Prime James J. Jeffries Vs. Jack Johnson

[BitPlayer]

I know this is an old topic but I was thinking about it and fvck it.

I think this fight would basically just be attritional, especially if scheduled for 45 rounds like their actual fight, and I think that makes the true outcome nearly impossible to predict. Both had gone beyond the 20th round, and I think this fight likely would too. Johnson was certainly the smarter fighter at waring opponents down, and would have fought more defensively, and that would give him a decent advantage. However while shorter Jeffries often fought and a slightly hi gher weight, add to that Johnson had put on a lot more of his weight, and I wonder if that would have helped him. So who would have won, the agressive hard hitting Jeffries with some physical edge, or the smarter defensive Johnson? Johnson would like win earlier rounds, but Jeffries had turned things around more than once in his career. Ultimately I think there's a good chance it would've turned into a stalemate with neither really able to fight on similar to the Peter Jackson - Corbet fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

Always an interesting what if. I don't think it would be a stalemate. Jeffries was too aggressive for that. Jeffries had tremendous stamina. However, Johnson usually fought at a slow pace and would wilt like some people might think.
Pacing is a crucial part of lasting a long time, it's not all about not just conditioning.

He fought several 20 round fights and lasted until the 26th against Willard when he was way past it. It probably would be a fight with occasional fireworks but mostly fairly slow pace with a lot of clinching. I think Johnson takes this more often than not.

[APerno]

Johnson by late KO; or Johnson by UD (if that was available at the time).

[Kalan]

Johnson would dominate... He probably would have beaten any Heavyweight up through the 1960's.

A peak Holmes would have beaten JJ...and Lewis beats him... The Klitschko's would take him... Ortiz beats him... Joshua is the only guy who stops him.

[Mr.DW]

Johnson dominated Jeffries their entire fight. I can't imagine it being much different. Imo Jeffries is overrated. He never fought anyone like Johnson and the guys he did fight were past prime. His best win is over a bleeding middleweight!

Johnson by KO and proves to be his master every stage of the fight.

[BitPlayer]

Johnson dominated Jeffries their entire fight. I can't imagine it being much different. Imo Jeffries is overrated. He never fought anyone like Johnson and the guys he did fight were past prime. His best win is over a bleeding middleweight!

Johnson by KO and proves to be his master every stage of the fight.

When did Johnson ever beat anyone like a peak Jeffries? Johnson's best win was Tommy Burns, who was little bigger than Fitz, signficantly shorter, and not nearly as highly regarded P4P.

[Mr.DW]

When did Johnson ever beat anyone like a peak Jeffries? Johnson's best win was Tommy Burns, who was little bigger than Fitz, signficantly shorter, and not nearly as highly regarded P4P.

Johnson has wins over Mcvea, Burns, Jeanette, Langford, Frank Moran and James J Jeffries himself. Like I said, I just don't think Jeffries would have done much better in his prime than he did past prime. Both resume's are weak but Johnson's is better.

[Seamus]

Langford was only 155 when Johnson beat him. Johnson wanted no part of him when he got bigger. McVea and Jeannette hadn't peaked when he fought them either, and Johnson's win over Jeffries was meaningless.

[APerno]

Johnson would dominate... He probably would have beaten any Heavyweight up through the 1960's.

A peak Holmes would have beaten JJ...and Lewis beats him... The Klitschko's would take him... Ortiz beats him... Joshua is the only guy who stops him.

Well, he had some difficulty with Willard.

[Mr.DW]

Langford was only 155 when Johnson beat him. Johnson wanted no part of him when he got bigger. McVea and Jeannette hadn't peaked when he fought them either, and Johnson's win over Jeffries was meaningless.

Langford beat plenty of other heavyweights at around that weight. I doubt added weight on his frame would have done much good. Fair point about McVea and Jeannette.

