One reason why I rate Jim Jeffries verry highly among the great heavyweights.

Mendoza and McVey are on it again. Some things never change :happy

 

I don't actually dispute this assertion.

I think, in fairness to Jeffries, it should be noted that, in quite a few of his contests, punching in the clinches was barred. Checking my notes on Pollacks 'In the Ring w/ James J Jeffries' http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=173416

I see there was no punching in the clinches in Ruhlin I (by mutual agreement); Choyinski (police insistence); in Fitzsimmons I there was an agreement for no hitting in clinshes, changed on fight night to no hitting if both fighters were holding but, if only one held, the other could try to fight free; Corbett I no fighting in clinches (24-ft ring).
I didn't make any notes about Fitzsimmons II and Corbett II, I'll check Pollack's book again.

Again, I'm not disageeing with McVey -- even in fights with punching in the clinches barred, Jeffries might have tugged leaned to tire his guy out. But we should keep the 'clinches' agreements in mind because, in these fights, the agreements might have made Jeffries weight, not no longer an advantage, but a bit less of an advantage.




----
In the above cited thread, I wonder (post #45)
"These 'no hitting in the clinches' bouts make me wonder how well Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier ect. would have done under similar circumstances. The peak versions of those fighters might have gotten victories where Jeffries got draws (Ruhlin, Choyinski); but, could they have fought under that disadvantage -- so early in their careers -- and matched Jeffries results? Maybe, maybe not."

 

How long ago was it when adherents to Jeffries flag were saying what a great wrestler he was ,and how this gave him advantages over his contemparies?
I said in my first post on this thread, that I had no argument with Jeffries being in anyone's top ten.
I'm not trying to denigrate his achievments, but some posters[make that one], lose perspective and objectivity ,when his name crops up.
For his time he was a physical marvel and obviously athletic, also for his time. Walk into any bar today and you will see young guys bigger than Jeffries,and considerably so.
Walk into any popular gym ,and you will see the same and likely as athletic ,there would be nothing remarkable about his physique today,indeed he would be classed as a small heavyweight.
When I was born the average height in my country ,England was 5' 8',a man of 6 foot was considered tall , anyone over 13 stone,[182 lbs ] big.
Jeffries was referred to by an author as"a giant among men" , and he literally was that ,today he would not merit a second glance.

 

I conceded Jeffries optimum weight at 215, and the maximum height, ie 6'2'' ,I think I have been fair.
But I was arguing with a poster who stated categorically last week that, after 10rds Jeffries was in front in the Johnson fight.
I don't speculate on what a fighter from one era might do in another regarding training techniques,conditioning, nutrition , etc.
This holds for Johnson ,Dempsey,Fitz Sullivan whoever,not just Jeffries.
Such supposition is bordering on fantasy, imo,I judge a man on what he did in his own time ,not what he MIGHT have accomplished in anothers.

That's like saying Stanley Mathews would have been in the England squad were he playing today, maybe he would ,maybe he wouldn't ,what we do know is he would not have been playing first class football in his late 40's.

 

I have to say, it would be pretty awesome if it were possible to put this fight up on youtube (like the Tommy Ryan footage was recently) under false names and get a proper unbiased scorecard from yourself and mendoza!

Not possible i know, but it would be good. I havent seen anything but clips, so can t really comment, but i am fairly confident that the fight was closer than people are saying nowadays, but having Johnson behind after ten rounds seems a bit hard to believe.

As a side issue, if we viewed the footage and showed that Jeffries was actually ahead on your card (or very close) would it affect your views any?

 

It would affect my view that Jeffries was finished as a fighter.

I don't think Johnson seriously opened up till the later stages of the fight.
After the bout he stated he could have fought for another 2 hours and that he was never in any distress,he also stated that Jeffries power was negligible,the only mark on Johnson was a cut on his lip which had reopened,it was a training injury.
Johnson did commend Jeffries for his gameness and stated that the fight was fought in a sportsman like spirit with neither man being anything but generous in their vocal exchanges.

I beleive Jeffries tried to cram too much, into too little time.
Working with Bob Armstrong on April 21st and May 3rd ,Jeffries is described by the NY Times as regaining his old speed and giving Armstrong such tough workouts that the Negro wanted to quit after 3 rds.
Jeffries was doing 10 miles roadwork cutting down redwoods,bag work,shadow boxing ,sparring,and handball
.He should have extended his training preparation by a further 3 months to gradually aclimatise his body to the rigours he was subjecting it to,it is very possible he was overtrained for the fight.

Having seen all the extant film of the fight ,I can't give Jeffries a lead at the 10th rd stage , and anyone that does, needs a serious dose of objectivity injected into them.

The photo below shows " Hoss", out of Bonanza posing with Barney Oldfield ,the first man to travel a mile a minute.

PS There is film of Jeffries sparring with Tommy Ryan.

This content is protected

 

Mendoza says: Stop the BS. Jefffries in his prime was 215-220. Not 210. I see its your strategy to tilt the numbers in your favor. Please be aware that Jeffreis was in shape at 227 vs Johnson, and fought Finnegan between 240-250!

