Jess Willard versus Jim Jeffries

[OLD FOGEY]

Another poster, perhaps as a joke, opined that Willard might have proven too much for Jeffries with his size and his long left. I don't think that is a joke. Jeff never fought any major opponent over 200 lbs. Willard fought several who were about as big as Jeff, and had wins over Johnson, Moran, Morris, McCarty, and Pelkey, among others.

How does the Willard of 1915 do against a peak Jim Jeffries in a 45 round bout?

[McGrain]

One thing that I want to say at the outset is that my impression of Jeffries is of someone capable of doing the better work of these two. This being the case, when the two start to deteroirate in terms of condition (very obviously this one is going late), Jeffries will take over entirely.

The difference between a durable quality fighter deteriorating and a less skilled fighter deteriorating is massive because the fighter of greater quality is the one capable of taking advantage of the poorer fighters mistakes.

This is presuming a lot, I know but I'm working from the following:

Willard is not more durable than Jeffries (though they are in the same sort of class).

Willard does not have a better chin than Jeffries (though they are in the same sort of class).

Jeffries has the superior skills.

Allowing for all of this I see a deeply horrible late stoppage.

[ChrisPontius]

45 rounds with a sadistic referee? Very hard to make a pick.

I would say that Jeffries has the edge in skill but it's hard to judge because of the lack of film.
When Willard came along, gloved boxing had evolved a bit and while i don't think much of Willard's jab compared to later gloved champions, how good is Jeffries' jab? I have not seen much of it nor do i see fighters of his time make much use of it.

Willard proved his conditioning when he went 26 rounds with Johnson and knocked him out. Johnson was a big guy, though somewhat overweight, old and seemed to be not 100% focused on boxing.

On the other hand, Jeffries as far as i know, never fought a 200+lb guy with good skills and durability to go with it. He also took quite some beatings from smaller fighters. It seems to me he often took quite some "early" (10+ rounds) punishment to wear his opponent down and knock him out later. It should also be noted that Fitzsimmons and Corbett weren't quite young anymore either; this helped him in wearing them down. I'm not sure if he could do the same with Willard.


I think this is a toss-up because there are too many unanswered questions.

[mcvey]

45 rounds with a sadistic referee? Very hard to make a pick.

I would say that Jeffries has the edge in skill but it's hard to judge because of the lack of film.
When Willard came along, gloved boxing had evolved a bit and while i don't think much of Willard's jab compared to later gloved champions, how good is Jeffries' jab? I have not seen much of it nor do i see fighters of his time make much use of it.

Willard proved his conditioning when he went 26 rounds with Johnson and knocked him out. Johnson was a big guy, though somewhat overweight, old and seemed to be not 100% focused on boxing.

On the other hand, Jeffries as far as i know, never fought a 200+lb guy with good skills and durability to go with it. He also took quite some beatings from smaller fighters. It seems to me he often took quite some "early" (10+ rounds) punishment to wear his opponent down and knock him out later. It should also be noted that Fitzsimmons and Corbett weren't quite young anymore either; this helped him in wearing them down. I'm not sure if he could do the same with Willard.


I think this is a toss-up because there are too many unanswered questions.
If you are right ,remembering that Willard is considered one of the less impressive Champions ,where does that place Jeffries considered by some one of the best?,Im not making a judgement either way here,I think your post has some very pertinent points,with which I agree,particularly the bit about Jeffries taking a lot of punishment before wearing down ,smaller ,older fighters.I wonder if Dr Mendoza will respond ?

[Luigi1985]

At the first look most will probably think "Jeffries by KO, easily...", but IMO that would be a great matchup if you are also a bit bloody-minded, sadistic and hardboiled fight-fan like me. Willard was unbelievable hard, he had an iron chin, he was 6´6 tall with over 230 lbs weight, he had a good one-punch, good stamina, etc., Jeffries had similiar strenghts, only that his skills were much better. Jeffries was like Willard a slow starter, who wore his opponents down, the same "tactic" Jess used to do. But I would pick Jeffries by KO in the 18th round ca., because his jab and his hooks would do a lot of damage, Willard on the other side can´t KO him IMO, it would be relatively close in the first few rounds, but than I see James J. taking advantage because of his much better boxing skills...

[Maxmomer]

Probably would have been a marathon, but I can see Jeffries taking it late.

[ChrisPontius]

If you are right ,remembering that Willard is considered one of the less impressive Champions ,where does that place Jeffries considered by some one of the best?,Im not making a judgement either way here,I think your post has some very pertinent points,with which I agree,particularly the bit about Jeffries taking a lot of punishment before wearing down ,smaller ,older fighters.I wonder if Dr Mendoza will respond ?

Well, it depends a bit on the context. Boxing has changed a lot over the last 100 years.


Under his own rules and circumstances, Jeffries was a great fighter. The way he went undefeated with little boxing skill while fighting excellent fighters is a remarkable feat for sure. But you can't look at his record without noticing that his best opponents were in different weight and age classes.

Willard on the other hand, is much less highly regarded historically and i don't think there are many champions from the '20s to the current crop that would lose a 15 rounder to him.
But a 45 rounder? Different story. Boxing ability, dancing on your toes (the things Ali was great at) are lot less important whereas durability, stamina and heart become a lot more important.
Willard is the ultimate example of evolution, in other words, he was a product of his enviroment (the boxing rules). And at that he may well have been a great fighter. That's why this fight is hard to call.

[ChrisPontius]

What is your opinion, Fogey?

[janitor]

Well, it depends a bit on the context. Boxing has changed a lot over the last 100 years.

Under his own rules and circumstances, Jeffries was a great fighter. The way he went undefeated with little boxing skill while fighting excellent fighters is a remarkable feat for sure.

Please slam your head in the oven door as punishment for this remark.

[OLD FOGEY]

What is your opinion, Fogey?

Sort of like yours. Jeffries was much the more dominant fighter in his own time and place than the erratic Willard, but the issue is more complex than that. I think boxing had progressed quite a bit by the 1910's. The country was rapidly urbanizing due to migration from the farms and also heavy immigration. Many of the prospects, such as Willard and Dempsey, came off the farms, but the growing urban public really supported boxing and there were clearly more fights and fighters, and I think it shows in heavyweight competition. Willard was much bigger than Jeff, but often still did not have the same weight advantages. He fought men very close to his own size such as Morris. Gunboat Smith at 6' 2" and 180 lbs is small in the Willard era, but he would have been a good sized heavy in Jeff's time.

So what happens. I go for an upset. Jeff won't be able to push Willard around or wear him down like he did the much smaller men of his own era, and I don't judge Jeff to have Dempsey's punch. I think Willard can punish Jeff with his left and the right cross at a distance, but what really troubles me concerning Jeffries is Jeff's vulnerability to uppercuts against Johnson. Willard was known to have a powerful uppercut. This fight goes a long way, but I think Willard's size and powerful uppercut wins it in a battle of two men without real good defenses, but great toughness and stamina.

[apollack]

Too much emphasis on weight here. A great fighter is a great fighter and Jeff beat way better opposition than Willard. I would be a lot more afraid to get in the ring with 170-pound Bob Fitzsimmons than some of the 200+ pound guys that Willard fought. Willard didn't even take up boxing until he was 30 years old. Jeez. And he's going to beat Jim Jeffries? I don't think so. Look, his win over Johnson was fantastic, but let's face it, Johnson was over the hill. I think he was like 38 years old, had been very inactive, living the good life, so he was completely ripe for the taking by anyone who was in shape and sturdy and could take a punch from a guy not known for having the greatest punch anyhow. When Willard got in there with a young 185-188 pound Dempsey, he got beaten down. Not saying Jeffries would do it as fast as Dempsey, because Jeff was a lot more methodical, but he'd eventually break Willard down, I think.

[OLD FOGEY]

Too much emphasis on weight here. A great fighter is a great fighter and Jeff beat way better opposition than Willard. I would be a lot more afraid to get in the ring with 170-pound Bob Fitzsimmons than some of the 200+ pound guys that Willard fought. Willard didn't even take up boxing until he was 30 years old. Jeez. And he's going to beat Jim Jeffries? I don't think so. Look, his win over Johnson was fantastic, but let's face it, Johnson was over the hill. I think he was like 38 years old, had been very inactive, living the good life, so he was completely ripe for the taking by anyone who was in shape and sturdy and could take a punch from a guy not known for having the greatest punch anyhow. When Willard got in there with a young 185-188 pound Dempsey, he got beaten down. Not saying Jeffries would do it as fast as Dempsey, because Jeff was a lot more methodical, but he'd eventually break Willard down, I think.

1. A great fighter is a great fighter--But Johnson was a great fighter also, and Fitz was 36 and hadn't fought at all in two years. Johnson was 37 but a much bigger man.
2. Dempsey--but could Jeff well into his thirties have stood up to Dempsey either. He didn't win a fight after age 29.
3. Which exactly of Jeffries' wins would you rate above Willard's win over Johnson? or the newspaper win over Luther McCarty?
4. Corbett and Jackson--Jackson was 37 and hadn't had a fight in years. Corbett had not beaten a man over 160 lbs since Sullivan in 1892, eight years before the first, and eleven years before the second, Jeffries fight.

[Mendoza]

Too much emphasis on weight here. A great fighter is a great fighter and Jeff beat way better opposition than Willard. I would be a lot more afraid to get in the ring with 170-pound Bob Fitzsimmons than some of the 200+ pound guys that Willard fought. Willard didn't even take up boxing until he was 30 years old. Jeez. And he's going to beat Jim Jeffries? I don't think so. Look, his win over Johnson was fantastic, but let's face it, Johnson was over the hill. I think he was like 38 years old, had been very inactive, living the good life, so he was completely ripe for the taking by anyone who was in shape and sturdy and could take a punch from a guy not known for having the greatest punch anyhow. When Willard got in there with a young 185-188 pound Dempsey, he got beaten down. Not saying Jeffries would do it as fast as Dempsey, because Jeff was a lot more methodical, but he'd eventually break Willard down, I think.
Jeffires KO'd a 250 pound Dunkhorst in sparring. Those who know boxing will tell you a heavier and slower fighter is more prone to being hit than a smaller and quicker fighter. Which do you want to be vs a puncher?

Willard was rather poor on film. IMO, Moran got the better of him in the film I have seen, and it was truly an awful display of boxing. Willard lost to Smith, and MCMahon on points.

Basically Willaird's entire rep was based on a few white hopes and an older Jack Johnson.

I do beleive Willard was big, could hit, was game ( although he quit once, and never liked boxing ) , but he could not box a lick. How durable was Willard?

I'd say Willard could take a punch, yet he lost via KO vs the two best punchers he faced in Fripo and Dempsey in one sided fights that did not go past 8 rounds. I don't think Willard makes it past 10 vs Jeffries.

[OLD FOGEY]

Jeffires KO'd a 250 pound Dunkhorst in sparring. Those who know boxing will tell you a heavier and slower fighter is more prone to being hit than a smaller and quicker fighter. Which do you want to be vs a puncher?

