logout
help
framed forum
go pro
subscriptions
account
create thread
Boxing >> I am a fuggin boxing expert
| 10/3/08 6:03 AM | |
fearOfABlackPlanet
Member Since: 7/25/08 Posts: 681 |
what do you want to know? |
| 10/3/08 12:29 PM | |
Up With Evil
3 
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 13398 |
Given Jim Jeffries two wins over Hank Griffin, how can anyone rank a peak Jack Johnson over a peak Jeffries? |
| 10/3/08 7:18 PM | |
|
PoundforPound
24
Edited: 10/03/08 7:21 PM Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 13600 |
According to the CBZ: Some sources report that Griffin was past his prime when he met Jim Jeffries in 1895; They also state that Griffin had 219 bouts up to that time, winning 103 by knockout. "I could never have whipped Jack Johnson at my best. I couldn't have hit him. No, I couldn't have reached him in a thousand years." --Jim Jeffries |
| 10/3/08 10:56 PM | |
|
Up With Evil
3
Edited: 10/03/08 11:57 PM Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 13429 |
PoundforPound - According to the CBZ:Subsequent to his 1895 loss to Jim Jeffries (in Jeffries' first professional recorded fight, one should note) Hank Griffin fought the famed Jack Johnson three times. Two of the meetings went the distance and were ruled draws. A third resulted in a 20-round judges' decision for Griffin. So when meeting the debuting greenhorn Jeffries, Hank Griffin, wheezing veteran of perhaps 200 unrecorded prizefights, managed to last 17 rounds before suffering a knockout at the hands of the future heavyweight champion. But a full 5 years later, Griffin ("past his prime" several years earlier, if some are to be believed) goes a whopping *55 rounds* against Jack Johnson, scores a clean win and never loses a bout. Jeffries, meanwhile, remains the undefeated heavyweight champion of the world at this time, emptying the division of credible opponents including two decisive knockouts over former champions Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons and a one-sided drubbing of top contender Gus Ruhlin. |
| 10/4/08 12:56 AM | |
|
PoundforPound
24
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 13608 |
It's safe to say that Johnson was still a work in progress when he fought Hank Griffin. His fabled meeting with Joe Choynski (from whom he supposedly learned the finer points of boxing) happened in 1901. His last fight with Griffin was in 1902. |
| 10/4/08 9:24 AM | |
|
614
33
Member Since: 11/12/00 Posts: 14448 |
Jack Johnson was in his prime when he fought Jeffries, who was clearly past his prime. The result was similar to Corbett-Sullivan. A prime Jeffries stopped Corbett, but only after being outboxed for many rounds. Jeffries was simply able to take Corbett's punches and keep moving forward. A prime Jack Johnson was as elusive as Corbett and arguably hit harder. The hypothetical bout would likely be determined by how many rounds were scheduled. |
| 10/4/08 11:25 AM | |
|
Up With Evil
3
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 13436 |
PoundforPound - It's safe to say that Johnson was still a work in progress when he fought Hank Griffin.Even safer to safe Jeffries was a "work in progress" when he had his first professional prizefight against Griffin in 1896. Griffin gave the 22 year-old greenhorn a wicked hiding for 10 rounds but Jeffries hung tough and dominated the later rounds on his way to earning a 17th round knockout. That's *enormously* impressive. "A prime Jeffries stopped Corbett, but only after being outboxed for many rounds." Corbett was an all-time great boxer. Heck, Corbett was part of the reason Jeffries became so great so fast - he would beat the living heck out of Jeffries' when Young Jim was his sparring partner. Jeff had to elevate his game in a hurry if he didn't want to get killed. " A prime Jack Johnson was as elusive as Corbett and arguably hit harder." I'm not sure where this idea of "Jack Johnson the Willow-the Wisp" came from, because that's not what the existing film footage illustrates. Yes, Johnson was a great defensive fighter, but he wasn't "elusive" as such; he was outstanding at parrying punches at a distance and at holding and hitting inside. A Jack Johnson at any stage of development wasn't going to be bullying a prime 220lb Jim Jeffries around in a clinch. At his championship peak, Jeffries toured the country giving a series of unusual exhibitions, boxing trainer and middleweight champ Tommy Ryan for 4 or 6 rounds, then wrestling against the acknowledged Greco-Roman wrestling champion