Jeff or Johnson-best comp as champ?

[OLD FOGEY]

There seems to be a general belief that Jack Johnson fought very weak competition as champion & Jim Jeffries very strong. Both drew the color line and there were more good black contenders in Johnson's day, although Jeff avoided Johnson. But what do the facts say about the men they did meet in championship fights?
JOHNSON:
1. Tommy Burns--27 years old, either 168 or 176 lbs depending on source--39-3-8 with 31 ko's. Had never been knocked out. Had lost early in career to Jack Twin Sullivan, Phil Jack O'Brien, and Mike Shreck. In title fights, had beaten Hart, O'Brien, Flynn, Squires, Moir, and Lang and was active and on a long winning streak. Johnson toyed with him.
2. Al Kaufman--23 years old, 6' 1" 191 lbs--actually outstanding contender. Had won 20 of 21, with 17 ko's. Only loss was at 19 in 6th pro fight to O'Brien. Was on 15 bout winning streak, with ko's of George Gardner, Mike Shreck (who beat Burns and twice ko'd Hart), Olympic champion Sam Berger, Fireman Jim Flynn, Jack Twin Sullivan, and Jim Barry.
After his loss to Johnson, avenged loss to O'Brien and beat Lang. Still top contender until ko losses to Flynn, Palzer, and McCarty in 1911 & 1912 elevated each to top contender status.
3. Stanley Ketchell--23 years old, 5' 9" & somewhere in 160's. 53-3-4 with 46 ko's. Best p4p puncher of era with ko of O'Brien. Only super-middleweight at most, but 35 lbs he gave up Johnson was less than Fitz gave up to Jeff and many little men got shots in those days.
4. Jim Jeffries--35 years old, 6' 1 1/2" & 227 lbs--17-0-2 with 14 ko's. Unbeaten ex-champ who was rated by many as greatest ever heavy and entered the ring a strong favorite over Johnson. Dismissing this fight is pure Monday morning quarterbacking, and as Jeff never lost to anyone else, how can we be certain that Johnson doesn't deserve more credit than some are willing to concede for dominating the old champion?
5. Fireman Jim Flynn--32 years old, 5' 9" 175 lbs--30-8-14 with 21 ko's. Weaker opponent, but still not that bad, Had fought Burns for title and had wins over Gardner, Squires, and Papke prior to losing to top men such as Johnson, Kaufman, and Langford. Had bounced back to go unbeaten in last 11, with ten stright victories in bouts which went to a decision. Included were a knockout of Kaufman and a very impressive victory over top prospect and supposed coming champ Carl Morris. Flynn was certainly one of the top white contenders in 1912 when he fought Johnson, but went downhill fast after that bout.
6. Frank Moran--27 years old, 6' 1" 203 lbs--24-9-7 with 18 ko's. A young man with a speckled record, but who had bounced back from several substandard performances to score a crushing ko of the huge Al Palzer, displaying big league power. This power continued to be obvious after the Johnson fight, with ko's of Bombadier Billy Wells, Jim Coffey (2), Tom Cowler (2), Jack Geyer, Homer Smith, Frank Goddard, and Joe Beckett. He also got a shot at Willard in 1916.
JEFFRIES:
1. Bob Fitzsimmons 36 years old, 5' 11 3/4", 167 lbs--40-3-5 with 35 ko's. Great p4p fighter who moved up to heavy, and ko'd Corbett, Ruhlin, and Sharkey, making him clearly Jeff's toughest opponent despite age, a two year layoff, and diminutive size.
2. Tom Sharkey-26 years old, 5' 8" 183 lbs--33-1-5 with 30 ko's. Impressive opponent who had only lost to Jeff (although was probably extremely lucky to escape w/o a ko defeat to Fitz). Went to close 25 round defeat. The majority gave nod to Jeff, but Sharkey had his supporters and all judged the fight close. There was talk of a third fight to prove who was really the better man, but Jeff chose to fight Corbett instead and Sharkey eventually fell to Ruhlin and Fitz, eliminating him.
3. Jim Corbett--33 going on 34, 6' 1" 188 lbs--15-2-3 with 3 ko's--that boxrec record is crazy and Corbett certainly had a great many more fights and victories, but most had come a decade or so earlier. His last major win was over Charley Mitchell in Jan of 1894, six and a half years earlier. He had not defeated--and would never again defeat--a man who weighed above the 160's after Sullivan in 1892. Was coming off consecutive losses to Fitz and Sharkey. What did he have left? The fact that Jeff struggled into the 23rd round with him provides the evidence that he was still the "old" Corbett rather than merely an old Corbett. Johnson dominating Jeff provides evidence that Jeff had nothing left, but is Johnson being penalized for being tougher than Jeff in the first place?
4. Gus Ruhlin--29 years old, 6' 2" 200 lbs--19-5-2 with 12 ko's--Average contender who got draw with Jeff in 1897, before losing to Kid McCoy and Joe Kennedy, and being blown out in 1 by Tom Sharkey. Did not seem to be going anywhere until he upset Sharkey with a 15th round ko in 1900, but immedately was himself ko'd by Fitz in six. Somehow was picked over Fitz by Jeff for a title defense and come through with a lagomorphic performance. I judge Ruhlin as nothing special.
5. Fitz--now 39--but still Jeff's toughest opponent and gives him a brutal going over before running out of gas, despite another 2 year layoff.
6. Corbett--now 37 with three year layoff.
7. Munroe--a couple of months shy of 30 years old. 5' 11" 186 lbs--9-2-2 with 7 knockouts. Had lost and drawn with Griffin earlier, and had a ko over the faded Peter Maher and a newspaper decision over the faded Sharkey. Got the shot because he allegedly floored Jeff in an exhibition. Mediocre contender at best.

[mr. magoo]

You're asking us to choose between shit and vomit

[mcvey]

There seems to be a general belief that Jack Johnson fought very weak competition as champion & Jim Jeffries very strong. Both drew the color line and there were more good black contenders in Johnson's day, although Jeff avoided Johnson. But what do the facts say about the men they did meet in championship fights?
JOHNSON:
1. Tommy Burns--27 years old, either 168 or 176 lbs depending on source--39-3-8 with 31 ko's. Had never been knocked out. Had lost early in career to Jack Twin Sullivan, Phil Jack O'Brien, and Mike Shreck. In title fights, had beaten Hart, O'Brien, Flynn, Squires, Moir, and Lang and was active and on a long winning streak. Johnson toyed with him.
2. Al Kaufman--23 years old, 6' 1" 191 lbs--actually outstanding contender. Had won 20 of 21, with 17 ko's. Only loss was at 19 in 6th pro fight to O'Brien. Was on 15 bout winning streak, with ko's of George Gardner, Mike Shreck (who beat Burns and twice ko'd Hart), Olympic champion Sam Berger, Fireman Jim Flynn, Jack Twin Sullivan, and Jim Barry.
After his loss to Johnson, avenged loss to O'Brien and beat Lang. Still top contender until ko losses to Flynn, Palzer, and McCarty in 1911 & 1912 elevated each to top contender status.
3. Stanley Ketchell--23 years old, 5' 9" & somewhere in 160's. 53-3-4 with 46 ko's. Best p4p puncher of era with ko of O'Brien. Only super-middleweight at most, but 35 lbs he gave up Johnson was less than Fitz gave up to Jeff and many little men got shots in those days.
4. Jim Jeffries--35 years old, 6' 1 1/2" & 227 lbs--17-0-2 with 14 ko's. Unbeaten ex-champ who was rated by many as greatest ever heavy and entered the ring a strong favorite over Johnson. Dismissing this fight is pure Monday morning quarterbacking, and as Jeff never lost to anyone else, how can we be certain that Johnson doesn't deserve more credit than some are willing to concede for dominating the old champion?
5. Fireman Jim Flynn--32 years old, 5' 9" 175 lbs--30-8-14 with 21 ko's. Weaker opponent, but still not that bad, Had fought Burns for title and had wins over Gardner, Squires, and Papke prior to losing to top men such as Johnson, Kaufman, and Langford. Had bounced back to go unbeaten in last 11, with ten stright victories in bouts which went to a decision. Included were a knockout of Kaufman and a very impressive victory over top prospect and supposed coming champ Carl Morris. Flynn was certainly one of the top white contenders in 1912 when he fought Johnson, but went downhill fast after that bout.
6. Frank Moran--27 years old, 6' 1" 203 lbs--24-9-7 with 18 ko's. A young man with a speckled record, but who had bounced back from several substandard performances to score a crushing ko of the huge Al Palzer, displaying big league power. This power continued to be obvious after the Johnson fight, with ko's of Bombadier Billy Wells, Jim Coffey (2), Tom Cowler (2), Jack Geyer, Homer Smith, Frank Goddard, and Joe Beckett. He also got a shot at Willard in 1916.
JEFFRIES:
1. Bob Fitzsimmons 36 years old, 5' 11 3/4", 167 lbs--40-3-5 with 35 ko's. Great p4p fighter who moved up to heavy, and ko'd Corbett, Ruhlin, and Sharkey, making him clearly Jeff's toughest opponent despite age, a two year layoff, and diminutive size.
2. Tom Sharkey-26 years old, 5' 8" 183 lbs--33-1-5 with 30 ko's. Impressive opponent who had only lost to Jeff (although was probably extremely lucky to escape w/o a ko defeat to Fitz). Went to close 25 round defeat. The majority gave nod to Jeff, but Sharkey had his supporters and all judged the fight close. There was talk of a third fight to prove who was really the better man, but Jeff chose to fight Corbett instead and Sharkey eventually fell to Ruhlin and Fitz, eliminating him.
3. Jim Corbett--33 going on 34, 6' 1" 188 lbs--15-2-3 with 3 ko's--that boxrec record is crazy and Corbett certainly had a great many more fights and victories, but most had come a decade or so earlier. His last major win was over Charley Mitchell in Jan of 1894, six and a half years earlier. He had not defeated--and would never again defeat--a man who weighed above the 160's after Sullivan in 1892. Was coming off consecutive losses to Fitz and Sharkey. What did he have left? The fact that Jeff struggled into the 23rd round with him provides the evidence that he was still the "old" Corbett rather than merely an old Corbett. Johnson dominating Jeff provides evidence that Jeff had nothing left, but is Johnson being penalized for being tougher than Jeff in the first place?
4. Gus Ruhlin--29 years old, 6' 2" 200 lbs--19-5-2 with 12 ko's--Average contender who got draw with Jeff in 1897, before losing to Kid McCoy and Joe Kennedy, and being blown out in 1 by Tom Sharkey. Did not seem to be going anywhere until he upset Sharkey with a 15th round ko in 1900, but immedately was himself ko'd by Fitz in six. Somehow was picked over Fitz by Jeff for a title defense and come through with a lagomorphic performance. I judge Ruhlin as nothing special.
5. Fitz--now 39--but still Jeff's toughest opponent and gives him a brutal going over before running out of gas, despite another 2 year layoff.
6. Corbett--now 37 with three year layoff.
7. Munroe--a couple of months shy of 30 years old. 5' 11" 186 lbs--9-2-2 with 7 knockouts. Had lost and drawn with Griffin earlier, and had a ko over the faded Peter Maher and a newspaper decision over the faded Sharkey. Got the shot because he allegedly floored Jeff in an exhibition. Mediocre contender at best.
Wait till the DR gets Here!

[janitor]

You're asking us to choose between shit and vomit

Punish yourself.

[mr. magoo]

Punish yourself.

It would have been a lot easier if I were around to sit ringside at some of those fights.

[janitor]

It will be aparent from other threads that I do not think that Johnson fought weak competition. His depth was frankly incredible.

Comparisons between Johnson and Jeffries are dificult because their career profiles are so diferent.

Jeffries was beating the best from the opening gate and his level of consistency was incredible. He has a verry short, verry consistent career over about 8 years.

Johnsons career for contrast lasted about 40 years. It got off to an eratic start with him coming up under verry unfavourable circumstances. At his peak he fought the top contenders 2, 3 or 5 times each.

It is volume and duration vs consistency and quality.

Hard to find two ATGs more diferent.

[OLD FOGEY]

It will be aparent from other threads that I do not think that Johnson fought weak competition. His depth was frankly incredible.

Comparisons between Johnson and Jeffries are dificult because their career profiles are so diferent.

Jeffries was beating the best from the opening gate and his level of consistency was incredible. He has a verry short, verry consistent career over about 8 years.

Johnsons career for contrast lasted about 40 years. It got off to an eratic start with him coming up under verry unfavourable circumstances. At his peak he fought the top contenders 2, 3 or 5 times each.

It is volume and duration vs consistency and quality.

Hard to find two ATGs more diferent.

Granted, but I just wanted to compare the men they actually fought as champion. I may have run on in my initial post, but here is an effort at being succinct:
1. Burns had an impressive record until he fought Johnson
2. Kaufman had better credentials than Ruhlin and Munroe
3. Johnson is criticized for fighting small men in Burns and Ketchel, but a small man, Fitzsimmons, was better than any of Jeff's other foes.
4. Jeff is utterly dismissed, but Corbett considered a formidable foe, although Corbett was almost as old and hadn't won a fight in over six years. The different evaluations rest entirely on Jeff's struggle with Corbett and Johnson's easy handling of Jeffries.
5. Johnson's foes were younger and generally bigger, and I didn't even count Willard.

[janitor]

Granted, but I just wanted to compare the men they actually fought as champion. I may have run on in my initial post, but here is an effort at being succinct:
1. Burns had an impressive record until he fought Johnson
2. Kaufman had better credentials than Ruhlin and Munroe
3. Johnson is criticized for fighting small men in Burns and Ketchel, but a small man, Fitzsimmons, was better than any of Jeff's other foes.
4. Jeff is utterly dismissed, but Corbett considered a formidable foe, although Corbett was almost as old and hadn't won a fight in over six years. The different evaluations rest entirely on Jeff's struggle with Corbett and Johnson's easy handling of Jeffries.
5. Johnson's foes were younger and generally bigger, and I didn't even count Willard.

There was a perception at the time rightly or wrongly that Corbett and Fitzsimmons were a cut above anybody Johnson fought.

Their position was verry similar to that of Joe Frazier and George Foreman today. Champions with short reigns who were none the less ranked alongside champions who had long reigns. It was asumed that their reigns were only short because they were fighting in the golden age.

[OLD FOGEY]

There was a perception at the time rightly or wrongly that Corbett and Fitzsimmons were a cut above anybody Johnson fought.

Their position was verry similar to that of Joe Frazier and George Foreman today. Champions with short reigns who were none the less ranked alongside champions who had long reigns. It was asumed that their reigns were only short because they were fighting in the golden age.

Yes, but I am questioning why Corbett is considered a more formidable defense than Jeffries, when Jeffries was in fact considered even by Corbett as the best heavy of the era. Corbett had not won a fight in six years either.

[janitor]

Yes, but I am questioning why Corbett is considered a more formidable defense than Jeffries, when Jeffries was in fact considered even by Corbett as the best heavy of the era. Corbett had not won a fight in six years either.

I would question whether either genuinely had not won a fight in the past six years given the nature of records at the time. Some sources suggest that Jeffries for example had a warm up fight against Sam Berger.

[OLD FOGEY]

I would question whether either genuinely had not won a fight in the past six years given the nature of records at the time. Some sources suggest that Jeffries for example had a warm up fight against Sam Berger.

Well, Jeff certainly fought exhibitions with Berger, and Eddie Muller of the SF Examiner mentioned "private fights" with Bob Armstrong. Corbett probably fought exhibitions. But all this avoids, I think, my question. Is Jeffries getting extra credit against Corbett because he struggled with Corbett, while Johnson gets less credit because he handled Jeffries easily?

[janitor]

Well, Jeff certainly fought exhibitions with Berger, and Eddie Muller of the SF Examiner mentioned exhibitions with Bob Armstrong. Corbett probably fought exhibitions. But all this avoids, I think, my question. Is Jeffries getting extra credit against Corbett because he struggled with Corbett, while Johnson gets less credit because he handled Jeffries easily?

If we put aside the issue of these mens actual level of activity then yes there is a bit of a double standard.

[Mendoza]

Who beat better competion as champion? Lets see, Fitz, Corbett and Sharkey are in the hall of fame.

Fireman Flynn, Ross, Kaufman, Jim Johnson, and Moran et al are not.

I suppose O'brien was in the hall of fame, and a past his prime verison of O'Brien got the better of a prime verison of Johnson.

[Langford]

You're asking us to choose between shit and vomit


keep posting, despite what you have to say, I still like looking at your avatar!

[C. M. Clay II]

I suppose O'brien was in the hall of fame, and a past his prime verison of O'Brien got the better of a prime verison of Johnson.

While Johnson was overweight, bloodshot eyed from not enough sleep, and had a terrible hangover. Excellent version of Jack Johnson, yes.:yep

[Langford]

Yes, but I am questioning why Corbett is considered a more formidable defense than Jeffries, when Jeffries was in fact considered even by Corbett as the best heavy of the era. Corbett had not won a fight in six years either.

major difference between being a retired alfafa farmer hanging out at your brothers bar and being a working fighter who fought for the championship three years earlier.

I agree that the second fight is not a super quality win, but people wanted to see it.

[Luigi1985]

While Johnson was overweight, bloodshot eyed from not enough sleep, and had a terrible hangover. Excellent version of Jack Johnson, yes.:yep



Only 3 excusses? C´mon, I expected more from you...

[Langford]

anybody who thinks that Jeffries was a great defense for Johnson, remember to give the nod to Jeffries over Jackson, just to be fair.

[C. M. Clay II]

Only 3 excusses? C´mon, I expected more from you...

Not excuses, just the truth Jack.:good

[Luigi1985]

You´re the best when it comes to find the best excusses, Clay...

[C. M. Clay II]

I heard from a street-bum that he had also a broken rib, I think it´s true, don´t you think? :think

Ring-side observers from the fight concurred these stated conditions. Whether or not you want to brush facts off as excuses and propaganda is your business.

[C. M. Clay II]

You´re the best when it comes to find the best excusses, Clay...

I'm not making it up. It's well documented.:good

[Luigi1985]

I'm not making it up. It's well documented.:good


Exactly. In Johnson´s biography, where everytime Jack struggled or lost other strange things happened... :good

[C. M. Clay II]

Exactly. In Johnson´s biography, where everytime Jack struggled or lost other strange things happened... :good

Not true. Only a few of Johnson's losses were atrributed to strange circumstances, the O'brien fight being one of them.

[Luigi1985]

Not true. Only a few of Johnson's losses were atrributed to strange circumstances, the O'brien fight being one of them.


Johnson never lost normally when he was healthy and well-trained, believe me!

[C. M. Clay II]

Johnson never lost normally when he was healthy and well-trained, believe me!

The Choynski fight was on the up and up. Johnson was in shape, and well-fed in that fight. Choynski was just too experienced for him.

[C. M. Clay II]

Johnson never lost normally when he was healthy and well-trained, believe me!

The Choynski fight was on the up and up. Johnson was in shape, and well-fed in that fight. Choynski was just too experienced for him.

[Luigi1985]

The Choynski fight was on the up and up. Johnson was in shape, and well-fed in that fight. Choynski was just too experienced for him.


He was determinate robbed in this one...

[C. M. Clay II]

He was determinate robbed in this one...

What do you mean?

[ChrisPontius]

You're asking us to choose between shit and vomit

Rightfully or not, that was funny :lol:.



On the topic, i think the level of competition is very close. Both faced a lot of little men. Fitzsimmons was greater than Ketchel but he gave Jeffries a pretty bad beating, twice, before the law of middleweight durability vs heavyweight durability bailed him out.


Corbett indeed hadn't won a fight in 5 years although i think here it should be noted that he was fighting several times before facing Jeffries. Fights that have been confirmed. Meaning that at least he was in fighting shape. Jeffries on the other hand, before meeting Johnson for years didn't think he would ever step back into the ring again and (mis)treated his body accordingly, as witnessed from his 320lbs weight. There is a good chance that Corbett still fought exhibitions; how many did Jeffries have when he was officialy retired at his ranch?
I don't think this is a particularly good win for either one.

I think as a name and considering the circumstances i described, Corbett was an a bit better win. However, Johnson dominated Jeffries pretty badly from both what i've read and from what i've seen of the fight. On the other hand, Jeffries was getting a boxing lesson for most of the 23 rounds and when he took him out it came as a suprise, he was that far behind despite lacking the strength. For how many rounds was this one scheduled, by the way?

So in terms of how they won, Johnson's domination over Jeffries was more impressive than Jeffries' snatch from defeat over Corbett. But are we merely talking about the level of competition beat or how they did it, here?


I think Jeffries' win over Sharkey is very impressive and probably better than any of Johnson's wins (linear title only) although this was a very hard fight for him.


By the way, didn't Johnson defend against Battling Jim Johnson? Maybe i forgot but i don't remember seeing him mentioned.



Lastly, i would like to point out that if i had to judge their title reigns, i would give the edge to Jeffries. The competition is on the same level but Johnson won more impressive, so Johnson has the edge there. There are two important things to remember, though: Johnsons best opponent is probably Burns, but he didn't choose Burns; he had to fight him to obtain the title. This is a minor point but it serves as an introduction to my next point:

Jeffries ducked only 1 deserving challenger whereas Johnson failed to meet 4 deserving challengers. I think that is a few too many to rate him at the top as a champion. For example, Patterson's reign is wildely criticized but it contained much less avoiding than Johnson's did.

