HEAVYWEIGHTS: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries, in their primes.
-
Djanders44
- Welterweight
- Posts: 190
- Joined: 02 Jan 2016, 00:43
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15131
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: HEAVYWEIGHTS: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries, in their primes.
This is an interesting one. It would have been much more competitive than when they actually fought. Johnson would probably have still won. The longer the fight was scheduled for, the better Jeffries chances would be. Johnson had great stamina, but Jeffries had even more.
Re: HEAVYWEIGHTS: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries, in their primes.
Prime Jeffries would outlast and whoop the middleweght crusher.
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15131
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: HEAVYWEIGHTS: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries, in their primes.
Do you want to compare the size of the guys that Jeffries beat to the size of the guys that Johnson beat?
btw -Johnson tried to get Jeffries to fight him while Jeffries was in his prime.
btw -Johnson tried to get Jeffries to fight him while Jeffries was in his prime.
Re: HEAVYWEIGHTS: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries, in their primes.
Go and compare, lol. Only Fitzsimmons in Jeffries' resume will be compared to Johnson's Burns, Ketchel and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑15 Apr 2020, 14:52 Do you want to compare the size of the guys that Jeffries beat to the size of the guys that Johnson beat?
btw -Johnson tried to get Jeffries to fight him while Jeffries was in his prime.
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15131
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: HEAVYWEIGHTS: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries, in their primes.
Ever heard of Jeannette, McVey? Dozens of other fights against heavyweights.
Johnson had many more fights against heavyweights than Jeffries had fights.
Johnson won the title against a guy weighing under 170. So did Jeffries.
It's almost as if these guys were fighting for money and not what people would be thinking about them in 100 years.
Johnson had many more fights against heavyweights than Jeffries had fights.
Johnson won the title against a guy weighing under 170. So did Jeffries.
It's almost as if these guys were fighting for money and not what people would be thinking about them in 100 years.
Re: HEAVYWEIGHTS: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries, in their primes.
Yes, I heard. However, Johnson's rating and acceptance is more often based on his World championship reign and this reign is blown up.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Apr 2020, 10:38 Ever heard of Jeannette, McVey? Dozens of other fights against heavyweights.
Johnson had many more fights against heavyweights than Jeffries had fights.
Johnson won the title against a guy weighing under 170. So did Jeffries.
It's almost as if these guys were fighting for money and not what people would be thinking about them in 100 years.
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15131
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: HEAVYWEIGHTS: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries, in their primes.
Johnson title reign could have been better. however, you have to look at the fight before he finally got a title shot. He was fighting for 11 years before he got his shot. And you need to look the guys who were heavyweights that he beat both during his title reign and before he won the title. Just ignore the fights which you don't think mean anything.
-
margaret thatcher
- Featherweight
- Posts: 39234
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: HEAVYWEIGHTS: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries, in their primes.
lol McVea was 17 when he first fought JJ and still a teenager when he last fought 26 year old Johnson, a true JJboi loves to leave that out of course . sammy would mature like teens do and fight on for years more without ever getting another shot, JJ sure loved teens, old men, and little guys , dudes record is a circus 
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15131
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: HEAVYWEIGHTS: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries, in their primes.
Oh, my mistake. I thought only what the all important needle on the scale says is what matters. And Jeannette? Martin? Moran? What heavyweights bigger than them did Jeffries beat? Outside of Gus Ruhlin, there doesn't seem to be much.
-
margaret thatcher
- Featherweight
- Posts: 39234
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: HEAVYWEIGHTS: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries, in their primes.
Bruh, you gotta look at everything, size, long ass layoffs, age, etc. Though I forgot you don't include stuff like this when evaluating strength of opposition, only oldie status matters
pumping up wins over freaking 17 year olds, I guess that's what you get with a carnival show career
pumping up wins over freaking 17 year olds, I guess that's what you get with a carnival show career
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15131
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: HEAVYWEIGHTS: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries, in their primes.
He was almost 20 and had a lot of experience for his age by the last time they fought. But, Of course he had not reached his prime yet. Still it's ironic that all of a sudden the stage of fighter's career is supposed to matter. (i.e. a rusty 41 year old who looked terrible in his previous fight is somehow supposed to be great) Or when Johnson is old and loses in the 26th round that is somehow an embarrassment.
But yeah, you have to look at everything. Completely agree. Experience but not being way past it matters. I just think it's silly that you can't just ignore the fights that you think are irrelevant (Burns, Ketchel etc.) and just look at his career as a whole. He had a long career and fought guys of a wide range of ability. there is plenty to go on. You guys just seem too obsessed with the trivial. Every time his name pops up you bring up irrelevant fights.
Look at the relevant fights. There are plenty of them.
But yeah, you have to look at everything. Completely agree. Experience but not being way past it matters. I just think it's silly that you can't just ignore the fights that you think are irrelevant (Burns, Ketchel etc.) and just look at his career as a whole. He had a long career and fought guys of a wide range of ability. there is plenty to go on. You guys just seem too obsessed with the trivial. Every time his name pops up you bring up irrelevant fights.
Look at the relevant fights. There are plenty of them.
Re: HEAVYWEIGHTS: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries, in their primes.
The wacky mantra continued even in the different, not related thread.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Apr 2020, 16:20 (i.e. a rusty 41 year old who looked terrible in his previous fight is somehow supposed to be great)
-
margaret thatcher
- Featherweight
- Posts: 39234
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: HEAVYWEIGHTS: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries, in their primes.
lol ya, a teenager (woulda been nice if you coulda stretched him to a full 20 , right lol) when he last fought 26 year old JJ, good point
You take away these circus fights and you take away a huge huge chunk of the man's career, including his HW title and his most famous fights, of course they get mentioned, very weak resume for a guy people rank often at like at #3 all time, talk about buying into the character
You take away these circus fights and you take away a huge huge chunk of the man's career, including his HW title and his most famous fights, of course they get mentioned, very weak resume for a guy people rank often at like at #3 all time, talk about buying into the character
Re: HEAVYWEIGHTS: Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries, in their primes.
Jack would win by a 14th round TKO.