James J Jeffries

Did you miss the words OF CLASS ? Van Buskirk had beaten no one of note and never did. Kennedy was Jeffries sparring partner.Munroe was crap and NOT over 215lbs.Neither Jeffries or Munroe weighed in for their fight the weights were estimated Photos of the two show Munrone was flbby and carring a lot of weight in his ass and legs .Jackson was a washed up37 years old alcoholic consumptive,who hadnt had a fight in nearly6 years and he did not weigh 200lbs for their debacle of a contest.My point stands!

 

Why this obsession with the size of a fighter's opposition?

If a bantamweight knocked out Derek Chisorah, would you still dismiss them based on their weight, or would you accept that they were in reality a dangerous heavyweight?

 

Jeffries champion comes out of the woodwork yet again!
A poster made this remark and I responded with mine which ,given his comments I believe to be entirely valid!
"But they are against good completion. The bigger his opponents the less length his fights went."
1.First of all his best opponents were significantly smaller or/ older .
2.The only man he beat near his size who was a class fighter was Ruhlin, whom super middle Fitz had already destroyed.Apart from a diminished Ruhlin I don't accept he beat a dangerous heavyweight as we recognize the term today!

 

Agreed, I well remember buying The Ring mag around the mid 60s and the front cover ( in colour ) was the photo of Jeffies and Johnson standing in the ring moments before the fight the headline read " The title fight that shook the world " as to the picture, yes you right Johnson had nether looked in better condition, and ripped to blazes,in most of the early photos he looked somewhat skinny, and frail, but not on this day, he looked awesome, funny how as the years went by he seemed to shrink in size, and stature, when you see photos of him in the late 30s and early 40s he could pass for a biggish MW ! as for Jeffries he looked haggard, and old, despite a very muscular body. stay safe guys.

 

I do not consider myself to be Jeffries champion.

I think that he was a lot better than some people understand, in a head to head sense.

I also come down against him on the color line issue, in a way that I don't with Sullivan or Dempsey.

He seems to be the only one of the three, who felt no embarrassment at doi8ng it!

 

Well you are considered Jeffries and Sullivan's champion by several longstanding posters on here, I can tell you that right now!
Better in a H2H sense? Okay ,which champs does he beat? Which ones would you confidently back him to prevail over? Based on the couple of minutes of grainy film you have seen of him in his prime? Against a back pedalling Ruhlin who was suffering a confidence crisis/panic attack, and a five feet eight 185lbs Sharkey.

 

That is a common consequence, of actually reading what people were writing about them while they were active!

It doesn't mean that I am not critical of them at the same time!

I have repeatedly said on this forum, that we don't know exactly what Jeffries was, while we have a pretty god idea what Joe Louis was.

He honestly might have beaten any heavyweight that ever lived, of he might have lost to me like Derek Chisorah.

We just don't know.

I think that he was pretty good though!

 

Judging by the trouble had beating old retired men in Corbett and Fitz and his struggles with Sharkey, a much smaller man I think we can reliably say he would not have beaten every man, and not too many of the heavyweight champions that came after him.

 

while I dont care for jeffries the person, his resume for his time warrants him a top 10 all time ranking , he is no where near number 1 maybe top 5!

 

With Jeff you get the def. message that he had no love for the game and lacked confidence at times - a late 19th early 20th century version of Hags in that regard??, and perhaps too a splash of the Joe Bugners in terms of lack of true aggression?!

I can’t turn Jeffries into something he wasn’t - but I think he could’ve been trained and motivated to fight more positively than he did - and not to be disrespectful, but I don’t think Jeff was the sharpest tool in the shed - so he would’ve been limited to a less than ideal boxing IQ.

Not to at all exonerate Jeff or justify the colour line in any way - there was, after all, a push for change that he could’ve jumped on if inclined , but his own father’s threat to disown him if he fought Johnson illustrates the sociological depth of prejudice at the time.

