A critical analysis of Jeffries vs Ruhlin

"sparring partner"

As Jeffries was for Corbett. Martin for Ruhlin. Griffin for Fitz. Etc. Etc. Serving as a sparring partner was a way for a young guy, or black fighters, who were fighting for small purses, to make money. Go ahead and make a lot out of it. It doesn't mean a thing to me.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you lack insight into the world of boxing but a fighter who is labeled as a sparring is a fighter who cannot perform consistently and at a high level Armstrong is a sparring partner caliber journeyman at best.....sparring partners are sometimes amateurs and sometimes talented up and comers most of the time a professional sparring partner is a fighter who was a journeyman that will never compete for a title....Armstrong is one of these guys certainly the Jeffries blind follower disease hasn't altered you that much.

Something you keeping bringing up is Jeff was a great heavyweight of his time the attributes of Liston the stregth and power of Foreman and the chin of Chuvalo......the problem is he has no results to back this up...but it is the "experts" and the cultish fans who label him an ATG not just for his time......I know you conveniently overlook things but again he is described as having this is not the question but since you keep going there Jeff's people refused to fight the good prime black fighters so how does he rate greatness even in his time when the top black fighters are calling him out and they instead his team chose a washed up Corbett whom had been retired for 3 years and had gone 1-5 the 3 yrs before that or waiting until Fitzimmons to get a little older after 2 yrs retired before he fought him again......I don't buy the Jeff arm injury story Jeff and his fans have more excuses than Jeff himself.

Jeff wasn't grandstanding when he offered to fight 2 guys in the same night? or claiming he offered to fight Johnson in a basement for nothing wasn't him fibbing face it Jeff in his time was a bully picking on little,old washed up men he liked to boast and looked the fool when Johnson slapped him around while extending the fight for whatever reason possibly fear of lynching if he blew him out.........that's OK that Jeff swore he been poisoned because he was in the best shape of his life and his sparring had gone great but when he got in the ring and met his waterloo in Johnson his excuses kept on rolling....my arm hurt, I challenged them both on the same night...I told Johnson we could go into the basement blah blah blah....what I see are fight descriptions of a man the size of Sonny Liston running from a man the size of Adonis Stevens for 20 and 25 rounds hes got be a great.

Thats OK keep reading the Jeff worshipers of the time who idolized him so much that their criticisms are sort of mild......

I have wondered if you argue about this just to argue or do you really allow the biases of the time that drove their opinions form your opinion....lets face it Fitzimmons was not a real heavyweight and in reality neither were Corbett or Sharkey who were nothing more than rehydrated supermiddles/ltheavyweights......there are the fights that made the 220lb Jeffries a legend and the embarrassing part is when modern fans use these 6 fights to argue how great a man the size of a Tyson/Frazier/Liston had his greatest fights agains a middleweight and 2 ltheavyweights no matter how you slice it that is what they were

Jeff 220lb fought middleweights and ltheavyweights
Dempsey 185lb fought ltheavyweights and heavyweights
Louis 195lb fought several champions and mostly the same size or much bigger men
Marciano 185lb fought men his size or bigger

Not until Liston was their a same size guy as Jeffries as champion and we see how he dispatched of the small fighters whenever he felt like it but at least he fought bigger men as well....

The church of Jeffries is near cultish

 

I find it funny that Tunney was beaten in a decision by Greb while within 10lbs of his weight and he eventually gained quality muscle and size to fight Dempsey but when he lost a fight in his own weight division he is criticize but Jeff beats a man 50lbs smaller and a natural middleweight he is an ATG.

 

"but Jeff beats a man 50 lbs. smaller and a natural middleweight he is an ATG."

Exactly. You are finally getting my position.

Except as I explained, I don't really believe in ATG as a concept. I think a man can only be great in his own time. That is the only greatness there is.

I repeat and hopefully it will sink in. The Green Bay Packers of the 1960's won five NFL championships. Their biggest player was 260 lbs. Today at that size they couldn't compete with a poor NFL team. Does that make the poor modern NFL team "greater" than the Packers. For me, that is ridiculous.

*Just stepping out of this discussion for a moment. I don't know how old you are, but I have found in a long life that what often separates folks is that they are operating from different fundamental premises which lead to opposing conclusions. I guess this is the basis of culture shock.

I'm not saying my view is right and has to be accepted. Only that almost all your points mean nothing to me because I am not interested in what Jeffries would do sixty years later nor what Liston would do sixty years earlier. I am only interested in what they did in their own time. As I am also concerning the Packers. It is beside the point for me if either could win today.