of the world, Ernest Roeber. Just think about that for a second - the heavyweight boxing champion of the world, wrestling against the heavyweight wrestling champion of the world in a competative exhibition and holding his own. All you Matt Furey fans are probably aware that Jeffries trained in "catch wrestling" extensively and is mentioned in Farmer Burns' book. The relevant point is this - after his last fight against Hank Griffin in 1902, Johnson fought Jim Jeffries' brother Jack and knocked him out. He then taunted the champion at ringside. If this prime Jim Jeffries were to fight Jack Johnson right then and there, it would have been a slaughter. Most historians hold Jeffries' failed comeback from the alfalfa farm against Johnson in 1910 very strongly against Jeffries' in comparing the all-time greatness of the two. Wouldn't the performance of a prime Jeffries against a 24 year-old Johnson have more relevance to their real all-time status than the 35 year-old Jeffries, 6 years retired, shedding 80 pounds in 6 months, and then jumping in the ring with the prime champion without a single tuneup? Jeffries has been given a raw deal by history and he deserved better. He was the best fighter in the world for a long time, and much of that time overlapped Jack Johnson's career. |
| 10/4/08 12:32 PM | |
|
PoundforPound
24
Edited: 10/04/08 12:45 PM Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 13616 |
Up With Evil - Even safer to safe Jeffries was a "work in progress" when he had his first professional prizefight against Griffin in 1896. Griffin gave the 22 year-old greenhorn a wicked hiding for 10 rounds but Jeffries hung tough and dominated the later rounds on his way to earning a 17th round knockout. That's *enormously* impressive. It's impressive, no doubt. But styles make fights and a young, big, strong puncher like Jeffries would tend to be a bad matchup for an older guy. Much easier for Griffin to go the distance in a tactical fight against the defensive-minded Johnson. Up With Evil - The relevant point is this - after his last fight against Hank Griffin in 1902, Johnson fought Jim Jeffries' brother Jack and knocked him out. He then taunted the champion at ringside. I don't know about a slaughter, but yeah, Jeffries, would have been favored in 1902. Johnson hadn't even gone through the Sam McVey, Joe Jeannette, and Sam Langford gauntlet yet. It certainly would have been nice for Jeffries to give him a title shot just so we could know for sure though. And this would have been significantly different than peak Johnson vs. peak Jeffries in any case, IMO. |
| 10/4/08 12:49 PM | |
|
Up With Evil
3
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 13440 |
"It certainly would have been nice for Jeffries to give him a title shot just so we could know for sure though." Johnson didn't deserve one. If any colored fighter deserved a title show in 1902 it would have been Hank Griffin, whom Jeffries soundly beat over 4 rounds in 1901, or possibly Denver Ed Martin, who was KO'd by Jeffries' sparring partner Bob Armstrong in 1899. |
| 10/4/08 1:10 PM | |
|
PoundforPound
24
Edited: 10/04/08 1:22 PM Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 13618 |
He didn't deserve one, but he just knocked out your brother and taunted you plus called you out. Maybe an exception could have been made. ;) |
| 10/4/08 3:28 PM | |
|
614
33
Member Since: 11/12/00 Posts: 14450 |
Elusive means hard to hit, regardless of how much footwork is involved. |
| 10/4/08 7:53 PM | |
|
Up With Evil
3
Edited: 10/04/08 7:53 PM Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 13446 |
PoundforPound - He didn't deserve one, but he just knocked out your brother and taunted you plus called you out. Maybe an exception could have been made. ;)Oh, I think Jim Jeffries would have been happy to make certain exceptions for Jack Johnson; here's Jeffries himself from1909, recounting a famous barroom encouter with Johnson which took place in 1904: "One day I was standing in Harry Corbett's place in San Francisco when in comes Johnson with his manager, Zeke Abrahams. I accused Johnson of challenging me to get advertising. "Ah really want to fight yo', Misto Jeff," said Johnson. "You really want to fight, do you?" I asked. "I shore do," said the black man. I pulled out a roll of bills and counted it, then turned to Harry Corbett and asked him for all the money he had in the till. He turned around and got it out. The wad totaled up $2,500. Johnson must have thought I intended to post a forfeit. But I