Jeffries v Quarry

[janitor]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Which should we beleive the actual fight footage of Jeffries, or clips of him skipping, and throwing a sparring partner around?

Both.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by edward morbius

"your opinion on his greatness is based on what you've been told"

There is also his record. Being champion for six years and retiring undefeated certainly makes Jeffries worth considering for high ranking.

He certainly dominated the post-Sullivan and pre-Johnson era and he was praised as the best there had yet been in his own time.


**Just curiously. Name the heavies who were champions longer and who retired undefeated?

I can't think of one other than Louis.

Any others?

Being champ for 6 years appears fine at first glance, but if you factor in his 8 defences. One was against his sparring partner,three were against previously beaten opponents , and two were against no hopers. Then factor in that one defence was against a man of 39 who was coming out of 2 years retirement,another was against a 36 years old man who was also coming out of 2 years retirement.
Factor in also, that he dodged the best black challengers of his time,and his 6 years title tenure does not look so grand,imo.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Being champ for 6 years appears fine at first glance, but if you factor in his 8 defences. One was against his sparring partner,three were against previously beaten opponents , and two were against no hopers. Then factor in that one defence was against a man of 39 who was coming out of 2 years retirement,another was against a 36 years old man who was also coming out of 2 years retirement.
Factor in also, that he dodged the best black challengers of his time,and his 6 years title tenure does not look so grand,imo.

What would consider to be his ideal list of title challengers over that period?

[edward morbius]

Originally Posted by scartissue

Jim Jeffries has to be one of the most over-rated fighters of all time. He only had 23 fights. How many different styles and experience did he see and develop in that time? He was a fight to the finish type fighter. He traded off on his ability to absorb gobs of punishment to be successful at boxing when it was in it's infancy. Let's face it, if he was fighting under more modern rules we would never even be discussing Jim Jeffries because he would have been outpointed by little Jim Corbett over 15 rounds and had been stooped on cuts by little Bob Fitzsimmons. Am I right? Of course you're going to hear Nat Fleischer lauding and praising Jeffries. Did you ever see Nat's top tens in every division? Almost every figher was a turn of the century fighter. These were his heroes. Jeffries was a clubbing puncher. The kind that Jerry Quarry ate for breakfast every time. Quarry had problems with the speedy, sharp styles like Frazier and Ali not the clubbing punchers like Lyle, Foster, Shavers and Chuvalo (until that goofy, "I lost the count" debacle anyway). Quarry was a counter-puncher with a good jaw. The bane of every big clubbing puncher is a counter-puncher with a good jaw. In my opinion formed over 45 years in boxing, Jim Jeffries was a cruder version of George Chuvalo and would never have survived in the more modern game.

"Jim Jeffries has to be one of the most overrated fighters of all time."

He completely dominated his era. He might be underrated if one thinks in terms of record in one's own time. How many champions held the title longer and made more defenses and retired undefeated? I think only Joe Louis.

"boxing ---- infancy"

Boxing went back to the early 1700's

"under modern rules"

You are assuming he wouldn't adopt a different style if fighting a 10 round fight versus a 25 round fight. We know he fought both successfully, Modern fighters do not fight those long distance fights.

"Nat's opinion"

Nat was an old-timer freak. No doubt. But how many contemporary experts doubted that Jeff was great? If not the best, at least one of the best? And a handful for anyone?

"Jeffries was a clubbing puncher"

He pounded guys into jelly.

Here's Bob Fitzsimmons on Jeffries quoted by Gilbert Odd

"He's a *******-jack and don't make any mistake. He'll be champion for a long time. And he's so tough and strong."

"The first time he really hit me in the body, I thought his fist had gone right through me. His crouching stance and the way he threw that long left. Every time I hit him, he punched back even harder. His gloves were like lead. I was well beaten tonight by a man too big and strong for me and I have no complaints to make."

I think Quarry is a much better pick as the most overrated.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by janitor

Both.

Bob Armstrong was widely lauded as the most impressive gym fighter of his generation but he was notorious for getting "stage fright" in actual combat. Johnny Bratton could lick anyone in the gym.

