Jeffries vs Johnson: Prime Against Prime

[Robinson]

Sucker punching a guy with a clean punch is going to get you a KO most times.

The trouble I have is modern boxing, through the ages with more and more public scrutiny has seen the champions step up and face men from all over the world some real and some phoney as far as being challengers are concerned. In them good old days, alot of fights were limited to halls, and places of isolation when most of the public found out about them via the Police Gazette or some form of printed media.

Going by boasts of some tough guy , and contemporary news paper articles is hard to compare to men whose entire careers are available for scrutiny on film.

To say an old time legend like John L, would beat an Ali is very very hard to put forth an effective argument, when NO ONE has seen what John L was like in the ring. I may as well say that Heracles or Tom Molineux would best John L, because the reports of these men read better in my eyes.

The basic fact also remains that modern athletes are bigger and adept at these sizes and weights compared to those past days. That does make a difference. A Good big guy beats a good small guy.

If James J Corbett is one of the best and boxers in history then, wow. I have seen admitedly only brief clips of him in action. You can see a bit on YouTube now. And the TECHNIQUE and BASUCS he exhibits under MARQUES of QUEENSBURY rules leaves alot to be desired. I am not talking about speed, stuttering or the failings of old film. BUT actual technical skill. I.E swatting with the left and turning your head away. A good left hook.

Please help yourselves to this footage and look at it.

I have tremendous respect for all fighters, those great and those lacking. And those men have a great legacy, but it frustrates me when people put forth arguments that some one could best another without raising any remotely credible points aside from, a bar room boast.
"Ill lick any man in the room"

I gurantee that alot of athletic 90kg men could break alot of mens jaws with a punch. so what ?

From what I have seen on old film, I can not see any evidence of every punch counting.

And how would any of these men done with the transition to say MMA ?

Why would modern greats want to make either a transition to London Prize Rules or MMA ?

London Prize Rules no longer exists, so to say Ali should fight Sullivan under ancient boxing rules is silly, when Sullivan is considered by many to be the first modern boxing HW champion.

I shall look at say more recent examples of long winded epic matches...
Gracie-Sakuraba (90mins), Gracie-Santana (3hrs 45mins), Severn-Shamrock II (45mins), Leopoldo-Severn (45min), Gracie-Kikuda(60mins) to name a few. Then rounds and structure was introduced as was a evolution in the sport with more media acceptance and attention...these were slow tedious, stalling matches.

How action packed and eventful they were. These MMA fights had more in common with London Prize Rules than boxing.

There has been a resurgence of London Prize Rules, simply YouTube Kimbo Slice or Thug fighting. There you essentially have those same rules being followed by less than athletic fighters.

I shall confess that it was an exciting era, with men of men, 'duking' it out with fists, on barges, in marshes on every frontier of man. But that sport evolved into boxing and now we have one of the most disciplined, hardest and skillful sports in the world.

Kym

[HomicideHenry]

Code: Select all

To say an old time legend like John L, would beat an Ali is very very hard to put forth an effective argument, when NO ONE has seen what John L was like in the ring. I may as well say that Heracles or Tom Molineux would best John L, because the reports of these men read better in my eyes. 

Not to change the subject, but I happen to recall years ago on television that some old timers (though never seeing John L in action) claimed and swore up and down that Gentleman Jim Corbett would have beaten Muhammad Ali. While this may be one of those "rose colored glasses" ordeals, I also recall a constant argument I had with my late grandfather when he stated that Joe Louis was the greatest of all time.

I at the time only seen clips of Louis, and from what I seen I wasn't at all impressed in the least bit. All I seen was a slow footed, mechanical guy, who moved like molasses and would quickly change the channel. My grandfather still swore up and down that Louis was the greatest, at least was the greatest fighter from the waist up he had ever seen in action.

So I sat down and forced myself to watch the slow moving man in action against some fighter whose name escapes me, and then it happened. Just like my grandfather said. Punches almost as fast as lightning, combinations coming out of nowhere, the head of his opponent flying around as if the neck was broken and then he hit the canvas. It was all over.

Since then, I've watched practically every fight of Joe Louis's, and followed and read every piece of information I could on him, as well as other fighters.