In fact, one could compare Jeffries' reign to Pattersons in the sense that he avoided 1 challenger (Liston, though he did fight him later as did Jeffries). On the contrary, Johnson's avoiding of challengers has not been exceeded in 100 years of boxing. You could argue that Holmes should've met 4 challengers as well (Dokes, Coetzee, Page and Thomas) but the crucial difference is that these men were deserving challengers for a short period of time untill they got addicted to coke or imploded otherwise. Mcvey, Jeannete and Langford basically only lost to each other and beat up the rest. Gunboat Smith was an excellent contender.

A parallel would be if Bonavena was champion in '71 by beating Ellis, then went on to defend against rather soft touches, a shot Liston in '74 (if he still lived) untill he gets beaten in '78 by Leon Spinks. During '71-'78, Ali, Foreman and Frazier all beat up the division and only lose to each other but are denied a title shot. In addition, a solid contender like Quarry is also denied a title shot despite the champion's willingness to defeat "white hopes".

[OLD FOGEY]

Who beat better competion as champion? Lets see, Fitz, Corbett and Sharkey are in the hall of fame.

Fireman Flynn, Ross, Kaufman, Jim Johnson, and Moran et al are not.

I suppose O'brien was in the hall of fame, and a past his prime verison of O'Brien got the better of a prime verison of Johnson.

Fitz, Corbett, and Sharkey are in the Hall of Fame.
Burns, O'Brien, Ketchel, Jeffries, and Willard are in the Hall of Fame.
Finnegan, Ruhlin, and Munroe are not in the Hall of Fame.

This is not a good arguement.

[OLD FOGEY]

major difference between being a retired alfafa farmer hanging out at your brothers bar and being a working fighter who fought for the championship three years earlier.

I agree that the second fight is not a super quality win, but people wanted to see it.

Actually, I was talking about the first fight between Corbett and Jeff. Corbett had not won since Charley Mitchell in 1894. By 1903, Corbett was 37, and had lain off three more years.

[OLD FOGEY]

anybody who thinks that Jeffries was a great defense for Johnson, remember to give the nod to Jeffries over Jackson, just to be fair.

I didn't say that Jeffries was a great defense for Johnson. I asked why Corbett is a great defense for Jeffries, a somewhat different question.

[Langford]

Actually, I was talking about the first fight between Corbett and Jeff. Corbett had not won since Charley Mitchell in 1894. By 1903, Corbett was 37, and had lain off three more years.
the first Corbett defense is not a bad defense. Corbett was doing a very good job of handling Fitz for almost all the fight and got caught. Corbett may have also been the victim of his own long count...with Fitz holding on to Corbetts legs delaying the ref from counting.
Fitz should have probably have given Corbett a rematch, Corbett did dawg him for one. But he was making too much cash from his performances.
I don't think that fighting a guy who was champ three years ago, was winning pretty solidly against the champion you beat, lost to the number one challanger (whom you beat twice) is that bad of a defense.
Besides, it was teacher vs. student there.

Incidentially, Corbett was to have been Fitz's first defense. A rematch, but he went with Jeffries, because he thought Jeffries would be easier.

[OLD FOGEY]

Rightfully or not, that was funny :lol:.



On the topic, i think the level of competition is very close. Both faced a lot of little men. Fitzsimmons was greater than Ketchel but he gave Jeffries a pretty bad beating, twice, before the law of middleweight durability vs heavyweight durability bailed him out.


Corbett indeed hadn't won a fight in 5 years although i think here it should be noted that he was fighting several times before facing Jeffries. Fights that have been confirmed. Meaning that at least he was in fighting shape. Jeffries on the other hand, before meeting Johnson for years didn't think he would ever step back into the ring again and (mis)treated his body accordingly, as witnessed from his 320lbs weight. There is a good chance that Corbett still fought exhibitions; how many did Jeffries have when he was officialy retired at his ranch?
I don't think this is a particularly good win for either one.

I think as a name and considering the circumstances i described, Corbett was an a bit better win. However, Johnson dominated Jeffries pretty badly from both what i've read and from what i've seen of the fight. On the other hand, Jeffries was getting a boxing lesson for most of the 23 rounds and when he took him out it came as a suprise, he was that far behind despite lacking the strength. For how many rounds was this one scheduled, by the way?

So in terms of how they won, Johnson's domination over Jeffries was more impressive than Jeffries' snatch from defeat over Corbett. But are we merely talking about the level of competition beat or how they did it, here?


I think Jeffries' win over Sharkey is very impressive and probably better than any of Johnson's wins (linear title only) although this was a very hard fight for him.


By the way, didn't Johnson defend against Battling Jim Johnson? Maybe i forgot but i don't remember seeing him mentioned.



Lastly, i would like to point out that if i had to judge their title reigns, i would give the edge to Jeffries. The competition is on the same level but Johnson won more impressive, so Johnson has the edge there. There are two important things to remember, though: Johnsons best opponent is probably Burns, but he didn't choose Burns; he had to fight him to obtain the title. This is a minor point but it serves as an introduction to my next point:

Jeffries ducked only 1 deserving challenger whereas Johnson failed to meet 4 deserving challengers. I think that is a few too many to rate him at the top as a champion. For example, Patterson's reign is wildely criticized but it contained much less avoiding than Johnson's did.

In fact, one could compare Jeffries' reign to Pattersons in the sense that he avoided 1 challenger (Liston, though he did fight him later as did Jeffries). On the contrary, Johnson's avoiding of challengers has not been exceeded in 100 years of boxing. You could argue that Holmes should've met 4 challengers as well (Dokes, Coetzee, Page and Thomas) but the crucial difference is that these men were deserving challengers for a short period of time untill they got addicted to coke or imploded otherwise. Mcvey, Jeannete and Langford basically only lost to each other and beat up the rest. Gunboat Smith was an excellent contender.

A parallel would be if Bonavena was champion in '71 by beating Ellis, then went on to defend against rather soft touches, a shot Liston in '74 (if he still lived) untill he gets beaten in '78 by Leon Spinks. During '71-'78, Ali, Foreman and Frazier all beat up the division and only lose to each other but are denied a title shot. In addition, a solid contender like Quarry is also denied a title shot despite the champion's willingness to defeat "white hopes".

1. Good point about Corbett probably being in better shape while inactive than Jeffries.
2. On Bonavena, but where would Bonavena rate if he beat Ellis and Liston in championship fights, and Ali, Foreman, and Frazier before becoming champion?
3. I do think your arguement about Johnson and Jeffries and avoiding their top contenders is purely technical. Langford, McVey, and Jeannete were around during Johnson's reign. Jeff would not fight a black challenger, so he would have avoided all of them. The best you can say is that Jeff might have fought Gunboat Smith.
4. I left off the second-raters and no decision opponents like Finnegan, McLaglen, O'Brien, and Battling Johnson from consideration-the post was long as was.

[OLD FOGEY]

the first Corbett defense is not a bad defense. Corbett was doing a very good job of handling Fitz for almost all the fight and got caught. Corbett may have also been the victim of his own long count...with Fitz holding on to Corbetts legs delaying the ref from counting.
Fitz should have probably have given Corbett a rematch, Corbett did dawg him for one. But he was making too much cash from his performances.
I don't think that fighting a guy who was champ three years ago, was winning pretty solidly against the champion you beat, lost to the number one challanger (whom you beat twice) is that bad of a defense.
Besides, it was teacher vs. student there.

Incidentially, Corbett was to have been Fitz's first defense. A rematch, but he went with Jeffries, because he thought Jeffries would be easier.

Corbett had also lost to Sharkey, though. And why exactly is Jeffries a bad defense. Corbett
was an underdog to Jeffries, while Jeffries was the favorite against Johnson.

[ChrisPontius]

1. Good point about Corbett probably being in better shape while inactive than Jeffries.
2. On Bonavena, but where would Bonavena rate if he beat Ellis and Liston in championship fights, and Ali, Foreman, and Frazier before becoming champion?
3. I do think your arguement about Johnson and Jeffries and avoiding their top contenders is purely technical. Langford, McVey, and Jeannete were around during Johnson's reign. Jeff would not fight a black challenger, so he would have avoided all of them. The best you can say is that Jeff might have fought Gunboat Smith.
4. I left off the second-raters and no decision opponents like Finnegan, McLaglen, O'Brien, and Battling Johnson from consideration-the post was long as was.

2: If he was dominant outside of that, probably in the top10. But definitly not top3.

3: This is true... but at the same time, i think we should go by what happened and not by what could have happened. We can conclude that looking back, historically seen, Jeffries was "lucky" to have only 1 deserving black challenger around. If that makes sense.

Maybe i am sounding a bit like a bore re-iterating that point about Mcvey/Langford/Jeannete, but i brought up the comparison with the 70's because no one here would rank Bonevena in their top3 if he avoided Foreman, Ali and Frazier for so many years. Yet many rank Johnson in the top3.
By the way, if you want to say that Bonavena did beat Frazier/Ali/Foreman before winning the title, then fair enough, but you should probably say that he beat them in the amatures (like Lewis/Bowe only the other way around). Because that's how experienced Jeannete and Mcvey were really. Langford did have quite some experience of course but he was a middleweight.

[Langford]

Corbett had also lost to Sharkey, though.

yeah, but Sharkey was at his absolute best at that time, the number one guy. Plus, Corbett was in a little bit of a slump, I believe, by legit personal reasons. That sounds like an excuse, in his case, or in any other fighters case under the same circumstances, I think its legit.

The Corbett that met Jeffries was probably the best Corbett that there had been since when he fought Sullivan and Jackson. He was bigger, stronger, and while he was not quite as fast, he had been in training condition for about a year.

Corbett also absolutely schooled contender Gus Ruhlin in training prior to the Jeffries match on a daily basis. If it had been modern day, they would have just met in the ring, Corbett outpoints Ruhlin, gets a shot.

I see what you're saying though. Jeffries and Corbett shared kind of the same management team. Corbett getting a shot at the title was kind of laughed at by Brady (Jeffries manager). Initially, it was kind of a favor.
But that doesn't change the fact that Corbett was in solid form and may have put up his best fight ever in Jeffries I.

[Langford]

Corbett had also lost to Sharkey, though. And why exactly is Jeffries a bad defense. Corbett
was an underdog to Jeffries, while Jeffries was the favorite against Johnson.

get outta here, jokster!

[OLD FOGEY]

2: If he was dominant outside of that, probably in the top10. But definitly not top3.

3: This is true... but at the same time, i think we should go by what happened and not by what could have happened. We can conclude that looking back, historically seen, Jeffries was "lucky" to have only 1 deserving black challenger around. If that makes sense.

Maybe i am sounding a bit like a bore re-iterating that point about Mcvey/Langford/Jeannete, but i brought up the comparison with the 70's because no one here would rank Bonevena in their top3 if he avoided Foreman, Ali and Frazier for so many years. Yet many rank Johnson in the top3.
By the way, if you want to say that Bonavena did beat Frazier/Ali/Foreman before winning the title, then fair enough, but you should probably say that he beat them in the amatures (like Lewis/Bowe only the other way around). Because that's how experienced Jeannete and Mcvey were really. Langford did have quite some experience of course but he was a middleweight.

Top three is very high and the standards tight. Just curiously, where do you rate Johnson? and Jeffries?

[OLD FOGEY]

get outta here, jokster!

-----------

[Langford]

I'm not joking. Gamblers are pretty cold-blooded, generally. I've seen the films of Jeff sparring and working out in 1910, and, to tell the truth, he looks impressive, at least in his his mobility and condition. Much is made of him being 300 lbs, but I think, off the photographs of him in tights from 1909, that he had come down a great deal even before he started to train.
Obviously, the gamblers who saw Jeff train thought he looked good enough to back him.
The hollow-shell arguement is after the fact, but boxing history does tell us that laying off that long would hurt his reflexes.
There are also a lot of people who bet with their hearts and not with their minds. There is also going to be a lot of white people who are not going to want to put money down on the black guy, and many black guys who can't bet and if they dropped money on Johnson, they might get beat up, or worse. Also, many only have the Jeffries of six years ago to go by. He couldn't really decline that much could he? Well sure he could.

Jeffries, in reality, was not doing well in his sparing. He had huge amounts of ring rust. Sam Berger and Bob Armstrong were his sparing partners and even though Armstrong was not a worthy opponent years before, he was having to hold back. And he wouldn't have even stepped in the ring with Jeffries a few years before this. They both knew that Jeff had slipped big time.

Now we know, thanks to Foreman, thanks to Holmes, that if you are going to take large layoffs, you simply must have a couple of fights and almost a second career. You don't jump in there with one of the best fighters who ever lived and not have any kind of professional tune ups, or at the very least, be ruling your sparring partners a la Corbett and Ruhlin.

And losing that much weight in a relatively short period is not healthy and you can lose real strength doing this. I do not know if boxers of yesteryear
or now are better, but I will tell you this, nutrionalists and sports doctors have certainly learned a thing or two.

[OLD FOGEY]

There are also a lot of people who bet with their hearts and not with their minds. There is also going to be a lot of white people who are not going to want to put money down on the black guy, and many black guys who can't bet and if they dropped money on Johnson, they might get beat up, or worse. Also, many only have the Jeffries of six years ago to go by. He couldn't really decline that much could he? Well sure he could.

Jeffries, in reality, was not doing well in his sparing. He had huge amounts of ring rust. Sam Langford and Bob Armstrong were his sparing partners and even though Armstrong was not a worthy opponent years before, he was having to hold back. Sam Langford, as much as I love the guy, had to hold back. And he wouldn't have even stepped in the ring with Jeffries a few years before this. They both knew that Jeff had slipped big time.

Now we know, thanks to Foreman, thanks to Holmes, that if you are going to take large layoffs, you simply must have a couple of fights and almost a second career. You don't jump in there with one of the best fighters who ever lived and not have any kind of professional tune ups, or at the very least, be ruling your sparring partners a la Corbett and Ruhlin.

And losing that much weight in a relatively short period is not healthy and you can lose real strength doing this. I do not know if boxers of yesteryear
or now are better, but I will tell you this, nutrionalists and sports doctors have certainly learned a thing or two.

-----------

[Mendoza]

Fitz, Corbett, and Sharkey are in the Hall of Fame.
Burns, O'Brien, Ketchel, Jeffries, and Willard are in the Hall of Fame.
Finnegan, Ruhlin, and Munroe are not in the Hall of Fame.

This is not a good arguement.

Ok, how is this, Jeffries is 6-0, with 4 KO's in title defenses vs Hall of fame fighters.

Johnson has three wins, two losses, and a draw where was edged by a middle weight vs his hall of fame fights in title defense.

While Ruhlin and Munroe were not in the hall of fame, they were much better than the Flynn's, and Ross's of boxing.

This is a better argument using your own templete.

[Langford]

Both Langford and Armstrong publicly and noisily picked Jeffries to win.

My question was how much weight Jeff actually lost during the last year. Off the photos, I think it was closer to 30 to 40 pounds rather than one hundred.

And, like Corbett, Jeff was sparring and holding "private fights" with Armstrong and Berger, among others.

More importantly than how far Jeff had gone back, Johnson himself was 32, not a young man, while Jeff was 25 in 1900 when he took on the almost 34 year old Corbett.
In August of the prior year, Jeffries was around 280-300 lbs. Jeffries signed to fight Johnson in 1909 around the end of October. He weighed about the same then. Jeffries was losing weight over, at most, a nine month period, but did not lose that much weight until training camp was established in April...fight three months away when he really started to dedicate (he was doing a theatre tour before then).

25 and still learning? The Corbett that Jeffries fought was far and away a much better fighter than the Jeffries that Johnson fought. We are talking six years, a hundred lbs to lose, no dominating sparing, let alone tune up fights, mentally he wasn't in it...etc...etc...etc.

[Mendoza]

Both Langford and Armstrong publicly and noisily picked Jeffries to win.

My question was how much weight Jeff actually lost during the last year. Off the photos, I think it was closer to 30 to 40 pounds rather than one hundred.

And, like Corbett, Jeff was sparring and holding "private fights" with Armstrong and Berger, among others.

More importantly than how far Jeff had gone back, Johnson himself was 32, not a young man, while Jeff was 25 in 1900 when he took on the almost 34 year old Corbett.

Johnson was in his best shape since Burns for the Jeffries fight, and in his prime. Jeffries lost much more than 40 pounds for the fight, and was out of the ring for several years.

Armstrong and Langford were not the only fighters who picked Jeffries. Jeanette said Johnson won't win unless Jeffries has balls and chains on his ankles. These are picks from fighters who saw them both. Of course they assumed a near prime Jeffries would show up, which did not happen. The thing to focus on is under the assumption Jeffries did return. There is a huge difference in the caliber of fighters the two had beaten if we factor in the accomplishments of the fighters when the matches were made. There is also a huge difference in excuses. Johnson lost a few times, was Ko’d, and drew guys who were not so special comming into the 1910 fight.

If we cross refernce the results vs the same opponents they fought in the ring, Jeffries outshines Johnson too.

[Mendoza]

I'm not joking. Gamblers are pretty cold-blooded, generally. I've seen the films of Jeff sparring and working out in 1910, and, to tell the truth, he looks impressive, at least in his mobility and condition. Much is made of him being 300 lbs, but I think, off the photographs of him in tights from 1909, that he had come down a great deal even before he started to train.
Obviously, the gamblers who saw Jeff train thought he looked good enough to back him.
The hollow-shell arguement is after the fact, but boxing history does tell us that laying off that long would hurt his reflexes.


Jeffries looks much older and slower in the 1910 training clips. In the fight, his stamina hit the wall as early as round 5. As for the Gamblers, they weight in the pro's and con's. Did you ever consider what they thought of Johnson coming into this fight? Maybe they thought that Johnson wasn't all that. Indeed, he was beaten by Choynski, Griffin, Klondike and Hart before 1910, and had two lousy outing vs middle weights vs O'brien, who made him look bad, and Ketchel who knocked him down.

OLD FOGEY seems to be one of the brighter posters on this board. I think he might rethink things a bit down the road.

[Woddy]

This debate seems to have been going on long enough without my having to ad anything, but I think I'll just say that Johnson had the broader spectrum of quality wins, whereas Jeffries fought a select few who were probably a bit better.

I can't imagine rating Johnson's wins over Flynn, Burns, Jenette, Langford or an aging Jeffries over Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Jackson, or Choynski. As many posters have already identified, Jeffries was one of Johnson's best victories and was too far past his prime for it to be considered a major milestone win. It would be similar to crediting Larry Holmes with a big pat on the back for pummeling Muhammad Ali.

Johnson was a great fighter who beat many good opponents. His career stretched for nearly forty years, and he had many defenses of both the coloured and lineal heavyweight titles. I still feel though that Jeffries' career was a bit brighter for the short duration that it lasted.

[OLD FOGEY]

In August of the prior year, Jeffries was around 280-300 lbs. Jeffries signed to fight Johnson in 1909 around the end of October. He weighed about the same then. Jeffries was losing weight over, at most, a nine month period, but did not lose that much weight until training camp was established in April...fight three months away when he really started to dedicate (he was doing a theatre tour before then).

25 and still learning? The Corbett that Jeffries fought was far and away a much better fighter than the Jeffries that Johnson fought. We are talking six years, a hundred lbs to lose, no dominating sparing, let alone tune up fights, mentally he wasn't in it...etc...etc...etc.

--------------

[OLD FOGEY]

Ok, how is this, Jeffries is 6-0, with 4 KO's in title defenses vs Hall of fame fighters.

Johnson has three wins, two losses, and a draw where was edged by a middle weight vs his hall of fame fights in title defense.

While Ruhlin and Munroe were not in the hall of fame, they were much better than the Flynn's, and Ross's of boxing.

This is a better argument using your own templete.

------

[mcvey]

Rightfully or not, that was funny :lol:.



On the topic, i think the level of competition is very close. Both faced a lot of little men. Fitzsimmons was greater than Ketchel but he gave Jeffries a pretty bad beating, twice, before the law of middleweight durability vs heavyweight durability bailed him out.


Corbett indeed hadn't won a fight in 5 years although i think here it should be noted that he was fighting several times before facing Jeffries. Fights that have been confirmed. Meaning that at least he was in fighting shape. Jeffries on the other hand, before meeting Johnson for years didn't think he would ever step back into the ring again and (mis)treated his body accordingly, as witnessed from his 320lbs weight. There is a good chance that Corbett still fought exhibitions; how many did Jeffries have when he was officialy retired at his ranch?
I don't think this is a particularly good win for either one.

I think as a name and considering the circumstances i described, Corbett was an a bit better win. However, Johnson dominated Jeffries pretty badly from both what i've read and from what i've seen of the fight. On the other hand, Jeffries was getting a boxing lesson for most of the 23 rounds and when he took him out it came as a suprise, he was that far behind despite lacking the strength. For how many rounds was this one scheduled, by the way?

So in terms of how they won, Johnson's domination over Jeffries was more impressive than Jeffries' snatch from defeat over Corbett. But are we merely talking about the level of competition beat or how they did it, here?


I think Jeffries' win over Sharkey is very impressive and probably better than any of Johnson's wins (linear title only) although this was a very hard fight for him.


By the way, didn't Johnson defend against Battling Jim Johnson? Maybe i forgot but i don't remember seeing him mentioned.



Lastly, i would like to point out that if i had to judge their title reigns, i would give the edge to Jeffries. The competition is on the same level but Johnson won more impressive, so Johnson has the edge there. There are two important things to remember, though: Johnsons best opponent is probably Burns, but he didn't choose Burns; he had to fight him to obtain the title. This is a minor point but it serves as an introduction to my next point:

Jeffries ducked only 1 deserving challenger whereas Johnson failed to meet 4 deserving challengers. I think that is a few too many to rate him at the top as a champion. For example, Patterson's reign is wildely criticized but it contained much less avoiding than Johnson's did.

