Did James Jeffries retire too soon?

[mr. magoo]

In 1904, heavyweight champion James Jeffries retired after his 7th defense of the world title against Jack Munroe. At this point, a 29 year old Jeffries hung em' up with a record of 17-0-2-14.

We all know what happened 6 years later. This is not a thread about wheather or not Jeffries would have beaten Johnson had it not been for the layoff. Rather, I'd like to ask other posters how they see Jeffries' career going had he continued. Would he have made a lot more money? Were there other good contenders available that he might have beaten? What possible matchups might we have seen?

What do you guys think?

[mcvey]

In 1904, heavyweight champion James Jeffries retired after his 7th defense of the world title against Jack Munroe. At this point, a 29 year old Jeffries hung em' up with a record of 17-0-2-14.

We all know what happened 6 years later. This is not a thread about wheather or not Jeffries would have beaten Johnson had it not been for the layoff. Rather, I'd like to ask other posters how they see Jeffries' career going had he continued. Would he have made a lot more money? Were there other good contenders available that he might have beaten? What possible matchups might we have seen?

What do you guys think?
In 1909 JoeJeanette was 30
Sam Mcvey 28
Denver Ed Martin 28
Sam Langford26

Any of these would have been a worthier opponent than the pathetic Jack Finnegan,it amuses me that Johnson s defenses are disparaged ,yet Jeffries wins over Finnegan and Munroe ,pass without comment ,I think Jeffries retired because the only real oppossition to him came from black challengers and he wouldnt meet them,he may have beaten them ,we will never know ,but one things for sure ,had he taken them on and done so ,he would deserve all the plaudits he gets on this forum and then some!

[mr. magoo]

In 1909 JoeJeanette was 30
Sam Mcvey 28
Denver Ed Martin 28
Sam Langford26

Any of these would have been a worthier opponent than the pathetic Jack Finnegan,it amuses me that Johnson s defenses are disparaged ,yet Jeffries wins over Finnegan and Munroe ,pass without comment ,I think Jeffries retired because the only real oppossition to him came from black challengers and he wouldnt meet them,he may have beaten them ,we will never know ,but one things for sure ,had he taken them on and done so ,he would deserve all the plaudits he gets on this forum and then some!

Good points,

Finnegan and Munroe were not as worthy of title contention as the men you mentioned. I will ad however, that Jeffries' legacy does not rest on these victories though.

[TBooze]

In 1904, heavyweight champion James Jeffries retired after his 7th defense of the world title against Jack Munroe. At this point, a 29 year old Jeffries hung em' up with a record of 17-0-2-14.

We all know what happened 6 years later. This is not a thread about wheather or not Jeffries would have beaten Johnson had it not been for the layoff. Rather, I'd like to ask other posters how they see Jeffries' career going had he continued. Would he have made a lot more money? Were there other good contenders available that he might have beaten? What possible matchups might we have seen?

What do you guys think?

The pressure for Jeffries to fight Johnson would of been too much if he had not retired, he was mad to comeback, if he had continued I am sure he would been more competitve in the fight, but Johnson still wins in about 30. Maybe by 1906/07 Burns could of beaten Jeffries as well...

[mr. magoo]

The pressure for Jeffries to fight Johnson would of been too much if he had not retired, he was mad to comeback, if he had continued I am sure he would been more competitve in the fight, but Johnson still wins in about 30. Maybe by 1906/07 Burns could of beaten Jeffries as well...

I agree with Johnson's eventual win over Jeffries, but I think it would have been a better fight, and also I can see Jeffries picking up a few big wins along the way, securing his legacy. As for Burns beating Jeffries, I highly doubt that Tommy had the tools to take Jeff. He was too big and too strong for Burns, and a more active Jeffries wouldn't have been as slow as some might think. He also had wrestling and grappling techniques that could have been murderous for a small guy like Burns, had Jeffries managed to tie him up. Jeffries KO's Tommy Burns at any phase of their careers.

[OLD FOGEY]

Jeffries has quite a legacy as is. He was champion six years, and along with Johnson is the only pre-Louis champion to defeat the top black as well as white contenders.
The key if he fought on would be whether he fought Johnson in 1905. A victory over Johnson, if Johnson later went on to have the career he did, would put Jeff right up there at the top or near the top of heavyweight champions. Of course, there would be no good excuse for a loss and his standing would certainly drop quite a bit.
I don't see Hart or Burns beating him at any point.

My own guess is that Jeff retired because he never really liked boxing, having taken a great deal of facial punishment in several fights, and he was now married and did not want to leave a warm bed for the rigors of training.

[C. M. Clay II]

In 1904, heavyweight champion James Jeffries retired after his 7th defense of the world title against Jack Munroe. At this point, a 29 year old Jeffries hung em' up with a record of 17-0-2-14.

We all know what happened 6 years later. This is not a thread about wheather or not Jeffries would have beaten Johnson had it not been for the layoff. Rather, I'd like to ask other posters how they see Jeffries' career going had he continued. Would he have made a lot more money? Were there other good contenders available that he might have beaten? What possible matchups might we have seen?

What do you guys think?

Well, the reason why he retired was because sooner or later he would have to face the monkey on his back, i.e. Jack Johnson, so he retired before the public really caught on to his alterior motives. He would have to face Johnson in 1905 and more than likely would lose by lopsided decision, or even late stoppage.:good

[C. M. Clay II]

Yeah and because he was so afraid he came back after 6 years to fight him, totally logical. :good

He was afraid of losing his title to a black man. When he came back in 1910, he had no title to lose. Perfectly logical.:good

[joe33]

He was afraid of losing his title to a black man. When he came back in 1910, he had no title to lose. Perfectly logical.:good

Nah mate that makes no sense,why come back to get a huge beating like he did,would make more sense to have took JJ on when he was still fighting and in shape.

[TBooze]

I agree with Johnson's eventual win over Jeffries, but I think it would have been a better fight, and also I can see Jeffries picking up a few big wins along the way, securing his legacy. As for Burns beating Jeffries, I highly doubt that Tommy had the tools to take Jeff. He was too big and too strong for Burns, and a more active Jeffries wouldn't have been as slow as some might think. He also had wrestling and grappling techniques that could have been murderous for a small guy like Burns, had Jeffries managed to tie him up. Jeffries KO's Tommy Burns at any phase of their careers.

From the point of view of Burns would not of had his championship run and the confidence that came from it, and Jeffries physically dominates Burns, yes Jeffries would of been a huge favourite.

But if Jeffries had continued would his heart really been in it? Would he look at his 5' nothing Canadian opponent and really feel the need to train that hard? Burns was not stupid, he had his limitations, but he would of had an edge in speed, and if Jeffries had not given it his all in training, perhaps Burns could edge out Jeffries over 20/25 rouinds...

[C. M. Clay II]

Nah mate that makes no sense,why come back to get a huge beating like he did,would make more sense to have took JJ on when he was still fighting and in shape.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[OLD FOGEY]

Well, the reason why he retired was because sooner or later he would have to face the monkey on his back, i.e. Jack Johnson, so he retired before the public really caught on to his alterior motives. He would have to face Johnson in 1905 and more than likely would lose by lopsided decision, or even late stoppage.:good

Actually, Johnson lost to Hart in early 1905--probably a bad decision, but it did knock Johnson out of immediate contention. Jeffries could have fought Hart, but I guess there was no demand for the bout. I think personal reasons, such as having a wife now and her wishes that he retire probably were the real critical factors.

[OLD FOGEY]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


This kind of logic sways me quite often.

[Dempsey1238]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Nice try, but they didnt have that kinda of money back than.

[C. M. Clay II]

Actually, Johnson lost to Hart in early 1905--probably a bad decision, but it did knock Johnson out of immediate contention. Jeffries could have fought Hart, but I guess there was no demand for the bout. I think personal reasons, such as having a wife now and her wishes that he retire probably were the real critical factors.

There was still a cloud on his title in many minds eye. At least Marciano fought the last threat to his title in Moore before he retired. Johnson was the last threat to Jeff's title, and instead of wanting to "take care of business" so to speak, he avoided him all together. There was a public outcry for this fight to happen, so it's not that this would have been an unpopular decision to fight Johnson.

[Dempsey1238]

Dempsey did not fight Harry Wills for 7 years in a row. Yeah if JEff wanted to, he could have not faught Johnson until a White fighter takes out a over the hill Jeff.

[janitor]

In 1904, heavyweight champion James Jeffries retired after his 7th defense of the world title against Jack Munroe. At this point, a 29 year old Jeffries hung em' up with a record of 17-0-2-14.

We all know what happened 6 years later. This is not a thread about wheather or not Jeffries would have beaten Johnson had it not been for the layoff. Rather, I'd like to ask other posters how they see Jeffries' career going had he continued. Would he have made a lot more money? Were there other good contenders available that he might have beaten? What possible matchups might we have seen?

What do you guys think?

Jeffries is perhaps the only heavyweight champion who retired at his absolute peak.

Hell we might never have seen the best of him. To my mind the best we ever saw of Jeffries was the second Corbett fight and the Munroe fight. The day he retired he was as good as he had ever been.

[janitor]

In 1909 JoeJeanette was 30
Sam Mcvey 28
Denver Ed Martin 28
Sam Langford26

Any of these would have been a worthier opponent than the pathetic Jack Finnegan,it amuses me that Johnson s defenses are disparaged ,yet Jeffries wins over Finnegan and Munroe ,pass without comment

People who criticise the title oponents of Jeffries and indeed Johnson forgett that the previous champion such as Corbett and Fitzsimmons had engaged in long periods of inactivity.

Compared to them Jeffries must have seemed heaven sent to the fans of the day.

[OLD FOGEY]

There was still a cloud on his title in many minds eye. At least Marciano fought the last threat to his title in Moore before he retired. Johnson was the last threat to Jeff's title, and instead of wanting to "take care of business" so to speak, he avoided him all together. There was a public outcry for this fight to happen, so it's not that this would have been an unpopular decision to fight Johnson.

I can't disagree.

[Boilermaker]

A fighter who just lost isn´t a cloud over a title. I don´t think Johnson was seen as better than other black guys of his time. Also Jeffries could have fought on till 1910 without facing Jack Johnson. If Dempsey could "avoid" fighting wills than Jeffries could have done the same with Johnson.

And just for your information, i rank Jack Johnson as my number 3 hw and a i´m a fan of him, so no bias in there.

Why wasnt he seen as better than the other black fighters of this time, when he had fought and beat them all?

Johnson had just lost to Hart, and there was no demand for a Hart fight, either then or now.

Johnson, Langford etc would have been great fights in hindsight, would have been very good fights back then. But they were high risk, low reward fights. In the case of Langford, he didnt really have that much ambition to fight Jeffries at that time.

Johnson is an interesting proposition. One has to wonder whether he was viewed as awesome at that time as he just after he won the title. Middleweight tommy Burns was prepared to risk his title, he had just lost to Hart, been KOd early by Choynski and no film of him existed to judge him. I wonder whether he was considered at the time a tougher fight than the money on offer to fight him, or a chance to make good money in an easy fight (overrated fighter) by most of the fighters of the time.

If Johnson had fought Jeffries and lost, even if prime Jeffries was head and shoulders above everyone else of his time black or white, it certainly would it have hurt the black fighters standing for a title fight in the next decade or two?

[mcvey]

People who criticise the title oponents of Jeffries and indeed Johnson forgett that the previous champion such as Corbett and Fitzsimmons had engaged in long periods of inactivity.

Compared to them Jeffries must have seemed heaven sent to the fans of the day.
I agree ,they made money on the stage ,probably more than they could make against the white challengers out there,Jeffries didnt fight his black challengers, neither did his predecessors,Jeffries may have beaten Jeanette,and Mcvey,certainly I think he would have beaten Martin,I dont beleive he had the beating of a prime Johnson,but had he taken on a couple of the deserving black contenders and then retired his legacy would have been immeasurably enhanced,he was a fine champion and a great fighter,beating those mentioned would have probably put him in my top 8.

[C. M. Clay II]

A fighter who just lost isn´t a cloud over a title.

Jeffries retired before the Hart robbery.

I don´t think Johnson was seen as better than other black guys of his time.

Well then you think wrong. He was.

Also Jeffries could have fought on till 1910 without facing Jack Johnson. If Dempsey could "avoid" fighting wills than Jeffries could have done the same with Johnson.

Sure he could, but it would definetely hurt his legend seeing as how there was an outcry for the fight as early as 1903 by true boxing fans.

And just for your information, i rank Jack Johnson as my number 3 hw and a i´m a fan of him, so no bias in there.

I have him #7.:good

[C. M. Clay II]

I can't disagree.

Thank you. tobkhan and Luigi1985 just don't get it.:-(

[PowerPuncher]

. That´s why i don´t think the hw title of these guys is as much worth as the hw title of the guys from the 30s till the first alphabet titles. The black hw title should have been as much worth.

Agree 100%

[guilalah]

My understanding of Jefferies fight against Finnegan -- this is based on reading Nicholson's 'A Man Among Men' -- is that Jefferies had been taking it easy while vacationing in Europe and he wanted to get in some rounds before facing Corbett. He took Finnegan on for a work out, not intending it to be a title defense. Then Finnegan's management insisted that the title be on the line. Jeffries got tired of arguing and basically said 'What the Hell, have it your way', then he iced Finnegan in under a minute.
Munroe was given a title shot because Jefferies had a grudge against Munroe's management, not due to his merits as a fighter.
I don't blame Jefferies for the Finnegan defense -- it was contrary to his intentions. Jefferies was more culpable in using the title as bait to pursue a personal vendetta.

[Dempsey1238]

Jeffries retired before the Hart robbery.



Well then you think wrong. He was.



Sure he could, but it would definetely hurt his legend seeing as how there was an outcry for the fight as early as 1903 by true boxing fans.



I have him #7.:good

How can you have Jeff, at 7. And not even put Marciano in the top ten?? Marciano did not used the color bar, and has beating evey worth wild contender out there in his era. That just makes no sense.

[janitor]

[quote=tobkhan]A fighter who just lost isn´t a cloud over a title. I don´t think Johnson was seen as better than other black guys of his time.

I am seen as a Jeffries apologist by some here, but I don't agree with those who defend him for not meeting Johnson.

My impresion is that there was huge public interest in a Jeffries Johnson match from the time that Johnson won the coloured title. The boxing public knew that it was the best fight out there and they clamoured for it.

Even after Jeffries retired there was more interest in a possible Jeffries Johnson fight than the Hart Burns title fight.

[cross_trainer]

There was still a cloud on his title in many minds eye. At least Marciano fought the last threat to his title in Moore before he retired. Johnson was the last threat to Jeff's title, and instead of wanting to "take care of business" so to speak, he avoided him all together. There was a public outcry for this fight to happen, so it's not that this would have been an unpopular decision to fight Johnson.

If that's the case, then your "money" argument doesn't work. If the outcry for this fight was as big as you say it was in 1905, then Jeffries could have made a lot of money fighting Johnson AND would have a better chance than he did in 1910. There would be no reason for him to retire and take a beating five years later in a fight he was doomed to lose.

So either:

1) The outcry wasn't as big as you say it was for this fight or...

2) Jeffries retired for another reason in 1905.

[C. M. Clay II]

[quote=janitor]

You maybe right but that still doesn´t mean that Jeffries was afraid of Johnson and retired because of that like Clay II. thinks.

He was afraid. If he wasn't, then why didn't he fight him then? Why did he pass up all that money?

[C. M. Clay II]

lol Luigi didn´t even post in this thread. You must really have some feelings for him :hey

But he's posted in other threads about the same topic.:good

[C. M. Clay II]

If that's the case, then your "money" argument doesn't work. If the outcry for this fight was as big as you say it was in 1905, then Jeffries could have made a lot of money fighting Johnson AND would have a better chance than he did in 1910. There would be no reason for him to retire and take a beating five years later in a fight he was doomed to lose.

So either:

1) The outcry wasn't as big as you say it was for this fight or...

2) Jeffries retired for another reason in 1905.

So are you saying that nobody wanted them to fight in 1905?

[C. M. Clay II]

[quote]

I am seen as a Jeffries apologist by some here, but I don't agree with those who defend him for not meeting Johnson.

My impresion is that there was huge public interest in a Jeffries Johnson match from the time that Johnson won the coloured title. The boxing public knew that it was the best fight out there and they clamoured for it.

Even after Jeffries retired there was more interest in a possible Jeffries Johnson fight than the Hart Burns title fight.

Thank you. Now I have backup.:good

[C. M. Clay II]

How can you have Jeff, at 7. And not even put Marciano in the top ten?? Marciano did not used the color bar, and has beating evey worth wild contender out there in his era. That just makes no sense.

I said I have Johnson, not Jeffries at #7. I have Jeffries at #18 and Marciano #11.:good

[C. M. Clay II]

That´s why i think you´re somewhat obsessed with him. I don´t even look who is posting, i just look at the posts.

I'm not obsessed. I thought he did post here, but nevertheless I mentioned his name and yours becaus eyou two seem to be the biggest opponents in the case of Jeffries ducking Johnson.

[C. M. Clay II]

[quote=C. M. Clay II]

Why? He never said Jeffries retired because he was afraid of Johnson.

No, but he did say that there was an outcry for the fight (which most of you deny), and that Johnson was the next logical contender (which some of you deny).:good

[cross_trainer]

So are you saying that nobody wanted them to fight in 1905?

Nope. I'm just saying that there's no reason for Jeffries to back out of a big-money fight in 1905 that he could win, wait five years, and then enter a big-money fight in 1910 that he couldn't possibly win.

So he probably retired for a reason other than Johnson, regardless of whether Johnson was the #1 contender or not.

[janitor]

[quote=tobkhan]

He was afraid. If he wasn't, then why didn't he fight him then? Why did he pass up all that money?

To be honest I don't think that any champion has ever retired because they were afraid of another fighter.

When a champion retires it is a personal lifestyle decision. They retire because they don't want to be in the game anymore. It isnt fun.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=tobkhan]

He was afraid. If he wasn't, then why didn't he fight him then? Why did he pass up all that money?

