Once And For All: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries

[cross_trainer]

This debate has been boiling just under the surface for a while. Few have directly given their opinion, but the questions about Jeffries' retirement and "ducking" indicate that there's definitely a difference of opinion here.

Besides, it's time to get away from the weird Calzaghe arguments that have been popping up lately.

Who would have won if this dream showdown had occurred in 1906?

[cross_trainer]

Here's the film we need:

jBnKIeb7QE8

LIFzgV9-UOs

IsB3O0JnBjI

CauVMvNspIY

QVa0GNDAP8E

Pj2jOpoecfc

[TBooze]

This debate has been boiling just under the surface for a while. Few have directly given their opinion, but the questions about Jeffries' retirement and "ducking" indicate that there's definitely a difference of opinion here.

Besides, it's time to get away from the weird Calzaghe arguments that have been popping up lately.

Who would have won if this dream showdown had occurred in 1906?

I take Johnson to win post 1903; the only difference from their 1910 match-up would be, it would take Johnson longer, and maybe he would need a honest ref:think if it goes the distance:

My opinion for a 1906 match-up:

Johnson W45

[cross_trainer]

I take Johnson to win post 1903; the only difference from their 1910 match-up would be, it would take Johnson longer, and maybe he would need a honest ref:think if it goes the distance:

My opinion for a 1906 match-up:

Johnson W45

What stylistic factors do you see being in Johnson's favor?

[Luigi1985]

Jeffries never struggled with the likes of Hart, a green Jeanette (who almost lost more fights as he won at that time of his career), Dunning, Jackson, etc., yes, I know, when it comes to Johnson, similar to Ali, when he struggled with someone or so, he wasn´t at his peak, or he wasn´t motivated, or he was robbed and so on. But the truth is, that Jeffries dominated his era, he didn´t need the judges to win his fights or so, and he defeated very good fighters like Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Sharkey, etc., Johnson´s title reign is ridiculous in contrast to Jeffries. IMO Johnson would slightly outpoint Jeffries until the midrounds, but than he gets a hard counter- left hook and Jeffries wins viá 9th round KO...

[TBooze]

What stylistic factors do you see being in Johnson's favor?

Jeffries was incredibly strong, and would need to do a lot of wrestling to keep Johnson honest, but a fully motivated Johnson would have a enough size to deal with that.

Jeffries has shown amazing stamina but again that would only going to get worse as he got older, as long as Johnson was in shape he would be Jeffries equal in this department.

Johnson would have the edge in hand and leg speed, had a more diverse arsenal and the edge as a ring technician which would be a huge advantage in the last third of a 45 rounder. But Jeffires for a long period in the fight would have the edge in power, and that would keep Johnson honest.

I see the first 30 rounds being very even, neither being too agressive infact it would be quite boring and cagey.

But the last third of the fight would belong to Johnson as his edge in speed in both foot and hand kicks in as Jeffries tires and I suspect Johnson would start busting Jeffires up.

Jim's will would keep him on his feet until the end and that may of been enough for the referee give it a draw/no decision, but Johnson would of deserved the win.

[mcvey]

This debate has been boiling just under the surface for a while. Few have directly given their opinion, but the questions about Jeffries' retirement and "ducking" indicate that there's definitely a difference of opinion here.

Besides, it's time to get away from the weird Calzaghe arguments that have been popping up lately.

Who would have won if this dream showdown had occurred in 1906?
Jeffries draws the colour line ,the size line ,and the weight line,refuses to fight unless Johnson comes in under 185lbs.





Only kidding ,let evry one else have this one Ive been shooting my gob off too much on this subject,Ive even bored myself!

[cross_trainer]

Jeffries was incredibly strong, and would need to do a lot of wrestling to keep Johnson honest, but a fully motivated Johnson would have a enough size to deal with that.

Jeffries has shown amazing stamina but again that would only going to get worse as he got older, as long as Johnson was in shape he would be Jeffries equal in this department.

Johnson would have the edge in hand and leg speed, had a more diverse arsenal and the edge as a ring technician which would be a huge advantage in the last third of a 45 rounder. But Jeffires for a long period in the fight would have the edge in power, and that would keep Johnson honest.

I see the first 30 rounds being very even, neither being too agressive infact it would be quite boring and cagey.

But the last third of the fight would belong to Johnson as his edge in speed in both foot and hand kicks in as Jeffries tires and I suspect Johnson would start busting Jeffires up.

Jim's will would keep him on his feet until the end and that may of been enough for the referee give it a draw/no decision, but Johnson would of deserved the win.

I would tend to think that Johnson's speed advantage would decline as the fight went on rather than increase--a 45 rounder would probably tax both men's endurance, and cause their speed and sharpness to decay.

[mr. magoo]

Johnson enjoyed doing a lot of holding. This would be a mistake against a prime Jeffries who was exceptionally strong, and had a wrestling background. Jeff also wouldn't have gotten tired over 15 or 20 rounds when at his best. I pick Jeffries to KO Johnson late.

[Ted Stickles]

Jeffries was too much of a plodder and was more of a one punch at a time guy where as Johnson was more mobile and can put his punches together better ....Johnson by late stoppage or UD

[Cachibatches]

Jeffries actually admitted after there fight that he never would ahve beaten Johnson.

Or so I remember reading.

[TBooze]

I would tend to think that Johnson's speed advantage would decline as the fight went on rather than increase--a 45 rounder would probably tax both men's endurance, and cause their speed and sharpness to decay.

Johnson's speed would decline, but being the younger man, I suspect he would have slight edge and his physical advantages would show up more as the fight goes on, thus his speed would become a factor late on.

I understand wheat you mean, my point would be like an 800 metre race; where it looks like at the end of the race certain athletes are speeding up, but in reality they are slowing down less quickly than their peers.

[Holmes' Jab]

Johnson, by close UD.

[cross_trainer]

Johnson's speed would decline, but being the younger man, I suspect he would have slight edge and his physical advantages would show up more as the fight goes on, thus his speed would become a factor late on.

I understand wheat you mean, my point would be like an 800 metre race; where it looks like at the end of the race certain athletes are speeding up, but in reality they are slowing down less quickly than their peers.

Fair enough, but wouldn't that speed-up be an advantage for Jeffries rather than Johnson, since Jeffries' stamina was considered absolutely top-notch in that era?

[ChrisPontius]

I have a feeling Johnson would take most of the early rounds, but after 15-20 rounds Jeffries comes on strong and does enough to win, by knockout or so past the 30th. Hard to gauge though, both have not really fought opponents of each other calibre (Johnson more so than Jeffries, though) and rarely of their size. What makes it even worse is the grainy and sloppy footage, although Johnson footage is better than Jeffries-footage (except for his last unfortunate fight).

I'm not particularly fond of the old style of boxing, but this is one of the most intriguing matchups in boxing history, especially considering they were pretty close in timeline, fighting under similar rules.

[mr. magoo]

It should also be noted that James Jeffries showed up for the Johnson fight weighing 227 Lbs. This was after having to lose a substantial amount of weight in a very short period of time. Jeffries' best fight weights ranged from about 210-218 when in the prime of his career.

