Jeffries v Quarry

[janitor]

[quote=edward morbius;14354952]

Originally Posted by janitor

"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.

I appreciate your argument, though I have been shocked by just how highly Martin was regarded by the press, unwarantedly so as it turned out.

There were people who actualy thought he could beat Jeffries, while nobody seems to have given Johnson a chance.

Just shows that the media don't always pick the winners at the time, and we should remember that when judging the Munro fight.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by edward morbius

"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.

Ellis scaled 201lbs when he fought Frazier for all the titles, that is heavier than any class man Jeffries ever beat. Three of Quarry's six stoppage losses were by cut eyes. Quarry fought every hard puncher that would fight him , Foreman and Liston did not. Quarry beat Foster,Lyle and Shavers, three of the biggest punchers of their era, none of the three floored him.

Quarry was beaten by Machen when he was a kid ,and lost to Norton when he was on the way down.

[Boilermaker]

Originally Posted by mcvey

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.

Not sure if it means anything, but Kennedy had just drawn twice with Hank Griffin, who was about to go on to defeat Jack Johnson. And who had technically lasted four rounds with Jim Jeffries.

on this particular date, Denver Ed Martin, who was building into a great challenger, had a 10 round DQ win over fred russell and who had already been knocked out by Jeffries training partner bob Armstrong.

Frank Childs was probably the best credentialled colour fighter at this time. He had defeated Bob Armstrong, Klondike Haines, Fred Russell, Peter Everett, and George Byers. Although, on the down side, he had just fought two draws with Jack Bonner (famous himself for fighting a draw with the much criticised jack Finnegan), and he also fought a draw with none other than Joe Kennedy. I guess this makes him realistically no better or worse challenger than Kennedy (and arguably even Finnegan). It may be of some interest that an inexperienced Jeffries is rumoured (by way of News reports) to have fought and beat Frank Childs though obviously there is no real proof of this.

Jack Johnson in September of 1901 had just been knocked out by Joe Choynski and was about to fight a losing series with Hank Griffin.

Hank Griffin wouldnt have been a bad choice as the best coloured fighter. He had beaten Jack Munroe but he had also only drawn with Kennedy and was knocked down several times by Jeffries himself, so i doubt this would be creditable. Certainly no more so than Kennedy.

McVey, Jeanette and Langford had not yet debuted.

Bob Armstrong, who had knocked out Denver Ed Martin and fought an ND with him and lasted the distance with Goddard, had also recently lost to Frank Childs, Mexican Peter Everett Ed Dunkhorst and Jeffries himself.

I am not sure what other coloured contenders were around. Maybe Joe Butler, who did have wins over Slavin, Dunkhorst, and possibly Henry Baker, as well as controversial knockdown fests with Stelzner, Bonner. But he had also been KOd by Armstrong and Childs, plus he seems to have had a year off from fighting at this time.

I cant see any others. Utah Bob Thompson seemed to win a fair few fights, but was losing to less than world class fighters by this time, and couldnt really be considered a legitimate world champion challenger, i would have thought.

Are there any others at this point in time? Old as he was maybe joe Choynski, who had just KOd Jack Johnson was the best challenger. he did have wins over maher, Russell and ODonnell, even though he was getting long in the tooth, and you would think his losses to Walcott, McCoy and Sharkey really do write him off as a legitimate challenger. In fact, realistically, Kid McCoy who had beaten ODonnell, Maher, Choynski, Creedon, Bonner and had the controversies with Corbett and Ryan probably was quite comfortably the standout challenger at this time. It is actually quite strange that there isnt a bigger outcry that he wasnt given a chance considering the claims for others that are pushed over 100 years later.

Walcott i suppose is a coloured name and that is a big win,

[scartissue]

Originally Posted by edward morbius

"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.

This is what happens when you have a lot of fights in a very tough era, there are losses when you fight the best and often. 23 fights against 170 lb. men that on some occasions you barely scrape home doesn't leave much for discourse.

[edward morbius]

Originally Posted by mcvey

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.

"Childs, Russell, Craig, Ferguson, Griffin, Armstrong"

How impressive is this list of names.

Frank Craig--weighed 154 on 9-10-1900 against George Gardner. Was on a six bout losing streak when ko'd twice by Martin in 1902 when Martin was perhaps the outstanding contender.

Fred Russell--had lost to Joe Kennedy, and Joe Choynski, and was coming off a ko defeat to Tom Sharkey. Martin beat him on a 10 round DQ.

