Johnson vs Jeffries

[Goodnight, Irene]

You really are a darling, Collette

[dempseyfire]

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.

I'm not giving Choynski much flak for the Choynski draw, but his struggles with the latter plus Corbett and Fitz (in the rematch) show he had his issues with boxers. Hell, even Bob Armstrong, a very good but not great rangy black boxer, made Jefferies look extremely average when they fought.

And yes, I think Johnson hit harder than Choynski, without a doubt.

[raylawpc]

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.

I'm not giving Choynski much flak for the Choynski draw, but his struggles with the latter plus Corbett and Fitz (in the rematch) show he had his issues with boxers. Hell, even Bob Armstrong, a very good but not great rangy black boxer, made Jefferies look extremely average when they fought.

And yes, I think Johnson hit harder than Choynski, without a doubt.

You need to read more from contemporaneous newspapers.

1. Jeffries suffered a badly broken hand in the Armstrong fight.

2. Read the inside story from the Police Gazette. You'll find that Jeffries' chief second - Tommy Ryan - had Jeffries attempt to outbox Corbett over the first 19 rounds until Jeff's manager, Billy Brady, had Ryan removed from the corner. Brady told Jeff he had to "cut loose" and knock Corbett out to win. Four rounds later Corbett was out. (Ryan did the same thing when working with Tom Sharkey against Kid McCoy, and McCoy outboxed Sharkey for nine rounds until Sharkey said, "The hell with this," began pressing McCoy, and knocked the Kid out in the 10th.

3. Jeff manhandled Corbett in the rematch.

4. Fitz certainly cut Jeffries up in the 1902 rematch, but there were rumors that Fitz may have loaded up his gloves. Further, the ring was built with flimsy thin lumber and Jeff had difficulty getting his footing. (He described it as like fighting on a beach.) Yet Jeff won!

[jaclem2]

..raylaw..thanks for the information re: the jeffries quote. I did read it thogh in an article by Nat fleischer, although i don't remember now what source nat gave for it. fleischer always said jack johnson was the greatest heavy champion ever, so maybe he was putting words in jeffries mouth.

[raylawpc]

You're welcome. When Jeff turned 75 in 1950, they had a big celebration for him in Burbank, and Fleischer traveled out to California to attend and then write a series of articles about Jeff for the Ring. At one point, Fleischer got into a bit of a row with Jeff when he tried to get Jeff to agree that Johnson was the best heavyweight of all time, and Jeff refused.

[jaclem2]

..raylaw..thanks again. knowing fleischer's biases i can see how he made the statement he did and that's probably where i read it.From reading about jeffries in general when i first started following boxing in the mid-40s i thought jeffries was the best of the early champions and i still do.

[Goodnight, Irene]

..raylaw..thanks again. knowing fleischer's biases i can see how he made the statement he did and that's probably where i read it.From reading about jeffries in general when i first started following boxing in the mid-40s i thought jeffries was the best of the early champions and i still do.

How would he do with Dempsey?

[raylawpc]

Tex Rickard - who knew and was friends with both men - said that Jeff would have beaten Dempsey.

I think that, in a 25-round fight, if Jeff could survive Dempsey's early onslaught, Jeff would probably take him in the later rounds. A prime v. prime Jeffries-Dempsey match would have been a fight for the ages - boxing's version of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.

[Crease]

Regardless of what Fleischer or Rickard say, they canonly give their opinions and as such, they shouldn't be held in great regard or set-in-stone as it were.

In my opinion I think Johnson still would have beaten him. Yes Jeffries was making a comeback, but he wasn't that old (25?)
Both fighters drew fights which they maybe would have been expected to have won by that's the way boxing goes.

[raylawpc]

You're right. It's only an opinion. But I put a lot of stock in the opinion of Tex Rickard, who knew both men and saw both in their primes. With all due respect, if I have to choose between your opinion or Rickard's, I'll take Tex's.

(BTW, Jeff was 35 years old - not "25?" - in 1910. More importantly, he hadn't had a fight in six years.)

[Seamus]

and he lost something like 70 lbs for the fight.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Jeffries 25, WTF!? LOL.

[Crease]

You're right. It's only an opinion. But I put a lot of stock in the opinion of Tex Rickard, who knew both men and saw both in their primes. With all due respect, if I have to choose between your opinion or Rickard's, I'll take Tex's.

There's no need to get personal about this... But As I said before Rickard's opinion is just that, an opinion.
Can you honestly tell me that just because Rickard knew both men, that means he could predict without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, 100% certainty who would win?
Of course not, it just doesn't make sence.

No-one knows, no one can say for sure.

I have met Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson in the past... But that doesn't mean I know with 100% positivity who would win if they ever fought.

[Crease]

(BTW, Jeff was 35 years old - not "25?" - in 1910.

Jeffries 25, WTF!? LOL.

Indeed, he was it was a typo.

[Crease]

Jeff was 35 years old - not "25?" - in 1910. More importantly, he hadn't had a fight in six years.

and he lost something like 70 lbs for the fight.

Yeah but 35, isn't exactly ancient is it? Especially in the Heavyweight division.
Does anyone on here really think that Jeffries would have fought if he didn't think he could win?
The fact that he lost all that weight actually shows that he had been working hard in the gym.


Johnson wins, every time I reckon.

[Goodnight, Irene]

At 35, losing about 100lbs and taking a fight for the first time in six years is about what Id call the definition of ancient.

[Crease]

At 35, losing about 100lbs and taking a fight for the first time in six years is about what Id call the definition of ancient.

At 35, losing about 100lbs and taking a fight for the first time in six years is about what Id call the definition of ancient.

You are starting to exhaggerate now.
Erlier in this thread someone said he lost 70lbs for the fight, now you're coming out with 100?

