Jack Johnson vs. James J. Jeffries, Primes

A complete amateur managing to get Joe Gans to call him one of the most accurate punchers in boxing is pretty impressive.

 

I have agonized over this question over the years, while I have got it from both sides on the forums.

I am the unicorn that is a Jeffries fan, and a Johnson fan at the same time.

So who am I picking?

I think that if Jeffries has got his act together, he could have got to Johnson while he was still a bit green in say 1904, and of course dictated the terms of the fight.

That could have happened, if Jeffries had the wisdom to do it.

After that Jeffries needs to stay retired, because Johnson is not.

 

Wow. How many fights did Gans witness? Oh, I'm sure he's making this assessment on YouTube footage he saw.

How hard is it to look good and "accurate" against a bunch of has-beens, wharfbrawlers and coal miners? 19 fights and a highly scientific finished product. Yeah, right.

Look at this garbage. Being pushed around the ring by a sawed-off admitted simpleton. Lenny McLean would have wiped the floor with both these fools.

This content is protected

 

Gans was the most high level and well respected technician of the era, as well as afterward when he was being used as a model of which to build Joe Louis after as well as when Benny Leonard and Kid Chocolate scattered around to find film of him, among having almost 200 fights with some of the best competition of all time. The skill development of the lighter weights is in little doubt, there’s no reason Gans wouldn’t be a fair assessor of components like accuracy and overall boxing skill. He was also likely frequently sparring, exhibiting and viewing with other top fighters from the period which was common for fighters at all classes. Gans was present for Jeffries-Fitz 2 for example. He also thought that version of Fitzsimmons would beat any fighter in the world, many others thought that has-been version of Fitz was about as good as any other version of Fitz and his accomplishments after that fight reflect that. Gans still thought that Jeffries’ accuracy was his strongest asset and went as far as to call it high level.

The Ruhlin footage shows some of the strengths and weaknesses of Jeffries. His slow plodding feet, inability to cut off the ring, and overall poor offensive footwork reflect what was largely criticized about him at the time as well. Corbett eluded to Jeffries having poor front foot skills and one of those main problems being his footwork, it’s clear as day Jeffries is uncomfortable leading. It’s probably why so many descriptions of him fighting scientifically include him on the backfoot even at a great size advantage.
However, he is also accurate with what he does choose to throw or and is very quick to react and counter when Gus throws, he also rolls a right hand Gus throws near the end of the round alongside catching and controlling Ruhlin’s left throughout the round, often times controlling the bicep of Gus with his right while working on the inside with his left. He also digs in on the body well.

 

This is going to sound weird because of how much boxing "evolved" during Johnsons tenure I think old Johnson does better against prime Jeffries than prime Johnson. I can see 1909 Johnson who drew with O Brien having some difficulty with 1900 or 1904 Jeffries. I'd probably still favor Johnson but it should be a much better fight than their 1910 encounter. But Johnson who was in control against Willard for a full 25? Jeffries has no chance.

Johnson by 1915 had also put on an extra 20 from the O Brien fight, 30 from the Burns fight and 40 from his earlier campaign. Johnson went from being one of Jeffries lighter opponents to the heaviest. And if that Johnson could still go 25 frames in his late 30s despite carrying all that weight? Jeffries is toast. Jeffries had competitive 25 round decision with Tom Sharkey.

 

Yawn. I've read plenty on Gans, including Aycock's book, and have considered writing my own, collecting tons of articles.

But that doesn't matter when considering a one off comment, the type, I dare say, many black boxers made of the white money winners. Langford said the same obsequious crap. Not convincing evidence at the end of the day, especially considering the punishment the bigger, stronger Jeffries took from his opponents before putting them out of action.

He looks absolutely horrible on film. I've been watching boxing for 40+ years, boxed on and off for 12, and have no other words for it. He is a horrible boxer who is fighting opponent who are at best bar brawlers and have no physical advantages on him.

 

It wasn't as much of a one-off comment as it was an analysis by Gans of great technicians in the sport. The quote referring to Jeffries is from the New York Times on February 2, 1908, but is only one snippet of a deep stylistic analysis of the skill of Joe's contemporaries from his perspective.