In fact, one could compare Jeffries' reign to Pattersons in the sense that he avoided 1 challenger (Liston, though he did fight him later as did Jeffries). On the contrary, Johnson's avoiding of challengers has not been exceeded in 100 years of boxing. You could argue that Holmes should've met 4 challengers as well (Dokes, Coetzee, Page and Thomas) but the crucial difference is that these men were deserving challengers for a short period of time untill they got addicted to coke or imploded otherwise. Mcvey, Jeannete and Langford basically only lost to each other and beat up the rest. Gunboat Smith was an excellent contender.

A parallel would be if Bonavena was champion in '71 by beating Ellis, then went on to defend against rather soft touches, a shot Liston in '74 (if he still lived) untill he gets beaten in '78 by Leon Spinks. During '71-'78, Ali, Foreman and Frazier all beat up the division and only lose to each other but are denied a title shot. In addition, a solid contender like Quarry is also denied a title shot despite the champion's willingness to defeat "white hopes".
Patterson avoided Machen and Folley as well as Liston ,though he fought Maschen after he lost his title,in fact Pattersons resume improved markedly after he lost the title.

[mcvey]

Patterson avoided Machen and Folley as well as Liston ,though he fought Machen after he had lost his title,in fact Flods resume improved markedly as an ex champ.

[mcvey]

I'm not joking. Gamblers are pretty cold-blooded, generally. I've seen the films of Jeff sparring and working out in 1910, and, to tell the truth, he looks impressive, at least in his mobility and condition. Much is made of him being 300 lbs, but I think, off the photographs of him in tights from 1909, that he had come down a great deal even before he started to train.
Obviously, the gamblers who saw Jeff train thought he looked good enough to back him.
The hollow-shell arguement is after the fact, but boxing history does tell us that laying off that long would hurt his reflexes.
I wonder how much the rumours of a bagged fight affected the odds?
Gunboat Smith said that the fight was originally scheduled for San Francisco,and that the result was"in the bag "for Jeffries to win.Smith states that Governor Hughes blocked the fight,Smith said he got this information from Bob Armstrong ,who was acting as trainer for Johnson.So the fight was moved to Reno Nevada.The night before the fightJohnson ,as Smith tells it ,drove out to Jeffries camp,and said to him "Now listen Mr Jeffries.We're not in California .Everybody for themselves.the best man wins.Jeffries didnt think he could win on the level.He thought it was all fixed.Well when that big n****r went out and told him that ,he didnt sleep all night ,Jeffries.He wasnt trained for it.He thought it was bagged.Johnson knocked him out in the 15th ,he could have knocked him out in the 1st if he wanted to".How true this story is I dont know ,but it would explain the odds favouring Jeffries,and it is a fact that Jeffries didnt sleep the night before the fight ,he spent it pacing up and down his room.

[Marciano Frazier]

There seems to be a general belief that Jack Johnson fought very weak competition as champion & Jim Jeffries very strong. Both drew the color line and there were more good black contenders in Johnson's day, although Jeff avoided Johnson. But what do the facts say about the men they did meet in championship fights?
JOHNSON:
1. Tommy Burns--27 years old, either 168 or 176 lbs depending on source--39-3-8 with 31 ko's. Had never been knocked out. Had lost early in career to Jack Twin Sullivan, Phil Jack O'Brien, and Mike Shreck. In title fights, had beaten Hart, O'Brien, Flynn, Squires, Moir, and Lang and was active and on a long winning streak. Johnson toyed with him.
2. Al Kaufman--23 years old, 6' 1" 191 lbs--actually outstanding contender. Had won 20 of 21, with 17 ko's. Only loss was at 19 in 6th pro fight to O'Brien. Was on 15 bout winning streak, with ko's of George Gardner, Mike Shreck (who beat Burns and twice ko'd Hart), Olympic champion Sam Berger, Fireman Jim Flynn, Jack Twin Sullivan, and Jim Barry.
After his loss to Johnson, avenged loss to O'Brien and beat Lang. Still top contender until ko losses to Flynn, Palzer, and McCarty in 1911 & 1912 elevated each to top contender status.
3. Stanley Ketchell--23 years old, 5' 9" & somewhere in 160's. 53-3-4 with 46 ko's. Best p4p puncher of era with ko of O'Brien. Only super-middleweight at most, but 35 lbs he gave up Johnson was less than Fitz gave up to Jeff and many little men got shots in those days.
4. Jim Jeffries--35 years old, 6' 1 1/2" & 227 lbs--17-0-2 with 14 ko's. Unbeaten ex-champ who was rated by many as greatest ever heavy and entered the ring a strong favorite over Johnson. Dismissing this fight is pure Monday morning quarterbacking, and as Jeff never lost to anyone else, how can we be certain that Johnson doesn't deserve more credit than some are willing to concede for dominating the old champion?
5. Fireman Jim Flynn--32 years old, 5' 9" 175 lbs--30-8-14 with 21 ko's. Weaker opponent, but still not that bad, Had fought Burns for title and had wins over Gardner, Squires, and Papke prior to losing to top men such as Johnson, Kaufman, and Langford. Had bounced back to go unbeaten in last 11, with ten stright victories in bouts which went to a decision. Included were a knockout of Kaufman and a very impressive victory over top prospect and supposed coming champ Carl Morris. Flynn was certainly one of the top white contenders in 1912 when he fought Johnson, but went downhill fast after that bout.
6. Frank Moran--27 years old, 6' 1" 203 lbs--24-9-7 with 18 ko's. A young man with a speckled record, but who had bounced back from several substandard performances to score a crushing ko of the huge Al Palzer, displaying big league power. This power continued to be obvious after the Johnson fight, with ko's of Bombadier Billy Wells, Jim Coffey (2), Tom Cowler (2), Jack Geyer, Homer Smith, Frank Goddard, and Joe Beckett. He also got a shot at Willard in 1916.
JEFFRIES:
1. Bob Fitzsimmons 36 years old, 5' 11 3/4", 167 lbs--40-3-5 with 35 ko's. Great p4p fighter who moved up to heavy, and ko'd Corbett, Ruhlin, and Sharkey, making him clearly Jeff's toughest opponent despite age, a two year layoff, and diminutive size.
2. Tom Sharkey-26 years old, 5' 8" 183 lbs--33-1-5 with 30 ko's. Impressive opponent who had only lost to Jeff (although was probably extremely lucky to escape w/o a ko defeat to Fitz). Went to close 25 round defeat. The majority gave nod to Jeff, but Sharkey had his supporters and all judged the fight close. There was talk of a third fight to prove who was really the better man, but Jeff chose to fight Corbett instead and Sharkey eventually fell to Ruhlin and Fitz, eliminating him.
3. Jim Corbett--33 going on 34, 6' 1" 188 lbs--15-2-3 with 3 ko's--that boxrec record is crazy and Corbett certainly had a great many more fights and victories, but most had come a decade or so earlier. His last major win was over Charley Mitchell in Jan of 1894, six and a half years earlier. He had not defeated--and would never again defeat--a man who weighed above the 160's after Sullivan in 1892. Was coming off consecutive losses to Fitz and Sharkey. What did he have left? The fact that Jeff struggled into the 23rd round with him provides the evidence that he was still the "old" Corbett rather than merely an old Corbett. Johnson dominating Jeff provides evidence that Jeff had nothing left, but is Johnson being penalized for being tougher than Jeff in the first place?
4. Gus Ruhlin--29 years old, 6' 2" 200 lbs--19-5-2 with 12 ko's--Average contender who got draw with Jeff in 1897, before losing to Kid McCoy and Joe Kennedy, and being blown out in 1 by Tom Sharkey. Did not seem to be going anywhere until he upset Sharkey with a 15th round ko in 1900, but immedately was himself ko'd by Fitz in six. Somehow was picked over Fitz by Jeff for a title defense and come through with a lagomorphic performance. I judge Ruhlin as nothing special.
5. Fitz--now 39--but still Jeff's toughest opponent and gives him a brutal going over before running out of gas, despite another 2 year layoff.
6. Corbett--now 37 with three year layoff.
7. Munroe--a couple of months shy of 30 years old. 5' 11" 186 lbs--9-2-2 with 7 knockouts. Had lost and drawn with Griffin earlier, and had a ko over the faded Peter Maher and a newspaper decision over the faded Sharkey. Got the shot because he allegedly floored Jeff in an exhibition. Mediocre contender at best. These lists are clearly slanted. With Jeffries' opponents, you go out of your way to emphasize their smallness and negative aspects of their records/careers at the time, while with Johnson's opponents, you A. ignore the size aside from listing it with the general statistics or defend the smallness of Johnson's opposition rather than emphasizing it in a negative way, B. completely ignore Jeffries' five year lay-off while bringing up much shorter(still long, but much shorter) lay-offs for Fitzsimmosn and Corbett on Jeffries' lists. When you list Jeffries' opponents' recent records, you go out of your way to bring up their losses and, when describing their wins, to give the opponents negative adjectives like "faded," while you treat Johnson's opponents with impugnity in that matter. All around, the information you choose to posit on Johnson's opponents is clearly made to prop them up, and the information on Jeffries' is meant to knock them down, and the end result is a biased depiction of the overall picture.

Now, when we look at things side-by-side without trumping up the deck, we find that, in fact, Fitzsimmons, Sharkey and Corbett were arguably the top three challengers to Jeffries' title at the time he fought them, and he gave all three of them rematches. Compared alongside Johnson's title reign, this is excellent, since Johnson badlyfailed to face the best challengers for his title almost throughout his reign, and the ones he did face were, in spite of how good they look with a bit of number-gloss and the right adjectives, not the elite contenders for his championship. I would pick the Corbett, Fitzsimmons or Sharkey Jeffries fought to beat any of the challengers for Johnson's championship.

[OLD FOGEY]

Jeffries looks much older and slower in the 1910 training clips. In the fight, his stamina hit the wall as early as round 5. As for the Gamblers, they weight in the pro's and con's. Did you ever consider what they thought of Johnson coming into this fight? Maybe they thought that Johnson wasn't all that. Indeed, he was beaten by Choynski, Griffin, Klondike and Hart before 1910, and had two lousy outing vs middle weights vs O'brien, who made him look bad, and Ketchel who knocked him down.

OLD FOGEY seems to be one of the brighter posters on this board. I think he might rethink things a bit down the road.

-----

[OLD FOGEY]

These lists are clearly slanted. With Jeffries' opponents, you go out of your way to emphasize their smallness and negative aspects of their records/careers at the time, while with Johnson's opponents, you A. ignore the size aside from listing it with the general statistics or defend the smallness of Johnson's opposition rather than emphasizing it in a negative way, B. completely ignore Jeffries' five year lay-off while bringing up much shorter(still long, but much shorter) lay-offs for Fitzsimmosn and Corbett on Jeffries' lists. When you list Jeffries' opponents' recent records, you go out of your way to bring up their losses and, when describing their wins, to give the opponents negative adjectives like "faded," while you treat Johnson's opponents with impugnity in that matter. All around, the information you choose to posit on Johnson's opponents is clearly made to prop them up, and the information on Jeffries' is meant to knock them down, and the end result is a biased depiction of the overall picture.

Now, when we look at things side-by-side without trumping up the deck, we find that, in fact, Fitzsimmons, Sharkey and Corbett were arguably the top three challengers to Jeffries' title at the time he fought them, and he gave all three of them rematches. Compared alongside Johnson's title reign, this is excellent, since Johnson badlyfailed to face the best challengers for his title almost throughout his reign, and the ones he did face were, in spite of how good they look with a bit of number-gloss and the right adjectives, not the elite contenders for his championship. I would pick the Corbett, Fitzsimmons or Sharkey Jeffries fought to beat any of the challengers for Johnson's championship.

-------

[OLD FOGEY]

Johnson was in his best shape since Burns for the Jeffries fight, and in his prime. Jeffries lost much more than 40 pounds for the fight, and was out of the ring for several years.

Armstrong and Langford were not the only fighters who picked Jeffries. Jeanette said Johnson won't win unless Jeffries has balls and chains on his ankles. These are picks from fighters who saw them both. Of course they assumed a near prime Jeffries would show up, which did not happen. The thing to focus on is under the assumption Jeffries did return. There is a huge difference in the caliber of fighters the two had beaten if we factor in the accomplishments of the fighters when the matches were made. There is also a huge difference in excuses. Johnson lost a few times, was Ko’d, and drew guys who were not so special comming into the 1910 fight.

If we cross refernce the results vs the same opponents they fought in the ring, Jeffries outshines Johnson too.

------------

[mcvey]

On the basis of performance against common opponents, Fitzsimmons would come out ahead of Jeffries, except for that bizarre DQ against Sharkey in their first fight.
Sharkey and Earp ,the referee were friends the ko was legitimate,but Earp ruled it a foul,if you take Fitzs performances over common opponents ,he has 2 kos over \Sharkey and a14 rd ko over Corbett,indicating he was a bigger puncher than Jeffries.P4p I would rate Fitz above Jeffries,but not head to head.Factor in that Fitz was conceding weight to Sharkey ,whereas Jeffreis was receiving a substantial amount ,Fitzs efforts are to me more impressive.

[ChrisPontius]

Top three is very high and the standards tight. Just curiously, where do you rate Johnson? and Jeffries?

Johnson in or borderline Top10, Jeffries maybe the spot below him. I can't get over the little-man circus both had.

[mcvey]

Johnson in or borderline Top10, Jeffries maybe the spot below him. I can't get over the little-man circus both had.
Its possible to give bith men the benefit of some doubt heremJohnson fighting Burns was out of his hands ,Burns was the reigning champ,Obrien was the ex LH champ and had allready fought for the Heavy crown,Kaufman ,Moran and Willard werent small men ,The Ketchel fight which was A a fix,B a double cross,or C on the level,is clearly a mismatch,Johnson played with Ketchel putting him where he pleased,Ketchel posed for the pre fight photos in an overcoat and high heeled cowboy boots,many critics beleive the knockdown of Johnson was staged ,Gun boat Smith certainly did .
To be fair to Jeffries he was bigger than anyone he fought at around 6 2 and 220 he was a very big heavyweight fior the time ,now he would be in Holyfields class,so he cant be blamed for picking on smaller men,though we must take in to account their relative lack of size when assessing his wins,where Jeffries falls down ,as does Johnson is in refusing to meet his best Challenger,in his case Johnson ,in Johnsons ,Langford.

[ChrisPontius]

Its possible to give bith men the benefit of some doubt heremJohnson fighting Burns was out of his hands ,Burns was the reigning champ,Obrien was the ex LH champ and had allready fought for the Heavy crown,Kaufman ,Moran and Willard werent small men ,The Ketchel fight which was A a fix,B a double cross,or C on the level,is clearly a mismatch,Johnson played with Ketchel putting him where he pleased,Ketchel posed for the pre fight photos in an overcoat and high heeled cowboy boots,many critics beleive the knockdown of Johnson was staged ,Gun boat Smith certainly did .
To be fair to Jeffries he was bigger than anyone he fought at around 6 2 and 220 he was a very big heavyweight fior the time ,now he would be in Holyfields class,so he cant be blamed for picking on smaller men,though we must take in to account their relative lack of size when assessing his wins,where Jeffries falls down ,as does Johnson is in refusing to meet his best Challenger,in his case Johnson ,in Johnsons ,Langford.

I just don't feel confident in picking someone who spent 95% of his fights with a 20+lbs weight advantage, that is huge.

It is a tough decision because on one hand, i think Jeffries would suffer a lot if he fought opponents who could match or surpass him in strength and power with his punishment-taking style. What works against middleweights will probably not work against a hard hitting heavyweight.
On the other side, Jeffries WAS dominant in his era and as MF pointed out, gave rematches to all of them. He missed only one very deserving challenger.
Johnson on the other hand had a few more fights against cruiserweights and even a few heavyweights but he never proved his dominance as Johnson did. These are things that i cannot overlook when ranking them and comparing them to say Holyfield. Who had some bad losses but did face everyone there was unlike them and more often gave away weight rather than having a 10-30lbs weight advantage like them.

[ChrisPontius]

It is interesting that even 100 years later, comparing Johnson and Jeffries is still a hot subject. All threads go 4 pages in no-time. That should tell you that they are at least close in historic standing as most rivals are.

[Mendoza]

These lists are clearly slanted. With Jeffries' opponents, you go out of your way to emphasize their smallness and negative aspects of their records/careers at the time, while with Johnson's opponents, you A. ignore the size aside from listing it with the general statistics or defend the smallness of Johnson's opposition rather than emphasizing it in a negative way, B. completely ignore Jeffries' five year lay-off while bringing up much shorter(still long, but much shorter) lay-offs for Fitzsimmosn and Corbett on Jeffries' lists. When you list Jeffries' opponents' recent records, you go out of your way to bring up their losses and, when describing their wins, to give the opponents negative adjectives like "faded," while you treat Johnson's opponents with impugnity in that matter. All around, the information you choose to posit on Johnson's opponents is clearly made to prop them up, and the information on Jeffries' is meant to knock them down, and the end result is a biased depiction of the overall picture.

Now, when we look at things side-by-side without trumping up the deck, we find that, in fact, Fitzsimmons, Sharkey and Corbett were arguably the top three challengers to Jeffries' title at the time he fought them, and he gave all three of them rematches. Compared alongside Johnson's title reign, this is excellent, since Johnson badlyfailed to face the best challengers for his title almost throughout his reign, and the ones he did face were, in spite of how good they look with a bit of number-gloss and the right adjectives, not the elite contenders for his championship. I would pick the Corbett, Fitzsimmons or Sharkey Jeffries fought to beat any of the challengers for Johnson's championship.

Well put. What we have here is an attempt for payback of sorts. OLD FOGEY should know better. This debate is no contest. He's brining a knife to a gun fight, and runs risk of losing a lot of credibility if he believes that Johnson’s title reign was better.

[Mendoza]

I wonder how much the rumours of a bagged fight affected the odds?
Gunboat Smith said that the fight was originally scheduled for San Francisco,and that the result was"in the bag "for Jeffries to win.Smith states that Governor Hughes blocked the fight,Smith said he got this information from Bob Armstrong ,who was acting as trainer for Johnson.So the fight was moved to Reno Nevada.The night before the fightJohnson ,as Smith tells it ,drove out to Jeffries camp,and said to him "Now listen Mr Jeffries.We're not in California .Everybody for themselves.the best man wins.Jeffries didnt think he could win on the level.He thought it was all fixed.Well when that big n****r went out and told him that ,he didnt sleep all night ,Jeffries.He wasnt trained for it.He thought it was bagged.Johnson knocked him out in the 15th ,he could have knocked him out in the 1st if he wanted to".How true this story is I dont know ,but it would explain the odds favouring Jeffries,and it is a fact that Jeffries didnt sleep the night before the fight ,he spent it pacing up and down his room.

If Jeffries went into the match thinking the fight was fixed, then he could not have trained hard in sprit and Johnson’s win is even hollower. Johnson could have knocked Jeffries out in the 1st you say???? McVey's posts get more entertaining by the day. Not a chance. Watch the fight MCvey, and you will see the first 4 rounds are even, with Johnson being extra cautious not to get hit. DUH.

[mattdonnellon]

By best competition do you mean the percieved best at the time or the best when evaluated with hindsight?

[mcvey]

If Jeffries went into the match thinking the fight was fixed, then he could not have trained hard in sprit and Johnson’s win is even hollower. Johnson could have knocked Jeffries out in the 1st you say???? McVey's posts get more entertaining by the day. Not a chance. Watch the fight MCvey, and you will see the first 4 rounds are even, with Johnson being extra cautious not to get hit. DUH.
I didnt say Johnson could have finished Jeffries in the 1st ,I merely repeated what Gunboat Smith said in a 1970 taped interview.Where have you seen me give Johnson credit for beating Jeffries? In an earlier post I described Jeff as the original hollow shell.Unlike the rabid hysterical hater that you are ,who in an attempt to boost Jeffries averred that Peter Jackson was in "fine shape" for their fight ,when evryone knows that jackson had been retired ,was finished as a fighter,and was in the first throes of TB.Silly Bollocks!

[mcvey]

Well put. What we have here is an attempt for payback of sorts. OLD FOGEY should know better. This debate is no contest. He's brining a knife to a gun fight, and runs risk of losing a lot of credibility if he believes that Johnson’s title reign was better.
You talk about Old Fogey risking losing his credibility,I venture to say that Old Fogey is one of the most respected posters on this forum.Rest assured you run no risk of losing your credibilty.YOU NEVER HAD ANY TO LOSE!

[mr. magoo]

*

[mr. magoo]

=mcvey]I venture to say that Old Fogey is one of the most respected posters on this forum.Rest assured you run no risk of losing your credibilty.


Both agree and disagree,

I like Old Fogey from the standpoint that he seldomly insults other posters, and often brings valid and interesting historical information to the table. He also creates good threads with pertinant topics to the classic forum such as this one.

On the otherhand, he often tends to engage in heated debates by using hypotheticals or irrelevant comparisons to back up his points, while omitting or ignoring the other half of the issue. At times he will also attempt to climb to higher ground by presenting what he feels might have been or could have been or should have been, rather than sticking to what actually is. I know that I'm not the only one to make these observations. In addtion, he rarely concedes or gives in to the otherside, even when his claims have been addressed, but rather continues to reiterate the same rhetoric over and over. At times, I have given him credit for refuting my disagreements effectively, but he rarely if ever has done the same in reciprocity.