Willard was rather poor on film. IMO, Moran got the better of him in the film I have seen, and it was truly an awful display of boxing. Willard lost to Smith, and MCMahon on points.

Basically Willaird's entire rep was based on a few white hopes and an older Jack Johnson.

I do beleive Willard was big, could hit, was game ( although he quit once, and never liked boxing ) , but he could not box a lick. How durable was Willard?

I'd say Willrad could take a punch, yet he lost via KO vs the two best punchers he faced in Fripo and Dempsey in one sided fights that did not go past 8 rounds. I don't think Willard makes it past 10 vs Jeffries.

In fairness, Willard was plenty old and inactive by the time he fought Dempsey and Firpo. I don't think these performances are relevant to how a 1915 Willard would have performed. At 35, younger by years than Willard in the two fights you are talking about, Jeffries was battered by Johnson. I don't think any of these fights tell us how either man would have done at his best.

I've seen the film of Willard-Moran also, and Willard seems to get the edge by far. I have never seen anyone credit Moran with winning this fight.

[Langford]

I have to disagree with the consensus here. The fighting style that Jeffries had against Corbett or Fitz would be different when he fought Willard. He could bide his time vs other opponents and simply wait until the moment was right and take them out.
If you watch any kind of reliable film, you will see that Jeffries was not a slow and ponderous type of guy, he was very fast for a large guy. Sullivan called him the fastest big man he ever saw. Not true for Willard. Who was fairly slow and ponderous.
Willard is going to present himself as a huge, upright, big target, open to Jeffries hooks to both the head and body. Those hooks would take their toll on Willard, I think they would land pretty easily, and what would keep him up would be his ability to take punches, but round after round, I see him getting hit by massive shots and somewhere along the way, he would have been unable to continue and would probably not get off his stool somewhere around the 15-20 round mark.
I think it would be a fairly one sided horrible beating, personally.

[Marciano Frazier]

I think Jeffries' style was best-suited for handling smaller opponents with less stamina and durability than he had- in that sense, Jeffries may encounter a bit of a stylistic block against Willard, who was bigger than him and had comparable stamina and durability. However, Willard needs not to simply be an uncomfortable opponent; does he have what it takes to actually beat Jeffries?
Both were extremely durable with great stamina and good punching power. Willard has the size advantage. Neither had especially good boxing skill, but Jeffries has the edge in that department. This is the kind of match that could go on for 40 rounds provided they have an old-time ref.
I think the main deciding factor would be that Jeffries was faster and much more athletic than Willard. While Willard was somewhat slow and cumbersome in the ring and was a bit of a stiff/awkward puncher, Jeffries was an amazing athlete(could run the 100 meter dash in 11 seconds and had an NBA-type vertical jump) known for being agile on his feet and was good on the inside.

I like Jeffries by decision if the fight is 15 rounds or less. In a 25-45 round fight, I give increasingly high odds of a Jeffries knockout.

[JohnBKelly]

This could go forty five long hard rounds with lots of wrestling. Jeff probably takes the decision but after round 30 it really would be anyone's fight. Willard was absurdly brave and very durable, remember he quit on his stool in Toledo. Dempsey couldn't keep him down for a ten count. I don't think Jeff punched as hard as Jack so I can't see him putting Willard away.

[Langford]

If Jeffries had fought Willard, years later, when Willard went to Dempsey's restaurant to see if he could get employed, Dynamite Jack would say, "sorry Jess, there's just not enough left of ya"

Interesting enough, there was not much age difference between the two, even though one fought Jim Corbett and the other fought Luis Firpo.

[Mendoza]

Sort of like yours. Jeffries was much the more dominant fighter in his own time and place than the erratic Willard, but the issue is more complex than that. I think boxing had progressed quite a bit by the 1910's. The country was rapidly urbanizing due to migration from the farms and also heavy immigration. Many of the prospects, such as Willard and Dempsey, came off the farms, but the growing urban public really supported boxing and there were clearly more fights and fighters, and I think it shows in heavyweight competition. Willard was much bigger than Jeff, but often still did not have the same weight advantages. He fought men very close to his own size such as Morris. Gunboat Smith at 6' 2" and 180 lbs is small in the Willard era, but he would have been a good sized heavy in Jeff's time.

So what happens. I go for an upset. Jeff won't be able to push Willard around or wear him down like he did the much smaller men of his own era, and I don't judge Jeff to have Dempsey's punch. I think Willard can punish Jeff with his left and the right cross at a distance, but what really troubles me concerning Jeffries is Jeff's vulnerability to uppercuts against Johnson. Willard was known to have a powerful uppercut. This fight goes a long way, but I think Willard's size and powerful uppercut wins it in a battle of two men without real good defenses, but great toughness and stamina.

Willard was 26-6, with 3 Ko losses. Aside from an older and tired Johnson, did Willard ever have a big KO win? Nope. He failed to stop Pelky, McCarty, Smith, Morris, or Moran. These the better of the " white hopes ". All of them went the distance, and two much smaller fighters in Smith and Morris won decisions.

This to me suggests that Willard 1 ) Could be out boxed and was by the best two white hope boxers, and 2 ) really didn't have big time knock out punch. Perhaps he did, he just lacked the skills to land the punch.

The only name Ko for Willard ( asside from Johnson who also had a suspect chin vs punchers ) was Rodel, who was frequently Ko'd and was known for "swan dive face first " falls, and Floyd Johnson, who was nothing special.

To assume Willard wins by KO here is a real reach, and he certainly did not have the speed or skills to out point Jeffries. This is an easy fight for Jeffries. Older or not, Dempsey hurt Willard in a hurry. Some thought Jeffries hit harder than Dempsey. Willard’s defense and speed was below average. Draw your own conclusion as to what happens when Jeffries lands. I don’t think this is a hard fight to call. Willard is a bottom 3rd tier lineal champion. He has a chance to beat some fighters.....the ones with weak punch resistance, who could not hit hard, and extremely small size come to mind.

The only logical conclusion here is Jeffries via KO or decision.

[mr. magoo]

We also have to consider that at that point in time, boxing invovled a great deal of grabbing and muscle work on the inside. This is one area where Jeffries would clearly have the advantage, given his wrestling background. What's more, is that although Willard was the larger of the two, Jim may very well have been the stronger. In Jeffries' prime, he carried not a single ounce of fat on him. He was incredibly strong, even for a man of his great size. Frankly, I think Jeffries would have a hard time in this fight, but I don't see any reason why he couldn't knock out Willard at some poing, perhaps late.

[OLD FOGEY]

Willard was 26-6, with 3 Ko losses. Aside from an older and tired Johnson, did Willard ever have a big KO win? Nope. He failed to stop Pelky, McCarty, Smith, Morris, or Moran. These the better of the " white hopes ". All of them went the distance, and two much smaller fighters in Smith and Morris won decisions.

This to me suggests that Willard 1 ) Could be out boxed and was by the best two white hope boxers, and 2 ) really didn't have big time knock out punch. Perhaps he did, he just lacked the skills to land the punch.

The only name Ko for Willard ( asside from Johnson who also had a suspect chin vs punchers ) was Rodel, who was frequently Ko'd and was known for "swan dive face first " falls, and Floyd Johnson, who was nothing special.

To assume Willard wins by KO here is a real reach, and he certainly did not have the speed or skills to out point Jeffries. This is an easy fight for Jeffries. Older or not, Dempsey hurt Willard in a hurry. Some thought Jeffries hit harder than Dempsey. Willard’s defense and speed was below average. Draw your own conclusion as to what happens when Jeffries lands. I don’t think this is a hard fight to call. Willard is a bottom 3rd tier lineal champion. He has a chance to beat some fighters.....the ones with weak punch resistance, who could not hit hard, and extremely small size come to mind.

The only logical conclusion here is Jeffries via KO or decision.

I think you have a good point about Willard's power, although a bit over the top. Besides Jack Johnson, Rodel (2), and Floyd Johnson, he also knocked out Soldier Kearns, Dan Daily, and George Davis, all fringe contenders of the time. But compared to most big historical punchers, this is not impressive, though it should be noted that his fights were scheduled for shorter distances than Jeffries' were.
Jeffries does much better, with ko's of Corbett (2), Fitzsimmons (2), Jackson, Goddard, Ruhlin, Griffin, Everett, and Munroe, but this did not convince everyone either. Jack London questioned Jeff's power at the time of the Johnson fight and Tad Dorgan wrote this:

"Jeffries never was a boxer, never had a fight he wasn't used up in, and as far as meeting a man like Johnson goes, he never dreamed of it.
Why, he never beat a young fellow in his life. He made his reputation off old men like Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Jackson, and the like. They were all in when he got them. Young fellows like Sharkey and Choynski, although they were half a foot shy in height and fifty pounds lighter, went the distance with him." SF Examiner 7-1-1910

Well, what is the truth? Did Dorgan and London have a point? Yes, I think so. Eight of Jeff's twenty recorded fights went more than ten rounds and despite his reputation for carrying his power into the later rounds, the record tells a different tale. The Griffin fight early in his career apparently went 14 rounds, depending on the source, but of the recorded fights we have strong info on, six went to the 15th round or longer. Of these six, Johnson stopped Jeff in 15. Jeff rallied to stop Corbett in 23. Choynski and Ruhlin each went to a twenty round draw.
Sharkey lost in 20 and then lost again in 25. So Jeff ended only one of six
fights of 15 rounds or longer by knockout. There is little reason to think he could blow out Willard early. Willard might have the advantage as the fight drags on and Jeff's power wanes.

By the way, Morris was close to Willard's size and Willard defeated him decisively.

[OLD FOGEY]

I think Jeffries' style was best-suited for handling smaller opponents with less stamina and durability than he had- in that sense, Jeffries may encounter a bit of a stylistic block against Willard, who was bigger than him and had comparable stamina and durability. However, Willard needs not to simply be an uncomfortable opponent; does he have what it takes to actually beat Jeffries?
Both were extremely durable with great stamina and good punching power. Willard has the size advantage. Neither had especially good boxing skill, but Jeffries has the edge in that department. This is the kind of match that could go on for 40 rounds provided they have an old-time ref.
I think the main deciding factor would be that Jeffries was faster and much more athletic than Willard. While Willard was somewhat slow and cumbersome in the ring and was a bit of a stiff/awkward puncher, Jeffries was an amazing athlete(could run the 100 meter dash in 11 seconds and had an NBA-type vertical jump) known for being agile on his feet and was good on the inside.

I like Jeffries by decision if the fight is 15 rounds or less. In a 25-45 round fight, I give increasingly high odds of a Jeffries knockout.

I don't care, myself, for the great athlete arguement. Most heavyweight champions have been great athletes. Do we really know if Jeff was more athletically gifted than, say, Johnson or Dempsey. I read once that Dempsey could run a flat 10 second 100.
What about Willard? I doubt if he ever tried high jumping or sprinting, but he did participate in rodeos, and steer wrestling certainly requires agility as well as power.