Also please be aware height and reach do not tell the full story on size. Jeffries had a bigger legs, chest, neck, back, and pretty much all area besides waist where fat in kept than many of the below fighters.

Now for my comments:

Holyfield 6 ' 2 1/2' 217lbs 78'' >>Clearly smaller, and likely guilty of substance abuse to build himself up. Scratch this one off your list.

Tubbs 6' 3' 230-240lbs 79'' >>>Tubbs was fat with man boobs. The extra weight he had does not make him bigger, only fatter.

Tucker 6'5'' 221-230lbs 82'' >>Started his career at 199 pounds, and was around 215 to 222 in the mid 80's which was his prime. Tucker was tall and had the frame to add more. Ok, but he wasn't nearly as quick on his feet.

Dokes 6'3'' 223lbs 78'' >>>Started his career at 203. Best weight was between 215-222. Same as Jeffries.

Williams 6'4'' 218-220lbs 82'' >>>Best weight 215-223, same as Jeffries

Mathis 6'3' 240lbs 76'' >>He was fat, need I say more?

Ali 6'3'' 212-220lbs 80'' >>>Ali best weight was below 220. He was smaller than Jeffries in a best fighting weight sense.

Holmes 6' 3'' 212-220lbs 80' >>> 212-222 was his best fighting weight.

And all have smaller legs chest, back, and necks....Taller and longer not bigger. Bigger is heavier at the ideal cardiovascular weight for performance.

And I specifically told you to watch the 1901 training clips. You will see good flexibility when he bends down and touches his toes ease, excellent foot work and foot speed, quick hands, and quick reflexes that allowed him to duck or pull back from punches while the other guy hits air. I think you really have a problem noticing good arthritics as a given on film. I can't help you much here

I have read this in newspapers. But since a nit wit like you needs an Internet source, check the Cyber boxing zone Tracy Callis archives, and you will see mention of the large rings for the Corbett fights. In fact allow me to directly quote Callis to change ( I doubt it will happen ) your thinking.

If you go 55 fights with light gloves, no mouth pieces, and did not have a great defense I think your durability is decent. As I said before, the only one who stopped Fitz ( twice ) in this span was Jeffries. Your such a dam hypocrite. If this were Johnson you tell us what a big hitter Joe Choynski was, blah blah blah, when when it someone else you take the other side and become ultra critical. Such is your MO. Sharkey, Maher, and Choynski could hit and Fitz fought then all in some cases more than once.

 

You're not wrong.

This content is protected

 

But there's a diffrence these guys train for looks not for fighting. Mos people nowadays train for looks. That's a diffrence and not a small one.

 

More personal interpretations, with some personal abuse thrown in.
Predictable.
Jeffries weight in fights .
Jeffries weight is recorded in 16 fights [if you can find more please do]
taking these weights and dividing them by 16 ,gives an average weight of 214lbs a pound less than the 215 lbs I allowed.
NB.[That means Nota Bene] Or, note well to you .
In three of the sixteen fights mentioned Jeffries scaled 201lbs,205lbs and 206lbs

ps. I have given Jeffries 240lbs for the Munroe fight though, he himself stated he was 220lbs.

Also, the New York Sun of Sat Aug 27th 1904 stated that Jeffries scaled 219lbs for this fight, having gone into training at 250lbs.
No matter, I have given the extra pounds, and my point is proven .
And yours, totally blown out of the water.
The weights and heights I gave for the list are undeniable , and unarguable.

I only picked big men who were quick and fast handed to meet the criteria.
As far as agility and athleticism goes ,I might have included any number of heavyweights,since you base your opinion on a few seconds of training clips.

THERE IS NO FOOTAGE OF JEFFRIES EXHIBITING THIS VAUNTED AGILITY ,SPEED,AND FLEXIBILITY,IN A FIGHT. I KNOW IT, YOU KNOW IT .THE WHOLE FORUM KNOWS IT.STOP DIGGING,YOU ARE BURYING YOURSELF.

Monte Cox ,as big a booster of Jeffries as you will find , states that Jeffries.measurements are
Thigh 25''
calf 17'
ankle10''
neck 18'
And I am prepared to accept them.
Jeffries had big legs ,what that has to do with his ability and speed, I can't figure ,going on that criteria David Tua would be a world beater!

Max Baer, a 210 lbs man had slim legs as had Dempsey ,the majority of their weight was concentrated above the waist.

Baer had a 44 1/2'' chest with a 4'' expansion.He also had a tiny 32 1/2'' waist.

Dempsey had a 42in chest with over 3'' expansion and, 16 1/2'' biceps bigger than Jeffries and the equal of Liston's ,add he was 190lbs at best.

Jeffries 18'' neck is big ,but not as big as Tyson's 19'' Listons 18 1/2'' or Holyfield's 20''

I rebutted your statement that Jeffries was the only one to ko him in 55 fights by saying.