To me this argument of yours, is a bit like the argument I had with my grandfather when I was ten years old. Just because someone looks like shit on film at first or throughout, or the only thing available is newspaper reports, doesn't mean that person wasn't great.

Take for example, Jack Dempsey. He was voted at one time the greatest fighter of the first half of the 20th century. But if you saw film of him against Tommy Gibbons, you would have thought to yourself how was he? Then you look at his fights with Willard and Firpo and Carpentier.

If that doesn't grab you, let's say Muhammad Ali. If you saw fights of his against Oscar Bonavena, or Alfredo Evangelista or Jimmy Young, you would ponder yourself 'How can people say he was the greatest?', but then you see the Frazier trilogy, the Norton trilogy, the Liston fights, etc.

It's like Mike DeLisa said once, that he at one time had a theory that nobody could beat a man on the day he won the title. Who could have beaten Ali when he defeated Liston or Foreman? Who could have defeated Foreman when he stopped Frazier? Who could have beaten Dempsey when he defeated Willard? Who could have beaten Marciano when he dropped Walcott? Etc, etc, etc.

Fact of the matter is this, boxing, as it is with all sports, is like the game 'telephone'. You tell one person a story, that person tells it to another and so on and so forth. After the story's been told to 20, 40, 100 people, what you get at the end is something completely different than what was started out to be. Take for example, Evel Kinevel. He once said he walked into a bar and heard people say that he jumped the grand canyon (he never did, he attempted snake river and failed) and another said he jumped 100 cars at the LA Coliseum (he in fact jumped 50).

Maybe the truth is, Dempsey, Marciano, Ali, all these guys ain't really the greatest of all time. Sure they put up one helluva fight from time to time, if not all the time. But what the media and the public seen and made it out to be, isn't what really occured. To alot of people Marciano is just a guy who bulled in and took alot of punches and bled all over the place, but what I see is something completely different. When people say Ali was the greatest and point out his dominance in different fights, personally all I see is a guy running away most of the time flicking out a jab, and pushing down on the back of his oppponents head.

Like the saying, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I think perception, taste, opinion, is for the individual, not for the majority. So the argument will always go on, as long as people have the spirit and the hard headedness to want to be their own man/woman.

As far as the whole argument about John L. being just a bar room brawler and that any well conditioned man can break a normal person's jaw, while there may be some water to hold on that argument; the great John L once had a knocking out tour, offering $1,000 dollars to any man who could last 4 rounds with him. The result? Some 200 exhibitions in just a matter of months, no one got the money.

Forget the fact that most of these men were just Joe Blows, that's still 200 men. 200 men who worked as miners, brick layers, lumber jacks, local tough men...these all were well conditioned men in their own right, and you have to figure back then almost EVERY town had a champion of some sort. Boxing was HUGE, and almost every place had a fighter.

I can't name anyone today, who could fight 200 men in just four or six months time, irregardless if they were a world champion or not. 200 men will drain you, irregardless what background they come from.

[Robinson]

I see your point. I never said he was just a bar room brawler as such. But to build your record on tough guys in say the example you gave is very much like the early to mid 1990s MMA guys using there street fighting record to validate there talent and standings. The fact remains against professionals, a career of hundreds of ruffians and thugs means little.

I personally have had a fair few street fights, and in my tyounger days I spent many a time in martial arts clubs 'challenging' instructors and the likes. But this did nothing to help me in my first pro fight, as the jump in level was huge. I really personally dont care for boasts of victory over 'tough guys, brawlers, hard working rogues and the likes. Its almost Tank Abbott like.

I do think that the sport has evolved. But there are always men in most generations that stand heads and shoulders above others, before and after. I am just wary of alot of old time guys who from that period fight the way they do, yet are regarded above men who have shown time and time again athleticism and skill.

I am not trying to argue from ignorance or arrogance, I genuinely do want to learn more about this era, but I do not like to go by 'legends and myth' as I have heard to much of this on a localised level regarding the exploits of individuals outside the professional arena.

Thanks again.

