Jeffries: 'Tough' tough, or Hvywt fighting Little guys?

[guilalah]

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

Zoom in to article in top left corner, 'LANGFORD WILL MEET ANY CLASS OF : Issues Challenge From London With Jeffries Only Barred.' (Jeffries had not contested since 1904).

The Ogden standard. (Ogden City, Utah) June 21, 1909, Page 2

Clay Moyles 'Sam Langford: Boxing's Greatest Uncrowned Champion' also reports Sam as saying that if Jeffries came back enough to beat Johnson he would no longer seek the heavyweight championship where as, if Johnson won, he would continue to seek a title match.

--------

Just how good was Jeffries chin and durability? Did he beat Fitzsimmons -- an alltime great puncher but a super-middle -- because he was a fairly tough 205-218 guy? Or was he a big (for that day) guy who was also super-tough? It's perhaps not possible to answer this precisely; but I think the probable answer is atleast more like the latter case than the former. I base this on the fact that Sam Langford (as well as his manager Woodman) stated they were not willing to match against Jeffries -- saying this even after Jeffries was several years retired. Langford KO'd fair to excellent heavyweights about as big as (or bigger than) Jeffries: Harry Wills, Sam McVea, Big Bill Tate, Battling Jim Johnson -- George Godfrey, too (though early in Godfrey's career). That Langford would not consider fighting Jeffries, IMO, says a lot. Jeffries may or may not have been a 215 lb. Jake LaMotta, but I'd wager he was a lot closer to that than being just a big guy fighting super-middle and light heavy punchers. (Also, I'm not saying Fitzsimmons was less a puncher than Langford -- I'm just using Langford for reference because he had more resume against guys in Jeffries size range).

[Boilermaker]

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

Zoom in to article in top left corner, 'LANGFORD WILL MEET ANY CLASS OF : Issues Challenge From London With Jeffries Only Barred.' (Jeffries had not contested since 1904).

The Ogden standard. (Ogden City, Utah) June 21, 1909, Page 2

Clay Moyles 'Sam Langford: Boxing's Greatest Uncrowned Champion' also reports Sam as saying that if Jeffries came back enough to beat Johnson he would no longer seek the heavyweight championship where as, if Johnson won, he would continue to seek a title match.

--------

Just how good was Jeffries chin and durability? Did he beat Fitzsimmons -- an alltime great puncher but a super-middle -- because he was a fairly tough 205-218 guy? Or was he a big (for that day) guy who was also super-tough? It's perhaps not possible to answer this precisely; but I think the probable answer is atleast more like the latter case than the former. I base this on the fact that Sam Langford (as well as his manager Woodman) stated they were not willing to match against Jeffries -- saying this even after Jeffries was several years retired. Langford KO'd fair to excellent heavyweights about as big as (or bigger than) Jeffries: Harry Wills, Sam McVea, Big Bill Tate, Battling Jim Johnson -- George Godfrey, too (though early in Godfrey's career). That Langford would not consider fighting Jeffries, IMO, says a lot. Jeffries may or may not have been a 215 lb. Jake LaMotta, but I'd wager he was a lot closer to that than being just a big guy fighting super-middle and light heavy punchers. (Also, I'm not saying Fitzsimmons was less a puncher than Langford -- I'm just using Langford for reference because he had more resume against guys in Jeffries size range).

While i think that Jeffries had an iron chin, as good as any chin ever, I think that the statement of Langford has zero to do with this conclusion. Langford's statement is nothing more than a press release designed to improve his standing in the public's eye by showing respect to a great champion and conformity to the racist attitudes of the general public. Incidentally, and this is probably more for a discussion at a different time and place, i get the opinion that as John L Sullivan, Jeffries and others are considered racists nowadays, i dont think that the problem was as prevallent as much as boxers or even boxing fans as it was at the top end of society.

In any case, i have absolutely no doubt that if Jeffries had (for Example) won the title from JOhnson and then proclaimed that he wished to fight the next best fighter in the world sam langford, then Langford would have gladly accepted the challenge. In fact, when he said hed fight anyone but Jim Jeffries, there is also no doubt that if Jeffries wanted to defend his title, Lanford would have gladly stepped up to the plate. He was simply acknowledging that he was prepared to accept and conform to Jeffries (and more accurately) the publics colour line. To suggest that he was in some way worried about facing Jeffries i think is ridiculous. Especially considering that it is actually Sam Langford.

[PowerPuncher]

Well he was fighting little guys, little weaker men can't dent bigger mens chins the same way as big punching big men

[guilalah]

Boilermaker, you've offered a possible interpretation. May I ask, is there then anything that could count against your interpretation? Is it so sure that Sam would have been delighted to fight Jeffries that any statement to the contrary is immediately discredited? If someone said they found the contrary interpretation -- that Sam and Woodman were talking straight -- credible, 'Especially considering that this is actually Jim Jeffries', is that less decisive than noting 'Especially considering that it is actually Sam Langford'?
It is true, though, that Sam could be socially very deferential to whites. Moyle, again, relates that in London Langford suprised a host by stepping off the sidewalk whenever anyone approached; when told he didn't need to do that, he was astonished that it was alright for blacks to walk on the same sidewalks with whites.
All the same, this never stopped Langford from putting beatdowns on 'Iron Man' Hague, Jim Flynn, Bill Lang, Gunboat Smith, ect. (btw, I'm about 15 minutes into watching 'Wings', the first Oscar best picture, and Gunboat Smith is listed in the credits; I hope I recognize him).

[Mendoza]

One thing I never understood from the detractors is if Corbett and Sharkey were too small at 190 and 183, then how are Dempsey, and Marciano not also too small? The four were close to the same weight. And Louis was only a few pounds north of Corbett.

