Johnson vs Jeffries

[dr_devious]

I'm currently reading "Unforgiveable Blackness", about how Jack Johnson chased after Jeffries years before they fought. What would have happened if they'd fought in 1904 or 1905, whilst Jeffries was still at his peak?

[raylawpc]

Jeffries.

[dempseyfire]

Johnson

[Goodnight, Irene]

Jeffries.

Yes. Johnson would not have enjoyed the strength advantage (as he did in 1910), & for once (or almost for once), he would be the smaller man trying to hold off a more imposing foe in a title fight, instead of the other way around. Jeffries would've found him & finished him at some point.

[jaclem2]

...fighters say a lot of things in the years when their career is in the past, and i read at least once that jeffries said even in his prime he could not have beaten johnson. fighters are not always the best judges of their own talent, and i think he was wrong and would have won over johnson for the reasons given in a previous post here.

[raylawpc]

...fighters say a lot of things in the years when their career is in the past, and i read at least once that jeffries said even in his prime he could not have beaten johnson. fighters are not always the best judges of their own talent, and i think he was wrong and would have won over johnson for the reasons given in a previous post here.

The most famous misquote in boxing history! Jeffries never said it, but its been attributed to him for years.

[dr_devious]

A split in the consensus here, some go for Jeffries some Johnson. I'm torn on this one, peak for peak I'd say Johnson but I dont think he was at his peak in 1905 - Marvin Hart beat him for example, in 1905 I'd say Jeffries.
Unforgiveable Blackness makes reference to Jeffries saying he could never have beaten Johnson, what did he say Ray?

[jaclem2]

..raylaw...i read it years ago in ring magazine and i'm not sure of where else since. that's all i know about it. if it is a misquote then he must have said something similar that got ...well...misquoted. do you have any idea what the actual quote was?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I'm pretty sure he said that Jack Dempsey could never beat Joe Frazier.

[raylawpc]

..raylaw...i read it years ago in ring magazine and i'm not sure of where else since. that's all i know about it. if it is a misquote then he must have said something similar that got ...well...misquoted. do you have any idea what the actual quote was?

The misquote appeared two days after the fight in one of the LA newspapers. It's problematic for three reasons: (1) The article said that Jeffries made the comment on the train back to California the day after the fight. Yet, all the other newspapers said that Jeffries traveled back to California in seclusion in a private car with his wife, and didn't speak to any reporters. (2) The same story also quotes Jim Corbett's comments on the train trip - problem is, Corbett didn't travel on the same train back to California - indeed, he was heading the opposite direction back to NY and his vaudeville circuit. (3) It would have been the only time Jeffries ever said Johnson would have defeated him. He never said it before or after that.

[NazNaci1]

I think Johnson would have still won this affair, even in 1905.

Johnson style, fighting the (white) HW Champ and prestige would have been surfice motivation, imo, for him to win.

He lost to Marvin Hart (in 1905) but this is a totally different contest and I am not so sure Johnson would be the 'smaller' man here. His physical strength matches up with a prime Jefferies.

[raylawpc]

A split in the consensus here, some go for Jeffries some Johnson. I'm torn on this one, peak for peak I'd say Johnson but I dont think he was at his peak in 1905 - Marvin Hart beat him for example, in 1905 I'd say Jeffries.
Unforgiveable Blackness makes reference to Jeffries saying he could never have beaten Johnson, what did he say Ray?

From the San Francisco Examiner, 7/5/1910, p. 4:

". . .Had I met Johnson when I was in my prime, the result would have been different. I would have beaten him. As it was I wore myself down and was beaten as much by the effects of my own exertions as I was by Johnson's blows."

[raylawpc]

I think Johnson would have still won this affair, even in 1905.

Johnson style, fighting the (white) HW Champ and prestige would have been surfice motivation, imo, for him to win.

He lost to Marvin Hart (in 1905) but this is a totally different contest and I am not so sure Johnson would be the 'smaller' man here. His physical strength matches up with a prime Jefferies.

Doubtful. Johnson's reported weight for the Sam Langford fight in 1906 was around 185 pounds. Jeffries weighed about 220 when he fought Jack Munroe in 1904.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I think Johnson would have still won this affair, even in 1905.

Johnson style, fighting the (white) HW Champ and prestige would have been surfice motivation, imo, for him to win.

He lost to Marvin Hart (in 1905) but this is a totally different contest and I am not so sure Johnson would be the 'smaller' man here. His physical strength matches up with a prime Jefferies.

I would baulk at that.

[NazNaci1]

I think Johnson would have still won this affair, even in 1905.

Johnson style, fighting the (white) HW Champ and prestige would have been surfice motivation, imo, for him to win.

He lost to Marvin Hart (in 1905) but this is a totally different contest and I am not so sure Johnson would be the 'smaller' man here. His physical strength matches up with a prime Jefferies.