[mcvey]

It should also be noted that James Jeffries showed up for the Johnson fight weighing 227 Lbs. This was after having to lose a substantial amount of weight in a very short period of time. Jeffries' best fight weights ranged from about 210-218 when in the prime of his career.
Jefries at 227 was only 7lbs heavier than when he beat Corbett in1903 ,he weighed 219 for his last fight the Illustrious Jack Munro,quite an acheivment really considering he had to take off something like 85lbs to get in condition,but the Johnson fight tells us nothing about their chances against each other Jeffries was finished ,his body looked the part but his stamina,strength in the clinches ,and judgement of distance was gone,he didnt sleep the night before ,and told his corner his head "felt queer",and his arms were "heavy"possibly symptons of tension,I dont think Jeffries thought he would win by the time the fight came around,he had told Sullivan "I dont see why I have to be the favourite".He was no longer the invincible "Iron Man".

[mr. magoo]

Jefries at 227 was only 7lbs heavier than when he beat Corbett in1903 ,he weighed 219 for his last fight the Illustrious Jack Munro,quite

Yes, but this was not his most common weight. If we took every fight that Jeffries ever had, and averaged out his weight over a career, he'd probably come out to about 217 Lbs, which was 10 pounds less than what he showed up for Johnson. Not that it makes a difference, but its one more thing to consider when looking at the whole picture.

[mcvey]

Yes, but this was not his most common weight. If we took every fight that Jeffries ever had, and averaged out his weight over a career, he'd probably come out to about 217 Lbs, which was 10 pounds less than what he showed up for Johnson. Not that it makes a difference, but its one more thing to consider when looking at the whole picture.
You find though as men age they gain weight,compare Alis first reign ,his weight was probably averaging at around 212,during his comeback in would have been 12 to 16 pounds heavier ,I think this follows for every heavyweight Champion even the lighter ones like Fitz and Corbett weighed more as thety get older .I dont seethe significance of this as it applies to Jeffries,no one is suggesting that he was anything but a remnant of the fighter he had been,by the way Johnson was in top shape at 208 when he met the faded Jeffries,but I was decried as making excuses when I mentioned that Johnson was fat and out of shape when he weighed 221 fof Moran.

[cross_trainer]

You find though as men age they gain weight,compare Alis first reign ,his weight was probably averaging at around 212,during his comeback in would have been 12 to 16 pounds heavier ,I think this follows for every heavyweight Champion even the lighter ones like Fitz and Corbett weighed more as thety get older .I dont seethe significance of this as it applies to Jeffries,no one is suggesting that he was anything but a remnant of the fighter he had been,by the way Johnson was in top shape at 208 when he met the faded Jeffries,but I was decried as making excuses when I mentioned that Johnson was fat and out of shape when he weighed 221 fof Moran.

I think the salient point is that, even after some EXTREME weight cutting, he still could not make his best weight against Johnson. It's as if Johnson was 221 for Moran (and you do have a point about him being out of shape there) AFTER shaving off a hundred pounds.

Worst case scenario from both ends.

[Lampley]

I think another point worth considering is mental stamina. Johnson's temperament would enable him to make that sort of 45-rounder -- one conducted under tremendous international pressure -- against his best opponent more easily than Jeffries.

Jeffries was very determined to fight an angry fight, and I don't that would have changed if the clock had been dialed back a few years. That anger ultimately would conspire against him.

Moreover, Johnson could fight his fight with less physical exertion than that required of Jeffries, and ultimately I think he's too smart, too quick and too economical. And the difference in strength isn't enough for Jeff to compensate for his disadvantages.

[C. M. Clay II]

I think Johnson combination punching was too much for him. Jeffries would be outclassed in the end. Johnson by decision.:good

[Luigi1985]

I think Johnson combination punching was too much for him. Jeffries would be outclassed in the end. Johnson by decision.:good

Conbination punching? WTF are you talking about?

[C. M. Clay II]

Conbination punching? WTF are you talking about?

Johnson was a great combination puncher. Jeffreis never had to deal with 4 and 5 punches coming at him from different angles like that. He would be outclassed.:good

[Luigi1985]

Johnson was a great combination puncher. Jeffreis never had to deal with 4 and 5 punches coming at him from different angles like that. He would be outclassed.:good


Looking at your avatar, your pick seems pretty predictable... but nothing new from you!

[C. M. Clay II]

Looking at your avatar, your pick seems pretty predictable... but nothing new from you!

So Johnson didn't throw combinations?

[Luigi1985]

So Johnson didn't throw combinations?


He was the 2nd best combination puncher ever, only slightly after the greatest boxer ever, Muhammad Ali... :thumbsup

[C. M. Clay II]

He was the 2nd best combination puncher ever, only slightly after the greatest boxer ever, Muhammad Ali... :thumbsup

Stop that. You know what I mean. Johnson was really the first HW who threw rapid fire combinations. Jeffries wouldn't be used to this.

[Luigi1985]

Stop that. You know what I mean. Johnson was really the first HW who threw rapid fire combinations. Jeffries wouldn't be used to this.



But you totally overact. His biggest weapon was, to tired up the smaller and pysically much weaker men because of his clinching. Against Jeffries, he couldn´t do that.

[C. M. Clay II]

But you totally overact. His biggest weapon was, to tired up the smaller and pysically much weaker men because of his clinching. Against Jeffries, he couldn´t do that.

Johnson was able to do that to jeffries anyway, so I don't see your point.

Watch Johnson finish off Burns, and you'll see what I'm talking about when I say combinaton punching. Jeffries would have to deal with that. Johnson would use variety of punches to pile up the points.

[Luigi1985]

Johnson was able to do that to jeffries anyway, so I don't see your point.

Watch Johnson finish off Burns, and you'll see what I'm talking about when I say combinaton punching. Jeffries would have to deal with that. Johnson would use variety of punches to pile up the points.


Nobody can take you serious, now he was even pysically easily and without a doubt stronger... :lol:

[ChrisPontius]

On film you will rarely see Johnson throw combinations; he didn't seem to know what a jab was either. He usually threw a punch and then went into a clinch. I think quite some skilled gloved boxers from Tunney on would trouble Jeffries because of their modern style, but Johnson is not one of them. That is not to say Jeffries won't have problems with Johnson of course, but not for those reasons.

[C. M. Clay II]

Nobody can take you serious, now he was even pysically easily and without a doubt stronger... :lol:

He actually pried Jeffries arms behind his back, not that takes strength to do, don't you think? And power and strength is the last thing to go, so you can't say that that was caused by Jeffries' lay-off.

[Luigi1985]

On film you will rarely see Johnson throw combinations; he didn't seem to know what a jab was either. He usually threw a punch and then went into a clinch. I think quite some skilled gloved boxers from Tunney on would trouble Jeffries because of their modern style, but Johnson is not one of them. That is not to say Jeffries won't have problems with Johnson of course, but not for those reasons.



