Jeffries was 37 when he fought Johnson, hadn't fought in six years, and lost around 100 pounds for the fight. I'm assuming you know all this, so does "35" refer to something else? He'd still have been retired at that time, so I'm stumped. edit: Wait a minute, according to a quick google search Jeffries was born in 1875, and yet I'm 100% certain I've seen it stated many times in print and in documentary films that he was thirty-seven at the time of the Johnson fight in 1910. What gives?
"It was widely accepted that Schaaf's death was due to the Baer beating" Accepted by whom? The physician who did the autopsy put down the cause of death as due to a swelling of the brain caused by a severe case of the flu and spinal meningitis. Schaaf performed sluggishly against Carnera, but he had fought three times since the Baer fight and looked okay. Baer getting the "credit" is simply uninformed speculation by sportswriters who don't know a thing about what they are talking about. To their credit, I don't think Baer, nor Carnera nor Willard wanted "credit" for a man dying in the ring fighting them. "Fleischer was so fond of marketing this to boost fighters reps increasing the danger factor." I didn't know if he ever did, but certainly in his later years he downplayed the danger to boxers versus other sports such as football. If he did what you say, it doesn't make it right at all and does not speak well of him. Also, the implication of all this is that tickets are being sold in the hope of seeing someone beaten to death in the ring. I hope not. Fleischer in what I have read from him emphasized the skill aspect of boxing. "Johnson" Johnson relied on skill. Jeff on his physical assets. No surprise that Johnson was much the better fighter past thirty. It doesn't automatically mean he was better than Jeff when both were in their twenties. I rank him ahead of Jeffries on a historical basis because of his extremely long reign as a top fighter, much longer than Jeffries. What would have happened if the two had met in 1903 or 1904 when Jeff was young and active is guesswork though. Johnson would have been twenty or so pounds lighter in such a fight than he was in 1910, which might have been an important factor. Bottom line is we just have very different views on what constitutes an ATG. You want to take them out of time, but you can't. Boxing fans seem to be unique in this. I don't hear football fans putting down the Lombardi Packers of the 1960's (with the biggest roster player 260 lbs.) for being too small to compete with modern teams and so overrated. They were good enough to win five championships in their time which made them great against their competition. That is the only real greatness there is. I am old enough to know everything moves on. I go back before the Packers and even before the 185 lb. Marciano was the best heavyweight in the world. Time brought the 220 lb. guys of the 1970's. Now we have 250 lb types like Joshua. I probably won't live to see it, but it would not surprise me if 300 lb. heavyweight champions will one day be the norm, and Ali and Foreman will be looked upon as smallish relics of a distant past. But nothing can take away someone being the best of his own time and against those who were around in his own time. That is what greatness is.
Well, 35 out of the ring for SIX years, being a heavy drinker, and ballooning to 300+ pounds during his time off = Ancient. When you factor in Jeffries had no warm up fights and Johnson hired his old trainer Delaney, what else can you expect? If you actually watch the films, ( you don't ) and stop making up stuff along the way, you'll notice some of the first ten rounds were competitive rounds for Jeffries. Jeffries was slightly the better in the first four rounds, drew first blood and won the 9th. If you watch the films, the heat and inactivity got to Jeffries, who as Fitzsimons aptly put it wasn't a quarter of the fighter he fought, and Johnson picked up the pace in the 13th. By the 14th Jeffries had no stamina left and could barley keep his guard up.
Jeez EM Jeffries is compared by Fleischer to moderns ......his size and assets were compared to modern fighters in his head to head matchups.....The results of Jeffries fights do not match his extreme advantages The NFL absolutely rates positions against different eras are you kidding?? The greatest running backs for example Jim Brown was as dominant as you would expect for a modern sized RB in the 50s60s and greater so..... The pro Jeff fans like to pick and choose what to respond too....defending a fighter off heresay is much easier than taking an objective look at tangibles and factoring it in to intangibles of the last 110 yrs Jeff's overrated and would have been brutalized by a hard punching HEAVYWEIGHT he was a big fish in a little pond and made the pond smaller by refusing to fight a black fighters his toughest fights were against modern Ltheavyweight and a middleweight I think Hagler is an ATG middleweight but would have expected Tyson, Frazier or a Liston to beat him easily but Jeff could not..,...the myth of Jeff and the infallibity of Nat Fleischer I haven't blindly bought into since I grew up.i get so sick of hearing popular opinion I go back to social movement theory .....go ahead and idolized Jeff as for me I will continue to exercise critical thinking
Jeffries was born on the 15th of April 1875.Jeffries did not lose 100lbs and in fact he was down to weight 9 months before the fight,Jeffries was weighed when he came back from Carlsbad he was 230lbs Jeffries went into training 16 months before the fight.At the time of the fight he was 36.Jeffries and Johnson signed for the fight on October the 29th 1909 , but Jeffries had been in training for months prior to this.
