Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

[C. M. Clay II]

It really baffles me. Many here make a big deal about Dempsey not fighting harry Wills and he suffers in the all-time rankings (some even rate Wills over him), but almost no one even mentions Jim Jeffries blatantly ducking Johnson when Jeffries was in his prime, and many even rank Jeffries over Johnson:admin ! Why?

Dempsey didn't duck Wills, he tried to get a fight between him and Wills twice and both times it fell through because of mitigating circumstances, and the politics of the time. Dempsey even went to a contract signing and he and Wills both signed a contract to fight. Dempsey tried the best he could, but when he realized it would be near impossible to go over, he abandoned the idea, but he did give it his best shot. Harry Wills even said later that it wasn't Dempsey's fault he didn't get the title shot.

However, Jeffries drew the color line like no other. Johnson was more highly thought of in 1904 than Wills was in 1925, but Jeffries avoided Jack like the plague. even prominent newspapers like The Police Gazette, which was the Ring magazine of it's day wrote articles stating it's ignorance of the reason for Jeffries drawing the color line. Jeffries kept saying that same dumb line over and over again, "I'll never put my title on a line against a black. Never have, never will." When you are fighting guys like Jack Munroe and Jack Finnegan, then the color line thing becomes kind of tired, don't you think? Even Jeffries trainer Bob Delaney admitted that Jeffries was terrified of Johnson during his title reign, and avoided even coming into contact with him whenever he could.

So which sounds worse?:bbb

[cross_trainer]

Jeffries' was worse, but it fortunately came near the end of his career rather than the beginning. And ultimately, he took a massive thrashing from Johnson when he was old (so I guess you can't feel that resentful of his earlier ducking).

I would rate Jeffries higher than Johnson, but he did duck him.

[McGrain]

It really baffles me. Many here make a big deal about Dempsey not fighting harry Wills and he suffers in the all-time rankings (some even rate Wills over him), but almost no one even mentions Jim Jeffries blatantly ducking Johnson when Jeffries was in his prime, and many even rank Jeffries over Johnson:admin ! Why?

Basically, Johnson did get to fight for the title, and eventually even fight Jeffries - so the wrong was set right.

When an injustice takes place, someone has to swing for it. Rightly, or wrongly that somebody is Dempsey.

And there's something in it. There's a lot of talk about what Dempsey did to try to make the fight happen and I beleive most of it - but he still didn't fight him. They could have done it, of that i'm sure.

[janitor]

Dempsey clearly made far more effort to defend his title against Wills than Jeffries did against Johnson. Perhaps more efort than he needed to.

The irony is that Jack Johnson would only have loped off the tail of Jeffries career had he beaten him. By the same token Peter Jackson only stood to trim off the tip of Sullivans career.

It would therfore have made little diference to their legacies if they had lost and would have greatly enhanced them had they won. Dempsey for contrast would have met Wills bang in the middle of his career.

[TBooze]

Dempsey was not particularly liked by some, he was cricitized for dodging the draft for World War I (but fought with honour in the second World War).

Jeffries was the closest the White Americans got to John L in popularity...

So when the careers of each fighter were being written there was a bias against Dempsey.

[cross_trainer]

You know, that's a good point...Johnson can be held to the same standard as Jeffries for ducking black challengers after he won the title. Both were great fighters regardless.

[McGrain]

You know, that's a good point...Johnson can be held to the same standard as Jeffries for ducking black challengers after he won the title. Both were great fighters regardless.

But Johnson had already taken on most of those boys.

So whilst he can be cricised as CHAMPION, and his moral courage can be questioned (if you yourself are feeling brave) his resume is less susceptable to attack.

[cross_trainer]

But Johnson had already taken on most of those boys.

So whilst he can be cricised as CHAMPION, and his moral courage can be questioned (if you yourself are feeling brave) his resume is less susceptable to attack.

Recently, I believe a couple of discovered fights were posted that showed Jeffries fought some of the top black contenders of his era (pre-Johnson). I don't recall the particulars...do you?

[McGrain]

Recently, I believe a couple of discovered fights were posted that showed Jeffries fought some of the top black contenders of his era (pre-Johnson). I don't recall the particulars...do you?

No...my Jeffries knowledge is limited to what Janitor tells me plus the photos I have of him on his tractor (which I really like for some reason).

[C. M. Clay II]

Dempsey clearly made far more effort to defend his title against Wills than Jeffries did against Johnson. Perhaps more efort than he needed to.

The irony is that Jack Johnson would only have loped off the tail of Jeffries career had he beaten him. By the same token Peter Jackson only stood to trim off the tip of Sullivans career.

It would therfore have made little diference to their legacies if they had lost and would have greatly enhanced them had they won. Dempsey for contrast would have met Wills bang in the middle of his career.

I disagree. Jeffries was still at his peak when he retired. He was 29 during his last defense, and retired only because there were no more white challengers left, and because IMO he realized that eventually Johnson would have to get a title shot, so he high-tailed it out of there before that could possibly happen. If the fight took place in 1905 like it should have, Johnson would have fought Jim Jeffries at his positive peak.:good

[apollack]

Jeffries screwed up by not fighting Johnson in 1905 because that was when he would have most likely defeated him. If he wasn't going to fight him then, he never should have done so. People can say race honor all they want, but the real reason he came back in 1910 was the money - it simply was too much to turn down - an unprecedented and unparallelled amount.

Besides the color line, the other reason he did not fight Johnson in 1905 was because there simply wasn't enough money in it. That is because not many experts or writers thought Johnson would win. Also, Johnson's style was boring. Therefore, a less than intriguing matchup meant a small purse. This was particularly so after Johnson lost a close decision to Marvin Hart. That essentially killed any fever for the fight. So, Jeff retired.

[C. M. Clay II]

So Tyson was shot with 24 but Jeffries was still prime with 29. How do you know? Have you seen him fight. I don´t think he was afreid to fight Johnson in 1905 because if he was afraid then he would have been even more afraid after a six year lay-off.

Number one, I never said Tyson was shot at 24. Number two, Jeffries was in his prime when he retired. He was just as sharp according to many accounts of his last fight against Munroe. Maybe he wasn't afraid of Johnson himself, but he was afraid of losing his title to Johnson. When he made the comeback in 1910, he had nothing to lose and everything to gain.:good

[Mendoza]

It really baffles me. Many here make a big deal about Dempsey not fighting harry Wills and he suffers in the all-time rankings (some even rate Wills over him), but almost no one even mentions Jim Jeffries blatantly ducking Johnson when Jeffries was in his prime, and many even rank Jeffries over Johnson:admin ! Why?

Dempsey didn't duck Wills, he tried to get a fight between him and Wills twice and both times it fell through because of mitigating circumstances, and the politics of the time. Dempsey even went to a contract signing and he and Wills both signed a contract to fight. Dempsey tried the best he could, but when he realized it would be near impossible to go over, he abandoned the idea, but he did give it his best shot. Harry Wills even said later that it wasn't Dempsey's fault he didn't get the title shot.