The Jeffries fight was not meaningless. Both were into their 30s and Johnson completely dominated Jeffries every step of the fight. Someone who was supposed to have inhuman strength, stamina of a bull, and a cast iron chin shouldn't have done as poorly as he did. He looked like an amateur out there. Even prime Jeffries struggled madly with a middleweight and a mid 30s Corbett who relied on speed. Just look at the size advantages he enjoyed over those two men. He averaged a 36 lb advantage over 4 fights. An apparently fast, terrific stamina, great chin, and great power/punching ability struggled with guys he should have croaked in less than 4.

No way does he beat a prime Johnson. Johnson is a far better heavyweight than Corbett and Fitz ever were.

[BitPlayer]

Langford was only 155 when Johnson beat him. Johnson wanted no part of him when he got bigger. McVea and Jeannette hadn't peaked when he fought them either, and Johnson's win over Jeffries was meaningless.

Langford beat plenty of other heavyweights at around that weight. I doubt added weight on his frame would have done much good. Fair point about McVea and Jeannette.

You can hardly argue using Fitz's weight, then dismiss Langford's much lower weight, especially when Fitz was much more established as a heavyweight fighter during their respective fights.

The Jeffries fight was not meaningless. Both were into their 30s and Johnson completely dominated Jeffries every step of the fight. Someone who was supposed to have inhuman strength, stamina of a bull, and a cast iron chin shouldn't have done as poorly as he did. He looked like an amateur out there.

He had to lose 100lbs in a single camp aged 35, and hadn't fought in 6 years, of course he was a mess. Imagine judging a prime David Haye based on his fight with Tony Bellew, he looked very amateurish there too.

Even prime Jeffries struggled madly with a middleweight and a mid 30s Corbett who relied on speed. Just look at the size advantages he enjoyed over those two men. He averaged a 36 lb advantage over 4 fights. An apparently fast, terrific stamina, great chin, and great power/punching ability struggled with guys he should have croaked in less than 4.

Struggled with a mid 30's Corbett? Here's a description of their fight when Corbett was 36 (one year old than Jeffries during his fight with Johnson)

James J. Jeffries, champion heavyweight of the world, played with Jim Corbett for nine rounds and a half tonight and then Corbett's seconds motioned Referee Graney to stop the fight in order to save their man from needless punishment.

So I'm guessing you must be refering to their first fight was Corbett was 33 (one year older than Johnson in his fight with Jeffries). But considering this desciption, and just how skilled Corbett was, there's little shame in having trouble with him.

Corbett emerged from a year's retirement from the ring rejuvenated and fresh. He was as fast and clever as back in the days when people marveled at his skill. His footwork was wonderful and his defense perfect.

As for Fitz, even aged 41 he beat Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, who the Newspapers only gave a prime Jack Johnson a draw against

No way does he beat a prime Johnson. Johnson is a far better heavyweight than Corbett and Fitz ever were.

Why? Because you say so?

[Mr.DW]

Langford beat plenty of other heavyweights at around that weight. I doubt added weight on his frame would have done much good. Fair point about McVea and Jeannette.

You can hardly argue using Fitz's weight, then dismiss Langford's much lower weight, especially when Fitz was much more established as a heavyweight fighter during their respective fights.

The Jeffries fight was not meaningless. Both were into their 30s and Johnson completely dominated Jeffries every step of the fight. Someone who was supposed to have inhuman strength, stamina of a bull, and a cast iron chin shouldn't have done as poorly as he did. He looked like an amateur out there.

He had to lose 100lbs in a single camp aged 35, and hadn't fought in 6 years, of course he was a mess. Imagine judging a prime David Haye based on his fight with Tony Bellew, he looked very amateurish there too.

Even prime Jeffries struggled madly with a middleweight and a mid 30s Corbett who relied on speed. Just look at the size advantages he enjoyed over those two men. He averaged a 36 lb advantage over 4 fights. An apparently fast, terrific stamina, great chin, and great power/punching ability struggled with guys he should have croaked in less than 4.