As for Jeffries, yes his size may well have been what made him great, but it is only a fact of life.

 

I guess the counter point to this would be,if it was only his size that made him great,was he really ever great in the first place?

 

The the obvious question is why did you respond? Just to argue? the last several threads are regarding him being an ATG. McVey and others like me will not say he wasn't the best of his time.....we have never penalised him for his size in his era.....when the discussion turns to his greatness he simply has a record full of not so great results.

I am curious why you interjected and then tried to change the nature of the discussion while having no stance on his standing.......we referenced the experts who shaped the opinions of many fans....ultimately because we have very little film and giving the institutionalized racism of the time....your and others rely completely on opinion of the time which was very pro Jeff....they were in business and white people would not like reading about a black being better.....they would more than likely have ruined there name by being anti Jeff and pro black fighter.

But like you said you really have no stance on Jeff because you don't understand all time greatness....his accomplishments of his time against the competition he faced the attributes of the fighters and the results...compared to the comparisons in style, strength, chin and power ...the proclamations of greatness and dominance along with any other claims are sensationalism at it's best.

I assure you am no kid and old enough and experienced enough in life to have a valid opinion......the thing is you cannot compare the Packers with a modern team but you can compare Jim Taylor with a John Riggins a Craig Heyward and others on ability....but NFL and Boxing are apples and oranges for example Emmit Smith is an ATG but IMO his line was the best in the game Barry Sanders on the other I'MO was greater because of what he had to overcome to accomplish what he did...I thought highly of Terrel Davis I also feel head to head he was better than Smith but not as great as Sanders.....Earl Campbell was a great power back....I liked Walter Payton's style.....again these are apples and oranges team sports are built on systems and team cohesion the factors that make players great are more than the individual matchups......boxing is one on one the expression of physical dominance of another man....

 

Excellent Post!

 

"you cannot compare the Packers with a modern team"

Yes, I agree--except on achievement in their own time.

"You can compare Jim Taylor with John Riggins"

On what basis? Yards gained? Yards per carry? Fumbles lost per carry? Some other measure of achievement? Should we devalue Riggins on the basis that at 6' 2" and 240 lbs. he was bigger than the 6' and 212 lb. Taylor and therefore really should have done a lot better than he did? Or should we dock Taylor for being small and therefore unlikely to be in someone's judgment (there would never be proof of this) as good in later decades against larger defensive teams?

"boxing is one on one the expression of physical dominance of another man"

Which is why a big man who is also a good athlete has such a real world advantage. Again, just a fact of life. And while all you say about teamwork is true, physical domination is basic to football also.

"I am curious why you interjected and then tried to change the nature of the discussion while having no stance on his standing."

I rate Jeffries #9 at heavyweight. My rating is on achievement in his own time judged against other dominant heavyweights. I would be curious about why you judge heavyweights p4p. What does beating big men prove exactly? For example, Joe Louis. He stopped Carnera, but so did LeRoy Haynes. He beat Buddy Baer and Abe Simon, but so did Eddie Blunt. Is doing what Haynes and Blunt could do prove as much as beating much better small men such as Conn and Pastor?

There was a bit of discussion about Tom Heeney's and Gus Ruhlin's weights concerning Tunney and Jeffries. But in the end what difference does it make as neither was the best men that either Tunney or Jeffries faced. The much smaller Greb and Fitz were better.

"you really have no stance on Jeff because you don't understand all time greatness."

No, I think all time greatness is being great enough in your own time that your record compares with others who were great in their time. Like the Packers in the 1960's versus other NFL teams.

What I don't agree with is your sliding scale of fantasy opinions overruling records. I think it is poor thinking based on illogical premises leading to guesswork conclusions depending on what we don't and can't know. Or to cut to the chase, I disagree with your standards for being an ATG.

"Why did you respond?"

I thought we were discussing whether Jeffries is an ATG. You and others don't think so, fair enough, but I don't agree with your criteria for reaching that conclusion and interjected, as you put it, because, after all, the same thinking could then be applied to other ATG claimants. I am sorry that my opinion so offends you, but I have stated it as clearly as I can.

"racism of the time"

I agree that the racism of the time would impact opinion of Jeffries versus Johnson or other black fighters. But why would it impact Jeffries versus other white fighters. Why did the white observers such as Fleischer and Rickard who rated Jeff above Dempsey or Tunney or Sullivan do so? I don't necessarily value their judgments, but I can't see what racism has to do with it.

No reason for further discussion.

 

Jeffries was great in his own era,imo that counts for a lot I don't consider him an ATG , nor Corbett, their resumes aren't deep enough for me.

