| Home | News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia |
| The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board |
correct . to be even more precise--numner of pro fighters wold wide was ay its heights by the 1920--then dropped a when the depreession hit--never to fully recover to 20s levels. then 53 to 60 --more of a drop.Originally Posted by Kid Achilles
I can't believe it, did Fat Abbot just say boxing's popularity peaked in the 80's? The decline had been going on far before that.
Hard to belive right lol. Sure the 80's were great, with Holmes, Tyson, Duran, Hagler, Hearns, SRL, and others. But relly Boxing never relly recover from the slump of the 1950's. Sure Ali brought it back for a while, but once he left, boxing went back to the pits,
It seems boxing cant relly prosper with out a few big stars in there primes or so. And the Heavyweights play a major part in this.
With regards to the above picture I understand that the title is a reference to a 'song' that was written about Jefferies around the time of his training for the Jack Johnson fight.
A few questions about the Johnson v Jefferies fight.
(1) Is it true that the Jefferies training camp was an unhappy one with lots of arguments between the camp members, press & visitors etc. I read John L Sullivan and Stanley Ketchel we both made unwelcome.
(2) Is it true Choynski often made Jefferies look really bad in sparring sessions.
(3) Is it true that Stanley Ketchel, who was ringside for the fight was so convinced that Jefferies was going to be humiliated by Papa Jack that he planned to jump in the ring during the introductions and punch Jeff as hard as he could in the face, so the fight would be cancelled, and was only stopped by his manager who informed him that he had bet all their money on a Johnson victory?
Many thanks.
What I have read is that the training camp was mostly tense because Jeffries was tense. He did not welcome the press. He did not do much sparring at all. Sullivan was initially treated poorly because of strained relationships with Corbett and in capacity as newspaper personality made comments that questioned Jeffries winning without question. I read Ketchel was thrown out as well for similiar reasons.
I've read no reports about the sparring sessions except that Choynski was way too old, the whole thing was a joke.
Here's what is amazing about Jeffries; you have to keep in mind how little experience he actually had as a fighter when he first fought Sharkey and when he won the title. You are talking about a novice fighting seasoned fighters. That makes up somewhat for the size differences.
(1) It was less carefree in California than any of Jeff's previous training camps. It broke down completely when the camp moved to Nevada; nobody was happy.
(2) Define "look really bad." When he sparred - and his sparring for the bout was sporadic as best - Jeff rarely went all out.
(3) That's the legend.
"Jim-A-De-Jeff" was a particularly racist bit of music. (Not only that, the tune is bad too.) I have a copy around here someplace. If anyone wants to see the lyrics I'll try to find and post them.
Last edited by raylawpc; 05-20-2007 at 03:38 PM.
jeff was a great fighter period; end of paragraph. and he may have beebn the best of them all in his prime. he has to be up there with all the other greats. if some guy wants to say postively they know for a fact that he was not--well they should put him so far back in an institution for the grandiose that they would definatly have to pipe in sunlight.
Who did he beat that belongs in the real world's all time top ten ratings?
He only had 23 fights.
He was much larger and/or younger than almost anyone of the serious fighters he fought.
I cannot give him all time great status on that record.
Well, what's your real-world all-time top-10? Because one could make the same argument against, say, Joe Louis - it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to make an all-time top-10 that excluded Max Schmeling, Jack Sharkey, Jersey Joe Walcott, and Max Baer, would it?Who did he beat that belongs in the real world's all time top ten ratings?
Actually, Sully was booted because he had been quoted (in Pittsburg or Philly, if memory serves) as saying that the fight "looked like a frame-up" to him. Of course, he denied saying it. Jeff, Corbett and Sully reconcilled the day after the big blow-up. (Who gets credit for the reconcillation varies in the telling.)
So was Ed Dunkhorst, and he got thrashed by some of the same folks Jeff whipped. (Opps, sorry - at 6'3", 260 pounds, Ed was actually bigger than Jeff.) Size isn't the issue. How you use your size is the issue. Jeffries took the utmost advantage of the tools God gave him.
Saying that we should discount Jeffries' achievements because he was bigger than his opponents is like saying we shouldn't consider Muhammad Ali an all-time great because he was quicker than everybody else.
Last edited by raylawpc; 05-21-2007 at 11:59 AM.
