It is pretty incredible that a man that big, with no PED to help him, could ran pretty damn fast and could leap vertically 6 ft. Guess what, he could slam. From what I heard in the terms of brute strength no fighter was stronger and was knock out proof. He fell more from exhaustion against Johnson that any one punch. Jeff could be out boxed. If he would have fought Johnson early in Johnson' career he would've probably beaten him, but as Johnson developed and matured he would've taken Jeff.
This vid seems kinda dated. He talks about polls listing Jeffries at no 1 then says the last of these was conducted in 1945. Most oldtimers appear to rank according to the colour of a fighter's skin, judging by the comparatively low rankings of Johnson and Louis, who today would be ranked arguably the top two from this period. Jeffries was marble-hard, a puncher. I say he'd have crushed Marciano, maybe Frazier, possibly Foreman. Ali's mobility and speed would have given him nightmares though.
im up in the air between Dempsey and Jeff..who was better?...I saw most of Dempseys fights, and he was definitely an aggressive fighter, but his weaknesses were his size, and his lack of title defenses...he only had 6 defenses over a period of 7 years..he actually had a 3 year layoff before his loss to Tunney...Meanwhile, Jeff had the size, and beat all comers...Cleaned out the division..and retired on top undefeated...Should have never fought Johnson..left his only blemish..I gotta say Jeff
Jeffries was pretty tough. Fitzsimmons broke both of his hands on Jeffrie's jaw and then Jim knocked him cold. He also knocked out the foudner of American boxing, Jim Corbett, twice.
@CassiusAli67 -Howdy, I believe Jeff knocked both of them out in a 24 ft. ring which was beneficial to Fitz and especially Corbett. Jeff is my real "wild card" in the div., the more i learn about him the more impressed i am.
By the way, in my earlier post, I wasn't trying to say that you were new to boxing or anything, and I wasn't trying to be a smartass to you. I was just saying that when I first got nito boxing, and saw Jeffries, I neere imagined how great he was. When I ponit him out to my family and say how great he was, they all think I'm joknig.
No, I really want it though! I haven't been able to find it. Did you buy it at a bookstore or online? I tried looknig on ebay but didn't see it. I'd love to read a book on Jeffries. He always seemed like an interesting fighter. His physical strength, ocne you read about it in detail was really astounding. He wal also big for his day. 220 pounds. Rocky and Demspey only weighed 180, and they fought years after big Jeff
@CassiusAli67 -The book is titled(ultimate tough guy by Jim Carney jr.) you can probably find it on amazon books. The characters in this book were still around when I read about Tunney, Dempsey, Braddock.Let me know if you cant find it and i'll get the address i ordered mine from.
Thank yyou. I checked otu amazon and I found it. I also saw another one that looks interesting. It's called In the Ring with Jim Jeffries. Do you have that one?
@CassiusAli67 -No, I haven't yet but its supposed to be excellent. I just purchased Dempseys 1940 autobiography(round by round). I think you'll like the jeffries book, the pic on the cover is one i had not seen and looks like a very well conditioned and strong fighter.
I was looking around on Amazon for Gene Tunney's 1932 biography called A Man Must Fight, and the prices are going from like $300-$400 and above! It's crazy. I just bought he recent biography of him called Tunney for $4.
@CassiusAli67 - A copy of " two fisted jeff " was going for a grand on ebay awhile back. If yourTunney book is by Jack Cavanaugh its a good one. Dempseys bio cost me twenty even though some copys were going for 200. Cinderella man was excellent too.
I've never heard of Two Fisted Jeff. Is that like his original biography? The Tunney book I have is from Jack Cavanaugh, but I would love to have the A Man Must Fight too. I saw Jack Johnson's 1927 Biography on ebay a while back. I have Unforgivable Blackness, but haven't read it yet.
@CassiusAli67 -Jeffries had two autobiographies(two fisted jeff1929) and (my life and battles 1910). They are both classics. Unforgivable blackness is also very good.
That's sweet. I knew there were some books written about him, but I never knew he wrote some himself. We need some digitally remastered films of Jeffries and Corbett and Fitzsimmons to show the haters how good their really were. Out of curiosity, just how high do you rate Ali? I think he was pretty good, but I rate him below Louis, Dempsey, Johnson, and some others.
@CassiusAli67 -My ratings are based on 15 rd., 6oz. gloves, 20 ft. ring. Tbh for the last 25 years i had either Ali or Louis as no. 1.But lately as i've done more research I can only say that he's in my top 5 with Jeff,Johnson,Dempsey and Louis. Marciano,Foreman,Liston,Tunney,and Frazier fill out my top ten.Ali had some weaknesses that other atg's would expose. Corbett,Fitz, and Sharkey were all great fighters from a good era.
To me Louis will always be the best, but there are other great fighters like Dempsey and Johnson and Jeffries that I also have filling out the topr anks with him.
@CassiusAli67 -There is a very fine line between the top five but Louis is a very good pick. Jeff spoke highly of Louis in (ultimate tough guy) saying it would take a good man to beat him.
That's cool. I read that Demspey was never very fond of Louis. I once read that he said that Louis wasn't a good puncher or fighter. But then againm everybody always compared the tw and I guess Jack didn't liek it.
@CassiusAli67 A Man Must Fight is Tunney's autobiography. Thats why it's so high $. Have u guys read "Dumb" Dan Morgan's autobiography ? A real treat. He saw Sullivan thru Marciano. Called Jeffries best ever ! Jonhson very good. Dempsey great ! Tunney also very good. Said Dempsey would crush Louis quickly ! Louis good. Marciano crude.
I didn't know that Dan had an autobiography, but I read the book by John McCallum called the Encyclopedia of World Boxing Champions, and Dan says that Dempsey would beat Louis in one round. He also said that Langford, Johnson, Jeffries, and Fitzsimmons would have beaten Joe. I saw Jack Kearns had an autobiography. I think it's called The Million Dollar Gate.
@CassiusAli67 I think you're right about this. There are very few photos of the two together despite the fact that Louis fought several times in New York City, where Dempsey lived at the time. A shame if true as they were both fine gentlemen.
@CassiusAli67 dont know,but he didnt take a shot well,and did do the bum of the month thing..speak of rocky's poor competition but louis wasnt that great either,great power jab and precise punches tho
Whether you like or dislike Jeff it is ridiculous to use his 1910 fight as a measuring stick. He was a shell of what he was in 1904. Jeff conditioned himself for 25 rounds if he was in a 15 rounder he would adjust for it and be more agressive.
Boxing has evolved? lmao. The truth is boxing has devolved badly.How the hell can it be evolving when theres a fraction of the fighters there once was. People today think because they see an occasional fight on h.b.o. that the fight game is healthy.Theres a reason Jones and Hopkins fight 17 years after their first fight , because thats how sorry the state of boxing is today.
If you want a glimpse of an Ali-Jeffries fight just take a look at Ali-Chuvalo(66). Jeff was faster, hit harder, better stamina, even more durable than George. Ali would control the fight early but from the eighth round on he would be fighting for his life.
The truth is, you believe what you want based on feelings, Boxing today is much more evolved than it was back then, you can have all the heart in the world but if your skills are not up to par you are gonna lose, Jeffiries was fighting for an entire race in his day and he still lost to the man with better skills,no defense,no counter punching not even a proper stance, it does not matter how "tough" you are, you will lose against better fighters, it's science.
@Rooseveltdunn - It is not I who believes what he wants. It is YOU. Boxers today are NOT as good as they once were. Johnson's skills on July 4, 1910 were better but only because Jeffries was past his peak. Holmes beat Ali. Spinks did too. Why? There are so many variables involved, it is not as simple as you make it. Sometimes, just plain WILL beats SKILL - that's the FACT !!!
@jhs1958 Jeffries's "skills" were rudimentary at best, what he had was stamina and power and that's what he used to win, he was not fast,he had no foot work.,he kept his hands low and his punches were telegraphed (you can watch the tapes yourself to see).....stamina and strenght aren't enough to win against elite fighers,Marciano was very similar to jeffries but even rocky had to develop some skills in order to win against better opposition
@Rooseveltdunn - Rudimentary skills are sufficient if one has magnificent chin, power and stamina. The other guy must have skills to avoid this kind of man. Jeffries was very fast, not slow and ponderous as portrayed by today's unknowing writers. Jeffries was bigger and stronger than Rocky and probably would have KO'd Marciano.
@jhs1958 Holmes and spinks beat a 38 year old ali with parkinson's disiease....Jeffires was not as old as ali and did not have parkinson's, that ali could even fight in that condintion completely debunks your notion that old timers had more heart, and unlike jeffires ali had no problem fighting guys of other races while he was champion.
@Rooseveltdunn - Again, Jeffries was older and had not fought an official bout in nearly six years. He was past his peak. Johnson was at his peak, active and in fighting condition. Hence, the Jeffries' loss. Unbeaten Jeffries fought blacks outside of championship bouts. Whites just did not fight blacks for the heavyweight title in those days. It was like a manager squaring off against a worker. It wasn't due to fear. In fact, I contend white fighters in those days were much better than today.
@jhs1958 On any given day even the best of them can lose to inferior fighters does not take anything away from their greatness, Johnson avenged his loss and went on to beat even better guys than hart, so whats your point?
@jhs1958 Hart beat jonhsnon just to lose to tommy burns later,and guess who beat tommy burns? yeah exactly Johnson did, no one fighter is perfect and on any given day we can all lose and don't make excuses for jeffries other champions before him fought black contenders except for sullivan,heck even corbett fought black guys, jeffires was the one that refused,just like dempsey after him,in the end despite all the nonsense jeffires still got soundly beaten
Marvin Hart only took the decision because the judges were against Johnson and were judging the fight on aggresiveness. Everybody who as there in reality knows that Johnson won that fight. You forget that Jeffries was retired for years, had to train off over 60 pounds, got no tune up fights and was expected to defeat Johnson, who was in his prime. Dempsey had the great black fighter George Godfrey as his sparring partner and manhandled him. Fleischer said Dempsey would easily beat Wills.
@CassiusAli67 Actually the ref Alex Greggins was the only judge in the Hart vs Johnson fight. A proclaimed
racist. Most accounts of the fight I have read say Johnson won easily but eased up in the last few rounds.
When Greggins was asked about the decision he said " I always award the fight to the gamer man. Johnson dogged it." Sounds like Johnson was robbed big time.
@Rooseveltdunn - Jeffries fought blacks but not for the title - Griffin, Armstrong and Jackson. The prevailing view was that of a company owner fighting a company worker - whites refused to do it. So, the color line was drawn. Why do you harp on Johnson beating Jeffries? What's your gripe? Johnson got his a few years later - by a white guy. What talented black guys did Johnson fight for the title? None. Joe Louis was champ for ten years and only fought one, JH Lewis.
on the Ali-Holmes fight. Ali plainly says fighters have always trained the same. Roadwork, floorwork, sparring, and follow the dietary laws. As far as comments about boxing has "evolved" is total crap. Todays fighters know far less than in Dempsey's time. The trainers don't know so the fighters don't. Guys like Dempsey were commenting on it 50 yrs ago. IMO the big difference is the emphasis on speed & not power. That's the style change people pick up on but can't put their finger on. IMO.