Shut up, you´re probably a Johnson- hater, you´re ignorant too, he was the 2nd best combination- puncher in the history of boxing, just behind Ali...












:lol:

[C. M. Clay II]

On film you will rarely see Johnson throw combinations; he didn't seem to know what a jab was either. He usually threw a punch and then went into a clinch. I think quite some skilled gloved boxers from Tunney on would trouble Jeffries because of their modern style, but Johnson is not one of them. That is not to say Jeffries won't have problems with Johnson of course, but not for those reasons.

Then I guess you have never seen Johnson fight. Johnson threw plenty of jabs and combinations. Even at 37, he was able to have the 6'-6" 230lb. Jess Willard on the run with his combinations. And when finishing his opponents off, he threw at time combos in double digits. Watch the Burns' fight and the Jeffries fight for that. Johnson had very fast feet and would pull back from punches with lightning speed. He wasn't just this one-dimensional clincher than many of you think he is.

[C. M. Clay II]

Shut up, you´re probably a Johnson- hater, you´re ignorant too, he was the 2nd best combination- puncher in the history of boxing, just behind Ali...












:lol:

Prove that I said that.

[RoccoMarciano]

Prove that I said that.

He was talking to pontius.

[C. M. Clay II]

He was talking to pontius.

I know he was talking to Pontius. But he was talking about me.

[ChrisPontius]

Then I guess you have never seen Johnson fight. Johnson threw plenty of jabs and combinations. Even at 37, he was able to have the 6'-6" 230lb. Jess Willard on the run with his combinations. And when finishing his opponents off, he threw at time combos in double digits. Watch the Burns' fight and the Jeffries fight for that. Johnson had very fast feet and would pull back from punches with lightning speed. He wasn't just this one-dimensional clincher than many of you think he is.

I have seen just about every filmed fight of him available, and sorry but i don't see that. You focus on the few times he does throw a combination and pretend like he always does that. He doesn't. A lot of people have a mythical picture of Johnson, often posting "Johnson would keep him at the end of his jab" which is completly ridiculous and goes against every footage available of him. 90% of the time of his fights is throw a punch, grap.. wrestle... throw a few punches... wrestle more, push the midget away, and start all over again.
Johnson was probably the best combination puncher around though*.


*during the period when mouthpieces were not invented yet

[C. M. Clay II]

I have seen just about every filmed fight of him available, and sorry but i don't see that. You focus on the few times he does throw a combination and pretend like he always does that. He doesn't. A lot of people have a mythical picture of Johnson, often posting "Johnson would keep him at the end of his jab" which is completly ridiculous and goes against every footage available of him. 90% of the time of his fights is throw a punch, grap.. wrestle... throw a few punches... wrestle more, push the midget away, and start all over again.
Johnson was probably the best combination puncher around though*.


*during the period when mouthpieces were not invented yet

Well then you should watch more carefully. He could fight whatever fight the situation called for. If it called for Holding, he would hold. If it called for combos, then he would do combos. If it called for backpeddling, then he would backpeddle. He could do it all. Jack Johnson was multi-dimensional.:good

[cross_trainer]

So Johnson didn't throw combinations?

Not really, no.

He was pretty typical of his time period--which is what made him such a handful under his own era's rules. Most of the time, as Luigi says, he would clinch and uppercut, with the occasional potshot. When he does throw combinations, he doesn't throw them with great art or fluidity, as the clip below will demonstrate (Burns vs. Johnson, as you requested):

5qHKwJQi6aY

Johnson's combinative punching is best on the inside, like Jeffries. Overall, I'd say he has about the same proficiency at combinative punching as Jeffries, who could whip out a nasty head-body or body-head series of left hooks:

QVa0GNDAP8E



The difference between Johnson and Jeffries lies not in how "modern" one is, but the fact that Johnson was the more technically savvy fighter by his own era's standards. Aside from using his gloves like catcher's mitts, Johnson was fairly orthodox by the transitional boxing standards of his day. Much moreso than Jeffries, who (ironically) looks more "modern" than Johnson does. Especially on the outside, Johnson had the edge in slickness and proficiency--although when you get into a discussion of inside fighting, that edge erodes quickly against Jeff.



Incidentally, Johnson would probably frustrate and outslick most opponents under his own rules BECAUSE he was not a very modern fighter. His lack of combination punching and excessive clinching are an ADVANTAGE in turn-of-the-century conditions.

[cross_trainer]

He actually pried Jeffries arms behind his back, not that takes strength to do, don't you think? And power and strength is the last thing to go, so you can't say that that was caused by Jeffries' lay-off.

Yeah, Johnson was quite strong. Used to do some strongman acts involving horses, if I recollect, and was definitely able to outmuscle Jeffries during their 1910 fight.

But Jeffries was drained 100 lbs. and got tired after the first few rounds--which would have a HUGE impact on strength, wouldn't you think?





For comparison, here's Jeffries swinging his 200 lb. brother around like a six year old:

CauVMvNspIY

[C. M. Clay II]

Not really, no.

He was pretty typical of his time period--which is what made him such a handful under his own era's rules. Most of the time, as Luigi says, he would clinch and uppercut, with the occasional potshot. When he does throw combinations, he doesn't throw them with great art or fluidity, as the clip below will demonstrate (Burns vs. Johnson, as you requested):

5qHKwJQi6aY

Johnson's combinative punching is best on the inside, like Jeffries. Overall, I'd say he has about the same proficiency at combinative punching as Jeffries, who could whip out a nasty head-body or body-head series of left hooks:

QVa0GNDAP8E



The difference between Johnson and Jeffries lies not in how "modern" one is, but the fact that Johnson was the more technically savvy fighter by his own era's standards. Aside from using his gloves like catcher's mitts, Johnson was fairly orthodox by the transitional boxing standards of his day. Much moreso than Jeffries, who (ironically) looks more "modern" than Johnson does. Especially on the outside, Johnson had the edge in slickness and proficiency--although when you get into a discussion of inside fighting, that edge erodes quickly against Jeff.



Incidentally, Johnson would probably frustrate and outslick most opponents under his own rules BECAUSE he was not a very modern fighter. His lack of combination punching and excessive clinching are an ADVANTAGE in turn-of-the-century conditions.

When I watch Johnson finishing off Burns, I see pretty good fluidity there. He defeinetely threw more punches at a time than his predecesors, IMO.

[C. M. Clay II]

Yeah, Johnson was quite strong. Used to do some strongman acts involving horses, if I recollect, and was definitely able to outmuscle Jeffries during their 1910 fight.

But Jeffries was drained 100 lbs. and got tired after the first few rounds--which would have a HUGE impact on strength, wouldn't you think?





For comparison, here's Jeffries swinging his 200 lb. brother around like a six year old:

CauVMvNspIY

But Johnson did it in like the 4th or 5th round, he shouldn't have been tired at that point.:good

[cross_trainer]

But Johnson did it in like the 4th or 5th round, he shouldn't have been tired at that point.:good

He started to tire very early.

