James Jeffries, was he that good?

[oogiebe]

It seems Fitzsimmons career high was 175 when he fought Joe Choynski to a draw. He did fight above 170 on quite a few occasions. Yes, he was small but that does not diminish he skills or abilities and punching power. The man is often described as having the power of a super heavyweight despite his size.

For that time.

Nah. Fitzsimmons was a blacksmith before becoming a boxer and throughout his boxing career still incorporated hard manual labor of blacksmithing in his training camps. The man possessed tremendous hitting power that would have carried over into our modern era without any issues or problems.

Sorry bruh, you're just plain wrong on this one.

[HomicideHenry]

We can agree to disagree but most boxing historians would side with me on this one. As late as the early 2000s RING MAGAZINE listed Fitzsimmons among the top 20 greatest middleweights of all time, and even they described him as being a middleweight with heavyweight power.

Fact of business, Jack Johnson always maintained that Fitzsimmons was a far harder puncher than Jack Dempsey. Take from that what you will, but virtually all of the old timers and the later experts that came along verified that Fitzsimmons was one of the hardest punching men in boxing history.

And don't say "bruh" we are all grown men here.

[margaret thatcher]

yep, a middleweight, not a great scalp at hw

[oogiebe]

We can agree to disagree but most boxing historians would side with me on this one. As late as the early 2000s RING MAGAZINE listed Fitzsimmons among the top 20 greatest middleweights of all time, and even they described him as being a middleweight with heavyweight power.

Fact of business, Jack Johnson always maintained that Fitzsimmons was a far harder puncher than Jack Dempsey. Take from that what you will, but virtually all of the old timers and the later experts that came along verified that Fitzsimmons was one of the hardest punching men in boxing history.

And don't say "bruh" we are all grown men here.

Lol! Don't tell me how to speak, bruh.

Top 20 middleweights to being able to carryover his 1900 power to modern era is speculation at best. Stop being silly.

[HomicideHenry]

This is why I don't take a lot of so-called fans seriously today. They see the current crop of fighters and think that is literally the best there ever is or was or ever will be. That is simply not the case.

Men of earlier times fought a hell of a lot more, and against top tier competition. They were as hard as nails, and more than earned their spot.

I have absolutely no qualms in saying that somebody from the early 20th century would pretty much blow through the vast majority of boxers today who only fight once or twice a year.

There is some sort of major ignorance of earlier eras, and ridiculous assumptions that these people were not world class athletes and that they did not possess great skills.

It reminds me of the nonsense I see on Facebook where people make dumbass comments like, "Jack Dempsey was nothing I could have kicked his ass," as if to imply that the greatest heavyweight of his era was nothing more than a typical bar room brawler in today's society.

We're talking about Bob Fitzsimmons here, a man who upon leaving the middleweight division fought seven heavyweights in a single afternoon and knocked them all out. One of which was known as "The Human Freight Car" (Lew Joslin, 260 pounds). Another was an enormous 6'7" 300 pounder called Louis the Giant. Both of those men hit the deck in less than three rounds combined.

Never mind the fact that unlike most white fighters Fitzsimmons sparred with and occasionally fought with black men. Bob Armstrong (6'4" 200+ pounds) one of the best black heavyweights of the time. Fitzsimmons used the man as a chief sparring partner for years. Peter Felix, another great black heavyweight of the time, not only was a sparring partner for Fitzsimmons he also fought exhibitions against him.

But we agree to disagree I guess. I've just never heard of anyone ever tried to say Fitzsimmons wasn't an all-time great puncher regardless of era. That is absolutely a first I've ever heard in my entire time being on the forum, and I've been coming here since I was in junior high or early high school (1998-2004).

The earliest post (according to my profile) says 2005 but I am pretty certain that I had posts prior to that because I do think at some point early on there was a cleanse of the entire forum. I still have old BoxRec records I printed out of the lineal heavyweight champions that I'm pretty sure I printed off when I was still in high school.