[Goodnight, Irene]

The point is he was one of the finest breathing examples you could find through history.

[kal.majeed]

This is a good choice for a match-up and a rather easy one to evaluate (check out my other post “The Secret to Fantasy Boxer Match-ups Revealed” for additional details). Analysis: In 1904, a just turned 26 year-old Jack Johnson successfully defends his World Colored HW title by giving top contender Sam McVey his first career stoppage loss (KO 20); that same year, 29 year-old World HW champion James J. Jeffries successfully defends his title by giving top contender Jack Munroe his first (and only) career stoppage loss (TKO 2). Although there are numerous variables and intangibles involved, there are no major differences in the peak year or (at that time) quality of competition; the only significant difference is the level of win; based on that difference, removing McVey and Munroe, and putting that exact Johnson against that exact Jeffries – who wins? Jeffries TKO 20 Johnson.

Note: In 1905, just one year later, Johnson suffers the only (non DQ) loss (PTS 20) that he will have for a decade - to future World HW champion Marvin Hart (29 years-old at the time); therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that if Hart (at the same age as Jeffries) can defeat Johnson via a 20 round decision, Jeffries can (at least) stop Johnson within that distance. A more intriguing match-up may actually be between Jeffries and Hart – at that time; this one (in 1905) fairly appears to be a “draw” (D 20) – perhaps, Jeffries scores a knockdown.

Bonus: If Jeffries stays on for another year, a 1906 Tommy Burns is equally likely to successfully use a ‘psyop’ strategy to pull off an upset win (PTS 20) over a 1906 champion Jeffries (since Jeffries and Hart are virtually equal at that time); Burns embarks on a world tour with nearly a dozen successful title defenses in just two years – before losing (PTS 14) to Johnson; Jeffries tries to regain the title (in 1910) but instead suffers his first (and only) career stoppage loss (Johnson TKO 15 Jeffries). It appears that history does not change much if Jeffries decides to stay on – instead of retiring to his ranch and later making an ill-fated comeback.

With reference to Jeffries’ weight loss for the Johnson bout, it appears (from the three articles below) that it was around a 100 pound loss.

http://3morerounds.com/columns/when-is- ... k-johnson/

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/jeffries.html

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... ._Jeffries

[raylawpc]

You're right. It's only an opinion. But I put a lot of stock in the opinion of Tex Rickard, who knew both men and saw both in their primes. With all due respect, if I have to choose between your opinion or Rickard's, I'll take Tex's.

There's no need to get personal about this... But As I said before Rickard's opinion is just that, an opinion.
Can you honestly tell me that just because Rickard knew both men, that means he could predict without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, 100% certainty who would win?
Of course not, it just doesn't make sence.

No-one knows, no one can say for sure.

I have met Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson in the past... But that doesn't mean I know with 100% positivity who would win if they ever fought.

Of course no one knows for sure . . . didn't I write that it was just an opinion?

Tex Rickard was a knowledgable boxing man. He knew both men as personal friends, he saw both men fight live in their primes, he watched them train, he knew how they thought and understood their personalities. Of course I'm going to give more weight to his opinion than to yours or anybody else's on this forum. That's not personal . . . its common sense.

[Crease]

Of course no one knows for sure . . .

Tex Rickard was a knowledgable boxing man. He knew both men as personal friends, he saw both men fight live in their primes, he watched them train, he knew how they thought and understood their personalities. Of course I'm going to give more weight to his opinion than to yours or anybody else's on this forum. That's not personal . . . its common sense.

There is no logic in your argument... You arec ontradicting yourself.
Yo first say that no-one knows for sure, yet later admit that you would lean heavier on Rcikard's opinion.
Even after admitting that no one knows.
There's no common sence to that at all.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Of course no one knows for sure . . .

Tex Rickard was a knowledgable boxing man. He knew both men as personal friends, he saw both men fight live in their primes, he watched them train, he knew how they thought and understood their personalities. Of course I'm going to give more weight to his opinion than to yours or anybody else's on this forum. That's not personal . . . its common sense.

There is no logic in your argument... You arec ontradicting yourself.
Yo first say that no-one knows for sure, yet later admit that you would lean heavier on Rcikard's opinion.
Even after admitting that no one knows.
There's no common sence to that at all.

Is this the dumbest post of 2011? I should think the spelling of, "sence," seals the deal.

[Seamus]

Do a little research into who were the top 10 Heavyweights between 1908-1915, and see how many of them Jack Johnson fought during his title reign. And yet this guy still get's passed off as one of the greatest heavies of alltime.

[raylawpc]

Of course no one knows for sure . . .

Tex Rickard was a knowledgable boxing man. He knew both men as personal friends, he saw both men fight live in their primes, he watched them train, he knew how they thought and understood their personalities. Of course I'm going to give more weight to his opinion than to yours or anybody else's on this forum. That's not personal . . . its common sense.

There is no logic in your argument... You arec ontradicting yourself.
Yo first say that no-one knows for sure, yet later admit that you would lean heavier on Rcikard's opinion.
Even after admitting that no one knows.
There's no common sence to that at all.

Let me make it plain to you so you can understand: An opinion is just that; it is not a fact. In many instances, as here, an opinion cannot even be proven as true or false.

But there are different degrees of opinion:

Thoughtful opinions by experts, which carry a lot of weight with reasonable people (like Tex Rickard's opinion), and

Silly opinions by ninnys, which don't carry much weight with reasonable people (like your opinion).

Are we clear now? (And, yes, now I'm getting personal.)

[BoxBuzz]

Crease, Ray is a seasoned and reasonable contributor.

Just helpin' ya get your bearing's here.