Jack Johnson was stronger than Jim Jeffries

This is what the films show. In clinches in the early rounds films show Jeffries moving Johnson backwards. When Jeffries became tired, the reverse happened. What the films do not show tell us is Jeffries had been out of the ring for 5 years, and had lost some muscle memory and raw strength. The Jeffries who returned to the ring was not as powerful as the champion who reigned from 1899-1904.

 

We disagree on our interpretations of this fight,you see Jeffries ,forcing Johnson to back off. I see Johnson going backwards of his own volition , from the out set , and comfortably containing Jeffries in the clinches which Jeffries cannot break free from.

Johnson's style was to draw leads, and counter whilst boxing off the back foot and that is precisely what he did in this fight.
Johnson was fighting a smart fight allowing Jeffries to lead and tying him up in close, to rip uppercuts home.
If Jeffries was the stronger man early on ,why did he not break free in the clinches instead of allowing himself to be manhandled?
No one in his right mind would contend that Jeffries was the fighter he had been, but at 34 he was hardly ancient, only 2 years senior to Johnson and he also had a year to train, for the fight.
Any progress on those primary sources I asked for?

 

At the time they fought Johnson might have been stronger, because Jeff was a shell of himself in 1910. However, in 1904, NO ONE disputed that Jeffries was WAY stronger than Johnson.

 

Hardly surprising ,since Johnson scaled around the Light Heavy limit in 1904, whereas Jeffries was 220lbs ,45lbs difference.

 

Who was stronger is impossible to prove today but to say Jeffries was anywhere near peak strength in 1910 is simply way off ... the man was a shell, period.

 

Actually, even in 1905, Johnson was in the 190-pound range, and the news reports at that time said Johnson had nowhere near the punching power that Jeffries did, and would have no chance with Jeff. But of course, they could have been wrong. But that is what they were saying. It would have been Jeff's offense vs. Johnson's defense. Johnson was known for his cleverness more so than his punching power and strength.

 

You can blame speed issues on age but not strength. Johnson was stronger. Especially in the arms and hands. He said before the fight he was going to not only tie Jeff up but pin his arms completely behind his back lol. & he did it!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndqOzDUUYsI[/ame]

www.youtube.com/eslubin

 

But you CAN blame dissipation for a lack of strength. Nobody argues that Jeffries had not dissipated considerably in the years between his retirement and the Johnson fight.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iYmpheBPEI[/ame]

First off, fascinating thread, especially considering the fact that I just finished an essay on Jack Johnson. This video not only shows Jim Jeffries after retirement and how large he had become, but it also gives some weights. I think 334 lbs was his largest weight mentioned in this video. I am not entirely sure where this clip comes from, so I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but I thought I might add it to this thread.

 

looking at that film again just emphasises why i think matching one of those old-timers against a modern fighter is ludicrous

 

Johnson only weighed 192lbs in 1908, when he beat Burns,we are talking 1904 ,4 years previous to that.
I have never thought of Johnson as an especially big hitter ,though I believe he hit hard when he wanted to.
I also believe Jeffries power to be overated, judged by the coming out of retirement the super middleweights that went many rounds with him.
I believe Jeffries wore most of his best opponents down , with a war of attrition,before administering the coup de grace.

I don't think power of punch necessarily correlates to strength anyway, Bob Foster was a monster lhvy puncher, but failed miserably in the heavies ,because he lacked bulk and strength.
I would imagine there were many flyweights stronger than Jimmy Wilde, lightweights stronger than Lew Jenkins, SRR, at welter & middle , etc . Strength and power do not allways walk hand in hand.
One only has to look at Fitz,and Choynski.

No one should pretend Jeffries was still the Iron Man in 1910, but, surely in the early rounds his strength if superior ,should have asserted itself ?

I am informed that whoever owns Bill Cayton's film library ,[ESPN,?] has a complete copy of this fight.

 

Well he was a pretty big shell at, 225lbs.

This content is protected

 

Ali look pretty good from certain angles against Holmes ..

 

Do you think so? I thought he looked washed out,plus he was 38,going on 39, not 34, and,with a very hard career behind him,having been in with monster super heavy hitters like Liston,Foreman,Lyle,Shavers.etc
Tha Ali Holmes fight, which I watched on closed circuit was the most miserable night of boxing I have experienced.

 

I'm working on a book right now on Tommy Burns, and I'll offer you up something Burns said in March 1907. This is in 1907, mind you:

Burns said that Jeff was in the same physical condition as Sullivan was when he fought Corbett. “The biggest and toughest man living can’t drink raw whisky the way Jeff does and keep his vitality. It didn’t hurt Jeffries for a few years, but it has him going now. Jeff is terrible heavy. … He can’t train down the way he used to.”

Folks like Burns and O'Brien said that Jeff could not get down in weight at that point without destroying himself, and this was in 1907, while Burns was still champion.