It's a bit like looking at a dinosaur skeleton and you have multiple conflicting arguments attempting to gauge how good of a predator it was. With the very limited footage and occasionally conflicting reports, we'll likely never know without a time machine or videos that suddenly resurface.
First of all he did win on strength and durability .. against the much smaller Fitz twice, against the faded Corbett twice and against Sharkey . He didn't blow any of these guys out .. he wore them down and those were his big three opponents .. then he did beat up Ruhlin and Monroe but they were not Jeffries cache names .. He clearly choose to draw he color line when he was being criticized in public for a couple of years to give Johnson a shot .. no one suffered more ultimately than Jeffries by his decision there .. again, Jeffries in the two years leading up to the Johnson fight was made out to be superhuman by the media building up to the fight and I'm sure it added to his long term legacy .. far , far more people read the daily papers than the tiny handful who actually saw him fight .. regardless, I again give him kudos for being a tough guy from a tough era but other than that have very little to go on to pick him over a modern , proven tank like Tua ..
Very few, but the modern era also always has its advocates. The modern is better argument, is the oldest in the history of the sport. So the question that you need to ask, is where were the mavericks of the day, who were arguing for your current position? If they existed, has they actually seen Sullivan? If he was what you say he was, then somebody somewhere would have called it!
He was totally thrown in at the deep end, as you already know. I get the idea that he learned on the job, and continued to improve throughout his reign. If I am right, then people at the time would have known this. Like Tunney, he I think that he retired at his absolute peak. The wall that the opposition had to attack, just kept getting taller, in the eyes of contemporary observers. It probably helped his standing that Fitzsimmons and Corbett were overrated in the pre war era, though they are both under rated now. I think that it is fairly safe to say, that he had the best title reign, of any champion before Louis.
What do I say he was, that you disagree with? Didn't I say, that we can't really judge him on the available footage - but that he was very strong and durable, and may have been better than we think? Yes, I do believe that's what I said, on the first page of this thread! Do you think, I'm being too hard on Jeff, by saying that?
A lot of that makes sense and is to his credit. He was the biggest, strongest, best big guy of his era. He won with strength, conditioning, his chin and physical advantages. In my opinion we simply don’t have any film to determine more about him. How fast? How was he defensively ? How versatile ? We know very little.
Agreed that Ruhlin was mainly on his bike at that stage. Too bad that’s all there is on the actual fight. Orig. it was quite the production, involving a reasonable amount of footage of both fighters in training and the whole fight. Of course only footage of some of Jeff’s training still exists.
That he went to the baths is in tons of the reports the next day and shortly after. I can post more quotes if there's any doubting that. There'd need to be some very compelling documentation to even doubt he went to the baths.
But he wasn't the biggest man of his era. Martin and Armstrong were taller and rangier. Ferguson and Russel were taller and heavier. He looked like a midget next to Ed Dunkorst. Guys lime Munro and McVea were at least in the same size class. None of these men were able to assert themselves on the contemporary opposition, based on size and strength or alone. Jeffries wasn't just big, he was the fastest big man that anybody had ever seen. For every quote about his size and strength, you can find one about his speed.
Yeah, it's a shame that we don't have a longer version. I'd like to see them in the opening rounds, it could give us a clearer idea of how prime Jeffries looked like.
There is no doubt Jeffries punches ,especially his left hook were powerful.One rib -bender took all the confidence and steam out of Ruhlin. Gus was an inconsistant fighter ,but whatever faults he had, lack of size was not one of them he was 6 feet 2 and 200 hundred pounds and unlike several others Jeffries fought he was still a young man.I think he was a bit shop soiled after the beating Fitz gave him,but still of the top rank at that time.
I think that the reason why Jeffries didn't always stop his opponents quickly is not because of poor boxing skills, bad defense or questionable power. Jeffries was very into body punching, probably more than anyone in HW history. Body punches aren't likely to knock you out, but they tire out opponents. This style sounds smart for long duration fights and that's why most opponents that lasted more than few rounds looked bad in the late rounds vs Jeffries.
Dempsey never actually said Jeffries was the greatest ,neither did Willard or at least I've never seen verified quotes from them saying so .I'd like to see them if you have them. After Reno. Sullivan said Johnson was the best. Of those before him Johnson picked Fitzsimmons.Fitz and Corbett both picked Jeffries.Tex Rickard always picked Jeffries until Reno when he said Johnson was the greatest heavyweight ever. There were plenty of papers and reporters saying Johnson was the only threat to Jeffries and that Jeff should fight him. .[/QUOTE] Jeffries gave Fitz his long awaited rematch in1902 Fitz had been retired for 2 years and was nearly 40 years old.All the descriptions of that fight stateJeffries won because he was 12 years the younger man 47lbs lbs heavier ,and appreciably stronger. Fitz is described as hitting him at will,when and where he wanted. Jeffries sustained a broken nose and deep gashes above and below his eyes, he bled copiously throughout the fight. His own comments said he wasn't disturbed by the punishment he was taking because he knew he would eventually wear down Fitz. Headlines stated Fitz gives Jeffries a boxing lesson. Now if you are correct and Jeffries improved so much defensively after this we must look at his subsequent fights, all two of them. Corbett was 36 years old had not fought for 3 years and had won just 1 fight in the last 7 years! That against McCoy and there was much speculation McCoy went into the tank to make a rematch between Corbett and Jeffries a credible proposition. Corbett was pretty pathetic in this his last fight ,so lacking on confidence was his corner that they had arranged a signal before hand, a waving fan to signify that they were conceding the fight. I have to ask , given the lack of solid credentials for him even being in the ring,what does a one-sided rout over a long past it Corbett actually prove as regards improvement in Jeffries boxing ability? Then we have Jeffries swan song as champion a defence against the much hyped fairly poor Munroe who "qualified "for his shot by lasting 4 rds in an exhibition with a disinterested champion who in response to Fitz's urging to," get rid of him quickly,"replied ,"I'll give the crowd a bit of a show". That and an unconvincing win over a shot Sharkey. Stories of Jeff being floored in his Munroe exhibition are unsubstantiated, he seems to have missed a shot at the furiously back pedalling Munroe and slipped down. Jeffries did not want to fight the Miner,he knew he was not a credible opponent but in the absence of a more worthy White challenger he took him on. Jeffries own opinion of the quality of Munroe was that he was a joke,and his lack of serious training and the condition in which he entered the ring for this farce indicate this.Jeffries did not find the defence against Munroe profitable because most everyone knew it was not a competitive fight,faced with either accepting reduced purses against poor White challengers or defending against the very dangerous black contenders Jeffries chose to retire. My point being how accurate a yard stick are these two one-sided blow-outs for measuringJeffries supposed improvement? ps Please don't bother posting W Naughton's piece on the fight I've read it a dozen times at least.
