How washed up was Jim Jeffries

Jeffries ability should be measured and quantified on the basis of how he performed up to and, including his last fight as champion against Jack Munroe.
Those who call Muhammad Ali the greatest heavyweight of all time,and I include myself amongst them, do not factor in his performances against Holmes and Berbick when assessing his talent, during his prime.

Would we denigrate Bob Fitzsimmons for his lacklustre effort against Jack Johnson when the Cornishman was 43 years old and struggling with a torn tendon in his arm?

LIke wise ,only Mendoza thinks Jack Johnson a coward because he retired against Bob Lawson between the 7th and 8th rounds, [Johnson was 48years old]. Those of us that think Johnson was a ring marvel,[ certainly a minority bunch], judge him on his battles when he was prime and pre prime ,cutting a swathe through the contenders of his day.

If some one told you they had watched the Ray Robinson / Joey Archer fight, [when Ray was near 44 ] and, that they were underwhelmed by Robinson's abilities and standing as an ATG, I think you would regard them as not worth engaging in rational argument


Neither should we do so regarding the" Grizzly Bear ,"and his abortive comeback against Johnson.

 

he was at least as bad as Ali vs Holmes which adds up to shot. I think with 6 years off, no tun-ups and having lost 100 lbs at the age of 35 and going strait to Johnson who was active, Jeffires was suffering from severe case of wishful thinking but being the first man to attempt a comeback of this sort he has to be given credit for the attempt.

Jeffries was totally shot, worse by far than Louis was vs Marciano, just as bad or worse than Ali vs Holmes

 

Where does 6 months come from? Try 18.

How about George Foreman?
Out of the ring for 10 years , god knows what he scaled ,when he was preaching ,came back 40lbs overweight went 12 rds with the Champ, gave a respectable account of himself, never sat down between rounds.
Eventually re -won the title at 45.

Crucial difference, he re- entered the heavyweight waters slowly.

Jeffries had no tune ups to hone whatever skills he still possessed, no rounds to build back up his stamina,if he had said no to the vaudeville circus he was embracing , with that period devoted to training , maybe he would have given a better account of himself.

Don't kid yourself, Johnson was in shape for Jeffries, he had every reason to be.

 

Foreman might have given a good account of himself. But you cant honestly think that he got back to anywhere near the condition of his first incarnation, can you?

Tommy Morrison, Shannon Briggs, Axel Schulz, even Michael Moorer, or Evander Holyfield would face a totally different situation against preretirement George Foreman.

 

You know a lot of people misjudge and assume that an older fighter was better when he was younger. Foreman was physically better when he was younger but he learned how to pace himself and relax in the ring as an older man and the years off as a preacher living a clean life helped preserve Big G.

For me Hopkins overall has been a better fighter past 37 than before, not in all aspects but overall. I think the older Foreman was smarter, the younger Foreman had 1 way to beat you and could run out of gas doing it and we saw that VS Ali and Young...the older guy took his time, used the jab and used his weight and was more of a thinking fighter.

In the case of Jeffries he was completely shot and unprepared for Johnson

 

Totally agree and was not making a point against it ... I was just stating the obvious ... he fell for the hype and wanted the big bucks from a Johnson fight and added insult to injury by being an arrogant ***** that treated Johnson like a dog and in return was destroyed in front of the world and looked pathetic ... he sold his soul and paid for it ...

 

Hang on, That ONE fight would have been a KO victory against Hank Griffin, who actually took JOhnson to school! In fact, Hank defeated Johnson in 1901, just two months after he was knocked down 3 or 4 times in a four round bout with Jeffries.

Incidentally according to Jeffries, the KO over Griffin actually occured when Jeffries was just 17 years of age.

 

Jeffries has been criticized as being the racist antagonist who showed no respect for Johnson as the champion, and that may well have been true.. However, upon losing and going into final retirement, he took the high road by saying that Johnson would have beaten him even in his prime, rather than playing the " I was washed up card." In return, Johnson ( a champion who was never known for his decency ) maintained till his death that Jeffries' was the toughest man he ever met in the ring. Its clear that despite what these two man may have felt in their own minds, there was a mutual respect for the other...

 

Here is Jeffries taken on why he didnt fight Jack Johnson and also the real reason why he took the fight with Johnson.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/art...es fight cellar weekly articles&searchLimits=

 

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/art...nson &searchLimits=l-decade=193|||l-year=1936

ANd here is Jeffries take on the actual fight himself.

Jeffries says, for the record, that he lost 60 pounds in three months. I am guessing this is close to the truth. And i am guessing that Jeffries had theatrical duties up to 3 months before which would have meant he wouldnt have actually been fully training until then. I would also guess it not unreasonable for him to lose a further 50 or so pounds in the 15 months preceding this.

The tea drugging story is also covered, and Jeffries doesnt really give much credence to it, noting that drugged or not he would never have beaten Johnson by that point in time. This is probably what was meant in the famous i would never beat johnson quote. I think it is realistic too.

 

It would depend on whether you take CBZ's stats or Box rec's
CBZ has Jeffries fighting Griffin in Sept 1895.
Box rec has it Dec 1896 and ,again in Sept 1901, but with a caution that the 1896 date may not be correct.
Lets say you are correct ,the original implication was that the man in the photo,[in which Jeffries was 20] was not the man Johnson faced [I think thats a no brainer anyway ,but by the by] I would take prime Johnson to beat a 20 years old Jeffries anyway, then again I would take prime Johnson to beat any Jeffries.
As to scoring points about the respective peformances of Jeffries and Johnson against Griffin,[which you did],may I say Jeffries did very well, may I also say he had 60 lbs on Griffin. In 1901 Johnson was super middle weight. Hope that clarifies my position.

 

Now we have 60lbs given as the amount of weight Jeffries lost ,40lbs less than the 100lbs bandied about with regularity,its still far too much , in such a short space of time , a shock to the system of even a physique such as Jeffries had.
I o nce lost 30lbs in amonth for a £50 bet but I was 28 and I didn't have to face Johnson after it.

Its interesting that Jeffries account of the affair shows it was totally onesided , this agrees entirely with the ringside press,and flies directly in the face of Mendoza's preposterous claim that Jeffries held his own in the early- to middle rounds.

Jim Corbett pleaded with Jack Jeffries to pull his brother out between the 7th and 8th rounds , " your brother's beat Jack".

Nowhere do I see Jeffries give any credit to Johnson for beating him,nowhere do I see Jeffries accept his defeat with good grace,all I see is excuses. The same type of excuses Foreman made after Ali kod him.except that Foreman was later honest enough,and, man enough to admit he was beaten legitimately on the day by the better man.
Jeffries refused to shake Johnson's hand before and after the fight.
He was a sore ass loser.
Shame as he was allways a very gracious winner.

 

I was referring to his success and, the patient way he went about acheiving it.
Of course he did not have a rabid white press and public breathing down his neck pleading with him to win for the honour of the White Race.

 

Jeffries has the date, even earlier again, by my calculations, because he says he was 17 years old when the fight took place. (unless his birth date is wrong). It is hard to believe that he would get something like this wrong, so it would seem that there was either more Jeffries GRiffin fights, or the date is wrong.

Can we score it a a 10-8 round to me To be fair, if my theory about Jeffries being 17 at the time of the fight were correct, then i think it common ground that prime Johnson beats him at this point in time.

 

Oh, I am happy to concede your dates are correct, my real point was that Jeffies was 20 in the photo posted by Klompton,and that Jeffries would lost to a prime Johnson . To be clear ,a 20 years old Johnson would be just as emphatically whipped by a prime Jeffries maybe worse ,imo.