mcvey, You're not researched at all! Do you honestly believe Jeffries had a bigger expanded chest than Willard or bigger thighs than Tua? That piece of clipping has Jeffries chest at 48"and Corbett's at 42" You will find if you look at other tale of the tapes of the two men that that is referring to expanded chests! Or do you honestly think Corbett's normal chest was 42" ?It wasnt it ,was 38" 42"was the expanded measurement! - Mcvey This content is protected
[/QUOTE] Athletic abilities vary with age depending on the subjects, the type of training and other factors. Some boxers are long-lived, others much less. Dempsey, for example, aged early. He lost his title at 31 years, retired at 32. ( I write that with the utmost respect for this great champion). Walcott instead gave his best after 30 years. Foreman's capacity to win the title at an old age goes to Foreman's credit, not to the demerit of Jeffries, or Johnson (beated old from Willard), or Dempsey or Louis (a shadow, when fought with Marciano) etc. Moreover, Foreman returned at 1987 and, at least in part, some forms of training have improved for the athletic aspect. Return to Jeffries. He had trained hard to fight Johnson, but after the fight the observers, such as Fitzsimmons, said he was out of condition, a bad double of himself. Sullivan and Ketchel understood that even before the fight. Whatever the cause, Jeffries vs Johnson was out of condition. Maybe (a stupid hypothesis, mine?) thae had he trained too much and was overworked? Jeffries' serious mistake was to immediately turn back against Johnson. Instead he should have picked up gradually, starting with weak opponents. Foreman in his return for more than two years only fought against journeymen, before to fight Cooney, first serious opponent (and not was Johnson, an ATG!). It was wisdom: he needed to get used to fighting again, mind and especially body. A theoretical question. An any champion of the heavyweight, after six years out of the ring, returns against Johnson: how many chances does he have? Johnson was a great boxer and a dangerous opponent for anyone. Against a boxer out of six years, he is almost sure to win.
Based on Hart vs Johnson, you could say Hart deserved the fight more with Jeffries. If you want to argue the decision, see Bit's multiple reports and the article I have posted before on Johnson admitting the loss. Hammer meet nail, the debate on this fight is over. Those who know the times understand Hart in the eyes of the public had little chance. People didn't want to see another blow out, and Jeffries said he lost money in the match with Munroe and actually did mention Johnson name for who could be next. Johnson simply lost and drew too often from 1899-1905 while Jeffries was champion. While he was a top contender, 1.5 years from 1903 to early 1905 . That's not a ling time. Seriously, Johnson beat a teenaged Sam Mcvey, who by the way was in-active / retired for a year while Jeffries was champion, and a chinny and paper machine like body of Ed Martin. Was Hart better than these two at the time Johnson fought them? I would say perhaps. And then there is the KO losses to Klondine, and Choynski and the points loss to Griffin, among draws while Jeffries was champion. Those three were better than the jr middle Sam Langford that Johnson beat ( 1906 ) at the time Johnson fought him too. If Hart was black, you'd be saying Jeffries ducked him!
The book you should buy is Pollacks 2 volume one on Johnson,then you would not keep making these absurd statements. Johnson never said Hart beat him that attributed quote comes from a book Johnson did not write written in French and translated, [badly I might add into English],entitled Mes Combats. I could produce all the quotes from Pollack's book including the one from the premier referee of the time George Siler who called the decision in favour of Hart," an exceedingly strange one",but this is a thread about Jeffries not one designed to hate on Jack Johnson,you must make those yourself!
Athletic abilities vary with age depending on the subjects, the type of training and other factors. Some boxers are long-lived, others much less. Dempsey, for example, aged early. He lost his title at 31 years, retired at 32. ( I write that with the utmost respect for this great champion). Walcott instead gave his best after 30 years. Foreman's capacity to win the title at an old age goes to Foreman's credit, not to the demerit of Jeffries, or Johnson (beated old from Willard), or Dempsey or Louis (a shadow, when fought with Marciano) etc. Moreover, Foreman returned at 1987 and, at least in part, some forms of training have improved for the athletic aspect. Return to Jeffries. He had trained hard to fight Johnson, but after the fight the observers, such as Fitzsimmons, said he was out of condition, a bad double of himself. Sullivan and Ketchel understood that even before the fight. Whatever the cause, Jeffries vs Johnson was out of condition. Maybe (a stupid hypothesis, mine?) thae had he trained too much and was overworked? Jeffries' serious mistake was to immediately turn back against Johnson. Instead he should have picked up gradually, starting with weak opponents. Foreman in his return for more than two years only fought against journeymen, before to fight Cooney, first serious opponent (and not was Johnson, an ATG!). It was wisdom: he needed to get used to fighting again, mind and especially body. A theoretical question. An any champion of the heavyweight, after six years out of the ring, returns against Johnson: how many chances does he have? Johnson was a great boxer and a dangerous opponent for anyone. Against a boxer out of six years, he is almost sure to win.[/QUOTE] Dempsey didn't age early he spent 3 years out of the ring ****ing starlets and his legs never recovered. Your point is well taken. Even Dempsey was improved after his rust shaker against Sharkey,as was Louis in his subsequent fights after Charles and before Marciano. My point however ,which you havent addressed is that Foreman was just as strong in his comeback as before it! So talk of Jeffries at 35 and 5 1/2 years of working on a farm doing manual labour daily and a year and a half intensive training being diminished in strength ,just wont fly! It was Jeffries choice not to have a series of warm ups instead he was on tour giving exhibitions,making a fortune. Certainly Foreman adopted the more sensible approach,but he was coming back for the long haul,Jeffries was coming back to "redeem the honor of the White race and reclaim the title I never lost in the ring!"If the title had remained in the hands of White boxers Jeffries would never have considered a comeback! I say Jeffries was in better shape when he came back than Foreman was and I believe photographic evidence bears this out. Foreman improved his timing and stamina as his bouts progressed but I never said, or implied differently.
Maybe I will, but my statements are correct! You see that weekly when you call me out only to be shown up by a source. Yes, Johnson did say that. You can't prove those words were not spoken by Johnson. If I choose to buy the book it would only give me extra ammunition to bury you. Yes--Jonhson did say that. Pollack doesn't the decision was a robbery, and he's a liberal type who likes Johnson! Re-read that twice. Johnson lost. Siler who was very fond of Johnson was not at this fight, prove it! Get over it already. If you option, he says Jackson was better than Johnson by long odds. You're a pick a choose double standard type of guy McVey. On books, I strongly prefer to buy those who were written by authors living in the times. The ones written 100 + years later are up to the author who must pick the sources he chooses in many cases.
So you are saying Jeffries normal chest was ; 4 inches bigger than Sonny Liston's 6 inches bigger than Joe Louis' 5 1.2 inches bigger than Muhammad Ali's 6 1/2 inches bigger than Joe Frazier's 5 1/2inches bigger than John L Sullivan's 2 1/2 inches bigger than Willard's 9 inches bigger than Marciano's 4 1/2 inches bigger than Max Baer's 1/2 inch bigger than Carnera's. Do you really believe this? FYI Jeffries normal chest measurement was 43inches with expansion it was 48 1/2 inches. You stated this "Jeffries chest was 50" expanded" I'm never going to cease being surprised by the depth of your absurdities .lol .https://www.*******.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79207 Do you believe Jeffries normal chest was an inch and a half bigger than Anthony Joshua's?
I found that exchange between Boilermaker and McVey interesting. I thought McVey made the more convincing points. I might have a unique take on it, but I find it more distasteful to hide behind a "Johnson didn't get a shot because he wasn't that good" than the open drawing of the color line. To draw the color line is bad enough, but to draw it and then hide behind put downs of a fighter you were not willing to fight is even worse if possible. So Jeff knocking the 1904-5 Johnson and Dempsey later knocking Wills are totally distasteful to me.
Thank you JT for some one such as yourself to say my points were more convincing that B's is praise indeed! Both of you consistently make excellent posts!
I just proved he did. Now " try " to prove he did not! To add to this thread, is Jeffries underrated Jack Johnson, Jeffries' more famous conqueror, before his own death in 1946, stated that he felt Jeffries was the best of any era. https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/James_J._Jeffries
Well the different is Wills was the clear #1 for many years, Johnson can only be viewed #1 for less than years two years Mid 1903-earl 1905, the Hart loss. Hart vs Johnson was billed as the winner getting Jeffries. As mentioned Johnson lost too often and drew to often wile Jeffries was campion in 1899-1905. When the purse was right for Johnson, Jeffries took the fight on his worst day. In my opinion if that Reno purse was out there $100,000.00 for Jeffries to fight Johnson in 1904, he would take that fight. What was the high purse amount, backed in good faith by a deposit to meet Johnson? I don't know, but I'm guessing is a lot lower than $100,000.00
No you didn't , you quoted a book that was not authored by Johnson. Just as you "quoted" Dempsey and Langford as saying Jeffries was the greatest when they never said that at all, and you know this to be true because it has been pointed out to you at various times in the past, along with their real verified quotes . Johnson named Fitzsimmons as the best excluding himself and its in Pollack's biography.Why you keep repeating established untruths is rather puzzling because they are easily proven to be just that ,deliberate lies.
Learn how to read, I said Expanded chest. Not normal chest. But go ahead and list the tale of tapes for the others here as I'd like to see them. No ducking please. Joshua was not in my point as I said lineal champions, however his listed chest is 106 CM which comes out to 41.7 inches. That is smaller than Jeffries, who was not on Joshua's, um diet. You reply to this is? Joshua's tale of the tape = https://roundbyroundboxing.com/charles-martin-vs-anthony-joshua-tale-of-the-tape/ PS: You link does not work.
The Hart v Johnson fight was not billed as an eliminator for a title shot with Jeffries. On the contrary Jeffries,who picked Johnson to win, stated a week before the fight took place, that should Johnson win, he would NOT fight him! No fighter was receiving $100,000 for a fight in 1904. Burns $30,000 for defending against Johnson in1908 was considered an unheard of amount! You're in cuckoo land! Corbett lost to Fitz in1897 , Sharkey in 1898,Jeffries in1900, beat McCoy in1900 then received a title shot in1903 when he was nearly 37, that's his total ring activity during those 6 years ! But in your opinion he was more worthy of a title shot than Johnson in1905?