Sorry but the argument that Jeffries was "afraid" doesn't work for me. He was a guy who won the heavyweight title with only 11 pro fights, and did so by knocking out a very dangerous Bob Fitzsimmons. He also fought some of the better black contenders of the time, and proved that he was basically the best. If the demand for a Jeffries vs Johnson fight was so high, then the money would have been there for Jeffries, eliminating his need to return years later. Johnson was also not viewed as an invincible fighter at the time. He had some losses to fighters who hardly compared to Jim jeffries.

[mr. magoo]

Nope. I'm just saying that there's no reason for Jeffries to back out of a big-money fight in 1905 that he could win, wait five years, and then enter a big-money fight in 1910 that he couldn't possibly win.

So he probably retired for a reason other than Johnson, regardless of whether Johnson was the #1 contender or not.

Although speculative, this is the best explanation that I have so far heard.

[Dempsey1238]

I said I have Johnson, not Jeffries at #7. I have Jeffries at #18 and Marciano #11.:good

Still feel Marciano did more than Bowe who made your top ten lol.

[Mendoza]

Actually, Johnson lost to Hart in early 1905--probably a bad decision, but it did knock Johnson out of immediate contention. Jeffries could have fought Hart, but I guess there was no demand for the bout. I think personal reasons, such as having a wife now and her wishes that he retire probably were the real critical factors.

There was little demand for Jeffries vs Hart. Jeffries said if the public wanted to see it, he'd fight Hart. Most felt Hart had little chance, which makes you wonder how good Jack Johnson was around the time Hart defeated him.

Jeffries had another offer to fight Aussie Billy Lang, but decided to stay retired.

[mr. magoo]

There was little demand for Jeffries vs Hart. Jeffries said if the public wanted to see it, he'd fight Hart. Most felt Hart had little chance, which makes you wonder how good Jack Johnson was around the time Hart defeated him.

Jeffries had another offer to fight Aussie Billy Lang, but decided to stay retired.

This is getting a bit on the speculative side here, but I wonder if Jeffries had fought Hart, and creamed the livin' crap out of him, then retired undefeated and never faced Johnson, if we'd have all this debate from critics regarding Jeff's career. I mean, if Jeffries beat Hart decisivly after Hart beat Johnson, then I doubt there would be any fuss about Jeffries avoiding Johnson in 1905.

[C. M. Clay II]

Still feel Marciano did more than Bowe who made your top ten lol.

Wrong again. I don't have Bowe in my top ten, and I don't have him above Marciano. Bowe makes #12 on my list, head-to-head.:good

[C. M. Clay II]

This is getting a bit on the speculative side here, but I wonder if Jeffries had fought Hart, and creamed the livin' crap out of him, then retired undefeated and never faced Johnson, if we'd have all this debate from critics regarding Jeff's career. I mean, if Jeffries beat Hart decisivly after Hart beat Johnson, then I doubt there would be any fuss about Jeffries avoiding Johnson in 1905.

You mean just like when for example David Bey beats Greg Page and then Larry Holmes gives Bey a title shot, but still today there is speculation on my Holmes never fought Page?:yep

I mean, if Jeffries beat Hart decisivly after Hart beat Johnson, then I doubt there would be any fuss about Jeffries avoiding Johnson in 1905.

Sure there would. Many people at the time thought Johnson was robbed in the Hart fight anyway, so there still would have been questions.:good

[Mendoza]

This is getting a bit on the speculative side here, but I wonder if Jeffries had fought Hart, and creamed the livin' crap out of him, then retired undefeated and never faced Johnson, if we'd have all this debate from critics regarding Jeff's career. I mean, if Jeffries beat Hart decisivly after Hart beat Johnson, then I doubt there would be any fuss about Jeffries avoiding Johnson in 1905.

Interesting theory. Maybe a few people would change their minds. Let's test the theory. We can look at the shared common opponents that Jeffries and Johnson fought from 1899-1904. A list of prime or near opponents for the most part.

Jeffries beat Griffin decisively flooring him multiple times in a 4 round match in the early 1900's, and knocked him out in the 1890's. Griffin went undefeated 1-0-2 vs Johnson.

Jeffries beat Munore decisively in two rounds. Johnson took Munroe the distance.

Jeffries beat Everett decisively in three rounds. Johnson took Everett the distance.

Jeffires floored Choysnki 3 times in a disputed draw. Choynski knocked Johnson out in 3 rounds.

We have a big enough sample of 11 total fights here with Jeffries always doing better than Johnson vs the same opponents.

If A ( Jeffries ) defeats C ( common opponents ), and B ( Johnson ) has mixed results of wins and losses vs C ( same common opponents ) then A ( Jeffries ) likely defeats B. ( Johnson ) if they ever meet in the timeline between 1899-1905.

[mcvey]

In 1904, heavyweight champion James Jeffries retired after his 7th defense of the world title against Jack Munroe. At this point, a 29 year old Jeffries hung em' up with a record of 17-0-2-14.

We all know what happened 6 years later. This is not a thread about wheather or not Jeffries would have beaten Johnson had it not been for the layoff. Rather, I'd like to ask other posters how they see Jeffries' career going had he continued. Would he have made a lot more money? Were there other good contenders available that he might have beaten? What possible matchups might we have seen?

What do you guys think?
I was wondering how long it would be before this post would be hijacked and used as a stick to beat Johnson,ie A beats B so C who has beaten A must also beat C,BOllocks!, Frazier beats Ali gets decapitated by Foreman ,so Ali must get killed by Foreman too right? except it didnt happen! Talk about imposing your own agenda! Some time ago I pointed out to the "historian ", that Jeffries went the distance with a much smaller Sharkey ,without dropping him ,and that Fitz stopped Sharkey with a body shot,I said this indicated that Jeffries wasnt really a one punch ko artist,"ah but you have to take in to account Jeffries style" was the reply,well Johnsons style was to loaf along doing just enough to take the decision,kos werent important to him.Double standards again from the archived anachronism.

[mr. magoo]

Interesting theory. Maybe a few people would change their minds. Let's test the theory. We can look at the shared common opponents that Jeffries and Johnson fought from 1899-1904. A list of prime or near opponents for the most part.

Jeffries beat Griffin decisively flooring him multiple times in a 4 round match in the early 1900's, and knocked him out in the 1890's. Griffin went undefeated 1-0-2 vs Johnson.

Jeffries beat Munore decisively in two rounds. Johnson took Munroe the distance.

Jeffries beat Everett decisively in three rounds. Johnson took Everett the distance.

Jeffires floored Choysnki 3 times in a disputed draw. Choynski knocked Johnson out in 3 rounds.

We have a big enough sample of 11 total fights here with Jeffries always doing better than Johnson vs the same opponents.

If A ( Jeffries ) defeats C ( common opponents ), and B ( Johnson ) has mixed results of wins and losses vs C ( same common opponents ) then A ( Jeffries ) likely defeats C. ( Johnson ) if they ever meet in the timeline between 1899-1905.

Good analysis,

Had Jeffries beaten Hart, then retired, I think that the critics would have had a very hard time trying to make a case that Jeffries ducked Johnson, or that Jack could have beaten him in his prime.

Although, we can't change history, this stuff is still interesting when we apply the right data and info.

[mcvey]

Good analysis,

Had Jeffries beaten Hart, then retired, I think that the critics would have had a very hard time trying to make a case that Jeffries ducked Johnson, or that Jack could have beaten him in his prime.

Although, we can't change history, this stuff is still interesting when we apply the right data and info.
Jeffries 4 rounder with Griffin,trumpeted by the"historian" was an exhibition ,and Griffin claimed a draw.the record put forth of Jeffries beating Griffin in 3 rounds,where is the source for this result? Jeffries fought Griffin ONCE in an actual fight,and won by a ko in 14 ,some sources claim 17 rounds.Johnsons record against Griffin is laid out by the "historian",asGriffin 1-0-2 Johnson,WRONG! Griffin beat Johnsonover 20 rounds in 1901 but Johnson drew with Griffin over 15 rounds and twice over 20 rounds ,he is also credited with a ko win over 65 rounds ,but not confirmed,,so by Weasely interpretation ,and being economical with the truth ,we can make records fit our own agenda ie build up Jeffries and tear down Johnson.I say have your own likes and dislikes ,your favourite fighters but dont twist and fabricate to suit your own agenda,as the "historian " clearly does.

[mcvey]

Jeffries 4 rounder with Griffin,trumpeted by the"historian" was an exhibition ,and Griffin claimed a draw.the record put forth of Jeffries beating Griffin in 3 rounds,where is the source for this result? Jeffries fought Griffin ONCE in an actual fight,and won by a ko in 14 ,some sources claim 17 rounds.Johnsons record against Griffin is laid out by the "historian",asGriffin 1-0-2 Johnson,WRONG! Griffin beat Johnsonover 20 rounds in 1901 but Johnson drew with Griffin over 15 rounds and twice over 20 rounds ,he is also credited with a ko win over 65 rounds ,but not confirmed,,so by Weasely interpretation ,and being economical with the truth ,we can make records fit our own agenda ie build up Jeffries and tear down Johnson.I say have your own likes and dislikes ,your favourite fighters but dont twist and fabricate to suit your own agenda,as the "historian " clearly does.
Jeffries was clearly a great fighter ,he doesnt need a fabricated ,padded record by some one with a hate Johnson complex to build up his reputation .James J Jeffries can stand on his own feet ,without having his privates licked.

[mr. magoo]

Jeffries 4 rounder with Griffin,trumpeted by the"historian" was an exhibition ,and Griffin claimed a draw.the record put forth of Jeffries beating Griffin in 3 rounds,where is the source for this result? Jeffries fought Griffin ONCE in an actual fight,and won by a ko in 14 ,some sources claim 17 rounds.Johnsons record against Griffin is laid out by the "historian",asGriffin 1-0-2 Johnson,WRONG! Griffin beat Johnsonover 20 rounds in 1901 but Johnson drew with Griffin over 15 rounds and twice over 20 rounds ,he is also credited with a ko win over 65 rounds ,but not confirmed,,so by Weasely interpretation ,and being economical with the truth ,we can make records fit our own agenda ie build up Jeffries and tear down Johnson.I say have your own likes and dislikes ,your favourite fighters but dont twist and fabricate to suit your own agenda,as the "historian " clearly does.

This thread was not started as a thinly veiled attempt to imply that Jeffries was better than Johnson. In fact, the thread has little to do with Jack Johnson. I merely was interested in throwing out some hypothetical "what if's" to make things a bit more interesting. There is no agenda here. I do, however feel that had Jeffries beaten Marvin Hart in 1905, following Johnson's controversial loss to Hart, and had retired permanantely, that its not unreasonable to think that critics would have had less fuel to claim that Jeffries ducked Johnson, which is not a well supported claim to begin with in my opinion.

[C. M. Clay II]

I was wondering how long it would be before this post would be hijacked and used as a stick to beat Johnson,ie A beats B so C who has beaten A must also beat C,BOllocks!, Frazier beats Ali gets decapitated by Foreman ,so Ali must get killed by Foreman too right? except it didnt happen! Talk about imposing your own agenda! Some time ago I pointed out to the "historian ", that Jeffries went the distance with a much smaller Sharkey ,without dropping him ,and that Fitz stopped Sharkey with a body shot,I said this indicated that Jeffries wasnt really a one punch ko artist,"ah but you have to take in to account Jeffries style" was the reply,well Johnsons style was to loaf along doing just enough to take the decision,kos werent important to him.Double standards again from the archived anachronism.

:happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy

[C. M. Clay II]

This thread was not started as a thinly veiled attempt to imply that Jeffries was better than Johnson. In fact, the thread has little to do with Jack Johnson. I merely was interested in throwing out some hypothetical "what if's" to make things a bit more interesting. There is no agenda here. I do, however feel that had Jeffries beaten Marvin Hart in 1905, following Johnson's controversial loss to Hart, and had retired permanantely, that its not unreasonable to think that critics would have had less fuel to claim that Jeffries ducked Johnson, which is not a well supported claim to begin with in my opinion.

Many people think that the Johnson-Hart fight was a dubious decision to say the least, so there would be still some leeway for controversy on a possible Jeffries-Johnson title fight in 1905.:good

[mcvey]

This thread was not started as a thinly veiled attempt to imply that Jeffries was better than Johnson. In fact, the thread has little to do with Jack Johnson. I merely was interested in throwing out some hypothetical "what if's" to make things a bit more interesting. There is no agenda here. I do, however feel that had Jeffries beaten Marvin Hart in 1905, following Johnson's controversial loss to Hart, and had retired permanantely, that its not unreasonable to think that critics would have had less fuel to claim that Jeffries ducked Johnson, which is not a well supported claim to begin with in my opinion.
My comments were not aimed at you Mr M but at the biased agenda of another who calls himself a Historian and archivist ,yet sifts through articles to make points ,and conveniently leaves out facts that indicateopposite views ,I replied to your original thread,because I thoght it was an interesting one ,and it is,as you say Johnson has little to do with it ,so why should his record beintroduced into the thread and used to "prove that he was inferior to Jeffries,,as I showed ,because A beats B ,and loses to C ,doesnt mean B will lose to C styles make fights,plus fighters meet at different times in their respective careers,Jeffries for eg had a torrid time with Fitz twice yet Johnson kod Fitz,great result ?no ! Fitz was a shell even an egoist like Johnson admitted as much. If Jeffries had broke with tradition and successfully defended against the best black challengers available ,he would go down as easily a top 10 possibly top 5 champion,I think,Im not condemning him ,he followed the custom,but I do feel that had a huge input in to why he reired while still at his peak.pressure would surely have mounted for him to meet one of them at least,if he had defended against Hart I think he would have won ,he didnt think much of either Burns or Hart.

[Mendoza]

I was wondering how long it would be before this post would be hijacked and used as a stick to beat Johnson,ie A beats B so C who has beaten A must also beat C,BOllocks!, Frazier beats Ali gets decapitated by Foreman ,so Ali must get killed by Foreman too right? except it didnt happen! Talk about imposing your own agenda! Some time ago I pointed out to the "historian ", that Jeffries went the distance with a much smaller Sharkey ,without dropping him ,and that Fitz stopped Sharkey with a body shot,I said this indicated that Jeffries wasnt really a one punch ko artist,"ah but you have to take in to account Jeffries style" was the reply,well Johnsons style was to loaf along doing just enough to take the decision,kos werent important to him.Double standards again from the archived anachronism.

FYI, Jeffries floored Sharkey in both matches. Not that it matters much, but if your goinf to call someone out, it woulf be nice to have some foundation of information before doing so.

Also, Johnson style was to loaf and Ko's were not important to him? Not always. Johnson didn't loaf much vs Burns or Willard did he? Nor did he loaf vs Moran. The only double standards here are the ones you're offering for excuses.

[Mendoza]

Mcvey: Jeffries 4 rounder with Griffin,trumpeted by the"historian" was an exhibition ,and Griffin claimed a draw.the record put forth of Jeffries beating Griffin in 3 rounds,where is the source for this result?

I have the clipings. Griffin was floored several times in a 4 round match. These types of matches were very similar to the 3 or 4 round matches in the colored titles. The point to foucs on here McVey is Johnson failed to floor Griffin in three recorded matches, which consisted of 55 total rounds of boxing. Jeffries, a fighter if I recall you did not think hit hard, had no problems scoring the knockdowns.


Jeffries fought Griffin ONCE in an actual fight,and won by a ko in 14 ,some sources claim 17 rounds.
We agree here.


Johnsons record against Griffin is laid out by the "historian",asGriffin 1-0-2 Johnson,WRONG! Griffin beat Johnsonover 20 rounds in 1901 but Johnson drew with Griffin over 15 rounds and twice over 20 rounds

And this means Griffin record vs Johnson is 1 win, 0 losses, and 2 draws, or 1-0-2 just like I said.


He ( Johnson ) is also credited with a ko win over 65 rounds ,but not confirmed over Griffin

And what does this mean? A 65th round KO over Griffin. I highly doubt this match happened. Any sources McVey?

[mcvey]

Post should have read Jeffries failed tp stop Sharkey .Im well aware Jeffries floored Sharkey in both matches,the point was ,Fitz had stopped Sharkey twice ,which in45 rounds Jeffries failed to do.

[Mendoza]

Post should have read Jeffries failed tp stop Sharkey .Im well aware Jeffries floored Sharkey in both matches,the point was ,Fitz had stopped Sharkey twice ,which in45 rounds Jeffries failed to do.

Sharkey and some others say Fitz went low in the first match. If Jeffries was not injured, he likely stops Sharkey in the 2nd match. Fitz did score a quick Ko over Sharkey though, which is impressive.

[janitor]

And what does this mean? A 65th round KO over Griffin. I highly doubt this match happened. Any sources McVey?

If it did happen then it was certainly the fight of the series that meant the most.

[mcvey]

Post should have read Jeffries failed tp stop Sharkey .Im well aware Jeffries floored Sharkey in both matches,the point was ,Fitz had stopped Sharkey twice ,which in45 rounds Jeffries failed to do.
Johnson had 3 draws with Griffin ,1 over 15rds 2 over 20 as I stated ,some one cant count.,Wether johnson fought Griffin and beat him over 65 rounds I dont know ,I said it was not confirmed,the source is Box rec,where was the source for Jeffries mythical win over Griffin in3 rounds?, as I stated they had one ACTUAL FIGHT ,which Jeffries won ,the other was an exhibition,and the direction of an excellent thread put up by Mr Magoo has been detoured to some how "prove that Jeffries was the superior fighter,not Magoos intention at all!.The question was did JJJ retire too early,well he was at 29 in his prime ,could he have enhanced his legacy ? YES,did he run the risk of putting a defeat on his unblemished record? YES.He stays down the list for ever ,where perhaps he might have been top 5 ,thems the breaks!Excluding Johnson,who hasfeatured in this thread entirely too much,when Jeff retired Sam Mcvey was entering his prime at 25 Joe Jeanette was still in his at 30,Ed Martin was 28 and Sam Langford was 26 ,its possible Jeff might have beaten them all,if he had all the Jack Londons who lick Marcianos bum would be in PUGILISTIC HEAVEN.,THE THING IS HE DIDNT FIGHT THEM SO WE LL NEVER KNOW ,SO YES HE RETIRED TOO EARLY!