@faltagh - plus, in a nutshell, modern fighters are not nearly as tough or prepared to FIGHT when they enter the ring !!! Modern trainers do not do a good job.
Modern boxing is watered down. In the old days being champion meat you were the greatest athelete in the world. Today the best atheletes play other sports (football, basketball etc). Back then most anyone with size and strength trained or tried to box. All these linebackers and power forwards would be boxers. that's what the old champions faced so they had stiffer competition than Dempsy or Tyson faced IMO.
There is a lot to consider in the modern vs 20s era boxers debate . One can't argue the fact that improvements in our understanding of fitness, nutrition and training gives today's boxers a big time advantage. On the other hand, todays humans are far lazier than our great grandparents were. I think if Jeffries and J Johnson and chyonsli were frozen in time in they,re prime and thawed out today with all this tech they would be too mentally strong for today's lazy fighters.
@plaswer -The old-timers advantages outweigh any of the modern advantages. Hard times make hard men- farming, mining,heavy manual labor, outstanding trainers. Todays fighters are poorly trained and short on endurance.
@plaswer I disagree. I have been the the fitness/medical field for 25 yrs. No noticeable "big" advantage today. In fact todays fighters are in worse condition than the past. Training for boxing hasn't changed much. Things cycle thru in all phases. Look at kettle bell training, Indian clubs, sand bag training, swinging hammers(chopping wood). All old school. Ex: Holyfield, body like a statue. Tanked in 6 rnds. Why? Weights, not enough sparring. Thats from Emanual Steward. Watch the documentary
Jim was great compared to the competition he faced in his day. On the other hand compared to the competition he refused to face IN HIS DAY he would have received an earlier ass whoopin. Compared to modern day boxers I bet Gerry Cooney would have floored him.
@kenyawb - Prime Jim Jeffries would be great today !!! Research him a little more. He was far greater than people today give him credit for being. He really was.
People saying old figheters culd beat modern boxers is as dumb as saying todays boxers are better than those from 60 or more years ago. Different times, techniques. Impossible to know. These people from the past didn't have technology, equipment, drugs, and all the s--t modern boxers do cough- Tyson, KLITschko-cough
carva9 - Fighters of the past were hungrier, better disciplined, in better condition mentally and probably physically too, wrestled in training (for stamina), ran more (for wind). Today's fighters do not do manual labor like they did in the past - with tools that they had to muscle in order to make work. They are in poorer condition, bellies hanging over their trunks, panting after 4-5 rounds, etc., cut off the ring poorly, lead with their heads, cannot avoid butts, cuts, etc.
Wow jhs you are still at it. looks like you updated the video. I appreciate all this classic footage. Very nice. I'm not debating you anymore because we aren't going to change each others opinions. I just like looking at the old footage
Hey plaswer, Andrew and others. Let me suggest that you make an all-out effort to study the fighters from 1890-1920. Do it. Really. I think you will change your mind. I did. Once I rated Jeffries about #15 but after years of study, he rated higher and higher. The people who made these clips also rated him highly.
I've read training regimes at the turn of the century. No, I do not believe they were in better condition great fighters of the modern era. Remember turn of the century fighters fought flat footed with their hands down. Punch output per round was generally less. A Johnson v Jeffries fight in
1905 is a matter of opinion. Johnson did not reach his peak until about 1907-1908 time frame anyway.
Andrew, I agree that Johnson's peak was about 1907-1908, not 1905 when many accuse Jeffries of dodging him. He could not have moved well enough or held off Jeffries in 1905.
Andrew, many fights were held in daylight in those days, often when it was summertime, boiling hot, around noon. No wonder they did not punch as often.
Andrew, I submit that in the Jeffries fights there were fewer punches thrown because opponents were making darn sure they were NOT in striking distance of him.
Andrew, As to Jeffries, he did not have "setups" !!! He fought the top men after a handful of fights. So, had he fought any more fights, they would have been against men of lesser talent - more wins for Jeffries. 30 more fights, 30 wins. Then, say, 52 fights and 49-1-2 record. Does that make him any better? Incidentally, had he fought Johnson in 1905, he very likely would have beaten him too. The Johnson image is primarily based on his win over Jeffries.
Andrew, The big men are heavier because they do NOT run enough. Their wind is not as good as the oldtimers. Conditioning - mental and physical - favors the oldtimers. Both Teddy Atlas and Emmanuel Steward say in a near-equal matchup, WILL over SKILL. (Jeffries unequaled here.)
Andrew, Along the lines of the "man versus man" argument, I believe the fighters of that time were smarter and craftier than those of today. Today, most are dumb or fight dumb. They follow a technique and hope it works. Training is not as good as you claim - look at the fat bellies hanging over the grunks, look at the fighters who poop out after 5-6-7 rounds - even the top men - Wladimir, for example.
Andrew, I think you downplay the skills of the men of this time period. They were part of a pioneer generation - determined, gritty, relentless, durable, refusal to lose, difficult to make quit, etc. (Not at all like Floyd Patterson) They weren't polished but were very tough. Jeffries' opponents were likely better than Joe Louis's - especially the men that fought for the title. Some of Louis' opponents lost 10 or 15 fights.
Andrew, By the way, poor Michael, he was only 6-6 in a sport of giants. Looking at the physical argument - bigger, faster, stronger - how did he compete? He played against bigger, taller and (some) quicker men.
Andrew, In "man versus man" sports, other factors are important - brains (what to do to beat the other man, team, etc.; what will work against a particular opponent; action-reaction - not necessarily the fastest action or the longest, etc.) -- What good does it do to throw a football 70 yards if it's not to a receiver? etc. This type of thing. Russell, Jordan and Brown were superior at this type of sport.
Andrew, But, in track, we're speaking of a "man versus nature" sport. Techniques are practiced until a better method is developed or one that enhances a particular man's performance.
Andrew, This is also due to physical conditions such as "faster" tracks, fibre glass poles, better records to "shoot at" (goals), more precise timing instruments, etc. I think that many of the record breakers of earlier years could/would likely match existing or recent performances if the "goal" was sitting there for them to match.
Andrew, Larger populations - more people - a bigger pool - the greater the chance for excellent performance - it's in the numbers. Also, with height and range comes level, etc., and better performance. People are bigger, taller, heavier. So, track performance is better.
Andrew, Chamberlain, on the other hand, took the ball to the hoop 95% of the time, little passing off. Only in his later years was he a pretty good passer.
Andrew, The Celtics had talent but - to a man - they say they were better because of Russell. They could take chances and if they failed, Russell was there to back them up and cover. He was an ultimate "team center" at the highest level of play. He is my choice as the all-time greatest center, 11 championships in 13 years of play. That's what it's all about.
Andrew, Tilden is estimated to have served the ball 125-135 mph. A player with that velocity in his serve has always been a top competitor. Today it's still true - even with incorrect volleys, wrong spots, etc., those with high velocity serves do well. Tilden would do OK also.
22 total fights hardly seems enough of career to crown Jeffries "The Best of All Time". I am not overly impressed with the opponents Jeffries defended against. Apart from first rate Tom Sharkey Jeffries never fought any first rate opponents IN THEIR PRIME. Not one. Title defenses: Bob FitzsImmons (age 40 171lbs) James Corbett (age 34 and 37 172-183lbs) Gus Ruhlin ( 17-5)-- mediocre Joe Kennedy (5-3-3) who? Jack Munroe (8-2-2) 2nd rate Jack Finnegin (1-2-2) 3rd rate Best of all time?
Corbett and Fritz were right around there prime as was Sharkey. Griffin was good (he beat Johnson) and Ruhlin was a good fighter when he fought Jefferies. Mubnroe was decent, Everett and Goddard were good to very good, I would say Finnegan was a 5th rater :)
Only Louis and Ali fought overall better competition. Jefferies prime was more 1904 and had there been more opposition, he would have been champion until 1909 or 1910 and defended his title 18 to 30x and would have inarguably the best competition of any fighter, but he retired early and still has the 3rd best opponents while champion.
I agree that the diet, nutrition and technology help people perform better. For men, the 400 m hurdles, long jump, pole vault, long jump, shot put, discus, hammer throw, javelin, 4x400 m relay, are over 15 years old :)
We're off the subject but some individuals would do well. Grange would be the smallest back in the NFL, at 175 lbs and not the fastest. Tilden would not be successful playing totally by the baseline, Russell would be good but not the dominant figure he was in the 60's
(I don't think he would not have been great without the team he had around him). Do not believe turn or the century writers often oten on the payroll of boxing promoters to promote fighters.
Russell was the greatest rebounder ever and maybe only Jordan had more heart. If your looking at the times in teh 100 m, the times are not really legitimate as many balck runners were not privileged to particiupate as if you got the best of the best like we do now, 9.8 to 10.1 would have been the 100 m world record depending how old the runners would be allowed to stay active as back than, after 23 or 24, you stopped competing competively.
Andrew, Absolutely some would do well. The very best of all time could play with each other. Size is an important factor in some sports - not all. Speed is also a strong factor in some sports - not all. Grange had speed, savvy and grit. Plus he read openings wonderfully and whizzed through tghe creases. I see many "fast" backs today run the wrong holes, cut the wrong way, fly past blockers, fail to "set up" blockers, etc. Grange would do just fine today.
I refuse to believe turn of the century fighters were superior to most contemporary champions. If this was so boxing would be the only sport in the world were progress in technique, nutrition, training has not resulted in improvment in any given sport. I appreciate the old timers for what the were for their time. The have my respect
but I have no delusions of their greatness
or believe the Paul Bunyon like tales of their prowess. The existing films show
If you look at the last 250 years, how many people were better pure thinkers than Franklin or Jefferson ... none. Einstein could not use a computer (as he did not have the privelege like we do today) and I can gurantee the 5 smartest people in teh world now do not equal Einsrein. I know what your saying as we have much better lifestyles and eat better etc., but there are factors we lose when we depend on technology too much.
One last exmaple is most children in North America can not multiple or add on there own as well as kids 50 or 100 years ago. Also, I am a big Jefferies fan, and I know the vidoe does exagerate many things about Jefferies as even the comment about beating Louis/Dempsey the same night should not have been added with Sharkeys comments. But look at Ali's site and comments, they are even more exagerated than Jefferies.
I agree human intellect is not any better . Athletically I do believe current atheletes overall are better. Look at great atheletes of the past who's accomplishments can be measured. Jim Thorpe was an amazing athelete for his day. Jessie Ownens dominated his era. Yet look at their times and distances. Many high school atheletes today run faster and jump further. Think the great Red Grange could play in the NFL today or Bill Tilden win US open? Steriods aside atheletes today are better.
