Greater Heavyweight? -- JEFFRIES vs JOHNSON

Burns was a good fighter, you dont beat O'Brien, Flynn, Hart and Lang without been pretty good but style-wise Sharkey was his worse nightmare(well after Johnson!) BTW I was replying to Cross_trainer.
Jeffries arm was OK for the first fight which Jeffries won more clearly than the second. He did say that he held back a little to protect his thumbs which had been giving him trouble.

 

In the first fight Corbett was coming out of a two years retirement, having been beaten up in his last fight and not having won a fight for nearly 6 and a half years. Corbett was conceding 30lbs in weight and 8 years in age along with his two years of inactivity.
Jeffries had fought just a month earlier. Jeffries manager William Brady climbed into his corner and told Jeffries that if he did not ko Corbett he would lose his title .
For the second fight Corbett again conceded 30lbs, at nearly 37 this time ,he could not duplicate his previous effort, and the result was more emphatic.
Corbett was coming out of a 3years retirement, having had one fight and that widely considered to have been a fake.

Corbett was an elusive, fleet footed clever boxer ,who depended on his legs and reflexes to win fights , his style could not be anymore drastically different than Vitali Klitschko's.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense would appreciate the difference.
Fitz had not fought in 2 years when he defended against Jeffries,
He gave 39lbs away to the 12 years younger man.

Fitz was 39 years old for the second Jeffries fight and had a history of bad hand injuries.He also had been retired for two years.

Fitz was conceding 2.5inches in height , 47lbs in weight ,and 12 years in age.Jeffries had also fought less than 8 months earlier.

In spite of these insuperable advantages Fitzsimmons punched his head off for 8 rds until his hands went on him. Cutting him above and below both eyes and breaking his nose. Jeffries had numerous stitches after the fight and took a real pasting. So much for his improved defensive abilities.

 

Great. That's very impressive. Even more impressive under my way of measuring things than yours, actually.

But I was referring specifically to Langford / Johnson.

You're free to reject my thesis, but I think I'm backed up with the stronger evidence here. We don't see junior middleweights regularly campaigning against small cruisers. We do see lightheavies tangling with small heavies successfully. It's a maxim in boxing that a few pounds make a lot more difference in the lower weights.

 

I don't think that these are comparable. Jeffries's arm injury came from a prefight training accident. Sharkey's cracked ribs came from Jeffries punching him in the ribs.

Jeffries started the fight with one arm. He cracked Sharkey's ribs with that arm, and got a decision. Yet you want to give Sharkey brownie points for the injury that Jeffries deliberately inflicted on him.

By the same logic, Patterson would have done a lot better against Liston if not for his multiple concussions.

Nope. Nothing wrong with the arm the first time around.

One possible inference is the often-cited argument that Jeffries improved throughout his career. That would certainly explain how Jeffries managed to inflict such damage on Sharkey with one arm the second time around, when he could barely hold Sharkey off the first time.

 

I think Jeffries became more ringwise as he had more fights, it would be strange if he did not. I just don't see the evidence to support he became appreciably better defensively.

My point was both Jeffries and Sharkey fought with physical handicaps in their second fight ,obviously Jeffries inflicted Sharkey's through punching him, but that does not change the basic facts.

 

McVea--My point he was that he was a teenager, and he was. We don't have film of McVea at this age, but off of what we know of all other heavyweights, which ones peaked in their teens? I see these victories as like Maxim's over Patterson. It would have been a different fight a few years later. As for Martin, he came into the McVea fight off a loss to Johnson and a ko loss to Armstrong. I think it fair to wonder if the veteran Armstrong might not have been the more dangerous opponent for Johnson at this point.

Langford (and Ketchel)--My point is not only that they were middleweights, but also the question of whether at this point Langford had taken on and handled top heavyweights? If not, this again would be simply a different fight a few years later. And I agree with Cross-Trainer that there is a big difference between a 156 lb man handling a top 185 lb man, something that is extremely rare in boxing history, and a 180 lb or so man beating a top 208 lb man which is rather common--and what is the actual evidence Johnson was better in later years than in 1906. Some reporters like Tad Dorgan implied they thought he was going back by 1910, although the film of the Jeffries fight shows a Johnson in very good form.

Jeff and Fitz--not only were old and laid off, but would never again win anything like a major fight between them. This is a hell of a lot different than the Fitz of 1899, and even Corbett still had enough left to beat McCoy.

more on later post

 

Of the three wins over McVey, Johnson's most emphatic was the 20rds ko in the last one for which Mcvey ws 20. Johnson could not get Armstrong into a ring so he did the next best thing and beat up Childs who had kod him. Ketchel scaled 170.5lbs when he challenged Johnson, or if you prefer 3.5lbs more than Fitz did when Jeffries took his title.

My opinion is Johnson was the best judge of his own condition ,and he said he was peak for Jeffries.