[Duodenum]

Sam Langford went on record as wanting nothing to do with Jeffries, although he was willing to take on anybody else in the world at that time. Considering the nature of Lil' Artha's three round blowout loss at the hands of 165 pound Joe Choynski, a Boilermaker title defense against Johnson would have been a no-win proposition for Jeff, economically or sociologically. (Peter Jackson, who I consider to have been a co-world champion, would have been a far more credible and acceptable challenger in a title fight rematch with Corbett.)

Many newspaper accounts of the day suggest that Jeff had nothing more to gain by continuing on, much as was the situation facing Tunney and Marciano. Tunney's defense against Heeney lost money, and then the Great Depression kicked in, leaving Gene completely unaffected financially. Where Marciano was concerned, nobody remained who could generate interest and attention in a title fight with the flamboyance Moore could.

Would Jack Johnson have had any kind of chance to dethrone Jeffries in 1905? Absolutely not. Johnson lacked the firepower necessary to take Hart out. He also needed to take out Young Peter Jackson within 12 rounds, or take the smaller end of the receipts. Johnson failed to get the job done. The 5'6" Jackson weighed 160 pounds.

Jeffries was much stronger and more durable than anybody Johnson had faced to that point in his career, and this would have been a situation where he would have had to knock out the champion in order to win. Make it a 45 rounder, and it would be Johnson who wound up getting stopped, courtesy of fractured ribs. Jeffries dropped, fractured, and busted up Tom Sharkey with his right arm alone. What would happen if Jeffries had two healthy arms to pound on the defensively oriented Johnson with? Johnson probably didn't yet have the offensive capabilities which Corbett initiated in his 23 round classic with Jeff. He might have been able to outbox Jeffries, but that would not have been sufficient for Jack to take the title.

[mcvey]

Sam Langford went on record as wanting nothing to do with Jeffries, although he was willing to take on anybody else in the world at that time. Considering the nature of Lil' Artha's three round blowout loss at the hands of 165 pound Joe Choynski, a Boilermaker title defense against Johnson would have been a no-win proposition for Jeff, economically or sociologically. (Peter Jackson, who I consider to have been a co-world champion, would have been a far more credible and acceptable challenger in a title fight rematch with Corbett.)

Many newspaper accounts of the day suggest that Jeff had nothing more to gain by continuing on, much as was the situation facing Tunney and Marciano. Tunney's defense against Heeney lost money, and then the Great Depression kicked in, leaving Gene completely unaffected financially. Where Marciano was concerned, nobody remained who could generate interest and attention in a title fight with the flamboyance Moore could.

Would Jack Johnson have had any kind of chance to dethrone Jeffries in 1905? Absolutely not. Johnson lacked the firepower necessary to take Hart out. He also needed to take out Young Peter Jackson within 12 rounds, or take the smaller end of the receipts. Johnson failed to get the job done. The 5'6" Jackson weighed 160 pounds.

Jeffries was much stronger and more durable than anybody Johnson had faced to that point in his career, and this would have been a situation where he would have had to knock out the champion in order to win. Make it a 45 rounder, and it would be Johnson who wound up getting stopped, courtesy of fractured ribs. Jeffries dropped, fractured, and busted up Tom Sharkey with his right arm alone. What would happen if Jeffries had two healthy arms to pound on the defensively oriented Johnson with? Johnson probably didn't yet have the offensive capabilities which Corbett initiated in his 23 round classic with Jeff. He might have been able to outbox Jeffries, but that would not have been sufficient for Jack to take the title.
Im a little puzzled as to why you are so sure Johnson had no chance against Jeffries in1905, why would Jck have to ko Jeffries?.which I agree at that point in Jeffs career would seem to be an impossibility,he may have outboxed him to win a decisionJohnson was kod by Choynsky in 1901 ,4 years earlier,Jack had improved immeasurbly since then,you mentioned the weight disparity,how much weight was Choynsky conceding to jeffries when he held him to a 2o round draw in 1897?50 55lbs?Why should Johnson get stopped with fractured ribs when Jeffries didnt stop the greatly outweighed Choynsky?,You say that Jeff would likely have stopped Sharkey if his arm was uninjured ,it was ok in their first fight wasnt it?.Jeffries was much stronger and more durable than anybody HE faced in his career, in all his defenses Jeffries held big size and weight advantages ,and in his major ones age too. According to Box rec the Johnson Young Peter Jackson fight was a pre arranged draw.Tunney and Marciano retired with no worthwhile challengers in sight ,Jeffries retired with Mcvey,Jeanette,Langford ,Martin,and Johnson all in or near their primes, Ill exclude Langford because like you Ive read the peice by Joe Woodman challenging anyone bar Jeffries.,that still leaves the other 4

[Luigi1985]

For C.M. Clay II:


Jeffries didn´t retire because he was afraid of Johnson, he retired because he had enough money, he didn´t have a real contender who would have been a real challenge for him (except some black fighters, but in this time it was unfortunately so that white fighters don´t fight them, it wasn´t his personal opinion/ choice), when he came back 6 years after his retirement in his horrible shape it was because he wanted to show everybody who´s the best, I know you love Johnson and you´re totally biased in this area, but just wake up and think at first before posting such a shit, Johnson wouldn´t have a chance against a prime Jeffries, James would be too big and pysically too strong for him, if he struggled in his prime against the likes of Hart, Thompson, etc., stop now with your black propaganda, say when you want that you THINK Jeffries retired because of this and that, but not he surely retired because he ducked and feared a man who drew against journeymen sometimes...

[mr. magoo]

I think it's time for the starter of this thread ( ME ), to clearify some things.

A. This thread was not designed to berate Jack Johnson

B. This thread was designed to discuss the hypothetical post career of Jeffries.

C. I'm not claiming that Jeffries would have beaten Johnson had they fought six years earlier. ( Good fight though ).

D. I do feel that had Jeffries beaten Marvin Hart, who beat Johnson in 1905, that it would have eliminated some future controversy ( subject to opinion ).

E. I appreciate the responses from Mendoza, Mcgrain, Luigi, Janitor, C.M clay and many others.

F. Do we need to fight about this? Answer: NO

Let's Keep this civil.

[apollack]

There is no doubt that he retired too soon. He definitely had a lot of good fights left in him.

[OLD FOGEY]

Interesting theory. Maybe a few people would change their minds. Let's test the theory. We can look at the shared common opponents that Jeffries and Johnson fought from 1899-1904. A list of prime or near opponents for the most part.

Jeffries beat Griffin decisively flooring him multiple times in a 4 round match in the early 1900's, and knocked him out in the 1890's. Griffin went undefeated 1-0-2 vs Johnson.

Jeffries beat Munore decisively in two rounds. Johnson took Munroe the distance.

Jeffries beat Everett decisively in three rounds. Johnson took Everett the distance.

Jeffires floored Choysnki 3 times in a disputed draw. Choynski knocked Johnson out in 3 rounds.

We have a big enough sample of 11 total fights here with Jeffries always doing better than Johnson vs the same opponents.

If A ( Jeffries ) defeats C ( common opponents ), and B ( Johnson ) has mixed results of wins and losses vs C ( same common opponents ) then A ( Jeffries ) likely defeats B. ( Johnson ) if they ever meet in the timeline between 1899-1905.

some comments--I used to live in San Francisco, so I had easy access to the microfilms at the library of his old fights. You are misleading on a few points.
1. Griffin-Jeff knocked out Griffin early in their careers, probably in 1893 off the SF Chronicle & NY Times. The 1901 fight was an exhibition in which Griffin won a prize if he lasted 4 rounds. Griffin ran the whole fight and went down several times without being hit as a stalling tactic. Some of the papers reported it as a farce & Jeff was apparently frustrated.
2. Choynski--According to the next day papers, Choynski was down only once. The SF Call describes Jeffries scoring "the first and only knockdown of the fight" with a left swing in the 3rd round. Choynski took 7, got up "spryly" and easily lasted out the round.
As to who won, here is the SF Call's summation: "Choynski most assuredly scored the most points . . . and certainly had the better of the night's contest, having scored the cleanest hits and in defensive work he more than proved his superiority over the big Los Angeles heavyweight."
W W Naughton in the SF Examiner commenting: "Bout ended in a draw and Referee McDonald's decision was a just one."
"Choynski settled on the straight left as a steady thing, and possibly in a contest to the finish he might have won out with it. Jeffries has the stamina of a young draft colt and although he bled freely, his stamina was not dimished."
Joe Goddard was quoted on the fight by the Examiner: "The decision was just. Choynski landed the hardest blows, but Jeffries seemed to balance matters by being aggressive."
Tom Sharkey also quoted in the Examiner: "Referee McDonald rendered a just decision."
3. Munroe--Jeff destroyed Munroe in the title defense in 1904, but he may have lost an earlier exhibition in Bozeman, Montana, which forced the title defense. Gilbert Odd, in his biography of Fitz who was touring with Jeff at the time, reports that Jeff claimed he was carrying Munroe into the fourth to give the spectators their money's worth. Perhaps, but we only have Jeff's word for that. Anyway, Munroe was still on his feet going into the fourth. Jeff went after him, but according to Odd, was dropped to his knees by a right to the jaw. Jeff tried to recoup for the rest of the round, but rather than running, Munroe held his own toe to toe and was reported as the winner of the fight by the local paper.
That Munroe could beat Jeff over 4 rounds is not out of the question. He had gone to a twenty round draw with Hank Griffin, and would defeat old Tom Sharkey in 6 later.
Bottom line--one could argue that Johnson did better with Munroe.

[Mendoza]

OLD FOGEY :some comments--I used to live in San Francisco, so I had easy access to the microfilms at the library of his old fights. You are misleading on a few points.

1. Griffin-Jeff knocked out Griffin early in their careers, probably in 1893 off the SF Chronicle & NY Times. The 1901 fight was an exhibition in which Griffin won a prize if he lasted 4 rounds. Griffin ran the whole fight and went down several times without being hit as a stalling tactic. Some of the papers reported it as a farce & Jeff was apparently frustrated.

Griffin went down after being out fought, and then ran. I see a big difference here, as Johnson did not accomplish anything remotely close to this in his fights with Griffin.


2. Choynski--According to the next day papers, Choynski was down only once. The SF Call describes Jeffries scoring "the first and only knockdown of the fight" with a left swing in the 3rd round. Choynski took 7, got up "spryly" and easily lasted out the round.


As to who won, here is the SF Call's summation: "Choynski most assuredly scored the most points . . . and certainly had the better of the night's contest, having scored the cleanest hits and in defensive work he more than proved his superiority over the big Los Angeles heavyweight."
W W Naughton in the SF Examiner commenting: "Bout ended in a draw and Referee McDonald's decision was a just one."

"Choynski settled on the straight left as a steady thing, and possibly in a contest to the finish he might have won out with it. Jeffries has the stamina of a young draft colt and although he bled freely, his stamina was not dimished."

Joe Goddard was quoted on the fight by the Examiner: "The decision was just. Choynski landed the hardest blows, but Jeffries seemed to balance matters by being aggressive."

Tom Sharkey also quoted in the Examiner: "Referee McDonald rendered a just decision."

A few comments here. Jeffries said in his biography that he floored Choynski three times. The New papers of the times often miss knockdowns. If you read as many news reports as I have, you be amazed at how some papers miss things. Goddard was buddies with Choysnki from Choysnki's Aussie days so factor that in when Goddard said the fight was a draw. San Fran in those days was Choysnki's town. He was the name fighter going into the match, not Jeffries. Creditable reports all say Choysnki ran in the second half of the fight. Getting back to my point, it is easy to see that Jeffries was better than Johnson vs the same opponents.


3. Munroe--Jeff destroyed Munroe in the title defense in 1904, but he may have lost an earlier exhibition in Bozeman, Montana, which forced the title defense. Gilbert Odd, in his biography of Fitz who was touring with Jeff at the time, reports that Jeff claimed he was carrying Munroe into the fourth to give the spectators their money's worth. Perhaps, but we only have Jeff's word for that. Anyway, Munroe was still on his feet going into the fourth. Jeff went after him, but according to Odd, was dropped to his knees by a right to the jaw. Jeff tried to recoup for the rest of the round, but rather than running, Munroe held his own toe to toe and was reported as the winner of the fight by the local paper.
That Munroe could beat Jeff over 4 rounds is not out of the question. He had gone to a twenty round draw with Hank Griffin, and would defeat old Tom Sharkey in 6 later.
Bottom line--one could argue that Johnson did better with Munroe.

No, there is no way to argue that Johnson did better vs Munroe, unless you think a 6 round ND with no knockdowns, trumps a KO 2 win in world title match. Jeffries went on tour offering $500.00 to local fighters that could last four rounds with him. Munroe lasted four rounds, and claimed the $500.00 even though he was knocked down three times in the 4 round match. Munroe claim to fame was scoring a knock down in the exhibition, which lead to the title match. To close again, I see 11 total matches vs the same opponents, with one fighter doing MUCH better than the other.

[Mendoza]

According to Box rec the Johnson Young Peter Jackson fight was a pre arranged draw.Tunney and Marciano retired with no worthwhile challengers in sight ,Jeffries retired with Mcvey,Jeanette,Langford ,Martin,and Johnson all in or near their primes, Ill exclude Langford because like you Ive read the peice by Joe Woodman challenging anyone bar Jeffries.,that still leaves the other 4
A few things here, McVey.

Box Rec says: " At its conclusion no decision was given. Johnson had undertaken to knock Jackson out within twelve rounds or take the smaller end of the receipts. He failed to do so." (Durango Democrat) "
Let me get this correct. Johnson had a monetary incentive ( Jack loved money ) to KO a much smaller fighter in Young Peter Jackson who was on the decline and failed to do so? I see no mention at Box rec of a pre-arranged draw.

As for the other fighters, are you aware Jeanette was a 0-3 nobody when Jeffries retired?

Ed Martin had a big time glass body and jaw. Multiple early Ko losses to lesser men will tell you this, and if you want to cross reference a Jeffries fight, Bob Armstrong who was a good, but not great puncher KO'd Martin twice early. KO2, and KO3.

Sam McVey was still a bit green when Jeffries retired in 1905. His record was 8-4, with three losses in a row.

So you see, Jeanette, and McVey were not on the radar screen for title shots at all when Jeffires retired. Maybe Martin was a bit more established, but I doubt he's last long Vs Jeffries. Next in line for Jeffries in 1905 was Hart, then perhaps O’Brien or Burns.

Jeanette, McVey, and Langford were ready for title shots around 1908 when Johnson won the title from Burns, not 1905 when Jeffries retired.

[OLD FOGEY]

Griffin went down after being out fought, and then ran. I see a big difference here, as Johnson did not accomplish anything remotely close to this in his fights with Griffin.



A few comments here. Jeffries said in his biography that he floored Choynski three times. The New papers of the times often miss knockdowns. If you read as many news reports as I have, you be amazed at how some papers miss things. Goddard was buddies with Choysnki from Choysnki's Aussie days so factor that in when Goddard said the fight was a draw. San Fran in those days was Choysnki's town. He was the name fighter going into the match, not Jeffries. Creditable reports all say Choysnki ran in the second half of the fight. Getting back to my point, it is easy to see that Jeffries was better than Johnson vs the same opponents.



No, there is no way to argue that Johnson did better vs Munroe, unless you think a 6 round ND with no knockdowns, trumps a KO 2 win in world title match. Jeffries went on tour offering $500.00 to local fighters that could last four rounds with him. Munroe lasted four rounds, and claimed the $500.00 even though he was knocked down three times in the 4 round match. Munroe claim to fame was scoring a knock down in the exhibition, which lead to the title match. To close again, I see 11 total matches vs the same opponents, with one fighter doing MUCH better than the other.

Griffin--Jeff did better than Johnson, but the farcical 1901 exhibition is irrelevent evidence.
Choynski--no paper quoted 3 knockdowns. Either you are quoting Jeffries wrong or he was wrong. Perhaps he considered a couple of slips as knockdowns. I don't know. He might also have been confusing this fight with the Ruhlin draw, in which Jeff did score three knockdowns, thus pulling out a fight in which he was badly outboxed.
There is no basis in simply assuming the ringside reports that Choynski held his own were inaccurate without film evidence.
Jeffries did do better against Choynski than Johnson did.
Munroe--Who actually claimed Jeff scored three knockdowns? Odd does not mention this. If he did, why did the local paper think Munroe won? Jeff scored three knockdowns in the title fight.
I still think Johnson could be viewed as doing better against Munroe. Did anyone at all think he lost?

[mcvey]

Griffin went down after being out fought, and then ran. I see a big difference here, as Johnson did not accomplish anything remotely close to this in his fights with Griffin.



A few comments here. Jeffries said in his biography that he floored Choynski three times. The New papers of the times often miss knockdowns. If you read as many news reports as I have, you be amazed at how some papers miss things. Goddard was buddies with Choysnki from Choysnki's Aussie days so factor that in when Goddard said the fight was a draw. San Fran in those days was Choysnki's town. He was the name fighter going into the match, not Jeffries. Creditable reports all say Choysnki ran in the second half of the fight. Getting back to my point, it is easy to see that Jeffries was better than Johnson vs the same opponents.



No, there is no way to argue that Johnson did better vs Munroe, unless you think a 6 round ND with no knockdowns, trumps a KO 2 win in world title match. Jeffries went on tour offering $500.00 to local fighters that could last four rounds with him. Munroe lasted four rounds, and claimed the $500.00 even though he was knocked down three times in the 4 round match. Munroe claim to fame was scoring a knock down in the exhibition, which lead to the title match. To close again, I see 11 total matches vs the same opponents, with one fighter doing MUCH better than the other.
Jeffries floored Choynsky with a left hook in the 3round,Choynsky ,who was 50 lbs the lighter man ran to keep out of trouble.In the 16th round Choynsky met the rushing Jeffries with a right smashed his nose,after which the pace dropped and honours were about even.