Struggled with a mid 30's Corbett? Here's a description of their fight when Corbett was 36 (one year old than Jeffries during his fight with Johnson)

James J. Jeffries, champion heavyweight of the world, played with Jim Corbett for nine rounds and a half tonight and then Corbett's seconds motioned Referee Graney to stop the fight in order to save their man from needless punishment.

So I'm guessing you must be refering to their first fight was Corbett was 33 (one year older than Johnson in his fight with Jeffries). But considering this desciption, and just how skilled Corbett was, there's little shame in having trouble with him.

Corbett emerged from a year's retirement from the ring rejuvenated and fresh. He was as fast and clever as back in the days when people marveled at his skill. His footwork was wonderful and his defense perfect.

As for Fitz, even aged 41 he beat Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, who the Newspapers only gave a prime Jack Johnson a draw against

No way does he beat a prime Johnson. Johnson is a far better heavyweight than Corbett and Fitz ever were.

Why? Because you say so?

Langford was 156 when Johnson beat him and had already beat Jeannette. Langford proved he was suited to take on heavyweights at that point. The only guy that Fitz has a good win over is Sharkey. That combined with what Langford went on to do is much better than FItzsimmons.

Jeffries had plenty of time to lose the 100 lbs. It wasn't some 8 week training camp. He had YEARS to prepare for the fight. The 100 lbs was fat and had no negative effect on his performance. Jeffries said himself he was certain he would beat Johnson.

They fought twice. Here's a description of the first fight. "He outboxed his man at both long and short range, and if he had the strength necessary he would have gained an early victory. A hundred times he ducked the punch that knocked him out. At times he made the massive Jim look like a beginner in the art of offense and defense with his hands."

Do you seriously think that the newspapermen were 100% straight up in their description? Of course not! If you think they were then you obviously think that Jeffries looked like a literal beginner in the ring.

So you think that the white supremacist newspapermen of the early 20th century are going to give Johnson a fair shake? LMAO!

[Seamus]

Jack Johnson didn't just avoid the top 2 or 3 heavyweights of his so called title reign, it was more like the top 6 or 7.

[BitPlayer]

Langford was 156 when Johnson beat him and had already beat Jeannette. Langford proved he was suited to take on heavyweights at that point. The only guy that Fitz has a good win over is Sharkey. That combined with what Langford went on to do is much better than FItzsimmons.

So why is FItz's size an argument against that win, but Landgford's much smaller size not?

Also what did Langford do atgainst heavyweights until he was atleast over 160? The most I see is winning 2 and losing 1 with the smaller and not exceptional heavyweight Fireman Jim Flynn

Jeffries had plenty of time to lose the 100 lbs. It wasn't some 8 week training camp. He had YEARS to prepare for the fight. The 100 lbs was fat and had no negative effect on his performance. Jeffries said himself he was certain he would beat Johnson.

He maybe had a little over a year. A year to not only lose 100lb but also get and shape and he was years out of practice.
http://www.ibhof.com/pages/archives/joh ... fries.html

They fought twice. Here's a description of the first fight. "He outboxed his man at both long and short range, and if he had the strength necessary he would have gained an early victory. A hundred times he ducked the punch that knocked him out. At times he made the massive Jim look like a beginner in the art of offense and defense with his hands."

I know and said they fought twice. Corbet looked as good as ever, and he was a really good boxer. He even spared with Gene Turney aged 59. He also had trained with Tommy Ryan on how to counteract the crouching style using by Jeffries.

When had Johnson beaten someone regarded as having skills of Corbett's caliblre anyway?

Do you seriously think that the newspapermen were 100% straight up in their description? Of course not! If you think they were then you obviously think that Jeffries looked like a literal beginner in the ring.

So poetic language, and you ignoring "at times" means newspaper accounts must be inaccurate, or soemthing.

So you think that the white supremacist newspapermen of the early 20th century are going to give Johnson a fair shake? LMAO!

