Jack Johnson or Jim Jeffries - let's settle it once and for all

Morning chaps, hoping to keep this one pretty quick and to-the-point - well, by my usual standards anyway!

I revisited Geoffrey C Ward's 'Unforgivable Blackness' to spruce up my memory and take on the Jack Johnson versus Jim Jeffries 'Fight of the Century' not long ago - excruciating and often pointless footnotes aside, it's still a good read and it got me thinking again about the conundrum of who belongs higher of the pair in the all-time Heavyweight standings.

Until recently, I'd tended to side with 'Papa Jack'; a bit more of an all-rounder than Jeffries, had a body of pre-title work arguably more impressive and certainly more arduous than any other champion of boxing's blue ribband division and, of course, continues to cast a long shadow over the division in terms of significance and historical importance.

Incidentally, the result of the fifteen rounds they shared in 1910 means basically nothing to me. Jeffries was in no condition to be fighting for the Heavyweight title after ballooning up to around twenty stone in his half-dozen years of retirement beforehand, was demonstrably a shell of his former self and pretty much summed this up in one quote after the fight: "My eyes could still see the openings, but my muscles just couldn't react to take advantage of them - they were slow, slow, slow."

On the other side of the coin, however, I can't bring myself to ignore Jeffries' own merits in direct comparison to Johnson's. To this day, Jeffries remains one of only a startlingly select group of Heavyweight champions who can legitimately claim that they were never beaten in or even around their prime years. Johnson, perhaps, had more glorious highs than Jeffries, but his career was also occasionally marred by some lows - the early knockout defeat to Choynski who, only a year or so previously, had himself been stopped by a Welterweight in 'Barbados' Joe Walcott who reportedly scaled 36 lb less than Choynski on fight night, the silly points loss to Hart which, while Johnson claimed was no more than blatant larceny, seems more likely to have been a case of Johnson falling foul to complacency and switching off in the late rounds etc.

I don't particularly think that these defeats are any disgrace to Johnson, of course. In fact, given the circumstances (he was a young pup and still green when he boxed Choynski, of course), I'd say they are largely understandable. But when you're trying to separate fighters with so little between them, such slip ups simply have to be examined a little closer than they normally would be and, while they happened to Johnson, they just didn't happen with Jeffries.

While Johnson's pre-title work was arguably the greatest of any Heavyweight champion, I think it's fair to say that Jeffries' title reign leaves the Galveston Giant's trailing in its wake. While it's deplorable that he never boxed Johnson while holding his crown, that aside, Jeffries' tenure as champion is crammed with the best Heavyweights available in his time; Fitzsimmons, who gave Jeffries hell first time out before being soundly beaten in the return, former champion Jim Corbett, Gus Ruhlin and Tom Sharkey, two of the more highly regarded Heavyweights of the era who didn't get to hold the crown themselves.

Compare that to Johnson, who shunned the legitimate challenges of Sam Langford (who he'd already beaten in the past, in fairness, but only while significantly outweighing the man who had not yet fully developed in to the solid 170-pounder he'd eventually come to be), Joe Jeannette and Sam McVea. Just how much harm did Johnson do to the credibility of the Heavyweight crown when he said, "I won't fight them coloured boys no more....I'll retire still as the only ever coloured Heavyweight champion of the world."

To me, there are pros and cons for each man - but one thing's for sure, Jeffries is making a better fist of overhauling Johnson than I first thought he might.

However, there is another quotefrom a battered Jeffries which, perhaps, holds even more significance: "I could never have beaten Jack Johnson at my best - I could have never reached him in a thousand years."

Now, a thousand years might be a bit of a stretch, but I agree with the general principle here and it seems as good a tie breaker as anything else. In an era where many of his rivals were, essentially, Light-Heavyweights, Jeffries repretedly saw these men make relative light of the physical disadvantages before they either a) got carless, or b) simply got worn out by the bigger man. Nothing wrong at all with a fighter using his added bulk to great effect, don't get me wrong. But while there are elements of Johnson's game to make me think he could compete with the great Heavies of the much more recent eras, I don't really see it with Jeffries.

That's not to say that Jeffries was completely cumbersome, of course - his win:loss ratio alone is proof enough that there was method in his way of fighting, and his crouching low, shuffling forward attack, when replicated, helped elevate Welter and Middleweight great Tommy Ryan's career to new heights. But to me, Johnson helped to usher in a newer, more refined era of boxing and I believe that he fits the bill of an all-time Heavyweight great slightly better than Jeffries does to this very day.

For a while, I though I might have to reverse what I've thought in the past and stick Jeffries ahead of Papa Jack - but after some more careful consideration, I'll keep Johnson ahead, albeit by a relatively small margin.

What say you lads, though? Agree? Disagree? Would be interesting to see if we can get some kind of consensus on this.

Fire away if you're interested, lads. Cheers.

So tough to split them Chris, as you have said the fact that they fought is no more useful than using Holmes’ win over Ali to rank him above Ali. As you are well aware I am no particular fan of Johnson as either a man or his actions as champion. Think when one looks at the grief someone like Dempsey gets for not fighting Wills in comparison to the pass Johnson gets for routinely snubbing his nose at Jeannette, McVea and most importantly Langford and it does stick in the craw.