This is not in any way shape or form an attempt to insult or discredit Fogey, as I have already listed his admirable qualities. I can however, appreciate some of the frustatration that other posters have or are currently undergoing, while combating his arguments. Keep in mind though that none of us are perfect, and I myself have been guilty of starting plenty of upheaval.

[ChrisPontius]

Both agree and disagree,

I like Old Fogey from the standpoint that he seldomly insults other posters, and often brings valid and interesting historical information to the table. He also creates good threads with pertinant topics to the classic forum such as this one.

On the otherhand, he often tends to engage in heated debates by using hypotheticals or irrelevant comparisons to back up his points, while omitting or ignoring the other half of the issue. At times he will also attempt to climb to higher ground by presenting what he feels might have been or could have been or should have been, rather than sticking to what actually is. I know that I'm not the only one to make these observations. In addtion, he rarely concedes or gives in to the otherside, even when his claims have been addressed, but rather continues to reiterate the same rhetoric over and over. At times, I have given him credit for refuting my disagreements effectively, but he rarely if ever has done the same in reciprocity.

This is not in any way shape or form an attempt to insult or discredit Fogey, as I have already listed his admirable qualities. I can however, appreciate some of the frustatration that other posters have or are currently undergoing, while combating his arguments. Keep in mind though that none of us are perfect, and I myself have been guilty of starting plenty of upheaval.

I don't want to drag this topic into a discussion about Fogey, but i've debated a lot of things with him and he's admitted points that he initially didn't support often enough. He's certainly more reasonable than the average poster and always supports his opinions with facts or arguments otherwise. Compared to some posters who scream murder when you say "Ali might just lose one fight against him because of stylistic reasons", he is a breath of fresh air.

[mr. magoo]

I don't want to drag this topic into a discussion about Fogey, but i've debated a lot of things with him and he's admitted points that he initially didn't support often enough. He's certainly more reasonable than the average poster and always supports his opinions with facts or arguments otherwise. Compared to some posters who scream murder when you say "Ali might just lose one fight against him because of stylistic reasons", he is a breath of fresh air.

Fair enough,

and at times I've wittnessed some of his admirable traits,and agree that he's a credit to the forum. There are other times, however when I and several others have countered his arguments with the same or greater degree of validity, yet he continues to defend himself with irrelevant hypotheticals, that support his beliefs, and ignoring facts which don't.

I agree with you though, that we shouldn't turn this into a Fogey thread. If one wants, that can be done in the lounge.

[Mendoza]

I don't think Munroe is better than Flynn and I don't think Ruhlin is better than Kaufman, the comparision I made.

Ruhlin was much better than Kaufmann. You've got to be kidding me here, OLD FOGEY. A quick glace of Ruhlin's resume reveals he defeated Choynski, Goddard, Maher, and Sharkey!

Choynski of course Ko'd Johnson. In addition, a past his prime Ruhlin drew with Hart, who of course also defeated Johnson. But's there's more. Jack Johnson took Pete Everett the distance. Ruhlin knocked Everett out in two rounds. So there we have it. A cross reference in three of three fighters that both Johnson and Ruhlin fought has been compared and contrasted. Ruhlin was the better.

Sheez. Can't you see that Johnson was nothing special? I don't make up any results here. Ruhlin vs Johnson to me is pick em' from 1896-1905! Well, maybe I'll go with Ruhlin from 1896-1903, and take Johnson from 1904-1905.

As for Flynn, and Munroe, I don't see much of difference between the two. If you ask me, Munroe was bigger and hit harder, ergo he was the better heavyweight.

[Mendoza]

You talk about Old Fogey risking losing his credibility,I venture to say that Old Fogey is one of the most respected posters on this forum.Rest assured you run no risk of losing your credibilty.YOU NEVER HAD ANY TO LOSE!
Dude,

If you were to give me creditability, I'd surely lose some in the eyes of the other posters. As I told you before, it is best for you not to call me out unless you want to wear a clown suit.

If you read what I write, I do beleive OLD FOGEY is one of the better posters on the board. I respect what he has to say. I am just surprised at his opinion on this particular matter. That’s all.

[janitor]

Can't you see that Johnson was nothing special?

This is a truley incredible statment.

The least that you can give Johnson is that he was the best heavyweight on the planet over a period of several years.

[mr. magoo]

Jack Johnson's credentials don't particularly impress me. I can certainly give him credit for having a lengthy reign in holding the lineal and colored world titles, but his opposition was pretty weak. He defeated many fighters who were under 6 feet tall, and well below 200 Lbs. He also lost or drew with fighters who were less than impressive. I have a very hard time seeing eye to eye with people who rate him in their top 10.

[mr. magoo]

Jack Johnson's credentials don't particularly impress me. I can certainly give him credit for having a lengthy reign in holding the lineal and colored world titles, but his opposition was pretty weak. He defeated many fighters who were under 6 feet tall, and well below 200 Lbs. He also lost or drew with fighters who were less than impressive. I have a very hard time seeing eye to eye with people who rate him in their top 10.

[mcvey]

Dude,

If you were to give me creditability, I'd surely lose some in the eyes of the other posters. As I told you before, it is best for you not to call me out unless you want to wear a clown suit.

If you read what I write, I do beleive OLD FOGEY is one of the better posters on the board. I respect what he has to say. I am just surprised at his opinion on this particular matter. That’s all.
If you want to know where you stand with posters on here look at Janitors post below yours ,you Muppet!

[Seamus]

I find Johnson a bit idolized, a great and important fighter no doubt but subject to mythical exageration.

I find it odd that the starter of this thread singles out Jeffries' opponents as being smallish when Burns and Ketchell were absolutely diminutive.

Also, why not include the "defense" against Jim Johnson in Paris, a fight he should have lost and would have lost by modern rules. In fact, from this account he doesn't sound all that awe-inspiring...
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Lastly, why not include his last defense, the one he lost to Willard?

[Mendoza]

If you want to know where you stand with posters on here look at Janitors post below yours ,you Muppet!

Janitor is a good poster. He doesn't act like the news reads aren't true. What he did here was quote me out of context regarding Rhulin's resume. You sir are allergic to the truth. The nothing special comment was directed at Johnson up to 1905 in cross refrence to the same oppoents that Rhulin fought. It is a correct statement that Rulhin had the better vs common opponets up to 1905. Should I remind your feeble mind who Johnson lost and drew to again?:patsch

If you want to take what I said in context and reply, go for it and get ready to put on your clown suit:

Ruhlin was much better than Kaufmann. You've got to be kidding me here, OLD FOGEY. A quick glace of Ruhlin's resume reveals he defeated Choynski, Goddard, Maher, and Sharkey!

Choynski of course Ko'd Johnson. In addition, a past his prime Ruhlin drew with Hart, who of course also defeated Johnson. But's there's more. Jack Johnson took Pete Everett the distance. Ruhlin knocked Everett out in two rounds. So there we have it. A cross reference in three of three fighters that both Johnson and Ruhlin fought has been compared and contrasted. Ruhlin was the better.

Sheez. Can't you see that Johnson was nothing special? I don't make up any results here. Ruhlin vs Johnson to me is pick em' from 1896-1905! Well, maybe I'll go with Ruhlin from 1896-1903, and take Johnson from 1904-1905.

As for Flynn, and Munroe, I don't see much of difference between the two. If you ask me, Munroe was bigger and hit harder, ergo he was the better heavyweight.

[Mendoza]

I find Johnson a bit idolized, a great and important fighter no doubt but subject to mythical exageration.

I find it odd that the starter of this thread singles out Jeffries' opponents as being smallish when Burns and Ketchell were absolutely diminutive.

Also, why not include the "defense" against Jim Johnson in Paris, a fight he should have lost and would have lost by modern rules. In fact, from this account he doesn't sound all that awe-inspiring...
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Lastly, why not include his last defense, the one he lost to Willard?

Seamus is correct.

[janitor]

[quote=mr. magoo]Jack Johnson's credentials don't particularly impress me. I can certainly give him credit for having a lengthy reign in holding the lineal and colored world titles, but his opposition was pretty weak.

You will not find a lineal champion with better depth of world class oponents beaten outside of meseurs Louis and Ali.

He defeated many fighters who were under 6 feet tall, and well below 200 Lbs.

He also defeated a sh1t load of world class fighters who were over 6' and 200 lbs.

He also lost or drew with fighters who were less than impressive.

In this era you somtimes got a draw just for finishing the fight on your feet.


I have a very hard time seeing eye to eye with people who rate him in their top 10.


Name five heavyweights who you would rank higher if you want a challenge.

[janitor]

[quote=Seamus]I find Johnson a bit idolized, a great and important fighter no doubt but subject to mythical exageration.

I find it odd that the starter of this thread singles out Jeffries' opponents as being smallish when Burns and Ketchell were absolutely diminutive.


I think the point being made is that Johnson gets more rap for this than Jeffries, despite the fact that (unlike Jeffries) he beat a lot of world class men bigger than himself.


Also, why not include the "defense" against Jim Johnson in Paris, a fight he should have lost and would have lost by modern rules. In fact, from this account he doesn't sound all that awe-inspiring...
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Lastly, why not include his last defense, the one he lost to Willard?


Johnson basicaly went into the tank after the Jeffries fight. His body of work ended at this point.

[ChrisPontius]

I think i've finally found a subject that Mr. Magoo and i agree on.

[mattdonnellon]

Knocking or elevating a fighter for defeating small or lighter (or indeed heavy and bigger) fighters is revisionalist nonsense on both sides. Fighting od dodging the best is relevant but should Jeffries have sought Ed Dunkhorst and Fred Russel and Johnson included Bill Tate and Carl Morris because of their size?
Also in my opinion Ruhlin was a better performer than Kaufman and Flynn was a lot better than Munroe whom I consider a con perpertrated on the public.

[Woddy]

@@@

[Langford]

Jeffries and Johnson were ATG fighters, at the very least, with all bias put aside, any serious heavyweight boxing fan would have to say that they were nothing less than great fighters for their time, I tend to believe that great fighters are great fighters. But, if someone doesn't seem to think so, and wants to say that fighters born after/before a certain date are inherently better, what can I say?

Comparing Johnson and Jeffries makes more sense because they were contemporaries more or less, or at least Johnson is the direct successor to the heavyweight throne after Jeffries.

So my final score card...
Championship fights score card based on Ali v. Frazier I being an A+

Jeffries.
Fitz. B, size factor would normally put it down lower, but I also credit Jeffries for lack of experience.
Sharkey B+. One of the best heavyweight title fights of all time, would be an A if it weren't as close but both get major props from me for conditions, length and gruel. As a fight A, a little close so I say B+
Finnegan D- normally an F, but Jeffries knew what to do with him.
Corbett I, B I believe that this was, despite age, nearly as good a Corbett as Jackson found and better than the one Fitz beat.
Gus Ruhlin B- more or less an average condender that Jeffries slapped around.
Fitz B- More points from me because I believe there was something fishy about them gloves.
Griffin "exhibition" B- Griffin a little past it but still good and Jeffries sent him to the canvas several times in the four round "exhibition"
Corbett II C Corbett was fairly washed up here, one sided.
Monroe C Monroe was taken care of as he should have been.

Johnson
Burns B- extra points from me because I believe Johnson really beat him tremendously. Points subtracted because Burns was a little fellow.
OBrien C- O'Brien was small, a little older for a speedster, Johnson didn't do very well, sure he didn't train, but who's fault was that?
Ross D+ one of the scruffiest challengers in history.
Kaufman C+ an average defense. Somewhere between Ruhlin and Monroe in terms of status. Points for Johnson domination.
Ketchel, C+ one of the best middleweights ever fighting as a lt. heavy. A little worse the than Fitz II. (why Fitz higher? Because he has a track record against heavies)
Jeffries C- Jeffries was ring rusty and out of action. Would have probably lost to Flynn that day.
Flynn C a fairly decent white hope, but whats with the head butts?
Johnson D points off for performance, points off because nobody has ever been able to show me any evidence why this was worthy enough of being
the first all black heavyweight title.
Moran B- more of a name, big right hand, maybe on the same level as Ruhlin.

So Jeffries has six fights that I would consider Good. He has two I would consider fair.
Johnson has two that I would consider good. Five that scratch on fair.

And thats all that can be said on the subject.

[Mendoza]

Knocking or elevating a fighter for defeating small or lighter (or indeed heavy and bigger) fighters is revisionalist nonsense on both sides. Fighting od dodging the best is relevant but should Jeffries have sought Ed Dunkhorst and Fred Russel and Johnson included Bill Tate and Carl Morris because of their size?

Also in my opinion Ruhlin was a better performer than Kaufman and Flynn was a lot better than Munroe whom I consider a con perpertrated on the public.


Agreed. I focus on the following.

1 ) A fighters experience level and if he was in his prime or near prime when the match happened. Too green ( say less than 10 fights ) or too old ( Say 35 years of age or more and in clear decline ) and the significance of the wins and losses mean less.

2 ) What the fighter accomplished when he met so and so. Who did he beat? Who did he lose to?

3 ) The results of the match.

[Mendoza]

Jeffries and Johnson were ATG fighters, at the very least, with all bias put aside, any serious heavyweight boxing fan would have to say that they were nothing less than great fighters for their time, I tend to believe that great fighters are great fighters. But, if someone doesn't seem to think so, and wants to say that fighters born after/before a certain date are inherently better, what can I say?

Comparing Johnson and Jeffries makes more sense because they were contemporaries more or less, or at least Johnson is the direct successor to the heavyweight throne after Jeffries.

So my final score card...
Championship fights score card based on Ali v. Frazier I being an A+

Jeffries.
Fitz. B, size factor would normally put it down lower, but I also credit Jeffries for lack of experience.
Sharkey B+. One of the best heavyweight title fights of all time, would be an A if it weren't as close but both get major props from me for conditions, length and gruel. As a fight A, a little close so I say B+
Finnegan D- normally an F, but Jeffries knew what to do with him.
Corbett I, B I believe that this was, despite age, nearly as good a Corbett as Jackson found and better than the one Fitz beat.
Gus Ruhlin B- more or less an average condender that Jeffries slapped around.
Fitz B- More points from me because I believe there was something fishy about them gloves.
Griffin "exhibition" B- Griffin a little past it but still good and Jeffries sent him to the canvas several times in the four round "exhibition"
Corbett II C Corbett was fairly washed up here, one sided.
Monroe C Monroe was taken care of as he should have been.

Johnson
Burns B- extra points from me because I believe Johnson really beat him tremendously. Points subtracted because Burns was a little fellow.
OBrien C- O'Brien was small, a little older for a speedster, Johnson didn't do very well, sure he didn't train, but who's fault was that?
Ross D+ one of the scruffiest challengers in history.
Kaufman C+ an average defense. Somewhere between Ruhlin and Monroe in terms of status. Points for Johnson domination.
Ketchel, C+ one of the best middleweights ever fighting as a lt. heavy. A little worse the than Fitz II. (why Fitz higher? Because he has a track record against heavies)
Jeffries C- Jeffries was ring rusty and out of action. Would have probably lost to Flynn that day.
Flynn C a fairly decent white hope, but whats with the head butts?
Johnson D points off for performance, points off because nobody has ever been able to show me any evidence why this was worthy enough of being
the first all black heavyweight title.
Moran B- more of a name, big right hand, maybe on the same level as Ruhlin.

So Jeffries has six fights that I would consider Good. He has two I would consider fair.
Johnson has two that I would consider good. Five that scratch on fair.

And thats all that can be said on the subject.

There is more that can be said. Jeffries won almost all his title matches via KO. Johnson who fought lower grade guys had some draws which might have been losses, and did not look nearly as good.

To reiterate, I do think Johnson was one of the best fighters around while he was champion, but since he never fought the best, and had iffy results vs tier two guys, it is hard to call him among the greatest ever.

[mr. magoo]

Name five heavyweights who you would rank higher if you want a challenge.


Very well, Let's do it this way

Why don't you tell me why Johnson should be rated higher than the 5 listed champions below. Keep in mind, that becoming the first black champion is not a valid reason.

1. Muhammad Ali

2. Joe Louis

3. Lennox Lewis

4. Larry Holmes

5. Rocky Marciano

6. Mike Tyson

[Holmes' Jab]

As a whole Jeffries' competition was generally stronger (especially during his title reign), on the other hand I'd rate Johnson as the better fighter prime-for-prime. :good


To answer the thread then: Jeffries

[janitor]

[quote=mr. magoo]Very well, Let's do it this way

Why don't you tell me why Johnson should be rated higher than the 5 listed champions below. Keep in mind, that becoming the first black champion is not a valid reason.


Taking each of your picks in turn-

1. Muhammad Ali-You got me there

2. Joe Louis-You got me there

3. Lennox Lewis-Johnson has better depth longevity and consisteny

4. Larry Holmes-Johnson has better depth and possibly better quality

5. Rocky Marciano-Johnson has better depth and longevity

6. Mike Tyson-Johnson has better depth longevity consistency qand perhaps quality as well

[mr. magoo]

[quote]


Taking each of your picks in turn-

1. Muhammad Ali-You got me there

2. Joe Louis-You got me there

3. Lennox Lewis-Johnson has better depth longevity and consisteny

4. Larry Holmes-Johnson has better depth and possibly better quality

5. Rocky Marciano-Johnson has better depth and longevity

6. Mike Tyson-Johnson has better depth longevity consistency qand perhaps quality as well

One word that you used for a lot of these comparisons was consistency. Johnson lost a lot more fights and drew with lesser opponents than any of these men. I don't see the consistency argument. I also don't think that he fought better men than most of them either, which may also explain the longevity factor as well.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]

One word that you used for a lot of these comparisons was consistency. Johnson lost a lot more fights and drew with lesser opponents than any of these men. I don't see the consistency argument. I also don't think that he fought better men than most of them either, which may also explain the longevity factor as well.

Between wining the coloured title from Denver Ed martin and loosing the oficial title to Jess Willard Johnson went 15 years with his only defeat being a controvertial decision loss to Marvin Hart and a DQ loss to Joe Jeanette.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=mr. magoo]

Between wining the coloured title from Denver Ed martin and loosing the oficial title to Jess Willard Johnson went 15 years with his only defeat being a controvertial decision loss to Marvin Hart and a DQ loss to Joe Jeanette.

He fought Jeanette some 7 times in his career and wound up with a mixed bag of results. Marvin Hart was no great fighter to lose to , and most of wins were against men who many believe to be mediocre when sized up to top contenders of most other eras. In addition, I believe he avoided 3 or 4 contenders along the way, although I'm not exactly sure who they were, but i've often heard references made to it. I won't disagree that Johnson was a good fighter deserving of recognition, but I'm still not convinced that he was better than the men I listed.

[OLD FOGEY]

Mr Magoo--I put you on my ignore list which means that your posts will automatically be deleted from any thread I am reading. I advise you do the same with me, so my posts will not insult your obviously giant intellect.
Goodby.

[janitor]

[quote=mr. magoo][quote=janitor]

He fought Jeanette some 7 times in his career and wound up with a mixed bag of results.


Yes but there were fights and fights.

Some of these bouts were glorified exhibitions. Johnson won the real fight of the series.

Marvin Hart was no great fighter to lose to ,

By the standards of the era he was a better fighter to loose to than Hasim Ramhan or James Douglas. He did go on to win the title.

and most of wins were against men who many believe to be mediocre when sized up to top contenders of most other eras.

Highly debatable.

Who is to say that Denver Ed Martin is not better than anybody Larry holmes defended his title against for example.

In addition, I believe he avoided 3 or 4 contenders along the way, although I'm not exactly sure who they were,

That is a fair charge.

He was certainly in no hurry to rematch Sam Langford.

[mr. magoo]

[quote]
[quote=mr. magoo]

Yes but there were fights and fights.

Some of these bouts were glorified exhibitions. Johnson won the real fight of the series.



By the standards of the era he was a better fighter to loose to than Hasim Ramhan or James Douglas. He did go on to win the title.



Highly debatable.

Who is to say that Denver Ed Martin is not better than anybody Larry holmes defended his title against for example.



That is a fair charge.

He was certainly in no hurry to rematch Sam Langford.

A reasonable post.

[mcvey]

Janitor is a good poster. He doesn't act like the news reads aren't true. What he did here was quote me out of context regarding Rhulin's resume. You sir are allergic to the truth. The nothing special comment was directed at Johnson up to 1905 in cross refrence to the same oppoents that Rhulin fought. It is a correct statement that Rulhin had the better vs common opponets up to 1905. Should I remind your feeble mind who Johnson lost and drew to again?:patsch

If you want to take what I said in context and reply, go for it and get ready to put on your clown suit:
According to you Johnson lost or as you spin it "they got the better of him"OBrien,J Johnson and Smith,I dont think you can be relied upon to remind anybody of anything!

[Langford]

Jack Johnson, undisputed number one ranked king of controversy. It's been a hundred years since the guy won the title and he's still going strong.

[mcvey]

These lists are clearly slanted. With Jeffries' opponents, you go out of your way to emphasize their smallness and negative aspects of their records/careers at the time, while with Johnson's opponents, you A. ignore the size aside from listing it with the general statistics or defend the smallness of Johnson's opposition rather than emphasizing it in a negative way, B. completely ignore Jeffries' five year lay-off while bringing up much shorter(still long, but much shorter) lay-offs for Fitzsimmosn and Corbett on Jeffries' lists. When you list Jeffries' opponents' recent records, you go out of your way to bring up their losses and, when describing their wins, to give the opponents negative adjectives like "faded," while you treat Johnson's opponents with impugnity in that matter. All around, the information you choose to posit on Johnson's opponents is clearly made to prop them up, and the information on Jeffries' is meant to knock them down, and the end result is a biased depiction of the overall picture.