[Mendoza]

I don't care, myself, for the great athlete arguement. Most heavyweight champions have been great athletes. Do we really know if Jeff was more athletically gifted than, say, Johnson or Dempsey. I read once that Dempsey could run a flat 10 second 100.
What about Willard? I doubt if he ever tried high jumping or sprinting, but he did participate in rodeos, and steer wrestling certainly requires agility as well as power.

OLD FOGEY,

The thing to look at here is not track and field numbers but agility and reflexes in boxing shoes. Jeffries moved well, could duck punches, could dart in and out, had good hand speed, and could also counter. This video can be seen on the "you tube ". While the video on “ you tube “ is impressive, you have to see the complete video which Jeffries shows off impressive strength and flexibility working out with weights, nifty footwork while jumping rope, and impressive thowing and catching of the medicine ball. The video will surprise those who have only seen the old Jeffries who was tired and slow vs Johnson. In fact they look like two different people. You would be hard pressed to find a 215-220 pounder with that type of power and speed.

As for Jeffries never beating a young fighter, Check Sharkey, Ruhlin, Griffin, Munroe, or Everett. Each man had a good record and was in his prime.

Towards the end of his career, Jeffries became a good boxer. Don't go on what internet rumors. Corbett was in great shape and 33 years of age when Jeffries beat him the first time. I posted a detailed round by round review, and as you can see the fight was pretty much even. Those who know Corbett said it was his best ring effort, so Jeffries did beat the best version of Corbett. My research shows that Corbett was at least 59-0-3 before losing to Fitzsimons, though about half of the number is from news decisions, or short fights that were really exhibitions.

In the second Corbett fight referee Ed Graney commented, “I was not prepared to see Jeffries outbox Corbett…I doubt the equal of his present self will ever exist.” This proves that Jeff had developed into a good all around fighter, that he was not just a big lumbering oaf with a punch. He was a skilled athletic heavyweight with boxing prowess who could slip inside and bang away at the body and take his man apart over the course of a fight. Jeffries knocked out Corbett in the 10th round. It was a systematic destruction of a very fast and skillful boxer. The Jeffries of this fight would be a threat to any heavyweight who ever lived.

In closing regarding Jeffries boxing ability, who are you going to believe? News paper reviews, and testimonials of people who saw him, or “ internet rumors “ that suggest Corbett was up 22-0?

I just can’t see Willard winning this fight.

[dmt]

Jeffries was skilled all right- it can be seen on youtube. He's too good for Willard. I have to agree with Mendoza

[mcvey]

Jeffires KO'd a 250 pound Dunkhorst in sparring. Those who know boxing will tell you a heavier and slower fighter is more prone to being hit than a smaller and quicker fighter. Which do you want to be vs a puncher?

Willard was rather poor on film. IMO, Moran got the better of him in the film I have seen, and it was truly an awful display of boxing. Willard lost to Smith, and MCMahon on points.

Basically Willaird's entire rep was based on a few white hopes and an older Jack Johnson.

I do beleive Willard was big, could hit, was game ( although he quit once, and never liked boxing ) , but he could not box a lick. How durable was Willard?

I'd say Willard could take a punch, yet he lost via KO vs the two best punchers he faced in Fripo and Dempsey in one sided fights that did not go past 8 rounds. I don't think Willard makes it past 10 vs Jeffries.
This post is biased as to proving anything.
Dunkhorst was kod by Fitz and beaten by every decent fighter he fought,including ,Choynsky and Childs ,all three were giving him nearly a hundred pounds in weight advantage,Dunkhorst was a fat hulk of a man, a low calibre sparring partner.
Willard was kod by Dempsey and Firpo ,true,he was 37 when he met Dempsey ,fat and untrained ,plus he had been inactive.Willard was 40 when he was beaten by Firpo in1923,Jess had had one fight since being half killed by Dempsey,in 1919 an eleven round tko of Floyd Johnson.If Jeffries was a hollow shell against Johnson when he was 35 ,what was Willard at 40 against Firpo? Or Fitz against Jeffries atr 40 for that matter.Apart from Ruhlin who quit on his stool between rounds ,which top fighters did Jeffries ko inside 10 rounds?Dont say the 40 Fitz who was coming out of retirement PLEASE!

[OLD FOGEY]

OLD FOGEY,

The thing to look at here is not track and field numbers but agility and reflexes in boxing shoes. Jeffries moved well, could duck punches, could dart in and out, had good hand speed, and could also counter. This video can be seen on the "you tube ". While the video on “ you tube “ is impressive, you have to see the complete video which Jeffries shows off impressive strength and flexibility working out with weights, nifty footwork while jumping rope, and impressive thowing and catching of the medicine ball. The video will surprise those who have only seen the old Jeffries who was tired and slow vs Johnson. In fact they look like two different people. You would be hard pressed to find a 215-220 pounder with that type of power and speed.

As for Jeffries never beating a young fighter, Check Sharkey, Ruhlin, Griffin, Munroe, or Everett. Each man had a good record and was in his prime.

Towards the end of his career, Jeffries became a good boxer. Don't go on what internet rumors. Corbett was in great shape and 33 years of age when Jeffries beat him the first time. I posted a detailed round by round review, and as you can see the fight was pretty much even. Those who know Corbett said it was his best ring effort, so Jeffries did beat the best version of Corbett. My research shows that Corbett was at least 59-0-3 before losing to Fitzsimons, though about half of the number is from news decisions, or short fights that were really exhibitions.

In the second Corbett fight referee Ed Graney commented, “I was not prepared to see Jeffries outbox Corbett…I doubt the equal of his present self will ever exist.” This proves that Jeff had developed into a good all around fighter, that he was not just a big lumbering oaf with a punch. He was a skilled athletic heavyweight with boxing prowess who could slip inside and bang away at the body and take his man apart over the course of a fight. Jeffries knocked out Corbett in the 10th round. It was a systematic destruction of a very fast and skillful boxer. The Jeffries of this fight would be a threat to any heavyweight who ever lived.

In closing regarding Jeffries boxing ability, who are you going to believe? News paper reviews, and testimonials of people who saw him, or “ internet rumors “ that suggest Corbett was up 22-0?

I just can’t see Willard winning this fight.



1. I have seen film for Jeff against Sharkey and Ruhlin and training in 1900. Certainly he was an athlete, but his agility on his feet might be a bit overrated. As one observer noted, Ruhlin seems to move faster.
2. of the men you mentioned, Sharkey, Ruhlin, Griffin, Munroe, and Everett--Okay, but Sharkey was never knocked out, Ruhlin went to a draw the first time, Griffin and Jeff fought as tyros, and Munroe and Everett were ordinary. Jeff's rep really rests on Fitz and Corbett, not these men.
3. Jeff was certainly the better fighter in time and place than Willard, but I don't know if he matches up quite as well as some think. I have not seen Jeff show a good jab on film, but Willard clearly does against Johnson. And the view of Jeff as a skilled boxer, at least defensively, runs up against the heavy damage he suffered in fight after fight. Certainly his performance against Johnson makes one wonder if he would prove as vulnerable to Willard's excellent uppercut as he did to Johnson's.
4. Corbett was about 37 and had been off for three years when he fought Jeff in 1903. He had been fast and skillful once, but boxing history shows us that older fighters who are not active go back pretty fast. I think this Corbett fight is a thin reed on which to hang the Jeff was a much improved boxer thesis. Jeff had taken brutal punishment from Fitzsimmons in his previous fight.
5. As I said before, nine of Jeff's twenty fights went a full ten rounds or longer, and of the six fights which hit the fifteenth round, he scored only one knockout. There were contempories who had doubts about his power. I think the very rugged Willard has a good chance of taking this fight deep and actually outlasting Jeffries.
6. I myself don't think speed afoot would have much to do with winning this fight, given the styles of the two men.

[mcvey]

1. I have seen film for Jeff against Sharkey and Ruhlin and training in 1900. Certainly he was an athlete, but his agility on his feet might be a bit overrated. As one observer noted, Ruhlin seems to move faster.
2. of the men you mentioned, Sharkey, Ruhlin, Griffin, Munroe, and Everett--Okay, but Sharkey was never knocked out, Ruhlin went to a draw the first time, Griffin and Jeff fought as tyros, and Munroe and Everett were ordinary. Jeff's rep really rests on Fitz and Corbett, not these men.
3. Jeff was certainly the better fighter in time and place than Willard, but I don't know if he matches up quite as well as some think. I have not seen Jeff show a good jab on film, but Willard clearly does against Johnson. And the view of Jeff as a skilled boxer, at least defensively, runs up against the heavy damage he suffered in fight after fight. Certainly his performance against Johnson makes one wonder if he would prove as vulnerable to Willard's excellent uppercut as he did to Johnson's.
4. Corbett was about 37 and had been off for three years when he fought Jeff in 1903. He had been fast and skillful once, but boxing history shows us that older fighters who are not active go back pretty fast. I think this Corbett fight is a thin reed on which to hang the Jeff was a much improved boxer thesis. Jeff had taken brutal punishment from Fitzsimmons in his previous fight.
5. As I said before, nine of Jeff's twenty fights went a full ten rounds or longer, and of the six fights which hit the fifteenth round, he scored only one knockout. There were contempories who had doubts about his power. I think the very rugged Willard has a good chance of taking this fight deep and actually outlasting Jeffries.
6. I myself don't think speed afoot would have much to do with winning this fight, given the styles of the two men.
Very evenhanded and OBJECTIVE post!

[mcvey]

In fairness, Willard was plenty old and inactive by the time he fought Dempsey and Firpo. I don't think these performances are relevant to how a 1915 Willard would have performed. At 35, younger by years than Willard in the two fights you are talking about, Jeffries was battered by Johnson. I don't think any of these fights tell us how either man would have done at his best.

I've seen the film of Willard-Moran also, and Willard seems to get the edge by far. I have never seen anyone credit Moran with winning this fight.
`Not anyone being OBJECTIVE,without an agenda.re the Moran Willard fight.

[mcvey]

Willard was 26-6, with 3 Ko losses. Aside from an older and tired Johnson, did Willard ever have a big KO win? Nope. He failed to stop Pelky, McCarty, Smith, Morris, or Moran. These the better of the " white hopes ". All of them went the distance, and two much smaller fighters in Smith and Morris won decisions.

This to me suggests that Willard 1 ) Could be out boxed and was by the best two white hope boxers, and 2 ) really didn't have big time knock out punch. Perhaps he did, he just lacked the skills to land the punch.

The only name Ko for Willard ( asside from Johnson who also had a suspect chin vs punchers ) was Rodel, who was frequently Ko'd and was known for "swan dive face first " falls, and Floyd Johnson, who was nothing special.

To assume Willard wins by KO here is a real reach, and he certainly did not have the speed or skills to out point Jeffries. This is an easy fight for Jeffries. Older or not, Dempsey hurt Willard in a hurry. Some thought Jeffries hit harder than Dempsey. Willard’s defense and speed was below average. Draw your own conclusion as to what happens when Jeffries lands. I don’t think this is a hard fight to call. Willard is a bottom 3rd tier lineal champion. He has a chance to beat some fighters.....the ones with weak punch resistance, who could not hit hard, and extremely small size come to mind.