In any event, he was still weight drained, which as I said before has a HUGE impact on strength. And the swinging-your-brother-like-a-kindergartener speaks for itself. :D

[Luigi1985]

He started to tire very early.

In any event, he was still weight drained, which as I said before has a HUGE impact on strength. And the swinging-your-brother-like-a-kindergartener speaks for itself. :D


C.M. Clay II showed me a video, where Johnson made exactly the same with his 265 lbs- brother... :good

[cross_trainer]

C.M. Clay II showed me a video, where Johnson made exactly the same with his 265 lbs- brother... :good

Oh yeah? Well I have videos of Jeffries lifting Butterbean over his head with one arm.

[Luigi1985]

Oh yeah? Well I have videos of Jeffries lifting Butterbean over his head with one arm.


What a pity, you´re just an ignorant Johnson- hater! Grow up!






:lol:

[C. M. Clay II]

He started to tire very early.

In any event, he was still weight drained, which as I said before has a HUGE impact on strength. And the swinging-your-brother-like-a-kindergartener speaks for itself. :D

Jeffries had 6 months to train. Weight draining is like a quick-fix. I doubt Jeffries situatuion was that bad.

[C. M. Clay II]

"Everybody in the whole cell block,
was dancing to the jail house rock!"

I'm sorry, I'm listening to some Elvis right now and I couldn't resist, lol!:lol:




Carry on.:hi:

[cross_trainer]

Jeffries had 6 months to train. Weight draining is like a quick-fix. I doubt Jeffries situatuion was that bad.

I'm not referring to weight-draining by dehydration, but by starvation and heavy training. 100 lbs. in 6 months after being sedentary for five years is a pretty big chore...especially if he's trying to gain stamina and boxing heavily at the same time. The man lost a third of his bodyweight.

I can also pretty much guarantee that the methods they used to drain the weight were unhealthy.

[Luigi1985]

Jeffries had 6 months to train. Weight draining is like a quick-fix. I doubt Jeffries situatuion was that bad.


:shock:


You don´t know what you´re talking about! What Jeffries did, today every doctor wouldn´t allowed that. It was like suizide- trial, you know why he looked so quickly tired and so? Because of his circulatory and all that, it isn´t so like today where nutrition experts create extra a for you individual training plan with all details, and where exists helps like supplements and stuff like that... please informate yourself at first before you post

[cross_trainer]

What Luigi says is accurate. You simply cannot lose that much weight that fast at that age with early 20th century methods and expect to be able to fight effectively. Incidentally, I have to correct myself--it was 80 lbs., not 100. Still a third of his bodyweight...even with six months to train, Jeffries was going well over the 2 lb/week maximum set by modern doctors for healthy weight loss. And weightloss in the early 20th century was anything but healthy.

Nor do you go from picking up 200 lb. men and swinging them around like children to getting your arms bent around your back without some serious physical decline.

Surely, Clay II, we can agree on these fairly uncontroversial points so we can continue with the styles analysis? If not, I will try to meet whatever standard of proof you require.

[mr. magoo]

Surely, Clay II, we can agree on these fairly uncontroversial points so we can continue with the styles analysis? If not, I will try to meet whatever standard of proof you require.


I could almost picture someone like Christopher Lee in his role as Count Dooku, saying those words.

[cross_trainer]

I could almost picture someone like Christopher Lee in his role as Count Dooku, saying those words.

:lol:

[C. M. Clay II]

:shock:


You don´t know what you´re talking about! What Jeffries did, today every doctor wouldn´t allowed that. It was like suizide- trial, you know why he looked so quickly tired and so? Because of his circulatory and all that, it isn´t so like today where nutrition experts create extra a for you individual training plan with all details, and where exists helps like supplements and stuff like that... please informate yourself at first before you post

All Jefries would have to do is lose about ½lb. a day, which is nothing for someone over 300lbs. I'm not saying it didn't affect him at all, but I don't think it was so bad that a guy who is boasted to be able to go 40+ rounds in his prime to be reduced to getting winded after three rounds of fairly docile action.

[OLD FOGEY]

This debate has been boiling just under the surface for a while. Few have directly given their opinion, but the questions about Jeffries' retirement and "ducking" indicate that there's definitely a difference of opinion here.

Besides, it's time to get away from the weird Calzaghe arguments that have been popping up lately.

Who would have won if this dream showdown had occurred in 1906?

I don't really care for Jeff's style. I might be missing something, but in all the film I've seen he goes into that crouch with his left down by his thigh and his face hanging out there to be hit. I guess it must have worked but I don't understand why. I have never seen him throw a jab or an overhand right, and he appears to have very little head movement.
Johnson is much quicker with his hands, and hits with both hands, while Jeff seems to rely almost exclusively on his left, and Johnson can jab now and then, even if he rarely does. Jeffries might land a big left and take Johnson out but I think more often than not the fight goes about the way the 1910 fight did, with Johnson battering Jeff with his quicker hands and superior technique.
If Johnson had a defensive weakness, it was to a straight right, a punch that did not seem to really be in Jeff's arsenal. As for Jeff's defense, he suffered three broken noses in 20 fights and was pretty badly cut up quite often. He could take it and did, but I don't see much defense at all. It is most odd as he does seem to be very light on his feet for such a big man. I would think he could have used movement and a jab to his advantage.

[guilalah]

Jeffries-Ruhlin II

Really Murky, but probably the best footage we have of a prime Jeffries.

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])


Jeffries training

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])=

Jeffries was pretty good at ducking right hands; maybe he was good enough slipping rights that he could usually afford to hold his left low, drawing those right hands and making openings for his left.

[OLD FOGEY]

Jeffries-Ruhlin II

Really Murky, but probably the best footage we have of a prime Jeffries.

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])


Jeffries training

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])=

Jeffries was pretty good at ducking right hands; maybe he was good enough slipping rights that he could usually afford to hold his left low, drawing those right hands and making openings for his left.

I do think Jeffries showed far better movement and defense when he stood more erect, from what I can tell off the film. The crouch slowed him. This is Gene Tunney from 1940 on Jeffries:

"I know there are first-rate judges of boxing who pick the big fellow as the greatest of all. But I am not one of them.
"The ring strategy of Jeffries was entirely the thinking of Tommy Ryan. Tommy taught him the famous crouch, body haunched away over and left hand stuck out. Had him just go plodding ahead like that, pushing the left out straight.
"Jeffries decisive quality was his tremendous physical toughness and endurance, the brawny giant who could hardly be hurt. The Ryan system was for Jeffries to take all the beating the other fellow could give him, just go plodding in a crouch and absorb all the punches that came his way, until his opponent wore himself out hitting him. It has been said that Jeffries . . . often displayed little love for battle, and sometimes wanted to quit. Well, you could hardly blame him with that Tommy Ryan strategy of having Jeffries take all the beating the other fellow could hand out."

It is only fair to quote Jeff's more succinct comment on Tunney:

"Tunney wouldn't have lasted three rounds with Fitzsimmons."

