Jeffries Admits Munroe Did Not Merit Title Chance

[mcvey]

In this letter to a friend , on Jan 1910 , the year of his title challenge to Jack Johnson , Jim Jeffries admits Jack Munroe did not deserve a title shot.

And that he was in no doubt it would be an easy nights work

" I never did think he had the right to be taken seriously"


"I hated to enter the ring that night, for I felt in my heart that Munroe could not give me a contest and the public would not get a run for its money in such a one-sided exhibition"



Jeffries also castigates Johnson calling him " not a true sportsman"

"I want to say that I will not, if I can help it, permit that negro to hold the heavyweight title . "

[URL]********trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/45102198[/URL]

[guilalah]

Interesting read if it's legit.

Regardless, the fact that Jeffries chewed gum during the Monroe challenge probably says enough about how Jeffries regarded him. The fight was, I think, mainly motivated by vendetta, and because all the media rumours regarding his previous meeting with Munroe gave Jeffries hopes a defense would prove lucrative.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by guilalah

Interesting read if it's legit.

Regardless, the fact that Jeffries chewed gum during the Monroe challenge probably says enough about how Jeffries regarded him. The fight was, I think, mainly motivated by vendetta, and because all the media rumours regarding his previous meeting with Munroe gave Jeffries hopes a defense would prove lucrative.

Jeffries stated he lost money on the fight ,the box office receipts were for $30,000, take out both fighters ends and the promoters, add training exes.
Perhaps Jeffries should have accepted the $30,000 guarantee he was offered to fight Sam Mcvey that year?

[janitor]

Jeffries hated Munro.

Munro was a pioneer in the art of trash talking for unmerited publicity, and Jeffries had little or no sense of humour.

Actualy, Jeffries likley had his sense of humor surgicaly removed at birth.

While the media bought into Munro's trash talking, Jeffries was the only person talking him down, despite his financial interest in the fight.

When the opening bell rang, Munro could no longer hide from the truth.

Any of this sound familiar?

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by janitor

Jeffries hated Munro.

Munro was a pioneer in the art of trash talking for unmerited publicity, and Jeffries had little or no sense of humour.

Actualy, Jeffries likley had his sense of humor surgicaly removed at birth.

While the media bought into Munro's trash talking, Jeffries was the only person talking him down, despite his financial interest in the fight.

When the opening bell rang, Munro could no longer hide from the truth.

Any of this sound familiar?

It wasn't too long ago a few posters were stating that Munroe was a legitimate contender, and a worthy opponent for Jeffries, I believe I can count you among them J.
I said Munroe had no business challenging for a world title and ,now we see that Jeffries himself agreed with me.

Familiar?
Yes it sounds very similar to that other travesty Jeffries engaged in ,the affair with John Finnegan.

ps. We agree on Jeffries lack of a sense of humour at least.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by mcvey

It wasn't too long ago a few posters were stating that Munroe was a legitimate contender, and a worthy opponent for Jeffries, I believe I can count you among them J.
I said Munroe had no business challenging for a world title and ,now we see that Jeffries himself agreed with me.

Familiar?
Yes it sounds very similar to that other travesty Jeffries engaged in ,the affair with John Finnegan.

ps. We agree on Jeffries lack of a sense of humour at least.

It depends what you mean by a legitimate challenger.

Was Munro the best challenger available?

No

Was he regarded as a serious challenger by the contemporary media?

Yes

Was he as good as his supporters in the media thought?

In hindsight, no.

I would still not say that the fight was a travesty by todays standards.

That Jeffries himself regarded Munro lightly can be in little doubt. He offered to wager a substantial amount of money that either he or Bob Fitzsimmons could knock Munro out inside two rounds.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by janitor

It depends what you mean by a legitimate challenger.

Was Munro the best challenger available?

No

Was he regarded as a serious challenger by the contemporary media?

Yes

Was he as good as his supporters in the media thought?

In hindsight, no.

I would still not say that the fight was a travesty by todays standards.

That Jeffries himself regarded Munro lightly can be in little doubt. He offered to wager a substantial amount of money that either he or Bob Fitzsimmons could knock Munro out inside two rounds.

Fitz was pushing Jeffries out of the way to get at Munroe but Jeffries did not want the golden goose cooked before he had got the gold. When Johnson schooled Munroe a year later, observers remarked how little Munroe actually knew of the most basic boxing arts.
As I said previously in 1904 ,Jeffries could have fought,Johnson ,McVey, Martin,or Childs, that's just the black challengers that had better credentials than Munroe.

Simple question, did Munroe deserve a title shot?

[guilalah]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Simple question, did Munroe deserve a title shot?

Simple answer: Nope.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by guilalah

Simple answer: Nope.

Give that man a cigar! " A man who refuses to equivocate, is a man to be respected". McVey 20012.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by mcvey

As I said previously in 1904 ,Jeffries could have fought,Johnson ,McVey, Martin,or Childs, that's just the black challengers that had better credentials than Munroe.

I could give you Johnson and McVea, but Martin and Childs were well and truly on the wane by then, while Munro apeared to be on the way up.

Given Jeffries decision to draw the colour bar, Munro was probably about as good as he could have managed on paper.

Simple question, did Munroe deserve a title shot?

I think I have efectivley answered this question for you.

He was not the best available challenger, but he was a credible challenger.

A good analogy might be if Wladamir Klitschko gave a title shot to Tyson Fury.

[mcvey]

[quote=janitor;14354813]

I could give you Johnson and McVea, but Martin and Childs were well and truly on the wane by then, while Munro apeared to be on the way up.

Given Jeffries decision to draw the colour bar, Munro was probably about as good as he could have managed on paper.



I think I have efectivley answered this question for you.

He was not the best available challenger, but he was a credible challenger.

A good analogy might be if Wladamir Klitschko gave a title shot to Tyson Fury.

We have ratings today, Fury is in the top ten,[ unlike Wach.] Munroe was a novice who did not have a manager until that fiasco exhibition with Jeffries brought one out of the wood work.

If you truly believe Munroe merited a title shot, we are not only on different plains of thought ,we are on different planets, in different universes.

[Mendoza]

Any tenured champion has easy marks on his resume. This includes Ali, Holmes, Louis, etc. However it should be noted that Jeffries destroyed Munore in 2 brutal rounds. It was the lone stoppage loss in Munroe's career and he was in there with guys who can hit like Maher, and Sharkey. The destruction of Munroe is a fine example of Jeffries hitting power.

This fight happened partly because Munroe's camp lied to the press about a match where Munroe was floored a few times in a four round fight, and claimed that knocked Jeffries down, which according the primary source ( Bute Miner ) never happened.

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey;14354977]

Originally Posted by janitor

We have ratings today, Fury is in the top ten,[ unlike Wach.] Munroe was a novice who did not have a manager until that fiasco exhibition with Jeffries brought one out of the wood work.

If you truly believe Munroe merited a title shot, we are not only on different plains of thought ,we are on different planets, in different universes.

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Munro had put together a winning streak that included wins over Maher, Limerick and Sharkey. We know that Maher and Sharkey were shot, but they were still name fighters. We know that Limerick turned out to be a flash in the pan, but it was not obvious at the time.

Combined with his talent for self promotion, it is not hard to understand how some people saw Munro as a contender on the way up.

[mcvey]

[quote=janitor;14369714]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Munro had put together a winning streak that included wins over Maher, Limerick and Sharkey. We know that Maher and Sharkey were shot, but they were still name fighters. We know that Limerick turned out to be a flash in the pan, but it was not obvious at the time.

Combined with his talent for self promotion, it is not hard to understand how some people saw Munro as a contender on the way up.

I think that should be his newly acquired managers talent for promotion. Before he came on board Munroe,[ or Munore as Mendoza prefers,] was a lightly regarded nobody. His best wins were a news decision over a Sharkey who had been retired for 2 years and been absolutely hammered in his previous fight by Ruhlin ,who had also kod him before.
Sharkey had been stopped in 3 of his last 6 fights thrown out in another ,along with his opponent Maher for lack of action and won just one fight in 4 years.
Maher was Munroe's other" name" and like Sharkey thats all he had left his name, 35 years old, a total pisshead.
Maher had won his last fight on a DSQ against the epic Joe Grim a welter/middle, prior to that he had not won a fight for 2 years . Maher had been kod in his 3 fights before Grim in a total of 5 rds.

Those are Munroe's best victories

Fitz & Sharkey give their opinon of Munroe's chances below.

[URL]********chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030193/1904-08-25/ed-1/seq-10/;words=Munroe+Jeffries+V?date1=1836&rows=20&searchType=basic&state=&date2=1922&proxtext=jeffries+v+m unroe&y=[/URL]


17&x=16&dateFilterType=yearRange&index=3

In this interview after the Maher/Munroe fight Jeffries gives his opinion the fight was fixed for Munroe to win and says," Munroe is not even a good second rater". That Maher has been washed up for years and could not even beat a lightweight.

[URL]********news.google.com/newspapers?id=sBdQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MlYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1658,124168&dq=maher+munroe+fight&hl=en[/URL]


In the link below Jeffries say he lost $1000 on the Munroe fight and he says he is anxious that" future opponents be well regarded by the sporting public".
The inference being the Munroe fight was a foregone conclusion ,and that he was NOT well regarded.

[URL]********news.google.com/newspapers?id=EjhmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OIEMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5322,2399120&dq=jeffries+says+he+lost+money+on+the+m unroe+fight&hl=en[/URL]

Below," Little Old Wine Drinker",
Peter Maher

[IMG]***********.heavyweightcollectibles.com/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/IMG_0004_NEW.jpg[/IMG]

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey;14369968]

Originally Posted by janitor

I think that should be his newly acquired managers talent for promotion. Before he came on board Munroe,[ or Munore as Mendoza prefers,] was a lightly regarded nobody. His best wins were a news decision over a Sharkey who had been retired for 2 years and been absolutely hammered in his previous fight by Ruhlin ,who had also kod him before.
Sharkey had been stopped in 3 of his last 6 fights thrown out in another ,along with his opponent Maher for lack of action and won just one fight in 4 years.
Maher was Munroe's other" name" and like Sharkey thats all he had left his name, 35 years old, a total pisshead.
Maher had won his last fight on a DSQ against the epic Joe Grim a welter/middle, prior to that he had not won a fight for 2 years . Maher had been kod in his 3 fights before Grim in a total of 5 rds.

Those are Munroe's best victories

Fitz & Sharkey give their opinon of Munroe's chances below.

[URL]********chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030193/1904-08-25/ed-1/seq-10/;words=Munroe+Jeffries+V?date1=1836&rows=20&searchType=basic&state=&date2=1922&proxtext=jeffries+v+m unroe&y=[/URL]


17&x=16&dateFilterType=yearRange&index=3

In this interview after the Maher/Munroe fight Jeffries gives his opinion the fight was fixed for Munroe to win and says," Munroe is not even a good second rater". That Maher has been washed up for years and could not even beat a lightweight.

[URL]********news.google.com/newspapers?id=sBdQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MlYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1658,124168&dq=maher+munroe+fight&hl=en[/URL]


In the link below Jeffries say he lost $1000 on the Munroe fight and he says he is anxious that" future opponents be well regarded by the sporting public".
The inference being the Munroe fight was a foregone conclusion ,and that he was NOT well regarded.

[URL]********news.google.com/newspapers?id=EjhmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OIEMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5322,2399120&dq=jeffries+says+he+lost+money+on+the+m unroe+fight&hl=en[/URL]

Below," Little Old Wine Drinker",
Peter Maher

[IMG]***********.heavyweightcollectibles.com/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/IMG_0004_NEW.jpg[/IMG]

I have never debated that Jeffries either didn't rate Munro, or didn't like him, of likley as not both. Jeffries and Fitzsimmons did not like Munro's promotional tactics, and likley did not think much of him as a fighter.

None of that detracts from the fact that a lot of people did buy into the Munro hype train. With a shortage of credible opponents for Jeffries, much of it fell on fertile ground.

While everybody seems to have expected Jeffries to win, some people thought that he could give a good acount of himself due to his youth and size. Even the epople talking down Munro's chances in your article, thought he might last six or eight rounds with Jeffries.