Kym

[ben geoghegan]

You can't argue fighters outside their eras ! Jeffries would be a smaller heavyweight today as he fought most of his fights under 15 st . And most of his opponents wouldn't even be heavyweights ! No amount of technology would change what is plainly happening in the ring on film between Fitz and Corbett. Their science is as crude as the film it was captured on ! As what Corbett was doing was futuristic in comparison to Mendoza. Well the film is proof that the game has developed dramatically ! People like to wax poetic about the glory days of boxing but kindly forget about all the less talented boxers of the past too that made up the ranks of sparring partners and local talent. Someone going into any field of endeavour disregarding 100 years of development is suicidal !

[HomicideHenry]

That may be so, but then again, if you took the old timers into today's time and had them do the newer training regimens and get themselves conditioned to all things modern...who's to say that the older guys couldn't make a successful transition, if not become better than the guys now?

That was an argument that Holyfield once made, when he made the remark that he could have beaten Louis and Marciano, due to the training being so different and techniques being so more advanced; but he did admit that if they were brought into today's era, it would probably be a different story. His argument was that the newer guys know what the old guys did and much more, thus equaling success.

[dempseyfire]

That may be so, but then again, if you took the old timers into today's time and had them do the newer training regimens and get themselves conditioned to all things modern...who's to say that the older guys couldn't make a successful transition, if not become better than the guys now?

That was an argument that Holyfield once made, when he made the remark that he could have beaten Louis and Marciano, due to the training being so different and techniques being so more advanced; but he did admit that if they were brought into today's era, it would probably be a different story. His argument was that the newer guys know what the old guys did and much more, thus equaling success.

It's a MYTH boxers somehow have "advanced" training nowadays. The proof is in the pudding. Look at the stamina of Paul Mag on Saturday night. Then go look at any Willie Pep film (the guy they were comparing him to on the telecast)

Better skills, better stamina, better everything.

Funny logic coming from Holyfield, a fighter who at 45 is basically believing he can reign supreme vs fighters who were in diapers while he was Cruiserweight champion. According to him, all the guys he's facing should be more skilled, stronger, faster etc. than he ever was.

There was about a 10 year time frame (1895-1905ish) which boxing technique was adjusting to the quicker pace and greater punchout afforded by wearing gloves, obviously. The likes of Corbett and Jefferies were not "crude" in any sense . . .they were fighting the type of fight a skilled fighter would fight in 4 ounce horse-leather gloves, on a rock-hard canvas, in a boxing match scheduled for 20 rounds or more. If you transplanted a dancing Ali into 1900 under those conditions with no adjustments he gets beaten up . . badly. Now, after learning and adjusting to the different setup, could he succeed? Of course he could.
In fact, acclimate Corbett into the modern ring, and with the bouncier canvas and bigger gloves, with his style he probably enjoys even more success than he did in his day.

[dempseyfire]

If James J Corbett is one of the best and boxers in history then, wow. I have seen admitedly only brief clips of him in action. You can see a bit on YouTube now. And the TECHNIQUE and BASUCS he exhibits under MARQUES of QUEENSBURY rules leaves alot to be desired. I am not talking about speed, stuttering or the failings of old film. BUT actual technical skill. I.E swatting with the left and turning your head away. A good left hook.

Please help yourselves to this footage and look at it.

IKym

I assume you are referring to the Corbett-Courtney "fight" that was completely staged for the cameras as a means of Edison showcasing his motion picture technology. Corbett is clearly laughing and messing about throughout the film . . he's not displaying his actual technique at all. Looking at his actual fight footage vs Fitz, I would say he looks pretty damn "modern" to me . . lots of lateral movement, double and triple jabs, combinations etc.

[Robinson]

In the Fitzsimmons fight, ashame it was a compression and not the full bout. You see his speed, good jab and footwork.

He was still felled by a 167lber and seemed at times in the clinch to be nearly over powered by the gangly Ruby Rob.

Courtney looked terrible in that ;muck about' Edison clip.

Is there any more Corbett film about the place ?

Kym

[Goodnight, Irene]

"It's a MYTH boxers somehow have "advanced" training nowadays. The proof is in the pudding. Look at the stamina of Paul Mag on Saturday night. Then go look at any Willie Pep film (the guy they were comparing him to on the telecast)

Better skills, better stamina, better everything.