[mcvey]

I do think Jeffries showed far better movement and defense when he stood more erect, from what I can tell off the film. The crouch slowed him. This is Gene Tunney from 1940 on Jeffries:

"I know there are first-rate judges of boxing who pick the big fellow as the greatest of all. But I am not one of them.
"The ring strategy of Jeffries was entirely the thinking of Tommy Ryan. Tommy taught him the famous crouch, body haunched away over and left hand stuck out. Had him just go plodding ahead like that, pushing the left out straight.
"Jeffries decisive quality was his tremendous physical toughness and endurance, the brawny giant who could hardly be hurt. The Ryan system was for Jeffries to take all the beating the other fellow could give him, just go plodding in a crouch and absorb all the punches that came his way, until his opponent wore himself out hitting him. It has been said that Jeffries . . . often displayed little love for battle, and sometimes wanted to quit. Well, you could hardly blame him with that Tommy Ryan strategy of having Jeffries take all the beating the other fellow could hand out."

It is only fair to quote Jeff's more succinct comment on Tunney:

"Tunney wouldn't have lasted three rounds with Fitzsimmons."
Interesting post,there are some on here who think Jeffries adoption of the "Ryan crouch"made him an elusive target,yet reports of his fights .particularly his two with Fitz state "his nose was broken,his cheeks were gashed to the bone and he had dep cuts over both eyes"[The History Of the Heavyweight Champioship,Fleischer].Jeffries seems to have plodded forward ,absorbing punshment ,thudding in his big left when he could and wearing down his smaller opponents,a"miracle of endurance "indeed,but hardly a clever defensive boxer,as some like to paint him.Watching the blurry footage of Jeffries against Ruhlin,it was Ruhlin who appeared the more mobile and agile of the two,Jefries stalking him in his stolid fashion ,before getting close and landing a big shot to floor Ruhlin.When I was younger around my twenties ,I had Jeffries in my top 10,nearly forty years later ,I beleive his reputation is based largely on the gradual demolition of faded veterans who were inactive and past their prime,but that is often the nature of boxing ,the young feast on the old.I think Jeffries main assett was as Tunney said,his allmost superhuman indestructability,but again he never met a man his own size ,in his prime ,who was a top flight fighter,so we have to take on trust how he would have fared against big punching hitters of recent years,Fitz was a big puncher,and he pounded Jeffries face into steak,but he only weighed 167 and172 lbs for their fights,plus he was respectively 37 and 40 years old.

[Mendoza]

Tunney didn't like Jeffries. The two went at it in the press. You see, Tunney was Irish, and Jeffries beat his Irish hero Corbett and to a lesser extent Sharkey. Jeffries also had a falling out with Ryan and his old trainer Billy Delaney.

Jeffries said Tunney was a no account fancy Dan. Regarding Fitz hitting power, you badly mistaken if you think his weight of 167-172 did not equate to real heavyweight power. Many who saw Fitz to Marciano felt Fitz was the best hitter. Better than Dempsey, Louis, or Marciano. Nat Fleisher said this.

You seem to be hung up on weight McVey. If you infer that Jeffries never beat a top ranked 220 pound fighter in his prime or near prime, then does the same penalty apply to everyone else?

I love to see your top 20 list. In fact I ask for it. My hunch is there will be several hypocritical double standards. Post it here.

If Jeffries could take many bombs from Fitz, who likely had loaded gloves in the second fight, his chin was proven.

[mcvey]

The charge that Fitz had loaded gloves came froman old rumour that he would fight with plaster of paris on his wraps,the same charge was put about by Doc Kearns ,after he had fallen out with Dempsey,in the 60s Boxing Illustrated conducted an experiment to see if this was a realistic possibilty,they used Cleveland Williams the big hitting Heavyweight for the Fitz /Dempsey role,trials showed that the plaster refused to harden and was useless,I have the isuue this appeared in ,and have seen a short film clip of the trial.End of Rumour.
I mentioned the amount of damage Jeffries sustained in his fights with Fitz because Fitz was likely the biggest hitter he faced while champion,and to demonstrate Jeffries biggest asset,and conversely his biggest weakness,ie 1 he could take incredible punishment ,indeed reporters remarked 2he didnt seem to care if he was hit ",2 he was often forced to take that punishment ,weathering the storm ,before coming on and administering the quietus,due to his lack of defensive ability,and head movement,the footage is grainy ,but I dont think anyone watching what film is available of Jeffries would call him defensively evasive.In that repsect I think Tunneys assessment is valid,All the old timers called their contemporaries superior to the modern guys eg Johnson felt that Jeffries Corbett and Fitz were superior to the champions of the30s and 40s,Corbett ,and Sharkey said Johnson was the greatest"boxer",of all time,Dempsey rated Jeffries the best,its a rather natural thing,coincidentally the Champion in my teenage years was Muhammad Ali,and I rate him the best of all time at Heavyweight,as generations die the Champions of their youth often fall out of favour ,when fans that had grown up with Dempsey died his popularity took a nose dive,Ive Ring magazines from the 50s decrying Marciano as a poor imitation of Dempsey and emphasisng his clumsiness ,today he is revered ,similarly Walcott and Charles were regarded as lack lustre,[thats the way you spell it by the way],and the best of a bad bunch now they are called great. Regarding Jeffries chin ,find a post on this forum that gives it more fullsome praise than I have,I recently twice described it as granite,the fact remains it never felt the punches of a modern big heavy hitter so ,as I said we have to take it on trust,as to how it would react.I dont infer that Jeffries never met beat a top 220 fighter in his prime,I STATE IT CATEGORICALLY!

[mcvey]

The charge that Fitz had loaded gloves came froman old rumour that he would fight with plaster of paris on his wraps,the same charge was put about by Doc Kearns ,after he had fallen out with Dempsey,in the 60s Boxing Illustrated conducted an experiment to see if this was a realistic possibilty,they used Cleveland Williams the big hitting Heavyweight for the Fitz /Dempsey role,trials showed that the plaster refused to harden and was useless,I have the isuue this appeared in ,and have seen a short film clip of the trial.End of Rumour.
I mentioned the amount of damage Jeffries sustained in his fights with Fitz because Fitz was likely the biggest hitter he faced while champion,and to demonstrate Jeffries biggest asset,and conversely his biggest weakness,ie 1 he could take incredible punishment ,indeed reporters remarked 2he didnt seem to care if he was hit ",2 he was often forced to take that punishment ,weathering the storm ,before coming on and administering the quietus,due to his lack of defensive ability,and head movement,the footage is grainy ,but I dont think anyone watching what film is available of Jeffries would call him defensively evasive.In that repsect I think Tunneys assessment is valid,All the old timers called their contemporaries superior to the modern guys eg Johnson felt that Jeffries Corbett and Fitz were superior to the champions of the30s and 40s,Corbett ,and Sharkey said Johnson was the greatest"boxer",of all time,Dempsey rated Jeffries the best,its a rather natural thing,coincidentally the Champion in my teenage years was Muhammad Ali,and I rate him the best of all time at Heavyweight,as generations die the Champions of their youth often fall out of favour ,when fans that had grown up with Dempsey died his popularity took a nose dive,Ive Ring magazines from the 50s decrying Marciano as a poor imitation of Dempsey and emphasisng his clumsiness ,today he is revered ,similarly Walcott and Charles were regarded as lack lustre,[thats the way you spell it by the way],and the best of a bad bunch now they are called great. Regarding Jeffries chin ,find a post on this forum that gives it more fullsome praise than I have,I recently twice described it as granite,the fact remains it never felt the punches of a modern big heavy hitter so ,as I said we have to take it on trust,as to how it would react.I dont infer that Jeffries never met beat a top 220 fighter in his prime,I STATE IT CATEGORICALLY!
PS THE MAN HAS COUNTED 10 OVER YOU! I think I might change my name to Gentleman John Jackson,its seems appropriate,given Ive just kod you!