 

Fitz--I can't see comparing the Fitz of 1899 (or even 1902) to the Fitz of 1907 or the Jeff of 1910, or to the 1906 Langford. Fitz was the incumbent heavyweight champion and would go on to win several impressive victories in later years. He did not lose legitimately to anyone from early 1890 to late 1905, almost a sixteen year period, except for the two ko defeats to Jeffries. To me Jeff's wins over Fitz are the most impressive either man has on his resume.

Corbett--I agree with your criticism of Corbett. He might well be more hat than cattle by 1900--just a name from the past. It is circular to consider him still formidable off of Jeff having so much trouble with him.

Ruhlin--"inconsistent"--no more than Marvin Hart, who was stopped by West, Hanrahan, and Gardner and held to a draw by Ruhlin just before he defeated Johnson. He looks to me to have had a so-so record, no better than Ruhlin's, up to the Johnson fight. Beating Johnson and Root made him the paper champion, but he seems to have been held in such low regard that there was little demand for Jeffries to defend against him.

Sharkey--"5' 8""--Yes, and Burns was 5' 7" and about the same weight.

Childs was better than Kennedy--I think their fight ended in a draw. Kennedy also drew twice with Griffin. Jeffries had no trouble with Kennedy and ko'd him in two.

"Jeffries was young man fighting old men and usually in his home state."--He fought Armstrong, Fitz, Sharkey, and Corbett in New York. As New York City and San Francisco were the major fight capitals, it is not surprising that most big fights were in one or the other. As for old men, he had no choice about fighting Fitz if he wanted to be champion. Anyway, having lived in San Francisco for decades earlier in my life, I must mention that the absolute worst place to come from to San Francisco is Los Angeles. Jeff would have been no worse off if he came up from hell with Lucifer himself as his manager. California is a very big state and the south and north have always been at political and usually social sword points. San Francisco was actually Corbett's home town.

 

"Jeffries who has just Sharkey" "Johnson has Burns"

No. Jeffries has Fitz. Fitz was obviously a much better fighter than Sharkey and clearly was so when Jeff fought him, in my judgment.

 

Did Ketchel actually weigh in for Johnson, and did Fitz actually weigh in for Jeffries?

All I would say about Ketchel is that he is the smallest-looking 170 lb man I have ever seen on film. Compare him to Conn, only four lbs heavier against Louis.

And Fitz proved he could beat the best heavyweights other than Jeffries. Who was the best heavyweight Ketchel defeated?

"Johnson was the best judge of his own condition."

Good point. And wouldn't Fitz be of his? As his training methods didn't seem to fail him against anyone but Jeffries, why do you think he allowed himself to come into the ring in less than the best fighting trim for such an obviously dangerous foe, as you allege?

 

Fitz didn't think much of the young Jeffries ,he underestimated his strength, and power ,and overestimated his own.

I don't think going out and getting pissed the night before indicates Fitz was a good judge of his condition for his defence against Jeffries.

Ketchel twice kod O Brien the final bell saving him in the first fight. O Brien beat Fitz, Flynn,Schreck, Kaufman,and drew with Burns.


With hindsight was it so surprising a 12 years younger , 39lbs lighter man beat a 37 years old champion who had not fought in 2 years?

I've no problem with anyone who wants to pick Jeffries as the greater fighter,after all he retired undefeated the first heavyweight champion to do so.

I just think closer inspection of his opponents, and crucially when he either fought ,or rematched them takes some of the shine from his triumphs.

 

Jeffries has Fitz if you accept that a 37 years old man who has been out of the ring for 2 years is prime.

 

That's a problem with both men. Johnson's resume is better. Both have some serious holes when you look closely.

Like I said, Jeffries and Johnson needed each other legacy-wise. Jeff's failure to defend against Johnson prevented us from determining which of the two was all time top 3 worthy.

 

Johnson is my number 3, if he beat Jeffries after 1905 as I would expect him to he would not go any higher .

 

Prime is a meaningless concept for me. What matters is can someone out there defeat you and do they.

No one but Jeffries could defeat Fitz from the time he was 26 until he reached 42.

That is a practical consideration, not guesswork about when Fitz was at his best.

What version of Fitz do you pick to beat the 1899 or 1902 Jeffries? You focus on the weight differential, but that would always have been there and might even have been more severe if Fitz were a few years younger. I think once Jeff gained enough experience, he would always have been too much for Fitz more often than not, although chance plays a role in any given fight.

**Prime is tricky with boxers because knowledge and skill also play into the equation. Look at Wlad Klitschko as he has grown older. He doesn't appear easier to defeat than he was ten years ago in his physical prime. It would still be a hell of an achievement for someone to beat him now.

***I think the reasonable call on Fitz and Jeff is that Jeffries brought more to the table than Fitz's other foes rather than that Fitz was abruptly past it just on the nights he fought Jeff.