[Unforgiven]

Is there any evidence that Sam Langford and his manager were excepting Jeffries as some sort of "courtesy" or concession due to Jeffries being a white champion ?

I dont buy that theory at all. Langford beat up a lot of white guys, and some were very popular "hopes" and "champions".

Langford was a tough fighter earning a living, and I doubt he would have turned down the opportunity of being heavyweight champion simply to appease the "public's racist attitudes" ! I mean, that be some real "Uncle Tom" shit being attributed to Sam there, even by the standards of the day. He was a proud fighter who had no qualms about knocking out white men, so if he (and his manager) wanted a Jeffries fight I reckon they would have said so.

And it's wrong to assume we know exactly what the attitudes of the interested public were. I mean, Langford was just a non-title holding prizefighter at the time, and this "press release" is just worthy of a small paragraph or two on the sports pages. The only people reading with interest would be fight fans, many of whom would presumably had no real problem with Langford fighting anyone.

In my opinion, the most likely explanation is Jeffries was a beast and a bad style match-up for Langford, and it was probably Langford's manager's wish that Sam shouldn't fight Jeffries because Jeff might ruin his career.
Simple as that.
No need to complicate it with the racist politics of the day.

[Mendoza]

Langford was in awe of Jeffries. He quote when something like this. I meet mister Jeffries. He's not a man, he's like a great bear. When Jeffries came out of a 6 year retirement to fight Johnson, most of the top black fighters, including Langford and Jeanette felt Jeffires would win easy. Of coruse they were basing their opninion on the real Jim Jeffries, not the shell of the boxer who showed up in reno in 1910.

Jeanette said the only way Johnson wins is if Jeffries enters the ring with balls and chains attached to his ankles.

[turpinr]

jim jeffries could beat any welterwight in history and a lot of middleweights too.

[mcvey]

While i think that Jeffries had an iron chin, as good as any chin ever, I think that the statement of Langford has zero to do with this conclusion. Langford's statement is nothing more than a press release designed to improve his standing in the public's eye by showing respect to a great champion and conformity to the racist attitudes of the general public. Incidentally, and this is probably more for a discussion at a different time and place, i get the opinion that as John L Sullivan, Jeffries and others are considered racists nowadays, i dont think that the problem was as prevallent as much as boxers or even boxing fans as it was at the top end of society.

In any case, i have absolutely no doubt that if Jeffries had (for Example) won the title from JOhnson and then proclaimed that he wished to fight the next best fighter in the world sam langford, then Langford would have gladly accepted the challenge. In fact, when he said hed fight anyone but Jim Jeffries, there is also no doubt that if Jeffries wanted to defend his title, Lanford would have gladly stepped up to the plate. He was simply acknowledging that he was prepared to accept and conform to Jeffries (and more accurately) the publics colour line. To suggest that he was in some way worried about facing Jeffries i think is ridiculous. Especially considering that it is actually Sam Langford.

I agree with you on this The idea that Langford was frightened of Jeffries doesn't sit well with me .
At the age of 40 fat and nearly blind, Langford was fighting guys like Bearcat Wright,I can't see him refusing a title fight with anyone.
Woodman was a canny manager ,who promulgated the lie that Langford had dropped Johnson in their bout,this newspaper statement smacks of racial politics and an endeavour to ingratiate Langford into the white publics hearts ,on the part of Woodman. ie "You don't have to worry about me ,I know my place".

[mcvey]

Is there any evidence that Sam Langford and his manager were excepting Jeffries as some sort of "courtesy" or concession due to Jeffries being a white champion ?

I dont buy that theory at all. Langford beat up a lot of white guys, and some were very popular "hopes" and "champions".

Langford was a tough fighter earning a living, and I doubt he would have turned down the opportunity of being heavyweight champion simply to appease the "public's racist attitudes" ! I mean, that be some real "Uncle Tom" shit being attributed to Sam there, even by the standards of the day. He was a proud fighter who had no qualms about knocking out white men, so if he (and his manager) wanted a Jeffries fight I reckon they would have said so.

And it's wrong to assume we know exactly what the attitudes of the interested public were. I mean, Langford was just a non-title holding prizefighter at the time, and this "press release" is just worthy of a small paragraph or two on the sports pages. The only people reading with interest would be fight fans, many of whom would presumably had no real problem with Langford fighting anyone.

In my opinion, the most likely explanation is Jeffries was a beast and a bad style match-up for Langford, and it was probably Langford's manager's wish that Sam shouldn't fight Jeffries because Jeff might ruin his career.
Simple as that.
No need to complicate it with the racist politics of the day.
If you think you can remove the racist politics of the day from the black boxers of the era's lives ,you need to read the pre - writeups , of the Johnson/Jeffries fight more carefully,including Jeffries own statements.
"I am taking this fight to redeem the honour of the White race and to restore the Championship to where it rightfully belongs".
Jeffries deplored Tommy Burns for fighting Johnson "for the sake of gold".
Sullivan was a racist.Corbett was a virulent racist. Fitz couldnt give a shit one way or the other, Jeffries was a racist. Hart was a racist"I dont like n*****s,but I'l fight this one just to put him in his place",Burns was a racist",Johnson is a damned yellow c**n".
Racism and boxing in America are inextricably entertwined through the first 70 years of the sport.

[Boilermaker]

If you think you can remove the racist politics of the day from the black boxers of the era's lives ,you need to read the pre - writeups , of the Johnson/Jeffries fight more carefully,including Jeffries own statements.
"I am taking this fight to redeem the honour of the White race and to restore the Championship to where it rightfully belongs".
Jeffries deplored Tommy Burns for fighting Johnson "for the sake of gold".
Sullivan was a racist.Corbett was a virulent racist. Fitz couldnt give a shit one way or the other, Jeffries was a racist. Hart was a racist"I dont like n*****s,but I'l fight this one just to put him in his place",Burns was a racist",Johnson is a damned yellow c**n".
Racism and boxing in America are inextricably entertwined through the first 70 years of the sport.