And I didnt have to hold you by the hair to do it!

[Mendoza]

PS THE MAN HAS COUNTED 10 OVER YOU! I think I might change my name to Gentleman John Jackson,its seems appropriate,given Ive just kod you!


And I didnt have to hold you by the hair to do it!

You can count to ten all you want after its over. Fitz handlers say he had loaded gloves, and Fitz himself does not deny it. I have the information. Posting it won't change your mind. I'll list two web reports. You see, I back things up.



In the Chronicle on July 26, 1902, the day after the 2nd fight, the report says that Jeff went to shake hands with Fitz and says, "Those things on your hands cut me up a lot," said Jeffries feeling the tape on Fitzsimmons hands. "You didn't wear them the last time and your blows never cut me up they way they did tonight." Lardner claims that Fitz had plaster of Paris under his bandages, that Jeffries’ trainer, Delaney, discovered it before the bout, but that allegedly Jeff shrugged and essentially did not care (1972 p 140). Since the bandages were examined however it seems unlikely they contained plaster of Paris.
I offer an alternate possibility to the Jeffries-Fitz glove/bandage controversy. In those days they only wore 5-ounce gloves. The bandaging of hands was a novel occurrence at this time. No doubt they made Fitz's hands much harder. If one recalls the infamous Luis Resto-Billy Collins fight in NY in 1983, in that fight, Resto’s gloves had the padding removed and he beat Collins face to such a bloody horrific mess that Collins never fought again. This is the bout that got Panama Lewis banned from boxing for life in New York State. It is noteworthy that the Chronicle reports that Fitzsimmons tossed his gloves into the audience as Jeffries approached.



On a Friday night in July, 1902, under the big circus tent erected in San Francisco's Mission District on the corner of 14th and Valencia Streets, the reigning Heavyweight Champion of the World and his predessor shook hands.
The temporary arena, a plank ring elevated four feet above floor level, Jeffries was to complain it was designed for batamweights, the boards springing under his feet, was jammed to capacity and beyond as some 8,000 filled the wooden benches, and stood in the aisles. With tickets selling from $25-42 a piece promoter Alex Greggains had a smash hit on his hands. Meanwhile, in the streets beyond the board fence erected around the huge tent a large motley crowd, as the Examiner discribed it, milled only able to hear the crowd reaction.
.
Just prior to the handshake, word had come to Jeffries corner that Fitzsimmons had soaked his bandaged hands in Plaster of Paris. Over Jeffries initial protest, his manager Billy Delaney said, " Let him go. If he can lick you with them on he can lick you with them off."
Attired in the latest form of evening wear called a "tuxedo" Referee Ed Graney called the fighters to the center of the ring. At 215 pounds to Fitzsimmons' reported 160 pounds Jeffries held a huge weight advantage . What followed was in Jeffries' words "...the worst butchering of my life.." For seven rounds Fitzsimmons near literally cut Jeffries' face to ribbons. With a serious cut opened over his left eye Jeffries came out for the eighth knowing he needed to finish Fitizsimmons. Finally cornering the aging former Champion, Jeffries strength won out driving Fitzsimmons to the canvas in a hail of punches.
Afterwards, Fitzsimmons claimed to have smashed all the knuckles of his right hand including his thumb. So it appears both men paid a heavy price for the "doctored" gloves. A claim which by all accounts Fitzsimmons never denied, and by some accounts outwardly admitted.


Oh, and Corbett was 33 when he first meet Jeffires ( Learn to count ) and Johnson never KO'd Jeanette or Ferguson as you claimed here.

1....2....3....4....5....6...

There was no top rated prime or near prime 220 pound for Jefrires to fight.
Your point means little, unless you penalize Liston, Marciano, Tunney, Johnson, and many others.....hold them to the same satndards.
In addition, if you man enough post your top 20 list.

[ChrisPontius]

In that repsect I think Tunneys assessment is valid,All the old timers called their contemporaries superior to the modern guys eg Johnson felt that Jeffries Corbett and Fitz were superior to the champions of the30s and 40s,Corbett ,and Sharkey said Johnson was the greatest"boxer",of all time,Dempsey rated Jeffries the best,its a rather natural thing,coincidentally the Champion in my teenage years was Muhammad Ali,and I rate him the best of all time at Heavyweight,as generations die the Champions of their youth often fall out of favour ,when fans that had grown up with Dempsey died his popularity took a nose dive,Ive Ring magazines from the 50s decrying Marciano as a poor imitation of Dempsey and emphasisng his clumsiness ,today he is revered ,similarly Walcott and Charles were regarded as lack lustre,[thats the way you spell it by the way],and the best of a bad bunch now they are called great.

Good post. It has nothing to do with boxing, but it's simply human nature to consider things of your youth to be superior to current circumstances.

[mcvey]

You can count to ten all you want after its over. Fitz handlers say he had loaded gloves, and Fitz himself does not deny it. I have the information. Posting it won't change your mind. I'll list two web reports. You see, I back things up.






Oh, and Corbett was 33 when he first meet Jeffires ( Learn to count ) and Johnson never KO'd Jeanette or Ferguson as you claimed here.

1....2....3....4....5....6...

There was no top rated prime or near prime 220 pound for Jefrires to fight.
Your point means little, unless you penalize Liston, Marciano, Tunney, Johnson, and many others.....hold them to the same satndards.
In addition, if you man enough post your top 20 list.
Its been proved on film Plaster of paris doesnt work,if you dont beleive the BI article try it yourself.As a self styled "historian" you should be aware of another possibility,the application of e;lectrical,adhesive tape to the wraps,GunBoat smith mentions this in his interview with Peter Heller,Smith wore the tape in his fight with Willard,when one of Smiths rights allmost tore Willard ear off.This does work I know ,Ive used it,it was common practice in the early 1900s as the GunBoat says,you need a lot of bandage under the tape to cushion your fist but it is very effective,as I know,of course if you throw your gloves into the crowd the tape would easily be apparent,so its very unlikely that Fitz would do this if he was wearing tape. The Collins Resto tragedy is a different thing entirely,where padding was removed ,Lew Jenkings the hard punching Lightweight used to push the stuffing back in his gloves,Fritzie Zivic said,Im surprised a "historian like yourself didnt know these things,werent they in your newspaper?
My top 10 rankings for heavyweight have been on this forum a couple of times in the past in the appropriate post,I cant be arsed to do them again for some one I have no respect for ,and whose opinion means Jack Shit to me,look them up if you want.