However, Jeffries drew the color line like no other. Johnson was more highly thought of in 1904 than Wills was in 1925, but Jeffries avoided Jack like the plague. even prominent newspapers like The Police Gazette, which was the Ring magazine of it's day wrote articles stating it's ignorance of the reason for Jeffries drawing the color line. Jeffries kept saying that same dumb line over and over again, "I'll never put my title on a line against a black. Never have, never will." When you are fighting guys like Jack Munroe and Jack Finnegan, then the color line thing becomes kind of tired, don't you think? Even Jeffries trainer Bob Delaney admitted that Jeffries was terrified of Johnson during his title reign, and avoided even coming into contact with him whenever he could.

So which sounds worse?:bbb

Jeffries returned to give Johnson a title match many years after he was retired. Many boxing people still considered Jeffires to be the champion in those days because he never lost his title in the ring. As a contender Johnson was only viewed as the #1 guy at the tail end of Jeffires career. Jeffires retired because there was not enough money in the fighting game. Jeffries did say he’d fight Marvin Hart, who defeated Johnson if the public wanted to see it. I suppose if the money was the same as it was in 1910, Jeffries would have fought Johnson. In prize fighting money always talks.

I think Wills was the #1 rated guy for many years of Dempsey’s title reign, so I would pick him. However the answer to who avoided the best black fighters as champion ironically is Jack Johnson. As champion, Johnson avoided talented black fighters like, Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette, and Sam McVea. The three men were most certainly viewed as the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd contenders from 1908-1915. Johnson shut them out. The all time coldest line in history is Joe Jeanette saying after Johnson won the title he drew the color line against this own people.

[Bummy Davis]

Johnson never fought a Black challenger either and the reason was the same as the rest( the money was not there)

[Mendoza]

Johnson never fought a Black challenger either and the reason was the same as the rest( the money was not there)

Jack Johnson had an obscure fight in Paris vs Black journeyman Jim Battling Johnson. Many of the top black fighters of the day fought in France. Jack had an expensive life style, so when he needed money he gave Battling Jim a chance at his title. It was the first all black lineal title match.

Unfortunetly the fight was a fiasco. Jack Johnson hurt his arm and had to retire inside the scheduled 20 rounds. The crowd booed. There was some debate as to who won the fight.Two judges had it as a draw after 10 rounds, the other had Battling Jim in the lead. Since Jack retired, it should have gone as a TKO in the books, however the heavyweight championship of the world was Jack Johnson’s show. After some debate the official ruling was a draw. There was no re-match.

[rekcutnevets]

I don't know that Dempsey gets bashed for it. I have only been around this forum for a little less than a couple of months now, but it looks as though most around here have Dempsey in their top ten lists.

I have stated on this forum, a few times, that I don't think Dempsey belongs in the top ten because he didn't face Wills. I also don't think Wills should make it, because they didn't meet. I know it may not have been entirely their faults for not fighting. It is not a punishment, I just can't reward them when it never happened. In their era, the only way to have found out who the best heavyweight in the world was for them to fight each other.

I don't rank Jeffries in the top ten either. I do rate Dempsey higher than Jeffries.

I have Johnson in my top 5.

[Cojimar 1945]

Wills did not take fights with other top contenders like Harry Greb, Tommy Gibbons and Billy Miske so he did not clearly prove himself to be the most deserving challenger. People seem to overlook this sometimes.

[Cojimar 1945]

Johnson was not the clear top challenger for much of Jeffries reign so for a good part of Jeffries reign there was no issue regarding Johnson.

[Marciano Frazier]

It really baffles me. Many here make a big deal about Dempsey not fighting harry Wills and he suffers in the all-time rankings (some even rate Wills over him), but almost no one even mentions Jim Jeffries blatantly ducking Johnson when Jeffries was in his prime, and many even rank Jeffries over Johnson:admin ! Why?

Dempsey didn't duck Wills, he tried to get a fight between him and Wills twice and both times it fell through because of mitigating circumstances, and the politics of the time. Dempsey even went to a contract signing and he and Wills both signed a contract to fight. Dempsey tried the best he could, but when he realized it would be near impossible to go over, he abandoned the idea, but he did give it his best shot. Harry Wills even said later that it wasn't Dempsey's fault he didn't get the title shot.

However, Jeffries drew the color line like no other. Johnson was more highly thought of in 1904 than Wills was in 1925, but Jeffries avoided Jack like the plague. even prominent newspapers like The Police Gazette, which was the Ring magazine of it's day wrote articles stating it's ignorance of the reason for Jeffries drawing the color line. Jeffries kept saying that same dumb line over and over again, "I'll never put my title on a line against a black. Never have, never will." When you are fighting guys like Jack Munroe and Jack Finnegan, then the color line thing becomes kind of tired, don't you think? Even Jeffries trainer Bob Delaney admitted that Jeffries was terrified of Johnson during his title reign, and avoided even coming into contact with him whenever he could.

So which sounds worse?:bbb
If Jeffries were "terrified" of Johnson, why would he come out of retirement five years with no tune-ups to take on a much better version of Johnson than the one that had been around while he was on top? And the "when you're fighting guys like Jack Monroe and Jack Finnegan" thing is extremely misleading; it isn't guys "like" them, it is them, insofar as undeserving challengers for Jeffries' title go- all his other title defenses were against very legitimate challengers.

While Jeffries was chamipon, Johnson was stopped by Klondike Hanes, blasted out by Joe Choynski, and outpointed by Hank Griffin(note that Jeffries himself faced two of those men, with much better results). Johnson didn't really come into his peak years until about 1906. He would have been a worthy challenger, yes, but he wasn't an overwhelming #1 who was pressing for a title shot Jeffries' entire reign and was denied it- that's a big exaggeration.

On the other hand(although I personally don't much hold this against Dempsey, since, as you say, Dempsey was willing to make the fight and it was mainly due to forces beyond his control that it did not happen), Wills had only one loss in 53 fights during Dempsey's title reign, and that was a DQ for decking Big Bill Tate with a shot on the break. He beat Tate several times around then, and was beating anyone and everyone he got in there with, including Langford, Jeanette, McVey, Martin, Firpo, etc., and was the uncontested #1 contender for over half a decade. It really is a crime he never got a title shot(although not one of Dempsey's doing).

[C. M. Clay II]

If Jeffries were "terrified" of Johnson, why would he come out of retirement five years with no tune-ups to take on a much better version of Johnson than the one that had been around while he was on top? And the "when you're fighting guys like Jack Monroe and Jack Finnegan" thing is extremely misleading; it isn't guys "like" them, it is them, insofar as undeserving challengers for Jeffries' title go- all his other title defenses were against very legitimate challengers.

Jack Johnson and other black contenders were definetely more deserving than Jack Munroe and Jack Finnegan.

While Jeffries was chamipon, Johnson was stopped by Klondike Hanes, blasted out by Joe Choynski, and outpointed by Hank Griffin(note that Jeffries himself faced two of those men, with much better results). Johnson didn't really come into his peak years until about 1906. He would have been a worthy challenger, yes, but he wasn't an overwhelming #1 who was pressing for a title shot Jeffries' entire reign and was denied it- that's a big exaggeration.

The Haines fight was a robbery. Johnson ko'd Haines and Haines was down for more than two minutes, but the referee gave him a slow count. Also Johnson was green against Choynski. By 1904, Johnson had much improved and was in his prime. Johnson was clearly the logical challenger by 1904 for Jeffries title.