Well you better tell that to to the people that run the site, that it's all just racist lies or something. Seriously it's a fair point there may have been some bias, but you can't just totally discount it. From the accounts it was a "what you like" sort of fight.

[Mr.DW]

Jack Johnson didn't just avoid the top 2 or 3 heavyweights of his so called title reign, it was more like the top 6 or 7.

Where did you find the rankings?

[BitPlayer]

Jack Johnson didn't just avoid the top 2 or 3 heavyweights of his so called title reign, it was more like the top 6 or 7.

Where did you find the rankings?

SO do opinions from the time count again?

[Mr.DW]

SO do opinions from the time count again?

A single newspaperman doesn't decide the rankings. Beating someone is objective, you either did or didn't.

[BitPlayer]

SO do opinions from the time count again?

A single newspaperman doesn't decide the rankings. Beating someone is objective, you either did or didn't.

That was basex on the overawll opinions of multiple newspapers, not one. Various ones gave it both ways, showing beating someone really isn't objective. How many close decisions are contentious again?

[Mr.DW]

SO do opinions from the time count again?

A single newspaperman doesn't decide the rankings. Beating someone is objective, you either did or didn't.

That was basex on the overawll opinions of multiple newspapers, not one. Various ones gave it both ways, showing beating someone really isn't objective. How many close decisions are contentious again?

I knew you would say that...

If a fighter beat a guy then he beat a guy. Regardless of which way it went with the newspapermen, the guys in the ring knew who won.

[Kalan]

When did Johnson ever beat anyone like a peak Jeffries? Johnson's best win was Tommy Burns, who was little bigger than Fitz, signficantly shorter, and not nearly as highly regarded P4P.

Johnson has wins over Mcvea, Burns, Jeanette, Langford, Frank Moran and James J Jeffries himself. Like I said, I just don't think Jeffries would have done much better in his prime than he did past prime. Both resume's are weak but Johnson's is better.

Resume's weak?????? ... My goodness, Jeffries beat Bob Fitzsimmons twice, Jim Corbett twice, Tom Sharkey, Peter Jackson, Bob Armstrong, and Hank Griffin.. Not easy to do.. Although Johnson mastered Jeffries like he was a raw novice -- Jeffries was, in fact, a very accomplished Heavyweight Champion.

[Kalan]

If a fighter beat a guy then he beat a guy. Regardless of which way it went with the newspapermen, the guys in the ring knew who won.

Right... Frequently the guy who didn't get the decision won.

[Mr.DW]

When did Johnson ever beat anyone like a peak Jeffries? Johnson's best win was Tommy Burns, who was little bigger than Fitz, signficantly shorter, and not nearly as highly regarded P4P.

Johnson has wins over Mcvea, Burns, Jeanette, Langford, Frank Moran and James J Jeffries himself. Like I said, I just don't think Jeffries would have done much better in his prime than he did past prime. Both resume's are weak but Johnson's is better.

Resume's weak?????? ... My goodness, Jeffries beat Bob Fitzsimmons twice, Jim Corbett twice, Tom Sharkey, Peter Jackson, Bob Armstrong, and Hank Griffin.. Not easy to do.. Although Johnson mastered Jeffries like he was a raw novice -- Jeffries was, in fact, a very accomplished Heavyweight Champion.

Bob F - Middleweight in his 30s
Jim Corbett - Came out of retirement and was in his 30s (Jeffries struggled here)
Tom Sharkey - Good Win
Peter Jackson - 36 and at the end of a long career. Hadn't fought in 3 years!
Bob Armstrong - What makes you think he is a good win? Over half of his career are losses, draws, and a no contest.
Hank Griffin - 31 and people thought he was sick. His resume was built upon bums.

Everyone notable he fought was in their 30s except for Sharkey!

He benefited from old men and crazy high weight advantages.

[Mr.DW]

If a fighter beat a guy then he beat a guy. Regardless of which way it went with the newspapermen, the guys in the ring knew who won.

Right... Frequently the guy who didn't get the decision won.