[mcvey]

Its been proved on film Plaster of paris doesnt work,if you dont beleive the BI article try it yourself.As a self styled "historian" you should be aware of another possibility,the application of e;lectrical,adhesive tape to the wraps,GunBoat smith mentions this in his interview with Peter Heller,Smith wore the tape in his fight with Willard,when one of Smiths rights allmost tore Willard ear off.This does work I know ,Ive used it,it was common practice in the early 1900s as the GunBoat says,you need a lot of bandage under the tape to cushion your fist but it is very effective,as I know,of course if you throw your gloves into the crowd the tape would easily be apparent,so its very unlikely that Fitz would do this if he was wearing tape. The Collins Resto tragedy is a different thing entirely,where padding was removed ,Lew Jenkings the hard punching Lightweight used to push the stuffing back in his gloves,Fritzie Zivic said,Im surprised a "historian like yourself didnt know these things,werent they in your newspaper?
My top 10 rankings for heavyweight have been on this forum a couple of times in the past in the appropriate post,I cant be arsed to do them again for some one I have no respect for ,and whose opinion means Jack Shit to me,look them up if you want.
How do we evaluate a fighter? By the opponents he beat? And how close they were to their primes when he beat them,this of course is tricky because as I said earlier Boxing by its very nature is about age giving way to youth,very seldom to we have to greats from the same weight class meet in their respective primes,Ali and Frazier ,might be the nearest to it,the usual thing is for a fading champ to be suceeded by a rising star,and the greater the Champs was the older and more faded he is likely to be,as his reign likely lasted longer.Therefore we have Sullivan bested by Corbett , Fitz by Jeffries,Jeffries coming back a shell of what he had been to be thrashed by Johnson, a dissipated Johnson being kod ,legitimately I think,by Willard , a savage hungry |Dempsey half killing the fat and complacent Jess,Dempsey softened by Holywood,no longer the Mauler being comprehensively outboxed by the cool precise Tunney,After a mediocre period we get Louis who finally meets his young stag in Marciano. and so on|The King is Dead etc,It isnt to decry Champs like Jeffries I mention that for the most part their wins were over faded vetrans ,but to put their acheivments in perspective,its a free country,well mine is,you can rate who you like where you like,but keep a sense of proportion.A 4o year old man weighing 172 who has been inactive for 2 years isnt going to start favourite in a fight with a 26 yearold reigning champion who weighs220 and is in his prime,theres a reason for that,the long list of champions who have been kod by Father Time that Ive mentioned are the reason,and we have to factor the abilities of those men at the time they challenge the champion,and rate the Champ accordingly,it seems qquite simple to me really,no hidden agenda.

[cross_trainer]

The charge that Fitz had loaded gloves came froman old rumour that he would fight with plaster of paris on his wraps,the same charge was put about by Doc Kearns ,after he had fallen out with Dempsey,in the 60s Boxing Illustrated conducted an experiment to see if this was a realistic possibilty,they used Cleveland Williams the big hitting Heavyweight for the Fitz /Dempsey role,trials showed that the plaster refused to harden and was useless,I have the isuue this appeared in ,and have seen a short film clip of the trial.End of Rumour.
I mentioned the amount of damage Jeffries sustained in his fights with Fitz because Fitz was likely the biggest hitter he faced while champion,and to demonstrate Jeffries biggest asset,and conversely his biggest weakness,ie 1 he could take incredible punishment ,indeed reporters remarked 2he didnt seem to care if he was hit ",2 he was often forced to take that punishment ,weathering the storm ,before coming on and administering the quietus,due to his lack of defensive ability,and head movement,the footage is grainy ,but I dont think anyone watching what film is available of Jeffries would call him defensively evasive.In that repsect I think Tunneys assessment is valid,All the old timers called their contemporaries superior to the modern guys eg Johnson felt that Jeffries Corbett and Fitz were superior to the champions of the30s and 40s,Corbett ,and Sharkey said Johnson was the greatest"boxer",of all time,Dempsey rated Jeffries the best,its a rather natural thing,coincidentally the Champion in my teenage years was Muhammad Ali,and I rate him the best of all time at Heavyweight,as generations die the Champions of their youth often fall out of favour ,when fans that had grown up with Dempsey died his popularity took a nose dive,Ive Ring magazines from the 50s decrying Marciano as a poor imitation of Dempsey and emphasisng his clumsiness ,today he is revered ,similarly Walcott and Charles were regarded as lack lustre,[thats the way you spell it by the way],and the best of a bad bunch now they are called great. Regarding Jeffries chin ,find a post on this forum that gives it more fullsome praise than I have,I recently twice described it as granite,the fact remains it never felt the punches of a modern big heavy hitter so ,as I said we have to take it on trust,as to how it would react.I dont infer that Jeffries never met beat a top 220 fighter in his prime,I STATE IT CATEGORICALLY!

He looked pretty defensively evasive in his sparring footage, and the remaining bits (Sharkey, Ruhlin) don't look too bad either. It's difficult to tell for sure on the latter two, since they're not very clear.

[mcvey]

He looked pretty defensively evasive in his sparring footage, and the remaining bits (Sharkey, Ruhlin) don't look too bad either. It's difficult to tell for sure on the latter two, since they're not very clear.
Well his nose was broken 3 times he sustained a lot of facial damage against Corbett in the first fight ,in both the fights with Fitz and the 2nd one with Sharkey,plus the accounts of his fights from contemporary observers ,and latterday writers all mention his lack of defence,no worse than Fitz I suppose,who also was easy to hit,the thing with Jeffries is he may have been easy to hit ,but he appears to have been nigh impossible to hurt.

[mcvey]

Well his nose was broken 3 times he sustained a lot of facial damage against Corbett in the first fight ,in both the fights with Fitz and the 2nd one with Sharkey,plus the accounts of his fights from contemporary observers ,and latterday writers all mention his lack of defence,no worse than Fitz I suppose,who also was easy to hit,the thing with Jeffries is he may have been easy to hit ,but he appears to have been nigh impossible to hurt.
Sparring film is very misleading though isnt it? Does Harry Greb look the great fighter he was in his sparring footage?Plus , as I said the films are grainy,I expect if we were ringside watching a prime Jeffries moving around the ring training in the 1900s we woud be suitably impressed,the footage of him showing his footwork preparing for his disastrous comeback shows a big man quick on his feet,and for his size fluid in his movements,but the actual fight shows a plodding , predictable ,slow has been,who would likely be booed in a modern ring,at the time I expect he was an innovative revelation to fans used to slow moving big men.

[ChrisPontius]

Well his nose was broken 3 times he sustained a lot of facial damage against Corbett in the first fight ,in both the fights with Fitz and the 2nd one with Sharkey,plus the accounts of his fights from contemporary observers ,and latterday writers all mention his lack of defence,no worse than Fitz I suppose,who also was easy to hit,the thing with Jeffries is he may have been easy to hit ,but he appears to have been nigh impossible to hurt.

