The very factors that make great champions what they are, mean that they often invest too much in winning to readily acknowledge when they loose. If you look at the great heavyweight champions, very few of them ever really came to terms with the critical loss of their career.
I am not sure. I think i might have read something similar to what was said in that article, but he left out some very important passages which change the context dramatically (and i am pretty sure that he added at least a couple of things but who knows, when old fighters are trying to talk things up for publicity purposes). With regard to the cellar fight, Jeffries always maintains it was true. But he also maintains that he was embarassed for acting in such a way, that it was ridiculous and just him taking advantage of being in a better place in his career at the time. He says that Johnson maintained his dignity by not accepting the challenge which was completely inappropriate. Maybe not in those exact words, but that was the gist of it. Regarding Peter Jackson, he talks of the hard training Peter done and the excellent condition he looked to be in. He went into the ring thinking he was facing one of the greatest fighters of all time. What he says became patently obvious after the first round was that Peter Jackson was not the same great fighter he used to be adn that he simply didnt have it any more. He has openly said that his name was nothing more than that. A name. He wasnt the same great fighter that used to dominate the scene. Regarding white supremacy, he has also been placed on record as saying this is ridiculous. The idea that the white or black race is more superior to the other, just because one man triumphs in a sporting challenge in the ring is ridiculous. He did confess that when watching a black vs white fight he would usually cheer for the black man (not because he liked blacks better than whites as he often didnt) but because he was white and felt it was no different to cheering for those from the USA over those from overseas. Or a local against a visitor. It didnt mean anything, it is just that people often cheer for those more like themself. I think that those three things put the quotes (assuming they were made, which is debatable as mcgrain pointed out) into context.
I agree with you about Johnson's conduct (and so does Jim Jeffries). But a slightly different look at this situation. We can assume, i think, because jeffries was already in the bar, and because of the way he acted, that jeffries would have been pretty drunk at the time. Likewise, because Johnson had just arrived (and also because of the fact that he didnt go into the cellar) that he would have been sober at the time. So the question, especially given that we now know just how good JOhnson was or at least went on to become, leaving aside the fact that prime for prime, i personally give Jeffries an excellent chance against johnson. Surely, there isnt anyone who thinks that a drunk Jim Jeffries might have actually beaten a sober Jack Johnson in the cellar?
I think Jeffries in a confined space would be bad news for a lot of heavyweights,putting him in a ring with a great defensive boxer changes the dynamics imo. I've read too that Jeffries was ashamed of his conduct that day.I'll try and find it.
I guess the point i was making though, is that despite what young people and/or untrained fighters often think, you cant fight or beat world class fighters when you are drunk, no matter who you are. Put bluntly, a drunk Mike Tyson loses to a sober trevor Berbick. I think in these circumstances Johnson (who incidentally may have actually been as strong as Jeffries) knocks a drunk Jeffries senseless. Much the same way that a drunk JOhn L Sullivan is reported to have several losses, despite the i can lick anyone in the bar throwaway line.