Just on the racism of jeffries and in particular his Johnson fight, there is a very interesting article or tidbit on the biography site you cited a couple of days ago. I found Jack Johnson's comments on Jeffries very interesting. He said basically that Jeffries treated him very well before and after the fight and he had no problems with him (in simple terms). Yet contrastingly as you have pointed out before, some of the prematch comments were nothing short of disgracefully racists. At the end of the day, i am fairly certain that it was no more than showmanship and attempts to draw crowds and attention.

Quite interestingly, also, is the story of the Johnson Sullivan meeting where they actually got on quite well. I get the feeling that even John L, really only used the colour line more as a gimmick and money spinner than anything else. Corbett, though, i am not so sure about.

[turpinr]

Just on the racism of jeffries and in particular his Johnson fight, there is a very interesting article or tidbit on the biography site you cited a couple of days ago. I found Jack Johnson's comments on Jeffries very interesting. He said basically that Jeffries treated him very well before and after the fight and he had no problems with him (in simple terms). Yet contrastingly as you have pointed out before, some of the prematch comments were nothing short of disgracefully racists. At the end of the day, i am fairly certain that it was no more than showmanship and attempts to draw crowds and attention.

Quite interestingly, also, is the story of the Johnson Sullivan meeting where they actually got on quite well. I get the feeling that even John L, really only used the colour line more as a gimmick and money spinner than anything else. Corbett, though, i am not so sure about.seriously, why was corbett different.

[Ezzard]

In terms of Langford saying he wouldn't fight him I agree with Boliermaker and Guilalah.

Dempsey would offer a similar courtesy to Sam when he said he'd fight Wills but not Langford. Sam was well past it when he made this announcement. It's obviously born out of a respect for the fighter.

[PowerPuncher]

One thing I never understood from the detractors is if Corbett and Sharkey were too small at 190 and 183, then how are Dempsey, and Marciano not also too small? The four were close to the same weight. And Louis was only a few pounds north of Corbett.

Because Corbett was ancient and hadnt won a fight in 6 years and Sharkey wasnt that good

[mcvey]

One thing I never understood from the detractors is if Corbett and Sharkey were too small at 190 and 183, then how are Dempsey, and Marciano not also too small? The four were close to the same weight. And Louis was only a few pounds north of Corbett.
Corbett usually scaled around 182-5 lbs in his prime.His heaviest weight EVER was 188lbs for the 1st Jeffries fight ,when he was allready 30 years old ,he weighed 183 for the 2nd fight when he was a month short of 37.
Sharkey did scale 183 for Jeffries ,but only a year earlier [1900 ] , he weighed 176lbs for a fight with Corbett.
It's interesting that you pick up on this,yet often castigate Johnson for "fighting small men", like Ketchel.
For the record Ketchel scaled 170 1/4lbs for his title challenge.
3 and 1/4 pounds more than Fitz did at 167lbs when he fought Jeffries.
Ketchel also was an inch taller at 5'' 9'' ,than Sharkey's 5' 8''.
Just making it a level playing field.

[guilalah]

Some thoughts: 1) it's possible that 'barring Jeffries' was a courtesy. On the other hand, beating Jeffries would have been some good money (something Sam and Joe Woodman were usually short of), publicity, and probably have strengthened Sam's position as a heavyweight contender -- that's a lot to turn down for courtesy; 2) Sam's views on Jeffries prowse may have been based on Woodman's views, and Woodman was saying, even decades later, that Jeffries was the greatest of all heavyweights; I don't think it's implausible that Woodman wanted no part of matching Langford against Jeffries if there was any possibility of Jeffries being near his former level; 3) how well did Woodman, by 1909, understand Langford's capabilities? Langford was a heavyweight force by that point but had still to score his KO's over Wills, McVea, Battling Jim Johnson, Bill Tate, George Godfrey (also the smaller but ultra-tough Jeanette). It might be possible that Woodman did not yet understand what Langford was capable of. ON THE OTHER HAND, he certainly was in a good position to see what Sam had done to that point, so we should be cautious in thinking time has given us a better perspective than Woodman could have had in 1909.

[PowerPuncher]

Some thoughts: 1) it's possible that 'barring Jeffries' was a courtesy. On the other hand, beating Jeffries would have been some good money (something Sam and Joe Woodman were usually short of), publicity, and probably have strengthened Sam's position as a heavyweight contender -- that's a lot to turn down for courtesy; 2) Sam's views on Jeffries prowse may have been based on Woodman's views, and Woodman was saying, even decades later, that Jeffries was the greatest of all heavyweights; I don't think it's implausible that Woodman wanted no part of matching Langford against Jeffries if there was any possibility of Jeffries being near his former level; 3) how well did Woodman, by 1909, understand Langford's capabilities? Langford was a heavyweight force by that point but had still to score his KO's over Wills, McVea, Battling Jim Johnson, Bill Tate, George Godfrey (also the smaller but ultra-tough Jeanette). It might be possible that Woodman did not yet understand what Langford was capable of. ON THE OTHER HAND, he certainly was in a good position to see what Sam had done to that point, so we should be cautious in thinking time has given us a better perspective than Woodman could have had in 1909.

Have you considered Langford expected Johnson to mop the floor with Jeffries and by basically saying 'Jeffries is the greatest ever', the racially motivated powers that be would want him to get a title shot as they'd rather have a respectful 'house n1gger' than a 'bad n1gger' like Johnson? Do you also not think Langford by playing possom claiming to be fearful of Jeffries is not more likely to be offered a big money fight with Jeffries?