The only logical conclusion here is Jeffries via KO or decision.
"Johnson had a suspect chin against punchers".How so who knocked him down or out by hitting him on the chin?
Choynsky kod Johnson by hitting him with body shot and a hook to the temple.Ketchel "dropped "Johnson ,with a punch that went around the top of his ear. Willard kod Johnson with a right swing tio the top of his head ,break down the fights WATCH THEM,,instead of making confident but innacurate statements,these are easily slowed down fights RUN THEM AGAIN!
WHO KOD JOHNSON WITH A PUNCH TO HIS CHIN? Big hiitters like Mcvey and Langford couldnt floor Johnson put your stick away!

[Mendoza]

mcvey Johnson had a suspect chin against punchers".How so who knocked him down or out by hitting him on the chin?

Choynski, Willard, Klondike, and Wright for sure.


Choynsky kod Johnson by hitting him with body shot and a hook to the temple.Ketchel "dropped "Johnson ,with a punch that went around the top of his ear.

Choysnki landed a shot to the temple region that casues the KO, though Johnson had issues with body shots in a few of his other matches. Ketchel hurt Johnson with the first hard blow he landed. You could tell Johnson was buzzed as he rolled over and had to brace himself to get up....vs a crude Middle weight. In other fights Johnson was hurt vs journeyman ( Jim Battling Johnson )


Willard kod Johnson with a right swing tio the top of his head ,break down the fights WATCH THEM,,instead of making confident but innacurate statements,these are easily slowed down fights RUN THEM AGAIN!
WHO KOD JOHNSON WITH A PUNCH TO HIS CHIN? Big hiitters like Mcvey and Langford couldnt floor Johnson put your stick away

McVey, with all due respect you really don't know what you're talking about. I watch more film, and read more news clips than you.

As for Sam McVey, he was a teenager and very green when he meet Johnson. Chins are best tested when someone lands something on them. McVey was a bit crude in his prime...and as a novice he must have had toughmanesque type of skills. Langford was not too many years removed from fighting a as a light weight when he meet Johnson at 156 pounds. If Johnson fought prime versions of McVey and Langford, and took hard shots, then we could see if his chin was tested. Saying his chin was tested in fights vs McVey when he was harldy hit means little.

[Mendoza]

OLD FOGEY 1. I have seen film for Jeff against Sharkey and Ruhlin and training in 1900. Certainly he was an athlete, but his agility on his feet might be a bit overrated. As one observer noted, Ruhlin seems to move faster.

I doubt this. If you saw the same training film as I have and you think his agility and reflexes are over rated, I then ask compared to whom?


2. of the men you mentioned, Sharkey, Ruhlin, Griffin, Munroe, and Everett--Okay, but Sharkey was never knocked out, Ruhlin went to a draw the first time, Griffin and Jeff fought as tyros, and Munroe and Everett were ordinary. Jeff's rep really rests on Fitz and Corbett, not these men.

Total Cherry picking OLD FOGEY. Sharkey was floored in both fights, and if not for the injury Jeffires likely finishes him in the title match. Jeffries KO% in title matches is near the best in heavyweight history. Only a very tough Sharkey made the distance.

Jeffires did knock Ruhlin down and had him out in the final round. Ruhlin was saved by the bell. In the title fight Jeffries knocked Ruhlin out. Griffin was Ko'd, and floored multiple times in an exhibition. Who else knocked Munroe out besides Jeffries? No one that I can think of. Was Everett in his prime ever beaten so quickly? I think not!


3. Jeff was certainly the better fighter in time and place than Willard, but I don't know if he matches up quite as well as some think. I have not seen Jeff show a good jab on film, but Willard clearly does against Johnson. And the view of Jeff as a skilled boxer, at least defensively, runs up against the heavy damage he suffered in fight after fight. Certainly his performance against Johnson makes one wonder if he would prove as vulnerable to Willard's excellent uppercut as he did to Johnson's.

There is limited film of a prime Jeffries, and the jab was not a big punch in those days, however Jeffries had a jab according to news reads. Jeffries performance vs Johnson means very little in this conversation, and Willard did not have an uppercut equal to Johnson’s.


4. Corbett was about 37 and had been off for three years when he fought Jeff in 1903. He had been fast and skillful once, but boxing history shows us that older fighters who are not active go back pretty fast. I think this Corbett fight is a thin reed on which to hang the Jeff was a much improved boxer thesis. Jeff had taken brutal punishment from Fitzsimmons in his previous fight.

I was talking about the first fight when Corbett was at his best and 33 years of age. The second fight was easy for Jeffries, who by then had gained some experience. Fitz hit harder than Willard, and was a much better fighter. If he couldn’t KO Jeffries with doctored gloves, what makes you think Willard could? Again, Willard mostly failed to knockout his best opponents.


5. As I said before, nine of Jeff's twenty fights went a full ten rounds or longer, and of the six fights which hit the fifteenth round, he scored only one knockout. There were contempories who had doubts about his power. I think the very rugged Willard has a good chance of taking this fight deep and actually outlasting Jeffries.

Which contempories had dounts about Jeffires power? Names please. And was Willard really that Rugged? He quit once, and was TKO by the two best punchers he faced inside of 8 rounds both times.

6. I myself don't think speed afoot would have much to do with winning this fight, given the styles of the two men.

Hand speed is a factor in heavyweight boxing in most cases. Defense, and footwork also matter. I can't think of one advantage Willard had over Jeffries, aside from size. Here's my run down:

Power - Jeffries
Size - Willard
Hand and foot speed - Jeffries
Defense - Jeffries
Chin - Jeffries
Stamina - I will call it a draw.
Skills - Jeffries
Ring General ship - Jeffries
Heart - Jeffries

And finally, I have never read any historian say that Willard was better or ranked higher.

Pick Willard if you wish. You're in the minority.

[mattdonnellon]

Actually all we know of Willards stamina is the fight with Johnson. He lost to Smith in his only 20 and in his next longest bout lost to McMahon. Maybe we are giving him too much stamina credit for the win over an out of shape, old and under-motivated Johnson. I ask the question because this thread made me suddenly realise I attribute this stamina claim for Willard also. What do you guys thing? Revisionalism?

[mcvey]

Choynski, Willard, Klondike, and Wright for sure.



Choysnki landed a shot to the temple region that casues the KO, though Johnson had issues with body shots in a few of his other matches. Ketchel hurt Johnson with the first hard blow he landed. You could tell Johnson was buzzed as he rolled over and had to brace himself to get up....vs a crude Middle weight. In other fights Johnson was hurt vs journeyman ( Jim Battling Johnson )



McVey, with all due respect you really don't know what you're talking about. I watch more film, and read more news clips than you.

As for Sam McVey, he was a teenager and very green when he meet Johnson. Chins are best tested when someone lands something on them. McVey was a bit crude in his prime...and as a novice he must have had toughmanesque type of skills. Langford was not too many years removed from fighting a as a light weight when he meet Johnson at 156 pounds. If Johnson fought prime versions of McVey and Langford, and took hard shots, then we could see if his chin was tested. Saying his chin was tested in fights vs McVey when he was harldy hit means little.
NO ONE KOD JOHNSON WITH A PUNCH TO THE CHIN,GIVE PROOF TO THE CONTRARY,AND STOP MAKING STATEMENTS YOU CANT VERIFY.YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY FIGHTS I WATCH OR HOW MANY NEWS CLIPPINGS I READ,AS USUAL YOU ARE TALKING SHIT!You are a self appointed expertand historian whose knowledge is vastly overestimated by yourself,your conceit and vanity has detached you from reality. your statement was that Johnsons chin was suspect against punchers PROVE IT OR RETRACT IT.YOU COULD TELL JACK SHIT FROM THE WAY JOHNSON REACTED TO KETCHELS PUNCH,IMMEDIATELYAFTER THE FIGHT ,JOHNSON WAS ASKED HOW HE FELT BEING FLOORED BY KETCHEL,HE REPLIED,"FAR BETTER THAN KETCHEL DID 30 SECONDS LATER,HE CROSSED ME ,I HANDED HIM WHAT HE DESERVED". aND DONT GIVE ME DUE RESPECT ,I DONT HAVE ANY FOR YOU,YOU ARE A SELF SERVING COMPLACENT PRAT.

[Mendoza]

mcvey NO ONE KOD JOHNSON WITH A PUNCH TO THE CHIN,GIVE PROOF TO THE CONTRARY,AND STOP MAKING STATEMENTS YOU CANT VERIFY.YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY FIGHTS I WATCH OR HOW MANY NEWS CLIPPINGS I READ,AS USUAL YOU ARE TALKING SHIT!You are a self appointed expertand historian whose knowledge is vastly overestimated by yourself,your conceit and vanity has detached you from reality. your statement was that Johnsons chin was suspect against punchers PROVE IT OR RETRACT IT.YOU COULD TELL JACK SHIT FROM THE WAY JOHNSON REACTED TO KETCHELS PUNCH,IMMEDIATELYAFTER THE FIGHT ,JOHNSON WAS ASKED HOW HE FELT BEING FLOORED BY KETCHEL,HE REPLIED,"FAR BETTER THAN KETCHEL DID 30 SECONDS LATER,HE CROSSED ME ,I HANDED HIM WHAT HE DESERVED". aND DONT GIVE ME DUE RESPECT ,I DONT HAVE ANY FOR YOU,YOU ARE A SELF SERVING COMPLACENT PRAT.


Johnson was most Certainly Ko’d from head blows. Deal with it, and clam down. You have chosen to make it personal.



If you keep acting snooty, how can I help you on paragraph formation, spelling, or on boxing? To the rest of the board, you can skip this back and forth stuff. Or sit back and enjoy the show. I plan on sticking in boxing related stuff when McVey needs the proverbial pie in the face.

[mcvey]

I doubt this. If you saw the same training film as I have and you think his agility and reflexes are over rated, I then ask compared to whom?



Total Cherry picking OLD FOGEY. Sharkey was floored in both fights, and if not for the injury Jeffires likely finishes him in the title match. Jeffries KO% in title matches is near the best in heavyweight history. Only a very tough Sharkey made the distance.

Jeffires did knock Ruhlin down and had him out in the final round. Ruhlin was saved by the bell. In the title fight Jeffries knocked Ruhlin out. Griffin was Ko'd, and floored multiple times in an exhibition. Who else knocked Munroe out besides Jeffries? No one that I can think of. Was Everett in his prime ever beaten so quickly? I think not!



There is limited film of a prime Jeffries, and the jab was not a big punch in those days, however Jeffries had a jab according to news reads. Jeffries performance vs Johnson means very little in this conversation, and Willard did not have an uppercut equal to Johnson’s.




I was talking about the first fight when Corbett was at his best and 33 years of age. The second fight was easy for Jeffries, who by then had gained some experience. Fitz hit harder than Willard, and was a much better fighter. If he couldn’t KO Jeffries with doctored gloves, what makes you think Willard could? Again, Willard mostly failed to knockout his best opponents.