On the other hand(although I personally don't much hold this against Dempsey, since, as you say, Dempsey was willing to make the fight and it was mainly due to forces beyond his control that it did not happen), Wills had only one loss in 53 fights during Dempsey's title reign, and that was a DQ for decking Big Bill Tate with a shot on the break. He beat Tate several times around then, and was beating anyone and everyone he got in there with, including Langford, Jeanette, McVey, Martin, Firpo, etc., and was the uncontested #1 contender for over half a decade. It really is a crime he never got a title shot(although not one of Dempsey's doing).

I agree.:good

[Marciano Frazier]

Jack Johnson and other black contenders were definetely more deserving than Jack Munroe and Jack Finnegan.
As I said in the section you just quoted, Munroe and Finnegan were the only undeserving challengers Jeffries faced in his seven title defenses. Other than them, his defenses were against Sharkey, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Ruhlin, and Corbett again- all very much legitimate challengers. Most every champion takes on one or two relatively easy opponents in between major fights at some point. On a similar vein, for example, Pinklon Thomas and Michael Dokes were much more deserving of title shots at Larry Holmes than, say, Marvis Frazier or David Bey, but it's rarely claimed that therefore Holmes was flagrantly ducking Thomas and Dokes and their being denied title shots is comparable to Wills' situation.


The Haines fight was a robbery. Johnson ko'd Haines and Haines was down for more than two minutes, but the referee gave him a slow count. Also Johnson was green against Choynski. By 1904, Johnson had much improved and was in his prime. Johnson was clearly the logical challenger by 1904 for Jeffries title.
I agree Johnson was green against Choynski- that's more or less my point. The Choynski and Griffin fights took place about halfway through Jeffries' title reign. If Johnson was still suffering losses to contenders at this time, it's difficult to argue that he was an impending terror who Jeffries was avoiding at all costs- he was just another member of the pack, more or less.
I agree that Johnson was improving through Jeffries' title reign and would legitimately have been the #1 contender and logical challenger for the championship in 1904. However, this is only in the last few months before Jeffries' retirement. There have been numerous instances through history in which a given fighter had a brief or moderatse run at #1 contender while someone was champion without getting a shot; for example, Chris Byrd was the widely-recognized #1 challenger for Lennox Lewis' title in his last year-and-a-half or so as champion, but Lewis opted to fight a washed-up Tyson and an undeserving Kirk Johnson(who was replaced by the equally-undeserving Vitali after suffering an injury) instead. No one claims, though, that that is then comparable to Wills not receiving a title shot after being the pretty clear-cut #1 challenger for about seven or eight years.

[C. M. Clay II]

As I said in the section you just quoted, Munroe and Finnegan were the only undeserving challengers Jeffries faced in his seven title defenses. Other than them, his defenses were against Sharkey, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Ruhlin, and Corbett again- all very much legitimate challengers. Most every champion takes on one or two relatively easy opponents in between major fights at some point. On a similar vein, for example, Pinklon Thomas and Michael Dokes were much more deserving of title shots at Larry Holmes than, say, Marvis Frazier or David Bey, but it's rarely claimed that therefore Holmes was flagrantly ducking Thomas and Dokes and their being denied title shots is comparable to Wills' situation.

Terrible example. Larry Holmes was fighting four times a year, so lesser opponents are going to be more expected in that situation. Jeffries defended only once or twice a year, so he had no excuse for not fighting the best opponents all the time.

I agree Johnson was green against Choynski- that's more or less my point. The Choynski and Griffin fights took place about halfway through Jeffries' title reign. If Johnson was still suffering losses to contenders at this time, it's difficult to argue that he was an impending terror who Jeffries was avoiding at all costs- he was just another member of the pack, more or less.
I agree that Johnson was improving through Jeffries' title reign and would legitimately have been the #1 contender and logical challenger for the championship in 1904. However, this is only in the last few months before Jeffries' retirement. There have been numerous instances through history in which a given fighter had a brief or moderatse run at #1 contender while someone was champion without getting a shot; for example, Chris Byrd was the widely-recognized #1 challenger for Lennox Lewis' title in his last year-and-a-half or so as champion, but Lewis opted to fight a washed-up Tyson and an undeserving Kirk Johnson(who was replaced by the equally-undeserving Vitali after suffering an injury) instead. No one claims, though, that that is then comparable to Wills not receiving a title shot after being the pretty clear-cut #1 challenger for about seven or eight years.

Jack Munroe had losses during Jeffries reign as well, so how did he get a title shot? So did Gus Ruhlin. Point is Johnson in 1904 was far and away the best heavyweight contender in the world and instead of taking him on, Jeffries fought a stiff in Munroe, and then retired before Johnson could get to him.

[janitor]

There have been numerous instances through history in which a given fighter had a brief or moderatse run at #1 contender while someone was champion without getting a shot; for example, Chris Byrd was the widely-recognized #1 challenger for Lennox Lewis' title in his last year-and-a-half or so as champion, but Lewis opted to fight a washed-up Tyson and an undeserving Kirk Johnson

Bad comparison.

The media demand for a Jeffries Johnson title fight was huge. Johnson had cleaned out the division and everybody knew that he was the outstanding challenger.

Think Calzaghe Kesler only more intense.

[janitor]

I agree that Johnson was improving through Jeffries' title reign and would legitimately have been the #1 contender and logical challenger for the championship in 1904.

the calls for Jeffries to meet Johnson began earlier than that, around the time he beat Denver Ed Martin for the coloured heavyweight title. They became particularly vocal after the McVea fights and the Martin rematch.

[OLD FOGEY]

Terrible example. Larry Holmes was fighting four times a year, so lesser opponents are going to be more expected in that situation. Jeffries defended only once or twice a year, so he had no excuse for not fighting the best opponents all the time.



Jack Munroe had losses during Jeffries reign as well, so how did he get a title shot? So did Gus Ruhlin. Point is Johnson in 1904 was far and away the best heavyweight contender in the world and instead of taking him on, Jeffries fought a stiff in Munroe, and then retired before Johnson could get to him.

In fairness, Munroe had not lost since 1900, had a draw with Hank
Griffen, which was as good as Johnson had done in several tries,
had knocked out old Peter Maher, and had won a newspaper nod
over a slipping Tom Sharkey. He had some credentials as a
contender.

More importantly, Munroe had fought an exhibition with Jeffries
in which he had knocked Jeffries down in the fourth round, the
first recorded time of Jeffries being off his feet, and the local
press and spectators had credited Munroe with getting the
best of the champion. Given Munroe had a decent record on his own
and given this exhibition, Jeffries definitely did have some unfinished
business with Munroe.

I think no question Johnson was the top contender by 1904, but
Munroe was not simply dragged out of nowhere for this fight.

[OLD FOGEY]

The exhibition with Munroe was on December 19, 1903.
It was listed as a exhibition loss for Jeffries and an
exhibition win for Munroe in the Old Ring Record Book.
Off Gilbert Odd's description, Munroe did well in the first
three rounds--Jeffries later claimed he had carried Munroe.
In the fourth Jeffries went all out to knockout Munroe,
whom he expected to run, but ran into a right which put
him on his knees. He got up and went after Munroe but
Munroe stood his ground and slugged it out with the
champion to the bell, getting the best of it according to the
ringside press.

