Jeffries vs Johnson: Prime Against Prime

[The Great John L]

Moreover, you can just as easily pick one fight from Johnson's career and use that as an indication that Johnson would be in trouble against Jeffries. Overall, most signs indicate that if they fought in their primes that Johnson would win but it would be a very tough fight.

Not trying to be difficult, but what signs indicate that Johnson would win?

[dempseyfire]

Moreover, you can just as easily pick one fight from Johnson's career and use that as an indication that Johnson would be in trouble against Jeffries. Overall, most signs indicate that if they fought in their primes that Johnson would win but it would be a very tough fight.

Not trying to be difficult, but what signs indicate that Johnson would win?

Well, the fact that Jefferies admitted as much after the fight I think speaks volumes.

[The Great John L]

Moreover, you can just as easily pick one fight from Johnson's career and use that as an indication that Johnson would be in trouble against Jeffries. Overall, most signs indicate that if they fought in their primes that Johnson would win but it would be a very tough fight.

Not trying to be difficult, but what signs indicate that Johnson would win?

Well, the fact that Jefferies admitted as much after the fight I think speaks volumes.

Didn't Louis say something similar after getting stopped by Marciano? Athletes in prior eras were much more humble.

[Ambling Alp]

I always take it with a grain of salt when a fighter says that another fighter was better/would have beaten himself. First of all, as John L touched on, some fighters don't claim to be as good as they actually were; they are being humble. Others may legitimately not think they are as good as someone else, but are selling themselves short. They could also be overrating the other guy.
Actually almost anything a fighter say should be taken with a grain of salt; "he was the hardest puncher I ever faced", "he was the fastest I ever faced" etc.

Anyway, as for signs that Johnson would have beaten Jeffries:
First of all, he had a better career. Jeffries is a bit underrated by some people and had a great career himself, but it wasn't quite as good as Johnson's.
Jeffries while he never lost in his prime, had more close calls than Johnson. Besides the Corbett fight, Jeffries was losing the 2nd Fitzsimmons fight until he came back to win. Jeffries also had a lot of trouble with Tom Sharkey. Neither Corbett, Fitzsimmons or Sharkey were as good as Johnson.

Of course "styles make fights" (though usually the better fighter wins). As for how they match up against each other, I think it favors Johnson. I don't see how Jeffries could possibly win a decision. Johnson hit would him far more often they he would hit Johnson.


Jeffries would have to win by knockout which would be extremely difficult to do against a prime Johnson. Johnson had both a good chin and a good defense. He was never knocked out between the age of 22 and 37.
I don't think Jeffries would be as dominaint inside against Johnson as he was against other opponents. Johnson may have been stronger than anyone Jeffries ever faced. Johnson would probably land a few punches and clinch a lot. This would repaet itself a lot. Johnson would probably win 8 out of the firsdt 10 rounds. After that, the fight would be more competitive, but Johnson would hold onto his big lead.

The most likely scenario for Jeffries winning would be for him to gradually wear down Johnson and stop him late. However, if the fight was scheduled for reasonable amount of time, (say a mere 20 or 25 rounds ) Johnson would be fine.
Johnson lasted 26 rounds in the hot sun against Willard at the age of 37. Granted Jeffries would put more pressure on Johnson than Willard did and thus that would sap Johnson's energy more; However a prime Johnson should be fine for atleast 20 rounds.
If the fight was for 45 rounds or something like that, than Jeffries chances would increase.
The most likely result would be Johnson winning a decison.

[HomicideHenry]

Didn't Louis say something similar after getting stopped by Marciano? Athletes in prior eras were much more humble.

Louis said something along the lines that, his greatest weakness was to be crowded, and that Marciano was the greatest crowder he ever fought, so in essence he felt that he never would have beaten Marciano even in his prime.

As for what Jeffries said of Johnson, it is true he said "I could never have beaten him at my best, no I couldn't have reached him in a 1,000 years," but Jeffries was also quoted as saying to the American public and the press "I hope they (them) will leave me alone now," as Jeffries comeback was more based on public out cry than as a genuine want/desire to come back.

