BoxRec

Terry D wrote:

granberry wrote:

BO Selecta wrote: Granberry, how can you say that Johnson -v- Jeffries had no significance at all?

This fight was fought with horrendous racial undertones, with each fighter being put forth as a defender of their respective race.

Johnson's nonchalant victory effectively cast the die that no black man would ever fight for the HW title again after he eventually lost the title (OK, it turned out it was 20+ years, but you can't predict the future).

OK, Jeffries was past his best & rusty, but that is not Johnson's fault, that was Jeffries' fault, as he had repeatedly refused to fight Johnson, who had been chasing him since 1903!

Jeffries retired rather than face Johnson: Johnson toyed with Jeffries from what I have read & seen & probably could have KO'd him a lot sooner.

That fight was massively significant.

BO regurgitates the straight Ken Burns talking points.

Jeffries wasn't "past his best & rusty," as clueless Ken Burns would have you believe--and as BO regurgitates.

Read my post above.

Jeffries spent the six years since he retired eating like a glutton, smoked heavily the entire time, and gained close to 100 pounds over his fighting weight.

He wasn't "rusty"---He lost close to 100 pounds in a short amount of time--He had no warmup fights to determine if he could even fight at all---He did no sparring except against long retired Jim Corbett and Joe Choynski, and his own brother.

Bob Armstrong was frozen out of Jeffries camp by Corbett and others.

I am sure you know who Bob Armstrong is, don't you BO, since you and your clueless media mentor Ken Burns are bigtime boxing "experts."

The "fight" was a farce because Jeffries had NO LEGS and no reflexes.

The ONLY thing the farce of a "fight" showed was

1---Johnson was not a puncher---it took him 15 rounds to get rid of Jeffries

2---The fact that Jeffries was such a physical specimen that he could drag on for 15 rounds even in his decrepit condition.

REGURGITATING your politically correct, clueless Ken Burns crap, you write

"Jeffries retired rather than face Johnson"

That is horsesh*t.

Johnson lost a 20 round decision to Marvin Hart just before Jeffries retired.

Johnson showed he had no big punch against Hart.

Johnson showed in that fight he would not have been competition for Jeffries.


You REGURGITATE the Ken Burns talking points:

"Johnson toyed with Jeffries from what I have read & seen & probably could have KO'd him a lot sooner."

In the real world Johnson fought a very careful fight even though it was obvious from the start that Jeffries had nothing.

Johnson waited until Jeffries' legs went completely. That took 15 rounds, because Johnson had no big punch on a heavyweight championship level.

He was a defensive boxer who specialized in short punches in close.

You REGURGITATE

"That fight was massively significant. "

That fight is significant only to media phonies who have no interest in boxing like modern media hot shot Ken Burns and his clueless disciples.

As a fight it was garbage.

The politically correct Ken Burns incompetence and raw horsesh*t contaminates everything he and the modern media touch.

Ken Burns omitted Stan Musial completely from his 100-hour "expert" baseball documentary.

Stan Musial won SEVEN National League batting titles.

But he wasn't good enough for Ken Burns' "expert" baseball documentary.

I wonder why.

Keep swallowing and regurgitating word for word your modern media agenda driven horsh*t, BO.

.

Footage makes it look to me that Johnson was content to slowly beat him up, and smile whilst doing so. Perhaps he just wanted to give him a slow beating. May have wanted to do it for longer but the old man was not up for that.

Footage shows Johnson was not a puncher.

Footage shows it took non-puncher Johnson 15 rounds to beat the shell of Jeffries.

Your attempts at demonstrating psychic ability are not even your own.

You are regurgitating Ken Burns talking points.

And agenda-driven Ken Burns has zero knowledge of or interest in boxing.

In regards to the Johnson - Jefferies fight this was in many ways more of a social history milestone as opposed to a boxing one.

Jefferies must have pushed himself hard to drop that weight and to get into such shape to face Johnson.

In that fight however Johnson in his typical fashion seemed happy to play and parry away at Jefferies. But in all the film I have ever seen of Johnson I have never seen him do anything really other than to play and wear down his foe. In most caces, anyhow.

I am assuming that Granberry does not like Ken Burns..

I remember reading on a few occasions that Johnson felt that there was no money in fighting fellowed 'coloured fighters'.

I guess this was true sadly. As most of the paying patrons who made up the purse were entirely white and represented the thinking of that era. Why would they pay to see two African Americans fighting. ?