I would baulk at that.

That may be your opinion. Seeing as its all hypothical and weight does not necessarily translate to genuine strength, baulking is fine.

Disproving it conclusively and without question, is, another matter.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Oh, I see.

I think Tommy Burns had comparative strength to George Foreman, since it's all hypothetical & weight doesn't translate to genuine strength (as though they were my words to begin with).

Conclusively & without doubt, prove my wrong.

[NazNaci1]

I can't prove you worng, however I am not the one 'baulking'. Your opinion is your opinion. It does not constitute a fact.

No trying to get in a some kind of tit for tat debate here, you disagree fine.

We can leave it there, can't we?

[Goodnight, Irene]

Sure.

[BoxBuzz]

....if you just leave it "there", someone else is going to have to clean up your mess. Not very considerate of others.

[NazNaci1]

.....no need to focus on what has happened before.....focus on what is to come...

Liston v Marciano - Week 5....?

[Goodnight, Irene]

....if you just leave it "there", someone else is going to have to clean up your mess. Not very considerate of others.

Another classic, Buzz. Truly.

[dempseyfire]

Jeffries.

Yes. Johnson would not have enjoyed the strength advantage (as he did in 1910), & for once (or almost for once), he would be the smaller man trying to hold off a more imposing foe in a title fight, instead of the other way around. .

More BS. Like Johnson had been the bigger man vs 6'3 Ed Martin who outweighed Jack by 20 lbs when they met? Or 6'4 220 lb Sandy Ferguson.

Funny you'll bring up someone being used to smaller men here . . Johnson proved throughout his career he could beat men as big or larger than himself, whereas Jefferies greatest victories were over the likes of Fitzimmons, Sharket, Corbett and Ruhlin, all men he outweighed significantly (the 38 year old Jackson was well past his best).

Johnson in 1905 was still on the skinny side as the then life of a traveling fighter allowed, but once he became champ he shot up to a ripped 210 (Ketchel) and even in the 220s still looked solid and carried the weight well (Jim also looked his most "in-shape" at around 210 . . look at pics of him at 206 vs Fitz compared to 218 vs Ruhlin). Johnson was naturally a big man and vs the Galveston Giant Jefferies would be facing a man with the slickness of Choynski (who held Jefferies to a draw) and Corbett but with superior punching power and strength.

[BoxBuzz]

....if you just leave it "there", someone else is going to have to clean up your mess. Not very considerate of others.

Another classic, Buzz. Truly.

Classic 'r Us!

But let's not go and make this about me. I insist that the focus should be on you........the little guy.

[raylawpc]

Jeffries.

Yes. Johnson would not have enjoyed the strength advantage (as he did in 1910), & for once (or almost for once), he would be the smaller man trying to hold off a more imposing foe in a title fight, instead of the other way around. .

More BS. Like Johnson had been the bigger man vs 6'3 Ed Martin who outweighed Jack by 20 lbs when they met? Or 6'4 220 lb Sandy Ferguson.

Funny you'll bring up someone being used to smaller men here . . Johnson proved throughout his career he could beat men as big or larger than himself, whereas Jefferies greatest victories were over the likes of Fitzimmons, Sharket, Corbett and Ruhlin, all men he outweighed significantly (the 38 year old Jackson was well past his best).

Johnson in 1905 was still on the skinny side as the then life of a traveling fighter allowed, but once he became champ he shot up to a ripped 210 (Ketchel) and even in the 220s still looked solid and carried the weight well (Jim also looked his most "in-shape" at around 210 . . look at pics of him at 206 vs Fitz compared to 218 vs Ruhlin). Johnson was naturally a big man and vs the Galveston Giant Jefferies would be facing a man with the slickness of Choynski (who held Jefferies to a draw) and Corbett but with superior punching power and strength.

But we are talking about a Jeffries-Johnson match-up in 1904/05, not 1910. Do you honestly think a 185-190 pound Johnson would have been stronger than a 220 pound Jeffries? Someone who writers at that time described as the strongest man of his era?

I don't think its fair to criticize Jeffries so harshly for a draw against Choynski. Jeff had had less than 8 fights when he fought Choynski, and Jeffries was hampered by a referee who would not allow him to fight inside. Read the Chronicle account of the fight, and DeWitt Van Court's description in his book. But I do not hold it against Johnson that he was poleaxed in 3 rounds by Choynski early in Jack's career.

I challenge your assertion that Johnson had "superior punching power" to Choynski. By all accounts, Choynski was a murderous puncher.

[Giancarlo]

....if you just leave it "there", someone else is going to have to clean up your mess. Not very considerate of others.

Another classic, Buzz. Truly.

Classic 'r Us!

But let's not go and make this about me. I insist that the focus should be on you........the little guy.

Irene surrounded by admiring men; her ultimate fantasy.