turned around and said: "Here's $2,500. I'll hand it to your own manager to hold. You and I will go right down into the cellar- all alone- see? In the cellar- all alone. We can go there without a permit. If you come up first you get the roll. If I come up first I'll give you $1,000 for hospital expenses. Come on." Here I started for the cellar. But Johnson just stood still and looked at me with his eyes popped out. "Dear Misto Jeffries," he said, "I ain't no cellar fighter. I want to fight in public, with a referee. I don't want to fight in no cellar." "Oh, you aren't even a four-flush," I said. "You're a three-flush." Johnson and his manager walked away sadly, and as soon as they were gone Harry and I laughed so hard we nearly fell down." |
| 10/4/08 8:05 PM | |
|
Up With Evil
3
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 13448 |
614 - Elusive means hard to hit, regardless of how much footwork is involved.Jack Johnson wasn't elusive in the way that Jim Corbett was. Jeffries simply couldn't match Corbett's deft footwork, but if Jack Johnson wanted to elude a beating from Big Jeff he'd have had to hope his infighting and holding-and-hitting tactics would be as effective against a 6'2 220lb skilled wrestler as they were against the middleweights like Tommy Burns, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, and Stanley Ketchel. I don't think he'd have much of a chance in that regard, Jeffries was a killer in a clinch, as you can verify by reviewing the surviving footage of his title defenses against Sailor Tom Sharkey and Gus Ruhlin. |
| 10/4/08 11:42 PM | |
|
PoundforPound
24
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 13621 |
Up With Evil - Johnson must have thought I intended to post a forfeit. But I turned around and said: "Here's $2,500. I'll hand it to your own manager to hold. You and I will go right down into the cellar- all alone- see? In the cellar- all alone. We can go there without a permit. If you come up first you get the roll. If I come up first I'll give you $1,000 for hospital expenses. Come on." Geez, that isn't insulting at all! You're kind will never get a title shot or a professional payday against me...the only thing you're fit for is fighting in a cellar for $2,500. I'd actually think less of Johnson had he accepted that offer. Up With Evil - Jeffries simply couldn't match Corbett's deft footwork, but if Jack Johnson wanted to elude a beating from Big Jeff he'd have had to hope his infighting and holding-and-hitting tactics would be as effective against a 6'2 220lb skilled wrestler as they were against the middleweights like Tommy Burns, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, and Stanley Ketchel. That's exactly how a prime Johnson would win, through superior skill. Jeffries was a powerful, athletic big man but the knock against him was always that he was crude technique-wise. |
| 10/6/08 2:26 PM | |
|
antoniomontana
Member Since: 6/27/02 Posts: 2476 |
Interesting info from UWE. Thanks for posting that stuff. Wgere you get it? |
| 10/6/08 4:06 PM | |
|
Up With Evil
3
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 13479 |
"Geez, that isn't insulting at all!" I agree that Johnson's obnoxious behavior was indeed quite insulting, but you can't help but be impressed by the world champion's willingness to take the bull by the horns without hemming and hawing. "You're kind will never get a title shot or a professional payday against me...the only thing you're fit for is fighting in a cellar for $2,500." That's $60,000 cash in contemporary money, put up without hesitation against a self-promoting egoist who couldn't score a decisive victory over Hank Griffin, a negro fighter Jeffries handled twice. "I'd actually think less of Johnson had he accepted that offer. " Well sure, you couldn't help but think less of him for getting a beating. But the arrogance of Johnson, a relative nobody, pretending he could walk into a saloon and issue a challenge to the world champion as if he were entitled - well, that's beyond the pale. "That's exactly how a prime Johnson would win, through superior skill." But he didn't have superior skill. Go back and watch Jack Johnson's filmed bouts against Ketchel or Fireman Jim Flynn, or Tommy Burns, and all you'll see is bullying in the clinch. You might have seen a famous clip of Fireman Flynn literally leaping off his feet to headbutt Johnson in a clinch; what you might not have noticed was that Johnson had each of Flynn's elbows cinched to prevent him from punching. Those