Funny logic coming from Holyfield, a fighter who at 45 is basically believing he can reign supreme vs fighters who were in diapers while he was Cruiserweight champion. According to him, all the guys he's facing should be more skilled, stronger, faster etc. than he ever was.

There was about a 10 year time frame (1895-1905ish) which boxing technique was adjusting to the quicker pace and greater punchout afforded by wearing gloves, obviously. The likes of Corbett and Jefferies were not "crude" in any sense . . .they were fighting the type of fight a skilled fighter would fight in 4 ounce horse-leather gloves, on a rock-hard canvas, in a boxing match scheduled for 20 rounds or more. If you transplanted a dancing Ali into 1900 under those conditions with no adjustments he gets beaten up . . badly. Now, after learning and adjusting to the different setup, could he succeed? Of course he could.
In fact, acclimate Corbett into the modern ring, and with the bouncier canvas and bigger gloves, with his style he probably enjoys even more success than he did in his day." - DempseyFire

Never mind fighters went twenty, twenty-five, forty-plus rounds back in the day. Never mind they did so wearing two-ounce gloves, or no gloves at all. Never mind they did it all in sizzling, middle-of-the-day heat. Never mind they fought hundreds of bouts.

None of them would last two minutes in the twelve-ounce, twelve-round, two-fights-a-year, climate-controlled environments today's warriors endure.

Don't you know anything about, "advancements" Dempsey!?

[dempseyfire]

In the Fitzsimmons fight, ashame it was a compression and not the full bout. You see his speed, good jab and footwork.

He was still felled by a 167lber and seemed at times in the clinch to be nearly over powered by the gangly Ruby Rob.

Courtney looked terrible in that ;muck about' Edison clip.

Is there any more Corbett film about the place ?

Kym

Not that I know of.

I was 165 lbs in my boxing days and often sparred with 175-220 lbers. I absolutely hate to boast but I will say I was pretty strong for my size and had no trouble handling myself in the clinch with the guys up to 200. It was the 200 + guys where the strength difference took its tool. Corbett was something like 187 vs Fitz, I don't think it points to anything that a strong knockout puncher like Fitz at 167 (and this man was a frikkin' blacksmith and probably 10 times as strong as I ever was) could handle the strength of a 185 lber and knock him out, particularly with a body shot to the solar plexus (which landed right can knockout a 8 ft Sasquatch)

[Robinson]

The longer time periods in itself is a deception, a fighter can hide inside a lengthy period. Both guys pace themselves more and you lose that sense of urgency. BUT to go that long is a feat in itself.

Minimal gloves has its plus and minuses.

Fighters today still do it outside and in less than desirable arenas. Wheter in the out door desert of Las Vegas, on the deck of a Carrier, in the rain of an open air stadium (Ive had this experience during a tropical storm), in an arid setting in Mexico or less than famous locales.

Hundreds of bouts ? Jeffries and Corbett certainly don't come in this category.

One could say that the stress of super stardom, a 24hr world, internet and satelite coverage and million dollar purses and contracts can place todays fighters under a different sort of pressure.

The sport has evolved. The sad reality is, that in the last decade or less it seems to have evolved into something un-pleasant.

Kym

[HomicideHenry]

But that's what I've been saying.

In my personal opinion, the championship fights that happen nowadays, would have been considered an exhibition bout or some sort of sparring session back in the turn of the 20th century and prior. The bigger the gloves were, the less 'legit' it seemed back then. That was the logic. The shorter the fight, the less serious it was.

These men back then trained tremendously. This was their life. People can argue today that the guys have the heart and the desire that the old guys had, but you just don't see it ever proven. These men boxed 365 days a year, they ate, breathed and dreamed boxing 24/7.

They didn't take 10 million dollars or more and rest on their asses for eight months or longer and retrain. They were always in shape. Like Jake LaMotta once put it, even when you lose, you are still in shape to fight, so you line yourself up for the next match. Think he was lying? Hell no, he once fought Sugar Ray Robinson twice in a span of six weeks, and probably had a handful of 'tune ups' in between.

