James Jeffries, was he that good?

[oogiebe]

Christ, here we go again.

[margaret thatcher]

the real question is not how big they were, but how many '10 round fighters' did they face

with only about 20 career bouts, im not sure james j measures up in that regard

[margaret thatcher]

Christ, here we go again.

it is quite something though for an atg rated heavy to have fought half his bouts vs guys in the 160s-180s range on fight day, maybe aj should start that comeback vs a welterweight or middleweight

[oogiebe]

Christ, here we go again.

it is quite something though for an atg rated heavy to have fought half his bouts vs guys in the 160s-180s range on fight day, maybe aj should start that comeback vs a welterweight or middleweight

Maybe!!!

No matter how much we say you can't compare eras, it's none stop here. Apples to oranges.

[Ambling Alp II]

Christ, here we go again.

it is quite something though for an atg rated heavy to have fought half his bouts vs guys in the 160s-180s range on fight day, maybe aj should start that comeback vs a welterweight or middleweight

Jeffries had 7 wins over Hall of Famers. How many do you think AJ has so far?
As for the 10 round fighter thing that you can't seem to figure out:

Fights that are scheduled for 4 or 6 rounds are usually between guys with little experience. If those guys do well enough, they might move up to fighting 8, and eventually 10 round fights.

Most of the time, a guy fighting in 10 round fights in a lot better than a guy that is fighting fights scheduled for 4 rounds.

[Ambling Alp II]

Christ, here we go again.

it is quite something though for an atg rated heavy to have fought half his bouts vs guys in the 160s-180s range on fight day, maybe aj should start that comeback vs a welterweight or middleweight

Maybe!!!

No matter how much we say you can't compare eras, it's none stop here. Apples to oranges.

Of course you can compare fighters from different eras. It's just harder. You have to be knowledgeable about both eras, have to be willing to do some hard thinking and not to be biased.

[oogiebe]

it is quite something though for an atg rated heavy to have fought half his bouts vs guys in the 160s-180s range on fight day, maybe aj should start that comeback vs a welterweight or middleweight

Maybe!!!

No matter how much we say you can't compare eras, it's none stop here. Apples to oranges.

Of course you can compare fighters from different eras. It's just harder. You have to be knowledgeable about both eras, have to be willing to do some hard thinking and not to be biased.

Think all you want, hard thinking Mr. Knowledgeable, but any conclusion one may draw is purely vapor. Seriously silly.

[Ambling Alp II]

So you can't compare guys from the 1990s to the 1980s? Of course you can.
If you can compare the 1990s to the 1980s, then of course you compare the 1980s to the 1970s. If you can do that, then ought to be able to compare guys from the 1990s to the 1970s and so on.

You are going to have to think some. You might need to use a bar graph, take notes, whatever works for you.

[oogiebe]

So you can't compare guys from the 1990s to the 1980s? Of course you can.
If you can compare the 1990s to the 1980s, then of course you compare the 1980s to the 1970s. If you can do that, then ought to be able to compare guys from the 1990s to the 1970s and so on.

You are going to have to think some. You might need to use a bar graph, take notes, whatever works for you.

1980's/1990's is hardly what we're talking about here. Stop being a putz.

[Ambling Alp II]

Lets say you want to rank the heavyweight champions for example.

Start with someone in the middle, say Floyd Patterson.
You can compare him to the right before him (Marciano) and right after him (Johannson.)

Marciano-Patterson-Johannson

So far, you would probably have it:
1. Marciano
2. Pattterson
3. Johannson

Make gaps indicating how much difference between two guys there are. (A lot, normal, close)
Then go the next two guys: the guy before Marciano (Walcott) and then after Johannson. (Obviously you aren;'t going to rate Patterson again, so rate Liston).

Walcott-Marciano-Patterson-Johannson-Liston

Compare Walcott to Marciano. Would have to be lower than Marciano. Above Patterson, maybe.
Liston would have to be higher than the guy before him (Johannson). Then the next one before him, Patterson. Marciano would be arguable.

You might have it like this so far:
1. Marciano
2. Liston

3. Walcott
4. Patterson

5. Johansson

Then add Charles and Ali.
You then would have it something like this:

1. Ali

2. Marciano
3. Liston

4. Charles
5. Walcott
6. Patterson

7. Johannson

Then Louis and Ellis. etc.