Which contempories had dounts about Jeffires power? Names please. And was Willard really that Rugged? He quit once, and was TKO by the two best punchers he faced inside of 8 rounds both times.



Hand speed is a factor in heavyweight boxing in most cases. Defense, and footwork also matter. I can't think of one advantage Willard had over Jeffries, aside from size. Here's my run down:

Power - Jeffries
Size - Willard
Hand and foot speed - Jeffries
Defense - Jeffries
Chin - Jeffries
Stamina - I will call it a draw.
Skills - Jeffries
Ring General ship - Jeffries
Heart - Jeffries

And finally, I have never read any historian say that Willard was better or ranked higher.

Pick Willard if you wish. You're in the minority.
HOW IS A FIGHTER WHO DEPENDED ON HIS REFLEXES AND TIMING LIKE NO OTHER OF HIS TIME ,AT HIS BEST WHEN HE HAS HAD 1 FIGHT IN THREE YEARS SINCE LOSING HIS CROWN AND THAT ONE A LOSING ONE.?
jEFFRIES NEVER KOD RUHLIN IN THEIR TITLE FIGHT ,RUHLINS CORNER THREW IN THE TOWEL BETWEEN ROUNDS,EITHER YOUR RESEARCH IS SLOPPY OR YOU ARE DELIBERATEDLY TWISTING THE FACTS , I COULD USE ANOTHER EXPRESSION BUT I WONT. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF FITZS GLOVES WERE DOCTORED? MORE UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTIONS.YOU TALK ABOUT CHERRY PICKING TO JANITOR ,YOU MUST LIVE IN AN ORCHARD.WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE FOR JEFFRIES POWER BEING CONSIDERED EQUAL TO DEMPSEYS AS YOU QUOTED.?

[mcvey]

Johnson was most Certainly Ko’d from head blows. Deal with it, and clam down. You have chosen to make it personal.



If you keep acting snooty, how can I help you on paragraph formation, spelling, or on boxing? To the rest of the board, you can skip this back and forth stuff. Or sit back and enjoy the show. I plan on sticking in boxing related stuff when McVey needs the proverbial pie in the face.
I put this in capitols in case you have problems reading small print .
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT JOHNSON WAS KOD BY A PUNCH TO THE CHIN?
DONT DILUTE YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMNET TO "HEAD PUNCHES "YOU SAID HE HAD A SUSPECT CHIN AGAINST PUNCHERS ,PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

[OLD FOGEY]

Actually all we know of Willards stamina is the fight with Johnson. He lost to Smith in his only 20 and in his next longest bout lost to McMahon. Maybe we are giving him too much stamina credit for the win over an out of shape, old and under-motivated Johnson. I ask the question because this thread made me suddenly realise I attribute this stamina claim for Willard also. What do you guys thing? Revisionalism?

I think you are right. Both have reps for going a long way, which they did, but it might be a bit harder to prove they really had late beyond the 15th round power. Willard stopped Johnson late. Jeffries stopped Corbett late. Otherwise it was to the final bell much more often than not

[Mendoza]

I put this in capitols in case you have problems reading small print .
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT JOHNSON WAS KOD BY A PUNCH TO THE CHIN?
DONT DILUTE YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMNET TO "HEAD PUNCHES "YOU SAID HE HAD A SUSPECT CHIN AGAINST PUNCHERS ,PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Perhaps the small type hinders your comprehension. This is odd since you usually do not type in CAPS, and reply most of the time in small print. I digress.

When I say Johnson had a suspect chin vs punchers, this is to say punchers can knock him out. If could be anywhere, and most ko's aren't from direct chin shots.

Choynski, Klondike, and Willard produced classic on the floor knockouts. Each man could punch. Of course later in his career Johnson was KO’d quite a bit too.

Once again, a fighters durbality is best tested when they are hit. When you fight green or much smaller fighters who can't hit, your durablity is not tested as much.

In the context of heavyweight champions it would be an easy exercise to name at least 12 other champions who took a better punch than Johnson.

If your looking for a chin shot KO, how's this:

Johnson held Wright on nearly even terms for four rounds, but in the fifth a solar plexus blow followed by a right uppercut put him down for the full count. (Associated Press)
Uppercuts land on the chin area more often than not. Happy?

[mcvey]

Perhaps the small type hinders your comprehension. This is odd since you usually do not type in CAPS, and reply most of the time in small print. I digress.

When I say Johnson had a suspect chin vs punchers, this is to say punchers can knock him out. If could be anywhere, and most ko's aren't from direct chin shots.

Choynski, Klondike, and Willard produced classic on the floor knockouts. Each man could punch. Of course later in his career Johnson was KO’d quite a bit too.

Once again, a fighters durbality is best tested when they are hit. When you fight green or much smaller fighters who can't hit, your durablity is not tested as much.

In the context of heavyweight champions it would be an easy exercise to name at least 12 other champions who took a better punch than Johnson.

If your looking for a chin shot KO, how's this:


Uppercuts land on the chin area more often than not. Happy?
You have ducked the question as usual,and arent a big enough poster to admit your fault,you said "suspect chin"end of story,you gave no proof to back up your false claim ,as I knew you wouldnt .Johnson was 37 when Willard kod him,and it took him26 rounds in the tropical sun to do it.Johnson was kod after this fight twice by Bearcat Wright and Bill Hartwell ,but that was in 1928 and Johnson was 50 and retired ,does that mean he had a suspect chin? How about his " fight with Walter Price even later ? want to count that one? YOU ARE A SAD ONE ARENT YOU. HOW YOU MUST HATE JOHNSON.

[Mendoza]

You have ducked the question as usual,and arent a big enough poster to admit your fault,you said "suspect chin"end of story,you gave no proof to back up your false claim ,as I knew you wouldnt .Johnson was 37 when Willard kod him,and it took him26 rounds in the tropical sun to do it.Johnson was kod after this fight twice by Bearcat Wright and Bill Hartwell ,but that was in 1928 and Johnson was 50 and retired ,does that mean he had a suspect chin? How about his " fight with Walter Price even later ? want to count that one? YOU ARE A SAD ONE ARENT YOU. HOW YOU MUST HATE JOHNSON.

Now you're spliting hairs with dates. I see. I did list the Gunboat Smith vs Jack Johnson 4 round match. Be sure to read it. I've got soem more to post later.

Heavyweight who are Ko'd by light heavies, and floored by middles can not say they have a good chin.

I am out for the night. See ya McVey.

[OLD FOGEY]

I doubt this. If you saw the same training film as I have and you think his agility and reflexes are over rated, I then ask compared to whom?



Total Cherry picking OLD FOGEY. Sharkey was floored in both fights, and if not for the injury Jeffires likely finishes him in the title match. Jeffries KO% in title matches is near the best in heavyweight history. Only a very tough Sharkey made the distance.

Jeffires did knock Ruhlin down and had him out in the final round. Ruhlin was saved by the bell. In the title fight Jeffries knocked Ruhlin out. Griffin was Ko'd, and floored multiple times in an exhibition. Who else knocked Munroe out besides Jeffries? No one that I can think of. Was Everett in his prime ever beaten so quickly? I think not!



There is limited film of a prime Jeffries, and the jab was not a big punch in those days, however Jeffries had a jab according to news reads. Jeffries performance vs Johnson means very little in this conversation, and Willard did not have an uppercut equal to Johnson’s.




I was talking about the first fight when Corbett was at his best and 33 years of age. The second fight was easy for Jeffries, who by then had gained some experience. Fitz hit harder than Willard, and was a much better fighter. If he couldn’t KO Jeffries with doctored gloves, what makes you think Willard could? Again, Willard mostly failed to knockout his best opponents.



Which contempories had dounts about Jeffires power? Names please. And was Willard really that Rugged? He quit once, and was TKO by the two best punchers he faced inside of 8 rounds both times.



Hand speed is a factor in heavyweight boxing in most cases. Defense, and footwork also matter. I can't think of one advantage Willard had over Jeffries, aside from size. Here's my run down:

Power - Jeffries
Size - Willard
Hand and foot speed - Jeffries
Defense - Jeffries
Chin - Jeffries
Stamina - I will call it a draw.
Skills - Jeffries
Ring General ship - Jeffries
Heart - Jeffries

And finally, I have never read any historian say that Willard was better or ranked higher.

Pick Willard if you wish. You're in the minority.

1. Well, Jeff was certainly the best of his era and cleaned out the division in a way only Johnson and Louis would do for the first half of the century.
He was certainly the best champion prior to Louis, in the sense of putting his title on the line against top contenders. There is no doubt he deserves to be considered a better fighter than Willard.

2. I would agree that Fitz hit harder than Willard. But observers such as Jack London in the New York Times thought Fitz hit harder than Jeffries also. Why not? The two had four common opponents--Corbett, Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Choynski. Jeff in seven fights went twenty rounds or more with Sharkey twice, Ruhlin once, Choynski in their only fight, and also went twenty-three rounds with Corbett. He scored three knockouts in seven fights. Fitzsimmons fought five fights against the four men, two with Sharkey and one with each of the others. He scored three knockouts, stopping Corbett, Ruhlin, and Sharkey, but Fitz is more impressive than that. His "loss" in his 1896 fight with Sharkey came with Sharkey sprawled unconscious on the floor from a left to the jaw, Fitz being DQ'd by a probably crooked referee Wyatt Earp. Choynski was dropped four times by Fitz in the fourth round and twice in the fifth. The sheriff intervened with Choynski on the floor and somehow the bout was declared a draw. Jeff did not come nearly as close to knocking out Choynski or Sharkey. Fitz certainly has a big edge as a puncher with Jeffries against common foes.

3. Jack London and Tad Dorgan expressed "doubts" about Jeff's power. London cautioned that Jeff would have to wear Johnson down to win, as he did not have the sock to get him out quick.

4. Willard would not blow away Jeff early. Wearing him down like Johnson did is not out of the question. It would depend if Willard is effective with his long left and his uppercut does damage inside. Willard's uppercut might or might not be in Johnson's class, but Dempsey, at least, is on record as saying it was a powerful and vicious punch, and the fights with Bull Young and Floyd Johnson lend credence to his assertion.

5. "Pick Willard if you wish. You are in a minority." Well, it would be a dull world and a dull forum if the only opinions were majority opinions.

[mcvey]

1. Well, Jeff was certainly the best of his era and cleaned out the division in way only Johnson and Louis would do for the first half of the century.
He was certainly the best champion prior to Louis, in the sense of putting his title on the line against top contenders. There is no doubt he deserves to be considered a better fighter than Willard.