It should be noted that the large amount of superficial damage he sustained was also caused by smaller gloves. I don't believe smaller gloves lead to more KO's (in fact, more likely to less) but i do think it cuts you up much worse, bruises, broken noses, broken jaws, etc.

[cross_trainer]

Sparring film is very misleading though isnt it? Does Harry Greb look the great fighter he was in his sparring footage?Plus , as I said the films are grainy,I expect if we were ringside watching a prime Jeffries moving around the ring training in the 1900s we woud be suitably impressed,the footage of him showing his footwork preparing for his disastrous comeback shows a big man quick on his feet,and for his size fluid in his movements,but the actual fight shows a plodding , predictable ,slow has been,who would likely be booed in a modern ring,at the time I expect he was an innovative revelation to fans used to slow moving big men.

First, I will note that Jeffries was considered considerably more evasive in his later career than he was early on. Also, as ChrisPontius noted, the facial damage would be expected from those tiny gloves--and by all accounts, Corbett and Fitzsimmons knew how to shred faces apart.

On to the sparring footage:

Greb looks worse in his sparring footage than he did in the ring--that is undoubtedly true. And the same trend seems to hold in general--fighters look pretty crummy when you see them in sparring compared to how they look in the ring. This makes sense, since sparring is only practice.

Given that the sparring footage is the only clear footage available and that Jeffries looks good in it, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that Jeffries was probably fairly good at evading punches? If it gives an inaccurate portrayal of his skills, that portrayal may be worse rather than better.

[mcvey]

First, I will note that Jeffries was considered considerably more evasive in his later career than he was early on. Also, as ChrisPontius noted, the facial damage would be expected from those tiny gloves--and by all accounts, Corbett and Fitzsimmons knew how to shred faces apart.

On to the sparring footage:

Greb looks worse in his sparring footage than he did in the ring--that is undoubtedly true. And the same trend seems to hold in general--fighters look pretty crummy when you see them in sparring compared to how they look in the ring. This makes sense, since sparring is only practice.

Given that the sparring footage is the only clear footage available and that Jeffries looks good in it, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that Jeffries was probably fairly good at evading punches? If it gives an inaccurate portrayal of his skills, that portrayal may be worse rather than better.
You could say the smaller gloves contributed to more facial damage ,but wouldnt that be the case for all fighters? Did you ever read of Corbett beingbadly marked in the ring? and he fought a big hitter in Choynsky ,who was wearing skin tight carriage driving gloves,he also went over 60 rounds with Jackson without sustaining a lot of facial damage,ditto his fights with Jeffries,how often was Johnson marked up? I do think Jeffries looked good in training for his come back,Ive said so but he looked pathetic in the fight didnt he? the most extended footage of Jeffries is his defence against Sharkey,do you think he looks good defensively in it?Im not trying to belittle Jeffries abilities but to ascribe clever defensive moves to him ,just because he adopted a crouch seems to be egging the pudding to me,he was super durable and he needed to be,Corbett hit him at will in their first fight,His corner ,after begging him to quit ,told him he had to knock out Fitz before he was blinded,the Iron Man came through ,but it doesnt suggest a Floyd Mayweather type of evasiveness does it.?

[cross_trainer]

You could say the smaller gloves contributed to more facial damage ,but wouldnt that be the case for all fighters? Did you ever read of Corbett beingbadly marked in the ring? and he fought a big hitter in Choynsky ,who was wearing skin tight carriage driving gloves,he also went over 60 rounds with Jackson without sustaining a lot of facial damage,ditto his fights with Jeffries,how often was Johnson marked up? I do think Jeffries looked good in training for his come back,Ive said so but he looked pathetic in the fight didnt he? the most extended footage of Jeffries is his defence against Sharkey,do you think he looks good defensively in it?Im not trying to belittle Jeffries abilities but to ascribe clever defensive moves to him ,just because he adopted a crouch seems to be egging the pudding to me,he was super durable and he needed to be,Corbett hit him at will in their first fight,His corner ,after begging him to quit ,told him he had to knock out Fitz before he was blinded,the Iron Man came through ,but it doesnt suggest a Floyd Mayweather type of evasiveness does it.?

A few thoughts:

1) Jeffries didn't look that good training for Johnson. In fact, compare his earlier training footage to his Johnson training footage and you'll see a tremendous difference. Even in his Choynski sparring, he looked rather slow and sluggish.

2) I don't think his defensive skills measure up to Mayweather's by a long shot...but then again, which heavyweight can make that claim? From what I've seen of Sharkey and Ruhlin, it's difficult to judge his defensive skills because much of the movement is too subtle to be caught with the blurry cameras. It's difficult to tell which punches landed and which were evaded. I will say that he appears to fight in much the same style as he does in the training clips (where he displayed good evasive skill).

3) Most observers considered Jeffries vastly improved by the time he fought Ruhlin and Corbett for the second time. He was no longer a human punching bag, but a fast and skilled fighter who had started to exploit his speed and reflexes.

4) I'm sure Corbett didn't look great after fighting Choynski and Jackson either. Besides, Corbett is one of the slickest defensive fighters around. Fitzsimmons (also a very skilled defensive fighter) was not so lucky. He was pretty badly mashed against Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Corbett.

[Lampley]

I find judging ability based on these grainy films to be an artform, and one at which I am not yet at all adept. Too much gets lost.

For perspective, in the sport I cover professionally, the various Youtube videos are *extremely* misleading for judging anything, including raw athleticism. And the depth and quality of those far outweighs that available for pre-modern fighters.

I try to remember that when inclined to judge older athletes too rashly (usually in the negative, in my case).

[mcvey]

I find judging ability based on these grainy films to be an artform, and one at which I am not yet at all adept. Too much gets lost.

For perspective, in the sport I cover professionally, the various Youtube videos are *extremely* misleading for judging anything, including raw athleticism. And the depth and quality of those far outweighs that available for pre-modern fighters.

I try to remember that when inclined to judge older athletes too rashly (usually in the negative, in my case).
what other footage is available of the more obscure fights,its pretty frustrating to see the same old clips on ESPN,which most of us allready own ,why cant they show the fights,that arent out there for the average fan?

[Lampley]

what other footage is available of the more obscure fights,its pretty frustrating to see the same old clips on ESPN,which most of us allready own ,why cant they show the fights,that arent out there for the average fan?

I agree. But from ESPN's perspective, some of the very, very raw footage just doesn't translate to a television set. It's bad enough in a small window on our computers.

What frustrates me most is that there is such a lack of Robinson footage. It seems that could have been addressed. And Jones vs. McClellan in the AMs.

[mcvey]

I agree. But from ESPN's perspective, some of the very, very raw footage just doesn't translate to a television set. It's bad enough in a small window on our computers.

What frustrates me most is that there is such a lack of Robinson footage. It seems that could have been addressed. And Jones vs. McClellan in the AMs.
Fair enough!