[C. M. Clay II]

In fairness, Munroe had not lost since 1900, had a draw with Hank
Griffen, which was as good as Johnson had done in several tries,
had knocked out old Peter Maher, and had won a newspaper nod
over a slipping Tom Sharkey. He had some credentials as a
contender.

More importantly, Munroe had fought an exhibition with Jeffries
in which he had knocked Jeffries down in the fourth round, the
first recorded time of Jeffries being off his feet, and the local
press and spectators had credited Munroe with getting the
best of the champion. Given Munroe had a decent record on his own
and given this exhibition, Jeffries definitely did have some unfinished
business with Munroe.

I think no question Johnson was the top contender by 1904, but
Munroe was not simply dragged out of nowhere for this fight.

Alright, but he could have fought Johnson after, around 1905. Imagine if Marciano retired after fighting Don Cockell and never fought Moore? Or Lewis retiring and never fighting Tyson? Moore was considered a huge threat to Marciano and so Marciano had to silence the critics by proving he was the best. Same thing with Lewis and Mike Tyson. Jeffries never did this.:good

[Dempsey1238]

I can deal with Lewis not fighting Tyson. At that Time, Tyson did not do any thing of important of earning a shot vs Lewis. It was not like Tyson was tearing thown the divsion. He was fighing Has Beens and no bodys at the time. Tyson got that shot because of his name.

[OLD FOGEY]

Alright, but he could have fought Johnson after, around 1905. Imagine if Marciano retired after fighting Don Cockell and never fought Moore? Or Lewis retiring and never fighting Tyson? Moore was considered a huge threat to Marciano and so Marciano had to silence the critics by proving he was the best. Same thing with Lewis and Mike Tyson. Jeffries never did this.:good

I agree. I only wanted to point out why he fought Munroe and that Munroe would probably have been considered a man he had to fight after the exhibition--I can't imagine a champion losing an exhibition and not giving his conqueror an immediate shot--but Jeffries should have fought Johnson as soon as he got done with Munroe. Had Jeffries fought and beaten Johnson, his record would have made him a strong candidate for the #1 rated heavyweight ever.

As is, as you pointed out, without a victory over Johnson in 1904 or 1905, it is hard to put him in the same class as Ali, Louis, Marciano, or Lewis.

[Dempsey1238]

Lets say Jeff DOES fight and BEAT Johnson in 1905, . I still dont see how it can be rank over Ali imo.

[OLD FOGEY]

Lets say Jeff DOES fight and BEAT Johnson in 1905, . I still dont see how it can be rank over Ali imo.

Well, Jeffries would have been undefeated, assuming he did not make the comeback against Johnson, and he would have defeated the top heavyweights between John L Sullivan and Jack Dempsey--Jackson, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, and Johnson, as well as Goddard, Sharkey and Ruhlin. He would certainly be a formidable candidate for the best ever, even when compared to Ali or Louis.

[Marciano Frazier]

Terrible example. Larry Holmes was fighting four times a year, so lesser opponents are going to be more expected in that situation. Jeffries defended only once or twice a year, so he had no excuse for not fighting the best opponents all the time.
Oh, really? In 1983, Holmes fought, in a row, mediocre and undeserving Lucien Rodriguez, completely undeserving Scott Frank, and the extremely green 10-0 Marvis Frazier. At that time, the RING magazine and general consensus top four contenders for his title were Dokes, Thomas, Page, and Coetzee- Holmes didn't fight any of them.
And did he improve the following year? Certainly not. In fact, he didn't fight for a year after Frazier, then took on another very inexperienced prospect in 14-1 Smith, and then the following March, the 14-0 David Bey! I've just counted off a period of close to two-and-a-half years in which Holmes didn't fight any of the elite challengers for his title and instead took on a string of journeymen and highly-inexperienced prospects. These aren't lesser opponents being "mixed in" in the process of cleaning out the top ranks; these lesser opponents are just the standard.
READ: However, Holmes is my #6 all-time heavyweight, and I do not believe he ducked Thomas, Page, or Dokes, even though those men were the top contenders for his title for a solid couple years while he was champion. Rather he was largely prevented from fighting them by politics, and since none of them was an overwhelming #1 who loomed for his entire title reign or somesuch, I don't see it as a big void in history or a severe crime.


Jack Munroe had losses during Jeffries reign as well, so how did he get a title shot? So did Gus Ruhlin.
Please point out where I claimed that if you've lost during someone's title reign, you're therefore eliminated from any chance at a title shot. To save you the time looking: I didn't.
Rather, if Jeffries hadn't fought Munroe or Ruhlin, would there be a reasonable argument that he ducked them? Of course not. If someone said "Jeffries ducked Ruhlin," I would say "No, Ruhlin was losing to Fitzsimmons and Joe Kennedy and there was no reasonable immediate push for him to receive a title shot."
I never claimed that Johnson wasn't a contender or couldn't reasonably have been given a title shot through most of Jeffries' title reign. But when the guy is losing to Joe Choynski and Hank Griffin, he's obviously not in a position to demand a title shot and there can be no reasonable claim that the champ is ducking him.

Point is Johnson in 1904 was far and away the best heavyweight contender in the world and instead of taking him on, Jeffries fought a stiff in Munroe, and then retired before Johnson could get to him.
This isn't really what you were saying before, but is the most reasonable point on your side. However, the Jeffries-Munroe thing was more of an honor deal before Jeffries retired, because Munroe had surprised him and floored him in an exhibition and he wanted to clear up any questions that may have raised before he retired. And I wouldn't call Munroe a "stiff."
Again, it is true that Johnson was the #1 challenger in 1904, but it is equally true that numerous champions in numerous divisions have failed to face someone who was #1 contender for a few months, particularly at the tail end of their reigns, and it is certainly never compared with Harry Wills being denied a title shot for seven years in spite of occupying that position for all that time. And if Jeffries was terrified of facing Johnson in 1904, what was he doing coming out of retirement five years later with no tune-ups to face an even better version of Johnson?
Not fighting the guy who recently became #1 contender in your final title defense before retiring isn't a crime. Not fighting the guy who was #1 contender for the entire seven years of your title reign is(although in Dempsey's case, his hands were tied).

And just to make things clear, I do think Jeffries' legacy may suffer a little from leaving a sort of question mark lingering at the end of his title reign. However, again, this is not any enormous blight, as Johnson was only top challenger for a few months without receiving a shot, which is not unusual, and it certainly isn't comparable to Harry Wills being denied his title shot in spite of being the clear #1 challenger for 7-8 years.

[OLD FOGEY]

I think it is important to point out also that Marvin Hart had defeated Johnson in March, 1905, and so at the time Jeffries retired, it was in fact Hart he did not fight, not Johnson.

There is no question, though, that Jeffries made it clear he would not defend against Johnson and blatently drew the color line. The Hart victory got Jeffries off the hook.

[C. M. Clay II]

Please point out where I claimed that if you've lost during someone's title reign, you're therefore eliminated from any chance at a title shot.

Here it is.

