Jeffries Admits Munroe Did Not Merit Title Chance

Where´s the problem? How many champs didn´t fight some chumps in between?

 

Jeff did not try to fool the public. He and Fitz both said after the exhibition that he was just toying with Munroe and wasn't in the best of shape and just wanted to give the fans their money's worth. Yet the Munroe media machine made a big deal out of their 4-round exhibition and hyped it up big time. Munroe was a big strong looking dude, and he followed that up with several wins against big men, some known for strength and power, so he could convince the press that he had a shot to really give Jeff a run for his money, and talked up their exhibition and his confidence to whip Jeff so well that he garnered momentum for the fight. Plus Munroe was a big guy, which added the intrigue of seeing Jeff in there with another big man. Just like today, beating a "name" fighter does a lot for one's career, and beating Sharkey, regardless of the stage of his career, was the name that Munroe needed on his resume to convince folks that he was for real. The more he won, the more some in the press started to believe his claims about how he did with Jeff. It worked then as it still does today. Jeff all along told people Munroe would be easy for him and wanted to thrash him good just to show what a liar Munroe was, and Jeff did what he said he would do. I would like to point out that the loss to Jeffries was the only time that Munroe was ever stopped, and he fought some good fighters with power in Hank Griffin, Peter Maher, Tom Sharkey, and Jack Johnson.

 

"who of any stature did Griffin ko"

No one.

But these are quotes about Jack Johnson from Tad Dorgan on 7-1-1910

First on Jack Johnson

"You know Johnson hasn't shown an awful lot of class in his fights. He had little fellows to fight, such as Burns and Ketchel. What about a big fellow with a punch? Hank Griffin hit Johnson on the chops in the second round of their fifteen round fight and Johnson did nothing but play safe after that."

And in the interest of fairness, on Jim Jeffries

"Jeffries never was a boxer, never had a fight that he wasn't used up in, and as far as meeting a man like Johnson goes, he never dreamed of it. Why, he never beat a young fellow in his life. He made his reputation off old men like Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Jackson, and the like. They were all in when he got them. Young fellows like Sharkey and Choynski, although they were half a foot shy in height and fifty pounds lighter, went the distance with him."

From the SF Examiner 7-1-1910

*It is interesting for all their later reps, perhaps the top sportswriter of their own era had a much less exalted impression of both Johnson and Jeffries.

 

"Tad Dorgan had a very high opinion of Jack Johnson"

He didn't express it in this quote.

although he was trying to write a controversial article and was mustering the bad side for both.

It certainly is also unfair to Jeffries to say that Fitz was all in.

 

"His opinion of Jeffries was echoed by Gene Tunney years later."

This is Jack Johnson on beating Jeffries from the Ring in 1946

"A great fighter had fallen that day. A man whom I always cherished as a superhuman ringman, had been taken into tow by me and that was something to cherish."

And Tunney on Jeffries, quoted in 1940

"I know there are first-rate judges of boxing who pick the big fellow as the greatest of all. But I am not one of them. The ring strategy of Jeffries was entirely the thinking of Tommy Ryan. Tommy taught him the famous crouch, body hunched away over and left hand stuck out. Had him just go plodding ahead like that pushing the left out straight. Jeffries decisive quality was his tremendous physical toughness and endurance, the brawny giant who could hardly be hurt. The Ryan system was for Jeffries to take all the beating the other fellow could give him, just go plodding in a crouch and absorb all the punches that came his way, until his opponent wore himself out hitting him. It has been said that Jeffries . . . often displayed little love for battle, and sometimes wanted to quit. Well, you could hardly blame him with that Tommy Ryan strategy of having Jeffries take all the beating the other fellow could hand out."

In the interest of fairness, here is Jeffries on Tunney.

"Tunney wouldn't have lasted three rounds with Fitzsimmons."

**Take these champions' opinions for what they are worth, but I would say that they are all self-serving. Johnson wants his victim Jeff considered great. Tunney would prefer Jeff be diminished in favor of his victim, Dempsey. And Jeff diminished Tunney in favor of his victim, Fitz.

 

"Fitz was 39"

He was 36 for the 1899 fight.

Who else legitimately beat Fitz between 1890 and 1905?

Even after the 1902 defeat, Fitz still had wins over George Gardner and Jack O'Brien in his future. He seems to have been like Archie Moore. He just fought well old.

 

I think that Jeffries was the only fighter in the world who could have beaten him that day.

 

Just a thought

Could Rickard have been motivated in 1910 by hoping to promote Johnson's subsequent fights?

In the 1920's, long after both were retired, he said Jeffries was the best.

Who knows?

"title defences"

Kind of technical. Jeffries did beat him at 36.

 

"The average weight of Jeffries title challengers is 188 lbs"

"The average weight of Johnson's title challengers is 203 lbs"


I don't agree that this means anything.

Take Joe Louis

He fought five fights with Primo Carnera, Abe Simon, and Buddy Baer--average weight in the five fights, 251 lbs

He fought six fights with Max Schmeling, Billy Conn, and Jersey Joe Walcott--average weight in the six fights, 188 lbs

I think Schmeling, Conn, and Walcott were far more formidable opponents than Carnera, Simon, and Baer.

 

Way to much emphasis is put on weight. Many hwts today walk into title fights full of blubber.