Now there are some sources that say when Johnson won the crown that Jeffries originally started training in secret, losing some seventy pounds, and Johnson was so delighted by the rumors that Jeffries was coming back he wanted to talk to Jeffries, but Jim wouldn't have none of it, as he considered the only talking he had to do was in a ring with his fists. And, as the lore goes, the "real" reason Jeffries lost was that some of his closest friends and supporters made the crack that the only way Jeffries could win was if Johnson gave up the title on a dive and it broke his esteem and faith.

But what is true, near the end of Johnson's own life, he finally admitted to reporters (and in his own autobiography supposedly) that he thought Jim Jeffries was the greatest Heavyweight not only of his era, but of all times.

[MEISINGER]

again lets guess off of newspaper articles
no film and a romance with the past

i love fairy tales

[ben geoghegan]

Don't forget Johnson went 26 rds with a mammoth Will-ard for the title laurels. And he was old and fat at the time. Jeff never went 26 rds! Jeff was trained into shape against Johnson and he was not in the fight after the 4th rd. And Johnson was winning his fight on pts against Wil-ard

[Robinson]

I find it interesting that people claim that at 45 rounds or so Jefferies beats any other fighter, simply beacuse the Johnson fight was scheduled for this time. So they ASSUME that because he was intending to last this long that he would be abe to out last anyone else. YET against Johnson he was the one who was slowing up, sure he was rusty and old, but what indication does anyone have on this forum that Jefferies is un-beatable at such a lengthy period.

[MEISINGER]

I find it interesting that people claim that at 45 rounds or so Jefferies beats any other fighter, simply beacuse the Johnson fight was scheduled for this time. So they ASSUME that because he was intending to last this long that he would be abe to out last anyone else. YET against Johnson he was the one who was slowing up, sure he was rusty and old, but what indication does anyone have on this forum that Jefferies is un-beatable at such a lengthy period.

with out film i don't see how anyone can make a logical debate

we are judging him off of newspaper articles

[Robinson]

I agree.

BUT without besting a contemporary over 45 rounds, how can one assume he would beat an ATG under such conditions ?

Kym

[The Great John L]

BUT without besting a contemporary over 45 rounds, how can one assume he would beat an ATG under such conditions ?

Obviously you can’t. Just like you can’t be sure that Johnson would have beaten a prime Jeff. Or for that matter that Ali or Louis would have beaten either of them. It’s all subjective.

However, it is pretty sad to see people actually referencing Jeff’s performance against Johnson as any justification for Johnson being better than Jeff. For comparison, Berbick beat a relatively well trained Ali. Is that any justification for saying that a prime Berbick would beat a prime Ali?

[Ambling Alp]

The Jeffries-Johnson should be thrown out when discussing how good either fighter is or what would have happened had they fought when they both were in their prime. Jeffries was 35 and hadn't fought in 6 years.

As for why some of us think Jeffries would have have had the advantage had a fight between the two (in their prime)had been scheduled for 45 rounds:

Jeffries proved he had incredible stamina. He went 25 rounds with Sharkey in a war. He also beat Corbett in 23 rounds. He went 20 rounds in other fights as well. Even if you don't have much faith in newspaper accounts about Jeffries stamina, just by going that many rounds that many times tells you that he had great stamina. Johnson had great stamina as well, but not quite as good as Jeffries. At times, he did tire out in late rounds.

Jeffries fell way behind in the 1st Corbett and 2nd Fitzsimmons fight. However, he came back to win. The longer the fight, the better his chances. In a 10 or 12 round fight, he would have very little chance to beat Johnson. His chances would get better if it was scheduled for 20 or 25. He would have atleast a 50-50 chance if it was scheduled for 45.

[Robinson]

Granted

but some times walking 10km is not as hard as sprinting 1km.

So simply bu going 20 rounds in what was at the time the norm, a very clinch heavy match.

Its ashame we can not see the film of these great men in the past, I really woild love to see old tough guys like Sullivan fight just to see if th attitude you often associate with him comes across inside the ropes.