Jeffries never weighed 300lbs +. I have the fight and have owned it for over 40 years! I also have the rounds by rounds summary and Jeffries did not win the first 4 rounds at all. BobFitzsimmons? He said Johnson could have finished it anytime he liked! http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1910-07-05/ed-1/seq-8/ http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85052114/1910-07-04/ed-1/seq-1/#words=BIG+FIGHT http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...7/#words=Lack+Skill+Boxing+Helped+Johnson+Win Jeffries didnt draw first blood or anything else Johnson went into the ring with a cut lip sustained in sparring with Marty Cutler. Johnson won because he was in his prime and Jeffries was past his but he was in the best condition a 36 years old man could be in, as all of his supporters and he himself stated. After the fight Jeffries to a reporter said he could never have beaten Johnson in a thousand years.Here is his quote! The Telegraph July 9th 1910 https://news.google.com/newspapers?...,2444977&dq=jack+johnson+james+jeffries&hl=en
"Jeffries is compared by Fleischer to moderns" So. I'm not Fleischer and I think his ratings and point of view are often bizarre. Here's Fleischer's top heavyweights of his 1960 list in the Ring Record Book-- 1--Jack Johnson 2--Jim Jeffries 3--Bob Fitzsimmons 4--Jack Dempsey 5--Jim Corbett 6--Joe Louis 10--Rocky Marciano Here's my top six from pre-1960 1--Joe Louis 2--Rocky Marciano 3--Jack Johnson* 4--Jim Jeffries 5--Jack Dempsey 6--Ezzard Charles *Johnson could swap positions with Marciano if longevity is emphasized over dominance. I don't think Johnson is a bad #1 choice though, and Jeffries should be fairly high on the list, but Louis 6th and Marciano 10th makes no sense to me. Nat is even more bizarre in some of his other ratings. Neither Archie Moore nor Billy Conn make his top ten at light-heavyweight. Saddler is not in the top ten at feather. Robinson does not make the top ten at welter, although his is #5 at middle. Bottom line is I don't take my marching orders from Fleischer on ratings. You must have me mixed up with someone else. "The results of Jeffries fights do not match his extreme advantages" But they were pretty good. He is the only champion to reach the championship and to retire w/o a loss until Marciano. "Jim Brown was as dominant as you would expect for a modern sized RB in the 50's & 60's." Two things wrong with this if compared to Jeffries. One--Brown was far more outstanding in his sport than Jeff was in his in my judgment. I at least would never claim Jeff was as much of a standout as Brown. Two-Brown was not as big in his own day as you imply. Marion Motley had been bigger. Cookie Gilcrist was bigger. Guys like Rick Casares, Deacon Dan Towler, Jim Nance, and John Henry Johnson were either bigger than Brown or almost as big as Brown. (I have a real advantage here having been an avid NFL watcher all the way back to the early fifties) For some reason, running backs on the whole are NOT that much bigger than they were back then, unlike other positions such as the tight ends, quarterbacks, and linemen. "Jeff's fans" "defending a fighter off hearsay" It is not hearsay that he won his way to the title w/o losing, defended it several times against worthy contenders, and retired undefeated. It is his record that props up his historical position. "taking an objective look at tangibles and then factoring it into intangibles" Rather confused. Intangibles by definition would be totally subjective. "He was a big fish in a little pond" Something to this but he was still the biggest fish around. Is an elephant small compared to some dinosaurs? Yes, but it is still the largest animal walking the Earth. What was around at other times doesn't matter. "and made the pond smaller by refusing to fight black fighters" Not true. He did fight black fighters both before and after he was champion. He fought Jack Johnson, Peter Jackson, Bob Armstrong, and Hank Griffin, all men who were top black heavyweights. Your criticism is more fairly applied here to Dempsey and Tunney. What Jeff did, and is fairly criticized for, is refusing to defend the title against black fighters, of whom Johnson was the one who emerged as the outstanding contender in 1903 and 1904. "His toughest fights were against modern light-heavyweights and a middleweight" Actually, I think his toughest fight was against Johnson. I don't know who the middleweight is supposed to be. Fitz was at least a light-heavy. So was Choynski. As Adam Pollack goes into in quite a bit of depth, heavyweights were not weighed in back then and some made a fetish of understating their weight, apparently to get credit for overcoming big size handicaps. Fitz seems to be among those. Jeff didn't fight a huge man, but most of his opponents fall into the usual 170 to 200 lb. range of heavyweight boxing prior to 1960. Most of the other pre-1960 greats also struggled with "small" men. A 174 lb. Conn gave Louis a tough time. Tunney was beaten by a 165 lb. Greb. Dempsey went 15 with the 175 lb. Gibbons and was stopped by the 180 lb. Flynn. Johnson was knocked out by Choynski. "infallibility of Nat Fleischer" Drop Fleischer. As I've already said, I don't agree with his ratings. But if you want an old-timer's opinion, here is Jack Johnson from the July, 1946 Ring Magazine (shortly before his death in a car accident) on his victory over Jeffries-- "A great fighter had fallen that day. A man whom I always cherished as a super human ringman, had been taken into tow by me and that was something to cherish. When I walked to my dressing room, I stopped momentarily as a thought came to me--I wonder what Jeff was like in his prime. I have been wondering ever since, especially when I see the stories that so frequently have come into print in recent months about great heavyweights."
