Jeffries v The Corbett of 1896?

No they said he had recovered much of his old form, and that was their first fight NOT THE SECOND which was 3 years later when Corbett was all but 37 years old and WITHOUT A WIN FOR 6 YEARS!

"The finishing blow came suddenly and was a startling surprise. Corbett had been making a wonderful battle. His defense was absolutely perfect, and while he was lacking in strength, he had more than held his own and stood an excellent chance of winning the fight had it gone the limit. He had not been badly punished and had managed to mark his man severely. The winning punch was a short left to the jaw. Corbett dropped like weight and was clear out. Jeffries showed his ability to take punishment at any distance and hard. He was clearly outboxed and at times was made to look like a novice. The crowd, which numbered fully eight thousand, was with Corbett and his defeat fell upon a silent crowd. There were cheers for him when he revived and left the ring, and he was generally given more consideration than the victor. Corbett is still a factor in pugilistic fame. He has regained much of his old time form. The battle was clean and it is doubtful if there was a single infraction of the rules." (Durango Democrat



Jeffries had two fights after he was panned in the papers as looking like a novice against Fitz in the second fight.

They went so far as to say it was only his huge physical advantages and the age discrepancy that ensured his victory

.And before you disagree I posted the reports verbatim.

The reports said Fitz hit him where and when he wanted. The two and fights that followed were over the totally washed up coming out of a year and a half's retirement ,a month of 37 years old Corbett who had not won a fight for SIX YEARS and the hyped nobody Jack Munroe,who when he subsequently fought Johnson astounded reporters when he demonstrated he didn't even know how to punch correctly
Where is the yardstick to show Jeffries improvement against these two?
where where is that quote I requested from you by Adam to support your claim?

As usual you are full of it, and I'm not referring to intelligence.

 

No primary sources? Well there's a surprise

Not only are you illiterate , you are as dense as a tree, and as mad as a frog!

 

As I said, MAD AS A FROG!:yep:roflatsch

 

Many people said Jeffries would absolutely murder Johnson in1910 sometimes they call it right, sometimes they call it wrong.


Jeffries would never have fought Johnson if Jack had not held the title so your hypothesis is academic.

 

You have your facts about as correct as your grammar

.One thing losing to Hart did not prevent Johnson getting a title shot against Jeffries because that was never going to happen, just as Hart would never rematch Johnson.

Jeffries had no intention of defending against Johnson and said so many times, both before and after the Johnson V Hart fight
Turns out little Tommy Burns had bigger ***** than both Jeffries and Hart!