Dunkhorst was just a fat lump. McVey was never given a chance to," assert himself," against Jeffries,despite a handsome guarantee being offered to Jeffries he declined to face him. I'm often accused of being a Marciano and Jeffries hater,I'm neither, but I do intensely dislike the hyperbole that constantly surrounds both men when their defensive and general boxing abilities are discussed here.
I wrote he was the best of the big guys , not the biggest ..as far as the fastest I think think you're surgically choosing to post reports you like as there are many criticisms that the was not that fast or graceful , his legendary 100 yard speed aside .. the fastest big man anyone had ever seen ? Sounds romanticized to me .. sure didn't show anything close to ten seconds of it against Johnson even in the opening rounds .. here's what we do know .. he did not ever fight a 230 pound tank with legitimately fast hands and massive two handed KO power like Tua ..
The YouTube video that I posted, contains footage of both Dempsey and Burns saying that Jeffries was the greatest. The rest of your post just rehashes the old arguments that we have had umpteen times.
I knew Burns picked Jeffries,then again he would hardly have chosen Johnson whom he detested. Anything in my previous post that isn't relevant or coherent?
He was fat, but he was still a huge guy. He would have been much bigger than Jeffries even in shape. My point is that his size alone did not get him very far. My point is that people didn't look at McVea and say "hey we have another guys as big as Jeffries now, he will be the next big thing." Neither did they say the same thing about Ferguson. It was more like "this guys is at least in the same weight class as Jeffries, he might be able to give him a half decent fight." Jeffries was still assumed to be levels above them.
Sure. I could flip that argument around, and say that pretty much every time Tua fought somebody world class he lost. If you look at the the sparring footage of Jeffries, which is of a better quality than his fight footage, it lends credibility to the asserting that he was fast.
Burns later came to be ashamed of his racist attitudes as champion, and whatever his feelings towards Johnson, he always seems to have given him a good write up. Nothing at all. We all agree about the facts, we just reach different conclusions based on them.
Actually there was a movement to match Jeffries with the 205lbs McVey as Sam's size was considered to give him an excellent chance with the champion. Langford when he excluded fighting Jeffries was under the middleweight limit,it was in1906 why wouldnt he exclude the heavyweight champion? . Langford stated ,when he arrived in the UK to fight, Jack Johnson is the best heavyweight in the world, it's in Moyle's book,he later stated Dempsey was the greatest ever. Dunkhorst fit or fat, was rubbish.
Your conclusion is Jeffries went in1902 from being hit at will by a 2 years retired near 40 years old 47pounds lighter Fitz. To being remarkably improved defensively ,on the basis of 2 blow outs over a not only over the hill but halfway down the other side , 3 years retired Corbett , and a hyped intimidated hoax in Munroe. They constitute less than14 completed rounds. I find that deeply unconvincing as an argument.
That is what a lot of people at the time seemed to think, and I think that there might be something in it.
There was such a movement, but I am not aware of anybody giving McVea much chance. Who said anything about Langford? My point is that size alone was no guarantee of success in that era.
I really have trouble taking you seriously with such silly attempts at making a point .. you need quality, not just quantity of posts. I'll let others choose to spend time dissecting you.
Langford is on that footage. Size has never been a guarantee of success in any era and no one has suggested Jeffries won all his fights just because he was bigger and heavier than his opponents.The fact that he was and that his two most famous victories are over smaller, older men coming out of retirement is however undeniable,just as its undeniable that he often relied on his durability to take punishment .He mentions it himself . You can't just dismiss the fact that Jeffries had over 50lbs on Choynski, 39 & 47lbs against Fitz,32lbs onSharkey,30lbs onCorbett in both fights ,add in the ages and inactivity of Fitz and Corbett and deny it was a factor. The difference between Jeffries and the likes of Dunkhorst is night and day Jeffries could punch really hard, and he could absorb great punishment in return .Dunkhorst and co could do neither.
