Jim Jeffries v George Foreman

Jeffries went 20rds with 167lbs Choynski.

Twenty rds with 177lbs Sharkey, 25 rds with 183lbs Sharkey. 23 rds with 177lbs Corbett.
Considering Jeffries had 63lbs on Choynski.

Thirtytwo , and thirty three pounds on Sharkey.

Thirty pounds on Corbett

I think this says more about their stamina than Jeffries .
I can't think that any of those men would be around sufficiently long enough to test Foreman's stamina, certainly not 25rds!

Can you picture a 177lbs, 5'8" Sharkey, who was a face first brawler, going 20 & 25rds with Foreman?

Say goodnight Mr Jeff.

This content is protected

 

If that is a "cow," I lifted some close to that big back on the farm when I was a youngun. We would have called this a calf.

 

I agree, this says more about their stamina than Jeffries..but even so, it´s a good fact about Jeffries own stamina to me....

No, definitely not......and actually that´s why I pick Foreman here.....

 

"Foreman proved his stamina when, as an old man he went the distance with the best heavies of the generation that succeeded his."

Who, besides Holyfield? Tyson? Lewis? Bowe? Holmes?

As for Holyfield, did Foreman actually go as far with him as Jeffries did with Johnson?

*My take is that Jeff will have to survive a hellacious beating in the early rounds. Could he? Hard to say as he didn't fight anyone at all like Foreman. If he can, which has to be considered at least a possiblity, I think Foreman could find himself in deep water as the rounds drag by.

I vote for Foreman as the more likely winner.

 

I agree it seems small but it is a photo ,The Jeffries tale appears to have to be taken on trust.

 

Briggs, Morrison, Moorer, Coetzer,Stewart,Schultz all were bigger than anyone Jeffries ever fought .

Foreman at 42 went the 12 rds distance with Holyfield and was competitive throughout, never even sitting down between rounds.

Jeffries was not competitive against Johnson ,was carried for the latter rounds imo ,and was comprehensively thrashed, he was at 35, 7 years younger that Foreman.

 

I do think that Forman had more stamina in his second career. Not great stamina -- he was pretty tired in the last few rounds of his fight with Holyfield -- but better than in his youth. Yes, this is unusual; but as Gil Clancy noted, the older Foreman had learned to relax in the ring.

-------

I have no idea whether Foreman and Jeffries were comparably strong, or whether one was stronger. Strength is the last to go, but it's possible that by 1910 Jeffries strength had departed with all else.

-------

If one guy gets beat up, George wins. If two guys get beat up, I'd favor Jeffries to prevail, though George might still pull it off.

-------

If I had to bet on '04 Jeffries vs '73/'74 Foreman, I'd pick George. If they came along at the same time, I don't know.

 

It's very possible that nervous energy robbed the 70's Foreman of some stamina, and as you say he had learned to relax in his second career. He was also a lot more selective about the punches he threw, the second time around.
(Logically though, I can't see how he could have increased it more than ten years past his best. 70's Foreman trained hard and came into the ring in shape.)

The funny thing about the Holyfield fight was that, in the closing rounds, it was Holyfield, Mr. body beautiful himself, who was holding on in the clinches.
Foreman was tired, but Holyfield was just as tired, and Foreman was 42.

Fighting a guy that much bigger than himself made Holyfield work all the harder, and that's one of the reasons why I am not overly impressed with tales of Jeffries' stamina.

As McVey says, it really says more about the likes of Tom Sharkey's stamina than it does about the Boilermaker's himself.
He had a decided weight advantage against his opponents, and to still have a little guy (comparatively) give him life and death is not really impressive to me, especially since he sometimes needed a war of attrition to beat them.

Add also Foreman's jab, a ramrod of a punch, which could quite conceivably make Jeff's face look far worse than even Fitz managed.

 

Wrong! Burns speaking on film ranks Jeffries ahead of Johnson, and picked him to beat Johnson in Reno. Of course the pick was made before Burns knew Jeffries could not come back. The Jeffries Burns saw in Reno was a shell of a man. Produce your evidence that Burns said Johnson beats any verison of Jeffries.

Fitz was a great older fighter and one who won key matches in his mid to late 30's. You might want to take note there is a story of Fitz tampering with his gloves. Indeed when Jeffries wanted to see them after the fight, Fitz quickly threw them into the crowd? Hmmm..... In addition there is a story Jeffries heard about the tampering just as he was entering the ring and was told by his trainer he could beat Fitz regardless. Fitz did not mark Jeffries up in the first match. Jeffries did not have his best outing in the re-match, but he still Ko'd his man in 8.

Wrong again! Fitz was active as an older fighter either in the ring or on tour, not retired for 6 years as Jeffries was. Keep making mistakes. I think I will count them from here. You on " 1 ", perhaps 2 unless you can produce something to back up in context what Burns said

Bawhahahaa, Corbett was 188 pounds vs. Jeffries not 177 as you claim. Yet another mistake by you!!!! Also you keep telling us how hard Choynski hit. Lyle had a suspect him so Choynski could knock him out. Lyle also had trouble with good boxers. Jimmy Young beat him twice, So Corbett could do the same

If Lyle had less than 10 fights as Jeffries did when he first meet Choynski and Sharkey, he losses BOTH matches. These were hall of fame fighters at their best when they fought a green Jeffries for the first time. Choynski was lucky to get a draw, but that is another thread. So far only 2 or 3 mistakes by you....

BUZZZ!! That is mistake #3. Munroe was listed in Box rec at 215, and backed up by other papers. Frazier who was a little heavier than his ideal weight was 214 by Foreman. The heaviest by some distance? You are a moron! I have told you this point multiple times...

Today, maybe. In the 1970's, no. In fact most today would pick Jeffries over Norton even though most today have limited info on Jeffries prime.

You can make all the excuses you want for Foreman. Young embarrassed him, and Lyle nearly knocked him out. Ali past his best had no trouble landing or out thinking Foreman.

I would say Sharkey based on results hit harder than Choynski, and others like Goddard, could hit as well. Fitz was a deadly puncher. Maybe not as hard as Foreman, but more accurate, and with better hand speed. Unlike Foreman; Sharkey, Choysnki, and Fitz carried their power into the later rounds, and did not gas out as quickly.

The best boxer Jeffries fought was Corbett. Read a full fight report, and you will see the first match was pretty much even prior to the KO. In fact you might have Jeffries up on rounds a bit. In the re-match, when Jeffries skills were at there best, he beat an older Corbett at his own game.


To summarize, I count three mistakes by you.


1 ) Fitz being " coaxed " out of retirement to fight Jeffries in a re-match.


2 ) Corbett's listed weight not being close to 177, try 188! Corbett at age 33 in the first match was in great shape, not clearly past your prime as you ascertain.


3 ) Once again, Munroe's listed weight in News papers and now Box Rec was 215 pounds! Maybe after reading it 18th times you will get that right.


Now show me where Burns said Johnson beats any version of Jeffries in context by Burns, and you will only have the three mistakes here. If not, your tally on a short post stands at 4. I am not intersted in your spin reply. Just admit your mistakes, or if you can correct them.

 

Good comments, FoF.

Yes, Holyfield was tired, too. I actually had a longer comment that aknowledge Holyfield was tiring, too; but it misposted, so I had to improvise an 'economy sized' comment, as I was running out of computer time.