Now, when we look at things side-by-side without trumping up the deck, we find that, in fact, Fitzsimmons, Sharkey and Corbett were arguably the top three challengers to Jeffries' title at the time he fought them, and he gave all three of them rematches. Compared alongside Johnson's title reign, this is excellent, since Johnson badlyfailed to face the best challengers for his title almost throughout his reign, and the ones he did face were, in spite of how good they look with a bit of number-gloss and the right adjectives, not the elite contenders for his championship. I would pick the Corbett, Fitzsimmons or Sharkey Jeffries fought to beat any of the challengers for Johnson's championship.
Jeffries defences were against Sharkey in 1899,Sharkey was 5 8 183 for this fight ,but he was in his prime just coming up to 26,he concedes 6 inches in height and 32 lbs in weight the fight goes the 25 rds distance and is described as very close ,both by the writers and press of the time ,and Jeffries himself..Jeffries next defence iis a joke ,in 1900 he fights Jack Finnegan,who had a record of 5 fights ,w 1 l2 2 no decs,Finnegab weighed 180 ,Jeffries 220 so a 40lbs advantage,a 1 round blow out ,as you would expect.
1900 again this time its Corbett,Corbett is 33 and conceding 30 lbs,he goes 23 rds and is adjudged to be in front when he is stopped.
1901Ruhlin is the challenger ,he matches up quite well to Jefries in size,around 6 1and 200 ,plus he is 29 so not a faded veteran Jeffries makes him quit at the end of the 5th, a respectable win .
1902 Fitz challenges Jeffries Fitz is 1 month short of 40and conceding 47 lbs,he goes out in 8,after punching Jeffries face into a mess.
1903 Corbett again ,this time Corbett is up to 190lbs,1 month short of37,conceding 30 lbs he goes out in 10
1904 Jeffries takes on Munroe,who has has 13 fights ,with 9 wins creditedhe is giving away 33 lbs ,Jeff 219, Munroe 186,he is finished in 2 rds. Jeffries notches as Champion were better names than Johnsons ,I beleive but my contention is that apart from Ruhlin and Sharkey ,they were A well faded veterans or B never wassers,as in Munroe and Finnegan,.
As to the question of Johnson beating a lot of men less than 6 foot and under 200 lbs ,check out the weights Ive given for Jeffs opponents,also their respective ages ,I havent gone into their lengthy periods of retirement,just levelling the playing field a bit in reply to Johnson feasting on all those smaller opponents mentioned.I think he stacks up well against Jeffries .

[Mendoza]

Jeffries defences were against Sharkey in 1899,Sharkey was 5 8 183 for this fight ,but he was in his prime just coming up to 26,he concedes 6 inches in height and 32 lbs in weight the fight goes the 25 rds distance and is described as very close ,both by the writers and press of the time ,and Jeffries himself..Jeffries next defence iis a joke ,in 1900 he fights Jack Finnegan,who had a record of 5 fights ,w 1 l2 2 no decs,Finnegab weighed 180 ,Jeffries 220 so a 40lbs advantage,a 1 round blow out ,as you would expect.

1900 again this time its Corbett,Corbett is 33 and conceding 30 lbs,he goes 23 rds and is adjudged to be in front when he is stopped.
1901Ruhlin is the challenger ,he matches up quite well to Jefries in size,around 6 1and 200 ,plus he is 29 so not a faded veteran Jeffries makes him quit at the end of the 5th, a respectable win .

1902 Fitz challenges Jeffries Fitz is 1 month short of 40and conceding 47 lbs,he goes out in 8,after punching Jeffries face into a mess.

1903 Corbett again ,this time Corbett is up to 190lbs,1 month short of37,conceding 30 lbs he goes out in 10

1904 Jeffries takes on Munroe,who has has 13 fights ,with 9 wins creditedhe is giving away 33 lbs ,Jeff 219, Munroe 186,he is finished in 2 rds.

Jeffries notches as Champion were better names than Johnsons ,I beleive but my contention is that apart from Ruhlin and Sharkey ,they were A well faded veterans or B never wassers,as in Munroe and Finnegan,.

As to the question of Johnson beating a lot of men less than 6 foot and under 200 lbs ,check out the weights Ive given for Jeffs pponents,also their respective ages ,I havent gone into their lengthy periods of retirement,just levelling the playing field a bit in reply to Johnson feasting on all those smaller opponents mentioned.I think he stacks up well against Jeffries .

You are focusing on size only here McVey. Fine, let's use your logic and template to cross examine yourself! I formated pargraphs in your above reply to make it eaiser for the other posters to follow this thread.

Jeffries was 215-220 from 1901-1905, while Jack Johnson from 1901-1905 was about the same weight ( 180-185 ) as Shakrey, or Corbett, and bit lighter than Munroe. In fact Johnson was shorter than Corbett, and had less reach than Munroe. And he did not hit has hard as Fitzsimmons, nor was he as durable as Sharkey.

Since Jeffries had a big size and weight advantage over the fighters you mentioned, I wonder if that means you also think he would beat a 180-185 pound Johnson from 1901-1905. Tell me what you think, and be careful not to use double standards! Also take not Johnson lost to men the same size and of lesser quality that Jeffries meet in these same years.

[mcvey]

You are focusing on size only here McVey. Fine, let's use your logic and template to cross examine yourself! I formated pargraphs in your above reply to make it eaiser for the other posters to follow this thread.

Jeffries was 215-220 from 1901-1905, while Jack Johnson from 1901-1905 was about the same weight ( 180-185 ) as Shakrey, or Corbett, and bit lighter than Munroe. In fact Johnson was shorter than Corbett, and had less reach than Munroe. And he did not hit has hard as Fitzsimmons, nor was he as durable as Sharkey.

Since Jeffries had a big size and weight advantage over the fighters you mentioned, I wonder if that means you also think he would beat a 180-185 pound Johnson from 1901-1905. Tell me what you think, and be careful not to use double standards! Also take not Johnson lost to men the same size and of lesser quality that Jeffries meet in these same years.
Jeffries would have beaten Johnson in1901 to 1903 I think,,Johnson was a late developer,Jerries on the other hand was what I would consider precoscious ,his durabilty and strength was apparent very early . You didnt comment on the fact that Fitz and Corbett were past their best when Jefries fought them I see,Jeffries beat Fitz for the title in1899,why do you think he waited till 1902 ,when Fitz was a month short of 40 before giving him a rematch?Jeffries beat Corbett in 1900 why did he wait till 1903 when Corbett was a month short of 37 before giving him a rematch/ The "defenses against Finnegan and Munroe were worse than Fraziers against Daniels and Stander,pathetic farces.Finnegan had 5 figths ,winning 1 Munroe 13 over who? and 3 of them were defeats. To recap Jeffries beats Johnson up to 1903 after that its very close till 1905 ,when Jeffries retired ,I would say it would have been 60 40 for Johnson, at the time Johnson beat Burns ,I think he would have beaten a prime Jeffries,Johnson didnt hit as hard as Fitz ,I thi nk thats a fair statement.Jeffries didnt hit as hard as Fitz,Ithink thats a fair statement too.Fitz kod Sharkey twice ,kod a prime Corbett quicker than Jeffries put away amid 30s Corbett,How durable was Sharkey?,well Fitz put him away twice,Ruhlin did it too,Just because Jeffries couldnt doesnt make Sharkey super durable ,it may mean ,as Ive said before that Jeffries wore down his opponents with an accumulation of punches,rather than Louis like power. On another thread you say Liston would beat HaroldJohnson ,because of his serious power against a smaller LH,yetJeffries didnt blow out Sharkey , Corbett,or Fitz early,depsite huge weight advantages,which indicates to me you are overating Jeffries power.Do you Think any of them would go the distance with a prime Liston?

[Mendoza]

mcvey

Jeffries would have beaten Johnson in1901 to 1903 I think,,Johnson was a late developer,Jerries on the other hand was what I would consider precoscious ,his durabilty and strength was apparent very early .

Very good. But why stop at 1903??? Johnson could not better Hart in 1905. And in 1906, Johnson drew to a no name in Dunning. If you ask me Johnson turn around year was 1907 when he was 185 pounds, which according to you was too light to be a match vs Jeffries.


You didnt comment on the fact that Fitz and Corbett were past their best when Jefries fought them I see

Fitz was not past his best in either fight. Look at who Fitz beat before and after. You'll see he came back well. Corbett was in peak form and 33 for the first fight. The only match of the four where someone was past his prime was the 2nd Corbett match.



Jeffries beat Fitz for the title in1899,why do you think he waited till 1902 when Fitz was a month short of 40 before giving him a rematch?
Because he gave Sharkey and Ruhlin re-matches. Jeffries was not afraid to re-match guys who gave him tough fights. Each man deserved a title shot.


Jeffries beat Corbett in 1900 why did he wait till 1903 when Corbett was a month short of 37 before giving him a rematch/ The "defenses against Finnegan and Munroe were worse than Fraziers against Daniels and Stander,pathetic farces.Finnegan had 5 figths ,winning 1 Munroe 13 over who?
Munroe was a grudge match and a decent enough fighter. Finnegan's record is not what you say it is, and besides ever champ can take one easy fight. The matches between Munroe and Finnegan lasted 3 rounds. In other words when a good champ faces weaker competition he should blow them away as Jeffires did, not carry them or have tough times with them as Johnson did. Corbett did get his re-match, and was outclassed.

Do you Think any of them would go the distance with a prime Liston?
It depends on when the matches happened, where the matches happened, and how big the ring was. Yes, Sharkey could go the distance with Liston, and so could Corbett. I think Fitz could not, he needs a TKO win. I must go now.

[mcvey]

Fitz was past his best for the first fight,looking for an easy defence ,he was nearly 37 ,drinking heavily and not in the shape he had been for Corbett 2years earlier,plus he had been inactive,he wa 1 month off 40 when the rematch took place ,no one on this forum ,apart from you would claim he was in his prime.,ditto Corbett,because both of them gave Jeffries hard fight s ,doesnt mean they were in their primes it could be A a reflection of how good they were at their best,as in Moore at 39 and Walcott at 38 against marciano,or B That you have overated jeffries to start with.
If Fitz at 167 ,kos Sharkey twice I think a 212 big hitter like Liston gets the job done too,that seems reasonable to me,I dont think Jeffires had power like Liston ,and thats why he didnt stop Sharkey

[Mendoza]

Fitz was past his best for the first fight,looking for an easy defence ,he was nearly 37 ,drinking heavily and not in the shape he had been for Corbett 2years earlier,plus he had been inactive,he wa 1 month off 40 when the rematch took place ,no one on this forum ,apart from you would claim he was in his prime.,ditto Corbett,because both of them gave Jeffries hard fight s ,doesnt mean they were in their primes it could be A a reflection of how good they were at their best,as in Moore at 39 and Walcott at 38 against marciano,or B That you have overated jeffries to start with.
If Fitz at 167 ,kos Sharkey twice I think a 212 big hitter like Liston gets the job done too,that seems reasonable to me,I dont think Jeffires had power like Liston ,and thats why he didnt stop Sharkey

You don't know what you're talking about. Fitz had two recorded fights in 1897. Fitz kept active with exhibitions and perhaps some un-recorded fights in 1898. He fought Jeffries in 1899. Which is better taking a year off and showing up out of shape some modern heavyweights do today, or staying active with exhibitions and showing up in shape for an important fight? Fitz was in great shape for Jeffries.

Fitz was certainly not out of his prime fighting years in 1899. After Jeffries defeated Fitzsimmons for the title, Fitz came back with five KO wins in a row, two of which were over contenders in Rhulin and Sharkey. A shot fighter does not do this, McVey. Shot fighters loose badly to contenders. Fitz was knocking contenders out

Jeffries defeated Fitzsimmons in 1902 again, but Fitzsimmons was not done from winning major fights. He came back with a vengeance again and killed one of his sparring partners in the ring, and killed another man from a prize fight in Coughlin. Then in November 1903, a 40 year old Fitzsimmons won the light heavyweight title from a very good George Gardiner. Fitz floored Gardiner 4 times, and took the title. This is very impressive. Gardiner was a good fighter. Gardiner holds wins over Walcott, Maher, Hart, Root, Craig, and others. In fact he holds KO's wins over Hart, Root, and Maher! So you see Fitz was far from washed up after either Jeffries fight. Nice try.

I believe Fitz was out of his prime around sometime in 1905. Fitz, Archie Moore, and George Foreman are three heavyweights who fought well beyond their 36th birthdays and won significant fights from 40 years of age or more.

As for Liston, I think he likely defeats Fitzsimmons. I'd give Fitz a punchers chance, and an intangibles chance if Liston showed up on a night where he had some dog / lack of focus in him. Jeffries not knocking Shakrey out while green or later on with an injury means little. Jeffries floored Sharkey in both fights, and likely ruined him in the 2nd fight. You should be aware that fighter like Whitehurst, Marshal, and Machen made the distance with Liston.

[KSmith9116]

I think if you look at it plainly, Jeffries resume, while champion, is the better list of men, Corbett and Fitz obviously stand out because they were former champions. I think Fitz was better than Jeffries and Johnson, but that is another thread.

I will state that neither Corbett nor Fitz were prime. Corbett hadn't won a major fight in some time when he fought Jeff the first time. His best wins, IMO, were some 7 or 8 years in the past. Let's be honest, Corbett made his bones against Jackson and Sullivan and those bouts were in 1891 and 92 respectively. He may have been in good shape, but he was no where near prime.

Fitz is a little different in that he was a special, special fighter--one of the best we have ever had. He was still winning good bouts when he fought Jeffries, but he too was hardly prime. Not to mention that the last thing to go on a fighter is his punch--so Ruby Robert could still be evry effective even late in his career, because he had one of the best punches in the history of the game. Add to this the fact that he was fighting Jeffries with an age handicap of 12 years and 40 and 47 pounds resepctively and it puts somewhat of a handicap on the match. Jeffries beat him, but weights being even or even 15 or 20 pounds difference--you have a different fight.

Johnson championship reign was not spectacular, yet not as terrible as some make it out to be. I agree with Janitor who has stated on many occasions that Johnson's best work was done prior to winning the title.
It is hard to compare the two men as champions. Jeffries career, outside of being a champion, was very brief. In fact his entire career was fairly sparse in comparison to Johnson's entire run. The two men came up differently, were handled differently and faced an entirely different set of circumstances.

Jeffries was 24 when he won the title. Johnson was 30. By the time Jeff was thrirty he was retiring. Johnson's title run came at a time when he was beginning to cross over onto the downside of his athletic career. How would Jeffries reign have looked had he begun it at age thirty? How would Johnson's have looked had he begun at 24?

Jeffries run as champ lasted for 4.5 years and consisted of 10 fights against 6 opponents. His results are impressive, winning all except one of those fights by KO. However, his competition was only decent, IMO. I have discussed Corbett and Fitz above--and that is my opinion--and those two fellows must be regarded as the best comp of the bunch. Sharkey, well, IMO, he has always been a bit over-rated, or more pointedly, Jeffries win(s) over him a bit over-stated. Jeffries largest challenger was Gus Ruhlin who weighed 200 pounds. His smallest challenger was 167 pound Bob Fitzsimmons.

In his prime years, from age 24 until he won the title Johnson had 59 fights, with a record of 37 wins, 20 KOs, 2 losses, 16 ND and 7 draws. He fought the likes of Jeannette, Langford, McVey, Denver Ed, Frank Childs, George Gardner, Hank Griffin, Sandy Ferguson, Marvin Hart, and Tommy Burns.

To compare them as fighters by their records is impossible. Jeffries body of work was just nothing like Johnson's. Jeffries has the names perhaps, but how was he truly challenged. I think Johnson's resume speaks to a more complete fighter, one who saw more, did more and learned more--and was better because of it.

[apollack]

Jeffries clearly had the superior title reign. Fitz, Corbett, and Sharkey are and were better than anyone Johnson fought as champion. Johnson may have had an overall better body of work pre-championship, but that was not the question posed. Johnson fought guys like Burns, Ketchel, a completely shot Jeff, Jim Flynn, Frank Moran, Jim Johnson. Decent, but ho hum when you really think about it for a guy who reigned for 7 years. I don't think any of those guys could have beaten even a diminished Fitz, Corbett, or Sharkey. Johnson cleaned out the division before he became champ, and wouldn't rematch the guys who were really the best contenders at the time, like Sam Langford or Jeanette, etc.

[mattdonnellon]

For the record Gardner, good fighter as he was, did not Ko Hart, the latter quit with a damaged(broken?) hand and Maher was only fighting for beer money.
I also think that it is clear that Jeff fought the best c'ship opposition without argument, I actually think that Ruhlin was better than any of Johnsons title defence opponents. Also for what its worth I rate Johnson the better fighter of the two.

[Seamus]

I think Fitz was better than Jeffries and Johnson, but that is another thread.


Someone with more time and erudition than I should start this thread, because I believe it to be true.

By the by, I believe my taunting of writer playing the race card was deleted. Ain't love grand?

[dmt]

I agree with alot of what KSMITH says, however i will still say that Sharkey was better then anyione Jack fought as champ

[Mendoza]

I agree with alot of what KSMITH says, however i will still say that Sharkey was better then anyione Jack fought as champ

Corbett put on a great effort in the first fight. The people familiar with him called it his greatest effort. Hence he was not past his best. One think KSmith should consider is Jeffries lack of experience going into his early title matches. Corbett, and Fitz had it. Jeffries did not. Experience matters too. Jeffreis should get credit for being moved quickly and winning the title with 11 or so recorded fights, then giving title shots to worthy contenders. As Jeffries gained experience, he became a better fighter. By 1903-1904, Jeffries was close to being a finished product. It is possible that the world never saw the best version of Jeffries because he retired too soon.

With Jeffries he doesn’t need any excuses from the start of his career to initial retirement. Johnson’s career is loaded with excuses. Without a doubt Jeffries and a better title reign, and it is very likely based on results that Jeffries was better than Johnson while the two were active from 1896-1905.

[KSmith9116]

[quote=Mendoza]Corbett put on a great effort in the first fight. The people familiar with him called it his greatest effort. Hence he was not past his best.
A great effort does not equal being in your prime--nor does being in shape. Prime is prime--Corbett's was past his prime.

One think KSmith should consider is Jeffries lack of experience going into his early title matches. Corbett, and Fitz had it. Jeffries did not. Experience matters too. Jeffreis should get credit for being moved quickly and winning the title with 11 or so recorded fights, then giving title shots to worthy contenders.

Yes Jeffries should be given credit for this, but then again, how did he get a shot at the title at such a young stage in his career? Johnson fights for 15 years before getting his and Jeff fights for 3 or 4--one of the differences I was pointing out.

As Jeffries gained experience, he became a better fighter. By 1903-1904, Jeffries was close to being a finished product. It is possible that the world never saw the best version of Jeffries because he retired too soon.

Quite frankly the world didn't see much of Jeffries period. His career was awfully sparse in terms of bouts fought. Why did he retire?

With Jeffries he doesn’t need any excuses from the start of his career to initial retirement. Johnson’s career is loaded with excuses.
Except of course the excuses he came up with for not fighting Johnson--right?

[Mendoza]

KSmith9116

A great effort does not equal being in your prime--nor does being in shape. Prime is prime--Corbett's was past his prime.


How is being 33 years old, being in great shape to go 20+ rounds at a rapid pace, and putting on a good effort " past his prime "? Let's be reasonable here. Papers say Corbett looked great leading up to the match, and performed great ( better than he did vs Sharkey or McCoy ) during the match.


Yes Jeffries should be given credit for this, but then again, how did he get a shot at the title at such a young stage in his career? Johnson fights for 15 years before getting his and Jeff fights for 3 or 4--one of the differences I was pointing out.

This is because unlike Johnson, Jeffries beat top fighters on the way up without losing. Wins over past thier prime legands such as Goddard, and Jackson, and wins over current contenders such as Armstrong, Griffin, Sharkey, and Evertt proved Jeffries was ready. If there was a better man for Fitzsimmons to fight in 1899, post the name here.


Quite frankly the world didn't see much of Jeffries period. His career was awfully sparse in terms of bouts fought. Why did he retire?

Are you sure? Jeffries had about 120 exhibitions matches, which could equate to some of those 3 or 6 round colored title matches. He Ko’d about dozen local fighters when he went on tour in Europe. Getting back to the exhibition matches, are you aware Jeffries Ko’d a big Ed Dunkorst in 2, Bounced the same Hank Griffin around like a basketball in 4 one sided rounds ( the man Jack Johnson could not tame in three fights! ) , and also Ko’d a 200+ pound Joe Kennedy in 2 in “ sparring sessions “? Jeffries also has reported KO wins over Childs, and Martin. Did the reported KO wins happen? Unknown, but htey were reported long before Jeffries won the title. My point here is Jeffires was in the ring a lot. As for why he retired, he beat two eras worth of fighters ( 1890's and 1900's ), had money and got married. There were offers to fight Squires, and Lang, after JEffries retired in 1905 but they did not interest Jeffries enough, and the fights would have been mis matches. Jeffries became a ring offical instead.



Except of course the excuses he came up with for not fighting Johnson--right?

As I have pointed out, Johnson was not worthy until the tail end of Jeffries career. Johnson was worhty from late 1903 to the Hart loss in 1905. Please show me news read that says a promoter has put up $30,000 -$50,000 for Jeffries vs Johnson match from 1903-1905. I posted several such sources when I said Johnson flat out ducked offers to fight McVey, Jeanette, and Langford. If you’d like to read them, I can repost them for you. I have never seen any such news read on a Jeffries vs Johnson fight from 1903-1905. Have you? Time to show your cards Ksmith. Local papers drumming up fights happen all the time in boxing. The ducking occurs when the money is up, and one guy balks.

