For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak?

[McGrain]

What was Jeffries best performance, in your opinion?

[RoccoMarciano]

I think the Fitzsimmons stuff deserves mention. That little dude may have been the best he faced, and defeated, during his prime.

[McGrain]

Boxrec lists him as 206 for this fight - sound about right?

It would be one of the lightest recorded weights he came in at, if correct.

[Russell]

Physically?

Probably hanging in there for as long as he did against Corbett to come back and win.

Long, long time to be outboxed like that.

[janitor]

Jeffries continued to improve throughout his reign as champion.

The second Corbett fight and the Munroe fight were both measured destructions in which he outboxed his oponents. The press at the time noted an improvment in his technique and boxing skills.

Truth is we probably never saw the best version of Jeffries. He would perhaps have got better still had he stayed in the game.

[RoccoMarciano]

Truth is we probably never saw the best version of Jeffries. He would perhaps have got better still had he stayed in the game.

I don't know that I've ever "seen" him in any great detail.

Yep, he had a very minute reign as champ to be sure.

[janitor]

Yep, he had a very minute reign as champ to be sure.

His number of title defences and the quality of the opposition relative to the era puts him in the same general bracket as Dempsey, Marciano and Lewis. It puts him in a bracket above the two-three hit wonders like Liston, Frazier, Foreman and Tyson.

Nothing minute about that.

[RoccoMarciano]

His number of title defences and the quality of the opposition relative to the era puts him in the same general bracket as Dempsey, Marciano and Lewis. It puts him in a bracket above the two-three hit wonders like Liston, Frazier, Foreman and Tyson.

Nothing minute about that.

What did you ever "see" from him? I'm as fond as the next guy of placing myself back in time through the words of others. The only trouble with those words is that they can be biased or unbiased.. the trick is figuring out just what to believe.

One thing is for sure, we have video of Marciano, Lewis and Dempsey (although a little limited in Dumpsey's case)... I don't know that that is available regarding Jeffries.

[janitor]

What did you ever "see" from him?

When I say we didnt "see" the best of him I mean that he didnt reach his theoretical peak. That would probably have come in the two years after he retired.

[Holmes' Jab]

The Fitz effort and both fights against Corbett immediately spring to mind here. What about Sharkey II, surely that one deserves big consideration?

[RoccoMarciano]

When I say we didnt "see" the best of him I mean that he didnt reach his theoretical peak. That would probably have come in the two years after he retired.

I suppose this is an agreeable opinion.

Jeffries is a hard guy to rate, regardless.

[ChrisPontius]

His number of title defences and the quality of the opposition relative to the era puts him in the same general bracket as Dempsey, Marciano and Lewis. It puts him in a bracket above the two-three hit wonders like Liston, Frazier, Foreman and Tyson.

Nothing minute about that.

I would say the quality of opposition clearly puts him below the likes of Marciano and Lewis.

He generally had 40 to 60 pounds on his key opponents, not to mention that Corbett hadn't won a fight in five years and was 36/39 years old, as was Fitszimmons.

[Mendoza]

Jeffries gained a good deal of skills as his career progressed. His two best performances were his two last fights between Munroe, and Corbett.

[Dempsey1238]

While there is very little footage of Jeff out there. Dempsey for a 1920's fighter has a lot compare to other fighters of that era. I think we have more fight footage of Dempsey, plus training film than any other fighter of the 1920's imo. Which is amazing because of how inactive he was, were compare to Greb or Walker who were very active. And in Walker's case, we have about 5 fights compare to Dempsey's 8 or so so fights. The thing that relly pushs Dempsey over the edged in this regard to film is training footage.

Dempsey vs
Willard
Brennen,
Carp,
Gibbions,
Firpo
Tunney 1 and 2
Sharkey.

And most of these fights you can find complete.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]I would say the quality of opposition clearly puts him below the likes of Marciano and Lewis.

He generally had 40 to 60 pounds on his key opponents, not to mention that Corbett hadn't won a fight in five years and was 36/39 years old, as was Fitszimmons.


They were the best available at the time small/old/ginger or whatever. Like Marciano's oponents these old/small men got to fight for the title because they beat the younger/bigger guys.

All you can do is fight the best around at the time.

[Mendoza]

I would say the quality of opposition clearly puts him below the likes of Marciano and Lewis.

The fight fans and historians who lived from 1900-1960 disagree with you. In fact Nat Fleischer said Jeffries beat the best competition of all the champions. ( Before Ali ). Even you think Nat was a bit off, to say something like this speaks volumes of Jeffries competition.

[Dempsey1238]

Well, There were better guys to defend than against a past it Corbett though. Now most of them were black. But still.