Absolutely, Grange and Brown would run wild in thr NFL today. Russell and Chamberlain would dominate the NBA and Ruth, Cobb and Dimaggio would crush today's pitching in the MLB.
Fiber-glass poles, corked tracks, starting locks, electric timers, springier cinder tracks, etc. account for better running performances. (Tilden would be a champion too.)
Man versus nature. Taller athletes bring with them a natural stride, range, etc., that helps certain performances. Man versus man is different - savvy, trickery, styles, etc., figure in there. Old fighters and baseball players were better.
Jim Brown would rush for 2000 to 2400 yards every season. With golf, Watson almost won a major when he was 25 years past his prime. Back than, the best athletes played baseball or boxing, not 20 different sports, so the pool was much better. Ruth, Cobb, Paige, Cool Papa Bell etc. would dominate today just as Jefferies, Sharkey, Gans etc. would domiante.
Andrew, you're believing too much of the hype that modern TV and writers put out to sell their product. Boxing and baseball are worse than in the old days.
clouds your judgement for honest evaluation his skills.
Jeffries was a great fighter for his era. But the all time best?
Given modern training techniques and the development
boxing as a sport over 100 years Jeffries may have been a successful fighter in any era but not in the manner or fighting style he did at the turn of the century, especially facing more technically sound modern bigger greats such as Ali, Forman,Tyson, Klitschko).
One final point, James Toney whose prie was middleweight was the 2nd to 4th bets heayweight 5 years ago while 10 years past his prime. Holyfield was a light-heavy who became a heavyweight. Both Corbett and Fritz are very underrated now and were exceptionally great fighters. Ali and Foreman were great fighters but Tyson and Klitschko would have been KO'd by Jackson, Tom Sharky, Sullivan and lost to Corvett and Fritz and Ruhlin
Langford was alot lighter (a welter or middleweight) than Jeffries at Jeff's prime. McVea and Jeannette were beginning their careers. Johnson had been ko'd twice and just lost to Marvin Hart. Why should Jeffries fight any of them then?
I don't think we can rate Jeffries and his contemporaries against today's fighters, or even those of 40-60 something years ago. Gloves in Jeffries' time had very little padding compared to those of today. Mouthpieces didn't exist. Title fights were at least 25 rounds and sometimes longer. Referees weren't particularly concerned about protecting the fighters from severe injuries. It was, quite simply, a very different era --
I like the debate that this video is generating. I respect the 'boiler-maker' enormously, his courage, athletism and punching power. However I think Jeffries would be smashed to pieces and beaten easily by Joe Louis, most of the heavyweights of the 1960's and 1970's and probably the average club fighter today. He had no defence whatsoever and nor did he ever beat a legitimate heavyweight apart from Gus Ruhlin who quit after 5 rounds claiming he was fouled. Corbett & Fitzsimmons were middlew8s!!!
Why? The boilermaker was decent size. 6'2", 225lbs., good speed, big punching power, whats not to say he couldn't beat any of the current fighters?
He was as big as Ali, bigger than Tyson and Marciano, etc. I don't know why thel ikes of him, Sullivan, Johnson, and Dempsey couldn't fight those of the 50s-90s.
The old timers would have been annihilated. I respect them enormously but they come from an era of single punches and incessant clinches. Can Jesse Owens as great as he was outrun Maurice Greene or Carl Lewis? No, Owens 100m world record in 1936 was 10.06 sec, average by today's elite sprinters standards. Are cars faster and more reliable now than in the 1900's? Yes of course they are. Boxing techniques & science have improved athletes in all sports including boxing.
Hi there, I think Jesse Owens time was more like 10.32 seconds (not 10.06). Owens is the 3rd greatest sprinter behind Bolt who is #1 and Hines who is #2. I doubt either Greene or Lewis would run that time with the track/training conditions and shoes at the age of 23. Do you really think the heavyweights now could beat Jefferies. Most can not even fight a competitive 10 round fight without losing there breath.
No disrespect but they wouldn't need ten rounds to dispose of jeffries, even back in his day the 160lb Bob Fitzsimmons smashed his face up so badly that the referee was just about to stop the fight in the 8th round when Jeffries stepped with a left hook & knocked him spark out. Well dun Jeff, knocking out a 40 yr old middlew8 whom u outweighed by 60lbs. Jeff was gr8 in his day but he wud b unsuccessful 2day with his style of fighting its too crude and rugged for today's elite fighters.
Hi ishi2k8, no disrespect taken as we can always agree to disagree. Fitzsimmons was one of the 5 greatest p4p ever. Even at 40 he was very good. The fight was never close to being stopped, but people were impressed with Jefferies heart. Although Fitzsimmons was leading, Jefferies was coming on and the fight was not 10 rounds. Jefferies showed his true will and wore and KO'd Fitz in a large ring. I rank Greb the greatest middleweight fighter ever, he would not have beaten Fitzsimmons.
I do not know if you ever heard of James Toney, but a few years ago while well past his prime as a "middleweight" he beat many heavyweights and would have had a title had he not been caught with middleweight and lost a few key bouts. illegal subsatances. I can assure you Fitzsimmons in 1902 would have KO'd Toney in 2002 within 5 rounds. Fitzsimmons in 1902 would have beaten any heavyweight fighter today.
They say the golden years of heavyweights was the 1970's. It may have ben but Jimmy Elis beat many ranked heavies than he did at middleweight. Harry Greb would beat at least 60% of any heavweight fighter ever (and any champion now). Was Moore's prime not in his 40's ??? Also, for the record, Jefferies peak was in 1904 and would have been in 104-1908 had he hought on longer. I can only name 8 fighters with the same heart as Jefferies ever and not exist now.
@marcxopoco Spinks... Olympic gold medallist wasn't he? Along with his brother? Spinks was a talent. He just burned out quickly and in any event it was a split decision, close loss (143-142) which Ali completey reversed. Old timers? Fitzsimmons lost to Jim Hall (who???) by 4th round KO in his 20th pro fight. Jim Corbett? His record was 11-4! Now that is pathetic, even in those days. BTW you lot seem to crow about the old timers there's so little footage about how can u make an informed decision?
@jhs1958 I respect all boxing aficandos and other opinions, but clearly you do not know anything about boxing if you think that. Jeffries was considered a colourless fighter even in contemporary news reports. I've seen time corrected footage of Jeffires vs Ruhlin II & Sharkey & Fitzsimmons vs Corbett, even a fat 40 yr old James Toney would flatten them. But to be honest its unlikely they would have the guts to share the ring with him on account of the fact that they were abhorrent rascists.
ishi2k8, sorry, my friend, but it is you who has the inflated view of the modern boxer. Toney would have no chance against the top fighters of the past, I mean 40-50 years ago. Further, oh sage, what has racism to do with a fighter's skills?
ishi2k8 - as a fighter, Jeffries ranked at the top. He was as good as it gets. What you (or they) think, doesn't matter. Whether he was racist or not, doesn't matter. He was a great fighter.
@jhs1958 , fighters back then did not even throw combinations or use proper stances lol,before jack dempsey most of them did not even know how to shoulder roll, please stop commenting you sound silly lmao
@jhs1958 umm yes have you? you can clearly see in the old tapes that those fighters lacked proper technique compared to today's fighters, heck even compared to fighters from the 60's, look at how johnson bullied jeffries around and he did it using only proper counter punching,not even with jab to crosses combinations, if you think i sound silly for pointing out the obvious then maybe you should drop the sentimentality and be realistic
@Rooseveltdunn - Old timers not so good, huh? You guys brag about Ali. Well, look at how Holmes pounded Ali and Leon Spinks beat him too. Not so good.
@jhs1958 sigh, you seem to have selective understanding you only hear what you want. Ali lost to spinks and holmes when he was already showing signs of parkinson's disease,so you your example is useless in his peime Ali lost only to other elite fighters like Frazier,Boxing like any other sport is bound to evolve with time,new fighters improve with each generation and new things are learnt,it is a part of life, Jeffires would not have lasted against any post 60's boxer with his lack of defense
@Rooseveltdunn - Talk about "selective" -- you choose to BELIEVE what you want -- Poor Ali, in weakened condition -- but not Jeffries, huh? My, my my, another 23-year old telling the world what he has discovered in his few young years. You guys are the "Cult of Youth" and you listen to other youngsters explain things on ESPN, HBO, etc., and believe what they say. You guys didn't invent the wheel. Johnson couldn't hold off a prime Jeffries. It's doubtful if your Ali could outlast him either.
@jhs1958 lol Ali is not my favorite boxer, i do not doubt that jeffires was not in prime condintion when he fought Johnson however it was not his conditioning that made him lose, it was his style, he came forward and just threw haymakers from a semi croutching position and often left his hands out after throwing them,Johnson simply countered him each time...boxing 101 ...I actually box so it has nothing to do with youth my first coach was much older than you and he would agree with me
@Rooseveltdunn - If you know Jeffries was past his prime, then why praise Johnson's skills in beating him. Johnson gained his great reputation by beating the old man Jeffries. Up 'til then, he was seen only as a good fighter. Jeffries' loss, on the other hand, has tarnished his reputation over the years. You explain Ali's losses due to age and health - why not Jeffries? Give the man his due !!!
@Rooseveltdunn - We disagree on Jeffries' loss. Jeffries' loss was not due to style. It was due to his being past his peak and out of fighting condition. He had not been fighting for nearly six years. It is difficult to do anything when your heart is not in it (even eat dinner). Jeffries was not into that fight until enormous pressure (plus big money) was involved.
@jhs1958 He did not lose to lack of stamina, in fact the jognson fight showed e had a lot of stamina left, he took a serious betaing and kept fighting,he showed all the heart in the world but his style was ineffective, i don't need to learn anything about what you are sayting, most boxing historians disagree with you already, i think this has to do more with your sentimental attachment to these white fighters
@Rooseveltdunn - You've said it yourself, Jeffries was not in his prime. So, his stamina, power, etc., was diminished. I stand by my statement. How great was Johnson? Questionable ! He got his reputation by beating the once-great Jeffries, who in his prime, was probably as close to unbeatable as anyone has EVER been !!! That includes Ali's time period and fighters today.
@jhs1958 i think i know what you are really about, let me guess, your top three all time champions are jeffries,dempsey and marciano right? probably you will include sullivan and corbett in there too but Ali and frazier and all the others including Johnson are not "worthy" to you right? Kinda sad to be honest, we don't need to argue anymore, hopefully people like you won't be much of a factor in the future.Get past race old man, it will do you good. Don't reply again.
@Rooseveltdunn - Well, I figured out what you're about a long time ago. You're right - nothing but hot air in thse messages. You're wrong about my top three - but Jeffries, Dempsey and Marciano ain't bad, pal !!! Sullivan and Corbett aren't either. You are focused on race - pointing out that Jeffries - the old man - lost to Johnson. How many blacks did Johnson fight for the title - one - a mediocre sparring partner. Joe Louis held the title ten years and fought only one - a light heavy.
