BoxRec

"JJJ"
I'm guessing this was recorded somewhere around 1936 ?

To bad some of it was cut off. He did seem to have a lot of respect for Fitz. Would have been intereting to hear what he thought about Sharkey, Corbett, Johnson etc.

Like most boxers, this is not an honest assessment of Jeffries opponents... He gives the greatest plaudits to guys he knocked out twice each... He called Corbett the greatest boxer and Fitzsimmons the greatest fighter. He said nothing about Johnson who obliterated him.

But directly after his fight with Johnson, Jeffries said, "I could never have beaten Johnson at my best. I could have never reached him in a 100 years." That was directly after his 15 round effort to catch Johnson with a decent punch -- while Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Burns and everybody else attending the fight was yelling encouragement to him, "Come on Jeff. You can do it." ... It was Jeffries only loss..

Johnson-Jeffries was over 100 years ago. Given the politics and sentiments of the early 20th Century, it's interesting that Jack Johnson was ever allowed to fight for the Heavyweight Championship in the first place...especially against a guy 5'7" X 168 who Jack London said looked like a Pygmy fighting a Colossus. How does a guy Burns size become Heavyweight Champion anyway??? It's also interesting that Jeffries looked so awkward and poorly spoken compared to champions like Corbett, Johnson, and Tunney.. He seemed like a humble character.

I often wonder how Jeffries would be remembered if he never took the Johnson fight.. It was a dumb move for him, but a great boost for Johnson.. Consider the fact that Jeffries beat Jim Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, Bob Armstrong, Peter Jackson, Tom Sharkey, Pete Everett, Gus Ruhlin, and Hank Griffin.

The Burns situation is quite a dilemma for you. He was the smallest heavyweight champion, therefore you have to automatically assume that he wasn't any good. However, he had 11 title defenses and to you title defenses are the "gold standard". With 11 title defenses he would have to be one of the best.

Size vs title defenses. The two factors to consider when rating fighters. Your two worlds are colliding Kalan. Something has to give.

Ambling Alp II wrote:To bad some of it was cut off. He did seem to have a lot of respect for Fitz. Would have been intereting to hear what he thought about Sharkey, Corbett, Johnson etc.

Jeff was a monster in his day. I've read every book available on him, and his respect and admiration for Fitz was real. They were good friends, though that didn't slow them down one bit in the ring. He crediting Fitz with landing the hardest shot he ever felt.

punchoutsb wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:To bad some of it was cut off. He did seem to have a lot of respect for Fitz. Would have been intereting to hear what he thought about Sharkey, Corbett, Johnson etc.

Jeff was a monster in his day. I've read every book available on him, and his respect and admiration for Fitz was real. They were good friends, though that didn't slow them down one bit in the ring. He crediting Fitz with landing the hardest shot he ever felt.

You get the impression Jeffries was a straight talking no nonsense kind of guy. If he says Fitz could hit then he could hit. There isn't anyone around like either of them just now.

Tomasino wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:To bad some of it was cut off. He did seem to have a lot of respect for Fitz. Would have been intereting to hear what he thought about Sharkey, Corbett, Johnson etc.

Jeff was a monster in his day. I've read every book available on him, and his respect and admiration for Fitz was real. They were good friends, though that didn't slow them down one bit in the ring. He crediting Fitz with landing the hardest shot he ever felt.

You get the impression Jeffries was a straight talking no nonsense kind of guy. If he says Fitz could hit then he could hit. There isn't anyone around like either of them just now.

I agree. I remember reading a piece where Jim said Choynski used the ropes to rebound adding a great deal of momentum to his punch which left him with a broken nose and his lips wedged between his teeth! He said his corner had to pull his lips free. Despite this, he still said Fitz was the hardest puncher he ever faced. Also a big drainer/re-hydrater. I don't recall the exact weight but he said something along the lines of Fitz being a 220 pound man who just happened to weigh 170 most of the time. You can tell by his frame that Fitz had a strong structure. I rank him as the hardest pound for pound puncher of all time.

You can also hear Jim J. Jeffries voice in this film of the impersonation of Prof. Lubin's Jeffries-Corbett fight.
I think this clip may be from the 1968 documentery THE LEGENDARY CHAMPIONS produced by Bill Cayton.
( I think the source of this audio may be when he was interviewed (along with the other former living heavyweight champions )for a nation wide NBC radio show that broadcast
a couple of days before the second Louis vrs Schmeling fight in 1938 at age 63 years old)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to363U0L6os

He was really an important part of boxing's early history. He had so many epic fights. It would have been interesting if he fought Johnson in 1904 or 1905.

Ambling Alp II wrote:He was really an important part of boxing's early history. He had so many epic fights. It would have been interesting if he fought Johnson in 1904 or 1905.

The game has changed so much it's virtually impossible to compare fighters from back then with modern Heavies. But I believe that in his best days there were no heavyweights of his era/time that could beat Jeffries.

So you think he would have beaten Johnson? I would lean towards Johnson. However, Jeffries did beat just about everyone else worth mentioning.
I think he would have been a handful for almost any heavyweight that ever lived.

Kalan wrote:I often wonder how Jeffries would be remembered if he never took the Johnson fight.. It was a dumb move for him, but a great boost for Johnson.. Consider the fact that Jeffries beat Jim Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, Bob Armstrong, Peter Jackson, Tom Sharkey, Pete Everett, Gus Ruhlin, and Hank Griffin.