2. I would agree that Fitz hit harder than Willard. But observers such as Jack London in the New York Times thought Fitz hit harder than Jeffries also. Why not? The two had four common opponents--Corbett, Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Choynski. Jeff in seven fights went twenty rounds or more with Sharkey twice, Ruhlin once, Choynski in their only fight, and also went twenty-three rounds with Corbett. He scored three knockouts in seven fights. Fitzsimmons fought five fights against the four men, two with Sharkey and one with each of the others. He scored three knockouts, stopping Corbett, Ruhlin, and Sharkey, but Fitz is more impressive than that. His "loss" in his 1896 fight with Sharkey came with Sharkey sprawled unconscious on the floor from a left to the jaw, Fitz being DQ'd by a probably crooked referee Wyatt Earp. Choynski was dropped four times by Fitz in the fourth round and twice in the fifth. The sheriff intervened with Choynski on the floor and somehow the bout was declared a draw. Jeff did not come nearly as close to knocking out Choynski or Sharkey. Fitz certainly has a big edge as a puncher with Jeffries against common foes.

3. Jack London and Tad Dorgan expressed "doubts" about Jeff's power. London cautioned that Jeff would have to wear Johnson down to win, as he did not have the sock to get him out quick.

4. Willard would not blow away Jeff early. Wearing him down like Johnson did is not out of the question. It would depend if Willard is effective with his long left and his uppercut does damage inside. Willard's uppercut might or might not be in Johnson's class, but Dempsey, at least, is on record as saying it was a powerful and vicious punch, and the fights with Bull Young and Floyd Johnson lend credence to his assertion.

5. "Pick Willard if you wish. You are in a minority." Well, it would be a dull world and a dull forum if the only opinions were majority opinions.
Ironically ,I posted the Willard Jeffries thread as a "spoof " to Mendacity,I mean Mendoza,mocking his pretensions to objectivity,but the thread seems to have grown legs,now that I seriously analyse it Willard does have a shot ,your points about Jeffries power are well observed Fitz certainly hs better credentials against common opponents,Johnson thought Fitz the superior puncher to Jefrries,and Choynsky better than both of them,but them he was younger and comparatively green against Choynsky,that impression may have registered deeper.,Gun boat Smith said Willard was a vicious puncher and he met quite a few for comparison ,including Langford and Dempsey.Smith also said Willard could take a hell of a punch and Smith could really hit,when he fought Willard Smith had his hands loaded ,[taped over with electrical tape] this does work beleive me!I know,Ive used it,Smith hit Willard with ,as he described it "his Sunday punch, straight from the floor,Willard s hair wiggled a bit". Later on Smith landed his big punch again ,half tearing Willards ear off,but Jess went the distance.
Talent wise Willard wasnt in Jeffries class ,Jeff was a dominant Champion as you stated ,but Jess might have given him a good go for say 20 rounds ,he was tough ,durable ,strong ,and he could hit,Jeffries never met a man his equal in size or weight this fight would have answered a lot of questions about the Boilermaker.

[Marciano Frazier]

OLD FOGEY,

The thing to look at here is not track and field numbers but agility and reflexes in boxing shoes.
For the note, I was using track-and-field numbers to illustrate the kind of talent he was, not to argue that he woud beat Willard because he could outsprint him- it's an objective measurement(how good he was at running and jumping in set environments) that helps to illustrate/strengthen a qualitative judgment(how quick/able on his feet he was as far as boxing went)

In closing regarding Jeffries boxing ability, who are you going to believe? News paper reviews, and testimonials of people who saw him, or “ internet rumors “ that suggest Corbett was up 22-0?



On this part of your post, I will disagree slightly- one can find quotes saying, for example, that Samuel Peter "outboxed" Toney in their rematch, but I absolutely would not believe anyone who tried to tell me Peter has developed into a good boxer and well-rounded fighter. I concede that Jeffries had developed enough skill in addition to his physical and mental assets that he could score points against skilled boxers, but I don't believe he was himself really what you'd call a "good boxer." He was a decent boxer who had great durability and stamina along with good size, athleticism and power, all of which combined made him a great champion and a formidable force for anyone to try to take down.

[mcvey]

For the note, I was using track-and-field numbers to illustrate the kind of talent he was, not to argue that he woud beat Willard because he could outsprint him- it's an objective measurement(how good he was at running and jumping in set environments) that helps to illustrate/strengthen a qualitative judgment(how quick/able on his feet he was as far as boxing went)


On this part of your post, I will disagree slightly- one can find quotes saying, for example, that Samuel Peter "outboxed" Toney in their rematch, but I absolutely would not believe anyone who tried to tell me Peter has developed into a good boxer and well-rounded fighter. I concede that Jeffries had developed enough skill in addition to his physical and mental assets that he could score points against skilled boxers, but I don't believe he was himself really what you'd call a "good boxer." He was a decent boxer who had great durability and stamina along with good size, athleticism and power, all of which combined made him a great champion and a formidable force for anyone to try to take down.
This seems a fair analysis to me,and one that agrees with the consensus of written material on Jeffries and his fights.

[Mendoza]

Ironically ,I posted the Willard Jeffries thread as a "spoof " to Mendacity,I mean Mendoza,mocking his pretensions to objectivity,but the thread seems to have grown legs,now that I seriously analyse it Willard does have a shot ,your points about Jeffries power are well observed Fitz certainly hs better credentials against common opponents,Johnson thought Fitz the superior puncher to Jefrries,and Choynsky better than both of them,but them he was younger and comparatively green against Choynsky,that impression may have registered deeper.,Gun boat Smith said Willard was a vicious puncher and he met quite a few for comparison ,including Langford and Dempsey.Smith also said Willard could take a hell of a punch and Smith could really hit,when he fought Willard Smith had his hands loaded ,[taped over with electrical tape] this does work beleive me!I know,Ive used it,Smith hit Willard with ,as he described it "his Sunday punch, straight from the floor,Willard s hair wiggled a bit". Later on Smith landed his big punch again ,half tearing Willards ear off,but Jess went the distance.

Talent wise Willard wasnt in Jeffries class ,Jeff was a dominant Champion as you stated ,but Jess might have given him a good go for say 20 rounds ,he was tough ,durable ,strong ,and he could hit,Jeffries never met a man his equal in size or weight this fight would have answered a lot of questions about the Boilermaker.

Was Gunboat Smith a big puncher? I think this is an exaggeration. While Smith did KO men like Flynn, and Ross faster than Jack Johnson, where are his Knockouts vs the better heavyweights?

The record stats that Smith only had 39 Ko's in 81 wins. This equates to him winning 48.14% or less than half of his fights by knockout. If I were calculate his true KO percentage until 1917 ( Smith went into a tail spin around this time ) , and add the losses and draws, it’s even lower.

If Willard really thought Smith could punch ( Please back this up Mcvey, as your humor seemed to be hit or miss ) then he's in trouble vs the better punchers. As I said before the two best punchers Willard fought stopped him inside of 8 rounds, he quit once, and could be out pointed.

[OLD FOGEY]

Was Gunboat Smith a big puncher? I think this is an exaggeration. While Smith did KO men like Flynn, and Ross faster than Jack Johnson, where are his Knockouts vs the better heavyweights?

The record stats that Smith only had 39 Ko's in 81 wins. This equates to him winning 48.14% or less than half of his fights by knockout. If I were calculate his true KO percentage until 1917 ( Smith went into a tail spin around this time ) , and add the losses and draws, it’s even lower.

If Willard really thought Smith could punch ( Please back this up Mcvey, as your humor seemed to be hit or miss ) then he's in trouble vs the better punchers. As I said before the two best punchers Willard fought stopped him inside of 8 rounds, he quit once, and could be out pointed.

Gunboat Smith had a real two toned career. Up through his fight with Pelkey, he scored 36 knockouts in 53 fights (according to the 1976 Ring Record Book)-After the Pelkey fight, he scored 3 knockouts in 68 fights, to reach a total of 39 in 121 fights.


While Jeffries obviously in most ways has by far the more impressive career, Willard was known to be a man who often dawdled through a fight if he could, not extending himself. But there are issues about the two which are intriguing.
1. Did Willard defeat a fighter as big or nearly as big as Jeffries and as skilled or even more skilled?--Well, yes, Jack Johnson.
2. Did Willard defeat a young fighter as big or close to as big as Jeffries who was considered very athletically gifted?--Well, yes, Luther McCarty.
3. Did Willard defeat a man as big or even bigger than Jeffries who was known for strength and roughhouse tactics?--Well, yes, Carl Morris.
4. Did Jeffries defeat anyone in even the same ballpark as Willard in size and strength?--Well, no.

[Mendoza]

OLD FOGEYGunboat Smith had a real two toned career. Up through his fight with Pelky, he scored 36 knockouts in 53 fights (according to the 1976 Ring Record Book)-After the Pelkey fight, he scored 3 knockouts in 68 fights, to reach a total of 39 in 121 fights.


While Jeffries obviously in most ways has by far the more impressive career, Willard was known to be a man who often dawdled through a fight if he could, not extending himself. But there are issues about the two which are intriguing.

1. Did Willard defeat a fighter as big or nearly as big as Jeffries and as skilled or even more skilled?--Well, yes, Jack Johnson.

>>But how old was Jack?

2. Did Willard defeat a young fighter as big or close to as big as Jeffries who was considered very athletically gifted?--Well, yes, Luther McCarty.

While McCarty had something, he was not as good as he gets credit for these days. What about the other fighters Willard lost decisions to or extended?

3. Did Willard defeat a man as big or even bigger than Jeffries who was known for strength and roughhouse tactics?--Well, yes, Carl Morris.

>>What about the Fripo fight? He was Jeffries size. I guess the same point applies here too. Willard was too old.

4. Did Jeffries defeat anyone in even the same ballpark as Willard in size and strength?--Well, no.

>>There was no one for him to fight Willard size, save Dunkhorst who was not that good and knocked out by Jeffries in a sparring sessions. Size alone will not determine this match. 240 vs 220 is not a huge difference. Jeffires could easily be 225-230 if he wanted to.

A big size and weight difference is 240 vs 200. However if the smaller man has a lot of power, giving up weigh becomes less of an issue. See Dempsey or Louis. While Willard would have the size edge, Jeffries would have the edge in brute strength. I think Jeffries hits as hard as Fripo or Dempsey, who had their way with Willard. While Willard was older, he was finished rather early in these fights. Jeffries has too much in terms of skills for Willard to beat him on points. I’d give Willard maybe 1 chance in 8 to beat Jeffires.


It is my observation that punchers have the hardest fights vs speedy boxer types. Even Dempsey, Louis and Marciano. It's true. However put a slower guy in there who is not great on defense, and it’s a massacre. I beleive Jeffries is the same. Corbett was tough to catch, but the bigger fighters Jeffries fought in Ruhlin, Munroe, Jackson, ect....did not last as long as the quick movers such as Corbett or Choynski.

My $.02 I might start a thread on this.

Footnote: Super heavy boxer punchers ( 6'4" 78" reach 220+ ) with skills easily beat smaller boxer types.

[OLD FOGEY]

>>But how old was Jack?



While McCarty had something, he was not as good as he gets credit for these days. What about the other fighters Willard lost decisions to or extended?



>>What about the Fripo fight? He was Jeffries size. I guess the same point applies here too. Willard was too old.