I have seen inumurable references to Ed Dunkhorst intimating that beating him or koing him was a feat that carries a certain amount of significance.
Here is a man who while bigger than his contemporaries of the day, really didn't show anything, nor does his record or any reports on the man, with which SHOULD be notable about what HE did and about what was done to him.
What exactly is it with Ed Dunkhorst?
Where's the (pardon my pun), beef with this guy that so many should point to him as some sort of benchmark for others?
hawk
Hi Hawk:
I picked Dunkhorst out of the air because he was the only contemporary of Jeffries that immediately came to mind, who was actually bigger than Jeff. I could have picked Gus Ruhlin, I suppose, because he was taller - albeit lighter - than Jeff.
Based on everything I have read from the period, boxing people in those days felt that Dunkhorst was a fighter with good skills, but no world beater. Instead, he was what we would now call a "trial horse."
My point was that Dunkhorst was a guy who had all the advantages afforded by his size, but . . .
A Chuck Wepner of his day?
Something more? Less?
I'm just trying to edjamacate myself as I've seen him referenced many times whenever a Jeffries or a Fitzsimons topic comes up.
Not an expert on the era by any means and just trying to grab more morsels of knowledge to store away in the storage bin upstairs.
Thanks.
Hawk
Yes, I would say in the catagory of a Chuck Wepner or, maybe closer, a Ron Stander.
I think part of the fascination with Dunkhorst is his size, which has blown to mythical proportions over the years. Not long ago, I read an account that listed him as 6'6" or 6' 8" (I can't remember which) and 300 pounds when Fitz knocked him out.
Last edited by raylawpc; 05-21-2007 at 12:47 PM.
It is the exposure of this type of mythology that puts a cloud over MANY old time fighters.
When does actual TRUTH begin and just how much is actual MYTHOLOGY?
I think the TRUTH behind the power of Bob Fitzsimmons is not served well when a fighter like Dunkhorst is clearly "built up" (pun intended) to hyperbolize the Actual power of Ruby Rob.
Too many Romaticized tales that are clearly, too far over the top and unfortunately for the Romantics, easily dubunked, casts doubts over what was ACTUALLY accomplished and what the ACTUAL quality of the accomplishments really were.
It get's to the point, where you start to ask yourself "Do I beleive this tale or is this more rose tinted BS?"
If the Truth shows greatness, then there is no need for the "extra".
That "extra", casts too many doubts as to what is to be believed.
Hawk
More impressive, I think, were Fitz' back-to-back demolitions of Ruhlin and Sharkey in August 1900, especially Sharkey whom he just simply took apart.
I can't define it as I never saw Jeff spar for this fight.
I was just quoting what I had read that's all, in that Jeff was missing a lot etc
jeff on his training and conditioning
Because I haven’t boxed in the last five years, some people who think they’re all fired wise, seem to think that I can never fight as I did when I won the championship. They forgot that no referee has ever counted ten over me. . . . Why, I have never even been dazed in the ring—never. Did you ever figure that way? The boys that don’t come back are the lads that have been flattened—boys that have been so badly beaten that they have never quite recovered.
corbett on his sparring with Jeff
You see Jeff bores in all the time. Johnson is flat-footed and only steps back once, then he has to stop his man with either a punch or a clinch. Now if Jeff is onto this and has trained to punch and punch hard, when Johnson is trying to get away, it’s going to make a big difference.
There is a clip of Jeffries boxing Joe Choynski a day or two before the fight:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IsB3O0JnBjI
What do you think now?
Goes, Ray, I agree. But DUnkhorst is ALWAYS brought up to demonstrate how Fitz could punch with anyone and certainly any heavyweight.
Sharkey, while a much better quality fighter than Dunkhorst, was only 5'8" and was actually shorter than Bob. ANd Sharkey was fighting in his 170's and 180's as far as weight goes. Sharkey was 177 and change for Jim Corbett and 183 for Jeff. So for Quality, the KO was impressive, but it doesn't lend to the koing of much bigger men and supposed immortal power.
Ruhlin, I think qualifies. He was a 200 pound man and 6'2". THIS I can buy. Yet, Ruhlin was not an imovabe object. Good chin. But reachable and dentable.