 

Oh but Johnson who lost SEVERAL times to lesser men, and beat his best names when they were very green is?

You are a walking double standard.

Nat Fleisher wrote Jeffries beat the best competition.

Any man who could go 6-0 vs Fitz, Corbett and Sharkey is an ATG. Jeffries fought no less than six different men who are in the boxing hall of fame. If that isn't a deep enough resume, your basis is showing once again.

 

Oh just f*ck off you idiot ! Go stick some more pins in your Johnson doll! Three of us are trying to have a serious discussion we don't need any racist haters here! FYI Johnson fought ten men who are in the HOF!

Your basis!lol

 

You are right trying to reason with your argument is impossible because of your going in circles and missing key points on top of admit-tingly trying to argue without having an argument that has anything to do with the point. Once we establish a point you go backwards into old points and shift....you mention a sliding scale for fighters anI am not certain you understand the point....defend his era and defend hm in it fine but if you don;t understand ATG then how did you get him to #9 without a comparison of other heavyweights? achievement? Again since you fail to understand the concept of tangible factors to be honest without uploading pictures to illustrate the entire point.

You mentioned the Packers analogy ok though it is apples and oranges and if I may suggest if you honestly think comparison is valid then I will try...by the time of the 220lb heavyweight the average line of the modern NFL team was closer to 300lbs plus and anyone in football will tell you size and strength mean everything when two players are matched up equal in every facet except this.....Now we take this equal skilled 300lb man back to 1965 and put him on the Packers and have him play he should be considered the dominant man in his position and his level of dominance should match his advantages....Though I am a football fan and know that the team factor is not comparable because the team now becomes an additional factor into a players greatness I hope this helps.

The one thing that dims Joe Louis's legendary title era was the bum of the month club however it is my opinion having watched his fights and studied his opponents that this view had alot to do with his dominance over lesser me I also feel that some of these men would have given Jeffries a fight for his life as I feel some of these "bums" were better than much of his competition. A hard hitting 220lb mans hits harder than a hard hitting 200lb man and definitely harder than a 170lb man a natural 220lb man has the skeletal strength to handle a peers punch than a natural 200lb fighter and is definitely better than a 170lb man....barring exceptions to the rule...but generally Force = Mass x Acceleration and this is true in boxing.

So just curious if you see anything wrong with Corbett being given a title shot after in a 6yr time frame had a 1W-5L record and then retiring for three years

 

Going undefeated in your career before being dragged out of your farm to lose is nothing to sneeze at.

This is the same criticism I hear of Marciano.
The worst you can do is point to close fights that he WON, as a means to diminish his ranking. To me that makes little sense.

Some of Wlads toughest fights were against guys he outweighed by 20 or so pounds. Some of Valuevs toughest fights were against guys he outweighed by 100lb. Ali got dropped by some of the smallest guys he fought. Louis had trouble with some of the lightest guys he fought, and destroyed bigger fighters.

 

You are confusing style matchups that makes sense had he been a stylist and not a Liston/Foreman/Chuvalo type. When a fighter is describe skillful at 6ft @220+ lbs the results should be comparable or the comparison is false sensationalism

Here is what I can ascertain from the same sources as everyone else.....Jeff had every advantage you could want they say he was quick, powerful, iron chinned and fit to fight and mentally tough....he absolutely was all that in his day he was a futuristic prototype big heavyweight in his time he was comparable to the impact Dempsey, Louis, Liston, Foreman, Tyson had in their times....but ATG no IMO...at the time the description may have fit....I think now that we have had 110 years of fighters to compare that to it is time to reassess those descriptions when it comes to head to head ATG discussions now we have comparable data.....in the all time discussion the description of the time belongs to the time.

In head to head matchups he did not produce the results that fit his description in an all time sense. Unlike Marciano who's undefeated record still offends people and causes discussion to how such a limited fighter could best men like Louis, Walcott, Lastarza, Charles and Moore beautiful stylish accomplished fighters...Jeffries unlike Marciano had every single advantage so he was expected to stay unbeaten especially in his era.

 

Just seems like too many mental obstacles to say he wasn't really great.
If a whole generation of mankind said he was great, he must've been something.

 

I agree eyewitnesses have an advantage we will never have......caveat that with we have advantages they never had...social media access to video and study of any fighter that has been recorded myself like most people enjoy the actual fight and walk away with an impression but rewatching the fight is how to study skills and leads to a better understanding of how and why......Greb is another that we may never know if the stories are true or the skills matchup up with being the GOAT we are at the mercy of description and opinion of witnesses