Do you truly consider it likely Langford would be 'scared' to fight Jeffries yet not the man that beat him? Or other big similarly talented men like McVea, Jeanette, Godfrey etc etc while being either massively undersized or near blind? I see this as quite unlikely, if nothing else Sam could take a dive or spoil and run to the bank with his payday

[Unforgiven]

If you think you can remove the racist politics of the day from the black boxers of the era's lives ,you need to read the pre - writeups , of the Johnson/Jeffries fight more carefully,including Jeffries own statements.
"I am taking this fight to redeem the honour of the White race and to restore the Championship to where it rightfully belongs".
Jeffries deplored Tommy Burns for fighting Johnson "for the sake of gold".
Sullivan was a racist.Corbett was a virulent racist. Fitz couldnt give a shit one way or the other, Jeffries was a racist. Hart was a racist"I dont like n*****s,but I'l fight this one just to put him in his place",Burns was a racist",Johnson is a damned yellow c**n".
Racism and boxing in America are inextricably entertwined through the first 70 years of the sport.

Yes, they were all racists, but how could any of that lead us to conclude that Langford (ie. Langford's manager) was stating "we wont fight Jeffries" to somehow please the white (or racist) public ?

It doesn't really make sense. The conventions of the day allowed any white man to refuse to give a black man a chance on the grounds of race. The conventions of the day also allowed (or even expected) a black fighter to be willing to fight anyone.

Can someone show me one instance where a black man was lauded for expressing his unwillingness to fight a white ?

[mcvey]

Yes, they were all racists, but how could any of that lead us to conclude that Langford (ie. Langford's manager) was stating "we wont fight Jeffries" to somehow please the white (or racist) public ?

It doesn't really make sense. The conventions of the day allowed any white man to refuse to give a black man a chance on the grounds of race. The conventions of the day also allowed (or even expected) a black fighter to be willing to fight anyone.

Can someone show me one instance where a black man was lauded for expressing his unwillingness to fight a white ?
You would have no trouble finding the reverse scenario.
Jeffries stated categorically he would" retire rather than risk losing his championship to a negro".

[Rubber Warrior]

I believe we need A LOT more video on Jeffries to make a decision either way, let alone keep ranking him among the very best heavyweight champs of all time. But hey - that's me. :smoke

[Unforgiven]

You would have no trouble finding the reverse scenario.
Jeffries stated categorically he would" retire rather than risk losing his championship to a negro".

Exactly.
And in a racist society the two scenarios are not equal.
So what exactly was Langford to gain by saying he didn't want Jeffries ?

Whites wouldn't have said "Ah, there's a good boy, we really admire how you wont fight Jeffries" ....... they would more likely call him "another yellow c*oon!"

[mcvey]

Is there any evidence that Sam Langford and his manager were excepting Jeffries as some sort of "courtesy" or concession due to Jeffries being a white champion ?

I dont buy that theory at all. Langford beat up a lot of white guys, and some were very popular "hopes" and "champions".

Langford was a tough fighter earning a living, and I doubt he would have turned down the opportunity of being heavyweight champion simply to appease the "public's racist attitudes" ! I mean, that be some real "Uncle Tom" shit being attributed to Sam there, even by the standards of the day. He was a proud fighter who had no qualms about knocking out white men, so if he (and his manager) wanted a Jeffries fight I reckon they would have said so.

And it's wrong to assume we know exactly what the attitudes of the interested public were. I mean, Langford was just a non-title holding prizefighter at the time, and this "press release" is just worthy of a small paragraph or two on the sports pages. The only people reading with interest would be fight fans, many of whom would presumably had no real problem with Langford fighting anyone.

In my opinion, the most likely explanation is Jeffries was a beast and a bad style match-up for Langford, and it was probably Langford's manager's wish that Sam shouldn't fight Jeffries because Jeff might ruin his career.
Simple as that.
No need to complicate it with the racist politics of the day.

So, Langford won't fight a Jeffries ,who has been out of the ring for nearly 6 years, but he is more than happy to take on Johnson ,a man who dropped him and broke his nose,giving him"the only real thrashing I ever took"?

Before anyone points out that Langford scaled 156lbs fro that fight,might I remind them that Johnson came in at 185lbs ,so he was 23lbs below his optimum weight too.
Plus, Langford was the more experienced fighter having had 50 known contests,his last being a dec victory over joe Jeannete ,20 days previously.

I don't buy it.

[Unforgiven]

So, Langford won't fight a Jeffries ,who has been out of the ring for nearly 6 years, but he is more than happy to take on Johnson ,a man who dropped him and broke his nose,giving him"the only real thrashing I ever took"?

Before anyone points out that Langford scaled 156lbs fro that fight,might I remind them that Johnson came in at 185lbs ,so he was 23lbs below his optimum weight too.
Plus, Langford was the more experienced fighter having had 50 known contests,his last being a dec victory over joe Jeannete ,20 days previously.

I don't buy it.

Firstly, it Langford's manager.

And Jeffries and Johnson are two completely different fighters, two different styles.
Jeffries was a 220 pound beast - who came forwards, a man who soaked up Fitzsimmons' best shots and brutality battered Tom Sharkey around the body till his ribs protruded through his side.
Fitz couldn't KO him, Choynski couldn't KO him. Couldn't even knock him down.
Maybe Langford's manager bought into the Jeffries "myth" too much, I dont know.
But it was not outrageous for him to think Sam, a short stocky 165 - 175 pound puncher didn't have the style to tangle with Jeffries. If Fitz and Choynski couldn't floor him, what chance did he really think Sam had ?

I think that's a likelier explanation than trying to please the whites. Remember, Jeffries was great, and almost everyone was still caught up in the Jeffries invincible myth at the time. They really believed he could be unbeatable again if he got himself in shape.