That was the mindset of boxers back then. They had to fight hard to make it anywhere in boxing, and fought even harder to stay there. They also knew that they had maybe three to five years to get to the top, and three to five on the way down. If they were ever going to make their mark in the history books, they knew they had to take risks and fight the fights nobody else would.

Why do you think Walker, Fitzsimmons, Conn and other lighter weight boxers move all the way up to Heavyweight? For the money? I am sure that was part of it, back then the Heavyweight crown was considered THE greatest title in all of sports and brought in the bigger money...but back then it was more about proving your worth, letting your actions do your talking for you, and most of all, ones LEGACY.

The harder and rougher, tougher, sounding the rules and regulations sounded, the more heralded the prize was. That was what fighting was all about, it was truly who was the toughest man on the planet, who was the greatest, most durable guy around.

It's something people have forgotten throughout time. People think now of boxing as being a skillful, graceful event, and while that does hold truth, its MMA and the UFC and martial arts that gets the credit as being the most "bad ass" sport in the world, when no more than a couple of decades before, it was boxing.

In the end, people still thrive to see the KO, to see the blood and the tears and the sweat of it all, to see a down and out brawl with punches thrown with bad intentions. Breaking bones and spirits. The way boxers used to be.

How far has the training excelled? If you take away the benefits of anabolic steroids, dieticians to help build muscle and fancy machines, not a whole bunch. There was still road work, there was sparring, there was weight lifting (though it wasnt altogether encouraged), there was resistance training, there was the many hours in the gym with the bags and mitts. Jumping rope, shadow boxing, it was all there. Hell, even weight loss regimens were even there too [how the hell you expect Jeffries to have lost the 100 pounds to fight Johnson?].

If anything at all, the 'science' of learbing to hit without getting hit back has advanced, as had the speed in alot of cases. But if history has proven anything, there hasn't been that many advances in sports. If you wish to be technical, Babe Ruth's home run record hasn't been broken, as nobody has done it in the same amount of time as he has done.

But let's stick to boxing. Take Jeffries, for example. At the turn of the 20th century, he was able to not only go 25 some odd rounds in the ring, but able to run the 100 yard dash in a little over 10 seconds. He was also able to do a high jump of over six feet. For a 'old time athlete' he is still nothing short of amazing.

The world record for the 100 yard dash as of now? 9 seconds. Now mind you, Jim Jeffries was 226 pounds and wasn't a track and field athlete. The man who held the record at 9 seconds was a trained sprinter, and more than likely weighed a hell of a lot less than Jeffries. The world record for the high jump as of now? 2.45 meteres. Again, these were all conditioned athletes solely training in track and field, while Jeffries was not.

Let's look at some records in boxing that have yet to be broken:

Fastest KO in a Heavyweight title fight- 55 seconds of the 1st round*

49-0 (43)- Rocky Marciano, only undefeated Heavyweight champion

25 successful title defenses, 11 years plus title reign (Joe Louis)

*Jim Jeffries still holds this record


It's been 52 years since Marciano, 59 years since Joe Louis, and 108 years since Jeffries knocked out Jack Finnegan in 55 seconds. With all the "advances" in boxing as some have suggested, wouldn't by now someone be able to have beaten some of these records?

They say the heavyweights are bigger and stronger and better now than the guys of the past, that Marciano, Louis, and the like were too small to contend with them today, but if this was true, why hasn't there been these break throughs? Valuev failed miserably to tie Marciano (some could argue even if he did, it wouldnt have counted as he had NC's and got gift decisions while Marciano didn't).

In the end its all about circumstances. If the rules and situations were altered, made different, it is plausible that the unthinkable could occur. To me its not too far out of the relm of possibility.

Rufus Homicide Henry Defibaugh

[Goodnight, Irene]

But that's what I've been saying.

In my personal opinion, the championship fights that happen nowadays, would have been considered an exhibition bout or some sort of sparring session back in the turn of the 20th century and prior. The bigger the gloves were, the less 'legit' it seemed back then. That was the logic. The shorter the fight, the less serious it was.

These men back then trained tremendously. This was their life. People can argue today that the guys have the heart and the desire that the old guys had, but you just don't see it ever proven. These men boxed 365 days a year, they ate, breathed and dreamed boxing 24/7.