[margaret thatcher]

damn, he smoked 'louis the giant', that's quite something

fitz was in the ring at about 160-170 pounds mostly. about the size of welter to a middleweight today. somethimes he boxed even lower, showing he was small enough to make weights like 156 with same day weigh ins - that is an absolutely tiny man for the hw division not only of today, but for many decades. he also won the hw title vs a guy who weighed 184 pounds - about the weight of a smw, maybe a lhw in the day before weigh in era. he didnt beat a big guy

great middle sure, but there's a reason pretty much no one concludes from one middleweight or smw beating another that they are an atg heavyweight. it makes 0 sense.

[margaret thatcher]

now you're in wilder thread arguing that size makes the difference, see you get it

and in that case, we aren't dealing with guys who would be divisions apart by weight

[HomicideHenry]

now you're in wilder thread arguing that size makes the difference, see you get it

and in that case, we aren't dealing with guys who would be divisions apart by weight

I would use the same argument against him (Fitzsimmons) if he was facing somebody like Deontay Wilder. Just too large of a size difference, combined with athleticism and speed. That being said, it's apples and oranges comparing Usyk and Fitzsimmons because the two men have completely different styles.

As for this, "oh the heavyweights Fitzsimmons fought are super middleweights today," let's flip the script a bit. Imagine if the super middleweights today had to fight at their walking around weight. They might be 168 on the scales but walk around 190. How many of them do you think would last against a natural cruiserweight? Probably not many.

The main primary difference between the old time fighters and fighters today is that the old time fighters were almost always in fighting shape all year round--- only upon retirement did they start walking around at heavier weights. Case in point Rocky Marciano, 187 pounds, but when he retired he walked around 220-240.

Not sure what Fitzsimmons weight was post boxing, but I imagine 180+ pounds. If his career high was 175, and that was in his prime years, I venture to say that his walking around weight would've been 180-190. I don't think he was a small as you think he was.

I'm reminded of a couple of years ago where I did a thread on Jake LaMotta, and pointed out that the bulk of his career was at light heavyweight because back then there was only eight weight divisions and if you were over 160 you were automatically in the 175 division. Most of his fights were at this division but he lost weight for the really important fights.

Furthermore, I think you seriously underestimate the strength and versatility and conditioning of people in the early 20th century and prior. After all we are talking about men and women who worked 15 hours a day as farmers or miners or blacksmiths, etc--- I venture to say most people today couldn't whip a 140 pound farmer from 1900-1910 let alone a prize fighter 140 pounds from the same era.

They had strength and conditioning in spades. And it was all naturally built. Then you throw in the years of training and the type of fight schedules they had back in those days. I have no doubt in my mind those type of guys could easily make the transition into today's time. We don't have fighters today we have businessmen who occasionally put on gloves.

[oogiebe]

This is why I don't take a lot of so-called fans seriously today. They see the current crop of fighters and think that is literally the best there ever is or was or ever will be. That is simply not the case.

Men of earlier times fought a hell of a lot more, and against top tier competition. They were as hard as nails, and more than earned their spot.

I have absolutely no qualms in saying that somebody from the early 20th century would pretty much blow through the vast majority of boxers today who only fight once or twice a year.

There is some sort of major ignorance of earlier eras, and ridiculous assumptions that these people were not world class athletes and that they did not possess great skills.

It reminds me of the nonsense I see on Facebook where people make dumbass comments like, "Jack Dempsey was nothing I could have kicked his ass," as if to imply that the greatest heavyweight of his era was nothing more than a typical bar room brawler in today's society.

We're talking about Bob Fitzsimmons here, a man who upon leaving the middleweight division fought seven heavyweights in a single afternoon and knocked them all out. One of which was known as "The Human Freight Car" (Lew Joslin, 260 pounds). Another was an enormous 6'7" 300 pounder called Louis the Giant. Both of those men hit the deck in less than three rounds combined.

Never mind the fact that unlike most white fighters Fitzsimmons sparred with and occasionally fought with black men. Bob Armstrong (6'4" 200+ pounds) one of the best black heavyweights of the time. Fitzsimmons used the man as a chief sparring partner for years. Peter Felix, another great black heavyweight of the time, not only was a sparring partner for Fitzsimmons he also fought exhibitions against him.

But we agree to disagree I guess. I've just never heard of anyone ever tried to say Fitzsimmons wasn't an all-time great puncher regardless of era. That is absolutely a first I've ever heard in my entire time being on the forum, and I've been coming here since I was in junior high or early high school (1998-2004).