If Langford and his manager were trying to please the whites why not come straight out and say it, "We dont believe Sam, a negro, is worthy of challenging for the white man's title" ?
I mean, if they were really trying to ingratiate themselves with white supremacists.

[PowerPuncher]

Firstly, it Langford's manager.

And Jeffries and Johnson are two completely different fighters, two different styles.
Jeffries was a 220 pound beast - who came forwards, a man who soaked up Fitzsimmons' best shots and brutality battered Tom Sharkey around the body till his ribs protruded through his side.
Fitz couldn't KO him, Choynski couldn't KO him. Couldn't even knock him down.
Maybe Langford's manager bought into the Jeffries "myth" too much, I dont know.
But it was not outrageous for him to think Sam, a short stocky 165 - 175 pound puncher didn't have the style to tangle with Jeffries. If Fitz and Choynski couldn't floor him, what chance did he really think Sam had ?

I think that's a likelier explanation than trying to please the whites. Remember, Jeffries was great, and almost everyone was still caught up in the Jeffries invincible myth at the time. They really believed he could be unbeatable again if he got himself in shape.

If Langford and his manager were trying to please the whites why not come straight out and say it, "We dont believe Sam, a negro, is worthy of challenging for the white man's title" ?
I mean, if they were really trying to ingratiate themselves with white supremacists.

Firstly in boxing, no man like Langford is scared of any man, even if he was sure he'd lose him and his manager was sure he'd lose, they would without a doubt take Jeffries fight because it'd mean the same payday as fighting. Taking 1 beating from 1 man for more pay than you'd get from 20-30 fights is a no brainer, you can spoil or take a dive if the going gets tough anyway. I dont think Langford or his manager were too bothered about Sams welfare looking at the schedule and punnishment he went through

Langford or his manager were ingraciating themselves to get his name in the papers, nothing more and nothing less

[mcvey]

Firstly, it Langford's manager.

And Jeffries and Johnson are two completely different fighters, two different styles.
Jeffries was a 220 pound beast - who came forwards, a man who soaked up Fitzsimmons' best shots and brutality battered Tom Sharkey around the body till his ribs protruded through his side.
Fitz couldn't KO him, Choynski couldn't KO him. Couldn't even knock him down.
Maybe Langford's manager bought into the Jeffries "myth" too much, I dont know.
But it was not outrageous for him to think Sam, a short stocky 165 - 175 pound puncher didn't have the style to tangle with Jeffries. If Fitz and Choynski couldn't floor him, what chance did he really think Sam had ?

I think that's a likelier explanation than trying to please the whites. Remember, Jeffries was great, and almost everyone was still caught up in the Jeffries invincible myth at the time. They really believed he could be unbeatable again if he got himself in shape.

If Langford and his manager were trying to please the whites why not come straight out and say it, "We dont believe Sam, a negro, is worthy of challenging for the white man's title" ?
I mean, if they were really trying to ingratiate themselves with white supremacists.

It might have been a combination of the two, a, "look dont worry about me,I know my place,I'll happily get off the sidewalk for white folks to pass",which he did in England , to the astonishmnent of London promoters,thats why it was called the c**n walk.
Coupled with the fact that stylistically and physically he did not match up well with Jeffries.In reality Langford was a light heavy at best,he had massive shoulders and arms but was 5' 7''tall.

[Duodenum]

I get the feeling that even John L, really only used the colour line more as a gimmick and money spinner than anything else. Corbett, though, i am not so sure about.It's been many years since I read this, but Corbett hurled racial epithets at Peter Jackson to get under his skin (and he was certainly famous for his brand of psychological warfare against others). However, Corbett also reportedly went to Jackson after their draw to apologize for all the insults issued beforehand, explaining that it was indeed a ploy (an apology Jackson is supposed to have graciously accepted).

I don't know that Corbett was any more of a bigot than anyone else of his day. He came from a family that was, "lace curtain Irish," acutely aware of their upstart status in the American social fabric of the times.

Most of Jim Corbett's animosity was reserved for a Polish Jew, neighborhood rival Joe Choynski. Mrs. Corbett didn't want her boys getting into scraps, but the Choynski boys were rowdy youths, and Mr. Corbett was delighted that one of his sons (Jim) licked a Choynski kid (Joe) in a fist fight.

[mcvey]

It's been many years since I read this, but Corbett hurled racial epithets at Peter Jackson to get under his skin (and he was certainly famous for his brand of psychological warfare against others). However, Corbett also reportedly went to Jackson after their draw to apologize for all the insults issued beforehand, explaining that it was indeed a ploy (an apology Jackson is supposed to have graciously accepted).

I don't know that Corbett was any more of a bigot than anyone else of his day. He came from a family that was, "lace curtain Irish," acutely aware of their upstart status in the American social fabric of the times.

Most of Jim Corbett's animosity was reserved for a Polish Jew, neighborhood rival Joe Choynski. Mrs. Corbett didn't want her boys getting into scraps, but the Choynski boys were rowdy youths, and Mr. Corbett was delighted that one of his sons (Jim) licked a Choynski kid (Joe) in a fist fight.
Gentle Man Jim Corbett was an arsehole imo.
Ringside for the Jeffries Johnson fight he kept up an obscene litany of racial epiphets ,allways being topped by a cutting Johnson rejoinder,until with the fact that Jeffries was outclassed in every department , was obvious to all and sundry, Corbett finally fell silent."How did you like that little uppercut Jim?.
Soon as I finish with Mr Jeff ,you can come up here ,and I'll fix you up too".

Johnson did the same thing with Sullivan ,who had invoked the colour line as a means of avoiding his standout challenger Peter Jackson." I will not fight a negro, I never have ,and I never shall".
"Did you happen to notice that left hook Capn John"?