sorts of tricks simply wouldn't work against a massive and powerful fighter like Jeffries who was also extremely well-schooled in infighting and grappling (indeed, watch Jeffries' filmed defense against Tom Sharkey and you'll see Big Jeff put a halt to a Sharkey bullrush by lifting Sailor Tom by the waist almsot over his head before tossing him to the ropes). Again, asking me to believe that the Jack Johnson who struggled so mightily against Hank Griffin while Jeffries was champion was, in any way, shape, or form somehow a threat to Jeffries in the ring is nothing more than revisionist bigotry purported by those who want to cling to the hollow belief that Johnson's win over a fat, old, worn-out Jeffries some 6 years retired was someone meaningful in weighing their comparative merits as fighters. |
| 10/6/08 4:14 PM | |
|
Up With Evil
3
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 13480 |
antoniomontana - Interesting info from UWE. Thanks for posting that stuff. Wgere you get it?I'm an amateur boxing historian who restores old film footage for other collectors as a hobby. I collect old newspaper clippings when I can, and am currently working on a project to document several of Jack Dempsey's unrecognized prizefights in Colorado during his mining days. |
| 10/6/08 5:40 PM | |
|
antoniomontana
Member Since: 6/27/02 Posts: 2477 |
Thats pretty damn cool. |
| 10/6/08 6:35 PM | |
|
614
33
Member Since: 11/12/00 Posts: 14454 |
If Jeffries was such a bad ass, why didn't he work himself back into shape and beat Johnson when they ACTUALLY fought? |
| 10/6/08 6:58 PM | |
|
Up With Evil
3
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 13483 |
614 - If Jeffries was such a bad ass, why didn't he work himself back into shape and beat Johnson when they ACTUALLY fought?Well, he did get down from 300lb to 227 in barely 6 months, which is impressive enough in itself. However, Jeffries, because he was such an amazing athlete (probably the only time in history the heavyweight champion of the world was also the world's greatest all-around athlete) and because he'd always been able to accomplish amazing things when he'd put his mind to it, simply didn't plan for the kind of massive ring rust a fighter typically deals with after 6 years away from the sport and an 80lb weight gain. Not a single tune-up fight after 6 years of fat living on his farm flies in the face of everything we know about lengthy layoffs today. Even a review of the film footage of Jeffries' training camp shows his diminished skills when compared to the training footage we have of a prime Jeffries' preparing to pummel Gus Ruhlin in 1904. Simply put, and indeed the very core of my argument, is that prime Jim Jeffries was such a completely different beast than the old man Jack Johnson whooped in 1910 as to make crediting Johnson for the win as ridiculous as ranking Trevor Berbick over Muhammad Ali. I believe a very honest way to compare the young, vigorous Jeffries to the loudmouth Johnson during Jeff's reign is to look at the wide difference in performance against veteran fighter Hank Griffin. No other fighter in history has his all-time greatness so maligned by their very last professional fight as Jim Jeffries. Were he to meet Jack Johnson at any point of his undefeated title reign, he would have mostly likely administered a sound thrashing. |
| 10/6/08 9:35 PM | |
|
PoundforPound
24
Edited: 10/06/08 9:35 PM Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 13641 |
Up With Evil - I agree that Johnson's obnoxious behavior was indeed quite insulting, but you can't help but be impressed by the world champion's willingness to take the bull by the horns without hemming and hawing. Taking the bull by the horns would have been giving Johnson a title shot and beating his ass. Not this cellar bullshit. Consequently, all we know for a fact about Jeffries vs. Johnson is what history shows: Jack handled him quite easily when they fought. And had no trouble maneuvering the big man around as he pleased. Up With Evil - But he didn't have superior skill. Go back and watch Jack Johnson's filmed bouts against Ketchel or Fireman Jim Flynn, or Tommy Burns, and all you'll see is bullying in the clinch. Lifting people over your head by the waist would be bullying in the clinch. What Jack Johnson was a master of was glove blocking, a defensive skill that was much respected by the old timers. Up With Evil-Again, asking me to believe that the Jack Johnson who struggled so mightily against Hank Griffin while Jeffries was