They didn't take 10 million dollars or more and rest on their asses for eight months or longer and retrain. They were always in shape. Like Jake LaMotta once put it, even when you lose, you are still in shape to fight, so you line yourself up for the next match. Think he was lying? Hell no, he once fought Sugar Ray Robinson twice in a span of six weeks, and probably had a handful of 'tune ups' in between.

That was the mindset of boxers back then. They had to fight hard to make it anywhere in boxing, and fought even harder to stay there. They also knew that they had maybe three to five years to get to the top, and three to five on the way down. If they were ever going to make their mark in the history books, they knew they had to take risks and fight the fights nobody else would.

Why do you think Walker, Fitzsimmons, Conn and other lighter weight boxers move all the way up to Heavyweight? For the money? I am sure that was part of it, back then the Heavyweight crown was considered THE greatest title in all of sports and brought in the bigger money...but back then it was more about proving your worth, letting your actions do your talking for you, and most of all, ones LEGACY.

The harder and rougher, tougher, sounding the rules and regulations sounded, the more heralded the prize was. That was what fighting was all about, it was truly who was the toughest man on the planet, who was the greatest, most durable guy around.

It's something people have forgotten throughout time. People think now of boxing as being a skillful, graceful event, and while that does hold truth, its MMA and the UFC and martial arts that gets the credit as being the most "bad ass" sport in the world, when no more than a couple of decades before, it was boxing.

In the end, people still thrive to see the KO, to see the blood and the tears and the sweat of it all, to see a down and out brawl with punches thrown with bad intentions. Breaking bones and spirits. The way boxers used to be.

How far has the training excelled? If you take away the benefits of anabolic steroids, dieticians to help build muscle and fancy machines, not a whole bunch. There was still road work, there was sparring, there was weight lifting (though it wasnt altogether encouraged), there was resistance training, there was the many hours in the gym with the bags and mitts. Jumping rope, shadow boxing, it was all there. Hell, even weight loss regimens were even there too [how the hell you expect Jeffries to have lost the 100 pounds to fight Johnson?].

If anything at all, the 'science' of learbing to hit without getting hit back has advanced, as had the speed in alot of cases. But if history has proven anything, there hasn't been that many advances in sports. If you wish to be technical, Babe Ruth's home run record hasn't been broken, as nobody has done it in the same amount of time as he has done.

But let's stick to boxing. Take Jeffries, for example. At the turn of the 20th century, he was able to not only go 25 some odd rounds in the ring, but able to run the 100 yard dash in a little over 10 seconds. He was also able to do a high jump of over six feet. For a 'old time athlete' he is still nothing short of amazing.

The world record for the 100 yard dash as of now? 9 seconds. Now mind you, Jim Jeffries was 226 pounds and wasn't a track and field athlete. The man who held the record at 9 seconds was a trained sprinter, and more than likely weighed a hell of a lot less than Jeffries. The world record for the high jump as of now? 2.45 meteres. Again, these were all conditioned athletes solely training in track and field, while Jeffries was not.

Let's look at some records in boxing that have yet to be broken:

Fastest KO in a Heavyweight title fight- 55 seconds of the 1st round*

49-0 (43)- Rocky Marciano, only undefeated Heavyweight champion

25 successful title defenses, 11 years plus title reign (Joe Louis)

*Jim Jeffries still holds this record


It's been 52 years since Marciano, 59 years since Joe Louis, and 108 years since Jeffries knocked out Jack Finnegan in 55 seconds. With all the "advances" in boxing as some have suggested, wouldn't by now someone be able to have beaten some of these records?

They say the heavyweights are bigger and stronger and better now than the guys of the past, that Marciano, Louis, and the like were too small to contend with them today, but if this was true, why hasn't there been these break throughs? Valuev failed miserably to tie Marciano (some could argue even if he did, it wouldnt have counted as he had NC's and got gift decisions while Marciano didn't).

In the end its all about circumstances. If the rules and situations were altered, made different, it is plausible that the unthinkable could occur. To me its not too far out of the relm of possibility.