[mcvey]

Two of Jeffries challengers.

Jack Munroe
21 fights 13 w 4 l 3 d. of those wins 9 were over men having their first contest,he also managed a draw against another.Munroe has a nws dec over Tom Sharkey in Sharkeys last fight ,Sharkey hadn t won a fight in 3 years,and in his last had been kod by Gus Ruhlin,he was finished .Munroe has a win over Peter Maher ,but Maher was 34,had won 1 of his last 7 fights,that one a dsq over the mighty Joe Grim,he had been kod inone round by George Gardner a LH ,who was not noted for his punch,having been floored 3 times in the round,kod by Choynsky in 2 and again in 2 by Kid Carter ,the previous year,he would go on to be kod a further 12 times before finally retiring.

Jack Finnegan
6 fights 1 w,3 l,2 d
The 1 win on Finnegans resume was over Jack Mcormick ,whose record at that time was 1 w 5l 1d,
Jeffries 40 lbs heavier than Finnegan dropped him twice,he got up crying,and Finnegans seconds rushed into the ring to rescue him.
Question,do you really think these men were credible ,worthy challengers for the Heavyweight Title?You often say that Jeffries was a "work in progress,and was learning on the job,what could he learn from two such disgraceful defenses? In one of which the referee pulled him off his stricken "challenger" saying "no you don,t Jim ,I don,t want to see someone killed"

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]Two of Jeffries challengers.

Jack Munroe
21 fights 13 w 4 l 3 d. of those wins 9 were over men having their first contest,he also managed a draw against another.


How exactly have you established that these men were fighting in their first contest?

Might have been their 100th for all you know.



Jack Finnegan
6 fights 1 w,3 l,2 d
The 1 win on Finnegans resume was over Jack Mcormick ,whose record at that time was 1 w 5l 1d,

Jeffries 40 lbs heavier than Finnegan dropped him twice,he got up crying,and Finnegans seconds rushed into the ring to rescue him.
Question,do you really think these men were credible ,worthy challengers for the Heavyweight Title?


Finegan was obviously a weak challenger but Munroe was OK. He was a fringe conteder at the time as far as I can gather.

You often say that Jeffries was a "work in progress,and was learning on the job,what could he learn from two such disgraceful defenses? In one of which the referee pulled him off his stricken "challenger" saying "no you don,t Jim ,I don,t want to see someone killed"

What dose any modern title challenger learn from fighting the calibre of oponents they fight on the way up to a shot at an alphabet title?

You learn somtimes by picking off weaker fighters.

[ChrisPontius]

They were the best available at the time small/old/ginger or whatever. Like Marciano's oponents these old/small men got to fight for the title because they beat the younger/bigger guys.



Ginger. :lol:


Yes, but the difference here is that Marciano's opponents were all active. Moore's recent record was 45-1. Walcott looked great in a one punch KO win over Charles as well as holding his own against Louis. Charles had beaten nearly every contender around and was fighting every few months, as was Walcott. That doesn't compare to a man who hadn't won a fight in 5 years. They weren't supermiddleweights either.



All you can do is fight the best around at the time.
Yes, and Jeffries didn't do that. Jack Johnson, Denver ed Martin and Frank Childs all weren't fought.

How would you look at Marciano had he drawn the color line against Walcott, Charles and Moore?

[mcvey]

[quote]


How exactly have you established that these men were fighting in their first contest?

Might have been their 100th for all you know.




Finegan was obviously a weak challenger but Munroe was OK. He was a fringe conteder at the time as far as I can gather.



What dose any modern title challenger learn from fighting the calibre of oponents they fight on the way up to a shot at an alphabet title?

You learn somtimes by picking off weaker fighters.
Itook my info from boxrec as to the records of Munroes challengers ,have you info to the contrary?Both were abysmal challengers IMO. Bottom line whatever way you slice it,Jeffries though a fine Champion had a reputatation based on smaller older often comebacking fighters who were past their prime by some considerable years,or stiffs like Munroe and Finnegan,two one round blowouts that should never have been allowed,they male Louis,s "Bum Of The Month" and Fraziers two defences against Stander and Daniels look like TFOTC.

[Mendoza]

ChrisPontius

Yes, but the difference here is that Marciano's opponents were all active. Moore's recent record was 45-1. Walcott looked great in a one punch KO win over Charles as well as holding his own against Louis. Charles had beaten nearly every contender around and was fighting every few months, as was Walcott. That doesn't compare to a man who hadn't won a fight in 5 years. They weren't supermiddleweights either.

I agree Moore was active, and though older, he is Marciano's best win with legs as Moore who did not have a good chin kept winning. Walcott and Charles was awful post Marciano. Walcott did not win another fight, and Journeyman began to defeat Charles.


Yes, and Jeffries didn't do that. Jack Johnson, Denver ed Martin and Frank Childs all weren't fought.

The color line was an obstacle for sure, however Jeffries did beat three notable black fighters on the way up ( Griffin, Jackson, and Armstrong ) He also shared the ring as champion with Griffin in a four round match, where had Griffin won by knockout, he would have been the champion. Much of Jeffires career is un-documented, but he does have reported KO's over black contenders such as Frank Childs, Denver Ed Martin, and Kid Cotton. Perhaps Apollack's new book can find hidden fights, but I tend to doubt it unless he researches small town papers in the Southwestern portion of the USA in California, Mexico, and Arizona, and French and Brittish papers. Buying the first editions of the Ring Record book might help too.

I contend that as champion, the only guy who deserved a shot beyond a doubt that Jeffries did not fight was Johnson toward the tail end of his career post Corbett II in 1903 to Pre Johnson vs Hart in 1905. That's it. a 1.5 year window for Johnson. Jeffries later returned to fight Johnson, so in a sense he did not duck anyone. As the sun set on Corbett and Fitzsimmons, the money and laws made it harder to get a big fight going in boxing. Jeffries claims he lost money in the Munroe fight. I still contend there was never a money offer for Johnson vs Jeffries from 1903-1905, and had their been a big money offer, and Johnson defeated Hart, perhaps we see that fight.


How would you look at Marciano had he drawn the color line against Walcott, Charles and Moore?

Since these three were likely Marciano's best opponents, I would rank him lower. However, Fitz, Corbett and Sharkey were Jeffries best opponents out there from 1899-1903. Not all champions meet the best out there and stay active. I prefer to focus on who the best fighters were when so and so was champion, not what their ethnicity. Rocky could have hung around to fight Patterson, Liston, Williams, Valdes, and others, but had back troubles and opted to retire young, and stay retired. I tend to beleive that Vlades who defeated Chalres just before Maricano fought Charles and was rated #1 was shafted of a title shot.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius]Ginger. :lol:

Yes, but the difference here is that Marciano's opponents were all active. Moore's recent record was 45-1. Walcott looked great in a one punch KO win over Charles as well as holding his own against Louis. Charles had beaten nearly every contender around and was fighting every few months, as was Walcott. That doesn't compare to a man who hadn't won a fight in 5 years. They weren't supermiddleweights either.


Lets not be too quick to generalise here.

Bob Fitzsimmons may have been an inactive champion but he beat some top contenders between the two Jeffries fights as did Tom Sharkey and Rus Ruhlin.

Fitzsimmons might have been a supermiddleweight but his credentials as a heavyweight puncher are prety solid. Corbett and Sharkey were no smaller than Charles or Moore and Ruhlin was bigger than anybody Marciano defended his title against.

I would also caution you against making blanket statments that a fighter was inactive over a given period because they might well have had unrecorded fights in the blank spaces. Some sources indicate for example that Jeffries fought Sam Burger between the Munroe fight and the Johnson fight.


Yes, and Jeffries didn't do that. Jack Johnson, Denver ed Martin and Frank Childs all weren't fought.

How would you look at Marciano had he drawn the color line against Walcott, Charles and Moore?


The colour line is a black mark against Jeffries record but how much diference dose it make in practice?

He beat most of the top black fighters before he became champion.

Even if Jack Johnson had relieved him of the title (a big if) it would not have made much diference to his title reign as it would have been around the time of the Munroe fight.

[Mendoza]

Two of Jeffries challengers.

Jack Munroe
21 fights 13 w 4 l 3 d. of those wins 9 were over men having their first contest,he also managed a draw against another.Munroe has a nws dec over Tom Sharkey in Sharkeys last fight ,Sharkey hadn t won a fight in 3 years,and in his last had been kod by Gus Ruhlin,he was finished .Munroe has a win over Peter Maher ,but Maher was 34,had won 1 of his last 7 fights,that one a dsq over the mighty Joe Grim,he had been kod inone round by George Gardner a LH ,who was not noted for his punch,having been floored 3 times in the round,kod by Choynsky in 2 and again in 2 by Kid Carter ,the previous year,he would go on to be kod a further 12 times before finally retiring.

I think McVey is using Box Rec too much, and the trouble is the records of those nine fighters you are referring to are very much incomplete. How do we know they all were making their debuts? This is highly unlikely! The truth is box rec has many 5-10% of all the fights out there. That is it. In many cases, the names that appear are only there because they are on a more famous opponent’s record. The further back we go, the less fights that are recorded.

Some of the fighters Munroe beat such as Montana Jack Sullivan were good enough to draw with Stanley Ketchel, and defeat Fireman Flynn.

Munroe was not a world-beater, but he did draw with Griffin in a 20 round match in 1901 ( the same person who beat Jack Johnson in 1901 ) KO'd an older name in Maher, and got the better of Sharkey. This, along with the top names being older, and a distortion of the truth about what happened when he sparred with Jeffries is why Munore got the title fight. Jeffries destroyed Munroe. The fight should have been stopped in round one, but it went on a while longer to give the fans their monies worth. It was Munroe's lone stoppage in 21 recorded fights. While Jeffries opponent wasn’t ideal, the result was.

Munroe in his prime was 6' 210 pounds according to news reads, not 186 as box rec records.

Here is is a photo of him in his prime:



[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey][quote=janitor]
Itook my info from boxrec as to the records of Munroes challengers ,have you info to the contrary?


All I know is that Boxrec is almost invariably incomplet when it comes to fighters of this period, even the champions. Most of Corbetts profesional record is missing for example. A fighter could easily get to the level of say British Champion before his boxrec debut.

No I dont have any information to the contrary but it is not sound practice to take boxrec profiles as being complete during this period.

Both were abysmal challengers IMO. Bottom line whatever way you slice it,

Finegan was an abysmal challenger yes.

Munroe was the kind of challenger who would frankly not raise any eyebrows today.

Jeffries though a fine Champion had a reputatation based on smaller older often comebacking fighters who were past their prime by some considerable years,or stiffs like Munroe and Finnegan,

OK we can acept that Munroe was lucky to get a title shot. Perhaps we coould compare it to Danny Williams fighting for the Ring Magazine title of the strength of a win over a shell of Mike Tyson.

Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Sharkey and even Ruhlin to a certain extent were the best challengers available small and inactive or otherwise. It is not like there is a body of bigger more active fighters who deserved to fight for the title more.

[Mendoza]

janitor says:

All I know is that Boxrec is almost invariably incomplet when it comes to fighters of this period, even the champions. Most of Corbetts profesional record is missing for example. A fighter could easily get to the level of say British Champion before his boxrec debut.

No I dont have any information to the contrary but it is not sound practice to take boxrec profiles as being complete during this period.

This is 100% correct. By the way, I have Corbett's record at 59-0-3 before facing Fitzsimmons! If anone wants to see it, I can re-post it. Some were fights were news type of decsions, but still this is a lot more than Box Rec records.

[McGrain]

This is 100% correct. By the way, I have Corbett's record at 59-0-3 before facing Fitzsimmons! If anone wants to see it, I can re-post it.

Probably worth opening a new thread!

I would like to see it.

[mcvey]

I think McVey is using Box Rec too much, and the trouble is the records of those nine fighters you are referring to are very much incomplete. How do we know they all were making their debuts? This is highly unlikely! The truth is box rec has many 5-10% of all the fights out there. That is it. In many cases, the names that appear are only there because they are on a more famous opponent’s record. The further back we go, the less fights that are recorded.

Some of the fighters Munroe beat such as Montana Jack Sullivan were good enough to draw with Stanley Ketchel, and defeat Fireman Flynn.

Munroe was not a world-beater, but he did draw with Griffin in a 20 round match in 1901 ( the same person who beat Jack Johnson in 1901 ) KO'd an older name in Maher, and got the better of Sharkey. This, along with the top names being older, and a distortion of the truth about what happened when he sparred with Jeffries is why Munore got the title fight. Jeffries destroyed Munroe. The fight should have been stopped in round one, but it went on a while longer to give the fans their monies worth. It was Munroe's lone stoppage in 21 recorded fights. While Jeffries opponent wasn’t ideal, the result was.

Munroe in his prime was 6' 210 pounds according to news reads, not 186 as box rec records.

Here is is a photo of him in his prime:



[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Montana Jack Sullivan wasnt beaten by Munroe it was a 4 round draw and again is listed as Sullivans first contest,unless you have info to the contraryI will accept that it the truth.,bottom line Jeffries was the best of his time he didnt duck anyone really,perhaps Johnson at the end,but dont build up two stiffs into worthy challengers they weren,t,as any one who analyses their records can see.Jeffries wins over Ruhlin ,Corbett ,Fitz and Sharkey ensure him a place as a great Champ imo,I used to have him in my top 10,but let,s not pretend that those two fights were meritorious,imo they were actually rather shameful.

[mcvey]

Montana Jack Sullivan wasnt beaten by Munroe it was a 4 round draw and again is listed as Sullivans first contest,unless you have info to the contraryI will accept that it the truth.,bottom line Jeffries was the best of his time he didnt duck anyone really,perhaps Johnson at the end,but dont build up two stiffs into worthy challengers they weren,t,as any one who analyses their records can see.Jeffries wins over Ruhlin ,Corbett ,Fitz and Sharkey ensure him a place as a great Champ imo,I used to have him in my top 10,but let,s not pretend that those two fights were meritorious,imo they were actually rather shameful.
By the way Sullivan was a middleweight.

[janitor]

Montana Jack Sullivan wasnt beaten by Munroe it was a 4 round draw and again is listed as Sullivans first contest,unless you have info to the contraryI will accept that it the truth.

I sincerely doubt that there are a dozen fighters from that era whose pro debut is recorded on boxrec.

It would probably have taken place behind a cow shed somwhere and even the local papers would not pick up on it unless it was part of a major event.

[mcvey]

If you are correct ,and without proof its just conjecture on your part,do you think these cowshed affairs are suitable fodder for world title challengers? Since Munroe went out in 2 rounds offering token resistance ,your assertion that it was a measured boxing display by Jeffries makes me laugh.Ive given Jeffries all the props I think he,s entitled to,but he shouldn,t have been sullying his hands ,and the title fighting the likes of Finnegan and Munroe.

[Mendoza]

Montana Jack Sullivan wasnt beaten by Munroe it was a 4 round draw and again is listed as Sullivans first contest,unless you have info to the contraryI will accept that it the truth.,bottom line Jeffries was the best of his time he didnt duck anyone really,perhaps Johnson at the end,but dont build up two stiffs into worthy challengers they weren,t,as any one who analyses their records can see.Jeffries wins over Ruhlin ,Corbett ,Fitz and Sharkey ensure him a place as a great Champ imo,I used to have him in my top 10,but let,s not pretend that those two fights were meritorious,imo they were actually rather shameful.

Where did I say that Munroe was a worthy challenger? I did not. I said he was " not a world beater ", listed some name fighters he beat or drew with, then wrapped it up by saying he got a shot for being on hot streak / personal reasons.

It is plausible that by 1904, Munore would be a viewed as a top 10-15 heavyweight, as many of the past names were fading. Munroe was not a " stiff "

My comment on Jack Sullivan was just a reminder not to use those 0-0 fighters as a benchmark for anything without seeing how their careers went.

In closing the fights with Munore and Finnegan are not among Jeffries best oppoents. No one says they are. They only serve as examples as to what a good champion should to guys who did not deserve title shots. In Jeffries case this means setting a record for the quickest lineal KO, and KOing a man who was never stopped in any of his other 21+ recorded fights.

[mcvey]

Where did I say that Munroe was a worthy challenger? I did not. I said he was " not a world beater ", listed some name fighters he beat or drew with, then wrapped it up by saying he got a shot for being on hot streak / personal reasons.

It is plausible that by 1904, Munore would be a viewed as a top 10-15 heavyweight, as many of the past names were fading. Munroe was not a " stiff "

My comment on Jack Sullivan was just a reminder not to use those 0-0 fighters as a benchmark for anything without seeing how their careers went.

In closing the fights with Munore and Finnegan are not among Jeffries best oppoents. No one says they are. They only serve as examples as to what a good champion should to guys who did not deserve title shots. In Jeffries case this means setting a record for the quickest lineal KO, and KOing a man who was never stopped in any of his other 21+ recorded fights.
I would say that Finnegan and Munroe must rank as two of the worst and very possibly are the worst challengers for the title ever,I see you glossed over my correction of your assertion that Sullivan was beaten by Munroe.You agree they didnt deserve title shots ,thats enough for me ,thats all I wanted acknowledged.

[Mendoza]

I would say that Finnegan and Munroe must rank as two of the worst and very possibly are the worst challengers for the title ever,I see you glossed over my correction of your assertion that Sullivan was beaten by Munroe.You agree they didnt deserve title shots ,thats enough for me ,thats all I wanted acknowledged.
Most long tenured champions give a guy like Munore a title shot. Johnson, Bruns ,Louis, Patterson, Ali, and Holmes had there share of Jack Munroe like oppponets, the differnce is they didn't flatten them in 2 rounds or less.

My point on Sullivan was he was not likely 0-0 when he fought Munroe, and he had a good account for himself vs some name fighters, beating Fireman Flynn, who of coruse got a title shot himself.

As for the worst man to recevie a title shot, one could argue it was Tony Ross. Ross was Ko'd four times before he meet Jack Johnson and was on a 2 win 5 loss streak going into the title match. Why did he get a shot?

Tommy Burns pick of Jewy Smith is also a good choice. Smith ended up 11-25.

As for Munroe, let me put it this way, he was in the ring vs some name guys prior to facing Jeffries, he wasn't a multiple Ko looser or even stopped, and he was not on a losing streak either. That should put things into perspective.

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]If you are correct ,and without proof its just conjecture on your part,do you think these cowshed affairs are suitable fodder for world title challengers?

What you have to understand is that profesional boxing, amateur boxing and fights outside the pub for a hat full of change blended seamlesly together. The vast majority of profesional fights were not recorded.

Of course I cant say exactly what is missing. Just that if you start digging you wont be able to move for finding it. I cannot prove that there are undiscoverd fossils waiting to be unearthed but it is safe to asume that there are.

[mcvey]

Let us hope that Appollack can unearth these fossils for us in his pending book . Of course there could be fossils detrimental to our heroes,but thems the breaks.Jim Jefffries is probably sitting up in Valhalla ,on his segregated rocking chair surly and gruff,wondering why we still are talking about him,at this date.

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]Let us hope that Appollack can unearth these fossils for us in his pending book . Of course there could be fossils detrimental to our heroes,but thems the breaks.

That is the other side of the coin of course.

Jim Jefffries is probably sitting up in Valhalla ,on his segregated rocking chair surly and gruff,wondering why we still are talking about him,at this date.

No doubt he is releived that he dosnt have to put up with the fan adulation.

[mcvey]

[QUOTE]

That is the other side of the coin of course.



No doubt he is releived that he dosnt have to put up with the fan adulation.
Yes he doesnt seem to have been to fan friendly does he?Still he proved a sincere friend to old foes like Fitz and |Sharkey and was by all accounts a devoted husband,did he have children?Surely if he had sired a son the boxing world would have heard of it?

[Mendoza]

Let us hope that Appollack can unearth these fossils for us in his pending book

Unearthing fossils is fine. It is better than using box rec. I'd like to see Apollack come up with new information, but to do this he's going to have to work. Reading Two Fisted Jeff, getting access to the USA South West and West papers, and French and Brittish papers are where he should start. The main thing woudl be the cost.

I tend to think Jeffries vs Joe Kennedy could be viewed as a title fight because it is listed in 1901 Almanac as a title fight and Boxing cards printed a few years after the event have it as a KO win.The fight took place in front of a large crowd. If other fighters can have 3-4 round matches on their resumes, then so should Jeffries.

The ball is in Appolack's court. I have not read his stuff yet. I hear his Fitz book is the best of the three.

[mcvey]

Box rec isnt the be all and end all but its a valuable aid,any new info that Appollack can dig up will be most welcome by us all I,m sure.

[Mendoza]

Box rec isnt the be all and end all but its a valuable aid,any new info that Appollack can dig up will be most welcome by us all I,m sure.

Agreed!

[guilalah]

Murky, but probably the best look we have at Jeffries

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]
Yes he doesnt seem to have been to fan friendly does he?Still he proved a sincere friend to old foes like Fitz and |Sharkey and was by all accounts a devoted husband,


He did show generosity to a few former oponents as you say.


did he have children?Surely if he had sired a son the boxing world would have heard of it?


I think he has descendants living today.

[OLD FOGEY]

The fight fans and historians who lived from 1900-1960 disagree with you. In fact Nat Fleischer said Jeffries beat the best competition of all the champions. ( Before Ali ). Even you think Nat was a bit off, to say something like this speaks volumes of Jeffries competition.

While I think Nat would certainly think Jeffries fought better comp than Marciano (or Ali) given his old-timey leanings, he made this comment in 1950, so it did not include Marciano (or Ali).

Still, as best I can determine, Nat did not see Jeff or his competition in their prime. The first championship fight he attended was apparently Johnson-Jeffries in 1910. His is an interesting opinion, but I don't know if it should be given extra weight.

Do you think Jeffries faced tougher competition than Louis? Dempsey? Johnson? Dempsey and Johnson maybe, Louis no, but he did definitely clean out the division between 1898 and 1903 and only Johnson and Louis can also make that claim during the first half of the century.

One fact stands out when looking at Jeff's competition. The best opponents he defeated at the time he defeated them were probably Fitz, Corbett, Sharkey, and Ruhlin. Fitz knocked the other three out and actually looked better against them than Jeff did.

[OLD FOGEY]

I agree Moore was active, and though older, he is Marciano's best win with legs as Moore who did not have a good chin kept winning. Walcott and Charles was awful post Marciano. Walcott did not win another fight, and Journeyman began to defeat Charles.



The color line was an obstacle for sure, however Jeffries did beat three notable black fighters on the way up ( Griffin, Jackson, and Armstrong ) He also shared the ring as champion with Griffin in a four round match, where had Griffin won by knockout, he would have been the champion. Much of Jeffires career is un-documented, but he does have reported KO's over black contenders such as Frank Childs, Denver Ed Martin, and Kid Cotton. Perhaps Apollack's new book can find hidden fights, but I tend to doubt it unless he researches small town papers in the Southwestern portion of the USA in California, Mexico, and Arizona, and French and Brittish papers. Buying the first editions of the Ring Record book might help too.

I contend that as champion, the only guy who deserved a shot beyond a doubt that Jeffries did not fight was Johnson toward the tail end of his career post Corbett II in 1903 to Pre Johnson vs Hart in 1905. That's it. a 1.5 year window for Johnson. Jeffries later returned to fight Johnson, so in a sense he did not duck anyone. As the sun set on Corbett and Fitzsimmons, the money and laws made it harder to get a big fight going in boxing. Jeffries claims he lost money in the Munroe fight. I still contend there was never a money offer for Johnson vs Jeffries from 1903-1905, and had their been a big money offer, and Johnson defeated Hart, perhaps we see that fight.



Since these three were likely Marciano's best opponents, I would rank him lower. However, Fitz, Corbett and Sharkey were Jeffries best opponents out there from 1899-1903. Not all champions meet the best out there and stay active. I prefer to focus on who the best fighters were when so and so was champion, not what their ethnicity. Rocky could have hung around to fight Patterson, Liston, Williams, Valdes, and others, but had back troubles and opted to retire young, and stay retired. I tend to beleive that Vlades who defeated Chalres just before Maricano fought Charles and was rated #1 was shafted of a title shot.

"Walcott and Charles were awful post-Marciano. Walcott did not win another bout"

Contrast that with this with your Post #13:
"Jeffries gained a great deal of skills as his career progressed. His two best performances were his two last fights between Munroe, and Corbett."

You handle the opposition of these two men rather differently. Munroe was always a journeyman. But what is interesting is Corbett compared to Walcott. Beating Corbett is one of Jeff's best performances, but Corbett had not won or even had a fight in three years and he did not win another bout after Jeffries. However awful Walcott is supposed to be, coming into his first bout against Marciano with a win three months earlier over Charles, one can certainly make a strong case that Corbett was much worse.

I might add I don't really buy that "Walcott was awful after Marciano". Walcott retired. That doesn't make him awful. Dempsey retired after Tunney. Does this prove Dempsey was awful? Lewis retired after defeating Vitali Klitschko. Does this prove Lewis was awful? If Walcott not winning a bout after Marciano proves Walcott was awful, what does Lewis not winning a bout after Vitali say about Vitali?

[Mendoza]

While I think Nat would certainly think Jeffries fought better comp than Marciano (or Ali) given his old-timey leanings, he made this comment in 1950, so it did not include Marciano (or Ali).

Still, as best I can determine, Nat did not see Jeff or his competition in their prime. The first championship fight he attended was apparently Johnson-Jeffries in 1910. His is an interesting opinion, but I don't know if it should be given extra weight.

Do you think Jeffries faced tougher competition than Louis? Dempsey? Johnson? Dempsey and Johnson maybe, Louis no, but he did definitely clean out the division between 1898 and 1903 and only Johnson and Louis can also make that claim during the first half of the century.

One fact stands out when looking at Jeff's competition. The best opponents he defeated at the time he defeated them were probably Fitz, Corbett, Sharkey, and Ruhlin. Fitz knocked the other three out and actually looked better against them than Jeff did.
OLD FOGEY,

Nat had access to films, news articles, testimonials, and knew just about everyone in boxing. He saw the films of Jeffries vs Shareky II, Jeffries vs Corbett I, Jeffries vs Rhuhlin, and perhaps others. I’m sure Nat saw Jeffries work out at one time or another, most likely for the 1910 Johnson fight.

I am sure Fleisher also saw all Corbett and Fitz films too. Fitz vs Rhulin and Fitz vs Sharkey were filmed. And what he saw was 10x clearer than what’s left of the old films we are watching today.

Yes, I think Jeffries title fights with Sharkey, Corbett, and Fitzsimmons were a tougher than Dempsey's or Johnson's title matches for sure. Louis fought many people, so I would call that one about even. I tend to beleive Jeffries title opponents were had a bit more left in them, and were thought of to be better than Rocky's title opponents by those who lived in the era.

Fleisher himself was never a true fan of Jeffries. He was friendly with Jack Johnson, and had great admiration for Fitzsimmons.

[OLD FOGEY]

OLD FOGEY,

Nat had access to films, news articles, testimonials, and knew just about everyone in boxing. He saw the films of Jeffries vs Shareky II, Jeffries vs Corbett I, Jeffries vs Rhuhlin, and perhaps others. I’m sure Nat saw Jeffries work out at one time or another, most likely for the 1910 Johnson fight.

I am sure Fleisher also saw all Corbett and Fitz films too. Fitz vs Rhulin and Fitz vs Sharkey were filmed. And what he saw was 10x clearer than what’s left of the old films we are watching today.

Yes, I think Jeffries title fights with Sharkey, Corbett, and Fitzsimmons were a tougher than Dempsey's or Johnson's title matches for sure. Louis fought many people, so I would call that one about even. I tend to beleive Jeffries title opponents were had a bit more left in them, and were thought of to be better than Rocky's title opponents by those who lived in the era.

Fleisher himself was never a true fan of Jeffries. He was friendly with Jack Johnson, and had great admiration for Fitzsimmons.

Well, Nat certainly saw Jeff fight Johnson and probably watched Jeff work out. It is logical that he saw film of Corbett and Fitz in 1897. However, when Nat's evaluation of the 1890 to 1910 heavyweights was challenged by Jim Jacobs in the 1960's, Fleischer did not say he had seen better films in the old days, he said words to the effect that the films were from the stone age of cinema and did not give a fair representation of the old fighters.
Also, when asked about Corbett for the Murray Woroner radio broadcasts in the 1960's, he mentioned seeing Corbett spar in vaudeville, but not of seeing him on clear film.

Bottom line--It is difficult to say how available film was in Fleischer's early days, especially after the Jeffries-Johnson fight and the laws preventing the transporting of fight films across state lines. Saying Nat studied film is pure speculation. He never referred to such films, to my knowledge, and was as surprised as anyone when the Johnson-Willard fight was discovered in Australia in the early sixties.

[Mendoza]

Well, Nat certainly saw Jeff fight Johnson and probably watched Jeff work out. It is logical that he saw film of Corbett and Fitz in 1897. However, when Nat's evaluation of the 1890 to 1910 heavyweights was challenged by Jim Jacobs in the 1960's, Fleischer did not say he had seen better films in the old days, he said words to the effect that the films were from the stone age of cinema and did not give a fair representation of the old fighters.

Also, when asked about Corbett for the Murray Woroner radio broadcasts in the 1960's, he mentioned seeing Corbett spar in vaudeville, but not of seeing him on clear film.

Bottom line--It is difficult to say how available film was in Fleischer's early days, especially after the Jeffries-Johnson fight and the laws preventing the transporting of fight films across state lines. Saying Nat studied film is pure speculation. He never referred to such films, to my knowledge, and was as surprised as anyone when the Johnson-Willard fight was discovered in Australia in the early sixties.

Films such as Jeffries vs Sharkey II were in theaters for a while. The film was so poupular that Jeffries vs Shakkey III was on hold. Fleischer was a New York based boxing guy. He had to see this one.


However, when Nat's evaluation of the 1890 to 1910 heavyweights was challenged by Jim Jacobs in the 1960's, Fleischer did not say he had seen better films in the old days, he said words to the effect that the films were from the stone age of cinema and did not give a fair representation of the old fighters.


It seems that Nat says he saw the films and called them stone age cinema.

I do know that Nat bought out the entire Police Gazette, which had very good boxing info before he became of age.

[OLD FOGEY]

Films such as Jeffries vs Sharkey II were in theaters for a while. The film was so poupular that Jeffries vs Shakkey III was on hold. Fleischer was a New York based boxing guy. He had to see this one.



It seems that Nat says he saw the films and called them stone age cinema.

I do know that Nat bought out the entire Police Gazette, which had very good boxing info before he became of age.

There is some logic to Nat possibly seeing Fitz-Corbett and Jeff-Sharkey II, but he also would have been a boy at the time and perhaps overly impressed with boyhood heroes. And do you have a quote which proves he in fact saw them? Did he ever refer to these films? Without something like that, all this is speculation.
Jacobs took his films to New York in 1962 and had a public showing for the press. I read the accounts at the time with plenty of quotes from the veteran New York writers--one said "I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry" which was the title of the article. These writers comments showed they had clearly not seen films of the old timers such as Gans, Jeff, Fitz, Corbett, Johnson, Burns, etc.
Fleischer undoubtedly saw all these films at this time in 1962.