The earliest post (according to my profile) says 2005 but I am pretty certain that I had posts prior to that because I do think at some point early on there was a cleanse of the entire forum. I still have old BoxRec records I printed out of the lineal heavyweight champions that I'm pretty sure I printed off when I was still in high school.

The more you post like this the less respect I have for you. insulting other fans because they don't agree with you is juvenile.

[Cojimar 1946]

Schmeling at his best likely beats anyone Jeffries beat and between the two he seemingly has by far the best win. His losses don't necessarily help Jeffries case because Schmeling had far more fights than Jeffries and when you are more active there is more opportunities for slip ups. Jeffries also was able to hide behind the color line and avoid black challengers like McVey and Johnson.

I don't think the Louis rematch is of much relevance given Jeffries is nowhere near the puncher Louis is in addition to lacking Louis overall skillset.

You can't just by Schmeling's win over Louis. If you do,. then you could make an argument that Schmeling would have beaten literally anyone.
You have to factor in all of his fights near his prime. Most of the Max Baer fight is on Youtube. Watch it. Jeffries would have stopped him in with kind of performance. Schmeling also lost to Steve Hamas.
Jeffries had several good wins over most of the best guys of his era. In fact I would argue that Jeffries had more big wins than Schmeling or Baer.

Would have been nice if he had fought Johnson in say 1904. However, hiding behind the color line is pushing it. McVey was not a top contender yet when Jeffries retired in 1904. Johnson really had not been for that long. Jeffries did fight black fighters on his way up before he fought for the title.

I think Schmelings era was far stronger than Jeffries. I don't think Jeffries hits as hard as Baer so I'm not confident he could replicate what Baer did and if it goes to the scorecards it seems like Schmelings skill set gives him an advantage.

As far as McVey goes even the 1904 version is likely a better challenger than some of the guys he actually defended against like Monroe, Finnegan and a Corbett who hadn't won a fight in 3 years.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Schmeling at his best likely beats anyone Jeffries beat and between the two he seemingly has by far the best win. His losses don't necessarily help Jeffries case because Schmeling had far more fights than Jeffries and when you are more active there is more opportunities for slip ups. Jeffries also was able to hide behind the color line and avoid black challengers like McVey and Johnson.

I don't think the Louis rematch is of much relevance given Jeffries is nowhere near the puncher Louis is in addition to lacking Louis overall skillset.

You can't just by Schmeling's win over Louis. If you do,. then you could make an argument that Schmeling would have beaten literally anyone.
You have to factor in all of his fights near his prime. Most of the Max Baer fight is on Youtube. Watch it. Jeffries would have stopped him in with kind of performance. Schmeling also lost to Steve Hamas.
Jeffries had several good wins over most of the best guys of his era. In fact I would argue that Jeffries had more big wins than Schmeling or Baer.

Would have been nice if he had fought Johnson in say 1904. However, hiding behind the color line is pushing it. McVey was not a top contender yet when Jeffries retired in 1904. Johnson really had not been for that long. Jeffries did fight black fighters on his way up before he fought for the title.

I think Schmelings era was far stronger than Jeffries. I don't think Jeffries hits as hard as Baer so I'm not confident he could replicate what Baer did and if it goes to the scorecards it seems like Schmelings skill set gives him an advantage.

As far as McVey goes even the 1904 version is likely a better challenger than some of the guys he actually defended against like Monroe, Finnegan and a Corbett who hadn't won a fight in 3 years.

- You some kinda noob, or just another boob who don't really follow much less understand boxing?

Or maybe the tip of the modern devolution, the current unraveling of mankind?

McVey lost all 3 fights he fought in 1903-4 to Jack Johnson and Denver Ed Martin. He was 20 years old with bleak prospects. He must've gone back to the farm for 1905 when he's AWOL from boxing. That's when Jeff retired after stating he would fight the winner of Hart/Johnson that Hart won. The bout was so poorly fought that he felt they were not worth the effort and retired.

Funny, you don't claim Jeff ducked Hart do you? Wrong color?