[janitor]

To get back on topic Jeffries was never better than in his last fight before he retired.

[mcvey]

When Jeffries retired May 1905 SamMcvey had a total of 9 wins ,4 losses 3 of the losses were to johnson ,the last by ko in20 rds,his other loss was to Denver Ed Martin..I didnt look in my "archives" for this information ,its readily available on Box rec.Any Historian should have found it without trouble.

[mattdonnellon]

Certainly from a boxing historian point of view, perhaps not from his point of view. Without doubt Johnson was a serious challanger, so too was Hart. Nobody else was considered in the frame at that time. Martin was on the way down, Langford was only just testing the heavyweight waters and nobody considered him a hw contender in early 1905. Jeanette was unknown. McVey was still not in the top frame. The TIMEFRAME IS VITAL!
We now know that there were great fights out there but only with the benefit of hondsight.

[C. M. Clay II]

For C.M. Clay II:


Jeffries didn´t retire because he was afraid of Johnson, he retired because he had enough money, he didn´t have a real contender who would have been a real challenge for him (except some black fighters, but in this time it was unfortunately so that white fighters don´t fight them, it wasn´t his personal opinion/ choice), when he came back 6 years after his retirement in his horrible shape it was because he wanted to show everybody who´s the best, I know you love Johnson and you´re totally biased in this area, but just wake up and think at first before posting such a shit, Johnson wouldn´t have a chance against a prime Jeffries, James would be too big and pysically too strong for him, if he struggled in his prime against the likes of Hart, Thompson, etc., stop now with your black propaganda, say when you want that you THINK Jeffries retired because of this and that, but not he surely retired because he ducked and feared a man who drew against journeymen sometimes...

Like I said and many others said, there was a public outcry for a Jeffries-Johnson fight. So for you to say that there were no real challengers for Jeffries is just closing your eyes to the truth in front of you. Doesn't matter if they were black or not. If the public and the sports world wants this fight to happen, then the color line isssue is really irrelevant, isn't it?

Also what makes you think Johnson would have "no chance"? the relatively light-hitting Corbett and the 175lb. Fitz gave him hell and they were all smaller than Johnson. Jeffries would have maybe 15-20lbs on him, but Johnson was physically very strong and had powerful arms, using them to tie opponents up while simultaneously working the body. This is not the mismatch that you're tryng to make it out to be. I think Johnson's ofensive and defensive arsenal would expose Jeffries' crude style and would outbox him to a wide decision.

[mr. magoo]

You are only hearing what you wanna hear, right? Sure there was some guys who wanted to see Jeffries - Johnson but Jeffries could have continued his career for years without facing Johnson if he really was afraid. Dempsey was able to "avoid" Wills for 7 years. Don´t you think Jeffries would be able to do so too?

Agreed,

I'm not so sure where this notion comes into play that Jeffries ducked Johnson. He could have easily gone on to fighting Marvin Hart and the Australian champion whom he initially talked about fighting and avoided Johnson while still picking up defenses and making decent money. In those days white champions got away without having to face black contenders. Sullivan avoided Peter Jackson, Dempsey avoided Wills, etc. A younger and fitter Jeffries might have beaten Johnson anyway in my opinion.

[C. M. Clay II]

You are only hearing what you wanna hear, right? Sure there was some guys who wanted to see Jeffries - Johnson but Jeffries could have continued his career for years without facing Johnson if he really was afraid. Dempsey was able to "avoid" Wills for 7 years. Don´t you think Jeffries would be able to do so too?

Ok, first of all, Dempsey didn't duck Wills. He tried many times to get the fight, but the politics of the day didn't allow it. This is a different situation. There wasn't just "some" people who wanted to see it. Police Gazette, which was the "Ring Magazine" of it's day made a big deal about it in their column. This fight was really clamored for because it would have matched what popular opinion thought the two best heavyweights in the world to decide the true champion. Sure he could have continued his career without facing Johnson, but he would have been really ridiculed for not fighting him by the boxing public, and no doubt his ATG status would have diminished in the eyes of the public.:good

[mcvey]

Agreed,

I'm not so sure where this notion comes into play that Jeffries ducked Johnson. He could have easily gone on to fighting Marvin Hart and the Australian champion whom he initially talked about fighting and avoided Johnson while still picking up defenses and making decent money. In those days white champions got away without having to face black contenders. Sullivan avoided Peter Jackson, Dempsey avoided Wills, etc. A younger and fitter Jeffries might have beaten Johnson anyway in my opinion.
Just to put my cards on the table as it were,I dont think J effries was afraid of Johnson,I dont think he was afraid of any man,but he may have felt it unwise to swim against the popular tide of public prejudice and accept the challenge of a black man for his title,Jeffries didnt like blacks,so it wouldnt have been difficult for him to deny any deserving black challenger a shot,but I somehow feel his own self esteem and sense of his stature as undefeated champion wouldnt have allowed him to continue for long fighting the likes of Finnegan,so rather than fight a "negro" he abdicated.

[Mendoza]

When Jeffries retired May 1905 SamMcvey had a total of 9 wins ,4 losses 3 of the losses were to johnson ,the last by ko in20 rds,his other loss was to Denver Ed Martin..I didnt look in my "archives" for this information ,its readily available on Box rec.Any Historian should have found it without trouble.

McVey,

It might interest you to know that Sam McVey was disappointed in losing to Ed Martin, and nearly gave up boxing. It's true. Sam Mcvey is quoted saying this. Read up and you'll see. The information is out there. When Ed Martin beat Sam McVey in 1904, Sam McVey did not fight again until 1906!

Again, Sam McVey was not in line for a title shot while Jeffries was active.

[mcvey]

Mcvey was inactive for 17 months ,its no secret ,so what? In his next fight he kod Martin in 4rds,when Jeffries retired Mcvey was i n his prime at 28 years of age,of course he was in the frame.

[mcvey]

Ever heard of a fighter who wasnt dissapointed at losing a fight? a nonsensical statement.

[Mendoza]

Mcvey was inactive for 17 months ,its no secret ,so what? In his next fight he kod Martin in 4rds,when Jeffries retired Mcvey was i n his prime at 28 years of age,of course he was in the frame.

Do you agree with me when I said Langford, McVey, and Jeanette were not ready for a title shot while Jeffires was active or not?

[mcvey]

Do you agree with me when I said Langford, McVey, and Jeanette were not ready for a title shot while Jeffires was active or not?
NO!

[Mendoza]

Mendoza: Hey McVey, do you agree with me when I said Langford, McVey, and Jeanette were not ready for a title shot while Jeffires was active?

NO!

Ok. Once again:

Jeanette was a 0-3 nobody when Jeffries retired!

Sam McVey was still a bit green when Jeffries retired in 1905. His record was 8-4, with three losses in a row. The Martin loss made MCVey think twice about prize fighting. Indeed, McVey did not return to the ring until 1906!



Langford was too small back then, and said he'd fight anyone but Jeffries!

[ChrisPontius]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



Yeah, McVey, Jeanette and Langford would've probably been murdered by Jeffries at that point if they fought. We know now how spectacular they turned out to become, back then i doubt they were even on the radar. Maybe Langford, but he was barely a middleweight.

[mcvey]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



Yeah, McVey, Jeanette and Langford would've probably been murdered by Jeffries at that point if they fought. We know now how spectacular they turned out to become, back then i doubt they were even on the radar. Maybe Langford, but he was barely a middleweight.
From august1903 when he stopped a 37 year old Corbett who was 30 ibs lighter and hadnt had a fight in 3 years till May 1905 Jeffries fought once,in 1904 against the woefully overmatched Jack Munro,the referee stopped it to as he said "prevent someone being killed",Do you think Munro was a more worthy challenger than the guys Ive mentioned? In 1905 Jeanette stopped Langford in 8 rds.

[C. M. Clay II]

I disagree that his ATG status would have diminished. I mean when it´s not diminishing despite him retireing instead fighting Johnson and than losing to him 6 years later it wouldn´t if he really avoided him.
Yeah, Dempsey tried to fight Wills but it isn´t like the public forced him to fight it, they accepted that he didn´t and so would have the public of Jeffries days.

You don't see how that would diminish his status? When fighting Johnson past his prime in 1910 and losing the fight, people made excuses for him saying he was really past it and would have beaten him in his prime. Well, continuing his career and not fighting Johnson despite him being the outstanding challenger would prompt people to ask questions about why he's not fighting him when he has the chance. He wouldn't have that extra cushion to fall back on, so to speak.:good

[Dempsey1238]

No one denies Dempsey the same thing in regards to Wills for the most part. The same thing would happen to Jeffries imo.

[C. M. Clay II]

No one denies Dempsey the same thing in regards to Wills for the most part. The same thing would happen to Jeffries imo.

Because it's understood that Dempsey tried to get the fight. Jeffries didn't.:good

[Dempsey1238]

And what about Sullivan?? OR Corbett? OR Gene Tunney? No one denies the greatness to these guys either.

[mcvey]

You don't see how that would diminish his status? When fighting Johnson past his prime in 1910 and losing the fight, people made excuses for him saying he was really past it and would have beaten him in his prime. Well, continuing his career and not fighting Johnson despite him being the outstanding challenger would prompt people to ask questions about why he's not fighting him when he has the chance. He wouldn't have that extra cushion to fall back on, so to speak.:good
Its interesting that its accepted,and rightly that Jeffries was a shell of the great fighter he had been when he came back after 5 years inactivity,and at 35 was humiliated by Johnson ,yet one of his biggest wins is allways seen to be his ko over a 37 year old Corbett ,30lbs the smaller man who had been retired for 3 years and was 2 years older than Jeffries was when he attempted his comeback.

[Mendoza]

Its interesting that its accepted,and rightly that Jeffries was a shell of the great fighter he had been when he came back after 5 years inactivity,and at 35 was humiliated by Johnson ,yet one of his biggest wins is allways seen to be his ko over a 37 year old Corbett ,30lbs the smaller man who had been retired for 3 years and was 2 years older than Jeffries was when he attempted his comeback.

Says who? No one thinks the 2nd Corbett fight was one of Jeffires best five wins. It seems you're trying to throw stuff on the wall here to see what sticks.

Unlike Jack Johnson, Jeffries actually gave fighters who put up good fights vs him re-matches in title fights.:deal

Johnson ducked his top challenges as champion ( Jeanette, McVey, Langford, and Smith ) , and never bothered to give Jack O'brien, a past his prime fighter who Johnson had a 42.5 pound weight advantage a re-match. Hart, and Jim Battling Johnson never got re-matches either.

[Dempsey1238]

Jeff's best wins are perhaps the first Corbett fight, both Sharkey fights, Fitz 1, and thats about it. Not bad when when you conisider he fouhgt like 20 times.

[C. M. Clay II]

Says who? No one thinks the 2nd Corbett fight was one of Jeffires best five wins. It seems you're trying to throw stuff on the wall here to see what sticks.

Unlike Jack Johnson, Jeffries actually gave fighters who put up good fights vs him re-matches in title fights.:deal

Johnson ducked his top challenges as champion ( Jeanette, McVey, Langford, and Smith ) , and never bothered to give Jack O'brien, a past his prime fighter who Johnson had a 42.5 pound weight advantage a re-match. Hart, and Jim Battling Johnson never got re-matches either.

Hey, at least Johnson fought them pre-title. Jeffries never fought the black dynamite at all.:good

[C. M. Clay II]

Why should he have fought them? McVey was 8-4 when Jeffries retired, Jeanette 0-3 and Langford was campaigning at middleweight and below. He fought Peter Jackson who was the equivalent of the black dynamite in the previous era.

According to boxrec, yes. But boxrec isn't always right. Many records from the turn of the century are incomplete.

[C. M. Clay II]

To say it with Lennox Lewis: "Put up or shut up!"

So you deny that many boxrec records are inconclusive?

[mcvey]

Yes Jeffries did give rematches ,he gave one to the 37 year old 172 lb Fitz ,but he waited 3 YEARS TO DO IT,Fitz was 40 when he got his rematch,and his previous fight was 2 YEARS EARLIER, a2 round ko of Sharkey. Corbett also was accomodated from his performance against Jeffries where he boxed the big guys ears off at the age of 34 he only had to wait 3 YEARS,till he was 37.
So what were Jeffries best performances do you think/ His win over a 37 yearold 167pound Fitz who hadnt fought in over 2 YEARS.?
How about his win over the 34 YEAROLD Corbett who had retired once and come back?Between losing the title to Fitz in1897 and challenging Jeffries Corbett had 1 fight a loss by foul to Sharkey in 9 rounds,thats in3 YEARS.
Maybe you think its Jffs win over Ruhlin whose corner threw in the towel at the end of the 5th in their1901 fight ,trouble is Ruhlin had been kod in 6 a year earlier by FITZ.
TOM SHARKEY his 25 round battle with Jeffries1899 is that his best performance?the 6 21/2 215 Jeffries against the 5 8 1/2 183 Sharkey,well at least Sharkey wasnt in his middle 30s or older,but Sharkey had been stretched out by Fitz in1896,in 8 rounds then Wyatt Earp the referee drew his gun and declared FitzShad fouled,BULLSHIT! Sharkey conceding 6 inches in height 32 pounds goes the distance and gives Jeffries the fight of his life,This same Sharkey will be kod twice in the next year,in 15 by Ruhlin and 2 by Fitz.So which is it ?which is Jeffries most impressive victory?Is it his ko of an untrained 37 yearold manwho hasnt had a fight in 2 years or his win over a 34 yearold once retired ex fighter whio hadnt fought in 3 years,or his decision win over a man 6 inches shorter32 lbs lighter?

[Bo Bo Olson]

Johnson wasn't any one then.

Didn't he fight Peter Jackson? I think he did.
As for Dempsy, not fighting Willis...it was not Dempsy's fault but Willis's. One time a fight was set up...as a down payment Dempsy got a $25,000 rubber check.

[Mendoza]

Hey, at least Johnson fought them pre-title. Jeffries never fought the black dynamite at all.:good

You don’t know what you're talking about C.M Clay, though it is obvious where you heart is in this discussion.

As an FYI, Jackson, Armstrong, and Griffin were black dynamite fighters that Jeffries beat prior to winning the title:deal.


You can look it up if you wish. Of course Griffin beat Johnson. Armstrong could punch a bit and wasn't a shrimpy sized heavyweight, which is perhaps why Johnson never risked his colored title vs him.

[C. M. Clay II]

No, but i say you have to prove that it is in this case and since you can´t you should stop making up thinkgs to "prove" your points.

The proof is in books and articles that claim more fights for many fighters than Boxrec suggests.:good

[C. M. Clay II]

You don’t know what you're talking about C.M Clay, though it is obvious where you heart is in this discussion.

As an FYI, Jackson, Armstrong, and Griffin were black dynamite fighters that Jeffries beat prior to winning the title:deal.


You can look it up if you wish. Of course Griffin beat Johnson. Armstrong could punch a bit and wasn't a shrimpy sized heavyweight, which is perhaps why Johnson never risked his colored title vs him.

Johnson was half-starved against Griffin. He was for most of his fights around that time.

Jackson was really old, Armstrong gave him hell, and Griffin is overrated. Langford, Jeannete, and McVey are far superior to those that Jeff beat.:good

[mcvey]

You don’t know what you're talking about C.M Clay, though it is obvious where you heart is in this discussion.

As an FYI, Jackson, Armstrong, and Griffin were black dynamite fighters that Jeffries beat prior to winning the title:deal.


You can look it up if you wish. Of course Griffin beat Johnson. Armstrong could punch a bit and wasn't a shrimpy sized heavyweight, which is perhaps why Johnson never risked his colored title vs him.
Why should Johnson have fought Armstrong? Who did he ever beat?
His best wins areover a 33 yearold Paddy Slavin,who was an alcoholic,a win over Ed Martin who was 18 and having his first pro fight,they later split a pair of fights ,Armstong koing the now 22 year old Martin,some feat ,martin was chinny and kod 8 times.Armstrongs only other win over a fighter of any stature was over Pete Everett who was an in and outer,Armstrong fought Frank Childs 4 times LOSING ALL OF THEM 3 BY KO,Johnson fought Childs TWICE WINNING BOTH ! BY KO,ARmstrong made the bulk of his living as a sparring partner he wasnt in Johnsons class,ARMstrong was kod by CHILDS 3 TIMES,WALTER JOHNSON IN 4,the famous JOE SHEEHY IN 4 and SANDY FERGUSON IN 1 GET REAL!.Ive outlined Jeffries best wins ,with some additional info about the age and inactivity of his cchallengers,which of his wins do you consider the most laudatory? STILL WAITING FOR YOUR REPLY.

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]Why should Johnson have fought Armstrong?

Armstrong is a fighter who divides opinions among historians of the period. Some see him as a relative non entity while some consider him among the best heavyweights never to fight for the title.

My impresion is that he was prety usefull.

ARmstrong made the bulk of his living as a sparring partner

A lot of verry talented black fighters of this period who should have been contenders were forced to work as sparring partners.

I do not think it an exageration to say that some of them were better than the contenders who they prepared for their title fights.

[mcvey]

My post was a rebuttal of Mendozas weasely insinuation thatJohnson avoided Armstrong.The fact that Armstrong lost all 4 of his fights with Childs ,3 by ko ,whilst Johnson beatChilds 2 out of 2 , 1 by ko,plus Armstrong waskod by Walter Johnson a ko victim of Johnson ,and kod by Sandy Ferguson in1 ,another Johnson victim surely shows that Johnson had no reason to fear Armstrong.Before winning the world title Johnson beat the following
Klondike ko14
Klondikeko13
Everett 20
Childsko12
Martin 20
Mcvey 20
Ferguson10
Mcvey 20
Mcvey ko 20
Childs 6
BlackBill ko4
Walter Jonson ko3
Ferguson ko 7
Jeanette 15
Black Bill ko6
Langford15
Jeanette ko 3
Felix ko 1
He cleared out the division BEFORE he won the crown.