[KSmith9116]

How is being 33 years old, being in great shape to go 20+ rounds at a rapid pace, and putting on a good effort " past his prime "? Let's be reasonable here. Papers say Corbett looked great leading up to the match, and performed great ( better than he did vs Sharkey or McCoy ) during the match.



Like I said, prime is prime. Corbett's was in 1892.

[QUOTE]
This is because unlike Johnson, Jeffries beat top fighters on the way up without losing. Wins over past thier prime legands such as Goddard, and Jackson, and wins over current contenders such as Armstrong, Griffin, Sharkey, and Evertt proved Jeffries was ready. If there was a better man for Fitzsimmons to fight in 1899, post the name here.


Missed my point completely.

Are you sure? Jeffries had about 120 exhibitions matches, which could equate to some of those 3 or 6 round colored title matches.

Really? Do you have a list of these exhibitions--or even some sort of idea where, when and how all of these exhibitions took place? This is a stretch, and a clear attemtpt to "pad" Jeffries record.

He Ko’d about dozen local fighters when he went on tour in Europe.
Like who, when and where exactly?

Getting back to the exhibition matches, are you aware Jeffries Ko’d a big Ed Dunkorst in 2
Did he? Joe Butler, a middleweight, knocked out big Ed as well--no big chops there.
Bounced the same Hank Griffin around like a basketball in 4 one sided rounds ( the man Jack Johnson could not tame in three fights! )
And lost $100 bucks doing it. jeffries contracted to knock out Griffin and failed to do so. Griffin also weighed about 180 pounds--Jeffries 220--WOW another 40 pound weight advantage for our friend Jeff.

and also Ko’d a 200+ pound Joe Kennedy in 2 in “ sparring sessions “? Really, he knocked out his travleing sparring partner twice!

Jeffries also has reported KO wins over Childs, and Martin. Did the reported KO wins happen? Unknown, but htey were reported long before Jeffries won the title. We've been down this road many times---no proof any of these fights ever happened--why include them? To pad perhaps?

My point here is Jeffires was in the ring a lot.
Yes he was, that was his profession, but his official record, in terms of sheer numbers, pales in comparison to that of Johnson, no matter how much you try and pad it.


As for why he retired, he beat two eras worth of fighters ( 1890's and 1900's ), had money and got married. There were offers to fight Squires, and Lang, after JEffries retired in 1905 but they did not interest Jeffries enough, and the fights would have been mis matches. Jeffries became a ring offical instead.


If you look back you will learn that Jeffries retired because he felt that there were no worthy "white" challengers left to fight.

As I have pointed out, Johnson was not worthy until the tail end of Jeffries career. Johnson was worhty from late 1903 to the Hart loss in 1905. Jeffries clearly stated beginning in mid 1903 that he would not fight Johnson---so regardless of what you have pointed out, he ducked Johnson.


Please show me news read that says a promoter has put up $30,000 -$50,000 for Jeffries vs Johnson match from 1903-1905. I posted several such sources when I said Johnson flat out ducked offers to fight McVey, Jeanette, and Langford. If you’d like to read them, I can repost them for you. I have never seen any such news read on a Jeffries vs Johnson fight from 1903-1905. Have you? Time to show your cards Ksmith. Local papers drumming up fights happen all the time in boxing. The ducking occurs when the money is up, and one guy balks.

Again, Jeffries clearly stated, repeatedly, he would not fight Johnson, are you denying that fact? Are you denying that Jeffries ducked Johnson?

And, using your great line--I think you should know, In November of 1903, Jeffries turned down a $20,000 plus expenses offer from the Colma athletic club to fight Sam McVey. See if you can find that in the New York Times.

[Mendoza]

KSmith9116

Like I said, prime is prime. Corbett's was in 1892.

I think Corbett's prime extended well beyond 1892. And like I said, the first Jeffries fight was Corbett best effort. So say his own people.:deal Who are you to say different?


Missed my point completely.
You said, " How did he get a shot at the title at such a young stage in his career? " My answer was

>>> This is because unlike Johnson, Jeffries beat top fighters on the way up without losing. Wins over past their prime legends such as Goddard, and Jackson, and wins over current contenders such as Armstrong, Griffin, Sharkey, and Everett proved Jeffries was ready. If there was a better man for Fitzsimmons to fight in 1899, post the name here.


Really? Do you have a list of these exhibitions--or even some sort of idea where, when and how all of these exhibitions took place? This is a stretch, and a clear attemtpt to "pad" Jeffries record.

Yes. Some of them can be seen at the Cyber boxing zone. Others were listed by me.

Here are some of those exhibitions.

1899: -Jeffries knocked out 6 other opponents in England -Jeffries took on all-comers in Scotland -Jeffries took on all-comers in Ireland



Like who, when and where exactly?

Who is unknown for now. When and Where is in Europe in 1899 when Jeffries went on tour there. Cyber boxing zone makes mention of this. See the above quotes.


Did he? Joe Butler, a middleweight, knocked out big Ed as well--no big chops there.

I was listing some stuff when you said the world did not see enough of Jeffries.


And lost $100 bucks doing it. jeffries contracted to knock out Griffin and failed to do so. Griffin also weighed about 180 pounds--Jeffries 220--WOW another 40 pound weight advantage for our friend Jeff.

And Johnson was about 180-185 pounds back then. Do you think your amigo had a chance from 1899-1905?


If you look back you will learn that Jeffries retired because he felt that there were no worthy "white" challengers left to fight.

Jeffries clearly stated beginning in mid 1903 that he would not fight Johnson---so regardless of what you have pointed out, he ducked Johnson.

The money died down, and yes boxing talent was at al lull. Show me when the money was up KSmith, then we can talk about ducking. Money talks. I see none of it. Yet when the money was there, Jeffries did return. Of coruse Jeffries once offered Johnson a fight in a bar for no money. Johnson balked.


Again, Jeffries clearly stated, repeatedly, he would not fight Johnson, are you denying that fact? Are you denying that Jeffries ducked Johnson?

He returned to fight him, with some still seeing Jeffries as the lineal champ. If your one of those historians who uses a quote as an ultimatum, I think it would be unwise in this case. What fighters say, and what they do when the money is up can be different things.


And, using your great line--I think you should know, In November of 1903, Jeffries turned down a $20,000 plus expenses offer from the Colma athletic club to fight Sam McVey. See if you can find that in the New York Times.


Wow, was McVey then? 8-3 and 20years of age? You tell me. No way McVey earned a title shot by 1903 vs Jeffries. Where is a news clip on a promoter putting up that type of money for a Johnson fight Mr. Author? I will hound you on this point until you either 1 ) Produce one, or 2 ) Admit I am correct as there is none. As for the NY Times, I have been using them as of late. I also use the Oakland Tribune, and The Brooklyn Union.

[janitor]

I think Fitz was better than Jeffries and Johnson, but that is another thread.


Please make it.

You would have my undivided interest.

[mattdonnellon]

Jeffries did not fight anyone in ireland. he had one ex. scheduled in Cork but cancelled.

[Mendoza]

Jeffries did not fight anyone in ireland. he had one ex. scheduled in Cork but cancelled.

Thanks Matt. Who did Jeffries fight in Scotland and England? I don’t have access to these news papers.

[mattdonnellon]

Oakland Tribune, 1903, 18/8
johnson pointed out that Jeff fought Armstrong, Griffin, Jackson.
Paper quoted the managers of the Yosemite Club as offering JJJ a fight with McVey that November.
"When there are no white men left to fight I will quit the business. It may be that I can defeat all the colored heavyweights in sight with ease but i am not going to try. I am determined to not take a chance on losing the championship to a negro."
No comment necessary except to say that they were different times and hard to comprehend to-day.

[KSmith9116]

I think Corbett's prime extended well beyond 1892. And like I said, the first Jeffries fight was Corbett best effort. So say his own people.:deal Who are you to say different?


His prime lasted for almost a decade? That he ********* Jeffries for a number of rounds before running our of gas and being worn down by a bigger man is not a case of prime in my mind, but more or less telling on how Jeffries won his fights--through attrition and strength. You want to build Corbett up to build Jeffries up? Had Corbett even won a meanigful fight in this prime you speak of? Let's see
1894 he beat Charlie Mitchell--a middle/lightheavy
1896 Draw with Sharkey over 4 rounds
1897 Fitz--Lossby KO
1898 Sharkey--Loss by DQ
Wow that is some prime! And a heck of a lot of Heavyweight experience as well, never fighting a man over a 185 the entire time.



This is because unlike Johnson, Jeffries beat top fighters on the way up without losing. Wins over past their prime legends such as Goddard, and Jackson, and wins over current contenders such as Armstrong, Griffin, Sharkey, and Everett proved Jeffries was ready. If there was a better man for Fitzsimmons to fight in 1899, post the name here.


My point was that their career paths were much different and difficult to compare. And then asked the hypothetical question on how each would have fared had they switched places in terms of career path.

But your answer had its holes anyway. Goddard is hardly a legend, Griffin was not a contender in 1891, 95, 96 or whenever Jeffries supposedly fought him--Mexican Pete Everett was always a second rater. Armstrong was knocked out by Frank Childs less than six months before Jeff went ten rounds with him--and then stopped again by Frank six months later.


Yes. Some of them can be seen at the Cyber boxing zone. Others were listed by me.

Here are some of those exhibitions.

1899: -Jeffries knocked out 6 other opponents in England -Jeffries took on all-comers in Scotland -Jeffries took on all-comers in Ireland


Matt already punched holes in the validity of the above. However, that is neither here nor there. The point is, that exhibitions are just that--exhibitions, and most of the listed exhibnitions on Jeffries record are just that--exhibitions with his sparring partners and brother--put on in vaudeville type fashion.


I was listing some stuff when you said the world did not see enough of Jeffries.

OK, I just meant that his body of actually fighting is thin.


And Johnson was about 180-185 pounds back then. Do you think your amigo had a chance from 1899-1905?


Sure do.


[QUOTE]The money died down, and yes boxing talent was at al lull. Show me when the money was up KSmith, then we can talk about ducking. Money talks. I see none of it. Yet when the money was there, Jeffries did return.

So when Jeffries stated "I will not fight Johnson" that was not ducking. It only becomes ducking when the money is up. Oh I see. Thanks for clarifying that. See, I thought when someone disqualified a certain contender publically by stating, "no I will not fight him because he is black" that was kind of a duck. Especially since the person making the statement had fought black men before(one while champion)--so the principal of not fighting black men on principal alone disappears--I kind of thought that was a duck--but you have shown me the light. It is only when promoter makes an offer of $30,000 to $50,000 from 1903-1905 to the champion and then he refuses to fight because it is a black man--then it is ducking--Good I got it.


Of coruse Jeffries once offered Johnson a fight in a bar for no money. Johnson balked.


This story is a load of crap.


He returned to fight him, with some still seeing Jeffries as the lineal champ. If your one of those historians who uses a quote as an ultimatum, I think it would be unwise in this case. What fighters say, and what they do when the money is up can be different things.


Nice try, but it was not one quote. Jeffries made public statements frequently from 1903 onward that he did not want to fight Johnson. What he did in 1910 had no bearing on what he did while champion.


Wow, was McVey then? 8-3 and 20years of age? You tell me. No way McVey earned a title shot by 1903 vs Jeffries.

I guess the Colma athletic club thought he had. And of course, Corbett had earned his 1903 title rematch with his stirring exhibition win over Yank Kenny. Or Jack Munroe of 1904 had certainly warranted the match he got with big Jim.

[amhlilhaus]

hey ksmith, any more books in the works?

[Mendoza]

KSmith9116


His prime lasted for almost a decade? That he ********* Jeffries for a number of rounds before running our of gas and being worn down by a bigger man is not a case of prime in my mind, but more or less telling on how Jeffries won his fights--through attrition and strength. You want to build Corbett up to build Jeffries up? Had Corbett even won a meanigful fight in this prime you speak of? Let's see
1894 he beat Charlie Mitchell--a middle/lightheavy
1896 Draw with Sharkey over 4 rounds
1897 Fitz--Lossby KO
1898 Sharkey--Loss by DQ

Wow that is some prime! And a heck of a lot of Heavyweight experience as well, never fighting a man over a 185 the entire time.

Um, I think Jackson was over 185 pounds Mr. Expert. In addition, Corbett offered Jackson a 2nd fight. Jackson did not like the location and balked. My point that Corbett was 33, in shape, and performed well is what matters. He was not past his prime in 1900.

My point was that their career paths were much different and difficult to compare. And then asked the hypothetical question on how each would have fared had they switched places in terms of career path.

Yes, Johnson lost and drew too much on the way up, picked on novices that latter on became names, and as champion ducked far more competition! That is the difference. You're right. The career paths were different.

But your answer had its holes anyway. Goddard is hardly a legend, Griffin was not a contender in 1891, 95, 96 or whenever Jeffries supposedly fought him--Mexican Pete Everett was always a second rater. Armstrong was knocked out by Frank Childs less than six months before Jeff went ten rounds with him--and then stopped again by Frank six months later.

Griffin beat Johnson. Jeffries beat Griffin. Everett lasted but three rounds vs Jeffries, yet an older version of Everett went the distance of 20 rounds with Johnson. As for Armstrong, Johnson did not fight him. I wonder why? Maybe it’s because Arm strong was even in size and experience with Johnson, and unlike Martin did not have a glass jaw. Speculation on my part. I find it odd that when Johnson meet fighter near his size, and experience, he could not tame Choynski, Griffin or Hart. Why? Simply stated he was no where near as good as you think he was. Oh, and Jeffries has a reported Ko over Childs.


Matt already punched holes in the validity of the above. However, that is neither here nor there. The point is, that exhibitions are just that--exhibitions, and most of the listed exhibitions on Jeffries record are just that--exhibitions with his sparring partners and brother--put on in vaudeville type fashion.

There were plenty of exhibitions. That was my point KSmtih. Matt only said none were in Ireland, which is a place I never listed. Do you find it odd that some colored title matches were 3 or 4 round title fights, but when Jeffries as lineal champ goes 4 or 6, it’s an exhibition? Hmm.....


So when Jeffries stated "I will not fight Johnson" that was not ducking. It only becomes ducking when the money is up. Oh I see. Thanks for clarifying that. See, I thought when someone disqualified a certain contender publically by stating, "no I will not fight him because he is black" that was kind of a duck. Especially since the person making the statement had fought black men before(one while champion)--so the principal of not fighting black men on principal alone disappears--I kind of thought that was a duck--but you have shown me the light. It is only when promoter makes an offer of $30,000 to $50,000 from 1903-1905 to the champion and then he refuses to fight because it is a black man--then it is ducking--Good I got it.


Jeffries said I will not fight Johnson, but did when the money is up. See how quickly perception changes Ksmith. Anyone can use the press. The ducking starts when a fight can be made with a good financial offer, which in this case did not happen until 1910! Besides, Johsnon was nothing speical in 1903, and lost whatever spot he had when Hart defeated him in 1905. I betcha if Hart were black, you'd say Jeffries ducked him too.
If you can find a promoter willing to give Jeffries a real offer of say 30-50K to fight Johnson, he might have very well changed his mind.


This story is a load of crap.

Unforgivable Blackness and Bert Sugar say it is not, and claims the story has been verified by sorces that inclide Jeffires himself. . What proof do you have the story is crap? The story goes, Johnson meet Jeffries and asked for a fight in a bar. Jeffries told Johnson you can’t draw files. ( What was Johnson’s best purse up to 1903 by the way ) Johnson asked again, then Jeffires said lets go down to the cellar and lock the door. Whomever comes out is the new champ. Johnson tucked tail and walked away.


I guess the Colma athletic club thought he had. And of course, Corbett had earned his 1903 title rematch with his stirring exhibition win over Yank Kenny. Or Jack Munroe of 1904 had certainly warranted the match he got with big Jim.

McVey was how old in 1903? And who did he beat? Munroe at the time might have been a better challenger.

Once again, Jeffries had the better title reign, the cleaner record, and ducked far less men as champion Ksmtih. Throw whatever you want to see what sticks on the wall. This last paragraph is true, and you know it.

[KSmith9116]

[quote=Mendoza]Um, I think Jackson was over 185 pounds Mr. Expert. In addition, Corbett offered Jackson a 2nd fight. Jackson did not like the location and balked. My point that Corbett was 33, in shape, and performed well is what matters. He was not past his prime in 1900.

Ok that is the second personal swipe you have taken--I let the first one go. I never mentioned being an author or an expert on anything--you did. If you are insecure about your own credentials that's fine but I don't think its a good idea to attempt to discredit mine through cheap name calling--OK? Get off the name calling and stick to the topic. Trust me Z. I have had many an opportunity to take this to that kind of level and have made it a point not to--I only ask the same of you. If you would like to compare who is more qualified to debate this topic then be my guest, but otherwise, leave it alone my friend.

And no, what matters is that you are trying to pass of Jeffries win over a faded champion, who had not won a fight in six years, had not done anything to really earn his title shot(besides being white and a former champion) as some sort of great victory for Jeffries by stating that he was in his prime. He was not in his prime--he was not at his best--he was not at the peak of his physical life. That day had passed for Jim.

Secondly, Jackson fought Corbett in what I consider the latter's real prime, not during the time period you listed as his "prime" 1895-1900--so not only was your catty response inappropriate--it was wrong as well.


Yes, Johnson lost and drew too much on the way up, picked on novices that latter on became names, and as champion ducked far more competition! That is the difference. You're right. The career paths were different.


Is it that you don't want to understand what I am saying or am I not being clear enough? Let me try this--If Jim Jeffries had been black and come up the way Johnson did, with the same talent he had as a white man, his record, legacy etc, would have been a great deal different and vice versa for Johnson. OK?

Not to mention that Langford was not a novice, nor was McVey. I have already stated that McVey in and around the time Johnson was fighting him was thought as a contender to Jeffries on the West Coast--despite what you think. Give that line a rest, will you.

Griffin beat Johnson. Jeffries beat Griffin. Everett lasted but three rounds vs Jeffries, yet an older version of Everett went the distance of 20 rounds with Johnson. As for Armstrong, Johnson did not fight him. I wonder why? Maybe it’s because Arm strong was even in size and experience with Johnson, and unlike Martin did not have a glass jaw. Speculation on my part.

What does this mean? Because Johnson didn't knockout Mexican Pete Everett, he is in some way inferior? Your methodology for formulating theories is just downright flawed.

I find it odd that when Johnson meet fighter near his size, and experience, he could not tame Choynski, Griffin or Hart. Why? Simply stated he was no where near as good as you think he was.

And who did Jeffries meet that was near his size and experience? You have double standards. Give Jeffries mounds of credit for wins over lighter, older retreads but Johnson none for wins over young tigers. It has to work both ways.


Oh, and Jeffries has a reported Ko over Childs.


Awesome, what is the date, venue and result?

There were plenty of exhibitions. That was my point KSmtih. Matt only said none were in Ireland, which is a place I never listed. Do you find it odd that some colored title matches were 3 or 4 round title fights, but when Jeffries as lineal champ goes 4 or 6, it’s an exhibition? Hmm.....

Jeffries excepted record has 20 professional prizefights--20. EXH are just what the name implies--EXHIBITIONS. Jack Johnson has 124 professional prizefights on his record. No matter how you attempt to spin it, with talks of exhibitions and mysterious, unreported fights with Frank Childs, Frank Craig and whoever else--the proof is in the pudding. 20 pales in comparison to 124--just two completely different careers.


Jeffries said I will not fight Johnson, but did when the money is up. See how quickly perception changes Ksmith. Anyone can use the press. The ducking starts when a fight can be made with a good financial offer, which in this case did not happen until 1910! Besides, Johsnon was nothing speical in 1903, and lost whatever spot he had when Hart defeated him in 1905. I betcha if Hart were black, you'd say Jeffries ducked him too.


This rhetoric is deeply flawed. Firstly Johnson did publically challenge Jeffries through the press--at which point Jeff publically denied him based on his color(or was it his skill, or was it the combination of the two). You are correct, fighters did often use the press to trump up their claims. However, Jeffries often offered his own statements on fighting Johnson, when pressed on the issue--meaning that these were not statements issued by Johnson's press men, but interviews with Jeffries where he repeatedly stated he would not fight Johnson--no matter what he was offered. He often ended these interviews by stating that he would not fight a "negro, for I could not risk losing my title to one".

The money came up when Johnson was champion--not Jeff. He was coaxed and prodded and nearly dragged into the ring by nearly half of America. He stated, publically, after the bout, that he never really wanted the fight in the first place and had been talked into it by a desperate white America. That is a very, very different thing than what you are talking about. You want to excuse Jeffries for not meeting Johnson by stating that there was no one willing to put up the money for the fight. Jeffries never said that while he was champion--never. He only stated what I have above. "I will not fight a negro for the championship for fear of losing it to one." So once again, it is clear that Jeffries simply ducked Johnson.


If you can find a promoter willing to give Jeffries a real offer of say 30-50K to fight Johnson, he might have very well changed his mind.


Intersting, but you seem to have some insight into Jeffries mindset 100 years later, that he didn't even have back then. Because he was fairly adamant that he would never fight Johnson for HIS title no matter what money was offered. Look it up.


Unforgivable Blackness and Bert Sugar say it is not, and claims the story has been verified by sorces that inclide Jeffires himself. . What proof do you have the story is crap?
Bert Sugar is not a source--he is a story teller.
This story appeared in Jeffries auto biogrpahy(ghost written by Robert Edgren I believe) and Johnson stated in his bio that it was merely one of the stories that Jeff suffered on the public to soil Jack's reputation. Johnson cites this specific story and uses it as an example of Jeff's attempts to "sully the reputation of Jack Johnson before the American public". I have never seen another source on it anywhere. It is a load of crap that has been re-hashed by numerous fighters.

By the way, unfogiveable blackness did not claim that the story had been verified. In fact, it goes to the trouble of stating that "jeffries later claimed" when discussing the matter and lists as it source Jeffries auto "My life and battles".


The story goes, Johnson meet Jeffries and asked for a fight in a bar. Jeffries told Johnson you can’t draw files. ( What was Johnson’s best purse up to 1903 by the way ) Johnson asked again, then Jeffires said lets go down to the cellar and lock the door. Whomever comes out is the new champ. Johnson tucked tail and walked away.


UGH!

Once again, Jeffries had the better title reign, the cleaner record, and ducked far less men as champion Ksmtih.

Jeffries had a much shorter, smaller career, fought a select group of white men and lost to the one truly great prime heavyweight he fought who did not spot him 10 years and 30-40 pounds.

Throw whatever you want to see what sticks on the wall.

Am I the one using insults, supposed cellar fights, exhibtions, unrecorded fights and straight up denial to defend my side of the argument?

[mcvey]

[QUOTE]

Ok that is the second personal swipe you have taken--I let the first one go. I never mentioned being an author or an expert on anything--you did. If you are insecure about your own credentials that's fine but I don't think its a good idea to attempt to discredit mine through cheap name calling--OK? Get off the name calling and stick to the topic. Trust me Z. I have had many an opportunity to take this to that kind of level and have made it a point not to--I only ask the same of you. If you would like to compare who is more qualified to debate this topic then be my guest, but otherwise, leave it alone my friend.

And no, what matters is that you are trying to pass of Jeffries win over a faded champion, who had not won a fight in six years, had not done anything to really earn his title shot(besides being white and a former champion) as some sort of great victory for Jeffries by stating that he was in his prime. He was not in his prime--he was not at his best--he was not at the peak of his physical life. That day had passed for Jim.

Secondly, Jackson fought Corbett in what I consider the latter's real prime, not during the time period you listed as his "prime" 1895-1900--so not only was your catty response inappropriate--it was wrong as well.



Is it that you don't want to understand what I am saying or am I not being clear enough? Let me try this--If Jim Jeffries had been black and come up the way Johnson did, with the same talent he had as a white man, his record, legacy etc, would have been a great deal different and vice versa for Johnson. OK?

Not to mention that Langford was not a novice, nor was McVey. I have already stated that McVey in and around the time Johnson was fighting him was thought as a contender to Jeffries on the West Coast--despite what you think. Give that line a rest, will you.



What does this mean? Because Johnson didn't knockout Mexican Pete Everett, he is in some way inferior? Your methodology for formulating theories is just downright flawed.



And who did Jeffries meet that was near his size and experience? You have double standards. Give Jeffries mounds of credit for wins over lighter, older retreads but Johnson none for wins over young tigers. It has to work both ways.



Awesome, what is the date, venue and result?



Jeffries excepted record has 20 professional prizefights--20. EXH are just what the name implies--EXHIBITIONS. Jack Johnson has 124 professional prizefights on his record. No matter how you attempt to spin it, with talks of exhibitions and mysterious, unreported fights with Frank Childs, Frank Craig and whoever else--the proof is in the pudding. 20 pales in comparison to 124--just two completely different careers.



This rhetoric is deeply flawed. Firstly Johnson did publically challenge Jeffries through the press--at which point Jeff publically denied him based on his color(or was it his skill, or was it the combination of the two). You are correct, fighters did often use the press to trump up their claims. However, Jeffries often offered his own statements on fighting Johnson, when pressed on the issue--meaning that these were not statements issued by Johnson's press men, but interviews with Jeffries where he repeatedly stated he would not fight Johnson--no matter what he was offered. He often ended these interviews by stating that he would not fight a "negro, for I could not risk losing my title to one".

The money came up when Johnson was champion--not Jeff. He was coaxed and prodded and nearly dragged into the ring by nearly half of America. He stated, publically, after the bout, that he never really wanted the fight in the first place and had been talked into it by a desperate white America. That is a very, very different thing than what you are talking about. You want to excuse Jeffries for not meeting Johnson by stating that there was no one willing to put up the money for the fight. Jeffries never said that while he was champion--never. He only stated what I have above. "I will not fight a negro for the championship for fear of losing it to one." So once again, it is clear that Jeffries simply ducked Johnson.



Intersting, but you seem to have some insight into Jeffries mindset 100 years later, that he didn't even have back then. Because he was fairly adamant that he would never fight Johnson for HIS title no matter what money was offered. Look it up.



Bert Sugar is not a source--he is a story teller.
This story appeared in Jeffries auto biogrpahy(ghost written by Robert Edgren I believe) and Johnson stated in his bio that it was merely one of the stories that Jeff suffered on the public to soil Jack's reputation. Johnson cites this specific story and uses it as an example of Jeff's attempts to "sully the reputation of Jack Johnson before the American public". I have never seen another source on it anywhere. It is a load of crap that has been re-hashed by numerous fighters.

By the way, unfogiveable blackness did not claim that the story had been verified. In fact, it goes to the trouble of stating that "jeffries later claimed" when discussing the matter and lists as it source Jeffries auto "My life and battles".



UGH!



Jeffries had a much shorter, smaller career, fought a select group of white men and lost to the one truly great prime heavyweight he fought who did not spot him 10 years and 30-40 pounds.



Am I the one using insults, supposed cellar fights, exhibtions, unrecorded fights and straight up denial to defend my side of the argument?
Youv,e got to give Dr Mendoza credit ,he,s durable ,no matter how many times he,s knocked down ,he allways gets up and comes back for more punishment,ESB,s answer to Joe Grim! ps Jim Jeffries is a god and resides in Valhalla.

[Mendoza]

KSmith9116

Ok that is the second personal swipe you have taken--I let the first one go. . If you would like to compare who is more qualified to debate this topic then be my guest, but otherwise, leave it alone my friend.
We will call it even, as you took the swipes first. As for a debate on this topic, I don't think you'll be able to win. You’re simply dealt a losing had from the start.


And no, what matters is that you are trying to pass of Jeffries win over a faded champion, who had not won a fight in six years, had not done anything to really earn his title shot(besides being white and a former champion) as some sort of great victory for Jeffries by stating that he was in his prime. He was not in his prime--he was not at his best--he was not at the peak of his physical life. That day had passed for Jim.
Amazing, the people who knew Corbett thought 1 ) he was in great shape, and 2 ) this was his greatest effort. Past his prime at 33? Not a chance. Funny you don’t mention Corbett's win over a decent McCoy after this fight. I have the news read. It was a war.


Secondly, Jackson fought Corbett in what I consider the latter's real prime, not during the time period you listed as his "prime" 1895-1900--so not only was your catty response inappropriate--it was wrong as well.
So does this mean you going to excuse Corbett for losing to Fitzsimmons too? After all, that fight took place in 1897, which is about 5 years form you version of a prime Corbett. I think you've painted yourself in a corner here. Please explain. And also explain why you stated Fitzsimmons was better than either Jeffries or Johnson. Now that is a thread I'd like to read.


Is it that you don't want to understand what I am saying or am I not being clear enough? Let me try this--If Jim Jeffries had been black and come up the way Johnson did, with the same talent he had as a white man, his record, legacy etc, would have been a great deal different and vice versa for Johnson. OK?
Disagree. Johnson lost to white and black fighters in the 1890-1905. Being white or black had nothing to do with it. Get over it. If Jeffries were black, he probably would have badly beaten the same version of Langford, Jeanette, and McVey that Johnson did, and unlike Johnson he'd have a lot more than a grand total of one knockout win in the long series. I do agree that Jeffries would have to wait for Hart or Burns for a title shot though.


Not to mention that Langford was not a novice, nor was McVey. I have already stated that McVey in and around the time Johnson was fighting him was thought as a contender to Jeffries on the West Coast--despite what you think. Give that line a rest, will you.
McVey at the end of 1903 was 19 years of age, and had a record of 8-2! This is hardly a contender, Ksmith. In fact McVey would go on a three fight losing streak from Dec 1903 to Aug 1904.


What does this mean? Because Johnson didn't knockout Mexican Pete Everett, he is in some way inferior? Your methodology for formulating theories is just downright flawed.
When fighters fight the same opponents, and have different results with one doing much better than the other, this is one way on how they differentiate themselves from one another. It was not only Everett, we can look at the Choynski, Munroe, and Griffin fights too. See who did better, Jeffries or Johnson. This type of comparison and ranking is done all the time. You can look at any era. For example, Ali, Frazier and Foreman all fought each other and many of the same opponents. It is an accident that Ali is seen a #1, Foreman as #2, and Frazier as #3 after their careers were over? Heck no. Results count. Embrace them if you want to be objective.


And who did Jeffries meet that was near his size and experience? You have double standards. Give Jeffries mounds of credit for wins over lighter, older retreads but Johnson none for wins over young tigers. It has to work both ways.
There was no world class fighter Jeffries size, however just about every top fighter he fought had more experience, and in most cases his top competition had far more experience than Johnson's top competition did as heavyweights. If you really want to compare Johnson top competition ring record, and experience levels vs. Jeffries top competition ring record and experience levels, you will be badly trumped.


Jeffries excepted record has 20 professional prizefights--20. EXH are just what the name implies--EXHIBITIONS. Jack Johnson has 124 professional prizefights on his record. No matter how you attempt to spin it, with talks of exhibitions and mysterious, unreported fights with Frank Childs, Frank Craig and whoever else--the proof is in the pudding. 20 pales in comparison to 124--just two completely different careers.
The amount of prize fights matters far less than the quality of competition. It matters who you beat, who you lost to, and when the matches happened. If you want to compare #'s, give Johnson more fights, give Jeffries a better winning percentage, a better Ko percentage, less Ko losses, more title defenses vs top competition, NO Losses to lesser fighters, and so on. I think you see where my point is going here.


This rhetoric is deeply flawed. Firstly Johnson did publically challenge Jeffries through the press--at which point Jeff publically denied him based on his color(or was it his skill, or was it the combination of the two). You are correct, fighters did often use the press to trump up their claims. However, Jeffries often offered his own statements on fighting Johnson, when pressed on the issue--meaning that these were not statements issued by Johnson's press men, but interviews with Jeffries where he repeatedly stated he would not fight Johnson--no matter what he was offered. He often ended these interviews by stating that he would not fight a "negro, for I could not risk losing my title to one".

This is prize fighting. They fight for the prize. What fighters say and do when the money is up can be two very different things. We know this. I asked for a report where the money was up for a Jeffries vs Johnson fight prior to 1905. I see NONE. Why should Jeffries fight Johnson, who at the time was hit or miss for little money? When the money was up in 1910, Jeffries returned for the fight. I beleive if the money was big enough in 1903-1905, we see the fight. I also beleive had Johnson performed well vs Hart in 1905 ( He did not! ) there might have been enough interest to piqué a promoter to put the money up. The book on Unforgivable Blackness says this as well.
And speaking of Hart, he initaly told the papers I will not fight Johnson " because he's black and my firends would disown me " , but changed his mind once the money was up. See how this works, Ksmith?


Interestingg, but you seem to have some insight into Jeffries mindset 100 years later, that he didn't even have back then. Because he was fairly adamant that he would never fight Johnson for HIS title no matter what money was offered. Look it up.
Many felt that since Jeffries retired as champ, he was still the champ when he returned. Look it up.


Bert Sugar is not a source--he is a story teller.
This story appeared in Jeffries auto biogrpahy(ghost written by Robert Edgren I believe) and Johnson stated in his bio that it was merely one of the stories that Jeff suffered on the public to soil Jack's reputation. Johnson cites this specific story and uses it as an example of Jeff's attempts to "sully the reputation of Jack Johnson before the American public". I have never seen another source on it anywhere. It is a load of crap that has been re-hashed by numerous fighters.
We can not say for sure. You might want it to be a load of crap. I'm sure you are aware that Bert Sugar loves Jack Johnson and has no love for Jeffries. Why would Sugar re-hash a falsehood? He wouldn’t. He simply tells the tale that has been passed down to him and verified by sources.


By the way, unforgivable blackness did not claim that the story had been verified. In fact, it goes to the trouble of stating that "jeffries later claimed" when discussing the matter and lists as it source Jeffries auto "My life and battles".
By the way, the DVD video of Unforgivable blackness makes mention of this very story of Johnson approaching Jeffires and asking for the fight in the bar. Watch it sometime.

[mattdonnellon]

Something that should interest ye lot, Sam McVey is the only one of the top black heavyweights not to lose to a white fighter. BTW he was was probably 14-2-2 when he lost to Johnson the third time. Maybe only Jeffries was a quicker developer! He had fought in Australia beating a Peter Jackson(not that one!) and 6-7 fights in the Oxnard area. i have some of them on record somewhere but cant locate them at present. He also helped Sharkey prepare for the 1902 Jeffries fight.

[mcvey]

Something that should interest ye lot, Sam McVey is the only one of the top black heavyweights not to lose to a white fighter. BTW he was was probably 14-2-2 when he lost to Johnson the third time. Maybe only Jeffries was a quicker developer! He had fought in Australia beating a Peter Jackson(not that one!) and 6-7 fights in the Oxnard area. i have some of them on record somewhere but cant locate them at present. He also helped Sharkey prepare for the 1902 Jeffries fight.
Good info ,well done ,thanks.

[Mendoza]

Something that should interest ye lot, Sam McVey is the only one of the top black heavyweights not to lose to a white fighter. BTW he was was probably 14-2-2 when he lost to Johnson the third time. Maybe only Jeffries was a quicker developer! He had fought in Australia beating a Peter Jackson(not that one!) and 6-7 fights in the Oxnard area. i have some of them on record somewhere but cant locate them at present. He also helped Sharkey prepare for the 1902 Jeffries fight.

This is the type of information I like to read. Well done. Please update McVey's record in the archives. Even if McVey was 14-2-2, he was 18 or 19 years old in 1903.

While McVey never lost to a white fighter, he did not beat any good one either. McVey's best win over white fighters using the Box rec information is likely Lang ( who was 24-10-1 ), Pelky ( who was 23-6-5 ) or Ferguson who was ( 38-22-12 ). Lang and Ferguson were on the slide. Pelky was an above average " white hope ", certainly not in Smith, Moran or Willard's class. In fact Pelky was carrying a three fight KO losing streak when he meet McVey in 1914.

I think its fair to say McVey did not fight any of the best white fighters from 1900-1920.

It’s not like McVey mixed with Hart, Choynski, or Burns, and he certainly would have been up against the odds vs Fitzsimmons or Jeffries in 1903 or earlier. Of course McVey was close to fighting Burns in 1908. That would have been a good match.

PS: Sharkey did not fight Jeffries in 1902. Do you mean 1899? If so, McVey was 15 years old then.

[dmt]

This is the type of information I like to read. Well done. Please update McVey's record in the archives. Even if McVey was 14-2-2, he was 18 or 19 years old in 1903.

While McVey never lost to a white fighter, he did not beat any good one either. McVey's best win over white fighters using the Box rec information is likely Lang ( who was 24-10-1 ), Pelky ( who was 23-6-5 ) or Ferguson who was ( 38-22-12 ). Lang and Ferguson were on the slide. Pelky was an above average " white hope ", certainly not in Smith, Moran or Willard's class. In fact Pelky was carrying a three fight KO losing streak when he meet McVey in 1914.

I think its fair to say McVey did not fight any of the best white fighters from 1900-1920.

It’s not like McVey mixed with Hart, Choynski, or Burns, and he certainly would have been up against the odds vs Fitzsimmons or Jeffries in 1903 or earlier. Of course McVey was close to fighting Burns in 1908. That would have been a good match.

PS: Sharkey did not fight Jeffries in 1902. Do you mean 1899? If so, McVey was 15 years old then.:lol: :lol:

[mattdonnellon]

I think his best "white" wins were Carter, Devere, Stewart and Barry(first fight) if you take the form of his opponents at the time into account. Not a very impressive lot, i have to admit.

[Mendoza]

I think his best "white" wins were Carter, Devere, Stewart and Barry(first fight) if you take the form of his opponents at the time into account. Not a very impressive lot, i have to admit.

This makes sense to me. Sam McVey deserves his own thread. I have seen him before on film, and read a bit about him. McVey looks like a real tough guy in pictures.


Researching boxing can be interesting. The saying don’t judge a book by its cover applies to McVey. While McVey was tough, I was a bit surprised to find out that this rock hard specimen of a man actually complained a bit in the ring. I get the sense McVey was a real slugger who beat the guys he was supposed to beat.

[KSmith9116]

We will call it even, as you took the swipes first. As for a debate on this topic, I don't think you'll be able to win. You’re simply dealt a losing had from the start.


I challenge you to find where in this thread that I took a personal swipe at you. Produce it and we will call it even. In the meantime, please keep it in check.

Amazing, the people who knew Corbett thought 1 ) he was in great shape, and 2 ) this was his greatest effort. Past his prime at 33? Not a chance.
You know, for a guy who loves stats you seem to completely ignore Corbett's stats leading up to his fight with Jeffries. From 1895 to 1900, what was his record a draw and two losses? Those numbers don't support your theory that Corbett was prime when he met Jeffries. So I think one of two things is true perhaps; 1) Corbett was not in his prime in 1900, or he was not that good to begin with. What you think?


Funny you don’t mention Corbett's win over a decent McCoy after this fight. I have the news read. It was a war.


Wasn't that after Jeffries I, and wasn't the Kid like a 170 pounder?

So does this mean you going to excuse Corbett for losing to Fitzsimmons too? After all, that fight took place in 1897, which is about 5 years form you version of a prime Corbett. I think you've painted yourself in a corner here. Please explain.

Please explain you question. I am not excusing Corbett for anything. I simply stated he was not prime in 1900. How is this painting myself in a corner. He lost.

And also explain why you stated Fitzsimmons was better than either Jeffries or Johnson. Now that is a thread I'd like to read.
Perhaps I will, but in the end, it is only an opinion.

Disagree. Johnson lost to white and black fighters in the 1890-1905. Being white or black had nothing to do with it. Get over it.
You are not this ignorant about that time period, are you? I mean, BEING BLACK HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT? What is the purpose of even debating with someone who would utter such a statement. Being black, for Johnson, had everything to do with it. If he wasn't black we wouldn't be having this conversation because Jim probably would have fought him (while in his prime) and there would be nothing to debate--we would simply have the result. I am in a state of shock at the above statement.

If Jeffries were black, he probably would have badly beaten the same version of Langford, Jeanette, and McVey that Johnson did, and unlike Johnson he'd have a lot more than a grand total of one knockout win in the long series.

Sure he would have.


McVey at the end of 1903 was 19 years of age, and had a record of 8-2! This is hardly a contender, Ksmith. In fact McVey would go on a three fight losing streak from Dec 1903 to Aug 1904.

Once again, someone more informed than you or I, someone with a lot of money, wanted to put a large purse up for Sam to fight Jeffries. Throw whatever, records and age and opinion you want up, Sam was viewed as a contender by some on the West Coast at the time and there was an offer made to Jim(such as the one you have been hanging your hat on in reference to Jeffries), which he, in turn, flatly refused. I will let you guess why.


When fighters fight the same opponents, and have different results with one doing much better than the other, this is one way on how they differentiate themselves from one another. It was not only Everett, we can look at the Choynski, Munroe, and Griffin fights too. See who did better, Jeffries or Johnson. This type of comparison and ranking is done all the time. You can look at any era. For example, Ali, Frazier and Foreman all fought each other and many of the same opponents. It is an accident that Ali is seen a #1, Foreman as #2, and Frazier as #3 after their careers were over? Heck no. Results count. Embrace them if you want to be objective.


Perhaps it is because, Ali beat both Foreman and Frazier, and Foreman beat Frazier. I don't know but that seems like a horrible example of what you are trying to convey. Once again, two different fighters with vastly different career paths, makes it difficult to compare.

There was no world class fighter Jeffries size, however just about every top fighter he fought had more experience, and in most cases his top competition had far more experience than Johnson's top competition did as heavyweights. If you really want to compare Johnson top competition ring record, and experience levels vs. Jeffries top competition ring record and experience levels, you will be badly trumped.

Yada, yada. Jeffries also had tremendous age and size advantages over the three best opponents of his title reign. Again, experience is certainly important, but it is not everything. Does experience trump a weight advantage, does it trump an age advantage, does it trump skill level? In your world it does, in mine it does not.

The amount of prize fights matters far less than the quality of competition. It matters who you beat, who you lost to, and when the matches happened.

If you were talking about a difference of 20 fights for one guy and 40 for another, I might agree with you. However, in this case, the difference is something like 100 fights. Its not even close. Your correct that it matters who you beat, who you lost to and when the matches happened. What also matters is all the details that go into each and every one of those fights, what the circumstances were and so forth and so on. It is not simply a matter of records and numbers and names.


If you want to compare #'s, give Johnson more fights, give Jeffries a better winning percentage, a better Ko percentage, less Ko losses, more title defenses vs top competition, NO Losses to lesser fighters, and so on. I think you see where my point is going here.


I guess I have been saying all along that it is difficult to straight out compare the records of the two men--it is apples to oranges. Your point has always been to look at the entire thing from a bird's eye view.

This is prize fighting. They fight for the prize. What fighters say and do when the money is up can be two very different things. We know this. I asked for a report where the money was up for a Jeffries vs Johnson fight prior to 1905. I see NONE. Why should Jeffries fight Johnson, who at the time was hit or miss for little money?

I ask for a great deal of things that never get presented. But whether I have such a report is really not the issue. You stick to this argument because you think there is some validity to your point, or opinion that Jeffries would ahve fought Johnson had the money been there. I say once again, not even Jeffries had the kind of insight into his decision making process as you. Try this on for size and see if this has any bearing.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

When the money was up in 1910, Jeffries returned for the fight.

Again, not the same thing as you know. Jeffries was not the champ, despite your desperate attempt to fram him up as one("people still considered him the linear champ). if that were the case, that the world still considered him the champ, then there never would have been such a sweeping call for the "Great White Hope".

Jeff came back because he was begged to do so.

I beleive if the money was big enough in 1903-1905, we see the fight.
Your dreaming.

I also beleive had Johnson performed well vs Hart in 1905 ( He did not! ) there might have been enough interest to piqué a promoter to put the money up.
UGH, go back and see what Jeffries stated in the days before the fight and the days immediately after. He openly stated that he would not fight Johnson had the latter won. And once again, go read up on the Marvin Hart fight.


And speaking of Hart, he initaly told the papers I will not fight Johnson " because he's black and my firends would disown me " , but changed his mind once the money was up. See how this works, Ksmith?

Marvin Hart is not Jim Jeffries nor was he champion. Two entirely different things. Jeff was begging to fight someone, just not Johnson.


Many felt that since Jeffries retired as champ, he was still the champ when he returned. Look it up.


I responded to this foolishness above.

We can not say for sure. You might want it to be a load of crap. I'm sure you are aware that Bert Sugar loves Jack Johnson and has no love for Jeffries. Why would Sugar re-hash a falsehood?
That's his job, to tell good stories. He is not a boxing historian nor is he a source, never mind a valid one to be trusted as gospel. He tells the same tired apocryphal stories all the time. They make for good interviews and books, but they are hardly the fruit of some hard research. Johnson adamantly denied that this event took place. I think most would agree that it seems far fetched.


He wouldn’t. He simply tells the tale that has been passed down to him and verified by sources.

He told you this, or are you simply guessing that this is the case.


By the way, the DVD video of Unforgivable blackness makes mention of this very story of Johnson approaching Jeffires and asking for the fight in the bar. Watch it sometime.
[/quote]
I will, and the next time you watch it, take special notice of the credits.

[Mendoza]

KSmith9116

You know, for a guy who loves stats you seem to completely ignore Corbett's stats leading up to his fight with Jeffries. From 1895 to 1900, what was his record a draw and two losses? Those numbers don't support your theory that Corbett was prime when he met Jeffries. So I think one of two things is true perhaps; 1) Corbett was not in his prime in 1900, or he was not that good to begin with. What you think?

Let's look at it. Corbett lost via DQ to Sharkey, a man who lost but one fight in November 1898. DQ losses are incluclusive, and Sharkey was a leading contender. In May 1900, Corbett put up a great fight vs Jeffries who was the best fighte rin the world in 1900 for sure. Once again, Corbett was 33, in great shape, and performed well. Those familiar with Corbett say it was his best fight. Shot fighters do not do this Ksmith. After the loss, a paper had this to say:


Corbett is still a factor in pugilistic fame. He has regained much of his old time form. The battle was clean and it is doubtful if there was a single infraction of the rules." (Durango Democrat)

I see no reference to Corbett doesn't have it anymore. After the Jeffries fight, Corbett came back to knock out a very good Kid McCoy who was 65-5-9. and still in his prime.

Read the report. Corbett doesn't sound like he's past it here either! Your claim is baseless based on News reads.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

NICE TRY KSmith.



Wasn't that after Jeffries I, and wasn't the Kid like a 170 pounder?

McCoy was about 175 for the fight, however he had beaten bigger men, and was skilled and on a winning streak when Corbett beat him. It seems your looking at weights. Does this mean you think Johnson's win over a 155 pound Langford who had little experience as a heavyweight is dismissable too? Or better yet how does a 180-185 pound Johnson defeat Jeffries, who was the much bigger and stronger fighter? If you're going to keep playing the weight cards, then I ask you who wins from 1903-1905, a 218 pound Jeffires or a 185 pound Johnson? :)


Perhaps I will, but in the end, it is only an opinion.

The history of boxing shows that when the money is high enough, most of the time the fight is made. To disagree is foolhardy, yet this is what you are doing. I never saw a purse offer for Jeffires vs Johnson from 1899-1905, and neither did you. Again what fighters say before the money is up and what they say after is different.


You are not this ignorant about that time period, are you? I mean, BEING BLACK HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT? What is the purpose of even debating with someone who would utter such a statement? Being black, for Johnson, had everything to do with it. If he wasn't black we wouldn't be having this conversation because Jim probably would have fought him (while in his prime) and there would be nothing to debate--we would simply have the result. I am in a state of shock at the above statement.

I wish you could quote me in context here by reposting what I said.

Let me re-hash:


Ksmith says : Is it that you don't want to understand what I am saying or am I not being clear enough? Let me try this--If Jim Jeffries had been black and come up the way Johnson did, with the same talent he had as a white man, his record, legacy etc, would have been a great deal different and vice versa for Johnson. OK?

Menzoda says : Disagree. Johnson lost to white and black fighters in the 1890-1905. Being white or black had nothing to do with it. Get over it. If Jeffries were black, he probably would have badly beaten the same version of Langford, Jeanette, and McVey that Johnson did, and unlike Johnson he'd have a lot more than a grand total of one knockout win in the long series. I do agree that Jeffries would have to wait for Hart or Burns for a title shot though.

Johnson lost because he was not good enough, not because he was black. As the black champion, Johnson lucked out. If people were out to get him, Johnson looses to Jack O'Brien on points ( And might have anyway ), and looses for sure vs Jim Johnson. He also got a DQ win over Flynn. The ref and judges helped Jack Johnson, period, end of sentence, end of paragraph, close the book! Got that?



Once again, someone more informed than you or I, someone with a lot of money, wanted to put a large purse up for Sam to fight Jeffries. Throw whatever, records and age and opinion you want up, Sam was viewed as a contender by some on the West Coast at the time and there was an offer made to Jim(such as the one you have been hanging your hat on in reference to Jeffries), which he, in turn, flatly refused. I will let you guess why.

So than argue for MCvey, not Johnson. McVey was a teenager and on a losing streak in 1903. Once again, I showed you what Hart said. He said he would not fight Johnson, but when the money was up, he did. And Hart was from the south, Jeffries was not. Get it?


Perhaps it is because, Ali beat both Foreman and Frazier, and Foreman beat Frazier. I don't know but that seems like a horrible example of what you are trying to convey. Once again, two different fighters with vastly different career paths, makes it difficult to compare.

It seems like you dislike comparing the records of two fighters who fought the same men. Once again, if we compare good working conditions of Griffin, Choynski, Munore, and Everett, Jeffires did MUCH better than Johnson did. Fact.


I guess I have been saying all along that it is difficult to straight out compare the records of the two men--it is apples to oranges. Your point has always been to look at the entire thing from a bird's eye view.

Apples and Oranges? Who about apples and onions? The two fought some of the same guys with different results. With Jeffries, he didn't have any poor performances. They were mostly juicy apples. With Johnson, he had some smelly Onion like performances, even vs no names or smaller guys where he had an incentive to knock them out. He also ducked his best competition when the money was up. How about those apples?



Again, not the same thing as you know. Jeffries was not the champ, despite your desperate attempt to fram him up as one("people still considered him the linear champ). if that were the case, that the world still considered him the champ, then there never would have been such a sweeping call for the "Great White Hope".

Jeff came back because he was begged to do so.

I suppose the all time purse had nothing to do with it then? :). Come on! Issue that Purse in 1904-1905, and Jeffires is likely to fight.


Marvin Hart is not Jim Jeffries nor was he champion. Two entirely different things. Jeff was begging to fight someone, just not Johnson.

Hart was Champion. He defeated Johnson who had a big time incentive to win the fight, and beat Root, when Jeffries retired. If Hart was not champion, then neither was or Burns. Some could argue the lineal torch was passed when Jeffries lost it in the ring in 1910.



That's his job, to tell good stories. He is not a boxing historian nor is he a source, never mind a valid one to be trusted as gospel. He tells the same tired apocryphal stories all the time. They make for good interviews and books, but they are hardly the fruit of some hard research. Johnson adamantly denied that this event took place. I think most would agree that it seems far fetched.


I think Sugar has done enough research, and qualifies as a historian. With Sugar he focuses more on the sociological / popular culture side of boxing
than the action in the ring. One thing he is not is a make up artists. If he tells the story, there is a good chance it happened.

[/quote] I will, and the next time you watch it, take special notice of the credits.[/quote]


The editing of Unforgivable blackness and omissions of Johnson career take some luster off a very good doc. They show the wrong pictures, and screw up some facts. Yes, watch it. You will see the story re-told. Johnson walked away form the fight Jeffries offered. Had Johnson taken his lumps, he might have stired up enough interest for a ring fight..

[mattdonnellon]

There are many reports of offers of purse offers of $15,000 to $20,000 and various combinations of 85% of the gate, etc in the papers of late 1903 as regards a Jeffries contest with McVey or Johnson. "Jeff refuses an offer" headlines a report of a Colma Club offer of $15,000, Oakland Tribunr November 5 or a similar report in the Trenton Times Nov.2.
The Daily Northwester, Wisc, carries a report of a $20,000 offer in ite Nov,5 edition. There are many more such reports. There seems to be no doubt that Jeff got genuine offers, whats seems to be at issue is why he refused them.

[KSmith9116]

I noticed that you conviently did not respond to the newspaper report that I posted. Typical.

You want to battle on and on about Bert Sugar, Corbett's prime, Marvin Hart, and what Jeffries "would" have done, but simply refuse to take heed of what Jeffries "was" doing--ducking Johnson based on his color.

I cannot argue my point any clearer than I have.

[KSmith9116]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I guess we can excuse Johnson for not fighting Langford now, he offered to fight him in a cellar.

[dmt]

offering someone to fight in the cellar is not the same as offering them a shot in the ring

[Mendoza]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I guess we can excuse Johnson for not fighting Langford now, he offered to fight him in a cellar.

Sure, but the difference is the money offer had been made for a Johnson vs Langford fight. There were similar offers for Johnson to fight MCvey ( which you doubted ) and Jeanette.

When the big money was finally up, Jeffries did take the fight. When the money was up for Johnson in many fights, he balked!!!!

I see a huge diffrence here.

[Mendoza]

There are many reports of offers of purse offers of $15,000 to $20,000 and various combinations of 85% of the gate, etc in the papers of late 1903 as regards a Jeffries contest with McVey or Johnson. "Jeff refuses an offer" headlines a report of a Colma Club offer of $15,000, Oakland Tribunr November 5 or a similar report in the Trenton Times Nov.2.
The Daily Northwester, Wisc, carries a report of a $20,000 offer in ite Nov,5 edition. There are many more such reports. There seems to be no doubt that Jeff got genuine offers, whats seems to be at issue is why he refused them.

Maybe so. Ksmith must be on cloud 9 right now since I’ve never seen him refer to or produce these types of reports. I'll take your word. Good find.

However let's note that Jeffries last fight vs Munroe in 1904, and then he retired. If the offer came in late 1903, we are talking about a 1 year window here at the very most. What needs to be re-searched form here is how much Jeffries made vs Munroe. If it was over 15-20K, then Jeffries took the money. If it was under 15-20K, to fight Munroe, then you can signal a duck even though Munroe was personal as much as business.. Furthermore the teenaged McVey was on a losing streak at the end of 1903, and took a year off from boxign after that. Johnson was elimiated form the #1 contender when he lost to Hart in 1905. Neither man had much of a true claim to the #1 spot for long.

Back to my point. Johnson was offered far more money to fight McVey, Langford, and Jeanette as champion, and refused multiple times over a window far longer than a year.

It is clear that Johnson was the bigger ducker by a country mile. Even Ksmtih would be inclined to agree. The title of this thread is, who beat better competion as champion. I think you, me, Ksmith, and most of the board would say Jeffries.

[mattdonnellon]

i'VE ALLREADY PLUMPED FOR jEFF.

[OLD FOGEY]

If Jeffries went into the match thinking the fight was fixed, then he could not have trained hard in sprit and Johnson’s win is even hollower. Johnson could have knocked Jeffries out in the 1st you say???? McVey's posts get more entertaining by the day. Not a chance. Watch the fight MCvey, and you will see the first 4 rounds are even, with Johnson being extra cautious not to get hit. DUH.

I find this an odd arguement. Jeffries does not fight Johnson in 1903 to 1905 while Jeff is champion. He comes out of retirement according to this fix rumour only because he is assured that Johnson will lay down for him. Your conclusion is that Johnson's win is thus even hollower?

But what of Jeffries? He comes off as not only craven in avoiding Johnson while he was champion, but also as a deeply dishonest man who was willing to put a fraud over on the public and later pose as champion.

I think the fight was always on the level. Jeff had his faults, but I don't think he would have gone along with such a charade.

[mcvey]

I find this an odd arguement. Jeffries does not fight Johnson in 1903 to 1905 while Jeff is champion. He comes out of retirement according to this fix rumour only because he is assured that Johnson will lay down for him. Your conclusion is that Johnson's win is thus even hollower?

But what of Jeffries? He comes off as not only craven in avoiding Johnson while he was champion, but also as a deeply dishonest man who was willing to put a fraud over on the public and later pose as champion.

I think the fight was always on the level. Jeff had his faults, but I don't think he would have gone along with such a charade.
My original post contained a quote from Gunboat Smith ,that the Jeffries Johnson fight was originally going to be a tank job by Johnson,when the fight was scheduled for San Francisco,when the fight was switched toReno allbets were off and the fight was on the level,thats Smiths story as a former Johnson sparring partner ,he said he was told this by by Bob Armstrong ,one of Johnsons seconds for the fight,wether you beleive it is up to you,I just offered it as an interesting tit bit.Its in Peter Hellers book "In This Corner",a very good read imo.

[OLD FOGEY]

My original post contained a quote from Gunboat Smith ,that the Jeffries Johnson fight was originally going to be a tank job by Johnson,when the fight was scheduled for San Francisco,when the fight was switched toReno allbets were off and the fight was on the level,thats Smiths story as a former Johnson sparring partner ,he said he was told this by by Bob Armstrong ,one of Johnsons seconds for the fight,wether you beleive it is up to you,I just offered it as an interesting tit bit.Its in Peter Hellers book "In This Corner",a very good read imo.

Yes. But if this story is true, what does it say of Jeffries? Why would he even want to be "champion" under such circumstances?

I think it important to mention that the whole fix story is hearsay from Gunboat Smith, who was 83 and sixty years past the events described.

[mcvey]

Yes. But is this story is true, what does it say of Jeffries? Why would he even want to be "champion" under such circumstances?

I think it important to mention that the whole fix story is hearsay from Gunboat Smith, who was 83 and sixty years past the events described.
Yes by all means give the source ,Im not suggesting it was kosher,just interesting,Jeffries was under a huge amount of pressure,so much that its difficult to comprehend it today,what with Sullivan and Corbett on his back,plus all the press,its known that he didnt sleep the night before the fight ,and that he complained that his arms and legs,"felt queer " during the fight ,plus his judgement of distance was "off" these could all be symptoms of tension.The man must have been in a mental turmoil when he found he could do nothing with a Champion at the peak of his powers,which Jeffries decidedly was not,whatever Jeffries faults he took a beating and never quit,you have to respect his courage.

[KSmith9116]

offering someone to fight in the cellar is not the same as offering them a shot in the ring
agreed. I was poking fun at Dr. Z

[OLD FOGEY]

Yes by all means give the source ,Im not suggesting it was kosher,just interesting,Jeffries was under a huge amount of pressure,so much that its difficult to comprehend it today,what with Sullivan and Corbett on his back,plus all the press,its known that he didnt sleep the night before the fight ,and that he complained that his arms and legs,"felt queer " during the fight ,plus his judgement of distance was "off" these could all be symptoms of tension.The man must have been in a mental turmoil when he found he could do nothing with a Champion at the peak of his powers,which Jeffries decidedly was not,whatever Jeffries faults he took a beating and never quit,you have to respect his courage.

Agreed. I just thought it odd that this fix story was intepreted by another poster as somehow reflecting badly on Johnson's fighting ability--I think it would be irrelevant--but it would certainly reflect in all kinds of ways on Jeffries.
I don't think this story is true, however.

About Jeffries and his being nervous-that seemed to be par for the course for him. He had trouble sleeping prior to his 1899 fight with Fitzsimmons, according to the SF Chronicle. He was always grouchy and high-strung before matches.

[ChrisPontius]

Agreed. I just thought it odd that this fix story was intepreted by another poster as somehow reflecting badly on Johnson's fighting ability--I think it would be irrelevant--but it would certainly reflect in all kinds of ways on Jeffries.
I don't think this story is true, however.

About Jeffries and his being nervous-that seemed to be par for the course for him. He had trouble sleeping prior to his 1899 fight with Fitzsimmons, according to the SF Chronicle. He was always grouchy and high-strung before matches.

Who wouldn't be dreading potentially take 20 rounds of punishement before getting through? His style must have taken its toll mentally.

[mcvey]

Agreed. I just thought it odd that this fix story was intepreted by another poster as somehow reflecting badly on Johnson's fighting ability--I think it would be irrelevant--but it would certainly reflect in all kinds of ways on Jeffries.
I don't think this story is true, however.

About Jeffries and his being nervous-that seemed to be par for the course for him. He had trouble sleeping prior to his 1899 fight with Fitzsimmons, according to the SF Chronicle. He was always grouchy and high-strung before matches.
I think the poster you are referring to would find a way to make things reflect badly on Johnson,even if he kod Ali,Louis ,and Dempsey on the same night!

[Mendoza]

I think the poster you are referring to would find a way to make things reflect badly on Johnson,even if he kod Ali,Louis ,and Dempsey on the same night!

Johnson had a chance to fight the best in his era as champ but didn't. In fact sometimes Johnson was embarrassed vs lesser fighters as champ. Getting out boxed by a much smaller man, getting floored vs a much smaller man, and getting his rear handed to him by a journeyman! That’s all time stuff right there. Yet some posters here continue to ignore the obvious.

If Johnson had beaten McVey, Langford, and Jeanette as champion, then he pretty much cleans out his era as champion like Ali and Louis did and would deserve high acclaim. In fact most of Ali's, Louis’, and Dempsey's title fight opponents crush the same guys Johnson gave title shots to. You know it, and so do I. And the beat goes on……

[apollack]

I think Johnson's racial symbolism and social importance far eclipses his abilities as a fighter. He has to be one of the most boring fighters I've ever watched. Not saying he wasn't a good fighter, but I have some question marks about him. Maybe I just don't like his style. Effective, but really boring. What a lot of folks fail to realize is that Johnson was held back not only because of his race, but also because he was considered less than entertaining. A lot of folks were a lot more pro-Peter Jackson in his title quest than Johnson, because Jackson came to fight a lot more than Johnson did. When Jackson came to America, his abilities were instantly appreciated and lauded. It took years for folks to truly appreciate Johnson's abilities, and even then there were mixed reviews. Johnson had to fight as much as he did to hone his style, and to finally get through to folks that he really was that good. But his style was such that a lot of people had to be convinced. Fighters like Joe Louis - when you saw him, you almost instantly knew the guy was special. Johnson, you weren't sure until he beat a bunch of guys, and then you begrudgingly had to give it up to him.

[amhlilhaus]

I think Johnson's {style} ........ He has to be one of the most boring fighters I've ever watched. Not saying he wasn't a good fighter, but I have some question marks about him. Maybe I just don't like his style. Effective, but really boring.

I feel the same way about ali, I guess I have to banish myself from the classic section now.:!:

[Mendoza]

I think Johnson's racial symbolism and social importance far eclipses his abilities as a fighter. He has to be one of the most boring fighters I've ever watched. Not saying he wasn't a good fighter, but I have some question marks about him. Maybe I just don't like his style. Effective, but really boring. What a lot of folks fail to realize is that Johnson was held back not only because of his race, but also because he was considered less than entertaining. A lot of folks were a lot more pro-Peter Jackson in his title quest than Johnson, because Jackson came to fight a lot more than Johnson did. When Jackson came to America, his abilities were instantly appreciated and lauded. It took years for folks to truly appreciate Johnson's abilities, and even then there were mixed reviews. Johnson had to fight as much as he did to hone his style, and to finally get through to folks that he really was that good. But his style was such that a lot of people had to be convinced. Fighters like Joe Louis - when you saw him, you almost instantly knew the guy was special. Johnson, you weren't sure until he beat a bunch of guys, and then you begrudgingly had to give it up to him.

Interesting point. My take on Johnson’s historical significance is what most boxing fans know him. Many fans have never seen Johnson go a few un-edited rounds, and if they have, the quick conclusion is he wasn't nearly as impressive as Dempsey, or Louis. Even less fans have actually read some of Johnson’s dubious news paper reads. When you tally it all up, Johnson’s ring prowess is certainly over rated.

While Johnson could be boring, I’d give him far more credit if he beat the best fighters as champion even if he was boring. But boring vs tier two or tier three heavyweights, and not looking food in the process is what I see or read too often.