champion was, in any way, shape, or form somehow a threat to Jeffries in the ring is nothing more than revisionist bigotry purported by those who want to cling to the hollow belief that Johnson's win over a fat, old, worn-out Jeffries some 6 years retired was someone meaningful in weighing their comparative merits as fighters. I already explained this. A veteran fighter will have a much better chance of going the distance against a tactical boxer than he will against a young, strong brawler. And Jeffries won against Griffin like he did against most everyone else: not by being more skilled, but by wearing people down with his size. Much like he did to poor Bob Fitzsimmons. A guy who never weighed over the light heavyweight limit yet still had no trouble giving Jeffries a beating and a boxing lesson in their two fights...up to the point that Jeff's huge weight difference (40 lbs!) finally imposed itself. |
| 10/7/08 2:42 AM | |
|
pharochuck
25
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 1248 |
Up With Evil -PoundforPound - He didn't deserve one, but he just knocked out your brother and taunted you plus called you out. Maybe an exception could have been made. ;)Oh, I think Jim Jeffries would have been happy to make certain exceptions for Jack Johnson; here's Jeffries himself from1909, recounting a famous barroom encouter with Johnson which took place in 1904: yes all this is 100% accurate as to how it went down. LOL, history has shown jack johnson was as brash as they come. his only hesitation would have been to see if he could have placed a side wager on himself. and since you are a historian you have most likely heard the recordings og johnson so you know good and goddamn well he didn't talk in some shuffling darkie dialect. the recollection of the conversation puts serious doubt on the credibility of this. jack johnson statred off taking on all comers, jeffires was tough but don't fool yourself into thinking that johnson ever spent one day on this earth afraid of him |
| 10/7/08 6:11 AM | |
|
CMGF
Member Since: 4/29/08 Posts: 43 |
I believe Johnson is one of the ten greatest heavyweight champions of all time, but the Jeffries fight isn't one of the reasons. Honestly, how good can you expect a guy to be after 6 years of inactivity? And sure, the Stepin Fetchit patois attributed to Johnson in that cellar story is heavy-handed, but Johnson would have been at a huge disadvantage in what could only be described as a NHB match with a prime Jeffries had he gone through with it at the time. And Johnson knew it. Johnson was a lot of things, but stupid wasn't one of them. Also, you can open a can of worms when you start drawing conclusions based on how two fighters did against common opponents. You can't pick and choose according to which opponent suits your argument. Joe Choynski is a case in point. Jeffries met Choynski in his 5th or 6th fight; Joe had been fighting since 1884. The fight went to a 20 round draw. Many thought Jeffries had won, but the draw was a nod to Choynski's craftiness and fortitude. Cut to 4 years later... Choynski's past it, knocked out at least three times by smaller fighters. Johnson's been fighting for 8 years at this point, and sees a smaller, shopworn name (who is a "tactical" fighter, btw), a golden opportunity to add to his record. Except that Choynski knocks Johnson kicking in 3 rounds with one left hook to the temple after luring the cautious Johnson to finally open up after 2 rounds. Keep in mind that Choynski would be a middle/ super middle today. Now, do I think prime Choynski is a better fighter than prime Johnson based on that fight? No, and history shouldn't judge Jeffries solely on the Johnson fight, either. Even though we all know the fight itself isn't why so many people come down so hard on Jeffries. Besides, Johnson had his chance to meet Jeffries in 1905 in an eliminator against the juggernaut known as Marvin Hart. Sure, the decision was disputed, but the fact that he coudn't dispose of Hart even by decision speaks volumes. |
| 10/7/08 6:24 AM | |
|
martinburke
53
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 2793 |
That's me on the gf's account above. The possibilities on her posting on the OG are just now hitting me. Be afraid. Be very afraid. |
| 10/7/08 6:39 AM | |
|
fearOfABlackPlanet
Member Since: 7/25/08 Posts: 724 |
I really meant about boxing as a verb, not boxing history. but I must say great thread so far. I am learning a lot. |
Reply Post
You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.