Kym

[ben geoghegan]

In the same time frame Jeffries was retired Ali fought norton frazier young spinks shavers holmes, ron lyle. That will wear you out ! & Jeffries wasn't the same as before but Foreman took ten years off came back older and in much worse condition than Jeffries did and won the world title !

[The Great John L]

In the same time frame Jeffries was retired Ali fought norton frazier young spinks shavers holmes, ron lyle. That will wear you out ! & Jeffries wasn't the same as before but Foreman took ten years off came back older and in much worse condition than Jeffries did and won the world title !

Oi Vey. Yes Foreman fought about 20 fights (mostly stiffs) in his comeback prior to stopping Moorer with a decent right after losing almost all of the preceding rounds. Jeff came back with no tune ups and fought Johnson. Now honestly, that doesn’t really seem too relevant, does it?

[HomicideHenry]

Jeff never went 26 rds!

Actually this is wrong. Though fight records declare that Jeffries went 25 rounds with Sharkey in their second encounter it was actually 26 rounds, as the lore goes, because of film reloading requirements. 25 rounds were filmed, but not the 26th round.

Plus, throw in the fact that he went 20 rounds with Sharkey before, 23 rounds with Corbett the first go-around, 20 rounds with Choyinski, etc. Factor in that his first pro fight went 14 rounds...Jeffries had amazing stamina from the get-go, he could have went 30-40 rounds if the situation called for it.

[Robinson]

And naturally because it happened in more modern times the men Foreman faced in his come back were in no way near the same calibre as men that Jefferies would have faced in his magnificent career of giants, super atheletes, men with amateur back grounds, fallen contenders, cagey journeymen or before a bigger world audience.

[HomicideHenry]

And naturally because it happened in more modern times the men Foreman faced in his come back were in no way near the same calibre as men that Jefferies would have faced in his magnificent career of giants, super atheletes, men with amateur back grounds, fallen contenders, cagey journeymen or before a bigger world audience.

Sarcasm doesn't suit you, and that argument is wearing thin and falling on deaf ears because its been heard time and time again in the 125 years of boxing under the Marquis of Queensbury rules!

While I am inclined to my own opinion, it is somewhat assinign to assume that all the older guys were better just because they happened to go passed the 15th round in an era where championship fights were scheduled for 45 rounds or better. I believe the further back you go in boxing history, the more conditioned the fighters were. They had more stamina and endurance, and one muct think also that the guys had to have been tougher considering not only the length of rounds but the equipment and the more intense training regimens and how these guys were having careers of 100 or more fights, they were fighting more frequently.

But on the flipside, I do believe that as time has moved on, the conditioning has went down the toilet, but the technique and speed has improved. The guys today know what the old guys knew and more, and are better skilled. This is true. You can't compare apples to oranges...it would be like saying that Ali could straight out beat John L. Sullivan; how can you compare the 45 minute duration Ali fought under to Sullivan's hour after hour after hour battles? How can you compare the 10 ounce gloves Ali wore to the bare fist or little 3 ounce suckers Sullivan wore?

You can't, not really. Let's just say it is safe to assume that if Sullivan fought Ali under more modern conditions, that Sullivan would more than likely lose on a TKO, and if Ali fought Sullivan bare knuckle and under the London Prize Ring Rules, that Ali would more than likely get the beating of a life time from one of the most sadistic 'street brawlers' in history.

Rufus Homicide Henry Defibaugh

[Goodnight, Irene]

"...Let's just say it is safe to assume that if Sullivan fought Ali under more modern conditions, that Sullivan would more than likely lose on a TKO, and if Ali fought Sullivan bare knuckle and under the London Prize Ring Rules, that Ali would more than likely get the beating of a life time from one of the most sadistic 'street brawlers' in history..." - HomicideHenry

I couldn't agree more. People sometimes get it into their head that the superior fighter would win, & it's as simple as that, when the reality is under the right conditions, the mantle of, "superior fighter" can switch with unexpected swiftness.

Sans a cut stoppage, I have little doubt that a fighter like Ali would come up short against a Sullivan or a Jeffries in a finish fight, with two-ounce gloves, & in blazing heat. That is not a knock on Ali. I'll apply it across the board to other Heavyweight greats as well in many cases.