IT IS NOT FIGHTING.

Do you think Johnson moved around like this in fights?

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[edward morbius]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Being champ for 6 years appears fine at first glance, but if you factor in his 8 defences. One was against his sparring partner,three were against previously beaten opponents , and two were against no hopers. Then factor in that one defence was against a man of 39 who was coming out of 2 years retirement,another was against a 36 years old man who was also coming out of 2 years retirement.
Factor in also, that he dodged the best black challengers of his time,and his 6 years title tenure does not look so grand,imo.

"he dodged the best black challengers"

He deserves the criticism he gets for dodging Johnson.

However, were the "best black challengers" the best challengers?

I think this is just modern political correctness imposed on a past era. Johnson is a fair criticism, but the others were not outstanding contenders of the stature of Jackson, Langford, or Wills.

**Just to step out of boxing for a bit, the USA was a mostly agrarian country back then with the black population mainly in the rural south. There was a massive migration to the northern cities to work in the factories in later decades. I think it a mistake to assume black fighters were of the number or perrhaps ability they showed several decades later.

To cut to the bottom line--What is the evidence that any black fighter other than Peter Jackson would have been considered a really top heavyweight prior to 1902 or so when Martin began coming on? And Jeffries also fought Griffin and Armstrong on the way up.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by janitor

What would consider to be his ideal list of title challengers over that period?

Johnson , and McVey instead of Munroe, and Finnegan.Denver Ed Martin instead of Corbett.Frank Childs instead of Kennedy.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by edward morbius

"he dodged the best black challengers"

He deserves the criticism he gets for dodging Johnson.

However, were the "best black challengers" the best challengers?

I think this is just modern political correctness imposed on a past era. Johnson is a fair criticism, but the others were not outstanding contenders of the stature of Jackson, Langford, or Wills.

**Just to step out of boxing for a bit, the USA was a mostly agrarian country back then with the black population mainly in the rural south. There was a massive migration to the northern cities to work in the factories in later decades. I think it a mistake to assume black fighters were of the number or perrhaps ability they showed several decades later.

To cut to the bottom line--What is the evidence that any black fighter other than Peter Jackson would have been considered a really top heavyweight prior to 1902 or so when Martin began coming on? And Jeffries also fought Griffin and Armstrong on the way up.

See post above.Then tell me they were not more deserving challengers than those he actually fought.

In fact tell me what in their current form persuades you that Corbett,Finnegan,Kennedy ,and Munroe deserved title shots?

Thats 50% of Jeffries title defences by the way.

[edward morbius]

Nat Fleischer did go back to that era. Here is the listed Jeffries title fights in the 1976 Ring Record Book

June 8, 1899--Bob Fitzsimmons--ko 11

Nov 3, 1899--Tom Sharkey--W 25

May 11, 1900--Jim Corbett--ko 23

Nov 15, 1901--Gus Ruhlin--ko 5

July 25, 1902--Bob Fitzsimmons--ko 8

August 14, 1903--Jim Corbett--ko 10

August 25, 1904--Jack Munroe--ko 2

So the fights with Finnegan, Kennedy, (and Griffin) were not actually title defenses TO THE FOLKS OF THAT ERA. There is a gray area of exhibitions. I agree that Munroe was certainly not the top contender, and possibly totally unworthy.

Corbett is a tough issue. He had lost, after all, only to Fitz and Sharkey, top men.

A modern Corbett would fatten his record with several joke fights leading up to Jeffries. They seemed to think this was not necessary back then.

So of the recognized defenses-Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Fitz, were better than any black contender of those years, yes. Corbett was an ex-champion and I think folks wanted this fight.

Johnson was certainly a better contender than Munroe.

**By the way, If Finnegan and Kennedy are considered title defenses, as well as Munroe, I don't agree with the logic that Jeffries should be put down because they might be alternate contenders out there who were better than the worst he fought. The question is did he defend against the best. I think, other than Johnson, yes. Martin faded from the scene too quickly I think to use him as a dodged challenger. Being less unworthy doesn't make you worthy.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Johnson , and McVey instead of Munroe, and Finnegan.