I am reasonably confident but not 100% that the young Jeffries would’ve fought Johnson without the title at stake - with the title in hand Jeffries prob felt he was taking on the prejudices of most white men also - and couldn’t risk being THE ONE to hand over the perceived supremacy.

In precluding Johnson, Jeffries literally entertained and admitted to the possibility of his losing.

 

That's funny, because you have very strong opinion about Jeffries defense and style based on the same evidences...

 

Anyone who has his nose broken three times has scar tissue above and below both eyes and a cauliflower ear after 21 fights has a very porous defence.Do you now disagree with this statement?
Jeffries shipped an enormous amount of punishment in some of his fights Fitz 2, Corbett1,Sharkey2 are examples.
Jeffries retired at 29, coming back for one fight at 35.
Let's compare him to his peers
Fitz had over a 100 fights, boxing into his 50's ,photos of him in his last years show his face to be comparatively unmarked,no flat nose , no scar tissue, no caulilfower ears.
Burns had over 60 fights battling into his late 30's,no appreciable damage can be seen on his face in photos and interviews with him in later life.
Choynski had over a 100 fights,fighting bigger men of class into his late 30's, his nose was never broken,neither did he end up with a caulilfower ear .
Johnson had over a 100 fights boxing into his late 50's his face was unmarked in old age.
I repeat Jeffries defence was porous the fight reports of him against a 40 years old Fitz coming out of retirement state Fitz hit him when and where he wanted.
Now find fault with my assessment of his defence if you can.

 

Nobody knows that, broken nose can be caused by a single punch, so it only gives us idea that Jeffries got hit enough to have his nose broken three times, nothing else.

Have you watched these fights? How can you know that?

That's argumentation of 5 years old child. You base punishment got throughout the career by how good boxers face look after retirement. It's not even possible to conclude who looks "unmarked" and who doesn't. Retired Jeffries face looks normal to me, nothing extraoridinary. I hope you realize that by your logic, you have to come to conclusion that Muhammad Ali and Evander Holyfield had horrible defense as well, because they clearly weren't healthy looking after retirement.

You should know that not all people have the same facial durability. Besides, most boxing injuries don't happen because of some gigantic punishment taken.

By the way, how can you know that Choynski never had broken nose? Like seriously, how is that possible to say?

 

I have the contemporary round by round fight reports .Hype Igoe who was ringside for both the Dempsey vWillard and Jeffries v Fitz second fight stated that Jeffries took more punishment than Willard and that it was only when Fitz's hands went on him from banging on Jeffries face that the tide turned .Fitz was 12 years older than Jeffries and 47lbs heavier.Let that sink in for a moment!
I have a BI article on Choynski which states his acquiline nose was never broken despite facing punchers like Jeffries,Fitz , Sharkey , and McCoy. Your comparison of Ali and Holyfield to Jeffries who had only21 fights and Ali 61 fights ,40 more than Jeffries,and who fought until he was forty taking the punches of modern heavyweight bangers such as Liston,Lyle,Foreman ,Frazier,Foster,Shavers,and Holyfield who was fighting into his late 40's over 50 fights, just emphasises how patently absurd you arguments are!
I base defence on how fighters look after their fights and, if those fights are not available to view I read the contemporary reports of them to form an unbiased view.
You do neither . You have no valid rebuttal, only the usual knee jerk reaction to my posts.

 

You have everything all of us have, which is very little. Repeating the same thing time and time again won't change anything. You consistently ignore reports that doesn't suit your narrative.

If it's so clear, then why posters far more knowledgeable than either of us don't have such a strong opinion about Jeffries as you? Do you think they aren't smart enough or what?

So was he examined by doctors? What's the source of this article?

No, they are not absurd at all. I simply use your logic, only in different situations than you want to use it.

That's fair, let's take someone like Joe Frazier - he didn't have a lot of fights. Was his defense poor as well? How about inverse situation - fighters with inarguably poor defense like Chuvalo who was in many brutal fights, yet he looks relatively healthy after his retirement?

Don't you see that your argument is incredibly weak?