The Choynski and Griffin fights took place about halfway through Jeffries' title reign. If Johnson was still suffering losses to contenders at this time, it's difficult to argue that he was an impending terror who Jeffries was avoiding at all costs- he was just another member of the pack, more or less.

There you go.:good

Again, it is true that Johnson was the #1 challenger in 1904, but it is equally true that numerous champions in numerous divisions have failed to face someone who was #1 contender for a few months, particularly at the tail end of their reigns, and it is certainly never compared with Harry Wills being denied a title shot for seven years in spite of occupying that position for all that time.

These "#1 challengers" ou talk about were not held in as high a magnitude as Jack Johnson in 1904. Chris Byrd shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Johnson. And Jeffries wasn't necessarity at the "tail end" of his career, or at least not the tail end of his prime. He retired very young when he still had quite a few years of prime left.

And if Jeffries was terrified of facing Johnson in 1904, what was he doing coming out of retirement five years later with no tune-ups to face an even better version of Johnson?
Not fighting the guy who recently became #1 contender in your final title defense before retiring isn't a crime. Not fighting the guy who was #1 contender for the entire seven years of your title reign is(although in Dempsey's case, his hands were tied).

Jeffries had no title to lose. That's why he fought him. He didn't want to fight him if it meant risking his title. A fight in 1904 meant Jeffries had little to gain and everything to lose. The fight in 1910 meant Jefries had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

And just to make things clear, I do think Jeffries' legacy may suffer a little from leaving a sort of question mark lingering at the end of his title reign. However, again, this is not any enormous blight, as Johnson was only top challenger for a few months without receiving a shot, which is not unusual, and it certainly isn't comparable to Harry Wills being denied his title shot in spite of being the clear #1 challenger for 7-8 years.

It is worse than the Wills situation. Dempsey showed a desire to fight Wills, and even made an effort to get the fight to happen. Jeffries on the other hand showed no desire to fight Johnson and made every effort to avoid him that he could, including retiring in the middle of his peak years so that he wouldn't have to eventually face the music.

And furthermore, Jack Johnson was simply a superior fighter to Harry Wills. He was seen as more of a threat to jeffries than Wills was to Dempsey. by many accounts, Wills seemed like the right kind of opponent for Dempsey. Dempsey had trouble with small boxer types. He handled big sluggers fairly easily. Wills was a threat, but to this reporter, he didn't look the part of an actual successor to me.

Jack Johnson on the other hand would have present stylistic problemd for Jeff. Jeffries fought only cruiserweights and lightheavyweights for his entire championship stint. he never fought anyone over 200 pounds during this time. He enjoyed weight advantages averaging as much as a score or more for each opponent, and this would not be the case if he fought Johnson. Johnson was a full-fledged heavyweight with little man-type skills, and comparable physical strength. Many of Jeffries stylistic advantages would be nullified in this case, and he knew it. Johnson would have been far and away the best opponent Jeffries ever fought. no doubt big jeff was worried and decided not to take a chance and bowed out before he would have to be eventually shamed into a title defense against Jack.:good

[UpWithEvil]

Jack Johnson on the other hand would have present stylistic problemd for Jeff. Jeffries fought only cruiserweights and lightheavyweights for his entire championship stint. he never fought anyone over 200 pounds during this time. He enjoyed weight advantages averaging as much as a score or more for each opponent, and this would not be the case if he fought Johnson.

Johnson was still fighting below 190lb when Jeffries retired, while Big Jeff was consistently weighing in at 220lb.

[C. M. Clay II]

Johnson was still fighting below 190lb when Jeffries retired, while Big Jeff was consistently weighing in at 220lb.

Jeff only weighed 220lbs once in his entire career. His average weight was actually about 215. Plus Johnson posted 190 for small oponents. He could have easily been over 200 by 1905.

[C. M. Clay II]

Nope, you´re wrong. The only thing Marciano Frazier wrote there is that Johnson wasn´t more deserving a title shot than the other top contender.

Yes he was. Johnson was superior to anyone Jeffries ever fought.

How do you know? Maybe he retired because he was feeling he couldn´t compete on this level much longer? That´s pure speculation from you, stay with the facts please.

He had not shown any signs of slowing down by his last fight. He was only 29 years old and he fought only 19 times. That's hardly a rough career IMO.

He still had to lose his good name and that means more than a title especially in that time.

No. If he lost (like he did) then he could just say he was old, and way past his prime and that if he was six years younger he would have won (which he did say). He did not lose any of his good name after the Johnson fight. However, if he lost in 1905, he would lose everything, from his name, his title, and ATG standing. And since it was his prime, therte would be no excuses.

Well, why should he? Like Marciano Frazier pointed out, Johnson was the number 1 contender but not more deserving of a shot than the other contenders. So why should he fight Johnson when he could fight another contender and earn more money? That´s not ducking, that´s business.

Tell me this "contender" Jeffries could have fought that would make him more money than a Johnson title defense.

Disagree, imo prime for prime Jeffries beats Johnson clearly but Dempsey - Wills could go either way. Just a oppinion so ...

:lol:

Jack Johnson is not Jack Munroe. Johnson had every tool to beat any version of Jeffries. Strength, speed, defense, and intelligence. Johnson clearly decisions Jeff any day of the week.:good

[UpWithEvil]

Jeff only weighed 220lbs once in his entire career.

Jeffries' official weights leading up to his retirement:

vs Corbett (5/11/1900) - 218lb

vs Ruhlin (11/15/1901) - 218 lb

vs. Fitzsimmons (7/25/1902) - 219 lb

vs. Corbett (8/14/1903) - 220lb

vs Munroe (8/26/1904) - 219lb

I believe the operative term here is "hair-splitting".

Plus Johnson posted 190 for small oponents. He could have easily been over 200 by 1905.

Do you have any evidence of this claim? What was the first fight that Johnson tipped 200lb for in his career? 190lb?

[C. M. Clay II]

Well, don´t know Corbett and Fitzsimmons weren´t that bad either ;) But i tend to agree with you but that doesn´t mean he was more deserving in 1904 than the other contenders.

Yes he was. He didn't get the shot because he was black, period.

Imo the 19 fight thing is bs. You have to count all the exhibitions also ´cause they take something off you as well, also i think he had more than the recorded 19 bouts just look how much fights all the other guys at the time had. Do you really believe that he could get a titleshot with that few fights? With 29 years Tyson was thought of beeing shot for years that´s no argument. Well, he was still good enough to beat guys like Munroe but that doesn´t mean he was prime. I´m not saying he was shot or so. I´m just saying we can´t really know if he was still prime or not. He retired because there wasn´t enough money-fights out there.

Other accounts do not say that he had more than 19 fights. Many other fighters around that time were reported to have more fights than what boxrec says. Jeffries wasn't.

And what do you mean exhibitions count? No, they don't. That's why they call them exhibitions.:rolleyes:

Also, don't compare Tyson's predicament to Jeffries. Tyson had a 4 year layoff. Jeffries didn't. Don't try to twist the truth.

Well, you´re right and a bit wrong at the same time. The loss tarnishes his legacy. You could make a case for him beeing Top3 all-time without the loss.