@Rooseveltdunn - According to you, when Johnson, Ali, etc., lost, they were old, sick or otherwise not at their best. But, Jeffries, well that's a different story. He was a whupped racist. Shame on him. Well, when you look in a mirror, bud, you'll see a racist and trying to revise history is your game. Jeffries was a great fighter and champion, no matter what you and the others of the "liberal" left say !!!
@jhs1958 I am actually conservative not liberal,and i am a moderate, i never doubted that Jeffries was great, no one can take that away from him, but i keep things in perspective,i am far from a racist i got friends from all races my own girl isn't even black i don't need to reverse history Ali always gets ranked higher than jeffries in almost every ranking so i am hardly revising history,debating with you past this point is a waste of time, i hope you get past it eventually.God bless
@Rooseveltdunn - You're conservative. Good. That's a good choice. Every great fighter rises and then falls in rankings as the years pass. It happened to Jeffries. It will happen to Ali. If you're not racist, why did you only point out Jeffries losing to Johnson? Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Lison, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, etc., all lost. I have friends from all races too - and my girl friend IS BLACK !!!
@Rooseveltdunn - I used an older Ali because Jeffries was older and had been out of the ring for nearly six years. Jeffries' chin, power and stamina gave him attributes than made others have to possess skills, not him. He and Marciano, two crudes, were the only guys to have unbeaten careers while actively fighting. Skills do NOT always equate with victory. If you boxed, you should know. If you keep boxing, you will learn.
Total generalization !!! Totally wrong logic !!! Beethoven, Mozart and Bach could learn from Kiss, etc. What a joke. You need some learning !!! Boxing and baseball are worse !!! Much worse.
Gavinshak -- I am not putting down Frazier. He was a heck of a fighter. I just cannot see him as hard a hitter with his left as most think (watch him hammer Jimmy Ellis, who stayed up after many blasts.) Bonavena, Foreman - big, strong men put him down. So would Jeffries.
Jefferies was an enigma in that his heart, durability, conditioning was excellent ... but unless he improved his boxing skills, he would not beat about 15 heavyweights. For example, Chuvulo would be ranked higher if a fight was 25 rounds as would Jefferies, but at 15 rounds ... he would lose many decisions.
I agree ... Jefferies was tougher and would beat Chuvulo 99% of the time, but Chuvulo would beat many fighters up to 25 rounds he could not up to 15 rounds and same applies to Jefferies.
Jeffries was alot faster than Chuvalo. In fact, his footspeed was faster than many of the lighter champs - Louis, Tyson, Marciano, Frazier, Liston, Foreman, etc.
Yes, Jeffries would beat Liston in a close fight. He would also beat the others of his time that you list. (Oh, you left out Jeannette, didn't you?) Another set of jokes, no doubt.
Nope, I am not biased. Jeannette would lose to Jefferies based on styeles, that is why McVey would have beaten Jefferies as he was a stronger and bigger version of Tyson except with a heart. Patterson was left off the list as Jefferies would beat him as well.
But he lost to Langford ... arguably the greatest p4p fighter and hitter ever. Look at the fighters he lost to and most were "great" fighters. He even beat Willis whom Dempsey and Tunney avoided while past his prime. In a 25 round fight, Jefferies wins, in a 15 round fight, McVey wins
I believe there were some boxers who could decision Jeffries. They were the "boxing" type (not brawlers) if they were careful. But, McVey was not one.
In a 25 round fight, Jefferies would be in the top 7, but in 15 rounds, he would be around 15th. Unless Jefferies knocked out McVey, McVey would decision Jefferies. Do not forget, McVey trained with Johnson who was an excellent boxer and beat Willis the first few times and he was an exceptional fighter
Gavinshak - All the men who saw the fighters up through the 1960s and 1970s rated Jeffries in the top 1-2-3. Only today's fans who were not there, rate him lower. I'll go with them, not you.
Very few people who Jefferies fight were alive in the 1960's or 1970's. Its also known most boxing "experts" were biased. There was a boxing journal who gave Dempsey and Tunney a "10" for competition even though they refused to fight black fighters. Louis got a "7" even though he fought everyone ... biased. Also, the may 1962 issue rated Jefferies #7, not 1,2 or 3 (it ranked Dempsey, Tunney, Johnson, Louis, Marciano and Liston before Jefferies).
All of Louis's fighters were good to very good to excellent fighters. Louis actually fought a top 3 contender every title defense. If he did not, let me know whom (with Conn exempted as he was a light-heavy).
I agree a number of Louis's opponenets had loses over 5, but most of his fighters fought 3x+e more than Jefferies and Corbett plus they fought everyone ... white or black fighters.
The only fighter that might have beaten Jefferies was Louis and even that is unlikely. Maybe if there was an 8 round fight, Ali, Corbett; Louis and Johnson might win, but 15 rounds and up, no one beats Jefferies.
Jeffries never fought a man his size in their prim expcept Johnson. Middle aged
middle weights pounded his face. He knew nothing of cutting of the ring, telegraphed his right, led with his face. and had only moderate hand speed. To his credit he had good power and a good chin. I don't see him beating any big heavyweight with good hand speed. Tyson and Ali would have no problem. He simply took too many punches.
Jeffries fought these lighter, quicker men in large rings - not today's 16x16 foot ring. Ali had trouble with lighter quicker men - so did Louis, Dempsey, Foreman, etc. - they all do. I think Fitz and Corbett would likely beat many of the other "great" champs - but not Jeffries.
I respect your enthusiasm but I do disagree. A big ring is only an advantage if a fighter "runs". By all accounts the two Fitzsimmon's fights could have been fought in a phone both. Fitzsimmon's did not take a backward step in either
fight and slugged it out. Corbett did utilize the ring
in the first bout but a back injury in round 1 of the 2nd
fight forced the 171 Corbett to slug it out per his book
"Roar of the Crowd" resulting in a one sided fight.
Hi andrew62, one could agrue that Corbett was the best boxer in the heavyweight division as he was highly skilled and fast. Tunney would not beat Cobett and look what he did to Dempsey. Louis had a tough fight against Conn. Tyson would be KO'd within 5 rounds with Jefferies and Ali had a tough time with Frazier who fought similiar to Jefferies except Jefferies was quicker, stronger and hit harder.
In terms of Fritz, one can argue he is the greatest p4p fighter ever and certainly the greatest middleweight ever. If Ali fought Monzon, it would be a closer fight than you think. Ditto for Holmes-Hagler etc.. If Jefferies fought Fritzmons 10x, he would win all ten times. Louis was a greta fighter and he KO'd Conn twice, and although it was a tough fight, there is no doubt who was better. Fritz would have beaten many heavyweights in the past 100 years.
Gavinshak - You overrate Frazier - bouncy, quick punch - good left hook but not a awesome as most modern fans portray. Plus, he could NOT handle a solid, good big man. Tyson beats him too.
Frazier was very tough. No swammer would beat Foreman. Frazier would beat Dempsey and it would be a toss-up with Marciano and would KO Sharkey early. His left hook is awesome ... your biased right there ... and Tyson would be KO'd by Frazier.
Gavinshak - Neither Frazier nor Foreman walks on water. They are not as invincible as you and other youngsters believe. You've been fed a steady diet of ESPN and HBO garbage. Frazier fought many weakoings. Foreman had NO stamina.
Also remember Jack Johnson was ko'ed by a 160 fighter by the name of Joe Choynski.
sinusbradycardia 1 month ago
It is pretty incredible that a man that big, with no PED to help him, could ran pretty damn fast and could leap vertically 6 ft. Guess what, he could slam. From what I heard in the terms of brute strength no fighter was stronger and was knock out proof. He fell more from exhaustion against Johnson that any one punch. Jeff could be out boxed. If he would have fought Johnson early in Johnson' career he would've probably beaten him, but as Johnson developed and matured he would've taken Jeff.
sinusbradycardia 1 month ago
thats very interesting information. Can you tell us where you get some of your info from.
fanaticnik 11 months ago
This vid seems kinda dated. He talks about polls listing Jeffries at no 1 then says the last of these was conducted in 1945. Most oldtimers appear to rank according to the colour of a fighter's skin, judging by the comparatively low rankings of Johnson and Louis, who today would be ranked arguably the top two from this period. Jeffries was marble-hard, a puncher. I say he'd have crushed Marciano, maybe Frazier, possibly Foreman. Ali's mobility and speed would have given him nightmares though.
madmax8903 1 year ago
im up in the air between Dempsey and Jeff..who was better?...I saw most of Dempseys fights, and he was definitely an aggressive fighter, but his weaknesses were his size, and his lack of title defenses...he only had 6 defenses over a period of 7 years..he actually had a 3 year layoff before his loss to Tunney...Meanwhile, Jeff had the size, and beat all comers...Cleaned out the division..and retired on top undefeated...Should have never fought Johnson..left his only blemish..I gotta say Jeff
jliles27 1 year ago
@jliles27 - Tough call. I inclined to say Jeffries.
jhs1958 1 year ago
Jeffries was a boss!
Rockyfan10060 1 year ago
@Rockyfan10060 Correction -- Jeffries was THE boss !
jhs1958 1 year ago
Jeffries was pretty tough. Fitzsimmons broke both of his hands on Jeffrie's jaw and then Jim knocked him cold. He also knocked out the foudner of American boxing, Jim Corbett, twice.
CassiusAli67 1 year ago
@CassiusAli67 -Howdy, I believe Jeff knocked both of them out in a 24 ft. ring which was beneficial to Fitz and especially Corbett. Jeff is my real "wild card" in the div., the more i learn about him the more impressed i am.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
If somebody was new to boxing and saw Jeffries, they probably neevr would have guessed how great he was.
CassiusAli67 1 year ago
By the way, in my earlier post, I wasn't trying to say that you were new to boxing or anything, and I wasn't trying to be a smartass to you. I was just saying that when I first got nito boxing, and saw Jeffries, I neere imagined how great he was. When I ponit him out to my family and say how great he was, they all think I'm joknig.
CassiusAli67 1 year ago
@CassiusAli67 - I knew exactly what you meant. Only the hard core boxing fans know and appreciate Jeff. Have you read the new book on him?
1899sharkey 1 year ago
No, I really want it though! I haven't been able to find it. Did you buy it at a bookstore or online? I tried looknig on ebay but didn't see it. I'd love to read a book on Jeffries. He always seemed like an interesting fighter. His physical strength, ocne you read about it in detail was really astounding. He wal also big for his day. 220 pounds. Rocky and Demspey only weighed 180, and they fought years after big Jeff
CassiusAli67 1 year ago
@CassiusAli67 -The book is titled(ultimate tough guy by Jim Carney jr.) you can probably find it on amazon books. The characters in this book were still around when I read about Tunney, Dempsey, Braddock.Let me know if you cant find it and i'll get the address i ordered mine from.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
Thank yyou. I checked otu amazon and I found it. I also saw another one that looks interesting. It's called In the Ring with Jim Jeffries. Do you have that one?