It always seems to be the coupling of Ruhlin and Dunkhorst that starts the tales of Fitz slaying giants. Dunkhorst was a much bigger man than Fitz, but lacked any true quality. Ruhlin was a good heavyweight, with a good chin and he was indeed bigger than Fitz.
This said, I don't however think it was a feat that could not be duplicated by others. Langford I doubt has any issues taking out Ruhlin. I'm betting Archie Moore and Micheal Spinks would do the same. I think Spinks' KO of Cooney was probably of higher quality than Fitz's of Ruhlin. Would it be out of the question to see a James Toney or Roy Jones stopping Ruhlin? Probably not.
Agian, I think Fitz's Ko of Ruhlin is the most impressive of the three, but I don't beleive the feat to be as legendary as it has been made out to be over the years. And when coupled with the Dunkhorst KO, upon further examination, I beleive it loses much of it's luster and produces more questions than answers.
Still Learnin!
Hawk
Hawk5ins ...... the rose-tint is being rubbed off my glasses with each of your posts.
You've raised the point I never could on this board for fear of being hunted down and lynched by the "bully boy massive" here.
Now, what are your views on Jimmy Wilde knocking out men TWICE his size?
Has been a subject I've been studying for years now.
Yes the "Twice as big opponents" lines are also exxagerations. ANd when debunked, I think this also hurts the legend.
The problem I am having is trying to determine quality of the opponents Wilde did face. Records and information are extremely hard to come by for many of these fighters. And with the Flyweight division in it's infancy, it makes it that much more difficult to verify many of the fighters in and around the division.
That said, simply becuase I can't find the information I'm looking for, doesn't mean that I will simply discredit "everyone" Wilde faced. I think that is completely irresponsible. (Shades of Duran Non title fights, one might offer.)
So I need to continue the research before I hand down any sort of swift judgement.
Hawk
Jimmy Wilde's regular fighting weight, well documented, was less than seven and a half stone for most of his career.
I am not aware that any reputable (or disreputable?) source has ever claimed that he beat fighters twice his weight, i.e. 15 stone or more.
He was good, but not that good!
I think it is merely the hyperbole that surrounded him. I'm not sure if the comment "twice his size" was even meant to be a literal statement.
I have read that Wilde claims he participated in 854 professiona bouts, which IMO is equally outlandish, even if he is including unrecorded "boxing booth" fights.
Wilde stated that once he took on all comers, in these "booth" contests for three and a half hours and scored 19 Ko's, rested for a haf an hour and then took out 4 more in 45 mins and then went home. Somehow he was adding these bouts to his official professional resume.
I have to assume it was in these contests, where the Slight Wilde possibly was outweighed by as much as someone twice his size. Of course belting out fellow Coal Miners, should not be associated with facing a fellow professional prize fighter who was twice his size.
Thus the stuff of legends.
And of course there is NO truth to the fact that his actual height was 2 and 1/2 inches tall, whihc was recorded once by the Ring record book.
Hawk
I remember that RRB entry. I'm also sure his nickname Mighty Atom was not meant to be taken literally!
I bet he did knock over some big fellows in the booths though - they'd have thought he was easy meat.
I watched the tape of his fight with Pancho Villa recently and was surprised at how well he showed in that fight - most written accounts suggest he was slaughtered but in fact he landed loads of punches and it was close until near the end.
Before you guys dismiss the possibility of Wilde blasting out opponents twice his own size and more, you need to go to the record book to see with your own eyes that Jimmy KO'd middleweight titlist Billy Papke in 1911 and future heavyweight champ Jack Sharkey in 1919.
Now, the more anal among us might point out that "Papke" was a man credited with a 0-0-0 record when he made the mistake of climbing through the ropes with Wilde and "Sharkey" also went by the name "Jackie Sharkey" (plus this fight took place before the heavyweight J.S. even turned pro) . . . BUT I have it on good authority that both of these men were who their famous names imply. I have a copy of a monthly boxing publication from some twelve or so years ago which contains an article on Wilde's career stating that Papke was the middleweight champ and Sharkey the heavyweight king.
Could the article's author have been mistaken? Not likely. I mean, would a scribe named "the Old Spitbucket" have allowed his columns to appear in such an inaccurate periodical (though he -- the Spitbucket -- didn't write the Wilde piece himself)?
Something to think about. PeteLeo.
Posting Permissions
| News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia | Links | Home |
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks