How Much Would McVey and Johnson Add To Jeffries Legacy??

McVey was 19 years old in 1903 and only had four recorded fights in 1902. He did not fight prior to 1902...so says Box Rec. Mcvey quit the game for a year after losing to Denver Ed Martin in 1904, a fighter Jeffries according to the press also KO'd on the way up.

So unless you think a teenager with 4 total fights is worth a title shot, Mcvey at the time would not mean much at all! Jeffries vs McVey in 1903 would not mean much from a result standpoint, however if would mean something to those who look at wins on paper without realizing how young and green he was.

Johnson vs Jeffries in 1905 would add something to Jeffries legacy at the time. Most felt Johnson pre-1905 was not in Fitz or Corbett's class. No less authority that Geroge Siler, the most prominent referee of the times felt Peter Jackson, a fighter Jeffries easily bombed out in three rounds was the best of the African-American fighters. But then again Johnson lost in 1905 to Marvin Hart who was not viewed as a world beater. If Hart beats you, how good were you really?

Johnson lost to Choynski ( KO loss ) , Klondike, ( Ko loss ) and Griffin ( points loss ) and drew 5 other times while Jeffries was the champion from 1899-1904, and everyone knows none of the fighters Johnson lost or drew with were as good as say Jeffries wins at the time over Fitzsimmons, Corbett or Sharkey.

Jeffries KO'd A prime version of Griffin. The Griffin Johnson lost and drew to was past his best.

One of the Johnson's draws during this time was vs the past his prime Mexican Pete Everett. You guessed it, Jeffries KO'd a prime version of Everett in three rounds. Notice a pattern here? The guys Johnson losses to or draws with, Jeffries knocks out.

I'm pretty sure Jeffries would have beaten Johnson in 1904-1905, even you say that!

So I'd say if you examine it closely, it would be a moderate legacy boost ( 1903 and 1905 matches ), however, those who do not examine the conditions and records of the fighters when Jeffries could have fought them might say a significant legacy boast.

If Jeffries beat Johnson in 1910, 6 years removed from the game, 60+ pounds overweight with no warm up fights, it would be a significants legacy boast. No one has done anything like that. Then he would have likely retained a top 5 ranking which was common from him up to the 1960's.

There you have it.

 

Johnson would have been a real game changer, and it might have given Jeffries a case for being the GOAT.

McVea would have been a good win, but just a win over a very good contender at that point.

 

The Peter Jackson that Jeffries beat was completely shot and only is significant to "those who do not examine the conditions and records of the fighters when Jeffries" fought them.

 

You said otherwise before, that Jeffries beats Johnson while Jeffries was champion:deal

Okay, so Johnson was better by 1903. What happened in March 1905? He got beat by Marvin Hart. Epic fail. If Johnson could not deal with Hart's activity, how in the world would he deal with Jeffries? Johnson would have been knocked out.

My points on the inexperienced teenager in Sam Mcvey stand. He would have no chance. If Jeffries fought him in 1903, it would not be very significant.

Mcvey in his prime lacked skills and was easy to hit. One can only imagine just how bad he was starting out at age 19 with less than 4 fights under his belt at the start of 1903.

The color line is misunderstood. It really did not mean no black fighters ( Unless you were Dempsey ), it meant no great black fighters, and McVey and Johnson at that time 1899-1905 were far from great. The record shows that. Just accept the ring results. :deal

Jack Johnson was the king of using the color line to avoid best black fighters as Champion. Jack Johnson did fight one mediocre black fighter in Jim Battling Johnson, and he was in my opinion lucky to escape with a draw, as one judge voted for 'Battling Jim, and the other two said draw. The NY Times said Jack Johnson was close to being stopped at the end of round 10. There was no re-match!

As stated Jeffries as champion fought Hank Griffin, who was African American. Sure Hank was past his best ( But still good enough to beat Jack Johnson ) yet Jeffries fought an African American as champion.

Prior to this, Tommy Ryan gave a middleweight title shot to Frank Craig, who was African American in 1899. Ryan beat him pretty easily. The middleweight title back then meant a lot. But Craig wasn't that good, so no one seemed to care about the mixed match happening.

 

I think you are confusing things. I do examine the conditions and records. I do not consider Peter Jackson to be among Jeffries 5 best wins. I only said Siler felt he was better than Johnson circa 1907, and he was the referee in some of their fights. That is a fact.

Jackson was even with Corbett and had a tough go with Goddard, Jeffries KO'd both men.

As for Jackson's condition in the fight, he was down to his fighting weight, and according to the press, re-gained his form. Read the Brooklyn Union, who covered the fight and you see. Yes--Jackson was older, but he performed well in round one. Jackson simply lacked the chin ( floored in that tough fight with Goddard ), and was floored twice in round two, then left as a tangled puppet in the ropes in round three.

Jeffries at the time was a newcomer with less than 10 recorded fights.

 

This post really hits the nail on the head as far as my point of view goes.

If Jeff had taken on and beaten Johnson in 1904, I think his career would have been beyond serious criticism. And it is certainly possible a younger and fitter Jeffries may have handled a younger but much lighter Johnson.

But Jeff drew the color line, and ironically might have ended up the biggest historical loser of all because of it.

 

It's clear Jack was in some trouble in the Jim battling Johnson match. The fact that one judge voted for Jim as the winner and none voted for Jack as the winner suggests this was a give the champion a draw even though he didn't deserve it.

Do you dispute Johnson was in trouble at the close of the fight? How do you know the times report was not accurate. You don't!

Adam is your gold standard. Read his book. Hart won. Prove to me that Siler was at the fight and it wasn't filmed. Just 5,000 or so saw the match.

As for Jim Johnson, it's clear you don't know how to interpret ring records.

Langford and Jeanette beat him prior to facing Johnson in 1913.

from 1913-1915 Jim Battling Johnson's record vs Langford, Jeannette and Mcvey is as follows.

1 win, 8 losses 4 draws. He was a journeyman with size and youth on his side. If should be noted that the best talents that Johnson ducked as champion in Langford, Jeannette, and McVey all have a win over Jim Battling Johnson, yet Jack does not, and could have been lucky with that draw.

On ducking for Jack Johnson:

 

It's clear Jack was in some trouble in the Jim battling Johnson match. The fact that one judge voted for Jim as the winner and none voted for Jack as the winner suggests this was a give the champion a draw even though he didn't deserve it.

Do you dispute Johnson was in trouble at the close of the fight? How do you know the times report was not accurate. You don't!

Adam is your gold standard. Read his book. He says Hart won. :deal Prove to me that Siler was at the fight and it wasn't filmed. I dount you can. Just 5,000 or so saw the match.

As for Jim Johnson, it's clear you don't know how to interpret ring records.

Langford and Jeanette beat him prior to facing Johnson in 1913.

from 1913-1915 Jim Battling Johnson's record vs Langford, Jeannette and Mcvey is as follows.

1 win, 8 losses 4 draws. He was a journeyman with size and youth on his side. If should be noted that the best talents that Johnson ducked as champion in Langford, Jeannette, and McVey all have a win over Jim Battling Johnson, yet Jack does not, and could have been lucky with that draw.

On the fight, not from the NY times:

:deal Count the ducks sucker.

All facts with the only question on Siler being at the match which you will need to prove. In your face as usual, but you don't have much of a face here, so it doesn't matter.