Louis had 25 defenses and fought often. Ali fought the best comp. of any heavyweigth and had 19 defenses. Johnson's resume is more thick than Jeffries in terms of big name fighters in their prime. Holmes was very active as well. No way jeffries is top 3.:-(


He could have taken some white guy from the street and a fight with him would have brought him more money. Very sad indeed but that´s how things were then.

Like I said, name one. You can't because he doesn't exist.:good

[Marciano Frazier]

Here it is.


There you go.:good
No, again, I DID NOT say that it eliminated him from a title shot. You're putting that in my mouth. If you read the selection you just quoted without interpreting it imaginatively to say what you imagine I must be thinking, you'll see I said that you can't reasonably claim he was an impending terror being avoided when he was losing to those guys. Is this so hard to understand? Plenty of fighters who have recently lost are worthy challengers and are given title shots arbitrarily, but they aren't in a position to demand title shots and it can't reasonably be argued that the champion is avoiding them if he doesn't give them a shot. For most of Jeffries' title reign, Johnson was no more entitled to a title shot than several other contenders who may or may not have received title shots.



These "#1 challengers" ou talk about were not held in as high a magnitude as Jack Johnson in 1904. Chris Byrd shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Johnson.
In retrospect, of course Byrd shouldn't be in the same breath with Johnson, but at the time, as far as one may have known, Johnson could simply have been a flash in the pan. If, instead of going on to dominate the division for the next decade, Johnson had retired or lost and faded out of the picture after Jeffries' retirement, do you think people would claim that Johnson was disgustingly robbed of a chance at Jeffries or something of the like? Johnson was on a good winning streak when Jeffries retired, but the best wins were against a very inexperienced McVey and Denver Ed Martin. If Johnson hadn't gone on to greatness, people would largely dismiss him as having been a bit overhyped and wouldn't make much of a big deal out of it. I think it's because you're looking back in retrospect that you get this image of great injustice.



Jeffries had no title to lose. That's why he fought him. He didn't want to fight him if it meant risking his title. A fight in 1904 meant Jeffries had little to gain and everything to lose. The fight in 1910 meant Jefries had nothing to lose and everything to gain.



It is worse than the Wills situation. Dempsey showed a desire to fight Wills, and even made an effort to get the fight to happen. Jeffries on the other hand showed no desire to fight Johnson and made every effort to avoid him that he could, including retiring in the middle of his peak years so that he wouldn't have to eventually face the music.
Now, come on, here, you really think he would give up his title and retire rather than keep going and fight Johnson or just ignore him? Certainly it would've been possible for Jeffries to pull the race card and not give Johnson a shot rather than retire; that's what John L. Sullivan did with Peter Jackson, for example. It isn't as though someone was going to strip him of his title.
Frankly, I think Jeffries was racist and didn't want Johnson or any black man fighting for the title, but he didn't retire because he was terrified of losing to any given opponent. The comeback was more or less because of the public clamor to bring the title back to the white race.
Surely if he thought Johnson was a terrible threat and could/would beat him, Jeffries would've at least not hopped directly out of retirement to face him and instead taken a tune-up or two to give himself the best chance.

And furthermore, Jack Johnson was simply a superior fighter to Harry Wills.
In retrospect, yes. As of 1904 compared with 1920 or 23 or 26, not necessarily at all.

He was seen as more of a threat to jeffries than Wills was to Dempsey. by many accounts, Wills seemed like the right kind of opponent for Dempsey. Dempsey had trouble with small boxer types. He handled big sluggers fairly easily. Wills was a threat, but to this reporter, he didn't look the part of an actual successor to me.

Jack Johnson on the other hand would have present stylistic problemd for Jeff. Jeffries fought only cruiserweights and lightheavyweights for his entire championship stint. he never fought anyone over 200 pounds during this time. He enjoyed weight advantages averaging as much as a score or more for each opponent, and this would not be the case if he fought Johnson. Johnson was a full-fledged heavyweight with little man-type skills, and comparable physical strength. Many of Jeffries stylistic advantages would be nullified in this case, and he knew it. Johnson would have been far and away the best opponent Jeffries ever fought. no doubt big jeff was worried and decided not to take a chance and bowed out before he would have to be eventually shamed into a title defense against Jack.:good
Now, again, if he were so worried about what a threat Johnson was that he retired rather than face him, the odds are he wouldn't have been willing to come directly out of retirement after five years to fight him later on- if he didn't think he could and would beat Johnson, one would have expected him to be much less bold than he was. Frankly, in 1904, I would say he was running out of fights that would generate money(he'd already dismissed Corbett, Fitzsimmons and Sharkey, and the Munroe fight generated interest because of the exhibition), with about the only one available to him being against a black man, and more or less felt he'd proven his point and was ready to retire. Remember, here, that the color barrier was the norm at this time and no black man had ever received a title shot- it wouldn't have been too hard for Jeffries to avoid Johnson and just keep fighting white men had he wanted to continue and been too desperate to avoid Johnson. More or less, he didn't feel like the money or glory was there. He made the comeback because a black man- and a brash, offensive, defiant black man at that- had gotten the title and the public(and perhaps he personally) wanted it back in the hands of white America. The fact that he was willing to come directly out of retirement and take Johnson on with no tune-ups after five years indicates to me that he was confident he could beat Johnson- he just didn't want black men fighting for the title in his first title reign, didn't want the stigma associated with giving a black man a shot, and didn't have Johnson as a serious pressing top contender for very long.

[Mendoza]

C. M. Clay II Yes he was. He didn't get the shot because he was black, period.

He got his shot


Other accounts do not say that he had more than 19 fights. Many other fighters around that time were reported to have more fights than what boxrec says. Jeffries wasn't.

What a champion does and who he fights with his title matters most. Jeffries was 7-1 in title fights. Johnson title defeses were on the weak side.

And what do you mean exhibitions count? No, they don't. That's why they call them exhibitions.:rolleyes:

Many fighter pre 1950 are un-recorded.

Also, don't compare Tyson's predicament to Jeffries. Tyson had a 4 year layoff. Jeffries didn't. Don't try to twist the truth.

Yes, Jeffries did not fight from 1904-1910. That is more than a 4 year layoff. Furthermore, he was over 300 pounds when he signed the contract for the 1910 fight with Johnson.

[UpWithEvil]

Well, people are saying Tyson was past his prime after 1988 and there was no lay off involved.

ROONEY! ROONEY! ROONEY!

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
"You ever wonder why Mike Tyson folds under pressure?"

[Cojimar 1945]

Moore was deserving of a title shot against Marciano but there were other top contenders for Marciano to defend against. He still had guys to fight when he retired.

I don't think Tyson was Lewis's most deserving challenger by 2002. Although some boxing magazines still ranked Tyson fairly high he did not have recent wins that seemed to justify such a high ranking and Lewis might have been better to fight Wladimir Klitschko or Chris Byrd in 2002.

[Cojimar 1945]

Jeffries did not show the longevity of Lewis and Ali but I think one could argue that he ranks as highly as Marciano. He was quite dominant against top competition for a while.

[OLD FOGEY]

Moore was deserving of a title shot against Marciano but there were other top contenders for Marciano to defend against. He still had guys to fight when he retired.

I don't think Tyson was Lewis's most deserving challenger by 2002. Although some boxing magazines still ranked Tyson fairly high he did not have recent wins that seemed to justify such a high ranking and Lewis might have been better to fight Wladimir Klitschko or Chris Byrd in 2002.