[oogiebe]

Lets say you want to rank the heavyweight champions for example.

Start with someone in the middle, say Floyd Patterson.
You can compare him to the right before him (Marciano) and right after him (Johannson.)

Marciano-Patterson-Johannson

So far, you would probably have it:
1. Marciano
2. Pattterson
3. Johannson

Make gaps indicating how much difference between two guys there are. (A lot, normal, close)
Then go the next two guys: the guy before Marciano (Walcott) and then after Johannson. (Obviously you aren;'t going to rate Patterson again, so rate Liston).

Walcott-Marciano-Patterson-Johannson-Liston

Compare Walcott to Marciano. Would have to be lower than Marciano. Above Patterson, maybe.
Liston would have to be higher than the guy before him (Johannson). Then the next one before him, Patterson. Marciano would be arguable.

You might have it like this so far:
1. Marciano
2. Liston

3. Walcott
4. Patterson

5. Johansson

Then add Charles and Ali.
You then would have it something like this:

1. Ali

2. Marciano
3. Liston

4. Charles
5. Walcott
6. Patterson

7. Johannson

Then Louis and Ellis. etc.

[Ambling Alp II]

OK, whatever.

[oogiebe]

OK, whatever.

[Caractacus]

was he that good ?
Compared to what exacately ?

[HomicideHenry]

Somebody said, "how many 10 round fighters did he face?," and I cannot help but laugh at that because the very first pro match that Jefferies had went FOURTEEN rounds against a veteran of over 100 matches.



To paraphrase Randy Quaid as the lovable but naive Ishmael in the classic KINGPIN: "Ten rounds? That's for Quakers."

[Caractacus]

Jim J. Corbett had Jeffries 'out on his feet" at one point in one of their fights
but failed to follow up on it.

[Benny The Kid]

was he that good ?
Compared to what exacately ?

This is really the point. I mean what difference does is matter if some rube thinks he isn't good? It's not rewriting history.

He's comparing it against what.. not good? The question is retarded. It's not worth even answering.

Jeffries was one of the few Heavyweights to retire undefeated. The question of "was he that good" is ridiculous.

[AntonioMartin]

. you should read the book my buddy wrote about him: In the Ring with James Jeffries. It gives a good account based on newspaper notes about him

The only time I seen him was in his disaster against Jack Johnson, so, from a visual point of view, its hard to tell.

[Ambling Alp II]

Somebody said, "how many 10 round fighters did he face?," and I cannot help but laugh at that because the very first pro match that Jefferies had went FOURTEEN rounds against a veteran of over 100 matches.



To paraphrase Randy Quaid as the lovable but naive Ishmael in the classic KINGPIN: "Ten rounds? That's for Quakers."

The very first pro match that Jefferies had went FOURTEEN rounds against a veteran of over 100 matches.?
huh? What are you talking about?

[HomicideHenry]

Somebody said, "how many 10 round fighters did he face?," and I cannot help but laugh at that because the very first pro match that Jefferies had went FOURTEEN rounds against a veteran of over 100 matches.



To paraphrase Randy Quaid as the lovable but naive Ishmael in the classic KINGPIN: "Ten rounds? That's for Quakers."

The very first pro match that Jefferies had went FOURTEEN rounds against a veteran of over 100 matches.?
huh? What are you talking about?

Could have sworn that was the case, because Jefferies first opponent (at least I thought) was the black veteran Hank Griffin. My mistake, though, Griffin was his THIRD fight.

Nevertheless, I think the point stands that "ten round fighters" is not really a good argument to be made when this was an era when 20 rounds, 45 rounds, etc was quite commonplace.

People tend to forget also, at least on the championship level, that the logic of film back then that the longer the fights were the more money there was to be made in the cinemas.

[gilgamesh]

I'm sure he would've been a formidable and very tough guy, I doubt too many guys from that era would be able to compete in the modern era mainly due to the advances in Boxing technique that have been made from that time to now.

Their crude technique up against the guys with all the modern nuances would probably lead them to getting their asses kicked.

That being said. Was he good? Well obviously in his own time he was the best.

[Ambling Alp II]

Somebody said, "how many 10 round fighters did he face?," and I cannot help but laugh at that because the very first pro match that Jefferies had went FOURTEEN rounds against a veteran of over 100 matches.