I'm simply saying --- When the conditions are as extreme as in the old days, the fighter all of us agree is conventionally the superior guy has to do things he never previously had to, & you never know how a man will react when in that position. It's a bit like what I was getting at in the Jones-Charles thread --- to argue Jones would win, you have to accept a leap of faith because he never fought anyone in Charles' league. Ali, Tyson, Holmes & even to an extent Dempsey never fought under the Sullivan-Jeffries era conditions & so you have to accept a leap of faith that they would win. The conditions can sometimes turn the tables.

[theone]

"...Let's just say it is safe to assume that if Sullivan fought Ali under more modern conditions, that Sullivan would more than likely lose on a TKO, and if Ali fought Sullivan bare knuckle and under the London Prize Ring Rules, that Ali would more than likely get the beating of a life time from one of the most sadistic 'street brawlers' in history..." - HomicideHenry

I'd still take Ali in a street fight over Sullivan. Ali possed more skill and speed than Sullivan could have ever imagined a big man (yes Ali would have been back then)l could possess. Ali lands about fifty punches before Sullivan can even think about mounting any offense.

[HomicideHenry]

That may possibly be true, but then again, I think it would actually have been stupid for Ali to have thrown the vast volume of punches he done under the Marquis of Queensbury rules, in a London Prize Ring bout. Without the benefit of gloves, had Ali thrown that many punches, he would have more than likely busted his hand and become useless.

Besides, with the elements of graeco-roman wrestling also allowed under those rules, and a round ending whenever a man was knocked down or thrown down, and the only way to get a KO victory was if you literally knocked the other man out cold or had him to the point of near death...it is hard for me to imagine Ali being able to cope with that, especially when you consider that Sullivan was also one of the strongest men in America and trained by American wrestling legend William Muldoon.

Sullivan would have had more than an advantage over Ali.

It's pretty much the same premise as Frans Botha, Butterbean, Shannon Briggs, Vince Phillips and others making the leap from boxing to MMA, and though they had good careers in the pugilist game, they failed miserably to even put a dent into the MMA world.

Ali threw mostly head shots, always pumping that jab. Had he thrown the volume of punches he done with the gloves on in a bare knuckle fight, he would have ended up breaking his hands. If you notice in alot of the older fight reels, the older guys threw alot of body shots. Primarily all boxing matches were 75% to the body alone, and this was done solely because your hands would be safer.

If anyone recalls the 'Ali vs The All Time Greats' special he done with Howard Cossell, Ali said (when asked if he would fight in John L. Sullivan's time) that he wouldn't have even been a boxer, that it was just way too tough and brutal and he jokingly said that he wouldn't have been so pretty anymore.

[Syntax Error]

Jeffries admitted that he wouldn't have stood a chance against Johnson & although the films are grainy & out of sync, I'm inclined to think that Johnson was too smart & cute for Jeffries.

[dempseyfire]

"...Let's just say it is safe to assume that if Sullivan fought Ali under more modern conditions, that Sullivan would more than likely lose on a TKO, and if Ali fought Sullivan bare knuckle and under the London Prize Ring Rules, that Ali would more than likely get the beating of a life time from one of the most sadistic 'street brawlers' in history..." - HomicideHenry

I'd still take Ali in a street fight over Sullivan. Ali possed more skill and speed than Sullivan could have ever imagined a big man (yes Ali would have been back then)l could possess. Ali lands about fifty punches before Sullivan can even think about mounting any offense.

In a bare knuckle fight, shoe-shine punches aren't really an option.

You have to be selective about your punches b/c one bad shot and your hand is badly damaged and rendered useless.

[Robinson]

Boxers hit harder these days than they did in those bare knuckle days.

The trouble with when Phillips, Botha, Mercer and the likes fought K-1 they did it at an advanced age when they had not taken any training to adapt there game to Kick Boxing in the K-1 arena.

In regards to bare knuckles lets look at Kimbo Slice a man who made himself famous fighting under the old London Prize rings for internet videos. He faced Ray Mercer in MMA and beat Mercer on the ground using pure MMA grappling. NOw had he faced Ray Mercer under 'Kimbos rules' bare knuckl boxing. Mercer would have destroyed him.


I honestly feel that a professional Boxer fighting a bare knuckle guy under there rules wins. The Bro boxer trains with a more complete game, trains for a more intense fight, and works ANGLES !! and Movement.

How the hell would a flat footed prize ring guy who at best hugs and slugs then clinches be able to catch a good moving slippery guy who works the jab and can hook off the jab well ? Let alone head movement.

Now we are not talking about MMA, where you can leg kick, head kick, double leg, single leg and all that jazz but boxing with some greco roman in it.

The old time guys did punch the body more and 'dirty boxed' alot, they clinched alot but did not work in the clinch that well. I think the reason why there punch rates were so low and they clinched alot was not because they had 45 round fights. BUT was because for the most part the training they did not not entail them to be as active. It was not how the game was played.

Punching bare knuckles hurts.

Being punched by a Boxer hurts more.

[HomicideHenry]

It was once said of the Great John L. Sullivan that he could punch a man once and break his jaw. He was a man who not only knocked a man out, but one more than one occassion knocked a man up and over the top rope, not through it.

While they may not have thrown the punches in the volume of fighters from later years, they made each punch count. They trained specifically that whenever an opening was available, they not only hit it, but when they did it made a dent. They more than made sure each punch really counted. That each blow would be the kayo blow. They went out looking to not only break a man's pride and spirit, but his bones as well.

While there was a lot more clinching, and work on the inside, than there is today, it was a sport of power and sheer determination. The stronger, tougher man was the one who was to win.

Sullivan for all intents and purposes had no great defense to speak of, other than to swipe away his opponents punches and to feint and then barrell forward. When he fought Corbett he made complaints that Corbett wasn't fighting 'like a man', that he was scared to fight in Sullivan's style and ways.

Of course, Corbett stuck to his game plan, and won virtually every round and eventually stopped Sullivan in the 21st round. But then again, it was with 3 ounce gloves and under the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Not the London Prize Ring Rules.

But Sullivan even made the same claims when he fought Jake Kilrain, saying that Kilrain was a wrestler and not a boxer, that he was afraid to fight like a man and trade punches. And that was under London Prize rules.

It's all a matter of perception and interpretation. Let's look at it from a completely different angle, would Muhammad Ali have been the successful fighter that he was had he fought more in close with his opponents or fought more as a brawler? Logic says no. But then again we have the Ali die hards who point out how tough Ali was and say he would have still been as great.

It is two completely different worlds, the bare knuckle and the gloved. Sullivan and Mace generally were the only ones who proved that they could have been successful in both 'sports'. Gloves were never made to soften blows, but to protect the hands, so that more punches could be thrown; this is still an issue today when it was passed in some jurisdictions that the smaller weight fighters could wear 10-12 ounce gloves in fights, which can be dangerous, considering such men as Marco Antonio Barrera were on the scene and had brain damage.

I still say, despite the 'advances' in the sport in speed and athleticism and techniques all around, that even the 'greatest' modern fighters wouldn't be able to make a successful transition from the 3 minute, 12 round system we have today to the 'fight to the finish' approach done some 100 years before with bare knuckles and wrestling tactics and rounds ending whenever someone was knocked down or thrown down.

If I recall, it was written of the Sullivan-Kilrain bout, when Kilrain came out for the 76th round his head hung as if his neck was broken and when his handlers threw in the hat he cried like a baby. Sullivan's hands were doubled in size from swelling, had a busted ear, among other injuries, as did Kilrain.

Remember the fight on television some years before, on New Years, and after the guy lost the decision, he sucker punched the victor bare fisted and knocked him out cold? Call it a cheap shot, and that the guy wasn't prepared and that they just went 10 or 12 rounds, but notice the vast difference between what happens with a bare fist and a gloved one?

I would love to see someday a resurgance of London Prize Ring Rules fights in the future. It would be shocking to some, I believe, to see that the top men of the gloved fights, just might not cut it in what was once called "the sport of men", true pugilism (london prize ring rules).