>>There was no one for him to fight Willard size, save Dunkhorst who was not that good and knocked out by Jeffries in a sparring sessions. Size alone will not determine this match. 240 vs 220 is not a huge difference. Jeffires could easily be 225-230 if he wanted to.

A big size and weight difference is 240 vs 200. However if the smaller man has a lot of power, giving up weigh becomes less of an issue. See Dempsey or Louis. While Willard would have the size edge, Jeffries would have the edge in brute strength. I think Jeffries hits as hard as Fripo or Dempsey, who had their way with Willard. While Willard was older, he was finished rather early in these fights. Jeffries has too much in terms of skills for Willard to beat him on points. I’d give Willard maybe 1 chance in 8 to beat Jeffires.


It is my observation that punchers have the hardest fights vs speedy boxer types. Even Dempsey, Louis and Marciano. It's true. However put a slower guy in there who is not great on defense, and it’s a massacre. I beleive Jeffries is the same. Corbett was tough to catch, but the bigger fighters Jeffries fought in Ruhlin, Munroe, Jackson, ect....did not last as long as the quick movers such as Corbett or Choynski.

My $.02 I might start a thread on this.

Footnote: Super heavy boxer punchers ( 6'4" 78" reach 220+ ) with skills easily beat smaller boxer types.

The bigger fighters you mention were all in the 180 to 200 lb class and Ruhlin in fact lasted twenty in the first fight.

I don't think Jeff was in the same league as Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano as a puncher. In 1941 Hype Igoe wrote an article in Ring Magazine on the big punchers, led by Fitz, Dempsey, Langford, and Louis among the heavyweights, with Jeffries very notable by his absence. Ted Carroll, in discussing Jeffries attributes compared to other great champions, listed durability, stength, and stamina, but notably left off punching power. Jeff went twenty rounds or more in 25% of his fights. He went 15 rounds or more in 30% of his fights. He went ten or more in 45% of his fights. Fitz, a great fighter, but a super-middleweight, showed more power against common opponents, Corbett, Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Choynski.
Jeff certainly had power, but I think it was second-tier power, closer to a Schmeling or a Holyfield than a Louis or a Tyson.

There weren't any Willards in Jeff's day, and that is a point I made in my original post. The heavyweight division of Jeff's heyday was small compared to the heavyweight's of the Willard era. Not only were there the men Willard fought, Johnson, Morris, McCarty, Firpo, but also Wills and Fulton, among the top big fellows. Even the second-tier men, Coffey, Cowler, and Palzer, were sterner tests than the blubbery Dunkhorst or Plaake, both of whom lost frequently to middleweights.

[mcvey]

The bigger fighters you mention were all in the 180 to 200 lb class and Ruhlin in fact lasted twenty in the first fight.

I don't think Jeff was in the same league as Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano as a puncher. In 1941 Hype Igoe wrote an article in Ring Magazine on the big punchers, led by Fitz, Dempsey, Langford, and Louis among the heavyweights, with Jeffries very notable by his absence. Ted Carroll, in discussing Jeffries attributes compared to other great champions, listed durability, stength, and stamina, but notably left off punching power. Jeff went twenty rounds or more in 25% of his fights. He went 15 rounds or more in 30% of his fights. He went ten or more in 45% of his fights. Fitz, a great fighter, but a super-middleweight, showed more power against common opponents, Corbett, Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Choynski.
Jeff certainly had power, but I think it was second-tier power, closer to a Schmeling or a Holyfield than a Louis or a Tyson.

There weren't any Willards in Jeff's day, and that is a point I made in my original post. The heavyweight division of Jeff's heyday was small compared to the heavyweight's of the Willard era. Not only were there the men Willard fought, Johnson, Morris, McCarty, Firpo, but also Wills and Fulton, among the top big fellows. Even the second-tier men, Coffey, Cowler, and Palzer, were sterner tests than the blubbery Dunkhorst or Plaake, both of whom lost frequently to middleweights.
very insight ful and objective post!

[Mendoza]

The bigger fighters you mention were all in the 180 to 200 lb class and Ruhlin in fact lasted twenty in the first fight.

I don't think Jeff was in the same league as Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano as a puncher. In 1941 Hype Igoe wrote an article in Ring Magazine on the big punchers, led by Fitz, Dempsey, Langford, and Louis among the heavyweights, with Jeffries very notable by his absence. Ted Carroll, in discussing Jeffries attributes compared to other great champions, listed durability, stength, and stamina, but notably left off punching power. Jeff went twenty rounds or more in 25% of his fights. He went 15 rounds or more in 30% of his fights. He went ten or more in 45% of his fights. Fitz, a great fighter, but a super-middleweight, showed more power against common opponents, Corbett, Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Choynski.
Jeff certainly had power, but I think it was second-tier power, closer to a Schmeling or a Holyfield than a Louis or a Tyson.

There weren't any Willards in Jeff's day, and that is a point I made in my original post. The heavyweight division of Jeff's heyday was small compared to the heavyweight's of the Willard era. Not only were there the men Willard fought, Johnson, Morris, McCarty, Firpo, but also Wills and Fulton, among the top big fellows. Even the second-tier men, Coffey, Cowler, and Palzer, were sterner tests than the blubbery Dunkhorst or Plaake, both of whom lost frequently to middleweights.

Many said Jeffires had great power. The hardest hitter they saw. Men like Rickard, Corbett, Diamond, Odd, and Keith said this. Jeffires record is not fattened up by journeyman like most other champions are. KO’s are harder to come by as the competion increases in class.

Jeffries hit harder than Schmeling or Holyfield for sure. You took me by surprise with that comment.

Marciano needed on average over 9 rounds to win his title shots. He took Lowry the distance twice, Lastara the distance, and Charles the distance. If seems the better boxers gave Marciano trouble, but Rocky caught up to and Ko'd the slower fighters a bit easier..

Louis took a while to win in some matches, and other times went the distance. Pastor, Conn, Godoy, and Walcott gave Louis a lot of trouble. They were speedy boxer types. Big slow guys like Simon, Carnera, and Baer did give Louis much trouble.

Dempsey went some rounds a few times too, and also had some distance fights. Usually the quick boxer types such as Meehan, Tunney, and Gibbons gave Dempsey fits. But put jack in there vs a bigger / slower fighter such as Willard, Fulton, or Firpo, and its over soon. Can you smell what I’m cooking?

My point on punchers having an easier time vs slower and less defensive targets is valid. Do you agree? Willard was a bigger and slower guy vs a more skilled puncher. He’s going to lose, and did lose vs the two best puncher he faced.

Ruhlin lasted 20...barely as he was down and out, saved by the bell. Besides Ruhlin was decent., and Jeffries had very few recorded fights under his belt for the first fight. In the title fight when both were in their primes, Jeffries hurt Ruhlin forcing him to quit inside 5 rounds.



If your interstested, I have an article on the white hopes of boxing being a sorry lot. The author says Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, and Jeffries would easily run the table on the entire lot of white hopes, which includes Willard.

[OLD FOGEY]

Many said Jeffires had great power. The hardest hitter they saw. Men like Rickard, Corbett, Diamond, Odd, and Keith said this. Jeffires record is not fattened up by journeyman like most other champions are. KO’s are harder to come by as the competion increases in class.

Jeffries hit harder than Schmeling or Holyfield for sure. You took me by surprise with that comment.

Marciano needed on average over 9 rounds to win his title shots. He took Lowry the distance twice, Lastara the distance, and Charles the distance. If seems the better boxers gave Marciano trouble, but Rocky caught up to and Ko'd the slower fighters a bit easier..

Louis took a while to win in some matches, and other times went the distance. Pastor, Conn, Godoy, and Walcott gave Louis a lot of trouble. They were speedy boxer types. Big slow guys like Simon, Carnera, and Baer did give Louis much trouble.

Dempsey went some rounds a few times too, and also had some distance fights. Usually the quick boxer types such as Meehan, Tunney, and Gibbons gave Dempsey fits. But put jack in there vs a bigger / slower fighter such as Willard, Fulton, or Firpo, and its over soon. Can you smell what I’m cooking?

My point on punchers having an easier time vs slower and less defensive targets is valid. Do you agree? Willard was a bigger and slower guy vs a more skilled puncher. He’s going to lose, and did lose vs the two best puncher he faced.

Ruhlin lasted 20...barely as he was down and out, saved by the bell. Besides Ruhlin was decent., and Jeffries had very few recorded fights under his belt for the first fight. In the title fight when both were in their primes, Jeffries hurt Ruhlin forcing him to quit inside 5 rounds.



If your interstested, I have an article on the white hopes of boxing being a sorry lot. The author says Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, and Jeffries would easily run the table on the entire lot of white hopes, which includes Willard.

I agree with several points you are making:
1. Real power is tested against world class opposition--running up impressive statistics against tomato cans proves nothing.
2. Jeffries has less fat on his record than any of his peers. He did not fight that many set-ups.
3. It is not clear at all historically that it is easier to knock out big men than smaller men. The smaller men have proven more elusive, and I don't believe there is even convincing historical proof that big men actually take a punch better. Did Fulton take a punch better than Gibbons? Did Firpo take a punch better than Miske?
4. The great sluggers of heavyweight history, Dempsey, Baer, Louis, Marciano, Liston, etc never ran into a ceiling above which they encountered men too big to be knocked out. All tended to do better against the big men.

The problem I would have with Jeffries is that he certainly often went a long way. 25% of his fights going over 20 rounds makes one wonder why a man with his vaunted athletic gifts and agility, as well as stamina, couldn't catch even fast-steppers if he had the power of a Louis or Dempsey or Marciano. And Sharkey was right there to be hit for 45 rounds.

No way we can solve this issue, but a fight with a peak Willard might have answered a lot of questions about Jeffries, and certainly one test one would like answered about a puncher is that he could and did prove himself capable of knocking out men as big as himself. Jeffries did not.

On the author who posits that Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, and Jeff would run the table on the White Hopes--but the white hopes were not necessarily even the best fighters of the teens, and he is comparing them with champions from a 25 year period. The top fighters of the teens were Johnson, Langford, Wills, Jeannette, McVea, and Dempsey, only then followed by Willard, Fulton, Smith, Moran, Morris, etc. I don't think any of these old champions would be favored to run the table against opposition like this and neither the 1880's or the 1890's had such a concentration of talent.

[mcvey]

Many said Jeffires had great power. The hardest hitter they saw. Men like Rickard, Corbett, Diamond, Odd, and Keith said this. Jeffires record is not fattened up by journeyman like most other champions are. KO’s are harder to come by as the competion increases in class.

Jeffries hit harder than Schmeling or Holyfield for sure. You took me by surprise with that comment.

Marciano needed on average over 9 rounds to win his title shots. He took Lowry the distance twice, Lastara the distance, and Charles the distance. If seems the better boxers gave Marciano trouble, but Rocky caught up to and Ko'd the slower fighters a bit easier..

Louis took a while to win in some matches, and other times went the distance. Pastor, Conn, Godoy, and Walcott gave Louis a lot of trouble. They were speedy boxer types. Big slow guys like Simon, Carnera, and Baer did give Louis much trouble.