After the fight ,to give Sullivan his due [he had been a very big booster of Jeffries,"the fastest big man I ever saw"].Sullivan. said Johnson's defence was" impregnable" and his " reflexes uncanny"

[Boilermaker]

It's been many years since I read this, but Corbett hurled racial epithets at Peter Jackson to get under his skin (and he was certainly famous for his brand of psychological warfare against others). However, Corbett also reportedly went to Jackson after their draw to apologize for all the insults issued beforehand, explaining that it was indeed a ploy (an apology Jackson is supposed to have graciously accepted).

I don't know that Corbett was any more of a bigot than anyone else of his day. He came from a family that was, "lace curtain Irish," acutely aware of their upstart status in the American social fabric of the times.

Most of Jim Corbett's animosity was reserved for a Polish Jew, neighborhood rival Joe Choynski. Mrs. Corbett didn't want her boys getting into scraps, but the Choynski boys were rowdy youths, and Mr. Corbett was delighted that one of his sons (Jim) licked a Choynski kid (Joe) in a fist fight.

I used the words because i was not so sure, for the simple reason that i seem to have read more posts like mcvey posted than the one you just posted. I do think that it is quite plausible that the racial insults were indeed part of psychological tactics and even attempts to sell tickets. No different really to what Muhammed Ali did to all his opponents. I dont think anything was meant by it. In fact,i think that this even extends to guys like Tyson. Still, on current evidence, Jim Corbett doesnt really seem like that much of a gentleman. To be fair though, neither does Iron Mike and many others.

One thing i am convinced by, is that boxings champions and the general boxing public were (for the majority) far less racists in attitudes than the general public or at least high proportions of the public. Most of them mixed with Blacks, had black friends etc. Interestingly, when blacks did fight whites, it was not unusual for the blacks to actually win decisions. Sure many wore the cuffs sometimes, but that was simply a monetary thing. I am sure plentyof white guys wore the cuffs as well.

[Unforgiven]

Firstly in boxing, no man like Langford is scared of any man, even if he was sure he'd lose him and his manager was sure he'd lose, they would without a doubt take Jeffries fight because it'd mean the same payday as fighting. Taking 1 beating from 1 man for more pay than you'd get from 20-30 fights is a no brainer, you can spoil or take a dive if the going gets tough anyway. I dont think Langford or his manager were too bothered about Sams welfare looking at the schedule and punnishment he went through

Langford or his manager were ingraciating themselves to get his name in the papers, nothing more and nothing less

There's not one iota of evidence being put forward to substantiate that theory.

There's not one piece of proof that such a statement as the one made by Sam Langford's manager even would be viewed favourably by the public.

There's not a single instance of where any black fighter said he wouldnt like to fight a white champion being seen as something admirable.

Show me just one report where the statement by Langford's manager (or a similar statement from a black fighter) is explicitly or implicitly praised for being "good negro behaviour".

It seems to be rampant speculation, based on a shaky assumption that the racist attitudes of them would respect a black fighter who was scared or unwilling to fight Jeffries more than they'd respect one who was prepared to fight anyone meaning anyone (..... though obviously, being black he shouldn't be given the chance).

The fact that Jim Jeffries was the only unbeaten, "invincible", 220 pound legendary fighter on the planet, the only man impervious to knockout punches, seems to be dismissed out of hand.

The newspaper date is June 21, 1909, and as of that time Sam Langford had fought no one who can be comapared with Jim Jeffries. The worst beating Langford had took was probably against Johnson, who was a defensive fighter and one who could be knocked out - Jeffries was reckoned neither of those things, and bigger besides.
It's wrong to assume they would have taken any sort of beating and taken a fight they thought Sam had no chance of winning at this time, simply for the payday. It's also wrong to assume Langford would get 20-30 times what he'd get in other fights, we dont know.

Considering that Langford could make light-heavyweight and middleweight at this time, it makes sense to believe they did NOT think being "killed" by Jeffries would be the only option to make make money.

Most likely, considering Jeffries' reputation at the time and his aura of invincibility, his stature, he was just a guy Joe Woodman thought was a little bit "too big and bad" for little Sam.

[Boilermaker]

There's not one iota of evidence being put forward to substantiate that theory.

There's not one piece of proof that such a statement as the one made by Sam Langford's manager even would be viewed favourably by the public.


Well when Johnson openly campained for Burns world title and vocally challenged and chased burns, there seemed to be some backlash about it.

[mattdonnellon]

Langford was in Jeff's camp prior to the Johnson fight, if I recall correctly, and indeed there was a claim published that Sam actually trashed Jeffries in a private spar days before the big fight.

[guilalah]

PowerPuncher #17
Have you considered Langford expected Johnson to mop the floor with Jeffries and by basically saying 'Jeffries is the greatest ever', the racially motivated powers that be would want him to get a title shot as they'd rather have a respectful 'house n1gger' than a 'bad n1gger' like Johnson? Do you also not think Langford by playing possom claiming to be fearful of Jeffries is not more likely to be offered a big money fight with Jeffries?


While I'm willing to consider most of the arguments being put forth, this one seems difficult to credit. People want to see good fights. Saying 'We won't meet Jeffries' isn't going to make people say 'Hey, how about matching Langford and Jeffries? Sam really doesn't want to fight him -- that's just what we want to see!.'

[Boilermaker]

While I'm willing to consider most of the arguments being put forth, this one seems difficult to credit. People want to see good fights. Saying 'We won't meet Jeffries' isn't going to make people say 'Hey, how about matching Langford and Jeffries? Sam really doesn't want to fight him -- that's just what we want to see!.'

In fairness to Powerpuncher, that is not far off the way it works today.

Get a big name win, but leave a reason why your next opponent thinks you are are "Low Risk, High reward" opponent. But i dont really think it worked that way back then.