CassiusAli67 1 year ago
@CassiusAli67 -No, I haven't yet but its supposed to be excellent. I just purchased Dempseys 1940 autobiography(round by round). I think you'll like the jeffries book, the pic on the cover is one i had not seen and looks like a very well conditioned and strong fighter.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
I was looking around on Amazon for Gene Tunney's 1932 biography called A Man Must Fight, and the prices are going from like $300-$400 and above! It's crazy. I just bought he recent biography of him called Tunney for $4.
CassiusAli67 1 year ago
@CassiusAli67 - A copy of " two fisted jeff " was going for a grand on ebay awhile back. If yourTunney book is by Jack Cavanaugh its a good one. Dempseys bio cost me twenty even though some copys were going for 200. Cinderella man was excellent too.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
I've never heard of Two Fisted Jeff. Is that like his original biography? The Tunney book I have is from Jack Cavanaugh, but I would love to have the A Man Must Fight too. I saw Jack Johnson's 1927 Biography on ebay a while back. I have Unforgivable Blackness, but haven't read it yet.
CassiusAli67 1 year ago
@CassiusAli67 -Jeffries had two autobiographies(two fisted jeff1929) and (my life and battles 1910). They are both classics. Unforgivable blackness is also very good.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
That's sweet. I knew there were some books written about him, but I never knew he wrote some himself. We need some digitally remastered films of Jeffries and Corbett and Fitzsimmons to show the haters how good their really were. Out of curiosity, just how high do you rate Ali? I think he was pretty good, but I rate him below Louis, Dempsey, Johnson, and some others.
CassiusAli67 1 year ago
@CassiusAli67 -My ratings are based on 15 rd., 6oz. gloves, 20 ft. ring. Tbh for the last 25 years i had either Ali or Louis as no. 1.But lately as i've done more research I can only say that he's in my top 5 with Jeff,Johnson,Dempsey and Louis. Marciano,Foreman,Liston,Tunney,and Frazier fill out my top ten.Ali had some weaknesses that other atg's would expose. Corbett,Fitz, and Sharkey were all great fighters from a good era.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
To me Louis will always be the best, but there are other great fighters like Dempsey and Johnson and Jeffries that I also have filling out the topr anks with him.
CassiusAli67 1 year ago
@CassiusAli67 -There is a very fine line between the top five but Louis is a very good pick. Jeff spoke highly of Louis in (ultimate tough guy) saying it would take a good man to beat him.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
That's cool. I read that Demspey was never very fond of Louis. I once read that he said that Louis wasn't a good puncher or fighter. But then againm everybody always compared the tw and I guess Jack didn't liek it.
CassiusAli67 1 year ago
@CassiusAli67 A Man Must Fight is Tunney's autobiography. Thats why it's so high $. Have u guys read "Dumb" Dan Morgan's autobiography ? A real treat. He saw Sullivan thru Marciano. Called Jeffries best ever ! Jonhson very good. Dempsey great ! Tunney also very good. Said Dempsey would crush Louis quickly ! Louis good. Marciano crude.
faltagh 1 year ago
I didn't know that Dan had an autobiography, but I read the book by John McCallum called the Encyclopedia of World Boxing Champions, and Dan says that Dempsey would beat Louis in one round. He also said that Langford, Johnson, Jeffries, and Fitzsimmons would have beaten Joe. I saw Jack Kearns had an autobiography. I think it's called The Million Dollar Gate.
CassiusAli67 1 year ago
@CassiusAli67 I think you're right about this. There are very few photos of the two together despite the fact that Louis fought several times in New York City, where Dempsey lived at the time. A shame if true as they were both fine gentlemen.
muskratrowdy 1 year ago
@CassiusAli67 dont know,but he didnt take a shot well,and did do the bum of the month thing..speak of rocky's poor competition but louis wasnt that great either,great power jab and precise punches tho
finetubs 1 year ago
Whether you like or dislike Jeff it is ridiculous to use his 1910 fight as a measuring stick. He was a shell of what he was in 1904. Jeff conditioned himself for 25 rounds if he was in a 15 rounder he would adjust for it and be more agressive.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
Boxing has evolved? lmao. The truth is boxing has devolved badly.How the hell can it be evolving when theres a fraction of the fighters there once was. People today think because they see an occasional fight on h.b.o. that the fight game is healthy.Theres a reason Jones and Hopkins fight 17 years after their first fight , because thats how sorry the state of boxing is today.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
If you want a glimpse of an Ali-Jeffries fight just take a look at Ali-Chuvalo(66). Jeff was faster, hit harder, better stamina, even more durable than George. Ali would control the fight early but from the eighth round on he would be fighting for his life.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
Chuvalo also put Ali in the hoispital because he had injured Ali's kidneys so badly that he had blood in his urine.
CassiusAli67 1 year ago
The truth is, you believe what you want based on feelings, Boxing today is much more evolved than it was back then, you can have all the heart in the world but if your skills are not up to par you are gonna lose, Jeffiries was fighting for an entire race in his day and he still lost to the man with better skills,no defense,no counter punching not even a proper stance, it does not matter how "tough" you are, you will lose against better fighters, it's science.
Rooseveltdunn 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn - It is not I who believes what he wants. It is YOU. Boxers today are NOT as good as they once were. Johnson's skills on July 4, 1910 were better but only because Jeffries was past his peak. Holmes beat Ali. Spinks did too. Why? There are so many variables involved, it is not as simple as you make it. Sometimes, just plain WILL beats SKILL - that's the FACT !!!
jhs1958 1 year ago
@jhs1958 Jeffries's "skills" were rudimentary at best, what he had was stamina and power and that's what he used to win, he was not fast,he had no foot work.,he kept his hands low and his punches were telegraphed (you can watch the tapes yourself to see).....stamina and strenght aren't enough to win against elite fighers,Marciano was very similar to jeffries but even rocky had to develop some skills in order to win against better opposition
Rooseveltdunn 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn - Rudimentary skills are sufficient if one has magnificent chin, power and stamina. The other guy must have skills to avoid this kind of man. Jeffries was very fast, not slow and ponderous as portrayed by today's unknowing writers. Jeffries was bigger and stronger than Rocky and probably would have KO'd Marciano.
jhs1958 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn -- Tell me - how/why did holmes beat Ali and how/why did Spinks beat Ali?
jhs1958 1 year ago
@jhs1958 Holmes and spinks beat a 38 year old ali with parkinson's disiease....Jeffires was not as old as ali and did not have parkinson's, that ali could even fight in that condintion completely debunks your notion that old timers had more heart, and unlike jeffires ali had no problem fighting guys of other races while he was champion.
Rooseveltdunn 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn - Again, Jeffries was older and had not fought an official bout in nearly six years. He was past his peak. Johnson was at his peak, active and in fighting condition. Hence, the Jeffries' loss. Unbeaten Jeffries fought blacks outside of championship bouts. Whites just did not fight blacks for the heavyweight title in those days. It was like a manager squaring off against a worker. It wasn't due to fear. In fact, I contend white fighters in those days were much better than today.
jhs1958 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn -- Tell me if Johnson in 1905 was so great, how did Marvin Hart beat him? Too bad Jeffries didn't fight the chump then.
jhs1958 1 year ago
@jhs1958 On any given day even the best of them can lose to inferior fighters does not take anything away from their greatness, Johnson avenged his loss and went on to beat even better guys than hart, so whats your point?
Rooseveltdunn 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn - Point - if Hart could hold his own against Johnson (or best him), what would a prime Jeffries have done?
jhs1958 1 year ago
@jhs1958 Hart beat jonhsnon just to lose to tommy burns later,and guess who beat tommy burns? yeah exactly Johnson did, no one fighter is perfect and on any given day we can all lose and don't make excuses for jeffries other champions before him fought black contenders except for sullivan,heck even corbett fought black guys, jeffires was the one that refused,just like dempsey after him,in the end despite all the nonsense jeffires still got soundly beaten
Rooseveltdunn 1 year ago
Marvin Hart only took the decision because the judges were against Johnson and were judging the fight on aggresiveness. Everybody who as there in reality knows that Johnson won that fight. You forget that Jeffries was retired for years, had to train off over 60 pounds, got no tune up fights and was expected to defeat Johnson, who was in his prime. Dempsey had the great black fighter George Godfrey as his sparring partner and manhandled him. Fleischer said Dempsey would easily beat Wills.
CassiusAli67 1 year ago
@CassiusAli67 Actually the ref Alex Greggins was the only judge in the Hart vs Johnson fight. A proclaimed
racist. Most accounts of the fight I have read say Johnson won easily but eased up in the last few rounds.
When Greggins was asked about the decision he said " I always award the fight to the gamer man. Johnson dogged it." Sounds like Johnson was robbed big time.
andrewr62 5 months ago
@Rooseveltdunn - Jeffries fought blacks but not for the title - Griffin, Armstrong and Jackson. The prevailing view was that of a company owner fighting a company worker - whites refused to do it. So, the color line was drawn. Why do you harp on Johnson beating Jeffries? What's your gripe? Johnson got his a few years later - by a white guy. What talented black guys did Johnson fight for the title? None. Joe Louis was champ for ten years and only fought one, JH Lewis.
jhs1958 1 year ago
on the Ali-Holmes fight. Ali plainly says fighters have always trained the same. Roadwork, floorwork, sparring, and follow the dietary laws. As far as comments about boxing has "evolved" is total crap. Todays fighters know far less than in Dempsey's time. The trainers don't know so the fighters don't. Guys like Dempsey were commenting on it 50 yrs ago. IMO the big difference is the emphasis on speed & not power. That's the style change people pick up on but can't put their finger on. IMO.
faltagh 1 year ago
@faltagh - plus, in a nutshell, modern fighters are not nearly as tough or prepared to FIGHT when they enter the ring !!! Modern trainers do not do a good job.
jhs1958 1 year ago
Modern boxing is watered down. In the old days being champion meat you were the greatest athelete in the world. Today the best atheletes play other sports (football, basketball etc). Back then most anyone with size and strength trained or tried to box. All these linebackers and power forwards would be boxers. that's what the old champions faced so they had stiffer competition than Dempsy or Tyson faced IMO.
plaswer 1 year ago
There is a lot to consider in the modern vs 20s era boxers debate . One can't argue the fact that improvements in our understanding of fitness, nutrition and training gives today's boxers a big time advantage. On the other hand, todays humans are far lazier than our great grandparents were. I think if Jeffries and J Johnson and chyonsli were frozen in time in they,re prime and thawed out today with all this tech they would be too mentally strong for today's lazy fighters.
