Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-20-2008, 01:21 PM   #31
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 22,620
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak?

If you are correct ,and without proof its just conjecture on your part,do you think these cowshed affairs are suitable fodder for world title challengers? Since Munroe went out in 2 rounds offering token resistance ,your assertion that it was a measured boxing display by Jeffries makes me laugh.Ive given Jeffries all the props I think he,s entitled to,but he shouldn,t have been sullying his hands ,and the title fighting the likes of Finnegan and Munroe.
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-20-2008, 01:36 PM   #32
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,362
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey
Montana Jack Sullivan wasnt beaten by Munroe it was a 4 round draw and again is listed as Sullivans first contest,unless you have info to the contraryI will accept that it the truth.,bottom line Jeffries was the best of his time he didnt duck anyone really,perhaps Johnson at the end,but dont build up two stiffs into worthy challengers they weren,t,as any one who analyses their records can see.Jeffries wins over Ruhlin ,Corbett ,Fitz and Sharkey ensure him a place as a great Champ imo,I used to have him in my top 10,but let,s not pretend that those two fights were meritorious,imo they were actually rather shameful.
Where did I say that Munroe was a worthy challenger? I did not. I said he was " not a world beater ", listed some name fighters he beat or drew with, then wrapped it up by saying he got a shot for being on hot streak / personal reasons.

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

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

In closing the fights with Munore and Finnegan are not among Jeffries best oppoents. No one says they are. They only serve as examples as to what a good champion should to guys who did not deserve title shots. In Jeffries case this means setting a record for the quickest lineal KO, and KOing a man who was never stopped in any of his other 21+ recorded fights.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 01:48 PM   #33
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 22,620
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak

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

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

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

In closing the fights with Munore and Finnegan are not among Jeffries best oppoents. No one says they are. They only serve as examples as to what a good champion should to guys who did not deserve title shots. In Jeffries case this means setting a record for the quickest lineal KO, and KOing a man who was never stopped in any of his other 21+ recorded fights.
I would say that Finnegan and Munroe must rank as two of the worst and very possibly are the worst challengers for the title ever,I see you glossed over my correction of your assertion that Sullivan was beaten by Munroe.You agree they didnt deserve title shots ,thats enough for me ,thats all I wanted acknowledged.
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 02:06 PM   #34
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,362
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak

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

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

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

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

As for Munroe, let me put it this way, he was in the ring vs some name guys prior to facing Jeffries, he wasn't a multiple Ko looser or even stopped, and he was not on a losing streak either. That should put things into perspective.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 02:19 PM   #35
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,382
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak?

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey
If you are correct ,and without proof its just conjecture on your part,do you think these cowshed affairs are suitable fodder for world title challengers?
What you have to understand is that profesional boxing, amateur boxing and fights outside the pub for a hat full of change blended seamlesly together. The vast majority of profesional fights were not recorded.

Of course I cant say exactly what is missing. Just that if you start digging you wont be able to move for finding it. I cannot prove that there are undiscoverd fossils waiting to be unearthed but it is safe to asume that there are.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 02:36 PM   #36
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 22,620
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak?

Let us hope that Appollack can unearth these fossils for us in his pending book . Of course there could be fossils detrimental to our heroes,but thems the breaks.Jim Jefffries is probably sitting up in Valhalla ,on his segregated rocking chair surly and gruff,wondering why we still are talking about him,at this date.
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 02:44 PM   #37
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,382
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak?

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey
Let us hope that Appollack can unearth these fossils for us in his pending book . Of course there could be fossils detrimental to our heroes,but thems the breaks.
That is the other side of the coin of course.

Quote:
Jim Jefffries is probably sitting up in Valhalla ,on his segregated rocking chair surly and gruff,wondering why we still are talking about him,at this date.
No doubt he is releived that he dosnt have to put up with the fan adulation.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 02:49 PM   #38
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 22,620
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak?

[quote=janitor]
Quote:

That is the other side of the coin of course.



No doubt he is releived that he dosnt have to put up with the fan adulation.
Yes he doesnt seem to have been to fan friendly does he?Still he proved a sincere friend to old foes like Fitz and |Sharkey and was by all accounts a devoted husband,did he have children?Surely if he had sired a son the boxing world would have heard of it?
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 02:50 PM   #39
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,362
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey
Let us hope that Appollack can unearth these fossils for us in his pending book
Unearthing fossils is fine. It is better than using box rec. I'd like to see Apollack come up with new information, but to do this he's going to have to work. Reading Two Fisted Jeff, getting access to the USA South West and West papers, and French and Brittish papers are where he should start. The main thing woudl be the cost.

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

The ball is in Appolack's court. I have not read his stuff yet. I hear his Fitz book is the best of the three.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 03:05 PM   #40
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 22,620
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak

Box rec isnt the be all and end all but its a valuable aid,any new info that Appollack can dig up will be most welcome by us all I,m sure.
mcvey is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 03:24 PM   #41
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,362
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey
Box rec isnt the be all and end all but its a valuable aid,any new info that Appollack can dig up will be most welcome by us all I,m sure.
Agreed!
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 05:08 PM   #42
guilalah
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 944
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak?

Murky, but probably the best look we have at Jeffries

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
guilalah is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 05:30 PM   #43
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,382
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak?

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey
Yes he doesnt seem to have been to fan friendly does he?Still he proved a sincere friend to old foes like Fitz and |Sharkey and was by all accounts a devoted husband,
He did show generosity to a few former oponents as you say.

Quote:
did he have children?Surely if he had sired a son the boxing world would have heard of it?
I think he has descendants living today.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2008, 10:09 AM   #44
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
The fight fans and historians who lived from 1900-1960 disagree with you. In fact Nat Fleischer said Jeffries beat the best competition of all the champions. ( Before Ali ). Even you think Nat was a bit off, to say something like this speaks volumes of Jeffries competition.
While I think Nat would certainly think Jeffries fought better comp than Marciano (or Ali) given his old-timey leanings, he made this comment in 1950, so it did not include Marciano (or Ali).

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

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

One fact stands out when looking at Jeff's competition. The best opponents he defeated at the time he defeated them were probably Fitz, Corbett, Sharkey, and Ruhlin. Fitz knocked the other three out and actually looked better against them than Jeff did.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2008, 10:24 AM   #45
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013