Jeff an advanced man for this time fought between 30-40 % of his bouts against persons of color as they are called in today's here today, gone tomorrow lingo. He had much better results against fighters that Johnson fought, and even as Champ gave former KO victim Hank Griffin whom Johnson could never beat in spite of 3 attempts, he gave Hank a 4 round exhibition where if he KOs Jeff, he'd instantly be lineal champ by the loonies that keep that title. That was a much needed payday that Griffin needed as he was soon out of boxing since whooping Johnson don't pay squat then.

If Jeff comes up today, he'd probably find other avenues to make his money than being another devolved disgraced American Heavyweight. If he did fight, he'd adapt to modern training for 10-12 rds, bigger weights, and as a natural 250 lber training down to 220s in his day, with modern weight lifting he's a squat 6-1, 240-250 with an uncrackable chin and KO wallop

If you were to go back to 1905, well, what grade they kick you out of school in this era?

[Cojimar 1946]

You can't just by Schmeling's win over Louis. If you do,. then you could make an argument that Schmeling would have beaten literally anyone.
You have to factor in all of his fights near his prime. Most of the Max Baer fight is on Youtube. Watch it. Jeffries would have stopped him in with kind of performance. Schmeling also lost to Steve Hamas.
Jeffries had several good wins over most of the best guys of his era. In fact I would argue that Jeffries had more big wins than Schmeling or Baer.

Would have been nice if he had fought Johnson in say 1904. However, hiding behind the color line is pushing it. McVey was not a top contender yet when Jeffries retired in 1904. Johnson really had not been for that long. Jeffries did fight black fighters on his way up before he fought for the title.

I think Schmelings era was far stronger than Jeffries. I don't think Jeffries hits as hard as Baer so I'm not confident he could replicate what Baer did and if it goes to the scorecards it seems like Schmelings skill set gives him an advantage.

As far as McVey goes even the 1904 version is likely a better challenger than some of the guys he actually defended against like Monroe, Finnegan and a Corbett who hadn't won a fight in 3 years.

- You some kinda noob, or just another boob who don't really follow much less understand boxing?

Or maybe the tip of the modern devolution, the current unraveling of mankind?

McVey lost all 3 fights he fought in 1903-4 to Jack Johnson and Denver Ed Martin. He was 20 years old with bleak prospects. He must've gone back to the farm for 1905 when he's AWOL from boxing. That's when Jeff retired after stating he would fight the winner of Hart/Johnson that Hart won. The bout was so poorly fought that he felt they were not worth the effort and retired.

Funny, you don't claim Jeff ducked Hart do you? Wrong color?

Jeff an advanced man for this time fought between 30-40 % of his bouts against persons of color as they are called in today's here today, gone tomorrow lingo. He had much better results against fighters that Johnson fought, and even as Champ gave former KO victim Hank Griffin whom Johnson could never beat in spite of 3 attempts, he gave Hank a 4 round exhibition where if he KOs Jeff, he'd instantly be lineal champ by the loonies that keep that title. That was a much needed payday that Griffin needed as he was soon out of boxing since whooping Johnson don't pay squat then.

If Jeff comes up today, he'd probably find other avenues to make his money than being another devolved disgraced American Heavyweight. If he did fight, he'd adapt to modern training for 10-12 rds, bigger weights, and as a natural 250 lber training down to 220s in his day, with modern weight lifting he's a squat 6-1, 240-250 with an uncrackable chin and KO wallop

If you were to go back to 1905, well, what grade they kick you out of school in this era?

Johnson seems to have clearly beaten Hart based on ringside reports so not really a compelling argument. Johnson also had improved considerably from the guy who fought Griffin so again not a strong argument.

McVey losing to guys Jeffries didn't fight does little to dispel the impression he was better than some of the guys Jeffries fought.

And when Johnson did fight Jeffries he won decisively

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes, McVey even tat that stage was better than a couple of they guys that Jeffries defended the title against. However, that doesn't mean that he ducked McVey. You could do that with anyone. Look at the best two hws of all time. Joe Louis fought some tomato cans but never never defended the title against Elmer Ray or Jimmy Bivins Turkey Thompson o Ali defended the title against Brian London but not Eddie Machen. However, nobody was calling for McVey-Jeffries title fight.