plaswer 1 year ago
@plaswer -The old-timers advantages outweigh any of the modern advantages. Hard times make hard men- farming, mining,heavy manual labor, outstanding trainers. Todays fighters are poorly trained and short on endurance.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
@1899sharkey - AMEN !!! You are right on target !!!
jhs1958 1 year ago
@plaswer I disagree. I have been the the fitness/medical field for 25 yrs. No noticeable "big" advantage today. In fact todays fighters are in worse condition than the past. Training for boxing hasn't changed much. Things cycle thru in all phases. Look at kettle bell training, Indian clubs, sand bag training, swinging hammers(chopping wood). All old school. Ex: Holyfield, body like a statue. Tanked in 6 rnds. Why? Weights, not enough sparring. Thats from Emanual Steward. Watch the documentary
faltagh 1 year ago
@plaswer - AMEN !!! You are right on target !!!
jhs1958 1 year ago
Jim was great compared to the competition he faced in his day. On the other hand compared to the competition he refused to face IN HIS DAY he would have received an earlier ass whoopin. Compared to modern day boxers I bet Gerry Cooney would have floored him.
kenyawb 1 year ago
@kenyawb - Prime Jim Jeffries would be great today !!! Research him a little more. He was far greater than people today give him credit for being. He really was.
jhs1958 1 year ago
People saying old figheters culd beat modern boxers is as dumb as saying todays boxers are better than those from 60 or more years ago. Different times, techniques. Impossible to know. These people from the past didn't have technology, equipment, drugs, and all the s--t modern boxers do cough- Tyson, KLITschko-cough
carva9 1 year ago
carva9 - Fighters of the past were hungrier, better disciplined, in better condition mentally and probably physically too, wrestled in training (for stamina), ran more (for wind). Today's fighters do not do manual labor like they did in the past - with tools that they had to muscle in order to make work. They are in poorer condition, bellies hanging over their trunks, panting after 4-5 rounds, etc., cut off the ring poorly, lead with their heads, cannot avoid butts, cuts, etc.
jhs1958 1 year ago
Wow jhs you are still at it. looks like you updated the video. I appreciate all this classic footage. Very nice. I'm not debating you anymore because we aren't going to change each others opinions. I just like looking at the old footage
plaswer 2 years ago
Hello Plaswer!
jhs1958 2 years ago
Hey plaswer, Andrew and others. Let me suggest that you make an all-out effort to study the fighters from 1890-1920. Do it. Really. I think you will change your mind. I did. Once I rated Jeffries about #15 but after years of study, he rated higher and higher. The people who made these clips also rated him highly.
jhs1958 2 years ago
I've read training regimes at the turn of the century. No, I do not believe they were in better condition great fighters of the modern era. Remember turn of the century fighters fought flat footed with their hands down. Punch output per round was generally less. A Johnson v Jeffries fight in
1905 is a matter of opinion. Johnson did not reach his peak until about 1907-1908 time frame anyway.
andrewr62 2 years ago
Andrew, I agree that Johnson's peak was about 1907-1908, not 1905 when many accuse Jeffries of dodging him. He could not have moved well enough or held off Jeffries in 1905.
jhs1958 2 years ago
As of May 1905, Johnson had been KO'd twice and just been beaten by Marvin Hart. Jeffries probably would have KO'd him then.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, many fights were held in daylight in those days, often when it was summertime, boiling hot, around noon. No wonder they did not punch as often.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andredw, even fighters today stand flat-footed when throwing heavier, harder punches. Less tapping, harder punches in those days.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, I submit that in the Jeffries fights there were fewer punches thrown because opponents were making darn sure they were NOT in striking distance of him.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, Jeffries versus Johnson in 1905 is hardly an "opinion" ! What about Louis vs Marciano, say, in 1947? What about Ali vs. Holmes in 1975 or so?
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, As to Jeffries, he did not have "setups" !!! He fought the top men after a handful of fights. So, had he fought any more fights, they would have been against men of lesser talent - more wins for Jeffries. 30 more fights, 30 wins. Then, say, 52 fights and 49-1-2 record. Does that make him any better? Incidentally, had he fought Johnson in 1905, he very likely would have beaten him too. The Johnson image is primarily based on his win over Jeffries.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, The big men are heavier because they do NOT run enough. Their wind is not as good as the oldtimers. Conditioning - mental and physical - favors the oldtimers. Both Teddy Atlas and Emmanuel Steward say in a near-equal matchup, WILL over SKILL. (Jeffries unequaled here.)
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, Along the lines of the "man versus man" argument, I believe the fighters of that time were smarter and craftier than those of today. Today, most are dumb or fight dumb. They follow a technique and hope it works. Training is not as good as you claim - look at the fat bellies hanging over the grunks, look at the fighters who poop out after 5-6-7 rounds - even the top men - Wladimir, for example.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, I think you downplay the skills of the men of this time period. They were part of a pioneer generation - determined, gritty, relentless, durable, refusal to lose, difficult to make quit, etc. (Not at all like Floyd Patterson) They weren't polished but were very tough. Jeffries' opponents were likely better than Joe Louis's - especially the men that fought for the title. Some of Louis' opponents lost 10 or 15 fights.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, By the way, poor Michael, he was only 6-6 in a sport of giants. Looking at the physical argument - bigger, faster, stronger - how did he compete? He played against bigger, taller and (some) quicker men.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, In "man versus man" sports, other factors are important - brains (what to do to beat the other man, team, etc.; what will work against a particular opponent; action-reaction - not necessarily the fastest action or the longest, etc.) -- What good does it do to throw a football 70 yards if it's not to a receiver? etc. This type of thing. Russell, Jordan and Brown were superior at this type of sport.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, But, in track, we're speaking of a "man versus nature" sport. Techniques are practiced until a better method is developed or one that enhances a particular man's performance.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, This is also due to physical conditions such as "faster" tracks, fibre glass poles, better records to "shoot at" (goals), more precise timing instruments, etc. I think that many of the record breakers of earlier years could/would likely match existing or recent performances if the "goal" was sitting there for them to match.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, Larger populations - more people - a bigger pool - the greater the chance for excellent performance - it's in the numbers. Also, with height and range comes level, etc., and better performance. People are bigger, taller, heavier. So, track performance is better.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, Chamberlain, on the other hand, took the ball to the hoop 95% of the time, little passing off. Only in his later years was he a pretty good passer.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, The Celtics had talent but - to a man - they say they were better because of Russell. They could take chances and if they failed, Russell was there to back them up and cover. He was an ultimate "team center" at the highest level of play. He is my choice as the all-time greatest center, 11 championships in 13 years of play. That's what it's all about.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, Tilden is estimated to have served the ball 125-135 mph. A player with that velocity in his serve has always been a top competitor. Today it's still true - even with incorrect volleys, wrong spots, etc., those with high velocity serves do well. Tilden would do OK also.
jhs1958 2 years ago
andrewr62 2 years ago
Corbett and Fritz were right around there prime as was Sharkey. Griffin was good (he beat Johnson) and Ruhlin was a good fighter when he fought Jefferies. Mubnroe was decent, Everett and Goddard were good to very good, I would say Finnegan was a 5th rater :)
dorsi68 2 years ago
Corbett was in his prime when he fought John L Sullivan and
Charlie Mitchell. Fitzsimmons was in his prime when he
won the middle weight title form the original Jack Dempsey.
Not saying they were not good fighters when they fought Jeffries just well past their prime.
andrewr62 2 years ago
Only Louis and Ali fought overall better competition. Jefferies prime was more 1904 and had there been more opposition, he would have been champion until 1909 or 1910 and defended his title 18 to 30x and would have inarguably the best competition of any fighter, but he retired early and still has the 3rd best opponents while champion.
dorsi68 2 years ago
No argument with Russell or Jordan or Brown. Sprinters today try 9.2-9.5 are much faster today. As are distance
runners. Specialized training, diet, advances in sports science, resistance and weight training, as well as year
around training and intense training from a much earlier
age are the difference. No track record is over 15 years old.
andrewr62 2 years ago
I agree that the diet, nutrition and technology help people perform better. For men, the 400 m hurdles, long jump, pole vault, long jump, shot put, discus, hammer throw, javelin, 4x400 m relay, are over 15 years old :)
dorsi68 2 years ago
We're off the subject but some individuals would do well. Grange would be the smallest back in the NFL, at 175 lbs and not the fastest. Tilden would not be successful playing totally by the baseline, Russell would be good but not the dominant figure he was in the 60's
(I don't think he would not have been great without the team he had around him). Do not believe turn or the century writers often oten on the payroll of boxing promoters to promote fighters.
andrewr62 2 years ago
Russell was the greatest rebounder ever and maybe only Jordan had more heart. If your looking at the times in teh 100 m, the times are not really legitimate as many balck runners were not privileged to particiupate as if you got the best of the best like we do now, 9.8 to 10.1 would have been the 100 m world record depending how old the runners would be allowed to stay active as back than, after 23 or 24, you stopped competing competively.
dorsi68 2 years ago
Andrew, Absolutely some would do well. The very best of all time could play with each other. Size is an important factor in some sports - not all. Speed is also a strong factor in some sports - not all. Grange had speed, savvy and grit. Plus he read openings wonderfully and whizzed through tghe creases. I see many "fast" backs today run the wrong holes, cut the wrong way, fly past blockers, fail to "set up" blockers, etc. Grange would do just fine today.
jhs1958 2 years ago
I refuse to believe turn of the century fighters were superior to most contemporary champions. If this was so boxing would be the only sport in the world were progress in technique, nutrition, training has not resulted in improvment in any given sport. I appreciate the old timers for what the were for their time. The have my respect
but I have no delusions of their greatness
or believe the Paul Bunyon like tales of their prowess. The existing films show
the reality of their limitations.
andrewr62 2 years ago
If you look at the last 250 years, how many people were better pure thinkers than Franklin or Jefferson ... none. Einstein could not use a computer (as he did not have the privelege like we do today) and I can gurantee the 5 smartest people in teh world now do not equal Einsrein. I know what your saying as we have much better lifestyles and eat better etc., but there are factors we lose when we depend on technology too much.
dorsi68 2 years ago
One last exmaple is most children in North America can not multiple or add on there own as well as kids 50 or 100 years ago. Also, I am a big Jefferies fan, and I know the vidoe does exagerate many things about Jefferies as even the comment about beating Louis/Dempsey the same night should not have been added with Sharkeys comments. But look at Ali's site and comments, they are even more exagerated than Jefferies.
dorsi68 2 years ago
I agree human intellect is not any better . Athletically I do believe current atheletes overall are better. Look at great atheletes of the past who's accomplishments can be measured. Jim Thorpe was an amazing athelete for his day. Jessie Ownens dominated his era. Yet look at their times and distances. Many high school atheletes today run faster and jump further. Think the great Red Grange could play in the NFL today or Bill Tilden win US open? Steriods aside atheletes today are better.
andrewr62 2 years ago
Absolutely, Grange and Brown would run wild in thr NFL today. Russell and Chamberlain would dominate the NBA and Ruth, Cobb and Dimaggio would crush today's pitching in the MLB.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Fiber-glass poles, corked tracks, starting locks, electric timers, springier cinder tracks, etc. account for better running performances. (Tilden would be a champion too.)
jhs1958 2 years ago
Man versus nature. Taller athletes bring with them a natural stride, range, etc., that helps certain performances. Man versus man is different - savvy, trickery, styles, etc., figure in there. Old fighters and baseball players were better.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Jim Brown would rush for 2000 to 2400 yards every season. With golf, Watson almost won a major when he was 25 years past his prime. Back than, the best athletes played baseball or boxing, not 20 different sports, so the pool was much better. Ruth, Cobb, Paige, Cool Papa Bell etc. would dominate today just as Jefferies, Sharkey, Gans etc. would domiante.
dorsi68 2 years ago
Andrew, I disagree with the "popular" logic you support.. Boxing is not better - conditioning is the culprit. Baseball is not better either.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Andrew, you're believing too much of the hype that modern TV and writers put out to sell their product. Boxing and baseball are worse than in the old days.
jhs1958 2 years ago
I believe your obvious admiration for Jeffries
clouds your judgement for honest evaluation his skills.