Did the fact that the majority of Fitz's opponents at that time, were either middleweights or light heavies have a bearing on it?

I could have added that Fitz was considerably younger in nearly all those contests ,and much more active between the ropes.

Fitz was allready nearly 34 whe he beat Corbett for the title, he was 36 when he defended against Jeffries ,and 39 in the rematch, in short he was old for a fighter of those times.

My opinion of Choynsky as a big hitter? This comes from several sources, not least the unsolicited testimonials of Johnson,Fitzsimmons,and Jeffries himself.

ALL OF WHOM STATED CATEGORICALLY THAT CHOYNSKY WAS THE HARDEST PUNCHER THEY EVER MET.

Jeffries did very well to absorb his punches without going down.

I have myself found one reference to Corbett fighting in a 24' ring and accept that unreservedly,all I asked for was a source,silly little insults were not needed .

Tracy Callis? Callis states that Jeffries has been unjustly called a racist.

"WHEN THERE ARE NO WHITE MEN LEFT TO FIGHT I WILL QUIT THE BUSINESS.
I AM DETERMINED NOT TO TAKE A CHANCE OF LOSING THE CHAMPIONSHIP TO A NEGRO".

James Jackson Jeffries.

"Jim Jeffries was not a polished boxer, but was blessed with enormous strength ,power, stamina,and determination".Tracy Callis.

No mention of,speed,agility,or flexibility there.


THANK YOU FOR YOUR GREAT LINE ABOUT HAVING A PROBLEM NOTICING GOOD ARTHRITICS , IT'S PRICELESS !
I WILL BE SURE AND USE IT IN THE FUTURE:good

 

Some of the guys you lsited had even lower weights when they started out. Your not being clever here. Just go in their best weight, which for Jeffries was clearly higher than the 210 pounds you initially listed. I see others have called you out on the 210 pounds comment.

Cox is the big booster? Says who?. How do you know this? Do you speak to him. Just a guess on your part. Cox is a big Louis fan first, and Dempsey fan second. I know this because I chat with him.

I have Jeffries full tale of the tape and his neck is bigger than 18". You are mistaken.

No. And there is no way for you to prove otherwise.

And Fitz took Choynski's best, but unlike Jack Johnson he got up. Is that enough for you to see Fitz was a hard gut to TKO/KO?

Ahem, I usually start out civil. When you run out of ammo, you go off and tangents and reply with silly icons. When you do this, I often expose you as a hypocrite and occasionally add in the same silly icons. Be that as it may it was a large ring as I initially stated.

Would a racists really spend time with other black fighters as Jeffries did in his camps? Jeffries enjoyed the company of Bob Armstrong, who was black. It should be noted that as champion Jeffries did box black fighters in exhibition matches, some of them were for money and were really professional fights. As I have told you before Johnson drew the color line far worse then Jeffries every did.

No mention does not mean it is not there. However Callis does mention Jeffries speed in the 100 yard dash, and jumping ability...I suppose your conveniently picking out words to suit your argument again.

Sullivan called Jeffries the fastest big man he ever saw.

The ref in the 2nd Corbett fight said Jeffries would have beaten Corbett on skills if they were the same size.

Corbett called Jeffries fast handed.

I suggest you read Adam Pollacks book, then maybe just maybe you'll change perceptive on Jeffries speed, agility, and flexibility.

 

Jeffries-Fitzsimmons II, the referee announced hitting in clinches was barred.

Jeffries-Corbett II, if one person was clinching and the other wasn't doing any holding, it was OK for the non-holder to punch. This was more permissive of clinches-punching than Jeffries-Corbett I, and may have been another factor making the latter fight shorter. (Also, in Jeffries-Corbett II, hitting was permited on breakaways, though both fighters had to step back).

I partly, but by no means wholly, agree with this.

It is true that potential must be known through actualities. (So, for example, it's fair to say that Babe Ruth probably had more potential for hitting homeruns than Duaine Kuiper, although maybe if the Babe had been born into Duaine's time he might have been hit by a car, crossing the street at age three, been paralyzed and failed to match Kuipers major league HR total of one).

Now, if we know to some degree how Jeffries actually was say c. 1903, and have some idea of the opportunities he had to aquire various quantities and qualities, and have some ideas of the opportunities of later times, is it fair and sensible to speculate on Jeffries coming along in later times.

And I think the answer is, in some senses 'yes', in some senses 'no'.

We don't know whether Jeffries would have taken interest in boxing (in this other life) at all (or whether he would have been a drug addict, or had an eye shot out by a BB gun pellet, ect).
However, we can ask 'What if Jeffries came along in so-and-so's era, developed in a way analogous to how he developed in his own era, and peaked at so-and-so's time: how would they have H2H'd? Who would have dominated the era more?'. (Notice, I used the word analogous -- not exactly the same, but in such ratio to the conditions and opportunities of another time, as Jeffries was to the conditions and opportunities of his own time).
This above question is, I believe, not so knowable as questions regarding Jeffries in his own time; but neither, I believe, is it 'nonsensical'.