Would have been nice for Jeffries to have fought Johnson before retiring the first time. However, it's not like Johnson had been the #1 contender for 5 years.

Can't believe that you even brought up the Jeffries-Johnson in 1910. Jeffries had not fought in 6 years. Fight means absolutely nothing.

Jeffries defended the title against Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Sharkey, Ruhlin. That's pretty good.
Jeffries was obviously not the greatest hw of all time. But he was a better than average champion.

[Ambling Alp II]

There is no known footage of Harry Greb. There are several great fighters that he beat that there is footage of. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that he had to have been great.

Just because you never saw a guy fight, doesn't mean that you can't have a good no idea of how good he was.

Just because you never tasted something doesn't mean you can't have a good idea of how good it is. LMFAO!

Do you even read what you're saying bruh? Don't bring Greb into this either, we're speaking about Jeffries.

Yeah bruh.
First, there is some footage of Jeffries available, as well as some of his opponents in other fight.

But yes, you can get a very good idea of a fighter with little or no film of them.
Look at college football. There are over 120 teams. There is no way that anyone can watch every team play. Yet we have rankings on them every week.
College basketball has over 300 teams. You seriously think the NCAA selection committee has seen everyone of them play? Much less the 68 that they picked for the tournament?
If an NFL team that you haven't seen so far is 5-0, you can deduce that they are off to a good start.
You have to factor in results of fights even if you have not personally seem them.
(You can actually get a bad impression of a guy watching only certain fights. Watch some of Felix Trinidad's best fights. Looks awesome. Then watch him against DLH, Hopkins or Wright.)

You have to factor in as much information about a guy as possible. That includes fights that you have not seen.
So yeah, I can bring up Harry Greb.

[HomicideHenry]

Analysis of Some of Jeffries Opponents:

Hank Griffin, one of the best black heavyweights in the world

Peter Jackson, legendary black heavyweight admittedly passed his prime but made the public believe Jeffries to be the goods

Joe Choynski, one of the best pound per pound fighters of his day who fought just about every conceivable name of his time

Joe Goddard, solid contender of the era who defeated Peter Maher who claimed the heavyweight title

Mexican Pete Everett, another contender of the time although on the average side

Tom Sharkey, arguably the toughest and roughest man in heavyweight history who made Tony Galento look like a fair fighter and was a top contender

Bob Armstrong, another of the best black heavyweights of the time

Bob Fitzsimmons, the first middleweight champion to ever become heavyweight champion and HOF all-time great

Jim Corbett, ex heavyweight champion who was and still is considered the best stylist of his era

Gus Ruhlin, another top contender of the time period who was better than the average contender but not one of the absolute best

[oogiebe]

There is no known footage of Harry Greb. There are several great fighters that he beat that there is footage of. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that he had to have been great.

Just because you never saw a guy fight, doesn't mean that you can't have a good no idea of how good he was.

Just because you never tasted something doesn't mean you can't have a good idea of how good it is. LMFAO!

Do you even read what you're saying bruh? Don't bring Greb into this either, we're speaking about Jeffries.

Yeah bruh.
First, there is some footage of Jeffries available, as well as some of his opponents in other fight.

But yes, you can get a very good idea of a fighter with little or no film of them.
Look at college football. There are over 120 teams. There is no way that anyone can watch every team play. Yet we have rankings on them every week.
College basketball has over 300 teams. You seriously think the NCAA selection committee has seen everyone of them play? Much less the 68 that they picked for the tournament?
If an NFL team that you haven't seen so far is 5-0, you can deduce that they are off to a good start.
You have to factor in results of fights even if you have not personally seem them.
(You can actually get a bad impression of a guy watching only certain fights. Watch some of Felix Trinidad's best fights. Looks awesome. Then watch him against DLH, Hopkins or Wright.)

You have to factor in as much information about a guy as possible. That includes fights that you have not seen.
So yeah, I can bring up Harry Greb.

Your comparison to college sports is spot on. That too is inaccurate and unfair at best. But at least there are folks watching the games and highlights. Maybe you think the roman empire can defeat the modern Ukraine army because you think they beat better opponents?

[Ambling Alp II]

That's just it, they aren't watching a high % of the games. They physically can't be; there are way too many games. There are about 60 college football games each Saturday. Most of the time people just look at the scores, add that to what they already knew about the teams and make their 25 from that.

College Basketball is even more of that. There are well over 300 teams. The Selection Committee for the NCAA tournament has not seen most of these teams play. They can't. They mostly go by things like win/loss record, quality of competition, how close the games were etc. Do they get it right all of the time? Of course not. Most of the time? Of course.
Do you factor in everything that you do see? Of course. You just use all of the information that you have.

No reason why we can't do that with boxing, and people do. You just have to think. Sometimes the guy from the earlier era was better; sometimes not. The sport didn't magically get better the day that you became a fan.

Highlights? Seriously? You make anyone look good or bad by highlights.

The Roman Empire and Ukraine line is just stupid,.

[Controversial]

The sport has changed so much from 100+ years ago and I don’t necessarily think fighters were more skilled. Most were tough guys who fought out of need for money. Huge size and weight disparities were common then and looking at a lot of the grainy footage the skillsets were quite basic.

[Ambling Alp II]

At the end of the day, it's still two guys fighting inside the ropes. Tons of fighters around now aren't skilled. The hw division has sucked for about two decades now. On the other hand, obviously have been some really good fighters in other weight classes.

Gene Tunney could move and was skilled. Even watching Corbett spar with Tunney (when Corbett was very old) you could tell Corbett could move and had ability.

Overall (counting all weight classes) there have been bad, mediocre, good, and great fighters in every era. It's silly to dismiss (or praise) a guy by going strictly by the years that he fought.

[Controversial]

Yes of course it’s still two men fighting however I do think the overall ability of fighters has improved since the fighters of that era. If you watch some of the grainy footage of the great fighters of that day, they looked awful in terms of boxing ability, they would just throw windmill type punches or walk in face first. If anyone fought like that today against the top fighters they wouldn't last too long.

I have respect for every era but it has to be remembered it was good for the time but not necessarily good in other eras. Watch the footage, if this was filmed today and someone said either one of these men was going to rule the division they would be laughed at.

[Wee Tommy]

That music turns it into comedy.

[margaret thatcher]

not doubting these guys were tough and conditioned, but still a very crude, backward, bizarre era for boxing. herky jerk butt cheek battles between 180 and 160 pound dudes for the heavyweight title

it would get better in the coming decades

[oogiebe]

That's just it, they aren't watching a high % of the games. They physically can't be; there are way too many games. There are about 60 college football games each Saturday. Most of the time people just look at the scores, add that to what they already knew about the teams and make their 25 from that.

College Basketball is even more of that. There are well over 300 teams. The Selection Committee for the NCAA tournament has not seen most of these teams play. They can't. They mostly go by things like win/loss record, quality of competition, how close the games were etc. Do they get it right all of the time? Of course not. Most of the time? Of course.
Do you factor in everything that you do see? Of course. You just use all of the information that you have.

No reason why we can't do that with boxing, and people do. You just have to think. Sometimes the guy from the earlier era was better; sometimes not. The sport didn't magically get better the day that you became a fan.

Highlights? Seriously? You make anyone look good or bad by highlights.

The Roman Empire and Ukraine line is just stupid,.

Once again you are ignorant of certain facts. Actual action (running plays) in an entire football game is merely 15-20 minutes. The highlight films that are watched aren't the youtube fanboi highlights. It's these.

The last line says it all. Now you get it. (maybe)

[oogiebe]

not doubting these guys were tough and conditioned, but still a very crude, backward, bizarre era for boxing. herky jerk butt cheek battles between 180 and 160 pound dudes for the heavyweight title

it would get better in the coming decades

Don't contradict Alpy.

[Controversial]

I find a lot of the examples of the great old timers knocking out guys twice their size is on par with tough man competitions or booth fighting. You’d have the decent fighters and they would fight the local hard men and giants and knock them out. The reason being most of the opponents couldn’t fight or weren’t in fighting shape. That wouldn’t be any different today so all these comparisons that they had some sort of magical strength or freakish power that doesn't exist anymore is pure fantasy.