Rufus Homicide Henry Defibaugh

Excellently articulated. It's actually depressing to think there are people out there who could read this right through & just shake it off with a, "Meh." They're right & that's that.

Even looking outside boxing & at human history in general, every generation confidently declares itself smarter, more capable, just flat-out better --- they even boast this --- right before embarking on their own glorious list of f--- ups.

The, "advancements" often spoken of with little thought have merit in many areas. But they fall down in even more. I didn't realise Jeffries held the mantle for the fastest KO in a title bout, though. I thought that was Foreman's record, set against Jose Roman in '73. There you go.

[HomicideHenry]

The, "advancements" often spoken of with little thought have merit in many areas. But they fall down in even more. I didn't realise Jeffries held the mantle for the fastest KO in a title bout, though. I thought that was Foreman's record, set against Jose Roman in '73. There you go.

Foreman-Roman occured at the 2:00 mark of the 1st round, at least that is how the records show on that particular night.

Even looking outside boxing & at human history in general, every generation confidently declares itself smarter, more capable, just flat-out better --- they even boast this --- right before embarking on their own glorious list of f--- ups.

It is funny that you mention that. Reminded me of a stand up comedian I seen recently on television who made the crack that a couple of people on a computer announced that Einstein was wrong, therefore wasn't as intelligent as once thought, when they themselves hadn't put in the years and years or hard work and research that Einstein did. But it is true, it does seem that as time goes on, there seems to be a growing want and desire to get the greatest of rewards for the littlest amount of effort. And that attitude goes all across the board, and not just in sports.

Rufus Homicide Henry Defibaugh

[ben geoghegan]

According to this website Jack Finnegan had one win in six fights going into his fight with Jeffries, against a guy with one win in 7 fights, and that win came against a guy with no wins ! It was also Finnegan's last fight. He had no business challenging for the world title ! Staying a whole 55 seconds with the undefeated world champion is a testament to Finnegan more than Jeffries ! He even landed a punch. If a champion fought an opponent of this level today the media and public would smear his name. What happened to the old virtue of the true mettle of a man being tested in his courage in being pitted against the best, not gaining credit for taking advantage of a helpless opponent.

[HomicideHenry]

BoxRec records are not entirely accurate, mind you. Though it is true, that Finnegan was somewhat inexperienced. The fight was put on as a precursor to the first Corbett fight, I believe. It was done to make the Corbett fight look and appear to be even more bigger, to make both Jeffries and Corbett look like the best of the best.

Nonetheless, he had to have been something, else it never would have went down as a Heavyweight title fight. Its somewhat like when Burns fought Roche and for many, many years it appeared that Roche only had one or two fights to his credit, that he wasn't nothing, then to find out he had some thirty some bouts and was multiple times the champion of Ireland.

[ben geoghegan]

That's true but I don't think anyone will be finding any lost fights vs Maher, Armstrong, Childs, Sharkey.

And I always knew Jim Roche was a tough fighter !

[dempseyfire]

That's true but I don't think anyone will be finding any lost fights vs Maher, Armstrong, Childs, Sharkey.

!

Why not??

I have no doubt the likes of Armstrong and Childs have incomplete records . . probably all 4 of them.

[The Great John L]

That's true but I don't think anyone will be finding any lost fights vs Maher, Armstrong, Childs, Sharkey.

!

Why not??

I have no doubt the likes of Armstrong and Childs have incomplete records . . probably all 4 of them.

Of course you do, because you are a reasonable and knowledgeable poster who puts some effort into your opinions.

[Ambling Alp]

In regard to Jeffries KO of Finnegan, I had never heard that Jeffries had the record. This fight isn't usually regarded as a title fight, though I just noticed that the IBHOF Record book does list it as a title defense. The other record books that I checked don't consider it a title fight.

I had always heard the record was by Tommy Burns (most people didn't count the Ali-Liston fight since it was incorrectly given by the timekeeper at 1 minute; it should have been about 1 minute and 40 seconds).
Then, Dokes stopped Weaver in less time to break Burn's record.

I'm curious if there is any other sources that considers the Finnegan fight a title fight.