Marciano actually seems to have wanted a fight in 1956 but there was no one out there the public viewed as a credible challenger. Patterson was still a lightheavy. Machen was just getting started. Liston was in prison. Jackson was not taken seriously, fairly or not.

Moore had been far and away the outstanding contender.

[OLD FOGEY]

Jeffries did not show the longevity of Lewis and Ali but I think one could argue that he ranks as highly as Marciano. He was quite dominant against top competition for a while.

Marciano knocked out every rated opponent he faced in either the initial bout or a rematch.
Jeffries was not that dominant. Discounting Johnson, Jeff's top ten opponents were Fitz, Corbett, Jackson, Sharkey, Armstrong, Goddard, Griffin, Choynski, Ruhlin, and Munroe. He fought draws with Choynski (never avenged) and Ruhlin, and went the distance twice with Sharkey and with Armstrong. He knocked out Ruhlin in a rematch. His record against these ten men is 12-0-2 with 9 knockouts.
Against his top ten opponents, Louis, Walcott, Charles, Moore, Layne, LaStarza, Matthews, Savold, Cockell, and Muscato, Marciano was 13-0-0 with 11 knockouts, knocking all ten men out.

[OLD FOGEY]

Dempsey clearly made far more effort to defend his title against Wills than Jeffries did against Johnson. Perhaps more efort than he needed to.

The irony is that Jack Johnson would only have loped off the tail of Jeffries career had he beaten him. By the same token Peter Jackson only stood to trim off the tip of Sullivans career.

It would therfore have made little diference to their legacies if they had lost and would have greatly enhanced them had they won. Dempsey for contrast would have met Wills bang in the middle of his career.

I don't think a loss to Jackson around 1890 or later would have meant much to Sullivan's standing. Sullivan had been champion 8 years and was 32.

Jeffries' standing, on the other hand, would have plunged it he had fought and lost to Johnson in 1904 or 1905. There was no evidence he was going back and such a defeat would have clearly dropped him behind Johnson and probably out of top ten consideration. A victory, in contrast, assuming Johnson's career otherwise played out the way it did and Jeff never came back, would put Jeffries in contention for the top spot.

A victory over Wills would have solidified Dempsey as a top five heavyweight which some now doubt. A loss would have knocked him out of any consideration as a top ten ATG as he would clearly have not been the best of his own time. Dempsey had the most to lose. Wills the most to gain.

[C. M. Clay II]

Why?`Because you say so? Sorry, bring arguments and not statements.
Beeing black has influenced his career, only an idiot would argue that, but i don´t think it mattered to the most other fighters which colour their opponents were. The powers who ran the buisness at the time didn´t want a black champ and so never get the chance to win it - beside that a fight against any white fighter would have generated more money.
So, yes Johnson didn´t get a shot because he was black but they could do it because Johnson did nothing, he got beaten by man who Jeffries beat, what would make it impossible to avoid him.

Johnson didn't get a shot because of Jeffries drawing the color line, period. Johnson was clearly the best challenger, and he would have brought the most money. Many people were clamoring for a possible Jeffries-Johnson fight around 1905, because they were tired of seeing Jeffries knocking out Joe Schmo in like two rounds. They wanted to see a real fight so desperately that they were willing to even let the challenger be a colored man, since he far and away was the best challenger.

So, you´re thinking that when people needed dozens of fights to get a chance for a titlefight, Jeffries managed to get one in his 12th pro fight? Come on, be objective.

That wasn't my point. You said that Jeffries had more fights that aren't recorded. The fact is that evidence of unrecorded fights in literary accounts simply do not exist for jeffries as they do for many other fighters at that time.

Yeah they count in their form that exhibitions take something out of a fighter as well. But we all know you just see want you want to see.

Exhibitions are shorter in length than real fights, and the opponents are more or less hand-picked to show off the skills of the showcasing fighter, hence the word "exhibition". Title fight are longer, more intense and are fought against worthy opponents, therefore there is a big difference. Jeffries had 19 fights, period.

Well, people are saying Tyson was past his prime after 1988 and there was no lay off involved.

I'm not one of those people.

If he wouldn´t had the comeback he, he would have the same arguments Marciano has for a top3 rating. Beeing undefeated. Also guys like Corbett, Fitzsimmons and Sharkey aren´t that bad either.

And IMO, Marciano doesn't have much of a case for a top 3 placing anyway. Also Corbett, Fitzsimmons, and Sharkey were not better than Jack Johnson.

I just named millions :D
At the time the publicum was white and they wanted to see fighting a white guy against a white guy. Very few would accept a black fighter in the ring for the hw championship. So it´s just natural that a fight between 2 white guys would generate more money, totally unimportant who the other guy in the ring is.

You did not name one. I didn't ask you for all of them, just one. You provided no one, so therefore I assume that you have no one in mind. If the white guys keep getting blown away in one or two rounds, and the black guy seems like a better challenge, then maybe they would want to see that, don't you think? It's better than wasting your money on seeing a mismatch. A possible Johnson fight would have generated big money because Johnson was a much better opponent than Jeffries other opposition, and because of the color thing, it would provide more drama. Police Gazette, the "Ring Magazine" of it's day voiced it's disapproval of Jeffries avoiding Johnson for easier white opponents

"If Jeffries can beat Johnson then he will have nothing more to prove, but why won't he give the Negro a chance?"

Sounds like more than just money, does it?

Clay, you much to biased and ignorant. Talking to you is like talking to a wall. That´s my last post in this thread. You aren´t worth my time.

Yeah, since you lost the argument.:lol:

[C. M. Clay II]

I lost as many arguments as Marciano lost fights. You´re just an ignorant and arrogant that´s why you aren´t worth my time.

You have not rebutted my argument, so therefore I assume you have lost.:good

[Cojimar 1945]

Only one of Jeffries challengers lasted the distance. The rest were all stopped.

[C. M. Clay II]

Only one of Jeffries challengers lasted the distance. The rest were all stopped.

And?:huh

[Marciano Frazier]

Moore was deserving of a title shot against Marciano but there were other top contenders for Marciano to defend against. He still had guys to fight when he retired.
A. How did that come up? Who are you responding to?
B. There has never been a champion who beat every ranked opponent around before he retired. There is still someone who anyone could fight when they retire. This statement could be applied to literally anyone.
C. There was no high-ranking heavyweight who would have made a big-money fight or presented any serious challenge to Marciano at the time he retired. None of the top contenders remaining had ever been considered to present a serious threat to Marciano, and none were particularly deserving at that time, either- Jackson had just lost to Jimmy Slade, Valdes and Baker had just fought one of the dullest, most boring fights in memory and caused the press to almost universally declare that they had both eliminated themselves from serious consideration for a title fight(the match was originally supposed to be a title eliminator), and Patterson hadn't won any seriously noteworthy fights at heavyweight yet.


I don't think Tyson was Lewis's most deserving challenger by 2002. Although some boxing magazines still ranked Tyson fairly high he did not have recent wins that seemed to justify such a high ranking and Lewis might have been better to fight Wladimir Klitschko or Chris Byrd in 2002.
No, Tyson wasn't the most deserving at all.