[Mendoza]

Why should Johnson have fought Armstrong? Who did he ever beat?
His best wins areover a 33 yearold Paddy Slavin,who was an alcoholic,a win over Ed Martin who was 18 and having his first pro fight,they later split a pair of fights ,Armstong koing the now 22 year old Martin,some feat ,martin was chinny and kod 8 times.Armstrongs only other win over a fighter of any stature was over Pete Everett who was an in and outer,Armstrong fought Frank Childs 4 times LOSING ALL OF THEM 3 BY KO,Johnson fought Childs TWICE WINNING BOTH ! BY KO,ARmstrong made the bulk of his living as a sparring partner he wasnt in Johnsons class,ARMstrong was kod by CHILDS 3 TIMES,WALTER JOHNSON IN 4,the famous JOE SHEEHY IN 4 and SANDY FERGUSON IN 1 GET REAL!.Ive outlined Jeffries best wins ,with some additional info about the age and inactivity of his cchallengers,which of his wins do you consider the most laudatory? STILL WAITING FOR YOUR REPLY.

Why? Well Armstrong was a contender for the colored title back than, and unlike Jeanette and McVey Johnson fought, Armstrong wasn't a novice. Unlike Langford, he was a full heavyweight. And of course he could punch a bit. That is why Johnson should have given Armstrong a crack at his colored title. Convienet of you to leave out Armstrong's two wins over Slavin.

Now if you really want a separate thread on who should have fought who as lineal champ between Jeffries and Johnson, you'll be badly outclassed. Start the thread if you dare.... I WILL BE WATING FOR YOUR REPLY.

[Mendoza]

Mendoza You don’t know what you're talking about C.M Clay, though it is obvious where you heart is in this discussion.

As an FYI, Jackson, Armstrong, and Griffin were black dynamite fighters that Jeffries beat prior to winning the title:deal.


You can look it up if you wish. Of course Griffin beat Johnson. Armstrong could punch a bit and wasn't a shrimpy sized heavyweight, which is perhaps why Johnson never risked his colored title vs him.

CM Clay:

[quote=C. M. Clay II]Johnson was half-starved against Griffin. He was for most of his fights around that time.

Jackson was really old, Armstrong gave him hell, and Griffin is overrated. Langford, Jeannete, and McVey are far superior to those that Jeff beat.:good

Johnson was half starved vs Griffin? In all three fights? Show me a source. I think you're full of it. This is an excuse, that can be used for any fighter.

Beating a teenager ( McVey ), a fighter with a losing record ( Jeanette ) and a 156 pound former lower weight fighter ( Langford ) when Johnson did is NOT an accomplishment. The bald truth CM Clay, is Griffin and Armstrong were more accomplished heavyweights when Jeffires beat them in comparison to the McVey, Jeanette, and Langford Johnson beat. You really don't understand what you’re talking about. In addition, Peter Jackson was a legend. Jeffreis didn't take much time to take him out.

But at least you learned three new members of black dynamite.

[mcvey]

Why? Well Armstrong was a contender for the colored title back than, and unlike Jeanette and McVey Johnson fought, Armstrong wasn't a novice. Unlike Langford, he was a full heavyweight. And of course he could punch a bit. That is why Johnson should have given Armstrong a crack at his colored title. Convienet of you to leave out Armstrong's two wins over Slavin.

Now if you really want a separate thread on who should have fought who as lineal champ between Jeffries and Johnson, you'll be badly outclassed. Start the thread if you dare.... I WILL BE WATING FOR YOUR REPLY.
Do you have reading difficulties?Slavins fights with Armstrong are at the TOP OF MY POST,JOhnson beat Denver Ed Martin for the Black Title in 1903,he defended it that year against Sam Mcveytwice wining both by 20 round dec,THAT YEAR ARMSTRONG WAS KOD IN 1 ROUND BY SANDY FERGUSON,the following year he was KOD IN 4 BY WALTER JOHNSON IN 2ROUNDS,he eliminated himself.You still havent answered my question. Which of jeffries wins Ive outlined do you consider his best?.Ive postedJohnsons wins before he won the title on an earlier reply. As I said befroe your pathalogical dislike of Johnson has clouded your judgement ,that is the only charitable explanation I can give for your consistantly twisting the facts to suit your hate agenda. I provided proof that Jeffries wins were over men who had been inactive,were considerably older ,past their primes and significantly out weighed and out sized.Ive no problem with Jeffries he seems to have been a stolid ,unimaginative ,decent man of few words,rather taciturn ,undeniably a tremendous fighter with fantastic durability,prodigious strength,and courage,and a good good solid punch to go with his granite chin.I do have a problem with "self styled archivists and historians " who are wallowing in a tiny pool of complacency and condescension,clutching paper clippings and referring to them selves as "historians"I dont like you Mendoza,,but thats ok you like yourself more than enough for both of us. Im not a historian ,not an archivist,neither am I an expert,just a boxing fan who hopefully tries to get to the facts without making them fit my personal self glorification agenda.

[Mendoza]

Do you have reading difficulties?Slavins fights with Armstrong are at the TOP OF MY POST,JOhnson beat Denver Ed Martin for the Black Title in 1903,he defended it that year against Sam Mcveytwice wining both by 20 round dec,THAT YEAR ARMSTRONG WAS KOD IN 1 ROUND BY SANDY FERGUSON,the following year he was KOD IN 4 BY WALTER JOHNSON IN 2ROUNDS,he eliminated himself.You still havent answered my question. Which of jeffries wins Ive outlined do you consider his best?.Ive postedJohnsons wins before he won the title on an earlier reply. As I said befroe your pathalogical dislike of Johnson has clouded your judgement ,that is the only charitable explanation I can give for your consistantly twisting the facts to suit your hate agenda. I provided proof that Jeffries wins were over men who had been inactive,were considerably older ,past their primes and significantly out weighed and out sized.Ive no problem with Jeffries he seems to have been a stolid ,unimaginative ,decent man of few words,rather taciturn ,undeniably a tremendous fighter with fantastic durability,prodigious strength,and courage,and a good good solid punch to go with his granite chin.I do have a problem with "self styled archivists and historians " who are wallowing in a tiny pool of complacency and condescension,clutching paper clippings and referring to them selves as "historians"I dont like you Mendoza,,but thats ok you like yourself more than enough for both of us. Im not a historian ,not an archivist,neither am I an expert,just a boxing fan who hopefully tries to get to the facts without making them fit my personal self glorification agenda.
I read Paddy. I read him as Frank...Slavin. That was the confusion. No matter. Either way, it’s obvious clear you’re a novice with an agenda who will continue to be badly outclassed in a boxing debate with me. You can’t even quote Box Rec correctly ( See the Young Peter Jackson comment ). I accuse you of the same thing, a blatant hidden dislike for Jeffries, and an unadulterated infatuation with Johnson that puts your reason in question. You call me a baised hater. I shall do the same with you.

I think Johnson was a talent. I also think he's misunderstood and over rated. If you read what I post, what I say is true. The films, results , new clipings, and facts don’t lie. Embrace them. The only think you have to offer in return is excuses for him! You have to ask yourself, what do you value more, the truth of the sweet science, or fan boy fantasies?

And by the way, please keep up your snooty tone. It gives me the chance to have fun with your continuing edification. At the very least the board will learn a thing or two along the way.

Ta-ta.

PS: Oh, sure, Johnson won some fights before Burns. He also got Ko'd, drew too often, and was lack luster in several fights. I'll formate a reply later. At best Johnson results piror to 1906 were a mixed bag. In fact when the experience and size of Johnson opponets were near even, I think he looks anything but special from the 1890's to 1905.

[Mendoza]

My post was a rebuttal of Mendozas weasely insinuation thatJohnson avoided Armstrong.The fact that Armstrong lost all 4 of his fights with Childs ,3 by ko ,whilst Johnson beatChilds 2 out of 2 , 1 by ko,plus Armstrong waskod by Walter Johnson a ko victim of Johnson ,and kod by Sandy Ferguson in1 ,another Johnson victim surely shows that Johnson had no reason to fear Armstrong.Before winning the world title Johnson beat the following

( my comments in green )

Klondike ko14
Klondikeko13 - source???
Everett 20 - Distance fight
Childsko12
Martin 20 - Couldn't Ko a chinny Martin?
Mcvey 20 - McVey was a teenager.
Ferguson10
Mcvey 20 - McVey was a teenager
Mcvey ko 20 - Kudos! MCVey was still very young and green
Childs 6 -
BlackBill ko4. I'll be fair, this was a good win.
Walter Jonson ko3. Walter's reocrd at box rec was 3-8-5!
Ferguson ko 7 BULL!. Johnson never Ko'd Ferguson!
Jeanette 15 - Jeanette had a near .500 record. Big deal.
Black Bill ko6
Langford15 - Kudos, Sam was a former feather, and 156 pounds.
Jeanette ko 3 - BULL Johnson NEVER Ko'd Jeanette. Try again.
Felix ko 1
He cleared out the division BEFORE he won the crown.
Time for a bit of fun McVey. Read my replies, then comment back if you dare.

Jack Johnson from 1898-1905. Cleaned out the divson you say? Let's examine.

1898: Drew with nobodies Jim McCormick and Henry Smith!

1899: Got KO'd and quit on his stool vs Klondike! I guess Klondike was a fighter near even with size and experience on Johnson. Remember this theme.

Then Johnson drew with nobody named Pat Smith.

1900: Drew with Klondike again

1901: Drew with Scanlon.

Ko'd by Choynski in three. It was a one punch KO. Hmmm....Choysnki wasn't green. He rode the rails to Johnson’s home town. Funny when Johnson is matched vs a man with some experience and some power ( klondike and Choynski ) he got knocked out.

Drew with Stift

Lost to Griffin on points....funny when Johnson is matched vs a man with some expereince and power, he losses yet again!

Drew with Griffin.

1902:

Drew with Griffin again.

1905:

Losses to Hart on points.....funny when Johnson is matched vs a man with some experience and power, he looses yet again.

Losses to Jeanette on a low blow foul. Jeanette, who was 6-4-1 at the time had Johnson rocked in round one. Read the fight clip sometime.

Facts and Summary: The most accomplished fighters Johnson fought up to 1905 ( Hart, Griffin, Choysnki, and Klondkie ) ALL BEAT JACK JOHNSON! Ouch, this guy is soooo over rated. Please insert all your excuses McVey, I'm ready to fall out of my chair in laughter.:lol::lol::lol:

[mcvey]

I read Paddy. I read him as Frank...Slavin. That was the confusion. No matter. Either way, it’s obvious clear you’re a novice with an agenda who will continue to be badly outclassed in a boxing debate with me. You can’t even quote Box Rec correctly ( See the Young Peter Jackson comment ). I accuse you of the same thing, a blatant hidden dislike for Jeffries, and an unadulterated infatuation with Johnson that puts your reason in question. You call me a baised hater. I shall do the same with you.

I think Johnson was a talent. I also think he's misunderstood and over rated. If you read what I post, what I say is true. The films, results , new clipings, and facts don’t lie. Embrace them. The only think you have to offer in return is excuses for him! You have to ask yourself, what do you value more, the truth of the sweet science, or fan boy fantasies?

And by the way, please keep up your snooty tone. It gives me the chance to have fun with your continuing edification. At the very least the board will learn a thing or two along the way.

Ta-ta.

PS: Oh, sure, Johnson won some fights before Burns. He also got Ko'd, drew too often, and was lack luster in several fights. I'll formate a reply later. At best Johnson results piror to 1906 were a mixed bag. In fact when the experience and size of Johnson opponets were near even, I think he looks anything but special from the 1890's to 1905.
My post shows Im not a Jefries hater I referred to him as a "tremendous fighter,with fantastic durability,prodigious strength and courage ,a good solid punch ,to go with a granite chin" wheres the hate? wheres the agenda? Ishowed why Armstrong didnt merit a match with Johnson,I gave you facts.I asked you to give me Jeffries best wins TWICE,no reply. You are a pompous vain up your own orifice ,muppet who makes unfounded statements ,then doesnt reply when they are refuted with facts. Johnson isnt one of my favourite fighters at all actually ,he was a lazy ,vain ,untrustworthy strutting peacock,and like you an egoist,but facts are facts,at 58 Im way past "fan boy fantasies".An example of your overweening conceit is the statement "the board will learn a thing or two along the way",what self satisfied twaddle,there are many fine posters on here ,certainly better informed than me ,or you for that matter,the difference is I KNOW IT.

[Mendoza]

.I asked you to give me Jeffries best wins TWICE,no reply.

Fitz I, Corbett I, Sharkey II, Sharkey I, Griffin I. Those are Jeffries best wins in my opinion.

Now, please address your full of errors post where I commented in green, and explain to me why Johnson lost to most experienced fighters he fought up to 1905! This should be fun.

[mcvey]

Fitz I, Corbett I, Sharkey II, Sharkey I, Griffin I. Those are Jeffries best wins in my opinion.

Now, please address your full of errors post where I commented in green, and explain to me why Johnson lost to most experienced fighters he fought up to 1905! This should be fun.
Fitz ,when he was beaten by Jeffries, hadnt had a fight in 2 years he had been on the vaudeville circuithe was 37 years old and 33lbs lighter than the 206 Jeffries,Corbett when he fought Jeffries,had retired twice he hadnt had a fightin 2 years ,and then only one a losing one to Sharkey so between losing the title to Fitz and challenging Jeffries Corbett had had one fight in three years and in the last two years no fights at all,he was 34 and 30lbs lighter,the two fights with Sharkey ,very hard ones for Jeffries were both wins for him ,Sharkey was 6 inches shorter ,and 32 lbs lighter these were still good wins for Jeffries as Unlike the others Sharkey was in his prime,and had been active,but he was kod twice by Fitz ,twice by Ruhlin,yet Jeffries failed to stop the much smaller man,Jeffries best win may well be his defeat of Hank Griffin,a very creditable result,but his wins as champion were over ex champions past their primes ,who had been inactive,or retired ,or both,and whom he greatly outweighed,or like Sharkey ,towered above,these are the undisputable facts.So his reputation is founded on victories over men past their best ,most of them past their early 30s,and considerably outweighed and outsized.

[C. M. Clay II]

[quote]CM Clay:



Johnson was half starved vs Griffin? In all three fights? Show me a source. I think you're full of it. This is an excuse, that can be used for any fighter.

Beating a teenager ( McVey ), a fighter with a losing record ( Jeanette ) and a 156 pound former lower weight fighter ( Langford ) when Johnson did is NOT an accomplishment. The bald truth CM Clay, is Griffin and Armstrong were more accomplished heavyweights when Jeffires beat them in comparison to the McVey, Jeanette, and Langford Johnson beat. You really don't understand what you’re talking about. In addition, Peter Jackson was a legend. Jeffreis didn't take much time to take him out.

But at least you learned three new members of black dynamite.

Accomplished heavyweights?:lol: Griffin was a fringe contender at best, and it still took Jeff 17 rounds to get him. Even Police Gazette which was the Ring Magazine of it's day referred to Griffin as a "third-rater". Armstrong also wasn't necessarity that hot, yet gave big Jeff hell in their fight. And Jckson may have been a legend, but he was by all accounts shot against Jeffries.

[Mendoza]

[quote=Mendoza]

Accomplished heavyweights?:lol: Griffin was a fringe contender at best, and it still took Jeff 17 rounds to get him. Even Police Gazette which was the Ring Magazine of it's day referred to Griffin as a "third-rater". Armstrong also wasn't necessarity that hot, yet gave big Jeff hell in their fight. And Jckson may have been a legend, but he was by all accounts shot against Jeffries.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. Griffin had a big rep on the west coast. If Griffin was only a third rater, then what was Johnson who lost to Griffin once, and could only draw twice?:lol::lol: If you quote the press, the same rules should apply.

If you read reports ( you don't ) you will see that Jackson while older was in his peak fighting weight I never said Armstrong was great, he was merely solid. Armstrong had the size, punch and experience to defeat Johnson had the two meet prior to 1904. I’m not saying Armstrong beats Johnson for sure. I just find it interesting the match was never made.

[Mendoza]

Fitz ,when he was beaten by Jeffries, hadnt had a fight in 2 years he had been on the vaudeville circuithe was 37 years old and 33lbs lighter than the 206 Jeffries,Corbett when he fought Jeffries,had retired twice he hadnt had a fightin 2 years ,and then only one a losing one to Sharkey so between losing the title to Fitz and challenging Jeffries Corbett had had one fight in three years and in the last two years no fights at all,he was 34 and 30lbs lighter,the two fights with Sharkey ,very hard ones for Jeffries were both wins for him ,Sharkey was 6 inches shorter ,and 32 lbs lighter these were still good wins for Jeffries as Unlike the others Sharkey was in his prime,and had been active,but he was kod twice by Fitz ,twice by Ruhlin,yet Jeffries failed to stop the much smaller man,Jeffries best win may well be his defeat of Hank Griffin,a very creditable result,but his wins as champion were over ex champions past their primes ,who had been inactive,or retired ,or both,and whom he greatly outweighed,or like Sharkey ,towered above,these are the undisputable facts.So his reputation is founded on victories over men past their best ,most of them past their early 30s,and considerably outweighed and outsized.

Fitz kept himself in shape and boxed exbibitions. He was still deadly and proved this by comming back after the KO to Jeffries to win some big matches.

Corbett was 33, not 34. Your math is off. Corbett was in his prime. The reporters say it was his best effort.

Sharkey like Corbett was also in his prime.