[mcvey]

During his championship reign Jeffries often stated he would not fight a negro for his title,because, , he was unwilling to take a chance on losing his title to a black man.
Any one think Jeffries would revise his stance on this if that challenger was Langford?

[PetethePrince]

It's all relative.

[Boilermaker]

During his championship reign Jeffries often stated he would not fight a negro for his title,because, , he was unwilling to take a chance on losing his title to a black man.
Any one think Jeffries would revise his stance on this if that challenger was Langford?

I do, but what do i know, i think he would have fought Johnson if Johnson had beaten Hart comfortably.

[mcvey]

I do, but what do i know, i think he would have fought Johnson if Johnson had beaten Hart comfortably.

I don't ! I dont beleive Jeffries was ever physically afraid of an opponent though Brady stated, before meeting Fitz he lacked confidence and self belief.
I think Jeffries was deathly afraid of losing his championship,his whole persona revolved around it."The Champion Of The World,"" THe Strongest Man In The World".
Even in his comeback he was referred to by the promoters as the "Champion",and came to the ring at a dead run ,climbing into the ring and thrusting his chest out like some fabled Norse God.
Being Champ was his "raison d'etre".
Losing to a black man was unthinkable, his stock with the public plummeted after his loss to Johnson ,when he was just the challenger, to take a chance on losing his crown to him was never on his agenda.

[PowerPuncher]

The fact that Jim Jeffries was the only unbeaten, "invincible",

considering Jeffries' reputation at the time and his aura of invincibility, .

I keep hearing this aura of invincability, so invincible he runs into retirement saying he was scared of losing the title to a black man :lol: So invisable he was getting outboxed by an old Corbett who was coming off losses and hadnt won a fight in years and had to wait for a 36yo 168lber to fade. Against Corbett Jeffries was said to look like an amateur. Hardly sounds like a devastating unbeatable fighter to me, sounds more like a smaller JEss Willard

1 possibility also hasn't been considered. That the press of the time made the comment up to further hype up the 'Great White Hope' of the time, don't believe everything you read in the papers

[Seamus]

Jeffries never impressed me much. He was an athletic phenom for his time but was bullied by middleweights, going life and death with fighters who would have had no place in the heavyweight ranks a few decades later.

[Boilermaker]

Jeffries never impressed me much. He was an athletic phenom for his time but was bullied by middleweights, going life and death with fighters who would have had no place in the heavyweight ranks a few decades later.

Which middleweights were these that bullied him? You mean light heavyweights, or smaller heavyweights/cruiserweights dont you?

[Mendoza]

During his championship reign Jeffries often stated he would not fight a negro for his title,because, , he was unwilling to take a chance on losing his title to a black man.
Any one think Jeffries would revise his stance on this if that challenger was Langford?

I think it the money was high enough, Jeffries would have fought anyone.

As champion Jeffries did thrash Hank Griffin in a 4 rd match, though it was not a championship match..

[mcvey]

I think it the money was high enough, Jeffries would have fought anyone.

As champion Jeffries did thrash Hank Griffin in a 4 rd match, though it was not a championship match..
I think the emergence of Johnson was a prime reason for Jeffries retirement,not that he physically feared Johnson ,but that he would not take the chance of losing to a black man,at any price ,he often castigated Burns for putting gold before his" white principals".

[Mendoza]

I think the emergence of Johnson was a prime reason for Jeffries retirement,not that he physically feared Johnson ,but that he would not take the chance of losing to a black man,at any price ,he often castigated Burns for putting gold before his" white principals".

When Hart defeated Johnson, Jeffries could have fought anyone out there. He said he'd fight Hart but the interest in the fight wasn't there. I'm sure if Hart was black, you say Jeffries ducked him too. Jeffries retired after Johnson lost. So no Johnson was not the reason for Jeffries retiring.

[Bummy Davis]

Its hard to say the better men of his era were the smaller guys. Jeffries did not have a lot of fights but in his prime was able to beat everyone. tHERE WERE big guys back then but they were just not good enough to get past the smaller men. Jeffries for whatever it is worth beat the best men of his era. Rate the era where you want but you must rate Jeffies high in it.

[ChrisPontius]

During his championship reign Jeffries often stated he would not fight a negro for his title,because, , he was unwilling to take a chance on losing his title to a black man.
Any one think Jeffries would revise his stance on this if that challenger was Langford?

Langford stated that he was willing to meet any man in the ring, except for Jeffries.

[mcvey]

Langford stated that he was willing to meet any man in the ring, except for Jeffries.
This we know ,but that was not my question Chris.

[mcvey]

When Hart defeated Johnson, Jeffries could have fought anyone out there. He said he'd fight Hart but the interest in the fight wasn't there. I'm sure if Hart was black, you say Jeffries ducked him too. Jeffries retired after Johnson lost. So no Johnson was not the reason for Jeffries retiring.

Jeffries versus Hart would not have drawn flies.Jeffries versus Johnson would have been a block buster.
Johnson and Jeffries shared an absolute fortune when they finally met and Jeffries had been out of the ring for over 5 years.
There was a lot of publicity and hoo hah asking if Jeffries would make Johnson his next challenger ,there was no such buzz about a fight with Hart,it was never even considered.
I said part of the reason Jeffries retired, not the only one, was because he would not take the chance of losing to a black man ,something he categorically stated several times himself.I did not say Jeffries ducked anyone.
Why do you assume I lean towards blacks in my preferences? Do you think I am black? Or anti white? Are you going to call me a racist arsehole again?
Hart did not fight Jeffries, because, no one thought it would make a cent.
That was NOT the case with Johnson,as newspapers of the time attest.

[Unforgiven]

Even though I take the statement at face value as a simple statement from Langford's manager to "protect" Sam from Jeffries, I dont think Jeffries' necessarily beats Langford.