Kym

I was going through some very old posts at another forum, & a member I used to know well said Ken Burns spoke at his sister's wedding, & he, & I quote...

"I alone stood & booed him. I was quite proud of myself."

Given this out-of-the-blue statement, & the fact this guy seems to be Gran's flavour of the month, I have to ask...

Who is Ken Burns?

Isn't Ken Burns the guy that does documentaries ?

Didnt he do a Civil War one and alos one on WW2 ?

I think Ken Burns did 'Unforgiveable Blackness'
which is a doco about Johnson, though it focuses on
Johnson vs Jefferies.

Won alot of awards like 'Caines' and 'Sundance'

Robinson wrote:I think Ken Burns did 'Unforgiveable Blackness'
which is a doco about Johnson, though it focuses on
Johnson vs Jefferies.

Won alot of awards like 'Caines' and 'Sundance'

the book was by Geoffrey Ward - maybe Burns did the docu, but Ward did the book - ive got it in front of me

Jeffries was six years removed, had to lose 110 pounds, get in shape for a 45 round fight...and yet he was still the 10-7 favorite over Jack Johnson...call it rose coloured glasses or what have you, but it had to have been one hell of a shock to not only America but the entire sports world that Jeffries lost in such a fashion, considering he never lost and nobody really in his prime came even close to beating him.

I still rank it personally as THE biggest fight in boxing history, if not in terms of gross/marketing, at least in historical value and its significance alone in the annals of not only boxing history but in social/cultural history.

It was really the first time ever that two men laid claim to the crown, and it wouldnt be until 1971 that a fight would have a very similar type of atmosphere around it, and yes I am referring to Ali-Frazier. Despite what all logic told us, many were still rooting for Ali and believed he would win easily against Joe. It didn't happen. You simply cannot be gone for that long a time with little or no tune ups and think you will be a success off the bat.

Mind you, besides Jeffries having to shake off the rust and the pounds, he was also suffering for lethargy and dysentary a few weeks before the bout and it wouldnt be until two weeks after the debacle that Jeffries was cleared up from the illness. He was going in a suicide mission against Johnson, and he still went 15 rounds with a dozen cuts over his face, hideously swollen, nose broken, his mouth cut from the inside and a dangerously deep gash over his left eye.

And guess what? He was still man enough to say after the fact that had it all happened six years before, it would have been a different story, with Johnson on the canvas and not him. Talk about TOUGH.

Anyways, I rate Johnson-Jeffries as being #1, though it wasnt a competitive fight as Jeffries only good round was in the third when he managed to cut Johnson's lip.

The number two biggest fight, I would have to agree again with Robinson, is being Louis-Schmeling 2, based solely on two reasons: the historical/social significance of the fight, and it is about the best example of what a man can do to another when properly tuned and at his best.

As far as number three [ironically I just realized the top two fights have been all at heavyweight] its all up for grabs here. There has been so many exciting, thrilling encounters in all the weight classes it is really hard to pin point any of them down to a certain spot. Its easier to debate the greatest fighter, or the greatest knockout, the greatest round, etc.

But I reckon, in terms of two way action, the best has to be Dempsey-Firpo.

Ezzard wrote:
You might argue that the Pep-Saddler fights were also pitching the 2 greatest at the weights against one another .

Yes. George Dixon, Terry McGovern, Kid Chocolate, etc etc etc never existed.

granberry wrote:

BO Selecta wrote:

granberry wrote:1) Jack Johnson -v- Jim Jeffries -

During the 6 years he hadn't fought Jeffries smoked heavily and ate like a glutton, gaining close to 100 pounds.

For the "fight" with Johnson, Jeffries lost close to 100 pounds in a short amount of time

had no warm up fights to determine if he could still fight at all

did almost no sparring, and the most of the sparring he did was with long retired fighters like Jim Corbett and Joe Choynski.
The trainers from his championship days were not around his camp.

The fight itself demonstrated two things:

1---that Johnson was not a puncher---it took Johnson 15 rounds to get rid of the shell of Jeffries. If the situation had been reversed Johnson would not have gotten through the first round.

2---what a phsyical specimen Jeffries was even in that decrepit condition, staying for 15 rounds against Johnson in his prime.

That fight does not rate as a significant fight, since Johnson was fighting the shell of Jeffries.

2) Joe Louis -v- Max Schmeling 2 -

Yes, since the clueless media and the Ken Burns types have NO INTEREST in boxing and have ZERO knowledge of boxing

they need a non-boxing tag to even mention the subject of boxing.