You didn't use logic to arrive at that conclusion. At this point you are just over generalizing my statements.

[BitPlayer]

Johnson has wins over Mcvea, Burns, Jeanette, Langford, Frank Moran and James J Jeffries himself. Like I said, I just don't think Jeffries would have done much better in his prime than he did past prime. Both resume's are weak but Johnson's is better.

Resume's weak?????? ... My goodness, Jeffries beat Bob Fitzsimmons twice, Jim Corbett twice, Tom Sharkey, Peter Jackson, Bob Armstrong, and Hank Griffin.. Not easy to do.. Although Johnson mastered Jeffries like he was a raw novice -- Jeffries was, in fact, a very accomplished Heavyweight Champion.

Bob F - Middleweight in his 30s
Jim Corbett - Came out of retirement and was in his 30s (Jeffries struggled here)
Tom Sharkey - Good Win
Peter Jackson - 36 and at the end of a long career. Hadn't fought in 3 years!
Bob Armstrong - What makes you think he is a good win? Over half of his career are losses, draws, and a no contest.
Hank Griffin - 31 and people thought he was sick. His resume was built upon bums.

Everyone notable he fought was in their 30s except for Sharkey!

He benefited from old men and crazy high weight advantages.

Lets look at Johnson's resume for comparison then. The fighters you mention, feel free to suggest more.

McVea Was a teenager
Burns Weighed 1/2 lb over the super middleweight limit.
Jeanette Hadn't beaten any heavyweights until years later
Langford A 23 year old who weighed no more than a light middleweight
Frank Moran Lost to Gunboat Smith, Luther McCarty and went on to lose to Jess Williard (he was only 29 then too, not an old man).
James J Jeffries 35 years old, had to lose 100lbs and had been out for almost 6 years.

[Mr.DW]

Resume's weak?????? ... My goodness, Jeffries beat Bob Fitzsimmons twice, Jim Corbett twice, Tom Sharkey, Peter Jackson, Bob Armstrong, and Hank Griffin.. Not easy to do.. Although Johnson mastered Jeffries like he was a raw novice -- Jeffries was, in fact, a very accomplished Heavyweight Champion.

Bob F - Middleweight in his 30s
Jim Corbett - Came out of retirement and was in his 30s (Jeffries struggled here)
Tom Sharkey - Good Win
Peter Jackson - 36 and at the end of a long career. Hadn't fought in 3 years!
Bob Armstrong - What makes you think he is a good win? Over half of his career are losses, draws, and a no contest.
Hank Griffin - 31 and people thought he was sick. His resume was built upon bums.

Everyone notable he fought was in their 30s except for Sharkey!

He benefited from old men and crazy high weight advantages.

Lets look at Johnson's resume for comparison then. The fighters you mention, feel free to suggest more.

McVea Was a teenager
Burns Weighed 1/2 lb over the super middleweight limit.
Jeanette Hadn't beaten any heavyweights until years later
Langford A 23 year old who weighed no more than a light middleweight
Frank Moran Lost to Gunboat Smith, Luther McCarty and went on to lose to Jess Williard (he was only 29 then too, not an old man).
James J Jeffries 35 years old, had to lose 100lbs and had been out for almost 6 years.

Sam Mcvea - Had taken out Denver Ed Martin as a "teenager".
Burns - Had beaten plenty of heavyweights and was the champion. As I recall Johnson didn't struggle with him.
Jeanette - Had beaten plenty of heavyweights and stopped Sam Langford.
Frank Moran was a top contender. Losses to Gunboat Smith, Luther McCarty, and Jess Willard aren't anything wrong. Those guys were top contenders and a champ. Absolutely nothing wrong with beating Frank Moran.
James J Jeffries - Not a win that means much other than how Jeffries was unable to cut off the ring.
Langford - Atg who had previously beat Gans. Goes on to become one of the greatest heavyweights of all time.

You're looking at what they did at that time only and not at what they went on to do in their entire career and shortly after fights with Johnson.