To paraphrase Randy Quaid as the lovable but naive Ishmael in the classic KINGPIN: "Ten rounds? That's for Quakers."

The very first pro match that Jefferies had went FOURTEEN rounds against a veteran of over 100 matches.?
huh? What are you talking about?

Could have sworn that was the case, because Jefferies first opponent (at least I thought) was the black veteran Hank Griffin. My mistake, though, Griffin was his THIRD fight.

Nevertheless, I think the point stands that "ten round fighters" is not really a good argument to be made when this was an era when 20 rounds, 45 rounds, etc was quite commonplace.

People tend to forget also, at least on the championship level, that the logic of film back then that the longer the fights were the more money there was to be made in the cinemas.

I don't think Griffin had 100 fights. Still a nice win for an inexperienced fighter like Jeffries. Back then, a prospect didn't start his career with 15 automatic wins over creampuffs. You fought who was available. The 10-round fighter comment was made by marge acting like an idiot again.

Jeffries would have been the best hw in in some eras and one of the best in any era. He was strong, athletic, very good chin, tough as nails.

[HomicideHenry]

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/HankGriffin.htm

I will say it is something of a travesty in boxing history that many of the early prize fighters, especially those of African descent, were not documented as well as they should have been.

Griffin may or may not of had 100+ bouts when he fought Jeffries. It's something we may never know for sure one way or another. I tend to believe that he was far more experienced than what's available on paper, but nevertheless as you point out he was quite the name to have on Jeffries record.

Like a lot of African descent boxers of the time, Griffin was a lot better than some of the more well-known white fighters of the time. Just how good he was, like so many others who did not necessarily get the chance, is unclear but he was certainly a formidable challenger.

I think part of Jeffries logic in not fighting Jack Johnson, while as champion, is the fact that Griffin went 1-1-5 with Johnson. And it may have been a part of Jeffries logic to unretire and face Johnson because of how well Griffin did against Johnson, and of course Jeffries had knocked out Griffin (1895) and also fought Griffin in an exhibition in 1901 dropping him three times in four rounds.

[Cojimar 1946]

I'm skeptical that Jeffries as he actually existed could beat today's top light heavyweights let alone the top heavies.

What is there on film or his record that would make him a favorite over Bivol or Beterbiev?

[HomicideHenry]

I'm skeptical that Jeffries as he actually existed could beat today's top light heavyweights let alone the top heavies.

What is there on film or his record that would make him a favorite over Bivol or Beterbiev?

Someone being a favorite versus whether he actually could win over Bivol or Beterbiev is two completely different things. I think there is a kind of chronological snobbery that goes on in sports assuming that guys from earlier eras could not make the transition over, or that they simply were not as skilled as guys today.

I'm reminded back when I was in highschool, for example, where Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa (I think) were on television trying to hit baseballs using the same kind of bats that Babe Ruth used and had a lot of difficulty doing so because the kind of bats that Ruth used were much heavier than the bats today.

One thing I will say about old time fighters versus fighters today, I think there has been a major trade off in conditioning over time. Skills MIGHT (keyword) have improved over time, but it is clearly self-evident that men like Jeffries certainly had better conditioning than heavyweights today.

I'm not so sure I entirely buy into the argument that boxers today are really that much more skillful than their earlier counterparts. A lot of the techniques used today were around then, or even back in the bare knuckle era. The difference largely is in the equipment (gloves) and the changing of rules which created shorter, more fast paced fights.

Now if you were in the early 20th century when boxing gloves were usually 3 oz and made of horsehair, you would be a fool to throw a lot of power punches or to throw high volume jabs, because more than likely you would shatter your hand. That's why so many of the old timers emphasized on body punching which has become something of a lost art these days.

It also wouldn't makes sense to make a lot of unnecessary movements hot dogging around the ring in those days when most fights were held out in the open air under the blazing sun. Fighters today have the luxury of competing in air conditioned buildings. All of these little things add up when you really think about it as to why maybe some of these guys did not look so great as you would think on film.

Furthermore there were things allowed back then that are not necessarily allowed today. Clinching was a perfectly acceptable part of the game back then; championship level boxers usually hired wrestlers to help them make their clinch game better. These days they break up clinches pretty fast.