The Finegan fight would not have been at the right time for Johnson or McVea to be substituted in.

I agree that Johnson or McVea would have made a better challenger than Munro.

Denver Ed Martin instead of Corbett.

Martins credentials peaked around the time of the second Fitzsimmons fight, and I think that Fitzsimmons had better credentials.

He could perhaps have been substituted for Ruhlin, but it would have been a debatable call.

Jeffries had beaten most of the top players around the time of the first Corbett fight, so you might just end up picking Corbett.

Frank Childs instead of Kennedy.

The Kennedy fight was essentialy a warm up fight for Jeffries coming off a long layoff caused by injury, so he was never going to choose a top name.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by edward morbius

Nat Fleischer did go back to that era. Here is the listed Jeffries title fights in the 1976 Ring Record Book

June 8, 1899--Bob Fitzsimmons--ko 11

Nov 3, 1899--Tom Sharkey--W 25

May 11, 1900--Jim Corbett--ko 23

Nov 15, 1901--Gus Ruhlin--ko 5

July 25, 1902--Bob Fitzsimmons--ko 8

August 14, 1903--Jim Corbett--ko 10

August 25, 1904--Jack Munroe--ko 2

So the fights with Finnegan, Kennedy, (and Griffin) were not actually title defenses TO THE FOLKS OF THAT ERA. There is a gray area of exhibitions. I agree that Munroe was certainly not the top contender, and possibly totally unworthy.

Corbett is a tough issue. He had lost, after all, only to Fitz and Sharkey, top men.

A modern Corbett would fatten his record with several joke fights leading up to Jeffries. They seemed to think that was not necessary back then.

So of the recognized defenses-Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Fitz, were better than any black contender of those years, yes. Corbett was an ex-champion and I think folks wanted this fight.

Johnson was certainly a better contender than Munroe.

I never mentioned Griffin ,it was a 4rd exhibition.

Your sums add up to 6 defences in 6 years, still think that is note worthy?



Since all three avoided the best black challengers,[just like Jeffries,]

I wonder how you can make this assumption with any degree of certainty?

[scartissue]

Originally Posted by edward morbius

"Jim Jeffries has to be one of the most overrated fighters of all time."

He completely dominated his era. He might be underrated if one thinks in terms of record in one's own time. How many champions held the title longer and made more defenses and retired undefeated? I think only Joe Louis.

What, 8 defenses over 6 years? Is that impressive?

"boxing ---- infancy"

Boxing went back to the early 1700's

I know when boxing began. I know all about the metal cestus. The gloved era was in its infancy. Do you think Terry McGovern knew anything about counter-punching? Not until he met Young Corbett. Did you ever watch the film of Ketchel-Papke? I can assure you they didn't know the difference between a jab and a combo. Again, it was in its infancy.

"under modern rules"

You are assuming he wouldn't adopt a different style if fighting a 10 round fight versus a 25 round fight. We know he fought both successfully, Modern fighters do not fight those long distance fights.

If you're assuming he was pacing himself then why didn't he pace himself against Munroe or Jackson by letting them beat up on him like Corbett and Fitz did instead of taking them out early? Because he only had one way of fighting and he caught them. Jeff was no strategist and no one is just going to sit there absorbing copious amounts of punishment unless there is no plan B. Jeff's only plan chase him and club him until he falls. Again, under modern rules Corbett takes a 15 round decision and Fitz stops him in the rematch


"Jeffries was a clubbing puncher"

He pounded guys into jelly.

Here's Bob Fitzsimmons on Jeffries quoted by Gilbert Odd

"He's a *******-jack and don't make any mistake. He'll be champion for a long time. And he's so tough and strong."

"The first time he really hit me in the body, I thought his fist had gone right through me. His crouching stance and the way he threw that long left. Every time I hit him, he punched back even harder. His gloves were like lead. I was well beaten tonight by a man too big and strong for me and I have no complaints to make."

Well, that's not saying much. Did you ever see Fitz' ribs?

I think Quarry is a much better pick as the most overrated.

