"Jim J. Jeffries vs. Max Baer" (Heavyweight Title Dream Fight.) Who is the man?

1. For your first point I do believe Uzcudun was more durable, in fact i believe him to have the greatest chin in the entire decade. Went the distance with Baer, Schmeling(3x) and Carnera(2x) without getting taken off his feet and only KO'd by THE greatest puncher/finisher of all time Joe Louis who IIRC said it was his favourtie KO. Like i said before regarding Braddock, Baer injured both his hands in the bout and hardly trained for it anyway, his son said he got a BJ before the fight Again Braddock was only KO'd by one man, who i believe you can guess...other fight was a cut stoppage

2. Somebody already touched upon this...never said Braddock was too big for Jeff, dont know where you got that from

3. I never meant Braddock was great for beating Baer (especially that Baer) I said he was bigger than majority of Jeffries opposition, good skills, good right hand, great heart, stamina and chin.

4. Perhpas Nova is overrated but he was touted at the time as beign the next champ he was very promising, big, strong, good punch, durable, fairly skilled etc.

 

He sorta had him down, but then again Galento was only taken off his feet twice by (of course) Joe Louis in over 100 bouts. As a side note Galento who fought Lorenzo Pack, Lou Nova, Buddy Baer, Max Baer and Joe Louis said Max hit the hardest. Whereas Johnson said Fitz and CHoynski hit harder and Sharkey said Choynski hit harder...

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

Braddock and Uzcudun--what type of chins these men had is a mute point as Baer did not stop either one--in other words there is no evidence that Baer had the punch to ko these men. Jeffries was never off his feet until the Johnson fight when he was 35 and had laid off 6 years. Not being able to ko the durable Uzcudun or Braddock is no argument Baer had the sock to ko the durable Jeffries.

"touted"--Other than his wins over the aging Baer, when did Nova live up to his billing. His overall record shows an ordinary contender.

Louis and Nova--Baer never proved he could stand up to the punches of either of these men, anyway.

Jeff lost to one man--Johnson. Do you favor Baer over Johnson? Do you think Baer at 35 and after a long layoff would have done better, or even as well, against Johnson? I doubt it myself.

 

Choynski--Jeffries also said Choynski hit him harder than anyone. Interesting.

Johnson and Sharkey--both also said Jeffries was the greatest ever heavyweight.

Corbett and Burns also said Jeffries was the greatest heavyweight they had seen.

So did Tex Rickard. He was vehement that Jeffries would be too much for Dempsey.

Nat Fleischer rated him #2 behind only Johnson.

It is interesting to me that a man who was not very social, who is generally described as surly, got so much support for so long the greatest heavyweight. He seems to have won polls as late as 1945 as the greatest ever heavyweight. It certainly wasn't his charm which put him over.

*Just an aside--how many ever said Baer was the greatest heavyweight of all time?

 

yes , even if not by much , but then again , Baer was taller , which is usually more important , but since they r not far in height , i guess that they r quite equal all in all .

i brought Norton as n example of a chinny fighter whose chin was more tested and proven (as reliable) than Jeffries' .

Jeffries and Johnson would , but d vast majority of their opponents that
matter wouldn't have been considered heavyweights even in Baer's days .

A welterweight it is . And since d heavyweight division of Baer's era was such a telenovela it is indeed possible that Walker would have "beaten" Baer but here I guess we asume a serious fight and in such a fight Baer would have destroyed Walker 4 sure . If u like transitivity consider Schmelling stopped Walker after carrying him 4 a while and Baer stopped Schmelling , so here u get a stronger counter 2 your mentioning of who beat who beat who .

 

But let's get to the nitty gritty. What does the record book actually say about the relative power of these two men.

Well, one thing is clear. It was harder to go the distance with Jeffries.

Baer scored 52 ko's in 81 fights for a percentage of .641

Jeffries scored 16 ko's in 23 fights for a percentage of .696

This is despite the fact that Jeffries began fighting top men very early in his career and his record has very little fat. Although they did not have ratings during his era, my guess is that at least 17 of his 23 fights were against men who would have been rated. I think very few champions could match this percentage. Yet his ko percentage is higher than Baer's. Interesting.

I would note that the men most noted for durability--Uzcudun, Braddock, Risko, and Farr--all lasted against Baer.