[HomicideHenry]

Cyber Boxing Zone considers the Finnegan fight to be a legit Heavyweight championship of the world contest; whether that would hold water with anyone here, that's another story altogether, but it does make a confirmation that somewhere other than this site, that the Finnegan bout was for the title.

[Ambling Alp]

It makes you wonder if someone "discovered" that the Finnegan-Jeffries fight was a title fight just in the last few years. Maybe it was indeed a title fight after all but for some reason it wasn't considered one in the past.

It seems strange that you used to hear that Burns had the record and never heard anything about Jeffries-Finnegan. I also remember it being said that Dokes-Weaver was the new record and it was Burns record that was broke.
Btw-Dokes-Weaver was 1 minute and 3 seconds.
I am going to try to dig deeper at different sources and see what I find. It's not really that important but it's kind of interesting.

[Robinson]

I printed an article from the net about Jefferies and it said something about that fight being
"an Exhibition of pugilism" before the Corbett fight.

Whether that is just the language used, or whether it is suggesting its a non-title affair. No idea.

Will try to google and URL the article.

Kym

[HomicideHenry]

It's like alot of fights that seem to turn up throughout the years. There was always rumors that there was a 26th title defense of Joe Louis, only to find out it was an exhibition bout (with judges) and the NYSA title was on the line. Or maybe a better example is how many experts used to say Dempsey never fought a black heavyweight ever in his career, but now you look at updated records and find out he had at least two known bouts early on in his career when he was still riding the rails as a hobo.

Or maybe even a better example, is the "secret bout" that took place in Canada while Dempsey was champion, and while supposedly doing exhibitions, took a big money bout for a bunch of gamblers against Jack Johnson who just happened to be in the Klondike as well. Supposedly what happened next was a kayo victory for Dempsey in the seventh or either round, after being knocked down himself. Only a faded newspaper clipping (who knows if its a hoax or not) and the word of Dempsey's illegitimate son is the only evidence of that fight.

A few other fights of Jeffries that have appeared, but never were confirmed, was two bouts against Frank Childs and Denver Ed Martin, both kayo victories for Jeffries. But these bouts have no confirmation, just were reported.

As for the Jeffries-Finnegan bout, here's what I found on it, though it is not in the detail that I would have liked to have shown to you all:

"Finnegan landed the first blow as they came to the center of the ring, and Jeffries then put his left on the Pittsburgh man's jaw and he went to the floor. Finnegan came up in a few seconds only to be sent to the floor again with a blow in the same place. He stayed down longer this time and when he again rose he was in visible distress. He had hardly assumed a fighting position before the champion put his left in the pit of his stomach and Finnegan went down completely out. Referee Siler counted the seconds off and when he stepped back it was seen that Finnegan was crying. He staggered to his feet, reeled against the ropes and his seconds rushed into the ring and carried him to his corner. It was several minutes before he recovered sufficiently to leave the ring. Jeffries said he weighed 220, but he looked 30 pounds heavier. Finnegan weighed but 180, and he looked like a boy beside the champion."

- Brooklyn Daily Eagle

The fight to the best of my knowledge, the way I always understood it to be, was to be a message sent to Jim Corbett, who had done made several unflattering remarks and commentary against Jeffries, saying that he could easily out box Jeffries and regain the title. Jeffries beat the shit out of Finnegan, and made it loud and clear that Corbett was who he wanted next.

I guess the long and the short of it is, it could be compared in ways to Johnson's first 'bout' after he defeated Tommy Burns, when he beat white hope Victor McLaglen to a pulp inside of six rounds, and though labeled as an exhibition it was also boasted as for the world title. Mind you, old timers such as Nat Fliescher and others used to always state that exhibition or not, the title in some form or another was always on the line, that if the champion was lackluster, that something was 'lost' or better yet 'taken' from the champ.

Finnegan, as far as I understand, while he was a heavy under-dog, was still a name out there in the sport. But, then again, later on Jeffries would have a tour of England in 1900 and would knock out 50 men on the tour, and though they are not included on his statistics, it was always talked up how he once fought the three best heavyweights in England all in one day and knocked them all out.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Too bad boxing didn't start four or five decades later than it did. We'd have decent footage of everyone, from Sullivan onward.