Dempsey went some rounds a few times too, and also had some distance fights. Usually the quick boxer types such as Meehan, Tunney, and Gibbons gave Dempsey fits. But put jack in there vs a bigger / slower fighter such as Willard, Fulton, or Firpo, and its over soon. Can you smell what I’m cooking?

My point on punchers having an easier time vs slower and less defensive targets is valid. Do you agree? Willard was a bigger and slower guy vs a more skilled puncher. He’s going to lose, and did lose vs the two best puncher he faced.

Ruhlin lasted 20...barely as he was down and out, saved by the bell. Besides Ruhlin was decent., and Jeffries had very few recorded fights under his belt for the first fight. In the title fight when both were in their primes, Jeffries hurt Ruhlin forcing him to quit inside 5 rounds.



If your interstested, I have an article on the white hopes of boxing being a sorry lot. The author says Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, and Jeffries would easily run the table on the entire lot of white hopes, which includes Willard.
I see you come astern on your recent assertion that Jeffries kod Ruhlin in their title fight,after I called you on it,you didnt admit your error,par for the course, but have slipped it in now,partially correct,actually Ruhlins corner threw in the sponge between the 5th and 6th round,as a self appointed "historian",you should have known that ,but perhaps you did,just wanted to put your "little spin " on it.
You mention Gilbert Odd in your post,he is considered Englands premier boxing historian ,this is what he sais about Jack Johnson in the book "The Life and Times Of Jack Johnson,which I have before me."I firmly beleive that JOHN ARTHUR JOHNSON,born in Galveston,Texas,USA,on March31st1878,was the superlative exponentof the noble art among the big men that the world of boxing has ever seen.",this was written after Ali s reign .By the way Odd rated Dempsey and Louis as the hardest hitters ,NOT JEFFRIES,more spin?

[mcvey]

I see you come astern on your recent assertion that Jeffries kod Ruhlin in their title fight,after I called you on it,you didnt admit your error,par for the course, but have slipped it in now,partially correct,actually Ruhlins corner threw in the sponge between the 5th and 6th round,as a self appointed "historian",you should have known that ,but perhaps you did,just wanted to put your "little spin " on it.
You mention Gilbert Odd in your post,he is considered Englands premier boxing historian ,this is what he sais about Jack Johnson in the book "The Life and Times Of Jack Johnson,which I have before me."I firmly beleive that JOHN ARTHUR JOHNSON,born in Galveston,Texas,USA,on March31st1878,was the superlative exponentof the noble art among the big men that the world of boxing has ever seen.",this was written after Ali s reign .By the way Odd rated Dempsey and Louis as the hardest hitters ,NOT JEFFRIES,more spin?
And Rickard rated Dempsey NOT JEFFRIES as the hardest hitter.

[mcvey]

I agree with several points you are making:
1. Real power is tested against world class opposition--running up impressive statistics against tomato cans proves nothing.
2. Jeffries has less fat on his record than any of his peers. He did not fight that many set-ups.
3. It is not clear at all historically that it is easier to knock out big men than smaller men. The smaller men have proven more elusive, but I don't believe there is even convincing historical proof that big men actually take a punch better. Did Fulton take a punch better than Gibbons? Did Firpo take a punch better than Miske?
4. The great sluggers of heavyweight history, Dempsey, Baer, Louis, Marciano, Liston, etc never ran into a ceiling above which they encountered men too big to be knocked out. All tended to do better against the big men.

The problem I would have with Jeffries is that he certainly often went a long way. 25% of his fights going over 20 rounds makes one wonder why a man with his vaunted athletic gifts and agility, as well as stamina, couldn't catch even fast-steppers if he had the power of a Louis or Dempsey or Marciano. And Sharkey was right there to be hit for 45 rounds.

No way we can solve this issue, but a fight with a peak Willard might have answered a lot of questions about Jeffries.
Fitz didnt have any difficulty kayoing Sharkey.

[Mendoza]

I see you come astern on your recent assertion that Jeffries kod Ruhlin in their title fight,after I called you on it,you didnt admit your error,par for the course, but have slipped it in now,partially correct,actually Ruhlins corner threw in the sponge between the 5th and 6th round,as a self appointed "historian",you should have known that ,but perhaps you did,just wanted to put your "little spin " on it.
You mention Gilbert Odd in your post,he is considered Englands premier boxing historian ,this is what he sais about Jack Johnson in the book "The Life and Times Of Jack Johnson,which I have before me."I firmly beleive that JOHN ARTHUR JOHNSON,born in Galveston,Texas,USA,on March31st1878,was the superlative exponentof the noble art among the big men that the world of boxing has ever seen.",this was written after Ali s reign .By the way Odd rated Dempsey and Louis as the hardest hitters ,NOT JEFFRIES,more spin?

McVey, once again, stop trying to call me out. Its pie in the face time for you.
Ruhlin threw in his own sponge vs Jeffries in the title fight:deal Would you like me to post the report? Say the word, and I'll color you stupid.

Gilbert Odd said. " Jeffries was the strongest of heavyweight champions in build and hitting power. There you have it.


There are plenty of good historians on this forum. I don't rank posters but rest assured I know a bit more than you on boxing.

[mcvey]

I agree with several points you are making:
1. Real power is tested against world class opposition--running up impressive statistics against tomato cans proves nothing.
2. Jeffries has less fat on his record than any of his peers. He did not fight that many set-ups.
3. It is not clear at all historically that it is easier to knock out big men than smaller men. The smaller men have proven more elusive, but I don't believe there is even convincing historical proof that big men actually take a punch better. Did Fulton take a punch better than Gibbons? Did Firpo take a punch better than Miske?
4. The great sluggers of heavyweight history, Dempsey, Baer, Louis, Marciano, Liston, etc never ran into a ceiling above which they encountered men too big to be knocked out. All tended to do better against the big men.

The problem I would have with Jeffries is that he certainly often went a long way. 25% of his fights going over 20 rounds makes one wonder why a man with his vaunted athletic gifts and agility, as well as stamina, couldn't catch even fast-steppers if he had the power of a Louis or Dempsey or Marciano. And Sharkey was right there to be hit for 45 rounds.

No way we can solve this issue, but a fight with a peak Willard might have answered a lot of questions about Jeffries.
Jeffries doesnt have much fat on his resume ,true,he doesnt have many men in their prime on it either,his big wins over Corbett and Fitz were victories over older men who were coming back fron retirement, fights against prime men of comparable size would have ,as you say answered a lot of questions.Not Jeffries fault he got them when he got them,but imagine where he would be rated if he had taken Johnson on and beaten him before he retired.

[mcvey]

McVey, once again, stop trying to call me out. Its pie in the face time for you.
Ruhlin threw in his own sponge vs Jeffries in the title fight:deal Would you like me to post the report? Say the word, and I'll color you stupid.

There you have it.


There are plenty of good historians on this forum. I don't rank posters but rest assured I know a bit more than you on boxing.
Two posts ago you said Jeffries kod Ruhlin,one post ago you said he stopped him INSIDE 5 rounds ,any more "alterations"?:lol: :lol: :lol:

[mcvey]

Im not calling you out you fool ,Im exposing your bluster andbullshit for what it is ,the ramblings of a pedant who is a legend in his own mind.:bart :bart :bart

[Mendoza]

Im not calling you out you fool ,Im exposing your bluster andbullshit for what it is ,the ramblings of a pedant who is a legend in his own mind.:bart :bart :bart

Youre a real dumb ass McVey. So you think Ruhlin's seconds threw in the sponge. BS. Here's the fight report on Jeffries vs Ruhlin II, the title fight. Read it. You will see that Ruhlin quit on his own.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Or if you prefer, read Unforgivable Blackness if you have not already done so. It should be an orgy of a read for you. Be sure to check out Ruhlin vs Jeffries as the book says Jeffires nearly broke Ruhlin in two with a body shot, and Ruhlin quit on his own accord. That is it.

And no, I think don’t think I am better than anyone here. Once again, you have zip so you lie and make things up.

You're exposed as usual...... please stop calling me out. It does you no good. I'll spare you the embarrassment on what Odd said.

[OLD FOGEY]

Jeffries doesnt have much fat on his resume ,true,he doesnt have many men in their prime on it either,his big wins over Corbett and Fitz were victories over older men who were coming back fron retirement, fights against prime men of comparable size would have ,as you say answered a lot of questions.Not Jeffries fault he got them when he got them,but imagine where he would be rated if he had taken Johnson on and beaten him before he retired.

You have a very good point here. Jeff can hardly be really criticized for not fighting someone of Willard's size as there was no one around in his time of that size with any ability. He could, however, have fought Johnson, which would have answered some nagging questions.

[mcvey]

Youre a real dumb ass McVey. So you think Ruhlin's seconds threw in the sponge. BS. Here's the fight report on Jeffries vs Ruhlin II, the title fight. Read it. You will see that Ruhlin quit on his own.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Or if you prefer, read Unforgivable Blackness if you have not already done so. It should be an orgy of a read for you. Be sure to check out Ruhlin vs Jeffries as the book says Jeffires nearly broke Ruhlin in two with a body shot, and Ruhlin quit on his own accord. That is it.

And no, I think don’t think I am better than anyone here. Once again, you have zip so you lie and make things up.

You're exposed as usual...... please stop calling me out. It does you no good. I'll spare you the embarrassment on what Odd said.
The Point was YOU SAID Jefries kod Ruhlin inside 5 rounds,its there for everyone to see,then you amended it in another post to Old Fogey,but you never admitted you were wrong ,whats the deal ?cant you be wrong?,who stopped the Fight is immaterial isnt it ?It might have been Gus,s Mum for all the difference it makes,it happened BETWEEN THE 5Th and 6TH rounds thats the point!.I DONT LIE by the way,DR MENDACITY.

[Mendoza]

The Point was YOU SAID Jefries kod Ruhlin inside 5 rounds,its there for everyone to see,then you amended it in another post to Old Fogey,but you never admitted you were wrong ,whats the deal ?cant you be wrong?,who stopped the Fight is immaterial isnt it ?It might have been Gus,s Mum for all the difference it makes,it happened BETWEEN THE 5Th and 6TH rounds thats the point!.I DONT LIE by the way,DR MENDACITY.

Can you read? How old are you? The news report says Ruhlin quit near the end of round five. Hence he was stopped inside of five rounds!!!!

Also, I showed you it was Ruhlin himself who quit, not his corner throwing in the sponge!!!

Pie in the face again. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Geez.

[mcvey]

Can you read? How old are you? The news report says Ruhlin quit near the end of round five. Hence he was stopped inside of five rounds!!!!

Also, I showed you it was Ruhlin himself who quit, not his corner throwing in the sponge!!!

Pie in the face again. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Geez.
Ive looked back again at this , Cyberzone has it Ruhlin lt6,Wikipeadiatko5,Im willing to accept the news clipping you have provided,and to withdraw my remarks concerning it.I stand corrected. One round to you.