Baer was certainly potentially a big puncher. Whether he was that effective a puncher consistently, is another matter.

 

Ed,

The elite of the heavyweight division from the 1890's to the 1920's agreed on one thing. Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Burns, Johnson, and Langford all said Jeffries was the best. Jack Dempsey himself said if he meet Jeffries in his prime, he gets his chin knocked off. These are the fighters talking.

In the 1950's an old timer survey run by McCallum was conducted. Jeffries was rated #1 by the panel of historians. If you rated #1 in your time by multiple champions, and still rated #1 by the historians 40 years after your career has ended, the only logical conclusion was, Jeffries was a super fighter.

Jeffries was still rated in the top 3 by many until the 1960's. But when the people who saw him or were most familiar with him passed things changed. The next generation was only left with minimal film coverage, most of which was Jeffries come back attempt when he was a shell of his former self. Just imagine if the only film we had on Ali was his match with Larry Holmes.

 

Johnson stated Fitzsimmons was the best .

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=SCE0ypLQHGcC&dat=19290427&printsec=frontpage&hl=en




Langford voted for Dempsey.

Sam Langford, when asked how Harry Wills (whom he fought 18 times in his career) would do against Jack Dempsey, said in the June 5, 1922, Atlanta Constitution "Well if he ever fights Dempsey my money will be on the present champion. Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen. He hits twice as hard as Jim Jeffries and is as fast in the ring as James J. Corbett

That's two you got wrong.

Rocky Marciano's opinion.

In 1961, Rocky Marciano was asked about the great heavyweights and said, “I’d give Jack Johnson, whom many consider to be the greatest of ‘em all, the edge over Utah’s Jack Dempsey. Of course, Johnson was far ahead of my time, but old-timers tell me he had everything – every requirement of the greatest of them all.”

Boxing journalist and historian MIke Silver's take on Jack.

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzf...l-Master-Why-Jack-Johnson-Would-Be-King-Today


Monte Cox's Ratings

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/heavyweightchart.html

More All Time Historian's ratings

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/heavylists.htm

Another List

http://ultimatesportsrankings.com/articles.php?id=39

Yet another.

http://www.mademan.com/mm/10-best-heavyweight-boxers-all-time.html

Any of these have Jeffries rated above Johnson?

 

"his power was wicked and puverizing when his shots hit their targets"

Not exactly the issue, though. The question is what is the evidence Baer actually hit harder than Jeffries. It is certainly possible that Jeffries' power was more "wicked and puverizing" than Baer's off their respective records.

 

The issue of this thread, I thought, was Baer vs Jeffries, not Johnson vs Jeffries. I didn't notice one expert who rated Baer above Jeffries, and clearly prior to the last 30 years or so, Jeffries was generally rated near the top. Baer was not.

Johnson undoubtedly said many things concerning the "greatest" over the years, but he put this in writing in the Ring Magazine in 1946 just weeks before his death.

"Nat Fleischer, editor of this publication, thinks that during my fighting career I earned the right to be designated as the greatest heavyweight fighter, considering all assets of a first rate ringman, and for this I am exremely grateful. That designation is open to wide discussion.
"Tex Rickard, the man whose gambling brought to boxing the first million dollar gate and who, with his lure of $120,000 in gold, got me to fight Jim Jeffries in the latter's comeback, didn't agree with Nat. He had his idol, the man I stopped in fifteen rounds--Jeffries, the great California Boilermaker. According to Tex, they came no greater in fighting qualities.
"That prediction was made a few months before Rickard's death, when Gene Tunney was the heavyweight king. Since then we have had several other champs, the greatest of whom is our present king, Joe Louis, and I doubt that Tex would have changed his mind were he alive today. I am inclined to agree with Rickard, strange as it might seem, but I'm proud to have THE RING editor think of me in that vein."

 

You are correct . I was merely responding to Mendoza's shaky claims that many named Jeffries as the greatest ever ,when in fact very few did.

My apologies for wandering off topic.

ps See Rickard's opinion ,immedately after the Johnson /Jeffries fight, in the link I provided.

 

Max looks like lumber jack as he chops Jeff down Timber Max by KO 11rd

 

I see Jeffries as a solid banger, but a step short of top flight.