He didn't want it. He was utterly out of shape and had carved out a good life s an alfala farmer. He only took it because he was offered an absurd amount of money.

punchoutsb wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:He was really an important part of boxing's early history. He had so many epic fights. It would have been interesting if he fought Johnson in 1904 or 1905.

The game has changed so much it's virtually impossible to compare fighters from back then with modern Heavies. But I believe that in his best days there were no heavyweights of his era/time that could beat Jeffries.

Yeah, as well as the changes in athletic standards, the smaller gloves, the newness of gloved boxing and major ruleset changes, and much longer fights, amoung other things, make it almost a different sport.

Ambling Alp II wrote:The Burns situation is quite a dilemma for you. He was the smallest heavyweight champion, therefore you have to automatically assume that he wasn't any good. However, he had 11 title defenses and to you title defenses are the "gold standard". With 11 title defenses he would have to be one of the best.

Size vs title defenses. The two factors to consider when rating fighters. Your two worlds are colliding Kalan. Something has to give.

For me, Burns' FIRST and ONLY Title Defense was against Jack Johnson... Because he was ducking Johnson to fight a ton of patsies any good fighter could beat... If you're a legitimate Champion fighting legitimate challengers you're fighting the best opponent available who'll actually fight you... If you're a phony chumpion like Santa Cruz, Mares, Cellar, Selby, Saunders, Canelo, and Frampton, you'll avoid the best boxer-puncher in your division and fight chumps.

Maybe you have finally seen the light. Previously you had maintained that title defense is the "gold standard". The sheer amount of title defenses by itself doesn't mean anything. It's who you beat that counts.

It's worth noting Burns won the titlefrom Marvin Hart, who had alreasy recently got a 20 round decision against Jack Johnson. His defenses however, while numerous, were rather weak.

Kalan wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:The Burns situation is quite a dilemma for you. He was the smallest heavyweight champion, therefore you have to automatically assume that he wasn't any good. However, he had 11 title defenses and to you title defenses are the "gold standard". With 11 title defenses he would have to be one of the best.

Size vs title defenses. The two factors to consider when rating fighters. Your two worlds are colliding Kalan. Something has to give.

For me, Burns' FIRST and ONLY Title Defense was against Jack Johnson... Because he was ducking Johnson to fight a ton of patsies any good fighter could beat... If you're a legitimate Champion fighting legitimate challengers you're fighting the best opponent available who'll actually fight you... If you're a phony chumpion like Santa Cruz, Mares, Cellar, Selby, Saunders, Canelo, and Frampton, you'll avoid the best boxer-puncher in your division and fight chumps.

why didn't Jack Johnson defend the title against Sam Langford or Joe Jeanette rather the Ketchel and Fireman Jim Flynn then ?

Because white America didn't want another black guy winning the title at that time.. If the title changed hands they wanted it to be a white guy.. When Johnson defended the title against Battling Jim Johnson it was in Paris.. The French were very progressive about things like race.

White America would not have cared if Langford or Jeannette or McVey won the title by beating Johnson. Actually in some racists minds, it would have been the lesser of two evils. At least they weren't as "uppity" as Johnson in their minds.

However, there would not have near the interest for the fight itself. Therefore Johnson would not have made as much money for a fight against a black contender. It's risk vs reward. Why risk your title against a serious threat for less money instead an almost sure thing for more money?

bump

You can also hear Jim J. Jeffries voice in this film of the impersonation of Prof. Lubin's Jeffries-Corbett fight.
I think this clip may be from the 1968 documentery THE LEGENDARY CHAMPIONS produced by Bill Cayton.
( I think the source of this audio may be when he was interviewed (along with the other former living heavyweight champions )for a nation wide NBC radio show that broadcast
a couple of days before the second Louis vrs Schmeling fight in 1938 at age 63 years old)

Caractacus wrote: ↑21 Jan 2017, 18:43 "JJJ"
I'm guessing this was recorded somewhere around 1936 ?

On second thought,I would say that was filmed maybe 1929-1930.
Because Jim J. Jeffries looks a lot more robust and healthier then he did
in his cameo in the film THE PRIZEFIGHTER AND THE LADY (1933)
btw didn't he remind you of "The Duke" aka John Wayne when he first walked out there ?

BitPlayer wrote: ↑30 Jan 2017, 18:08

Kalan wrote:I often wonder how Jeffries would be remembered if he never took the Johnson fight.. It was a dumb move for him, but a great boost for Johnson.. Consider the fact that Jeffries beat Jim Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, Bob Armstrong, Peter Jackson, Tom Sharkey, Pete Everett, Gus Ruhlin, and Hank Griffin.

He didn't want it. He was utterly out of shape and had carved out a good life s an alfala farmer. He only took it because he was offered an absurd amount of money.

The amazing thing is most of the fighters on the scene like Langford, Jeannette, and Burns picked him to beat Johnson despite being fat and out of the ring for six years at age 35! They probably figured Jeffries could come back close to where he was, which was obviously wrong. OR maybe they thought it O'brien and Ketchel could've their moments, a real heavyweight would defeat Johnson.

The fight itself is not very eventfully with many close rounds until the final rounds. The I couldn't hit him in 1,000 years or beat Johnson ever is a fantasy quote. After the fight, Jeffries told the press if he were younger, he would have won.

yeah, if Jim J. Jeffries actually said that. What is the primary source for it ?
probably the dude Randy Roberts who wrote PAPA JACK.
who also claimed in his book that Battling Norfolk defeated Jack Johnson later in his career
but doesn't list a primary source for it.

I think James J. Jeffries also was interviewed on radio once,
and it was preserved on a vinyl record.
( along with the voice of Jim J. Corbett and others)