3) Frazier -v- Ali 1 -

Not a great fight, since one fighter (Ali) dropped out of the fight for the last third of the fight (last 5 rounds), just trying to survive to the end.

Ali was down and then staggering all over the ring in the 11th round, and then knocked flat on his back in the 15th round.

The fight showed two things

1--that Ali didn't have the punch to keep Frazier off him

2--that Ali couldn't defend himself against Frazier's left hook.

The so-called referee for that fight, Arthur Merchante, deserved an award for biased "refereeing,"

sticking his fingers in Frazier's eye in the 10th round,

calling a clear knockdown of Ali by Frazier in the 11th round a "slip,"

hacking at Frazier's arms in the clinches even though it was Ali doing the holding,

and frantically throwing his body in front of Frazier at the end of every round as if he were terrified that Frazier might throw a punch after the bell. While Merchante did this, he had his back to Ali.


The Louis of the Schmeling title defense would have been a good fight against Johnson.

The Ali and Frazier of their first fight wouldn't have bothered to show up against that Louis.

Granberry, how can you say that Johnson -v- Jeffries had no significance at all?

This fight was fought with horrendous racial undertones, with each fighter being put forth as a defender of their respective race.

Johnson's nonchalant victory effectively cast the die that no black man would ever fight for the HW title again after he eventually lost the title (OK, it turned out it was 20+ years, but you can't predict the future).

OK, Jeffries was past his best & rusty, but that is not Johnson's fault, that was Jeffries' fault, as he had repeatedly refused to fight Johnson, who had been chasing him since 1903!

Jeffries retired rather than face Johnson: Johnson toyed with Jeffries from what I have read & seen & probably could have KO'd him a lot sooner.

That fight was massively significant.

BO regurgitates the straight Ken Burns talking points.

Jeffries wasn't "past his best & rusty," as clueless Ken Burns would have you believe--and as BO regurgitates.

Read my post above.

Jeffries spent the six years since he retired eating like a glutton, smoked heavily the entire time, and gained close to 100 pounds over his fighting weight.

He wasn't "rusty"---He lost close to 100 pounds in a short amount of time--He had no warmup fights to determine if he could even fight at all---He did no sparring except against long retired Jim Corbett and Joe Choynski, and his own brother.

Bob Armstrong was frozen out of Jeffries camp by Corbett and others.

I am sure you know who Bob Armstrong is, don't you BO, since you and your clueless media mentor Ken Burns are bigtime boxing "experts."

The "fight" was a farce because Jeffries had NO LEGS and no reflexes.

The ONLY thing the farce of a "fight" showed was

1---Johnson was not a puncher---it took him 15 rounds to get rid of Jeffries

2---The fact that Jeffries was such a physical specimen that he could drag on for 15 rounds even in his decrepit condition.

REGURGITATING your politically correct, clueless Ken Burns crap, you write

"Jeffries retired rather than face Johnson"

That is horsesh*t.

Johnson lost a 20 round decision to Marvin Hart just before Jeffries retired.

Johnson showed he had no big punch against Hart.

Johnson showed in that fight he would not have been competition for Jeffries.


You REGURGITATE the Ken Burns talking points:

"Johnson toyed with Jeffries from what I have read & seen & probably could have KO'd him a lot sooner."

In the real world Johnson fought a very careful fight even though it was obvious from the start that Jeffries had nothing.

Johnson waited until Jeffries' legs went completely. That took 15 rounds, because Johnson had no big punch on a heavyweight championship level.

He was a defensive boxer who specialized in short punches in close.

You REGURGITATE

"That fight was massively significant. "

That fight is significant only to media phonies who have no interest in boxing like modern media hot shot Ken Burns and his clueless disciples.

As a fight it was garbage.

The politically correct Ken Burns incompetence and raw horsesh*t contaminates everything he and the modern media touch.

Ken Burns omitted Stan Musial completely from his 100-hour "expert" baseball documentary.

Stan Musial won SEVEN National League batting titles.

But he wasn't good enough for Ken Burns' "expert" baseball documentary.

I wonder why.

Keep swallowing and regurgitating word for word your modern media agenda driven horsh*t, BO.

.

Granberry, has Ken Burns dumped you or does he owe you money or something?

Whoever this Ken Burns bloke is, you seem mighty obsessed by him; to the point that you think that someone can't have an opinion about Johnson -v- Jeffries (that doesn't coincide with yours) is influenced by him.