Also think Jeffries does not get the credit he deserves for his reign, whilst the colour line thing with Johnson is obviously a mark against him what cannot be argued is those he did fight did not represent the best of the rest. Corbett, Fitz, Sharkey and Ruhlin are all fine fighters in their own respect and outside of Sharkey few of them heard the final bell.

If we make the comparisons on skill set Jeffries is obviously trailing somewhat behind the sublime Johnson but as I have argued on many occasions in some ways Jeffries was the perfect fighter for his time. In an era when fights were over 20 or 25 rounds and frequently scored on the perception of who would have won had the fight been to the distance Jeffries gifts of quick recovery, almost limitless stamina and ability to carry his power late were nigh on tailor made for the era.

Is difficult with Johnson because obviously one has to look at his record and reports through the prism of the racism of the time. Take the Hart fight for instance, I have read the round by round report and seems Jack got shafted a little, the referee justified his decision on the grounds that he scored on aggression, the one criteria where Marvin had the edge on Jack, however even allowing for that Johnson had no real business losing to Marvin and does appear to have coasted and or took his eye off the ball.

Hard really to say too much positive about Johnson’s reign, drawing with the ordinary Battling Jim Johnson, a middleweight in Ketchel and Moran are hardly too much to get excited about. As to who ranks above is nigh on impossible to decide, if we accept Ali and Louis are one and two which I believe most of us accept is the case both Johnson and Jeffries are fighting it out with Holmes to be in the top five and it becomes flipping a coin stuff, maybe it is my dislike of Johnson or being contrary but personally I think I prefer Jeffries sitting above Johnson at the minute.

Have Johnson well ahead..........Jeffries had the touch of terry Norris about him.....beating old has beens or smaller fighters and even then struggling....

Sharkey was also meant to have been ripped off.......

Johnson was a smooth boxer in my top 3 and rightly highly regarded for his ability....plus he slapped jeffries out who despite being old was always cumbersome and slow...

Nothing makes me feel it would have been any different at any other time..

Jeffries traded on his heart and size.............my no 9..

With regard to the Sharkey fight there were a good number of newspapers who called it for Sharkey but probably not many less who called it for Jeffries. The consensus seems to have been given Jeffries was finishing the stronger and appeared more sprightly at the end that the draw was about fair.

maybe it is my dislike of Johnson or being contrary

Don't think there's any "maybe" about it. Still I can't grumble, I'd have Johnson simply because Jeffries saw fit to blast out an alcoholic and tuberculoid Peter Jackson.

Utterly unforgiveable in my eyes

Couldn't be very good at scoring fights in them days If one had it 17-8..

Great article. I've previously seen fit to put Jeffries ahead, as his pre retirement career is flawless and how he performed after 6 years of retirement is irrelevant.

What tips it in Johnson's favour right now is quite simple. Although Johnson has more slip ups, that's because he fought three or four times the number of bouts Jeffries did. He had to learn on the job and his strengths aren't things a man is born with like immense strength or toughness. He had to gain experience in developing the revolutionary defensive boxing style on the job. He took losses on the way, but while some will be legitimate, some will be because of skin colour.

As for ducking, although the attitude he showed to other black heavyweights was pretty disgraceful after he became champion, his excuse of having already beaten them is fairly sound. The Langford fight never happening is pretty clear duck as far as I can see, the others he'd fought multiple times during his tough, tough route to the title and come out on top. Obviously as I'm excusing Jeffries loss to Johnson due to being past it, I'll excuse Johnson's numerous losses after reaching his sell by date.

It's so close it almost comes down to taste. What Jeffries achieved in a relatively small amount of time is incredible, Johnson's achievements pre title are a match, post title much less so. However if Jeffries fought 70 times he'd no doubt have had a few more losses in there, especially with a style that probably didn't lend itself to longevity.

Pre-retirement career is flawless????

Got battered off a middleweight and had to find a hayemaker to turn it around....Won a contentious decision of Sharkey.........

Hardly flawless..

Timing was everything for this plodder with a great heart....as Johnson showed..

Dempsey blows him for me..

Sorry Jack..............forgot the "away"..RIP

Dempsey blows him for me..

Friends in high (or low) places, eh TRUSS?

I knew that one wouldn't escape you...

Well, the things that will slip out of your mouth...as it were!

How is your Wife by the way!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pre-retirement career is flawless????

Got battered off a middleweight and had to find a hayemaker to turn it around....Won a contentious decision of Sharkey.........

Funny, everything I've read about the fight is that after receiving horrible facial damage he gradually blugeoneded his way back into it before knocking him out. Ali won contentious decisions. Also it was only Jeffries' 10th fight.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Timing was everything for this plodder with a great heart....as Johnson showed..

Yeah, Johnson showed how important timing is when he fought six years after retirement. As for plodder with great heart, some his physical abilities were not that of a plodder. 100 yards in slightly over ten seconds for example. I doubt dancing is the route to success when you're scheduled to do it for 25 rounds.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Dempsey blows him for me..

Whu- er...
Well if we're talking about fighting I'd take Dempsey to either come out fast, catch him cold and force an early stoppage or decision over 15 due to superior speed and movement. Over 25 I don't know. This is irrelevant anyway because we're not comparing him to Dempsey.

But I am..