Jeffries was a great fighter for his era. But the all time best?
Given modern training techniques and the development
boxing as a sport over 100 years Jeffries may have been a successful fighter in any era but not in the manner or fighting style he did at the turn of the century, especially facing more technically sound modern bigger greats such as Ali, Forman,Tyson, Klitschko).
andrewr62 2 years ago
One final point, James Toney whose prie was middleweight was the 2nd to 4th bets heayweight 5 years ago while 10 years past his prime. Holyfield was a light-heavy who became a heavyweight. Both Corbett and Fritz are very underrated now and were exceptionally great fighters. Ali and Foreman were great fighters but Tyson and Klitschko would have been KO'd by Jackson, Tom Sharky, Sullivan and lost to Corvett and Fritz and Ruhlin
dorsi68 2 years ago
Langford was alot lighter (a welter or middleweight) than Jeffries at Jeff's prime. McVea and Jeannette were beginning their careers. Johnson had been ko'd twice and just lost to Marvin Hart. Why should Jeffries fight any of them then?
jhs1958 2 years ago
I don't think we can rate Jeffries and his contemporaries against today's fighters, or even those of 40-60 something years ago. Gloves in Jeffries' time had very little padding compared to those of today. Mouthpieces didn't exist. Title fights were at least 25 rounds and sometimes longer. Referees weren't particularly concerned about protecting the fighters from severe injuries. It was, quite simply, a very different era --
stevevandien 2 years ago
I like the debate that this video is generating. I respect the 'boiler-maker' enormously, his courage, athletism and punching power. However I think Jeffries would be smashed to pieces and beaten easily by Joe Louis, most of the heavyweights of the 1960's and 1970's and probably the average club fighter today. He had no defence whatsoever and nor did he ever beat a legitimate heavyweight apart from Gus Ruhlin who quit after 5 rounds claiming he was fouled. Corbett & Fitzsimmons were middlew8s!!!
ishi2k8 2 years ago
Why? The boilermaker was decent size. 6'2", 225lbs., good speed, big punching power, whats not to say he couldn't beat any of the current fighters?
He was as big as Ali, bigger than Tyson and Marciano, etc. I don't know why thel ikes of him, Sullivan, Johnson, and Dempsey couldn't fight those of the 50s-90s.
Swazi4 2 years ago
The old timers would have been annihilated. I respect them enormously but they come from an era of single punches and incessant clinches. Can Jesse Owens as great as he was outrun Maurice Greene or Carl Lewis? No, Owens 100m world record in 1936 was 10.06 sec, average by today's elite sprinters standards. Are cars faster and more reliable now than in the 1900's? Yes of course they are. Boxing techniques & science have improved athletes in all sports including boxing.
ishi2k8 2 years ago
Hi there, I think Jesse Owens time was more like 10.32 seconds (not 10.06). Owens is the 3rd greatest sprinter behind Bolt who is #1 and Hines who is #2. I doubt either Greene or Lewis would run that time with the track/training conditions and shoes at the age of 23. Do you really think the heavyweights now could beat Jefferies. Most can not even fight a competitive 10 round fight without losing there breath.
dorsi68 2 years ago
No disrespect but they wouldn't need ten rounds to dispose of jeffries, even back in his day the 160lb Bob Fitzsimmons smashed his face up so badly that the referee was just about to stop the fight in the 8th round when Jeffries stepped with a left hook & knocked him spark out. Well dun Jeff, knocking out a 40 yr old middlew8 whom u outweighed by 60lbs. Jeff was gr8 in his day but he wud b unsuccessful 2day with his style of fighting its too crude and rugged for today's elite fighters.
ishi2k8 2 years ago
Hi ishi2k8, no disrespect taken as we can always agree to disagree. Fitzsimmons was one of the 5 greatest p4p ever. Even at 40 he was very good. The fight was never close to being stopped, but people were impressed with Jefferies heart. Although Fitzsimmons was leading, Jefferies was coming on and the fight was not 10 rounds. Jefferies showed his true will and wore and KO'd Fitz in a large ring. I rank Greb the greatest middleweight fighter ever, he would not have beaten Fitzsimmons.
dorsi68 2 years ago
I do not know if you ever heard of James Toney, but a few years ago while well past his prime as a "middleweight" he beat many heavyweights and would have had a title had he not been caught with middleweight and lost a few key bouts. illegal subsatances. I can assure you Fitzsimmons in 1902 would have KO'd Toney in 2002 within 5 rounds. Fitzsimmons in 1902 would have beaten any heavyweight fighter today.
dorsi68 2 years ago
They say the golden years of heavyweights was the 1970's. It may have ben but Jimmy Elis beat many ranked heavies than he did at middleweight. Harry Greb would beat at least 60% of any heavweight fighter ever (and any champion now). Was Moore's prime not in his 40's ??? Also, for the record, Jefferies peak was in 1904 and would have been in 104-1908 had he hought on longer. I can only name 8 fighters with the same heart as Jefferies ever and not exist now.
dorsi68 2 years ago
ishi--Tell us all about Ali losing his title to a novice who had only seven professional fights--Leon Spinks.
Pathetic.
marcxopoco 2 years ago
@marcxopoco Spinks... Olympic gold medallist wasn't he? Along with his brother? Spinks was a talent. He just burned out quickly and in any event it was a split decision, close loss (143-142) which Ali completey reversed. Old timers? Fitzsimmons lost to Jim Hall (who???) by 4th round KO in his 20th pro fight. Jim Corbett? His record was 11-4! Now that is pathetic, even in those days. BTW you lot seem to crow about the old timers there's so little footage about how can u make an informed decision?
ishi2k8 2 years ago
ishi2k8, let's put it this way - I've seen modern fighters - the oldtiemrs COULD NOT BE WORSE than these guys. No film needed to verify that.
jhs1958 2 years ago
ishi2k8 -- no disrespect - but pure bull. Today's fighters are a true joke. Jeffries would clean up the whole crew - easily
jhs1958 2 years ago
No, they wouldn't need ten rounds. They'd need a shotgun !!!
jhs1958 2 years ago
@jhs1958 I respect all boxing aficandos and other opinions, but clearly you do not know anything about boxing if you think that. Jeffries was considered a colourless fighter even in contemporary news reports. I've seen time corrected footage of Jeffires vs Ruhlin II & Sharkey & Fitzsimmons vs Corbett, even a fat 40 yr old James Toney would flatten them. But to be honest its unlikely they would have the guts to share the ring with him on account of the fact that they were abhorrent rascists.
ishi2k8 2 years ago
ishi2k8, sorry, my friend, but it is you who has the inflated view of the modern boxer. Toney would have no chance against the top fighters of the past, I mean 40-50 years ago. Further, oh sage, what has racism to do with a fighter's skills?
jhs1958 2 years ago
ishi2k8 - as a fighter, Jeffries ranked at the top. He was as good as it gets. What you (or they) think, doesn't matter. Whether he was racist or not, doesn't matter. He was a great fighter.
jhs1958 1 year ago
THEY <- they modern fighters - would need shotguns instead of ten rounds.
jhs1958 1 year ago
@jhs1958 , fighters back then did not even throw combinations or use proper stances lol,before jack dempsey most of them did not even know how to shoulder roll, please stop commenting you sound silly lmao
Rooseveltdunn 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn - your response sounds silly to me. Have you researched any boxing history?
jhs1958 1 year ago
@jhs1958 umm yes have you? you can clearly see in the old tapes that those fighters lacked proper technique compared to today's fighters, heck even compared to fighters from the 60's, look at how johnson bullied jeffries around and he did it using only proper counter punching,not even with jab to crosses combinations, if you think i sound silly for pointing out the obvious then maybe you should drop the sentimentality and be realistic
Rooseveltdunn 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn - Old timers not so good, huh? You guys brag about Ali. Well, look at how Holmes pounded Ali and Leon Spinks beat him too. Not so good.
jhs1958 1 year ago
@jhs1958 sigh, you seem to have selective understanding you only hear what you want. Ali lost to spinks and holmes when he was already showing signs of parkinson's disease,so you your example is useless in his peime Ali lost only to other elite fighters like Frazier,Boxing like any other sport is bound to evolve with time,new fighters improve with each generation and new things are learnt,it is a part of life, Jeffires would not have lasted against any post 60's boxer with his lack of defense
Rooseveltdunn 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn - Talk about "selective" -- you choose to BELIEVE what you want -- Poor Ali, in weakened condition -- but not Jeffries, huh? My, my my, another 23-year old telling the world what he has discovered in his few young years. You guys are the "Cult of Youth" and you listen to other youngsters explain things on ESPN, HBO, etc., and believe what they say. You guys didn't invent the wheel. Johnson couldn't hold off a prime Jeffries. It's doubtful if your Ali could outlast him either.
jhs1958 1 year ago
@jhs1958 lol Ali is not my favorite boxer, i do not doubt that jeffires was not in prime condintion when he fought Johnson however it was not his conditioning that made him lose, it was his style, he came forward and just threw haymakers from a semi croutching position and often left his hands out after throwing them,Johnson simply countered him each time...boxing 101 ...I actually box so it has nothing to do with youth my first coach was much older than you and he would agree with me
Rooseveltdunn 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn - If you know Jeffries was past his prime, then why praise Johnson's skills in beating him. Johnson gained his great reputation by beating the old man Jeffries. Up 'til then, he was seen only as a good fighter. Jeffries' loss, on the other hand, has tarnished his reputation over the years. You explain Ali's losses due to age and health - why not Jeffries? Give the man his due !!!
jhs1958 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn - We disagree on Jeffries' loss. Jeffries' loss was not due to style. It was due to his being past his peak and out of fighting condition. He had not been fighting for nearly six years. It is difficult to do anything when your heart is not in it (even eat dinner). Jeffries was not into that fight until enormous pressure (plus big money) was involved.
jhs1958 1 year ago
@jhs1958 He did not lose to lack of stamina, in fact the jognson fight showed e had a lot of stamina left, he took a serious betaing and kept fighting,he showed all the heart in the world but his style was ineffective, i don't need to learn anything about what you are sayting, most boxing historians disagree with you already, i think this has to do more with your sentimental attachment to these white fighters
Rooseveltdunn 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn - You've said it yourself, Jeffries was not in his prime. So, his stamina, power, etc., was diminished. I stand by my statement. How great was Johnson? Questionable ! He got his reputation by beating the once-great Jeffries, who in his prime, was probably as close to unbeatable as anyone has EVER been !!! That includes Ali's time period and fighters today.
jhs1958 1 year ago
@jhs1958 i think i know what you are really about, let me guess, your top three all time champions are jeffries,dempsey and marciano right? probably you will include sullivan and corbett in there too but Ali and frazier and all the others including Johnson are not "worthy" to you right? Kinda sad to be honest, we don't need to argue anymore, hopefully people like you won't be much of a factor in the future.Get past race old man, it will do you good. Don't reply again.
