So who thinks Peter Jackson would have beaten Sullivan?

So Peter Jackson is another one who came into a fight with Jeffries off of a long layoff, and somewhere in his late 30s, and miraculously recaptured his old form, apparently.

Every time Jeffries fought an old rusty fighter they turned back the clock, recaptured prime form, but still lost.

But when Jeffries tried it against Johnson it didn't work, and Johnson's win doesn't count for much at all.

 

Thats about the size of it!:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :happy

 

Papers say Jackson was in good form before the fight. You can read it here, or choose to ignore it. Jackson wasn't off for 6 years. Though Jackson was in his mid 30's, he was at his fighting weight, and tried to win. Jeffries blew him out. He did not hug him to death, taunt, or play defense. This is what a top fighter should do to past their prime greats. Also taking out a past all time great on your 8th or 9th fight is a bit risky. Agreed?

This content is protected

 

I am more than happy to back up what I say. I do not make things up; I research them, and then form the best opinion from what I have researched.
Now, do you still think my comment on Jackson regaining his form was nonsense? A quick my bad is in order from you. As for Sonny's Jab, he has already shown us he does not care to form opinions on fighters he has never seen, because he fears looking stupid.

 

I remember newspapers saying that Mike Tyson was looking the best he had in years in preparation for Lennox Lewis.

The same with Lewis for Klitschko (probably not the best example to use for Mendoza, who probably actually thinks Lewis was at his best in the fight with VK).

I expect you can dig out newspapers pre-Ali-Holmes that have Ali looking the best he had in years.

So, I feel justified in taking old newspaper accounts along similar lines with a large pinch of salt.

 

No one beleived that, and when it came times for the picks, most writers felt Lewis would win, with a few thinking Tyson early based on Lewis suspect chin to punchers.

If you read the report I posted not people not only felt Jackson would win, they were betting on him to do so. Please show me a news report that says Tyson has " regained " his old form. I'll hold the salt for ya.

No, I do not think the Klitschko fight was Leiws best effort. That would be Ruddock, Morrsion, or Goltoa.

 

Newspapers were saying Tyson was looking in great shape, the best he had in years, they were saying he was down to 220 or 225 pounds.
Lots of people were picking Tyson to win.
Yes, Lewis was favourite.

When the fight started, I thought Tyson looked bad against Lewis, slow and heavy.

People picking Jackson to beat Jeffries doesn't mean Jackson was at his best. They under-estimated the young novice Jeffries in all likelihood.
Joe Louis was picked to beat Marciano remember.

What was the story of Jackson's "regained form" based on ?
He'd been inactive coming in. So, it falls under another "looks good in training" rumour.

Jackson was old, coming off a layoff, trying to come back.

 

Which newspaper said Tyson had re-gained his form? I would like to read it. The writers who picked Tyson were the ones who had a problem giving Lewis credit. Wally Mathews and his KO1 for Tyson prediction comes to mind. Tyson looked terrible vs Nielsen, which was his last fight before Lewis. And no, Tyson was not 220-225 pounds. He was 234 pounds vs Lewis, which is at least 15 pounds over his prime weight.

The reports of the Brooklyn Union were spot on Jackson's weight, and not only said he re-gained his form, but went into some detail. Remember Jackson owned a boxing school. He never walked away from game. And he trained hard, which Tyson did not.

If you read the fight report ( I don't think you have ) Jackson was lively and did not look old in round one. Hence his form was there. Jackson did not hit the wall due to lack of stamina. It was Jeffries power.

 

Newspapers here in the UK, I cannot remember which ones, but I know what I read.
Yes, the fact that they were fooled into believing he was 220 or 225 pounds goes to show how off they were.
I agree, Tyson looked **** against Nielsen, and that further emphasizes the nonsense of the writers who built Tyson up or picked him to win.

Jackson hadn't fought in 3 years, had only fought once (against a non-entity I think) in the last 6 years.

Lots of old fighters can look pretty good for one round. (Some thought Tyson looked very good for 3 minutes against Lewis, incidentally.)

Since there's no footage of Jackson in his prime, or against Jeffries, I have no idea what he really looked like against Jeffries.

All I know for sure it he was coming off 3 year layoff, with 1 offocial six-round bout in 6 years, he was 36 or 37 years old. It is VERY VERY unlikely that he recaptured his best form under those circumstances. He may well have been in good form, but it's highly doubtful that he was the same as in his prime.

 

I think we are wasting our time here SJ, Mendoza thinks Jeffries was Thor ,Hercules,and Superman ,all rolled into one,he will distort facts to make them support his opinion every time Jeffries is concerned.Jackson had 10 rounds of combat in 6 years ,he was stopped in 3 by Jim Jeffords in his next fight and never won another,yet Mendoza wants us to beleive Jackson had miraculously regained his form.On what basis did that journalist assert that Jackson had regained his form?Because he had his weight down? So did Ali against Holmes .You cannot convince as man who is blinkered,he persists in stating that Jeffries was a huge puncher ,despite evidence to the contrary,if you call him on it ,he says you have a grudge against him,time to leave him to his delusions ,I think.

 

Short answer to your question ,YES!you produce a clipping from some unnamed rag,written by some unnamed writer and expect to convince us,the facts say otherwise,why you persist in this is beyond me ,and I suspect others,as Ive said before on any other subject you are rational,and objective,time to let you go .

 

While I am sure Jackson had seen better days the fight generated a lot of interest at the time. Some bods on the general forum picked Jackson.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Also Jackson was seen to be making good progress in camp two months earlier. His fall in the Jeffries fight was sudden and complete.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

The Brooklyn Union was not an unnamed rag. I suppose part of the clipping was chopped off. Rest assured the Brooklyn Union had very good boxing coverage in the day.

I posted the facts. You chose to laugh with Sonny's Jab, who 1 ) doesn't seem to care to speculate about fighters he never saw, and 2 ) was ignorant to the facts and 3 ) makes wild assumptions on what I think, which were not true. When I ask him for source, I get crickets. I think the reason for your antics is a past grudge, regardless of what you say. Stop spinning BS. Its obvious & everyone here knows it.

I never said Jackson was in his prime for the match. I simply said he was in good from leading up to the match, but did not last long. This is what the papers say.

If your sole reply is I’m not being objective here, then the onus is on your say otherwise without silly smiley faces or sophomoric cheerleading. Can you give us that?

If sources are not enough for some people here on non-flimed fights, this forum is going to quickly go down hill.

 

didn't corbett say that no one could beat sullivan who wasn't as fast as him? it's fine to admire ones skills but that doesn't mean you think they can beat everyone. stylisitically sullivan was wrong for jackson, he could both brawl and box and people in the jackson camp point to sullivan's loss to corbett and his draw with jackson as a point for jackson beating sullivan, and that's the equivalent of mmath, it's about styles. and to say at some point a declining sullivan would lose to jackson is idiotic, I could beat john l. sullivan today, along with my 3 yr old nephew.