Sandy Ferguson--ok, but hard to judge how good he was in 1902

Hank Griffin--I agree with Boilermaker that he might well be the best of this lot. Drew with Childs and beat Johnson and was a consistent winner.

Frank Childs--was a small heavyweight even by the standards of the time. He had Armstrong's number, but was ko'd by Choynski and later beaten by him again, and drew with Joe Kennedy. Not much here to claim he would be a worthy opponent for the 50 lb heavier Jeffries.

Bob Armstrong--by far the most erratic. His ko's of Slavin and Martin were impressive, but he also had scads of bad defeats.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kennedy--fought two draws with Griffin and one with Childs. Why exactly should they be considered superior? Went out in a quick two against Jeffries. Because he was white, he did get a shot at Jeffries.

**Perhaps there weren't that many interracial fights, but for the most part this group didn't do that well when they got such a fight. Childs was ko'd by Choynski and Creedan. Armstrong and Griffin lost to Jeffries. Craig lost to almost everybody.

I just think trying to build this group up as somehow in the same class as Jackson, Langford, Jeannette, McVea, Wills, Godfrey, Gains, etc just doesn't fly.

They seem to have been basically trial horses, with the possible exception of the smallish Childs. I don't think he was a top heavyweight, but he might have been one of the elite against opponents at his own weight.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by edward morbius

"Childs, Russell, Craig, Ferguson, Griffin, Armstrong"

How impressive is this list of names.

Frank Craig--weighed 154 on 9-10-1900 against George Gardner. Was on a six bout losing streak when ko'd twice by Martin in 1902 when Martin was perhaps the outstanding contender.

Fred Russell--had lost to Joe Kennedy, and Joe Choynski, and was coming off a ko defeat to Tom Sharkey. Martin beat him on a 10 round DQ.

Sandy Ferguson--ok, but hard to judge how good he was in 1902

Hank Griffin--I agree with Boilermaker that he might well be the best of this lot. Drew with Childs and ko'd Johnson and was a consistent winner.

Frank Childs--was a small man even by the standards of the time. He had Armstrong's number, but was ko'd by Choynski and later beaten by him again, and drew with Joe Kennedy. Not much here to claim he would be a worthy opponent for the 50 lb heavier Jeffries.

Bob Armstrong--by far the most erratic. His ko's of Slavin and Martin were impressive, but he also had scads of bad defeats.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kennedy--fought two draws with Griffin and one with Childs. Why exactly should they be considered superior? Went out in a quick two against Jeffries. Because he was white, he did get a shot at Jeffries.

**Perhaps there weren't that many interracial fights, but for the most part this group didn't do that well when they got such a fight. Childs was ko'd by Choynski and Creedan. Armstrong and Griffin lost to Jeffries. Craig lost to almost everybody.

I just think trying to build this group up as somehow in the same class as Jackson, Langford, Jeannette, McVea, Wills, Godfrey, Gains, etc just doesn't fly.

They seem to have been basically trial horses, with the possible exception of the smallish Childs. I don't think he was a top heavyweight, but he might have been one of the elite against opponents at his own weight.

You're still harping on about Childs being small, he was heavier than Choynsi and Fitzsimmons and on a par with Sharkey for his 1st fight with Jeffries. Childs was 5'9.5" tall, an inch and a half taller than the average male up until the 1920's.


Van Buskirk ,and Baker were 175pounders when Jeffries fought them. Griffin never kod Johnson he beat him on points over 20rds

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by edward morbius

"Childs, Russell, Craig, Ferguson, Griffin, Armstrong"

How impressive is this list of names.

Frank Craig--weighed 154 on 9-10-1900 against George Gardner. Was on a six bout losing streak when ko'd twice by Martin in 1902 when Martin was perhaps the outstanding contender.

Fred Russell--had lost to Joe Kennedy, and Joe Choynski, and was coming off a ko defeat to Tom Sharkey. Martin beat him on a 10 round DQ.

Sandy Ferguson--ok, but hard to judge how good he was in 1902

Hank Griffin--I agree with Boilermaker that he might well be the best of this lot. Drew with Childs and ko'd Johnson and was a consistent winner.

Frank Childs--was a small man even by the standards of the time. He had Armstrong's number, but was ko'd by Choynski and later beaten by him again, and drew with Joe Kennedy. Not much here to claim he would be a worthy opponent for the 50 lb heavier Jeffries.