Besides, it doesn't seem like he's just dickriding Jeffries for clout from the white audienve either here, in fact he even criticizes Jeffries as he says that Jeffries 'never employed fancy boxing to win his fights' but that his greatest strength wasn't his physical strength, but his accuracy and shot placement. It seems like an honest review of his skills, and a good read overall;

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1908/02/02/104716982.html?pageNumber=32

And the context of Gans' quotes fall from his experiences watching Jeffries in the Sharkey rematch and in the Fitzsimmons rematch, both some of Jeff's worst technical performances. In the case of Fitzsimmons he was as aggressive as he ever was despite notoriously being a poor aggressor, compared to reactor, by his own trainer Tommy Ryan's admission. The crouch certainly seemed to impair his movement. Who knows what Gans would've thought of Jeffries' style when fighting a more technical reactive style that he was more comfortable fighting under like in Fitz 1 or Corbett 2. I feel like the context behind why Jeffries got bloodied up so frequently against tinier fighters to be pretty valid, having to do with him just sucking ass and leaving himself open while being aggressive.

Listen, I'm no Henry Maske myself, but I've been boxing since I was much smaller and in that time, sparring extensively and helping train some gym members for their own fights. I won't act like an expert, but I still don't think Jeffries is that poor in the footage. Yes, he has clear weaknesses that can be exploited especially by movers, as evident by the fact that Gus' excessive movement alone without even punching made Jeffries look so awkward, but he also does have strengths. When they're actually planted and exchanging Jeffries seems much more comfortable throwing and catching whatever Gus throws at him.
Ruhlin isn't really doing anything here, and from my understanding was psychologically gone from the fight at this stage and had been from round 3. By this stage Jeffries is just methodically and patiently following Gus around, anxiously trying to control his left hand throughout the round and countering him with his own left the moment Ruhlin tries mounting any offense at all. Sure, Gus looks like a cab driver here, but it does seem like Jeffries had reduced him to that.

This content is protected

Gus doesn't really initiate enough offense in the footage to force Jeffries, as a counter-puncher who enjoys having the fight brought to him, to open up his arsenal and show his best offensive work. I actually think Jeffries shows off more savvy offensive skill in the footage of him as a geezer. Also a good display of accuracy on his part;

This content is protected

 

Style wise I always think Johnson poses problems for Jeffries. In their actual fight Jeffries has no answers for Johnson’s inside uppercut. That has more to do with technical deficiencies than being post prime for Jeffries. On the flip side - Johnson struggled with Hart - how much he struggled with him is debatable but I have no question Jeffries was much stronger and better than Hart.
Honestly it’s a tough call

 

Jeff was a terrific boxer. Adam Pollock's equally terrific book about him made me understand the boxer more and gain more respect.

But Jack Johnson was on another level stylistically speaking. He still boxes Jeff's ears off. Jeff would make it competitive, through.

 

We know Johnson was described as being flabby for the O Brien fight,but neither he or O Brien weighed in. Johnson was 208 lbs for Jeffries ,and stated he was in the condition of his life.

 

Johnson stops 'Jeff' around the same time that he did in their real bout,albeit after a more competitive effort from Jeffries. Jack still far too skilled for James.

 

six years out of the ring coupled with weighing over 300 pounds is not ring rust,,he's was fossilized. Hard to say who'd have won in their primes but Jeffries had no chance in their actual fight.

 

For me, Jack was just a different kind of monster, and one that would keep a fighter like Jeffries awake at night and checking under his bed and in his wardrobe. All kinds of wrong for big Jeff. Johnson was, in my opinion, as physically strong and functionally stronger. He had the kind of gauge of space and distance that you can't teach and he would, and could punish anyone who came inside that imagined circle. If Jeff thinks he is gonna get inside and ragdoll Jack, dirty box him, he will be tied up, walked into space and hit with uppercuts and short hooks that will make him disengage and so the circle of hell starts over. I honestly think prime Johnson is a fighter that was the bridge between the modern and ancient gloved era, and was ahead of his time in skill, attitude and application and he'd literally toy with Jeffries. And I'm not even gonna put in my usual 'comedy' sting by adding 'so, Jeffries by KO early' because there is more chance of a snowball biting your ass than Jeffries beating Jack.

 

And also add to that having to lose so much weight to get in shape.

People back then thought Jeffries was invincible It goes to show you how in the 1910s and before that, so many were gullible. They probably believed potion healers , preachers who claimed to have seen the Devil at the corner,, tour book writers who claimed to have seen Loch Ness at Scotland and such other charlatans too.

And others yet were just being purely racist as well.

 

Fortunately, he isn't being asked to beat Lenny McLean in this thread.

Just another champion from the same era.