Jackson was an alcoholic has been when he fought Jeffries,even Jeffries said he," was just a shell" I can give you plenty of verified quotes from Johnson where he states unequivocally he knew he was always Jeffries master and he saw plenty of Jeffries in his prime, he began dogging him in the early 1900's! Turning up at his fights watching his every move and later challenging him from ringside.He knew as much about a prime Jeffries as just about anyone! Jeffries had no problem fighting blacks as long as he wasn't defending the championship,because he was sh*t scared of losing his title to one! There is absolutely no argument about this and he forcibly reiterated it in public and in print many, many times! Often with the most demeaning choice of language when referring to blacks.
quotes from Johnson This one is in a signed article from the July, 1946 Ring Magazine. It isn't filtered through a reporter. If he didn't believe it he shouldn't have written it, or approved the article. In the article, by the way, he picks Jeffries to beat Louis. It is a valid point that building up Jeffries was a way for Johnson to build up himself. Jeffries was, after all, his biggest win. Also, though, Johnson judging himself better than Jeffries doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't think Jeff was great nor that he doesn't think Jeff could beat everyone else. "scared of losing his title" A reasonable take. But it does not obviate the fact that he met top black heavyweights. Sullivan, Dempsey, and Tunney didn't. "demeaning choice of language" Jeff can't be defended on this point.
He met one top black heavyweight and only then in an effort to regain his crown and "restore it to the white race."Johnson rated Fitzsimmons above Jeffries.
Peter Jackson Jim Jeffords TKO 4 Aug 23, 1899 Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada James J. Jeffries KO 2 Mar 22, 1899 San Francisco, California, USA Denny Kelliher NWS 3 Nov 28, 1892 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Wow almost 7 yrs since his previous fight before Jeff that was fair....IMO Jackson got selected because he was a black fighter with a name they knew was washed perfect to build the Jeff myth on. Bob Armstrong Boxing record Total fights 33 Wins This content is protected Wins by KO 15 Losses This content is protected Draws 5 He was sparring partner material he lost or drew half his fights Hank Griffin and Jeffries were newbies in the first fight it means little the second fight was a draw Jeffries people carefully selected black fighters to enhance him as the great white hope
Actually, I think his toughest fight was against Johnson. I don't know who the middleweight is supposed to be. Fitz was at least a light-heavy. So was Choynski. As Adam Pollack goes into in quite a bit of depth, heavyweights were not weighed in back then and some made a fetish of understating their weight, apparently to get credit for overcoming big size handicaps. Fitz seems to be among those. Jeff didn't fight a huge man, but most of his opponents fall into the usual 170 to 200 lb. range of heavyweight boxing prior to 1960. Most of the other pre-1960 greats also struggled with "small" men. A 174 lb. Conn gave Louis a tough time. Tunney was beaten by a 165 lb. Greb. Dempsey went 15 with the 175 lb. Gibbons and was stopped by the 180 lb. Flynn. Johnson was knocked out by Choynski. Fitzimmons was a rehydrated middleweight and if he were fighting today maybe a 154 fighter and it is clear with him and Jeff posing together he is lucky to be 170..... I have seen an awful lot of stories about how they didn't weigh fighters then when I know they did and had scales....smoke and mirrors Tunney was a Ltheavyweight when he fought Greb and maybe 10lbs heavier he filled in and gained weight to fight Dempsey You like so many fans use fighter quotes to bolster your opinion......fighters notoriously alter their stories and always have especially when its in their best interest....the best time to quote a fighter is closest to the event to avoid the altering of their memory from well being hit in the head for a career. "Conn gave Louis a tough time. Tunney was beaten by a 165 lb. Greb. Dempsey went 15 with the 175 lb. Gibbons and was stopped by the 180 lb. Flynn. Johnson was knocked out by Choynski." We have beaten the above to death Go ahead give Jeff his passes on all things great fighters should be
Its like that clown Mendoza saying Jeffries would have defended against a black challenger if the price was right.Well. NO HE F*CKING WOULDN'T HAVE!!!