Rooseveltdunn 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn - Well, I figured out what you're about a long time ago. You're right - nothing but hot air in thse messages. You're wrong about my top three - but Jeffries, Dempsey and Marciano ain't bad, pal !!! Sullivan and Corbett aren't either. You are focused on race - pointing out that Jeffries - the old man - lost to Johnson. How many blacks did Johnson fight for the title - one - a mediocre sparring partner. Joe Louis held the title ten years and fought only one - a light heavy.
jhs1958 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn - According to you, when Johnson, Ali, etc., lost, they were old, sick or otherwise not at their best. But, Jeffries, well that's a different story. He was a whupped racist. Shame on him. Well, when you look in a mirror, bud, you'll see a racist and trying to revise history is your game. Jeffries was a great fighter and champion, no matter what you and the others of the "liberal" left say !!!
jhs1958 1 year ago
@jhs1958 I am actually conservative not liberal,and i am a moderate, i never doubted that Jeffries was great, no one can take that away from him, but i keep things in perspective,i am far from a racist i got friends from all races my own girl isn't even black i don't need to reverse history Ali always gets ranked higher than jeffries in almost every ranking so i am hardly revising history,debating with you past this point is a waste of time, i hope you get past it eventually.God bless
Rooseveltdunn 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn - You're conservative. Good. That's a good choice. Every great fighter rises and then falls in rankings as the years pass. It happened to Jeffries. It will happen to Ali. If you're not racist, why did you only point out Jeffries losing to Johnson? Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Lison, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, etc., all lost. I have friends from all races too - and my girl friend IS BLACK !!!
jhs1958 1 year ago
@Rooseveltdunn - I used an older Ali because Jeffries was older and had been out of the ring for nearly six years. Jeffries' chin, power and stamina gave him attributes than made others have to possess skills, not him. He and Marciano, two crudes, were the only guys to have unbeaten careers while actively fighting. Skills do NOT always equate with victory. If you boxed, you should know. If you keep boxing, you will learn.
jhs1958 1 year ago
Total generalization !!! Totally wrong logic !!! Beethoven, Mozart and Bach could learn from Kiss, etc. What a joke. You need some learning !!! Boxing and baseball are worse !!! Much worse.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Gavinshak -- I am not putting down Frazier. He was a heck of a fighter. I just cannot see him as hard a hitter with his left as most think (watch him hammer Jimmy Ellis, who stayed up after many blasts.) Bonavena, Foreman - big, strong men put him down. So would Jeffries.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Jefferies was an enigma in that his heart, durability, conditioning was excellent ... but unless he improved his boxing skills, he would not beat about 15 heavyweights. For example, Chuvulo would be ranked higher if a fight was 25 rounds as would Jefferies, but at 15 rounds ... he would lose many decisions.
Gavinshak 2 years ago
Chuvalo was tough but Jeffries was tougher. Sorry, but Jeffries wins in a fight of any length against George.
jhs1958 2 years ago
I agree ... Jefferies was tougher and would beat Chuvulo 99% of the time, but Chuvulo would beat many fighters up to 25 rounds he could not up to 15 rounds and same applies to Jefferies.
Gavinshak 2 years ago
Jeffries was alot faster than Chuvalo. In fact, his footspeed was faster than many of the lighter champs - Louis, Tyson, Marciano, Frazier, Liston, Foreman, etc.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Yes, Jeffries would beat Liston in a close fight. He would also beat the others of his time that you list. (Oh, you left out Jeannette, didn't you?) Another set of jokes, no doubt.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Nope, I am not biased. Jeannette would lose to Jefferies based on styeles, that is why McVey would have beaten Jefferies as he was a stronger and bigger version of Tyson except with a heart. Patterson was left off the list as Jefferies would beat him as well.
Gavinshak 2 years ago
Apparently, McVey was vulnerable punchers - lighter men than Jefffries and not as powerful. I believe Jeffries would take him too.
jhs1958 2 years ago
But he lost to Langford ... arguably the greatest p4p fighter and hitter ever. Look at the fighters he lost to and most were "great" fighters. He even beat Willis whom Dempsey and Tunney avoided while past his prime. In a 25 round fight, Jefferies wins, in a 15 round fight, McVey wins
Gavinshak 2 years ago
I believe there were some boxers who could decision Jeffries. They were the "boxing" type (not brawlers) if they were careful. But, McVey was not one.
jhs1958 2 years ago
In a 25 round fight, Jefferies would be in the top 7, but in 15 rounds, he would be around 15th. Unless Jefferies knocked out McVey, McVey would decision Jefferies. Do not forget, McVey trained with Johnson who was an excellent boxer and beat Willis the first few times and he was an exceptional fighter
Gavinshak 2 years ago
Gavinshak - All the men who saw the fighters up through the 1960s and 1970s rated Jeffries in the top 1-2-3. Only today's fans who were not there, rate him lower. I'll go with them, not you.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Very few people who Jefferies fight were alive in the 1960's or 1970's. Its also known most boxing "experts" were biased. There was a boxing journal who gave Dempsey and Tunney a "10" for competition even though they refused to fight black fighters. Louis got a "7" even though he fought everyone ... biased. Also, the may 1962 issue rated Jefferies #7, not 1,2 or 3 (it ranked Dempsey, Tunney, Johnson, Louis, Marciano and Liston before Jefferies).
Gavinshak 2 years ago
Whoa, you'd btter check the blacks that Louis fought during the first ? what ? 5-6 years he held the title. 1962 Ring = joke from then on.
jhs1958 2 years ago
At least he fought everyone unlike Jefferies who fought half his title defenses against 6th raters
Gavinshak 2 years ago
But, what I'm saying is that Louis' foes were mostly second raters or WASHED UP fomer top men,.
jhs1958 2 years ago
All of Louis's fighters were good to very good to excellent fighters. Louis actually fought a top 3 contender every title defense. If he did not, let me know whom (with Conn exempted as he was a light-heavy).
Gavinshak 2 years ago
Check the W-L records of Joe Louis' title opponents. Most had lost 8 or more fights when they fought Louis for the title.
jhs1958 2 years ago
I agree a number of Louis's opponenets had loses over 5, but most of his fighters fought 3x+e more than Jefferies and Corbett plus they fought everyone ... white or black fighters.
Gavinshak 2 years ago
The only fighter that might have beaten Jefferies was Louis and even that is unlikely. Maybe if there was an 8 round fight, Ali, Corbett; Louis and Johnson might win, but 15 rounds and up, no one beats Jefferies.
dorsi68 2 years ago
Jeffries never fought a man his size in their prim expcept Johnson. Middle aged
middle weights pounded his face. He knew nothing of cutting of the ring, telegraphed his right, led with his face. and had only moderate hand speed. To his credit he had good power and a good chin. I don't see him beating any big heavyweight with good hand speed. Tyson and Ali would have no problem. He simply took too many punches.
andrewr62 2 years ago
Jeffries fought these lighter, quicker men in large rings - not today's 16x16 foot ring. Ali had trouble with lighter quicker men - so did Louis, Dempsey, Foreman, etc. - they all do. I think Fitz and Corbett would likely beat many of the other "great" champs - but not Jeffries.
jhs1958 2 years ago
I respect your enthusiasm but I do disagree. A big ring is only an advantage if a fighter "runs". By all accounts the two Fitzsimmon's fights could have been fought in a phone both. Fitzsimmon's did not take a backward step in either
fight and slugged it out. Corbett did utilize the ring
in the first bout but a back injury in round 1 of the 2nd
fight forced the 171 Corbett to slug it out per his book
"Roar of the Crowd" resulting in a one sided fight.
andrewr62 2 years ago
Hi andrew62, one could agrue that Corbett was the best boxer in the heavyweight division as he was highly skilled and fast. Tunney would not beat Cobett and look what he did to Dempsey. Louis had a tough fight against Conn. Tyson would be KO'd within 5 rounds with Jefferies and Ali had a tough time with Frazier who fought similiar to Jefferies except Jefferies was quicker, stronger and hit harder.
dorsi68 2 years ago
In terms of Fritz, one can argue he is the greatest p4p fighter ever and certainly the greatest middleweight ever. If Ali fought Monzon, it would be a closer fight than you think. Ditto for Holmes-Hagler etc.. If Jefferies fought Fritzmons 10x, he would win all ten times. Louis was a greta fighter and he KO'd Conn twice, and although it was a tough fight, there is no doubt who was better. Fritz would have beaten many heavyweights in the past 100 years.
dorsi68 2 years ago
dorsi68, AMEN !!
jhs1958 2 years ago
You'd better check the records of Lous' opponents again. Many had over ten losses, some over fifteen. His chin would let him downagainst Jeffries.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Gavinshak - You overrate Frazier - bouncy, quick punch - good left hook but not a awesome as most modern fans portray. Plus, he could NOT handle a solid, good big man. Tyson beats him too.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Frazier was very tough. No swammer would beat Foreman. Frazier would beat Dempsey and it would be a toss-up with Marciano and would KO Sharkey early. His left hook is awesome ... your biased right there ... and Tyson would be KO'd by Frazier.
Gavinshak 2 years ago
Gavinshak - Neither Frazier nor Foreman walks on water. They are not as invincible as you and other youngsters believe. You've been fed a steady diet of ESPN and HBO garbage. Frazier fought many weakoings. Foreman had NO stamina.
jhs1958 2 years ago
Foreman had stanima and would ahve beaten Jefferies in a tough fight. Frazier had a wicked left hook and alot of heart and was a great fighter
Gavinshak 2 years ago