I have no doubt that Fitz, Corbett and Sharkey were the BEST challengers out there for Jeffries from 1899-1903. Unlike Johnson, Jeffries actually gave the best fighters title shots. You can’t win. A simple compare and contrast of title opponents and you lose. By the way I waiting for your excuses as to why Johnson got his but handed to him by the likes of Klodike, CHoysnki, Griffin, and Hart, who as a group were several notches below Fitz, Sharkey and Corbett that Jeffries beat. Heck-- the draws to nobodies that Johnson had are an indication he wasn't a world beater while Jeffires was champ.

Jeffries rep wasn't only based on beating Corbett, Fitz and Shareky. It was also based on retiring undefeated, never being down in his prime, winning key matches with injures, and quickly moving up the mountian to the championship without meeting tomato cans.

As for weight, Marciano, and Dempsey were around the same weight as Corbett, and Sharkey. Are you saying a 185 pound fighter can't beat a 220 pound fighter? You need to clarify here. The bigger fighters would be easier for Jeffries because they could not run like Corbett.

Every historian who saw Corbett, and Fitzsimmons says they were great. This means more that whatever you write. Sharkey too is in the hall of fame.

PS: Do you still think Johsnon Ko'd Jeanette and Ferguson?

[cross_trainer]

Johnson was half-starved against Griffin. He was for most of his fights around that time.

Jackson was really old, Armstrong gave him hell, and Griffin is overrated. Langford, Jeannete, and McVey are far superior to those that Jeff beat.:good

You should switch to a Star Wars avatar like the rest of us. CONFORM!!!!

On a more serious note, it's interesting that Johnson still has the tendency to produce such polarized opinions to this day, even on an internet forum. He would be delighted.

[Mendoza]

You should switch to a Star Wars avatar like the rest of us. CONFORM!!!!

On a more serious note, it's interesting that Johnson still has the tendency to produce such polarized opinions to this day, even on an internet forum. He would be delighted.

Which Star Wars character is full of excuses, and is thin? Maybe C.M. Clay should be C3-PO.

[Luigi1985]

Fitz kept himself in shape and boxed exbibitions. He was still deadly and proved this by comming back after the KO to Jeffries to win some big matches.

Corbett was 33, not 34. Your math is off. Corbett was in his prime. The reporters say it was his best effort.

Sharkey like Corbett was also in his prime.

I have no doubt that Fitz, Corbett and Sharkey were the BEST challengers out there for Jeffries from 1899-1903. Unlike Johnson, Jeffries actually gave the best fighters title shots. You can’t win. A simple compare and contrast of title opponents and you lose. By the way I waiting for your excuses as to why Johnson got his but handed to him by the likes of Klodike, CHoysnki, Griffin, and Hart, who as a group were several notches below Fitz, Sharkey and Corbett that Jeffries beat. Heck-- the draws to nobodies that Johnson had are an indication he wasn't a world beater while Jeffires was champ.

Jeffries rep wasn't only based on beating Corbett, Fitz and Shareky. It was also based on retiring undefeated, never being down in his prime, winning key matches with injures, and quickly moving up the mountian to the championship without meeting tomato cans.

As for weight, Marciano, and Dempsey were around the same weight as Corbett, and Sharkey. Are you saying a 185 pound fighter can't beat a 220 pound fighter? You need to clarify here. The bigger fighters would be easier for Jeffries because they could not run like Corbett.

Every historian who saw Corbett, and Fitzsimmons says they were great. This means more that whatever you write. Sharkey too is in the hall of fame.

PS: Do you still think Johsnon Ko'd Jeanette and Ferguson?


Very good points, I can only agree with! Good post, mendoza!

[cross_trainer]

Johnson and Hart were the best contenders in 1905/6. Jeffries avoided both of them by retiring--and it would have been great if he hadn't, since we would have had a better idea of who the real champ was (as opposed to seeing Burns holding the heavyweight title while Hart and Johnson lay in the wings).

Like I said, though, Jeffries did not duck Hart or Johnson. He retired because he got tired of boxing and wanted to settle down--he would have fought them if the money/motivation was there, as his later fight against Johnson proves.

[C. M. Clay II]

Fitz kept himself in shape and boxed exbibitions. He was still deadly and proved this by comming back after the KO to Jeffries to win some big matches.

Corbett was 33, not 34. Your math is off. Corbett was in his prime. The reporters say it was his best effort.

Sharkey like Corbett was also in his prime.

I have no doubt that Fitz, Corbett and Sharkey were the BEST challengers out there for Jeffries from 1899-1903. Unlike Johnson, Jeffries actually gave the best fighters title shots. You can’t win. A simple compare and contrast of title opponents and you lose. By the way I waiting for your excuses as to why Johnson got his but handed to him by the likes of Klodike, CHoysnki, Griffin, and Hart, who as a group were several notches below Fitz, Sharkey and Corbett that Jeffries beat. Heck-- the draws to nobodies that Johnson had are an indication he wasn't a world beater while Jeffires was champ.

The Haines fight was a robbery. Johnson ko'd him in the first fight, but Haines benefited from a long lount. Haines was down for over two minutes, but the ref counted slowly. Haines never really beat Johnson. And except for the Hart fight, all these losses came before Johnson's prime, which is really what counts, isn't it? And even considering the Hart fight it was highly controversial in and of itself as most people who witnessed the fight though Johnson won clearly.:good

[Mendoza]

The Haines fight was a robbery. Johnson ko'd him in the first fight, but Haines benefited from a long lount. Haines was down for over two minutes, but the ref counted slowly. Haines never really beat Johnson. And except for the Hart fight, all these losses came before Johnson's prime, which is really what counts, isn't it? And even considering the Hart fight it was highly controversial in and of itself as most people who witnessed the fight though Johnson won clearly.:good

Down for two minutes? I doubt this. How about a source for once? Johnson quit on his stool after getting pounded by Klondine Haines. Later in his career, Joshnon quit again vs Jim " batling " Johnson. He was also Ko'd by one punch by Choynski.

So we have an all time great who quit twice, and was Ko'd by one punch. There is no other all time great hall of fame fighter in the history of boxing that can make this dubious claim, CM Clay.

Johnson lost and drew to many fighters long after he had 20 or so fights under his belt. Read my posts. After 20 or so fights, a fighter is no longer " green ". He is a veteran. Keep up with the excuses that are never backed up by facts, C.M. Clay.

[Bummy Davis]

Jeffries could have continued on for several more fights and defended vs most of the contenders, instead of coming back 6 years later and dropping 100lbs to fight the best(Johnson) without a tune up, Could Ali,Dempsey,Louis,Marciano, or Lewis do that, come back from that condition and time off

[ChrisPontius]

Johnson ko'd him in the first fight, but Haines benefited from a long lount. Haines was down for over two minutes, but the ref counted slowly. Haines never really beat Johnson.

:lol:

[Luigi1985]

The Haines fight was a robbery. Johnson ko'd him in the first fight, but Haines benefited from a long lount. Haines was down for over two minutes, but the ref counted slowly. Haines never really beat Johnson. And except for the Hart fight, all these losses came before Johnson's prime, which is really what counts, isn't it? And even considering the Hart fight it was highly controversial in and of itself as most people who witnessed the fight though Johnson won clearly.:good





:rofl

[KSmith9116]

[quote=Mendoza]Down for two minutes? I doubt this. How about a source for once? Johnson quit on his stool after getting pounded by Klondine Haines. Later in his career, Joshnon quit again vs Jim " batling " Johnson. He was also Ko'd by one punch by Choynski.

I agree, the fact is Johnson quit. He never knocked down Klondike in this fight--I have never seen a primary source that stated such anyway. However, what is your source for Johnson quitting against Battling Jim Johnson? Do you have a primary source that states that particular fight was scheduled for 20 rounds?


So we have an all time great who quit twice, and was Ko'd by one punch. There is no other all time great hall of fame fighter in the history of boxing that can make this dubious claim, CM Clay.


Not quite that simple. Johnson's rise to fistic glory was not a simple matter of a fighter being guided to a championship. Early in his career he was taking whatever fights he could get without considering the match ups--You are applying modern thinking to a different era. You cannot simply look at a fighter's record to build a case against or for him--you must take into consideration all of the ancillary things going on around him.

[mcvey]

Time for a bit of fun McVey. Read my replies, then comment back if you dare.

Jack Johnson from 1898-1905. Cleaned out the divson you say? Let's examine.

1898: Drew with nobodies Jim McCormick and Henry Smith!

1899: Got KO'd and quit on his stool vs Klondike! I guess Klondike was a fighter near even with size and experience on Johnson. Remember this theme.

Then Johnson drew with nobody named Pat Smith.

1900: Drew with Klondike again

1901: Drew with Scanlon.

Ko'd by Choynski in three. It was a one punch KO. Hmmm....Choysnki wasn't green. He rode the rails to Johnson’s home town. Funny when Johnson is matched vs a man with some experience and some power ( klondike and Choynski ) he got knocked out.

Drew with Stift

Lost to Griffin on points....funny when Johnson is matched vs a man with some expereince and power, he losses yet again!

Drew with Griffin.

1902:

Drew with Griffin again.

1905:

Losses to Hart on points.....funny when Johnson is matched vs a man with some experience and power, he looses yet again.

Losses to Jeanette on a low blow foul. Jeanette, who was 6-4-1 at the time had Johnson rocked in round one. Read the fight clip sometime.

Facts and Summary: The most accomplished fighters Johnson fought up to 1905 ( Hart, Griffin, Choysnki, and Klondkie ) ALL BEAT JACK JOHNSON! Ouch, this guy is soooo over rated. Please insert all your excuses McVey, I'm ready to fall out of my chair in laughter.:lol::lol::lol:
I left out Johnsons ko over Martin in2 rounds 1904. I read the Jeanette result Johnson w Jeanette 3 rounds as a stoppage an honest mistake.

[Mendoza]

KSmith9116
I agree, the fact is Johnson quit. He never knocked down Klondike in this fight--I have never seen a primary source that stated such anyway. However, what is your source for Johnson quitting against Battling Jim Johnson? Do you have a primary source that states that particular fight was scheduled for 20 rounds?
Yes, the source is a French News paper. Unfortunately I do not have it here to repost. The fight was scheduled for 20 rounds. The match was dull. Johnson claimed to hurt his arm and retired in the 10th frame. The judges were split on what to do. One judge had Battling Jim in the lead; the other two had it even.



Not quite that simple. Johnson's rise to fistic glory was not a simple matter of a fighter being guided to a championship. Early in his career he was taking whatever fights he could get without considering the match ups--You are applying modern thinking to a different era. You cannot simply look at a fighter's record to build a case against or for him--you must take into consideration all of the ancillary things going on around him.

I hear what you’re saying. Most fighters did not have a rosy path to the top. At the same time regardless of the circumstances, the one thing a fighter always controls is his own actions in the ring. What we can look at is the actual matched that happened, which is what I was doing here.

[C. M. Clay II]

:rofl

Why are you laughing? Did you know that this is well documented that Haines was down for over two minutes and the ref counted slowly for him to get up? I'm not making this up. It's documented and on the records.:good

[C. M. Clay II]

Down for two minutes? I doubt this. How about a source for once? Johnson quit on his stool after getting pounded by Klondine Haines. Later in his career, Joshnon quit again vs Jim " batling " Johnson. He was also Ko'd by one punch by Choynski.

So we have an all time great who quit twice, and was Ko'd by one punch. There is no other all time great hall of fame fighter in the history of boxing that can make this dubious claim, CM Clay.

Johnson lost and drew to many fighters long after he had 20 or so fights under his belt. Read my posts. After 20 or so fights, a fighter is no longer " green ". He is a veteran. Keep up with the excuses that are never backed up by facts, C.M. Clay.

Read Unforgiveable Blackness. It's all there. Johnson Knocked him down for more than two minutes, and Haines wanted to stay there and be counted out, but the ref was hesitant, because Haines was the house fighter and Johnson was the visitor. So after about two minutes of the ref counting "2 1/4, 2 3/8, 2 1/2", he got up and fought on. Then Johnson being underfed and only trained for a couple of days got fatigued and knocked down. He also had a long-count, but the ref decided to finish the count after about 1½ minutes or so.:good

[C. M. Clay II]

:lol:

Laugh it up you clowns, but you can't laugh at documented history.:good

[Luigi1985]

Read Unforgiveable Blackness. It's all there. Johnson Knocked him down for more than two minutes, and Haines wanted to stay there and be counted out, but the ref was hesitant, because Haines was the house fighter and Johnson was the visitor. So after about two minutes of the ref counting "2 1/4, 2 3/8, 2 1/2", he got up and fought on. Then Johnson being underfed and only trained for a couple of days got fatigued and knocked down. He also had a long-count, but the ref decided to finish the count after about 1½ minutes or so.:good


That´s exactly the point. You say we should read Johnson´s biography (although I have it yet), and you said it´s historical well-known, it´s just a biography, nothing more, damn, he could have said he shot a dragon in the wood and you nuthugger would believe it...

[C. M. Clay II]

That´s exactly the point. You say we should read Johnson´s biography (although I have it yet), and you said it´s historical well-known, it´s just a biography, nothing more, damn, he could have said he shot a dragon in the wood and you nuthugger would believe it...

So you're saying that the book is nothing but a fabricated lie?

[Luigi1985]

So you're saying that the book is nothing but a fabricated lie?


No, don´t contort words again. I just meant, that a biography is just a biography. Whether, if it´s Marciano´s, Ali´s, Jeffries, Johnson´s, etc., I mean in a bio a fighter describe one of his close fights always as a robbery against him, that´s nothing new. It´s not always so, but you sound like everything is in Johnson´s biography is correct and inviolable...

[achillesthegreat]

I am SURE JJJ did not have 20 fights. These early guys have ALOT of unregistered fights.

The way I look at it when assessing them is - as much good as bad can come from finding out about more fights.

JJJ retired at the right time but I'm sure he pulled a Marciano and had loads of build up fights. I'd venture a guess at 30 unregistered bouts.

[C. M. Clay II]

No, don´t contort words again. I just meant, that a biography is just a biography. Whether, if it´s Marciano´s, Ali´s, Jeffries, Johnson´s, etc., I mean in a bio a fighter describe one of his close fights always as a robbery against him, that´s nothing new. It´s not always so, but you sound like everything is in Johnson´s biography is correct and inviolable...

I'm talking about the first Haines fight. The book claims Klondike was down for over two minutes. So it's either he was or he wasn't, no speculation there. Are you saying that the book is lying, that Haines wasn't down at all, and that he didn't get the benefit of an extremely long count?

[Luigi1985]

I'm talking about the first Haines fight. The book claims Klondike was down for over two minutes. So it's either he was or he wasn't, no speculation there. Are you saying that the book is lying, that Haines wasn't down at all, and that he didn't get the benefit of an extremely long count?



:patsch


He don´t understand what I meant, can please someone explain it to him? I´m going now, bye Clay!

[Mendoza]

That´s exactly the point. You say we should read Johnson´s biography (although I have it yet), and you said it´s historical well-known, it´s just a biography, nothing more, damn, he could have said he shot a dragon in the wood and you nuthugger would believe it...

He did shoot a dragon. See page 239 of unforgivable blackness. Seriously, I have never heard of a long count in the Klondike Haines fight. When Johnson gives his testimonials, take it with a grain of salt.



I have read most of Unforgivable blackness. The book points out that Johnson claims to have knocked Griffin down too, but states, no one else saw it!

[mr. magoo]

I never thought when I started this thread that it would still be going on like this.

[Luigi1985]

He did shoot a dragon. See page 239 of unforgivable blackness. Seriously, I have never heard of a long count in the Klondike Haines fight. When Johnson gives his testimonials, take it with a grain of salt.



I have read most of Unforgivable blackness. The book points out that Johnson claims to have knocked Griffin down too, but states, no one else saw it!


:yep

That´s what I meant, Mendoza. No criticizsm to Johnson, but you must always be careful what´s written in biographies, and Clay II acts like what is written there is automatically the truth, I also never read about the "long count" in the Haines-fight...

[C. M. Clay II]

:yep

That´s what I meant, Mendoza. No criticizsm to Johnson, but you must always be careful what´s written in biographies, and Clay II acts like what is written there is automatically the truth, I also never read about the "long count" in the Haines-fight...

Well then go back and read it. It's there. If it wasn't true, then would the book be published at all, or if it was, wouldn't there be a lawsuit by a Haines decendant or something? Well, there isn't, and it wasn't worded as something that was just speculation, it was worded as a historical fact, and like I said, no controversy coming from Haines' relatives, so more than likely it is true.:good

[C. M. Clay II]

:patsch


He don´t understand what I meant, can please someone explain it to him? I´m going now, bye Clay!

Well, then if that's not what you meant, then you changed the subject from what I was talking about.

[Luigi1985]

Well then go back and read it. It's there. If it wasn't true, then would the book be published at all, or if it was, wouldn't there be a lawsuit by a Haines decendant or something? Well, there isn't, and it wasn't worded as something that was just speculation, it was worded as a historical fact, and like I said, no controversy coming from Haines' relatives, so more than likely it is true.:good


You can write everything in a book. Read for example a biography from a polictician, than you have a journey to the fairyland for free. Btw, perhaps Haines did say something about that, but it´s so long ago and it´s hard to immagine that now someone remembers and say "Yes, I know, he said this and that", or to find a report in a serious newspaper...

[C. M. Clay II]

You can write everything in a book. Read for example a biography from a polictician, than you have a journey to the fairyland for free. Btw, perhaps Haines did say something about that, but it´s so long ago and it´s hard to immagine that now someone remembers and say "Yes, I know, he said this and that", or to find a report in a serious newspaper...

I still can't believe you'll go so far as to refute facts and legitimate documentation.:-(

[Luigi1985]

I still can't believe you'll go so far as to refute facts and legitimate documentation.:-(


Don´t you get it? You have no serious sources, only a biography from a fighter, and he said that he was roobed in a fight. Woah, how surprising...

[C. M. Clay II]

Don´t you get it? You have no serious sources, only a biography from a fighter, and he said that he was roobed in a fight. Woah, how surprising...

Why don't you go read the book instead of making unwise assumptions?

[Luigi1985]

Why don't you go read the book instead of making unwise assumptions?