[Cojimar 1945]

Jeffries was being criticized for retiring when apparently in his prime and when there were still guys out there for him to fight and I was just pointing out that other guys have done the same.

[OLD FOGEY]

Jeffries was being criticized for retiring when apparently in his prime and when there were still guys out there for him to fight and I was just pointing out that other guys have done the same.

I understand your point, but I don't agree with it. Marciano was pushing 33 when he retired, viewed as pretty old for a fighter back then and in fact old for a swarmer off historical precedent. Jeffries won his last fight at 29 and retired at 30. Also, there was really no outstanding contender out there. Patterson was still actually fighting at lightheavy. Most still considered Moore the outstanding challenger.

I myself wouldn't exactly criticize Jeffries for retiring when he did. I do think it is valid to raise the issue of not fighting Johnson who was the best contender between 1903 and 1905. The razor-thin, and perhaps outright unfair, Hart loss provided Jeffries with an excuse, which he took.

Nat Fleischer, certainly a writer who was fair to Jeffries, rating him #2 as late as the 1970's, accused Jeff of retiring when he did because the rising contenders, not only Johnson but also Jeannette and McVea, were black and Jeff did not want to defend against them.

[Dempsey1238]

Johnson didn't get a shot because of Jeffries drawing the color line, period. Johnson was clearly the best challenger, and he would have brought the most money. Many people were clamoring for a possible Jeffries-Johnson fight around 1905, because they were tired of seeing Jeffries knocking out Joe Schmo in like two rounds. They wanted to see a real fight so desperately that they were willing to even let the challenger be a colored man, since he far and away was the best challenger.



That wasn't my point. You said that Jeffries had more fights that aren't recorded. The fact is that evidence of unrecorded fights in literary accounts simply do not exist for jeffries as they do for many other fighters at that time.



Exhibitions are shorter in length than real fights, and the opponents are more or less hand-picked to show off the skills of the showcasing fighter, hence the word "exhibition". Title fight are longer, more intense and are fought against worthy opponents, therefore there is a big difference. Jeffries had 19 fights, period.



I'm not one of those people.



And IMO, Marciano doesn't have much of a case for a top 3 placing anyway. Also Corbett, Fitzsimmons, and Sharkey were not better than Jack Johnson.



You did not name one. I didn't ask you for all of them, just one. You provided no one, so therefore I assume that you have no one in mind. If the white guys keep getting blown away in one or two rounds, and the black guy seems like a better challenge, then maybe they would want to see that, don't you think? It's better than wasting your money on seeing a mismatch. A possible Johnson fight would have generated big money because Johnson was a much better opponent than Jeffries other opposition, and because of the color thing, it would provide more drama. Police Gazette, the "Ring Magazine" of it's day voiced it's disapproval of Jeffries avoiding Johnson for easier white opponents

"If Jeffries can beat Johnson then he will have nothing more to prove, but why won't he give the Negro a chance?"

Sounds like more than just money, does it?



Yeah, since you lost the argument.:lol:

Marciano ant even in your top 20 lol.
I think Marciano makes a good arguement to be in the top 5 imo.

[OLD FOGEY]

And?:huh

I would like to respond to two points you made that I don't agree with. One is that Jeffries had only 19 (according to boxrec-20) fights and there is no evidence of any more. There is quite a bit of evidence of Jeff having had more fights in the 1891 to 1896 period. The SF Chronicle on May 6, 1898, printed Jeff's record to that date and listed a 2 round knockout in 1895 to Hank Lorraine. The old ring record book listed a knockout of Jim Barber in 2 rounds, no date listed.

Eddie Muller, veteran SF boxing writer, wrote in his obituary for Jeffries in 1953 that Jeff always maintained to him that he had much more experience than people thought and had been boxing since 1891.

The SF Chronicle, on May 22, 1896, ran a long profile of Jeffries, stating that "he is in the legitimate succession to the wreath that so long adorned the brow of John L Sullivan." This is certainly over-the-top for
a fighter who supposedly had not yet had a single fight.

But the 5-22-1896 article stated that Jeffries in fact had already had several fights:
"Jeffries has fought not a few men, and has won every battle he has had, though some antagonists had nothing better than local reputations at most."
Later in the article:
"Jeffries has bested his opponents in short order. Two rounds, three rounds, five rounds is the history of his fights. He put George Griffin out in eleven seconds. Frank Childs, the "Colored Cyclone" of Los Angeles went out in two rounds, and Childs had bested LaBlanche and Billy Smith. It took the young giant the same length of time to put out Joe Cotton."

This article mentions that Jeffries had fought in Arizona and New Mexico as well as the Los Angeles area. Jeffries had worked for the Santa Fe Railroad.

Historians are skeptical of the facts in this article as no dates or locations are given for these fights and the fights with George Griffin,
Frank Childs, and Joe Cotton, were not listed in the record printed in
the Chronicle in 5-6-1898 prior to the first Sharkey fight. My own take is, though, would a writer have made all this up out of whole clothe to pump a fighter who had never been in the ring? That seems strange also. It at least is evidence Jeffries had more fights than is on the official record.

I think it important to point out that while "prizefighting" was often illegal, boxers of the era found a way around the law by fighting "boxing exhibitions". These "exhibitions" were not firmly defined as they would be in later years. Many or most were probably just ordinary professional fights as we would understand the term today.

[OLD FOGEY]

And?:huh

My second dispute is that Wills was viewed in a lesser light in the 1920's than Jack Johnson was in the 1903 to 1905 era. I don't know what proof you could really offer to back that up. Many felt Johnson was the outstanding contender whom Jeffries should fight. There were also plenty of comments that Johnson would not beat Jeffries.

There are plenty of quotes available indicating that Wills was viewed as a very serious threat to Dempsey:

Time Magazine 4-28-1923----"It is generally accepted that Harry Wills is the only man in the game who can stand at Dempsey's level. There is vague talk of a fight between the two at the Polo Grounds on Labor Day."

Time Magazine 7-30-1923----In coverage of the Leonard-Tendler match at Yankee Stadium:
"Noteworthy was the arrival of Harry Wills, logical candidate for a chance at Dempsey. He was cheered every step of the way from the entrance in center field to his seat near the ring."

Time Magazine 8-17-1925----"Jack Dempsey was introduced from the ring at the opening of the Olympic Stadium in Los Angeles. Booing thundered from the topmost rim of the amphitheatre, mixed with a chant of "Bring on Wills." Dempsey turned the color of an embarressed orchid and crept back to his seat."

Off my own reading, Wills was clearly viewed as the outstanding challenger to Dempsey from the time of his knockout of Fred Fulton in 1920 to his loss to Jack Sharkey in 1926. As he had victories over esteemed fighters such as Langford and McVea, he probably had more prestige than the young Johnson had in the 1903 to 1905 period. Johnson to this point had beaten no one of Langford's level.

[C. M. Clay II]

Well, i won´t answer you anymore because it´s like talking to a wall, you aren´t worth my time. But hey when you´re so insecure that you need a self-declared "win" in a discussion on a message board than have fun with it. I´m glad when i can help you with that.

Well, then why don't you provide a counter-argument instead of babling on like this?:rolleyes: