Greater Heavyweight? -- JEFFRIES vs JOHNSON

"Fitz didn't think much of the young Jeff"

I would like to have a quote on this one. Gilbert Odd has this quote from Fitz the morning after the first Jeffries fight--

"He's a *******-jack and don't make any mistake. He'll be champion for a long time. And he's so tough and strong . . . as soon as I saw that big fellow sitting there facing me, I said to Martin, 'This looks like what we heard about. We're up against it tonight.'"

So Fitz heard Jeff was big and tough. Why would he take him that lightly?

*that ****** that is censored is the type of snack food that Saltines are.

 

"Both have serious holes when you look closely"

"When he either fought, or re-matched, them, takes some of the shine from his triumphs."

That second line holds as true, or perhaps even more true, of Johnson, in my judgment.

Johnson has marvelous longevity, and beat a lot of good men, and some better than good men, but in their cases always when they were washed up or very young and green, or not effectively fighting heavyweights. Still I respect Johnson being able to do it over such a long time.

Jeffries has a much shorter career, but in fairness I think most would have considered Fitz, Corbett, Jackson, Sharkey, and Ruhlin the best available from about 1898 to 1902. Jeffries went 8-0 against them with 6 ko's. There is no doubt Jackson was a hollow shell, and plenty of valid questions have been raised about Corbett, but I think it is really pushing the envelope to dismiss all five, and especially Fitz. We can debate how strong the era was, but Jeff did defeat the best out there when they were indeed the best out there.

I don't think Johnson actually did to the same extent.

I have always rated Johnson a bit higher and still do, but of the long running types he is far behind Ali, Louis, and Lewis in my book, and it will certainly be interesting to eventually compare him to Wlad.

Jeff would rate quite a bit higher if he had defended against and beaten Johnson in 1904 or 1905. But he didn't, and I think he rates well behind Marciano among the short but dominant championship reigns.

 

"Ketchel ko'd O'Brien"

O'Brien's weight is given as 162 1/2 for Johnson in 1909. He seems himself to have been a super-middleweight.

As for whom O'Brien beat--do Pete Latzlo or Joe Dundee become killers at heavyweight because they defeated Mickey Walker who in turn showed well against heavies?

Not in my judgment.

 

I think it is fair to say that Fitzsimmons did underestimate Jeffries.

Bear in mind that Jeffries gave a lacklustre performence against Bob Armstrong in his previous fight, and was criticised for it.

 

:rofl

 

I think what is missing here is "styles make fights".
Sharkey did better than Fitz against Jeffries for that reason. Fitz did better against Sharkey than Jeff because he hit hard eneough to take out Tom.s

 

Prime is a meaningless concept? Let us suppose that Lennox Lewis came back and fought Wlad next week , he gets kod.

Would all that was important be the result ?



No one could defeat Fitz during that time .I think Jeffries came along with the right combination of durability, strength ,size, and youth.

Jeffries was booed in their first fight for clinching and leaning his weight on the older, smaller man.

Referee Siler was continually seperating the men but did not warn Jeffries for his actions,which were imminently sensible given the size disparity.


I think if the Fitz who fought Jeffries in the second fight had good hands and was 5 or 6 years younger he could have beaten Jeffries. I don't say he would have because we can't be certain.
Wlad's competition has been abysmal imo.
His last performance was shameful.

A man who is 37 today is still comparatively youthful ,back in the late 1890's , early 1900's it was ancient.

Fitz didn't think much of young Jeff is accurate. After their fight he was full of praise for him.

I have the Odd book with the quote in its entirety.
What O Brien weighed is irrelevant like Choynski, Langford and Fitz his results at heavyweight are what is relevant.
As I said Jeffries was the right combination of size, strength, durability ,and youth .
You asked me which good heavyweights Ketchel fought . I said he kod O Brien twice,and gave the men O Brien beat as a qualification for rating him a good heavyweight.
also kod Porky Flynn,that's two heavyweights three kos.
What's wrong with that?

 

Lewis coming back today--We are not talking about comebacks after a decade or more out of the sport. We're talking about just saying someone who is winning is suddenly not "prime"--In Lewis' case when exactly was he past prime? The Holyfield fights? The Tua fight? The Rahman fights? The Tyson fight? The Vitali fight? All of them? But he won them all except the first Holyfield and Rahman fights. Prime or non-prime, he was tough to beat.

Ketchel beat Porky Flynn--okay.

But beating Porky in my judgment doesn't put him quite in the class of Fitz (or Greb or Walker) when it comes to handling heavyweights. I see Porky as a journeyman, not a top man of the time.

On Fitz's opinion of Jeff--I'm certain he thought he was going to win and so in a sense underestimated Jeff who turned out tougher than he expected. But does anyone have evidence that he actually thought Jeff would be a soft touch, or something like that. Only asking. I might have read such a comment but I'm getting old and don't remember it.

"37 was ancient in 1900"

No. A healthy 37 year old was the same as today. What has changed is that when the body begins breaking down modern medical science can step in and lengthen life. Men smoking and drinking to excess didn't help either.

 

Jeffries had not shown to advantage against the cagey Armstrong, failing to stop him as agreed ,and Armstrong held his own .Jeff hurt his hand and was unable to fulfil his second engagement of the evening a bout with O Donnell . The fans unreasonably booed him, calling him a fraud and a quitter, it had been too ambitious to match him with two such experienced ringwise men whilst he was still a comparative youngster, and Jeffries got the flak for Brady's bad judgement.
It's beleived that the poor showing actually worked to his advantage later as Fitz ,going on this performance thought he would have an easy defence against a big, strong ,willing youngster who lacked polish. just the sort that had hitherto been easy pickings for the punch placer Fitz.


it took 10 months for Brady to get Julian and Fitz to agree to the fight Fitz , under pressure from his wife Rose had agreed to retire.

Rose only relented when Fitz confessed that he had verbally agreed to defend against Jeff if he should ever fight again.
"He came to see me before returnig to San Francisco and asked when Iw as going to give him a chance at the title,' Fitz replied," So help me Jim," If I ever fight anyone again, it will be you," So you see Rose ,I can't go back on my word can I?"

After their fight,Fitz lauded the young Boilermaker. I think you're splitting hairs regardin he age issue. Today we have boxers still operating a top level intotheir late 30's and early 40's.That was neve the case in he 1800,and 1900's, there may have been some still fighting such a Goddard Jackson etc,but they were stepping stones at that stage of their careers.

 

"It's believed that the poor showing"

Okay. But do we have proof that Fitz held Jeff cheap, rather than guesswork and suppositions? Just asking.

"Today we have boxers still operating at top level into their late 30's and early 40's. That was never the case in the 1800's, and 1900's."

This is not correct. A few examples--

Ben Brain was 38 when he won the bare-knuckle title from Tom Johnson in 1791.

Nat Lampham was 37 when he defeated Tom Sayers in a famous bout in 1857.

Jem Mace was 40 when he made his last successful defense of his title by fighting a draw with Joe Coburn in 1871.

Joe Goss was 38 when he won the title from Tom Allen in 1876. He was 42 when he lost it to Paddy Ryan in 1880.

In the 20th century we all remember Fitz, Walcott, Robinson, Moore, and Foreman,

There is also Jack Britton who was 37 when he lost his welterweight title to Mickey Walker in 1922. He continued to fight successfully for years, beating Canada Lee in 1928. Lee was the Ring #8 welterweight in 1929.

I think the key is the man being highly skilled and keeping himself in shape between fights.

Fighting successfully into old age has been rare, but not so rare as to be considered freaky.

Man has not evolved in a century. These old-timers did not have the benefit of modern medicine, but that wouldn't matter that much if they had good health.

The impact of steroids is another matter, and for others to judge.

 

You cite 4 bareknuckle fighters. I was thinking more on the lines of Queensbury boxers ,not LPR. The latter examples do not apply. Take a look at the current top 10 heavyweights ages.

 

Fitz, Walcott and Moore were considered remarkable because they boxed at such a high level at Heavyweight when so old. They were the exceptions that seemed to prove the rule.

 

"take a look at current top ten heavyweight's ages"

Well, here are the top ten and then the next ten (at boxrec)

61-3 (37)
19-0 (32)
49-2 (37)
21-0 (25)
19-0 (30)
36-3 (32)
19-4 (30)
23-1-1 (35)
26-1 (34)
38-4 (42)

20-1 (33)
30-0 (twenty-eight)
18-0 (29)
16-0-1 (29)
15-3 (26)
20-0-1 (twenty-eight)
12-0 (31)
21-0 (24)
29-2-1 (31)
29-1-1 (33)

What do I make of this? almost half of the top twenty (9) are undefeated. Another 4 have lost 1. 2 have lost 2. 3 have lost 3. 2 have lost 4.

The winning percentage of the top 10 is 92%.

The winning percentage of the next 10 is 97%.

What do I conclude---obviously, there are very few match-ups between top men. It is not surprising that fighters last years longer if they never fight the best men. It was always thus. Jack Johnson went like this well into his forties. Joe Louis lost only to champions. What if he just kept on going fighting guys who couldn't make the top twenty. Louis might well have been able to go well into his forties also.

Someone recently brought up that American football quarterbacks Peyton Manning (37) and Tom Brady (36). But how much further will these men go? I think they will both be gone inside of five years. If most of their games were against college teams, they could probably last into their fifties.

In fairness, Wlad Klitschko is the exception who has fought a lot of top ten men.

 

Excellent point.

To use another baseball example, Ted Williams was probably the toughest out in the American League in 1960 when he was 42. Was he past prime? What difference does it make? There were hundreds of young guys in their "primes" who were not as good.

All that matters is are you still top of the heap.