PRIME JEFFRIES AGAINST FOREMAN OF THE MOORER FT?

Wrong. There is film footage of Johnson that is clearly watchable. The people you cite can watch Johnson and clearly assess his abilities. There really is no watchable film footage of Jeffries in his prime. That's the difference. As those who watched Jeffries passed away there is nothing present generations can study that exhibits his skills. As such he is much more liable to be lost in time. RING ranked Jeffries for many decades as the second greatest hwt champion only behind Johnson. Once Fleischer died Jeffries was placed over Johnson. So that's roughly 70 years after he retired Jeffries was rated as a top ten ATG by the leading boxing periodical. Those that saw Jeffries fight in his prime were very impressed by him enough for an ATG rating for 7 plus decades.

 

A member of the IBRO is just someone who thinks paying a few bucks to be a member and being able to say you are a member is worth while, no qualifications ,knowledge, or expertise are required .Being a member per se means jack sh*t! I want 25 names of historians that say Jeffries was an all time great ,you said there are 50! Don't attempt to change the gaol posts RainMan.

 

You're the guy confidently stating how many triple hooks you can see Jeffries landing on Ruhlin,[the only guy I might add ],yet you now say there is no watchable film footage of Jeffries in his prime! Which is it!

Jeffries and Johnson over lapped in their careers there is no debate about that, many experts today including those in the recently conducted Ring Poll are ranking Sullivan in front of Jeffries.
How do you account for that? Jack Johnson is in every top 15 on that ring poll and in the top 4 on 6 voters ballots for an overall position of number 3!
Jeffries just squeaks in at 15,one behind Sullivan !
What footage of John L fighting is there!
You stated Jeffries attacked Sharkey .He didnt !
You stated Jeffries was hard to hit .He wasn't!
You stated Jeffries hit Ruhlin with multiple /tripleleft hooks .He didn't!
I've the round by round analysis and Jeffries and Ruhlin's own post fight comments.
Ruhlin said he was ruined by a low punch early on and Jeffries stated he didn't hit Ruhlin with much at all!

Personally I think Ruhlin was badly diminished after the very bad beating hereceived from Fitz a year earlier and that he was never the same fighter again.He had only fought once between the two contests, struggling to a draw with the drunk Peter Maher ,over 6rd s in a fight in which both were described as being exhausted after 3 rounds!
In summary I don't think the fights of the early 1900's are your area of expertise .

 

Count them. Historians, or writers who view Jeffries in their top 15


Gromback #4

Jim Jennings #2, sports writer

Nat Fleischer #2

George Barton #2 Sporter Writer

Harry Grayson, sports writer #3

Charlie Rose #5

David Willoughby, author #1

Nat Loubet #3

Richard Stockton #6

John Durant #7

Charles Moray #9, boxing today

Chris Coates, boxing scene mag #12

Bert Sugar, 11th ( 1987 )

Jan Stotnicki #4

Steve Farhood, #7

Laurence Feidling #4

Jerry Julesza #4

Bill Walsh #12

Nigel Collins #12

Mike Rosenthall LA Daily News #13

Dan Cucco, Head of IBRO #6

IBRO Member poll, 24 people replied, not listing them of their names except to say 24 of them know more about boxing than you do. Jeffries came in #7

Mike Casey, #6

Monte Cox #6

Tracy Callis, #1

^^^^ All of the above names know more about boxing than you do, and I have more polls from other historians that place Jeffries high to list if needed.

So once again, you fall flat on your face. Will you ever learn? Considering Jeffries has been out of the ring very with little film, I say the book here is closed.

Jeffries was an ATG, and if you look at those most familiar with him, ( the trainers, manager and fighters who lived from 1890-1960 ) he ranks what up there. #1-#5 in many cases.

 

^^^^ All of the above names know more about boxing than you do, and I have more polls from other historians that place Jeffries high to list if needed.

So once again, you fall flat on your face. Will you ever learn? Considering Jeffries has been out of the ring very with little film, I say the book here is closed.

Jeffries was an ATG, and if you look at those most familiar with him, ( the trainers, manager and fighters who lived from 1890-1960 ) he ranks what up there. #1-#5 in many cases.[/QUOTE]

This content is protected

 

If you watch his bout with Ruhlin Jeffries is throwing double and triple hooks. Watch it.

Being able to determine a fighters technical skills required good film footage. We don't have this of Jeffries but we can see him throw double and triple hooks and a very short hook to the body. You ignoring this reveals bias.

Sullivan was predominantly a bare knuckle era hwt champion and a great one at that.

Never wrote Jeffries was hard to hit. Low guard in general does not immediately equate to a poor defense.

 

I knew you would attempt to change the goal posts and thats why I mentioned it in my earlier post!
"I want 25 names of historians that say Jeffries was an all time great ,you said there are 50! Don't attempt to change the gaol posts RainMan."

You said 50 historians rated Jeffries as an ATG I challenged you to produce 25. Not 25 who rate him in their top 15!
Who are Richard Stockton,Laurence Fielding,Bill Walsh and Jerry Julesza?
I can find nothing about them concerning boxing.

 

Which capacity is it that you are and have been," involved in boxing for many years "?Fighter,trainer,cornerman,referee,manager,promoter,?

 

I'm genuinely curious here, you don't think Jeffries had the benefit of being a big fish in a small pond in relationship to his ATG ranking you keep referring to? There were literally a handful of champs before him, and that can make a dramatic different in how you're viewed during that time. Since then, we can clearly see his ranking has significantly fell over time. He went from being no. 1 or 2... to now barely making the top 15. There is a reason for that Perry, and it isn't because they are intentionally giving Jeffries a low ranking out of malice

 

No, in a word.

Jeffries title reign was easily the best before Joe Louis.

That is fifty years after the first gloved contest.

Sometimes a giant crops up early in the history of a sport.

 

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that, when Jeffries was being lauded so greatly, there had been 3 previous champs before him. There wasn't much to compare him by correct? You also arent' taking into account the things we CAN see by video evidence. For example, knowing the sport was still relatively knew when he was being praised so heavily, if he looked superb on the film we do have; that could make us believe the endorsements were true, but not only true, the qualities they talked about and we see, would be good in any area. The problem is, it's the exact opposite. We can see he was VERY easy to hit, and lacked any kind of meaningful defense. We can see that he threw maybe one or two jabs in entire career, to say nothing of other punches that were rarely thrown. We don't just need video though, in commentary on his fights, they also illustrate the lack of punch variety to his game. The point being, what we see, and how heavily he was so praised don't jive, and those are just the facts.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

I'd probably go with Jefferies just because George is 46

 

He's on fire! I laughed out loud..