Jeff or Johnson-best comp as champ?

Johnson was in his best shape since Burns for the Jeffries fight, and in his prime. Jeffries lost much more than 40 pounds for the fight, and was out of the ring for several years.

Armstrong and Langford were not the only fighters who picked Jeffries. Jeanette said Johnson won't win unless Jeffries has balls and chains on his ankles. These are picks from fighters who saw them both. Of course they assumed a near prime Jeffries would show up, which did not happen. The thing to focus on is under the assumption Jeffries did return. There is a huge difference in the caliber of fighters the two had beaten if we factor in the accomplishments of the fighters when the matches were made. There is also a huge difference in excuses. Johnson lost a few times, was Ko’d, and drew guys who were not so special comming into the 1910 fight.

If we cross refernce the results vs the same opponents they fought in the ring, Jeffries outshines Johnson too.

 

Jeffries looks much older and slower in the 1910 training clips. In the fight, his stamina hit the wall as early as round 5. As for the Gamblers, they weight in the pro's and con's. Did you ever consider what they thought of Johnson coming into this fight? Maybe they thought that Johnson wasn't all that. Indeed, he was beaten by Choynski, Griffin, Klondike and Hart before 1910, and had two lousy outing vs middle weights vs O'brien, who made him look bad, and Ketchel who knocked him down.

OLD FOGEY seems to be one of the brighter posters on this board. I think he might rethink things a bit down the road.

 

This debate seems to have been going on long enough without my having to ad anything, but I think I'll just say that Johnson had the broader spectrum of quality wins, whereas Jeffries fought a select few who were probably a bit better.

I can't imagine rating Johnson's wins over Flynn, Burns, Jenette, Langford or an aging Jeffries over Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Jackson, or Choynski. As many posters have already identified, Jeffries was one of Johnson's best victories and was too far past his prime for it to be considered a major milestone win. It would be similar to crediting Larry Holmes with a big pat on the back for pummeling Muhammad Ali.

Johnson was a great fighter who beat many good opponents. His career stretched for nearly forty years, and he had many defenses of both the coloured and lineal heavyweight titles. I still feel though that Jeffries' career was a bit brighter for the short duration that it lasted.

 

Patterson avoided Machen and Folley as well as Liston ,though he fought Maschen after he lost his title,in fact Pattersons resume improved markedly after he lost the title.

 

Patterson avoided Machen and Folley as well as Liston ,though he fought Machen after he had lost his title,in fact Flods resume improved markedly as an ex champ.

 

I wonder how much the rumours of a bagged fight affected the odds?
Gunboat Smith said that the fight was originally scheduled for San Francisco,and that the result was"in the bag "for Jeffries to win.Smith states that Governor Hughes blocked the fight,Smith said he got this information from Bob Armstrong ,who was acting as trainer for Johnson.So the fight was moved to Reno Nevada.The night before the fightJohnson ,as Smith tells it ,drove out to Jeffries camp,and said to him "Now listen Mr Jeffries.We're not in California .Everybody for themselves.the best man wins.Jeffries didnt think he could win on the level.He thought it was all fixed.Well when that big n****r went out and told him that ,he didnt sleep all night ,Jeffries.He wasnt trained for it.He thought it was bagged.Johnson knocked him out in the 15th ,he could have knocked him out in the 1st if he wanted to".How true this story is I dont know ,but it would explain the odds favouring Jeffries,and it is a fact that Jeffries didnt sleep the night before the fight ,he spent it pacing up and down his room.

 

These lists are clearly slanted. With Jeffries' opponents, you go out of your way to emphasize their smallness and negative aspects of their records/careers at the time, while with Johnson's opponents, you A. ignore the size aside from listing it with the general statistics or defend the smallness of Johnson's opposition rather than emphasizing it in a negative way, B. completely ignore Jeffries' five year lay-off while bringing up much shorter(still long, but much shorter) lay-offs for Fitzsimmosn and Corbett on Jeffries' lists. When you list Jeffries' opponents' recent records, you go out of your way to bring up their losses and, when describing their wins, to give the opponents negative adjectives like "faded," while you treat Johnson's opponents with impugnity in that matter. All around, the information you choose to posit on Johnson's opponents is clearly made to prop them up, and the information on Jeffries' is meant to knock them down, and the end result is a biased depiction of the overall picture.

Now, when we look at things side-by-side without trumping up the deck, we find that, in fact, Fitzsimmons, Sharkey and Corbett were arguably the top three challengers to Jeffries' title at the time he fought them, and he gave all three of them rematches. Compared alongside Johnson's title reign, this is excellent, since Johnson badlyfailed to face the best challengers for his title almost throughout his reign, and the ones he did face were, in spite of how good they look with a bit of number-gloss and the right adjectives, not the elite contenders for his championship. I would pick the Corbett, Fitzsimmons or Sharkey Jeffries fought to beat any of the challengers for Johnson's championship.

 

Sharkey and Earp ,the referee were friends the ko was legitimate,but Earp ruled it a foul,if you take Fitzs performances over common opponents ,he has 2 kos over \Sharkey and a14 rd ko over Corbett,indicating he was a bigger puncher than Jeffries.P4p I would rate Fitz above Jeffries,but not head to head.Factor in that Fitz was conceding weight to Sharkey ,whereas Jeffreis was receiving a substantial amount ,Fitzs efforts are to me more impressive.

 

Johnson in or borderline Top10, Jeffries maybe the spot below him. I can't get over the little-man circus both had.

 

Its possible to give bith men the benefit of some doubt heremJohnson fighting Burns was out of his hands ,Burns was the reigning champ,Obrien was the ex LH champ and had allready fought for the Heavy crown,Kaufman ,Moran and Willard werent small men ,The Ketchel fight which was A a fix,B a double cross,or C on the level,is clearly a mismatch,Johnson played with Ketchel putting him where he pleased,Ketchel posed for the pre fight photos in an overcoat and high heeled cowboy boots,many critics beleive the knockdown of Johnson was staged ,Gun boat Smith certainly did .
To be fair to Jeffries he was bigger than anyone he fought at around 6 2 and 220 he was a very big heavyweight fior the time ,now he would be in Holyfields class,so he cant be blamed for picking on smaller men,though we must take in to account their relative lack of size when assessing his wins,where Jeffries falls down ,as does Johnson is in refusing to meet his best Challenger,in his case Johnson ,in Johnsons ,Langford.