The date is June 21, 1909, and as of that time Langford had NOT beaten a plethora of 210+ guys at all, he probably wasn't quite at his strongest, Jeffries' MYTHICAL reputation was at it's peak, Jeffries had not come back yet.

[guilalah]

mcvey #34
During his championship reign Jeffries often stated he would not fight a negro for his title,because, , he was unwilling to take a chance on losing his title to a black man.
Any one think Jeffries would revise his stance on this if that challenger was Langford?


I doubt it. Seems to me that Jeffries didn't think the heavyweight title should be open to blacks. At least then. He did speak well of Louis when Joe was champ. Sometimes people views change. (Example: Tris Speaker was a klansman; but he later helped Larry Doby learn centerfield -- Doby mentioned his help in his HOF acceptance speech).

Around 1913 Jeffries opined that Langford could name the round with all the current white hopes.

[guilalah]

Well, I got my world rocked last night! Was reading apollack's (Adam Pollack's) 'In the Ring w/ James J. Jeffries' -- highly recommended -- and discovered that, just after winning the title, Jeffries said that he'd defend against qualified challengers, regardless of color. Browsed around the book, and it seems like the first color-line reference is when a reporter asked Jeffries about Denver Martin, and Delaney very quickly says that Jeff draws the color line, can't take a chance on America having to bow down to a negro. Certainly, Jeffries adopted this line of thought ... It doesn't seem to be how Jeffries originally looked on the title; too bad he bought into this line of thinking.

[Boilermaker]

Well, I got my world rocked last night! Was reading apollack's (Adam Pollack's) 'In the Ring w/ James J. Jeffries' -- highly recommended -- and discovered that, just after winning the title, Jeffries said that he'd defend against qualified challengers, regardless of color. Browsed around the book, and it seems like the first color-line reference is when a reporter asked Jeffries about Denver Martin, and Delaney very quickly says that Jeff draws the color line, can't take a chance on America having to bow down to a negro. Certainly, Jeffries adopted this line of thought ... It doesn't seem to be how Jeffries originally looked on the title; too bad he bought into this line of thinking.

It is all publicity. I personally have no doubt that Jeffries would have fought JOhnson if JOhnson beat Hart, and i actually think they were building towards a fight. The problem with the colour fighters, is that at the time Jeffries was champ, they did not stand out over and above the other white contenders, in fact for most of the time they were well below them. I agree it is a shame, but i dont think too much blame to lay at Jeffries feet, if any. He had already beat their best name fighters.

[mcvey]

It is all publicity. I personally have no doubt that Jeffries would have fought JOhnson if JOhnson beat Hart, and i actually think they were building towards a fight. The problem with the colour fighters, is that at the time Jeffries was champ, they did not stand out over and above the other white contenders, in fact for most of the time they were well below them. I agree it is a shame, but i dont think too much blame to lay at Jeffries feet, if any. He had already beat their best name fighters.

There was reams of copy in papers, asking if ,and when, Jeffries would defend against Johnson ,your statement is erroneous, there was great interest ,in this fight and none in a defence against Hart.
Whatever the merits of the decision given for Hart against Johnson ,Johnson was perceived as the better man,and the man most people wanted to seee in the other corner against Jeffries.

[Mendoza]

There was reams of copy in papers, asking if ,and when, Jeffries would defend against Johnson ,your statement is erroneous, there was great interest ,in this fight and none in a defence against Hart.
Whatever the merits of the decision given for Hart against Johnson ,Johnson was perceived as the better man,and the man most people wanted to seee in the other corner against Jeffries.

There was never a significant and secured money offer for Jeffries to met Johnson for the 1.5 year window ( mid 1903-1905 ) when Johnson could be viewed as a top challenger.

Johnson has no one to blame for himself for letting Hart out work him in the entire second half of their 20 round match.

[Boilermaker]

There was reams of copy in papers, asking if ,and when, Jeffries would defend against Johnson ,your statement is erroneous, there was great interest ,in this fight and none in a defence against Hart.
Whatever the merits of the decision given for Hart against Johnson ,Johnson was perceived as the better man,and the man most people wanted to seee in the other corner against Jeffries.

Obviously none of us were there when Jeffries was around. The closest i can imagine is when Mike Tyson cleaned out the division. Shortly after he knocked out Michael Spinks. There was literally nobody around for Mike to fight. He had fought everybody and literally cruised by everybody. Just before he lost to Douglas, everyone was building an Evander Holyfield fight. The papers built it up a bit, and he would have been a creditable opponent but if Tyson had decided to retire instead, there would be nothing in the concept that he had ducked Holyfield. If Holyfield had lost a controversial points decision to the number one contender (for arguments sake, say Buster Douglas), and Tyson then decided to take a defence and retire, there would be no credence in the idea that Tyson ducked Holyfield, just becaue he had said somewhere along the line that he would not be defending against Holyfield (again for arguments sake, perhaps it could be because he had already beaten easily light heavyweight or cruiserweight champions and the public did not want to see such a fight).

[mcvey]

There was never a significant and secured money offer for Jeffries to met Johnson for the 1.5 year window ( mid 1903-1905 ) when Johnson could be viewed as a top challenger.

Johnson has no one to blame for himself for letting Hart out work him in the entire second half of their 20 round match.

Jeffries patently did not want the fight ,and would not have accepted it whatever money was on the table.
I agree with you Johnson picked the wrong time to get lazy,he had a golden opportunity to cement his claims as the foremost contender and blew it. He should have beaten Hart without too much trouble,and certainly left no doubt he was the" man".
Though the referee/promoter justified his scoring by saying "I allways give points for aggression".If he had been the sole judge last night ,Valuev would likely still be champ.