hardly a way to judge anyone. The testimonials are better used under these circumstances.
I've seen that clip ,it's a training clip for the up and coming Ruhlin fight. Training isn't fighting and has little relevance ie Greb,Corbett,Johnson, You do seem to assume I haven't seen these clips.I assure you I have,including 3 versions of the Ruhlin v Jeffries footage Testimonials of fighters abilities in the early 1900's are of very limited value.The gloved sport was in its infancy and there had only been three heavyweight champions prior to Jeffries. My point being there was no way of comparing fighters across even a medium spectrum. Reporters of the time gushed about Corbett's quickness and cleverness , what would they have said had they seen Tunney, Walcott,Charles? Jeffries was described as a," giant grizzly bear of a man," and for his time he was, today he would be described as a small heavyweight.
YOUR MISSING the point. In a clip with clear film, Jeffries looks every bit as agile and strong as they say. Corbett was very quick, even in as an older fighter sparring with Kid McCoy. I'm beginning to think you have not seen the right stuff to judge. A while back there was a close-up clip of Fitz and Corbett. Gentleman Jim feinted and blocked with the blink of an eye. Jeffries today would be 230 pounds, and post his retirement he was bigger than just about everyone for decades, and this includes Louis, Liston, Ali, and Holmes. Are you suggesting Ali and Holmes and others would be small heavyweights today and would have no chance vs modern bigger fighters? Just curious. Some of Jeffires tale of the tape measurements exceeds what we see today in the legs, or chest. But maybe you aren't aware of that either.
IT'S A SPARRING CLIP. Lots of men look quick and agile jumping rope and messing about. Then you need to punch someone and not get hit, and they look vastly different. No, Jeffries did not look how the verbiage describes
Right, but that was based on real life facts i.e. him not ever being KO'd, seemingly even badly hurt. Shoot i'm not sure he had any KD's at all prior to Douglas. So that, accompanied by bad extrapolation concerning neck muscles... you got that. When I see a writer talk about Jeffries defense and fleet footedness... Where are they getting that from. I see no basis in reality for such a comment. Tyson's was bad, but at least he had never been KO'd before, so there was a degree of proof there, unlike the Jeffries comments. I get what you're saying, but it just seems more misplaced with Jeffries compared to others.
The next thing you should ask yourself is, why in the footage we have, is there very little even remotely showing what they're talking about?
I don't believe I am .Where can I find descriptions of Jeffries that describe him slipping and ducking with skillful defence? Certainly not in the Rughlin ,fight nor the second Fitzsimmons fight nor the first Corbett fight nor either of the Sharkey bouts. As I have told you, I have seen all the footage that is avaiiable,if you think you have film that has not been seen by the general public name it and I'l tell you if I am familiar with it or not.It would be a nice surprise if you have some I haven't seen. I have also read all the contemporary fight reports,so please do not point me in their direction either. What Jeffries would be today is immaterial, we are assessing him on what he was in his own time, a fine champion,who in top shape weighed between 206,and 220 in his title fights , When I match fighters of different eras I match them as they were ,be they Louis,Ali , Holmes, or whomsoever .I never said their size would mean they would have no chance or be too small versus bigger modern fighters. No it is you who is missing the point,which is this, Jeffries in his time was considered a giant ,and for then he was. Corbett was slightly taller I believe, but won the title weighing178lbs and was not over 184 lbs in his two defences. Fitz was just under six feet and never more than a super middleweight. Sharkey was five feet eight and 185lbs. Choynski about five feet ten and 168/170lbs tops. In comparison to these men Jeffries was a giant, barrel chested, heavily muscled ,with legs like tree trunks Compared with modern heavyweights though he would be little, and dwarfed by the likes of Joshua,Ortiz,Whyte,Miller,Fury , and the Klitschko's. Today nobody would seriously suggest putting a man of Fitzsimmons or Corbett's size in with these monsters.No commission would allow it and there would be a public outcry. Yet they were the norm in the 1890's and early 1900's and Jeffries enjoyed huge size advantages when he faced them,its of course no fault of his, they were the" heavyweights "of his time. Today they would be fighting the likes of Kovalev,Stevenson , Usyk,and Breidis. We have to appreciate the gloved game was in its infancy when these men were in the ring compared to now the talent pool was tiny . Corbett and,Jeffries had under 25 fights each if we count real fights and not exhibitions where they were facing bozos. Fitzsimmons was an exception but he fought into his late 40's .
Pre-fight comments from Tommy Ryan San Francisco Call, Volume 94, Number 53, 23 July 1903 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SFC1903...-SFC-1--txt-txIN-jeffries+corbett----1903---1 Training for each San Francisco Call, Volume 94, Number 73, 12 August 1903 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SFC1903...-SFC-1--txt-txIN-jeffries+corbett----1903---1