Never heard anyone say Jerry was overrated. He came in 2nd best in a very deep era. I just believe his versatility (box, punch, counter-punch) his toughness, his far greater experience - I'm not talking age i'm talking a lengthy amateur career with a lengthy pro career against one of the deepest heavyweright eras of all time combined with modern training - is more than enough to handle the very methodical and predictable Jim Jeffries and all he learned in his 23 fights against 170 lb. men.

[edward morbius]

[quote=janitor;14354877]

The Finegan fight would not have been at the right time for Johnson or McVea to be substituted in.

I agree that Johnson or McVea would have made a better challenger than Munro.



Martins credentials peaked around the time of the second Fitzsimmons fight, and I think that Fitzsimmons had better credentials.

He could perhaps have been substituted for Ruhlin, but it would have been a debatable call.

Jeffries had beaten most of the top players around the time of the first Corbett fight, so you might just end up picking Corbett.



The Kennedy fight was essentialy a warm up fight for Jeffries coming off a long layoff caused by injury, so he was never going to choose a top name.

"substituted for Ruhlin"

Martin had just turned twenty. Were folks really demanding an immediate title shot w/o additional seasoning.

Ruhlin makes sense both as a top contender, and as a man who had fought a controversial draw years earlier with Jeffries.

[edward morbius]

Originally Posted by scartissue

Never heard anyone say Jerry was overrated. He came in 2nd best in a very deep era. I just believe his versatility (box, punch, counter-punch) his toughness, his far greater experience - I'm not talking age i'm talking a lengthy amateur career with a lengthy pro career against one of the deepest heavyweright eras of all time combined with modern training - is more than enough to handle the very methodical and predictable Jim Jeffries and all he learned in his 23 fights against 170 lb. men.

"Never heard anyone say Jerry was overrated"

There is always a first time.

"very deep era"

He was beaten by Ellis, who was a puffed up middleweight with a mediocre record at middle.

The real big names of the era--Ali, Frazier, Norton--destroyed him--Liston-He did not fight Liston. Machen--beat him. Chuvalo--ko'd him.

He was never one of the top three active heavies, if that high. Ellis was better and I once watched Ellis lose to Don Fullmer on TV.


*Quarry "toughness"

He was stopped 6 times in 66 fights (all before reaching 30)--that is simply not the record of a super tough fighter.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by edward morbius

Nat Fleischer did go back to that era. Here is the listed Jeffries title fights in the 1976 Ring Record Book

June 8, 1899--Bob Fitzsimmons--ko 11

Nov 3, 1899--Tom Sharkey--W 25

May 11, 1900--Jim Corbett--ko 23

Nov 15, 1901--Gus Ruhlin--ko 5

July 25, 1902--Bob Fitzsimmons--ko 8

August 14, 1903--Jim Corbett--ko 10

August 25, 1904--Jack Munroe--ko 2

So the fights with Finnegan, Kennedy, (and Griffin) were not actually title defenses TO THE FOLKS OF THAT ERA. There is a gray area of exhibitions. I agree that Munroe was certainly not the top contender, and possibly totally unworthy.

Corbett is a tough issue. He had lost, after all, only to Fitz and Sharkey, top men.

A modern Corbett would fatten his record with several joke fights leading up to Jeffries. They seemed to think this was not necessary back then.

So of the recognized defenses-Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Fitz, were better than any black contender of those years, yes. Corbett was an ex-champion and I think folks wanted this fight.

Johnson was certainly a better contender than Munroe.

**By the way, If Finnegan and Kennedy are considered title defenses, as well as Munroe, I don't agree with the logic that Jeffries should be put down because they might be alternate contenders out there who were better than the worst he fought. The question is did he defend against the best. I think, other than Johnson, yes. Martin faded from the scene too quickly I think to use him as a dodged challenger. Being less unworthy doesn't make you worthy.

Really ? From June 1899 until Feb1903 Martin was unbeaten, and bested
Childs,Russell, Craig, Ferguson, Griffin,Armstrong ,thats a 3 and a half year winning run.

It does however, by definition make you ,MORE WORTHY.