Bob Armstrong--by far the most erratic. His ko's of Slavin and Martin were impressive, but he also had scads of bad defeats.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kennedy--fought two draws with Griffin and one with Childs. Why exactly should they be considered superior? Went out in a quick two against Jeffries. Because he was white, he did get a shot at Jeffries.

**Perhaps there weren't that many interracial fights, but for the most part this group didn't do that well when they got such a fight. Childs was ko'd by Choynski and Creedan. Armstrong and Griffin lost to Jeffries. Craig lost to almost everybody.

I just think trying to build this group up as somehow in the same class as Jackson, Langford, Jeannette, McVea, Wills, Godfrey, Gains, etc just doesn't fly.

They seem to have been basically trial horses, with the possible exception of the smallish Childs. I don't think he was a top heavyweight, but he might have been one of the elite against opponents at his own weight.

Childs was the Coloured Champion.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by edward morbius

"Childs, Russell, Craig, Ferguson, Griffin, Armstrong"

How impressive is this list of names.

Frank Craig--weighed 154 on 9-10-1900 against George Gardner. Was on a six bout losing streak when ko'd twice by Martin in 1902 when Martin was perhaps the outstanding contender.

Fred Russell--had lost to Joe Kennedy, and Joe Choynski, and was coming off a ko defeat to Tom Sharkey. Martin beat him on a 10 round DQ.

Sandy Ferguson--ok, but hard to judge how good he was in 1902

Hank Griffin--I agree with Boilermaker that he might well be the best of this lot. Drew with Childs and ko'd Johnson and was a consistent winner.

Frank Childs--was a small man even by the standards of the time. He had Armstrong's number, but was ko'd by Choynski and later beaten by him again, and drew with Joe Kennedy. Not much here to claim he would be a worthy opponent for the 50 lb heavier Jeffries.

Bob Armstrong--by far the most erratic. His ko's of Slavin and Martin were impressive, but he also had scads of bad defeats.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kennedy--fought two draws with Griffin and one with Childs. Why exactly should they be considered superior? Went out in a quick two against Jeffries. Because he was white, he did get a shot at Jeffries.

**Perhaps there weren't that many interracial fights, but for the most part this group didn't do that well when they got such a fight. Childs was ko'd by Choynski and Creedan. Armstrong and Griffin lost to Jeffries. Craig lost to almost everybody.

I just think trying to build this group up as somehow in the same class as Jackson, Langford, Jeannette, McVea, Wills, Godfrey, Gains, etc just doesn't fly.

They seem to have been basically trial horses, with the possible exception of the smallish Childs. I don't think he was a top heavyweight, but he might have been one of the elite against opponents at his own weight.

Deleted, double post

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by edward morbius

"Childs, Russell, Craig, Ferguson, Griffin, Armstrong"

How impressive is this list of names.

Frank Craig--weighed 154 on 9-10-1900 against George Gardner. Was on a six bout losing streak when ko'd twice by Martin in 1902 when Martin was perhaps the outstanding contender.

Fred Russell--had lost to Joe Kennedy, and Joe Choynski, and was coming off a ko defeat to Tom Sharkey. Martin beat him on a 10 round DQ.

Sandy Ferguson--ok, but hard to judge how good he was in 1902

Hank Griffin--I agree with Boilermaker that he might well be the best of this lot. Drew with Childs and ko'd Johnson and was a consistent winner.

Frank Childs--was a small man even by the standards of the time. He had Armstrong's number, but was ko'd by Choynski and later beaten by him again, and drew with Joe Kennedy. Not much here to claim he would be a worthy opponent for the 50 lb heavier Jeffries.

Bob Armstrong--by far the most erratic. His ko's of Slavin and Martin were impressive, but he also had scads of bad defeats.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kennedy--fought two draws with Griffin and one with Childs. Why exactly should they be considered superior? Went out in a quick two against Jeffries. Because he was white, he did get a shot at Jeffries.

**Perhaps there weren't that many interracial fights, but for the most part this group didn't do that well when they got such a fight. Childs was ko'd by Choynski and Creedan. Armstrong and Griffin lost to Jeffries. Craig lost to almost everybody.

I just think trying to build this group up as somehow in the same class as Jackson, Langford, Jeannette, McVea, Wills, Godfrey, Gains, etc just doesn't fly.

They seem to have been basically trial horses, with the possible exception of the smallish Childs. I don't think he was a top heavyweight, but he might have been one of the elite against opponents at his own weight.

You keep harping on about Childs being small, he was heavier than Choynski, and Fitz, and on a par with Sharkey when Sharkey first met Jeffries.
Griffin never kod Johnson, he beat him by 20rds dec.

You miss the point entirely.I'm not trying to build them up as good as Langford etc.
I'm implying that they were at least as deserving of title shots as Finnegan ,Munroe, Kennedy and Corbett ,and in most cases more deserving.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by mcvey

You keep harping on about Childs being small, he was heavier than Choynski, and Fitz, and on a par with Sharkey when Sharkey first met Jeffries.
Griffin never kod Johnson, he beat him by 20rds dec.

You miss the point entirely.I'm not trying to build them up as good as Langford etc.
I'm implying that they were at least as deserving of title shots as Finnegan ,Munroe, Kennedy and Corbett ,and in most cases more deserving.

The most credible challenger that Jeffries failed to meet in the early part of his title reign, is probably Kid McCoy.

There was even talk about bringing Charlie Mitchell out of retirment to face him.

[edward morbius]

Originally Posted by mcvey

You're still harping on about Childs being small, he was heavier than Choynsi and Fitzsimmons and on a par with Sharkey for his 1st fight with Jeffries. Childs was 5'9.5" tall, an inch and a half taller than the average male up until the 1920's.


Van Buskirk ,and Baker were 175pounders when Jeffries fought them. Griffin never kod Johnson he beat him on points over 20rds

I should have taken a nap before doing that post.

"Childs was a small man"

I should have said a small heavyweight, and he was, if so considered, especially compared to Jeffries.

"He was heavier than Choynski"

Who ko'd him.

"heavier than Fitz"

Who was an undisputed triple champion and who only lost legitimately to Jeffries over a fifteen year period in which he won three championships.

"Griffin did not ko Johnson"

Yes, thanks. I guess I was a bit too tired.


*on weights, I think it best to compare apples to apples--like the highest recorded weights below

Tom Sharkey--192 lbs (Fred Russell 1901)

Bob Fitzsimmons--175 lbs (Choynski 1894)

Joe Choynski--178 lbs (Denver Ed Smith 5-10-1897)

Frank Childs--173 lbs

I don't know how accurate these weights are (Adam Pollack says they did not weigh in) but Sharkey was 10 to 20 lbs heavier, and even Fitz and Choynski fought at higher weights than Childs ever did.

[edward morbius]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Childs was the Coloured Champion.

This raises a good question--was he?

This is from his record on boxrec

9-14-1898 George Byers L 20 New York City (for 'colored' championship)

It appears to me that this makes Byers champion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

3-4-1899 Bob Armstrong ko 6 Chicago (for 'colored' championship)

But Byers is the champion. Childs just claimed the title without winning it in the ring. At best he is the colored champion of Chicago, but not New York.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

3-16-1901 George Byers ko 17

This is the first time Childs can legitimately claim to be the 'colored' champion, but he had never beaten Griffin, probably the best out there.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by edward morbius

Machen remarked about Jeffries that he liked "his quick hands and combinations"

I am pretty certain I am remembering that correctly.

I have wondered myself what film convinced Machen of this. But there is a point in the Johnson fight in which Jeffries flurries with both hands and for a big fellow he threw a lot of leather quickly.

I think Machen had someone in his corner that worked with Jack Johnson.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by janitor

The most credible challenger that Jeffries failed to meet in the early part of his title reign, is probably Kid McCoy.

There was even talk about bringing Charlie Mitchell out of retirment to face him.

If Bill Squires had beaten Burns there were moves to bring Jeffries out of retirement to challenge him.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by edward morbius

I should have taken a nap before doing that post.

"Childs was a small man"

I should have said a small heavyweight, and he was, if so considered, especially compared to Jeffries.

"He was heavier than Choynski"

Who ko'd him.

"heavier than Fitz"

Who was an undisputed triple champion and who only lost legitimately to Jeffries over a fifteen year period in which he won three championships.

"Griffin did not ko Johnson"

Yes, thanks. I guess I was a bit too tired.


*on weights, I think it best to compare apples to apples--like the highest recorded weights below

Tom Sharkey--192 lbs (Fred Russell 1901)

Bob Fitzsimmons--175 lbs (Choynski 1894)

Joe Choynski--178 lbs (Denver Ed Smith 5-10-1897)

Frank Childs--173 lbs

I don't know how accurate these weights are (Adam Pollack says they did not weigh in) but Sharkey was 10 to 20 lbs heavier, and even Fitz and Choynski fought at higher weights than Childs ever did.

How many weights do you have for Childs fights to make this statement?