I said even months ago that I read the book. I have a friend, who collects boxing-books, -magazines, newspapers, etc...


You have really a brain like your role model Ali... :lol:

[C. M. Clay II]

I said even months ago that I read the book. I have a friend, who collects boxing-books, -magazines, newspapers, etc...


You have really a brain like your role model Ali... :lol:

Well, then read it again. It's all there in black and white.

[Luigi1985]

Well, then read it again. It's all there in black and white.


I can memorize things in contrast to you! :lol:

[Ted Stickles]

Didnt he only have like 20 fights and all the others were exhibitions?

[mr. magoo]

On boxrec his record is 17-1-2 while on CyberBoxingZone his record is 18-1-2 and 120 exhibitions. I also heard or read once he had 23 fights but don´t remember when.

Although we can't count unrecorded bouts, I firmly believe that due to shotty record keeping at the turn of the century, a lot of fighters had many undocumented appearances. This especially held true for fighters who traveled through labor and mining camps, picking up an unsanctioned match here and there. Of course it's debatable as to weather or not some of the bouts they had were against licensed professionals, possibly explaining why the fights weren't on the books.

[C. M. Clay II]

I can memorize things in contrast to you! :lol:

You're evading the topic.

[Luigi1985]

You're evading the topic.


You evaded the topic first and I just answered you...

[C. M. Clay II]

You evaded the topic first and I just answered you...

I'm on topic. Do or do you not believe that Haines was down for over three minutes in their first fight, but was benefited from a long count?

[Luigi1985]

I'm on topic. Do or do you not believe that Haines was down for over three minutes in their first fight, but was benefited from a long count?


Why do you damn cunt always contort words and lie around? I just said you shouldn´t believe everything what´s written in a biography...

[C. M. Clay II]

Why do you damn cunt always contort words and lie around? I just said you shouldn´t believe everything what´s written in a biography...

Why not? It's a published piece of documented history. Better than anything on the web, that's for sure.:good

[Luigi1985]

Why not? It's a published piece of documented history. Better than anything on the web, that's for sure.:good


That would be new, that a biography is now a published piece of documented history. Do you still believe there´s a Santa Claus?

[C. M. Clay II]

That would be new, that a biography is now a published piece of documented history. Do you still believe there´s a Santa Claus?

I bet if the book said Johnson got destroyed by Haines, you would believe it right away.:yep

[Luigi1985]

I bet if the book said Johnson got destroyed by Haines, you would believe it right away.:yep


Yes, than I would believe it, because when he himself in a biography says that than it must be true, you childish dumbass. Otherwise I don´t believe everything in a biography...

[C. M. Clay II]

Yes, than I would believe it, because when he himself in a biography says that than it must be true, you childish dumbass. Otherwise I don´t believe everything in a biography...

Actually Johnson didn't say it. It was someone who watched the fight ringside who gave the account of the Johnson-Haines I fight.:good

[C. M. Clay II]

Actually Johnson didn't say it. It was someone who watched the fight ringside who gave the account of the Johnson-Haines I fight.:good

Talk about one-punch turnarounds in a fight, I think this post was it. I don't hear any retorts, from Mr. '85 anymore!:yep

[Luigi1985]

Talk about one-punch turnarounds in a fight, I think this post was it. I don't hear any retorts, from Mr. '85 anymore!:yep



I say it the last time, in a biography, everyone can write everything, that´s no secret, but why isn´t it today well-known that Johnson was robbed in their 1st fight? Only in Johnson´s bio it´s written, very strange... :think


only nut huggers like you believe everything their favourite fighters say/said...

[C. M. Clay II]

I say it the last time, in a biography, everyone can write everything, that´s no secret, but why isn´t it today well-known that Johnson was robbed in their 1st fight? Only in Johnson´s bio it´s written, very strange... :think


only nut huggers like you believe everything their favourite fighters say/said...

No idiot, you cannot write "anything" in a biography or any book and pass it off as fact. It has to be backed up or it will not be published. And it is well known, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't well known, at least to those who follow boxing enough.

And like I say, Johnson didn't say it. It was someone else who saw it ringside who gave the account, not Johnson.

[Luigi1985]

No idiot, you cannot write "anything" in a biography or any book and pass it off as fact. It has to be backed up or it will not be published. And it is well known, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't well known, at least to those who follow boxing enough.

And like I say, Johnson didn't say it. It was someone else who saw it ringside who gave the account, not Johnson.





:patsch


Such a stupid post doesn´t deserve a real comment. You´re delusional, ignorant, childish, undiscerning and naive. Oh, and of course a stupid little nut hugger...

[C. M. Clay II]

:patsch


Such a stupid post doesn´t deserve a real comment. You´re delusional, ignorant, childish, undiscerning and naive. Oh, and of course a stupid little nut hugger...

Of course it was stupid, because it destroyed your whole argument.:lol:

Why should accounts in newspapers and non-fiction books be true? Facts are overrated. Bring on the lies, rumors, and sensationalism.:yep

[Luigi1985]

Of course it was stupid, because it destroyed your whole argument.:lol:

Why should accounts in newspapers and non-fiction books be true? Facts are overrated. Bring on the lies, rumors, and sensationalism.:yep


Don´t you get it? You´re the joke of this forum, everyone is laughing about your ignorant and ridiculous posts, who are coined from your nut hugging feelings. Everything can be written in your biography, if you agree. And in Johnson´s case, didn´t it stick out, that everytime he had trouble in his career, he said another lame excuse? I don´t say he wasn´t surely robbed in their 1st fight, but I´m also pissed now that you responded, because it´s not the 1st time that you totally overacted when you defend your role models and heroes.


Btw, you never won verbally against me, although I´m not the most intelligent guy here. But to frazzle you verbally (in your mother tongue), that´s not even for me a big problem... ;-)

[C. M. Clay II]

Don´t you get it? You´re the joke of this forum, everyone is laughing about your ignorant and ridiculous posts, who are coined from your nut hugging feelings. Everything can be written in your biography, if you agree. And in Johnson´s case, didn´t it stick out, that everytime he had trouble in his career, he said another lame excuse? I don´t say he wasn´t surely robbed in their 1st fight, but I´m also pissed now that you responded, because it´s not the 1st time that you totally overacted when you defend your role models and heroes.


Btw, you never won verbally against me, although I´m not the most intelligent guy here. But to frazzle you verbally (in your mother tongue), that´s not even for me a big problem... ;-)

Well, you're not winning now, 'cause all you talk about is how I'm the "joke" of the forum, and that "anybody can write anything in a biography", which is bull, unless they state beforehand that it is speculation, which in this case wasn't stated. You can attack me all you want and say that I make up stuff all you want, but unless you can successfully refute a first hand account of a fight that you have never been to, then all this rambling on you do counts for nothing.:good

[Luigi1985]

Well, you're not winning now, 'cause all you talk about is how I'm the "joke" of the forum, and that "anybody can write anything in a biography", which is bull, unless they state beforehand that it is speculation, which in this case wasn't stated. You can attack me all you want and say that I make up stuff all you want, but unless you can successfully refute a first hand account of a fight that you have never been to, then all this rambling on you do counts for nothing.:good


I have only one question: Can you explain me, why in Johnson´s book is for every bad performance another excuse? At one side, people like you say he has great wins over fighters like Jeanette, McVey, etc., than when someone respons with "But they were all green at the time they fought..." you say something like "No, they had much more fights who aren´t well reported. But when he struggled, like so many times (his multiple draws, losses, etc.) than you use the other way, which is not only for me a double standard...


PS:

I´m not criticizing Jack Johnson, I´m criticizing this Clay II-clown...

[C. M. Clay II]

I have only one question: Can you explain me, why in Johnson´s book is for every bad performance another excuse? At one side, people like you say he has great wins over fighters like Jeanette, McVey, etc., than when someone respons with "But they were all green at the time they fought..." you say something like "No, they had much more fights who aren´t well reported. But when he struggled, like so many times (his multiple draws, losses, etc.) than you use the other way, which is not only for me a double standard...


PS:

I´m not criticizing Jack Johnson, I´m criticizing this Clay II-clown...

There isn't an excuse for "every" bad performance. Furthermore, if a first-hand account of the fight tells that Haines was down for over three minutes, and there is no other evidence to refute it, then it's not just simply an excuse anymore, it's a fact.

And I have never used the "They had more fights that are unrecorded" line. You have me confused with someone else.

[Luigi1985]

There isn't an excuse for "every" bad performance. Furthermore, if a first-hand account of the fight tells that Haines was down for over three minutes, and there is no other evidence to refute it, then it's not just simply an excuse anymore, it's a fact.

And I have never used the "They had more fights that are unrecorded" line. You have me confused with someone else.

Can´t you read? I wrote "At one side, people...", people is not you, don´t be so self-centered.

[C. M. Clay II]

Can´t you read? I wrote "At one side, people...", people is not you, don´t be so self-centered.

No, it's just that I can only speak for myself. I cannot speak for others.

[Mendoza]

There isn't an excuse for "every" bad performance. Furthermore, if a first-hand account of the fight tells that Haines was down for over three minutes, and there is no other evidence to refute it, then it's not just simply an excuse anymore, it's a fact.

And I have never used the "They had more fights that are unrecorded" line. You have me confused with someone else.

It seems you're full of excuses for Johnson bad performances. You say he as too green ( not after 20 fights! ), was not in shape ( who's fault was that? ), or was in a fixed fight. This is rather convenient of you.

Show me one newspaper that claims Haines was down for over three minutes. It’s a fabrication. As I said before C.M. Clay, Johnson was not a great fighter while Jeffries was champ. The losses to Haines, Choysnki, Griffin, and Hart prove this. There are also too many draws on Johnson's record vs lesser types.

[Luigi1985]

No, it's just that I can only speak for myself. I cannot speak for others.


From you we don´t even need to start talking about, you remember when yesterday another poster (a newbie I believe, don´t know his name) said something about one of your idols, Tyson, what you answered? Normally you had to get banned. When someone says something negative about one of your favourite fighters, you immediately claim that it isn´t true, he´s a hater, racist, etc...

[C. M. Clay II]

It seems you're full of excuses for Johnson bad performances. You say he as too green ( not after 20 fights! ), was not in shape ( who's fault was that? ), or was in a fixed fight. This is rather convenient of you.

Show me one newspaper that claims Haines was down for over three minutes. It’s a fabrication. As I said before C.M. Clay, Johnson was not a great fighter while Jeffries was champ. The losses to Haines, Choysnki, Griffin, and Hart prove this. There are also too many draws on Johnson's record vs lesser types.

Have you ever though, that a fight between two journeyman black men would not garner much attention to be featured in a mewspaper?

Anyway, here's the excerpt from Unforgiveable Blackness.

He [Johnson] made his big city debut at the Howard theater on May 5, 1899, on a card headed by two featherweights, Harry Forbes and "Turkey Point" Billy Smith. Frank Kennedy, Klondike's champion and employer, kept time. the referee was named Malachy Hogan.

Johnson looked dangerously thin as he waited for the bell. he hadn't a "thimbleful of vituals" in his stomach, George Siler recalled, but he soon landed a left hand that sent klondike to the canvas. Curley described what happened next.

Hogan bellowed, "One!"
Klondike didn't move.
"What's the matter?" Hogan shouted. "Ain't you going to get up?"
Klondike said nothing.
"Two!"
Klondike still hugged the canvas and Hogan prodded him with his foot.
"Get up!" he commanded.
Klondike merely shut his eyes.
Hogan walked over to where Kennedy sat.
"He's a dog, Frank."

The count continued. the crowd roared with laughter. Hogan must have used up three minutes reaching a count of nine, when Klondike, feeling that further resistance to his pleadings and proceedings was useless, finally got up.

The Negros mauled each other until the fifth round when Klondike's left landed with a thud in Johnson's body and Jack sank to the canvas.

Again, Hogan began a burlesque count but Johnson was even more obdurate than Klondike had been. He rooled over assumed a comfortable position with one elbow resting the floor, his hand bracing his head, and settled himself to take the count if the process required the entire evening. When it had been completed, he dragged himself to his feet and shuffled out of the ring, paying not the slightest heed to the mingled hooting and laughter of the crowd.

That about sums it up.:deal

[C. M. Clay II]

From you we don´t even need to start talking about, you remember when yesterday another poster (a newbie I believe, don´t know his name) said something about one of your idols, Tyson, what you answered? Normally you had to get banned. When someone says something negative about one of your favourite fighters, you immediately claim that it isn´t true, he´s a hater, racist, etc...

Well, I lost my temper there. But obviously the guy was there just to get a rouse of of somebody. He wasn't going to add anything substanative to the thread.

[Luigi1985]

Well, I lost my temper there. But obviously the guy was there just to get a rouse of of somebody. He wasn't going to add anything substanative to the thread.


At least you´re honest. :thumbsup

[C. M. Clay II]

At least you´re honest. :thumbsup

I try to be.

[mattdonnellon]

I've enjoyed this thread but decided to wait out of it as there seemed to be two personal contests been played out. Plenty of good food for thought though and I certainly found myself re-evaluating both Jeff and Johnson. I also happen to be researching Griffin, Martin and McVey at the moment and of course I'M coming across the big two all the time.
Bob Armstrong was never considered a serious contender by many in Jeff's reign but in the early 1901-02's Martin certainly was touted. McVey and especially Johnson removed him with pretty conclusive and brutal ko's. By 1901 Jeff was drawing the color line when Johnson was not in the frame. 1903 saw McVey emerge as a potential challanger despite his greeness. Remember this was a period with very few stand-out challangers. Johnson's win relegated him and by 1904 Jack had emerged as his greatest challanger. His loss to Hart moved Marvin into the scene without removing Johnson as no matter which of the many tellings you read it was a debatable decision(both ways) Jack had some lack-lustre performances for some inexpicable reason but against the likes of Childs, Martin, McVey, Gardiner and Langford it was pretty obvious that he was special.
langford was not in the heavyweight picture at this time and neither was Jeannette. Griffin, at the risk of getting lynched was a tad overated and was well out-classed bt Jeff. His best performances were against JJ! In conclusion Martin and Johnson were the only two blacks that it could in any way be argued to be denied a shot by Jeff. BTW in 1905 Jeffries would have been a heavy favourite but i think it would have been a hell of a fight, the regulations of the fight probably proving decisive.

[janitor]

Any of Johnsons preformences before the Choynski fight should be completely discounted when asesing his ability at his peak. In some of these fights he was sleeping in doorways the night before and living off scraps.

Johnson did not really hit the big time untill his win over George Gardiner in which he was the underdog. This is when Johnson the future champion realy starts.

Johnsons reign as coloured heavyweight champion was simply incredible. Look at the oponents he fought over that period and how frequently he fought them. This is the period when Johnsons greatness was established.

[C. M. Clay II]

Any of Johnsons preformences before the Choynski fight should be completely discounted when asesing his ability at his peak. In some of these fights he was sleeping in doorways the night before and living off scraps.

Tell that to Luigi. He thinks that when people say he was often underfed and ill-prepared before Choynski that they are lame excuses and "nuthugging".:lol:

[mcvey]

Tell that to Luigi. He thinks that when people say he was often underfed and ill-prepared before Choynski that they are lame excuses and "nuthugging".:lol:
Keep Punching Cassius!you winning on points,Ive kod the "historian",up to you to decision"Lightnin Luigi The Italian Stallion "now.

[Mendoza]

I've enjoyed this thread but decided to wait out of it as there seemed to be two personal contests been played out. Plenty of good food for thought though and I certainly found myself re-evaluating both Jeff and Johnson. I also happen to be researching Griffin, Martin and McVey at the moment and of course I'M coming across the big two all the time.
Bob Armstrong was never considered a serious contender by many in Jeff's reign but in the early 1901-02's Martin certainly was touted. McVey and especially Johnson removed him with pretty conclusive and brutal ko's. By 1901 Jeff was drawing the color line when Johnson was not in the frame. 1903 saw McVey emerge as a potential challanger despite his greeness. Remember this was a period with very few stand-out challangers. Johnson's win relegated him and by 1904 Jack had emerged as his greatest challanger. His loss to Hart moved Marvin into the scene without removing Johnson as no matter which of the many tellings you read it was a debatable decision(both ways) Jack had some lack-lustre performances for some inexpicable reason but against the likes of Childs, Martin, McVey, Gardiner and Langford it was pretty obvious that he was special.
langford was not in the heavyweight picture at this time and neither was Jeannette. Griffin, at the risk of getting lynched was a tad overated and was well out-classed bt Jeff. His best performances were against JJ! In conclusion Martin and Johnson were the only two blacks that it could in any way be argued to be denied a shot by Jeff. BTW in 1905 Jeffries would have been a heavy favourite but i think it would have been a hell of a fight, the regulations of the fight probably proving decisive.

Well said. Langford, Jeanette, and McVey were not great fighters when Jeffires retired in 1905. There are " reports " of a Jeffries Ko'ing Martin. There is a chance this happened, but I'd like to see a primary source. Judging by Martin multiple early KO losses, and his bean pole like build, Jeffries would KO Martin early.

I do think Johnson was worthy of a title shot from Jeffries from 1903-1905, but it wasn't a great case when you factor in Johnson losses, and draws while Jeffries was champion from 1899-1904. Who won the Johnson vs Hart fight is debatable. Johnson says Hart beat him clean, and the referee gave the fight to Hart. This is enough for me. Either way, Hart was not in Fitz's, Sharkey's, or Corbett’s class. If Johnson could not impress vs Hart in a high stakes fight billed as a title elimination match, his chances vs Jeffries seem limited.

If one were to list a top 15 list of fighters from 1895-1904, Jeffries probably fought at least 10 of the top 15, and gave the best fighters title shots ( with the exception of Johnson, who he returned fight six years later ) while he was champion. This equates to cleaning out an era. Having said that, I do think Jeffries retired too soon.

[Mendoza]

Tell that to Luigi. He thinks that when people say he was often underfed and ill-prepared before Choynski that they are lame excuses and "nuthugging".:lol:


Let's see. Johnson had at least 25 fights under his belt before facing Choysnki. The fight took place in Johnson's home town. It was Choysnki who rode the rails to meet him. Of Course Choynski produced a 1 punch KO over Johnson. In the book Dynamite Punchers, Johnson said his head was ringing the next day.

So much for your excuses that Johnson was green, or weary for the fight. He was the bigger man. It was in his home town. He got knocked out. As I said before, when Johnson meet another fighter near his size and experience, his results are mixed. See the Kloindike, Choysnki, Griffin or Hart fights, as well as the smattering of draws vs lesser men.

[Ted Spoon]

In terms of what Johnson became, then yes, he should still be considered a little 'green' for when he fought Choynski.

It was a self-realized learning curve, and pivotal point in his career. Johnson went onto famously sight Choynski as a major tailor in his development as a fighter.

[Mendoza]

In terms of what Johnson became, then yes, he should still be considered a little 'green' for when he fought Choynski.

It was a self-realized learning curve, and pivotal point in his career. Johnson went onto famously sight Choynski as a major tailor in his development as a fighter.

Interesting take. Johnson had 26 fights on record and quite a few battle royals under his belt prior to facing Choynski. Surely there must be more undocumented fights. IMO, this is a bit too much to play the green card. I do agree with you that Johnson grew as a fighter as his career progressed.

If someone asked me which group of boxers was better between group A consisting of Haines, Choynski, Hart, and Griffin ORgroup B consisting of McVey, Langford, Martin and Jeanette, I would surely choose group B.

So why did group A all defeat Jack Johnson, whereas group B did outside of one fight with Jeanette did not? This is the 64,000 question that many people fail to grasp when looking at things from the 10,000 foot level. I have studied this issue. Here's the straight dope. Johnson took advantage of a green teenaged McVey, a very raw and no better than .500 record ( Joe was 0-3 when he first meet Johnson ) Joe Jeanette, and a Sam Langford was but 156 pounds when he mixed it with Papa Jack. Martin really wasn't a great fighter. He was only a good fighter. Wins over group B look great on paper for Johnson, but when you examine them, they quickly lose some luster.

Group A all seemed to be near even with Johnson in terms of size and experience. And every man in group A defeated Johnson. My conclusion is Haines, Choysnki, Griffin, and Hart were better fighters than the versions of McVey, Jeanette, Langford, and Martin who fought Johnson.

Of course, McVey, Jeanette, and Langford were great fighters by 1908-1915. What Johnson needed to do was give these three title matches. Then we would see for sure how good Johnson was. This was not to be. So what we can judge a seasoned Johnson on his title matches. Some were impressive performances ( Burns, and old Jeffries ). Others were close matches vs group C heavyweights like Jim Battling Johnson, Jack O'Brien, and Frank Moran.

Honestly, Group A ( Choynski, Griffin, Hart, Klondike ) is better than Group C ( Jim Battling Johnson, O'Brien, and Moran ).....and Johnson struggled in title matches vs Group C as a seasoned champion.

In short, Johnson was undoubtley one of his era’s best heavyweights, but he is also an over rated heavyweight if you truly examine his career. Some people think Johnson is an all time top 3 heavyweight. Not a chance in my book. This is my opinion, but it’s not a shoot from the hip opinion. It’s an opinion that has been articualted and formulated after many years of news paper review, record review with a close focus on how good the fighters were when Johsnon meet them, and film study.

[Ted Spoon]

You could have a 100 fights under your belt, but unless these opponents are offering you new obstacles to overcome you won’t be learning anything new. When Johnson fought Choynski he was a tumble weed in the wind, not a fighter being brought to the boil. The difference in standards we are talking about here is startling, so what his record may suggest to you will in fact be a representation of a set of very different circumstances.

What Choynski said to Johnson was deep, it was a comment Johnson took to heart and regularly referenced when talking of his early days. “A guy who can move like you should never have to take a punch”. - Choynski understood Johnson’s abilities as a fighter and steered him in the right direction.

During their time in jail they were allowed to spar in front of the inmates for recreational and entertainment purposes, but Johnson said he was always switched on and learning during these invaluable sparring cameos.

Johnson was involved in many battles royals as a kid and he had to overcome some torrid times before he found his groove. There is no doubt he was a super tough man despite occasional insinuations of a lesser chin. Johnson always had a natural abundance of speed, strength and co-ordination, but all this seemed to hone-in to a T after his studies with Choynski - a man with an incomparable wealth of knowledge and experience.

On the subject of McVea, Langford, and Jeannette; all these men were all too aware of their superiority in the ring and this effectively shot down their chances of a title fight. They quickly learnt to accept their router of a ‘coloured merry-go-round’.

Much can be criticized of Johnson’s ‘black dynamite’ fights when you view their records at the time, but they do not tell half the story. McVea was good friends with Johnson and refused to fight him after their third fight for some time. The Jeaneatte fights were more like sparring sessions, and Langford went for it, so he paid the price with his “careers worst beating”.

Johnson eventually got a title shot because he got into the heads of the white man. He was, generally, nice to his ‘brothers’ and made an object of the white contenders to attack the theory of white superiority. Johnson’s rep did not come from the results of his fights, it came from the times when he held his man up from going down and effectively said “I can do what I like with these guys”.

You’ve claimed that if you ‘truly examine’ Johnson's career you would see things more your way, but Ted Spoon is quite sure that the opposite would become apparent if more of Johnson's early fights were there to view, allowing us to truly examine these hazy times.

[Mendoza]

Did Choynski really reach Johnson that much? If so, Johnson did not prove to be a quick study. After the Choysnki fight, Johnson drew with Billy Stift next.

Stiff was much smaller and had already been knocked out by the likes of Welter weight / middle weight Tommy Ryan, a washed up middle in Dan Creedon, Kid McCoy, and Tommy West. Stift had only won 1 of his last six fights going into the Johnson match.

The fact that Johnson drew with Stift in a 10 round match to me says Johnson simply was not that good, Ted Spoon. Surely if Choyski gave Johnson a relation when the two were in jail, it did not show in this fight.

After the Stift draw, Johsnon lost to Griffin and drew with Griffin. Choysnki's words of wisdom did not pay immediate dividends.

As for my comments on the three groups of fighters that Johnson meet, I think the points are valid. Johnson was not a great fighter while Jeffires was champion. His resume is misleading as he defeated green versions of the best black dynamite fighters to be, and was mediocre in some title matches as a mature and seasoned champion.

[janitor]

Did Choynski really reach Johnson that much? If so, Johnson did not prove to be a quick study. After the Choysnki fight, Johnson drew with Billy Stift next.

Stiff was much smaller and had already been knocked out by the likes of Welter weight / middle weight Tommy Ryan, a washed up middle in Dan Creedon, Kid McCoy, and Tommy West. Stift had only won 1 of his last six fights going into the Johnson match.

The fact that Johnson drew with Stift in a 10 round match to me says Johnson simply was not that good, Ted Spoon. Surely if Choyski gave Johnson a relation when the two were in jail, it did not show in this fight.

After the Stift draw, Johsnon lost to Griffin and drew with Griffin. Choysnki's words of wisdom did not pay immediate dividends.


You would have to look at the circumstances atending these fights to understand their significence.

It was quite comon in this period for a draw to be awarded if both fighters finished on their feet.

[dmt]

Mendoza, r u Dr Z because i have not seen Z in a while

[Mendoza]

Mendoza, r u Dr Z because i have not seen Z in a while

Doctor who?

[Ted Spoon]

As Janitor pointed out, a lot can be said about draws during that time period in boxing.

You're looking too far into unknown battles, but Johnson's fortune did change greatly after his meeting with Choynski as he began to tackle a far higher calibre of opponents.

[C. M. Clay II]

You could have a 100 fights under your belt, but unless these opponents are offering you new obstacles to overcome you won’t be learning anything new. When Johnson fought Choynski he was a tumble weed in the wind, not a fighter being brought to the boil. The difference in standards we are talking about here is startling, so what his record may suggest to you will in fact be a representation of a set of very different circumstances.

What Choynski said to Johnson was deep, it was a comment Johnson took to heart and regularly referenced when talking of his early days. “A guy who can move like you should never have to take a punch”. - Choynski understood Johnson’s abilities as a fighter and steered him in the right direction.

During their time in jail they were allowed to spar in front of the inmates for recreational and entertainment purposes, but Johnson said he was always switched on and learning during these invaluable sparring cameos.

Johnson was involved in many battles royals as a kid and he had to overcome some torrid times before he found his groove. There is no doubt he was a super tough man despite occasional insinuations of a lesser chin. Johnson always had a natural abundance of speed, strength and co-ordination, but all this seemed to hone-in to a T after his studies with Choynski - a man with an incomparable wealth of knowledge and experience.

On the subject of McVea, Langford, and Jeannette; all these men were all too aware of their superiority in the ring and this effectively shot down their chances of a title fight. They quickly learnt to accept their router of a ‘coloured merry-go-round’.

Much can be criticized of Johnson’s ‘black dynamite’ fights when you view their records at the time, but they do not tell half the story. McVea was good friends with Johnson and refused to fight him after their third fight for some time. The Jeaneatte fights were more like sparring sessions, and Langford went for it, so he paid the price with his “careers worst beating”.

Johnson eventually got a title shot because he got into the heads of the white man. He was, generally, nice to his ‘brothers’ and made an object of the white contenders to attack the theory of white superiority. Johnson’s rep did not come from the results of his fights, it came from the times when he held his man up from going down and effectively said “I can do what I like with these guys”.

You’ve claimed that if you ‘truly examine’ Johnson's career you would see things more your way, but Ted Spoon is quite sure that the opposite would become apparent if more of Johnson's early fights were there to view, allowing us to truly examine these hazy times.

:good

[janitor]

As Janitor pointed out, a lot can be said about draws during that time period in boxing.

You're looking too far into unknown battles, but Johnson's fortune did change greatly after his meeting with Choynski as he began to tackle a far higher calibre of opponents.

And whatever setbacks Johnson had early in his career you still have a fifteen year period where his only loss was a questionable points loss to Marvin Hart to explain away.

[cross_trainer]

Doctor who?
This guy?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Langford]

lol, dr. who.

If Jeffries would have had it his way, he would have retired after Fitzsimmons II, if not then, for sure after Corbett II. Monroe had circulated his story that he had dropped Jeffries in a sparring match and this irked Jeffries enough to get him in the ring and destroy him. So, take Monroe out of the picture, which was more of a personal vendetta, and you see Jeffries seriously loosing interest in being champion by the end of 1903. Johnson, et all were surely not legit challengers at that point.

If Jeffries had continued to fight, and wanted the championship, I think he could have held on to it for another four years or so. Having a title reign from
1899-1908. Maybe longer. Little did he know that he would wind up losing a lot of his money.

[Mendoza]

Have you ever though, that a fight between two journeyman black men would not garner much attention to be featured in a mewspaper?

Anyway, here's the excerpt from Unforgiveable Blackness.

He [Johnson] made his big city debut at the Howard theater on May 5, 1899, on a card headed by two featherweights, Harry Forbes and "Turkey Point" Billy Smith. Frank Kennedy, Klondike's champion and employer, kept time. the referee was named Malachy Hogan.

Johnson looked dangerously thin as he waited for the bell. he hadn't a "thimbleful of vituals" in his stomach, George Siler recalled, but he soon landed a left hand that sent klondike to the canvas. Curley described what happened next.

Hogan bellowed, "One!"
Klondike didn't move.
"What's the matter?" Hogan shouted. "Ain't you going to get up?"
Klondike said nothing.
"Two!"
Klondike still hugged the canvas and Hogan prodded him with his foot.
"Get up!" he commanded.
Klondike merely shut his eyes.
Hogan walked over to where Kennedy sat.
"He's a dog, Frank."

The count continued. the crowd roared with laughter. Hogan must have used up three minutes reaching a count of nine, when Klondike, feeling that further resistance to his pleadings and proceedings was useless, finally got up.

The Negros mauled each other until the fifth round when Klondike's left landed with a thud in Johnson's body and Jack sank to the canvas.

Again, Hogan began a burlesque count but Johnson was even more obdurate than Klondike had been. He rooled over assumed a comfortable position with one elbow resting the floor, his hand bracing his head, and settled himself to take the count if the process required the entire evening. When it had been completed, he dragged himself to his feet and shuffled out of the ring, paying not the slightest heed to the mingled hooting and laughter of the crowd.

That about sums it up.:deal

CM Clay,

I was in the book store for lunch today and pulled out a copy of Unforgivable Blackness. I wanted to check up on the Haines, and Hart fights.

Ward says Johnson received an even LONGER count that Haines did. Are you aware of this CM Clay? The three minute count is an exaggeration. The writing style of Ward is rather good, but his fact checking leaves a lot to be desired.

In the introduction to Jeffries passage, Ward claims Jeffries had never been knocked off his feet in 58 fights. 58 fights for Jeffires? I'd love to see Ward's sources because Jeffries does not have close to 58 documented fights.

In the prelude to the Hart fight, Ward states that Johnson and his handlers felt that if Johnson could beat Hart, the possibility of a fight with Jeffries would greatly increase. It also states that Johnson would receive more money if he knocked Hart out. The story of the Johnson vs Hart fight in Unforgivable Blackness is Johnson did well early; Hart did well late. Johnson corner men were urging him to press it, but Hart's attack had Johnson defensive and gun shy. Hart staggered Johnson in the final frame.

Regarding the 3 minute counts in the Haines fight and the 58 fights for Jeffires, you should be mindful that modern day authors aren’t always fact checking boxing historians and often used a " poetic " license to color their stories. I get the hunch if I read more of the book; I'd find quite a few of these poetic licenses by Ward.

[C. M. Clay II]

CM Clay,

I was in the book store for lunch today and pulled out a copy of Unforgivable Blackness. I wanted to check up on the Haines, and Hart fights.

Ward says Johnson received an even LONGER count that Haines did. Are you aware of this CM Clay? The three minute count is an exaggeration. The writing style of Ward is rather good, but his fact checking leaves a lot to be desired.

In the introduction to Jeffries passage, Ward claims Jeffries had never been knocked off his feet in 58 fights. 58 fights for Jeffires? I'd love to see Ward's sources because Jeffries does not have close to 58 documented fights.

In the prelude to the Hart fight, Ward states that Johnson and his handlers felt that if Johnson could beat Hart, the possibility of a fight with Jeffries would greatly increase. It also states that Johnson would receive more money if he knocked Hart out. The story of the Johnson vs Hart fight in Unforgivable Blackness is Johnson did well early; Hart did well late. Johnson corner men were urging him to press it, but Hart's attack had Johnson defensive and gun shy. Hart staggered Johnson in the final frame.

Regarding the 3 minute counts in the Haines fight and the 58 fights for Jeffires, you should be mindful that modern day authors aren’t always fact checking boxing historians and often used a " poetic " license to color their stories. I get the hunch if I read more of the book; I'd find quite a few of these poetic licenses by Ward.

It doesn't matter if Johnson got a longer count than Haines or not. Haines went down first, so after ten the fight should have been over. Johnson was robbed.

Regarding the undocumened Jeffries fights, maybe he could have been talkign about certain fights that weren't legal or undergraond fights that were held in conspicuous places. These events happened all the time.

And as for the Hart fight, Johnson was said to be dominating the fight up to the eleventh round. That means that he should have won at least ten of the twenty rounds which would have guaranteed at least a draw or a win if he won one more round. Hart staggered Johnson because the lights went out in the final seconds, so Johnson thought the fight was over and walked away. Hart pounced on him in the dark and landed the punch. If it was light, this probably would have never happened.

[Mendoza]

It doesn't matter if Johnson got a longer count than Haines or not. Haines went down first, so after ten the fight should have been over. Johnson was robbed.

Regarding the undocumened Jeffries fights, maybe he could have been talkign about certain fights that weren't legal or undergraond fights that were held in conspicuous places. These events happened all the time.

And as for the Hart fight, Johnson was said to be dominating the fight up to the eleventh round. That means that he should have won at least ten of the twenty rounds which would have guaranteed at least a draw or a win if he won one more round. Hart staggered Johnson because the lights went out in the final seconds, so Johnson thought the fight was over and walked away. Hart pounced on him in the dark and landed the punch. If it was light, this probably would have never happened.

Hart also nearly dropped Johnson with a body shot in round 12, and clearly made the fight, which in those days meant a lot in terms of the scoring. All Johnson had to do according to Ward was win cleanly, and then he might have built up enough interest for a promoter to lure Jeffries into a prize fight in 1905 or 1906. Hart was not that great. Johnson performance in this high stakes fight speaks volumes about his chances vs Jeffries in 1905.

I never saw any claim of a three minute count, nor have I ever seen any claim that Jeffries had 58 fights before he retired. Where are Ward's soruces? Sorry kiddo, Ward's credibility seems a bit iffy. I might read some other passages when time permits. I understand why it is in your best interest to embrace what he says as the truth, just understand it misty eyed stuff designed to buttress his subject material.

[C. M. Clay II]

Hart also nearly dropped Johnson with a body shot in round 12, and clearly made the fight, which in those days meant a lot in terms of the scoring. All Johnson had to do according to Ward was win cleanly, and then he might have built up enough interest for a promoter to lure Jeffries into a prize fight in 1905 or 1906. Hart was not that great. Johnson performance in this high stakes fight speaks volumes about his chances vs Jeffries in 1905.

I never saw any claim of a three minute count, nor have I ever seen any claim that Jeffries had 58 fights before he retired. Where are Ward's soruces? Sorry kiddo, Ward's credibility seems a bit iffy. I might read some other passages when time permits. I understand why it is in your best interest to embrace what he says as the truth, just understand it misty eyed stuff designed to buttress his subject material.

Many people at ringside thought Johnson dominated most of the fight and should have gotten the decision. This was just a case of the favorite getting the special treatment, IMO.

And whether it was three minutes or one minute the count was still longer than ten seconds, therefore Johnson should have won, period.:good