Whoever Ken is, I hope you get over him soon or he gives you back that money, because scorn is not a nice thing!!

Robinson wrote:Isn't Ken Burns the guy that does documentaries ?

Didnt he do a Civil War one and alos one on WW2 ?

I'm sure Granberry will fill you in.

I think they must have previous or something!!

Why does BoxBuzz keep sucking up to Granberry (moron)?

With an ex-girlfriend many years ago, with my mum when I was 16, and with with my 2-year old daughter yesterday.

My record: 1-1-1. Women are tough competitors.

pundit wrote:With an ex-girlfriend many years ago, with my mum when I was 16, and with with my 2-year old daughter yesterday.

My record: 1-1-1. Women are tough competitors.

In that order? The fact that she’s your ex girlfriend implies that’s the one you won and few teens get the better of their moms, so that’s probably your loss. Of course, if you’re counting the 2 year daughter as a draw, that could be due to biased judging. Two year old little girls usually have a way with their fathers.

The Great John L wrote:

pundit wrote:With an ex-girlfriend many years ago, with my mum when I was 16, and with with my 2-year old daughter yesterday.

My record: 1-1-1. Women are tough competitors.

In that order? The fact that she’s your ex girlfriend implies that’s the one you won and few teens get the better of their moms, so that’s probably your loss. Of course, if you’re counting the 2 year daughter as a draw, that could be due to biased judging. Two year old little girls usually have a way with their fathers.

Sound reasoning, but I'm not revealing the details.

In my lifetime:

Duran vs Leonard I: the biggest fight in history, the most anticipated match in the lower weight classes outside the heavyweights.

Leonard vs Hearns I: the second greatest and most anticipated match after Duran-Leonard I.


Tyson vs Holyfield I: Should have been in 1991, but the 1996 version was not bad at all. Great fight.

granberry wrote:

Ezzard wrote:
You might argue that the Pep-Saddler fights were also pitching the 2 greatest at the weights against one another .

Yes. George Dixon, Terry McGovern, Kid Chocolate, etc etc etc never existed.

That's why I wrote 'might argue'.

Would you pick any of the three you mentioned over Pep or Saddler?

Kid Chocolate might just be the man...

Ezzard wrote:

granberry wrote:

Ezzard wrote:
You might argue that the Pep-Saddler fights were also pitching the 2 greatest at the weights against one another .

Yes. George Dixon, Terry McGovern, Kid Chocolate, etc etc etc never existed.

That's why I wrote 'might argue'.

Would you pick any of the three you mentioned over Pep or Saddler?

Kid Chocolate might just be the man...

You familiarity with fighters doesn't go back very far, does it.

But you do the best you can, I am sure.

Terry D wrote:

granberry wrote:

Ezzard wrote: That's why I wrote 'might argue'.

Would you pick any of the three you mentioned over Pep or Saddler?

Kid Chocolate might just be the man...

.

You familiarity with fighters doesn't go back very far, does it.

But you do the best you can, I am sure.

Are you 'familiar' with fighters then Granberry?

Poor terry doesn't have a clue who George Dixon, Terry McGovern and Abe Attell are.

And he never will.

But that doesn't stop him from being a boxing "expert."

Give us all the benefit of your "knowledge," terry.
.

Syntax Error wrote:What top 3 fights do you believe to be the biggest ever, in terms of significance in & beyond boxing?

Not necessarily the highest grossing or exciting, but highly significant?

For me they are:-

1) Jack Johnson -v- Jim Jeffries - I know it was 100 years ago & I certainly wasn't around then, but from reading about it, I now believe that this was the biggest boxing match, probably ever. Each fighter was said to be representing a race & the result & the manner of Johnson's victory probably changed HW boxing forever. Johnson winning effectively barred any black fighters from fighting for the title for over 2 decades!

2) Joe Louis -v- Max Schmeling 2 - Not that either fighter wanted it, but each man was representing an ideology. How ironic in the light of Jack Johnson's treatment over 20 years earlier that a black heavyweight would represent the so-called free world against Nazism (not that Schmeling was a Nazi).

3) Frazier -v- Ali 1 - Quite simply the fight of the 20th century. Were it not for the wider social & cultural significance of the 1st 2 fights on my list, this would be the biggest fight of all time, bar none. 2 undefeated champions, both with legitimate claims to be champion of the world. Dial in the fact that you have the most charismatic human that ever lived versus the indomitable Frazier, it all added up to one hell of an event.

i agree with your three. i might have them in a different order but it depends what day it is. they were all so important.