What of Jeffries now?

When I look at older newspaper reports, sometimes they can mess up a result or date. We know this!

However, this is very detailed on who he fought, and how fast he won. If someone were to fabricate something that was untrue on beating several fighters, the other manager or fighters themselves would surely speak up. At least I think they would.

 

This is quite sad really.:|

 

If it was sad, you'd be in good company. Show me one false report newspaper report that indicated multiple known fighters and how fast the victims were KO'd that was proven bogus.

You have all of boxing history. I don't expect a factual reply.

 

Your desperate attempts to boost Jeffries have fallen on stoney ground, just accept the fact that he doesn't figure in the ATG top ten of discerning judges of recent years
.If an author like Adam, who is particularly noted for his painstaking , thorough , and extensive research ,has been unable to unearth more real fights for Jeffries, the overwhelming probablility is they do not exist.

NB Facts are something you have only a passing acquaintance with, and when you do bump into them you invariably "adjust" them.:nono

 

If it was sad, you'd be in good company. Show me one false report newspaper report that indicated multiple known fighters and how fast the victims were KO'd that was proven bogus.

You have all of boxing history. I don't expect a factual reply.

In other words you can't show me one example of a press clipping that had multiple names and results that was false.

Checkmate again! If you ask Adam the amount of fights that are unrecorded he'll tell you an estimated 70-90% of boxing matches are not recorded.

DOLT.

 

How many heavyweight champions have fights that are unrecorded? How many Champions that have had several books written on them ,plus their own auto biographies,[ in which they made NO MENTION of further fights,] have had extra fights against prominent fighters unearthed?
You are like a constipated bowel ,full of ****!

 

To be fair though Jeffries himself has had a few undiscovered fights discovered though, and with the mixing of exhibitions, there are a lot floating around. It isnt impossible. if it did happen, it was probably an exhibition that turned serious or even that Jeffries took certain liberties.

Of course the flip side is that there are lots of these types of false reports over the years on different boxers. Johnson v Dempsey is the most comprehensive and famous one, but there are many others. I found a short report of Jackson v Sullivan once and i am pretty confident that this didnt happen.

NO matter which way you look at it, it doesnt really add much to Jeffries legacies. If it didnt happen, it probably would have if Jeffries had fought these guys at some stage of his career.

 

Well, the first Griffin fight was an undiscovered fight at one stage!

From memory, there was the guy (or was it two guys) that he fought the night before he fought Finnegan for the world title (assuming it wasnt an exhibition). This is the key though, much/most of those fights are probably exhibitions which wasnt an exhibition as we know it, though wasnt necessarilly a prizefight (for want of a better word) either. There is a thread on this site that covers some of Jeffries undiscovered or lesser known fights.

I do think that we are not going to find any more undiscovered fights, but the report Mendoza used, as an example, does suggest that nothing is impossible. If forced to take a bet, i would say it didnt happen, but i certainly wouldnt be completely surprised to find out that Jeffries might have sparred (no holding back) with these guys and asserted superiority or won in the manner suggested.

 

I have a different take on how the 5/22/1896 article- if we accept it-impacts Jeffries's legacy.

I think it would hurt his standing.

The main rebuttal against those who maintain that Jeff did not look good in his 1897 fights against Choynski and Ruhlin, or his 1898 fights against Sharkey and Armstrong, is that he was green.

If he actually had quite a few more fights, up to perhaps twenty, under his belt, he was really not that green.

For example, rather than winning the championship in his 13th fight, he would have won it in his 32nd or so fight. That really undercuts his uniqueness, and excuses for any poor performances are badly attenuated.

*As for Childs, he would add depth perhaps, but not much else. He drew with Griffin about this time and was KO'd by Choynski. Considering he probably was a middleweight at this stage, I don't see how a victory over Childs pushes Jeff up the heavyweight standings.

 

I would agree with this.The Armstrong fight can be partially excused because Armstrong was a cautious, cagey performer and Jeffries suffered a hand injury in that fight.
Jeffries is cut slack for only drawing with the greatly outweighed but vastly more experienced Choynski , because of his greeness,if it could be shown he had in fact another 20 bouts or so under his belt at the time then we might not be so forgiving.
Ruhlin is listed as having 9 fights to Jeffries 5 when they met, so nothing between them really.
Sharkey has 36 listed fights when he first faced Jeffries , many of them against name opponents,Jeffries only 10 fights,if those stats are correct Jeffries gave an excellent performance ,if he had say an additional 15 fights it would negate the significance of that win to some extent ,imo.

 

What about that 5/22/1896 SF Chronicle article.

I happened upon it many years ago--probably in the late 90's--and made notes, writing down excerpts. I unwisely didn't copy it, so only have my notes to go by,

I have some thoughts at this point, with the caveat that obviously my memory of the article has faded, and I have to rely on my notes.

Perhaps Adam can comment on this, but my notes don't mention the Hank Griffin fight. As Adam points out that Billy Gallagher was Jeff's second at that fight, I find it very odd that it wasn't mentioned. Griffin was certainly well enough known, having fought a draw with Childs. Why Gallagher would ignore a supposed real fight to list made-up ones puzzles me.

"Jeffries has fought not a few men, and has won every battle he has had."

I have a slightly longer sentence quoted in my notes.

"Jeffries has fought not a few men, and has won every battle he has had, though some antagonists had nothing better than local reputations at most."

That last addition does point to these on the whole not being important fighters.

I thought at the time, and rereading my notes, that this paragraph was the most interesting, as the writer (probably Ben Benjamin, at one time the sports editor of the Chronicle-although I don't know if he was in 1896) gives his opinion of Jeffries, based on watching him.

"One has only to see him in training punching the bag or sparring with his trainer, to be willing to believe that he is in the legitimate succession to the wreath that so long adorned the brow of John L. Sullivan."

Whatever, this is quite a prediction for a young guy who supposedly had not yet made his pro debut. My take is that it undercuts that Jeffries was really that green. "Boxing exhibitions" or something more, Jeffries obviously had had enough "fights" and had come along far enough to impress a seasoned observer as a coming champion.

Adam gives strong arguments that these listed fights did not take place, or at least weren't pro bouts, but while his arguments are strong, I don't find them conclusive. I think these fights probably took place. Whether they are classified as pro bouts remains a murky question, given that this was basically the stone age of American boxing, and of sports coverage in American newspapers.

 

Just on newspaper articles on Jeffries' fights,

Has anyone ever found a ringside report on the Hank Griffin fight?

I have never seen one.

If a fight was not covered by a reporter, and no article printed, all the newspaper research in the world will not do any good.

*I have a question for Adam if he reads this--I know that Jeff's record was printed before some of his fights, and by 1910, the Hank Griffin victory was included. Was the Hank Griffin fight included from the beginning, or did that one pop in after Jack Johnson rose to prominence. Johnson had a lot of trouble with Griffin, and so this victory by Jeff was a good arguing point for Jeff being the better man, at least until July 4, 1910.

**A similar thing happened I believe with Dempsey. The old records show him having a one round KO victory over Battling Johnson, as claimed by Jack Kearns, but later research casts doubt over this. I have articles from the 1920's quoting this result against Wills' loss to Johnson as evidence of Dempsey's superiority. As far as I know, there is currently no evidence this fight ever took place.

There is strong secondary evidence for the Jeffries-Griffin fight, though.

 

Griffin spoke to the press about the KO loss to Jeffries in the 1890's leading up to the 1910 Jeffries v Johnson match.

I agree with you. Sports writers aren't in the business for making up results. It is highly probable that Jeffries defeated more than his record shows.