Prime Jim Jeffries vs prime Mike Tyson

"Johnson is good he may be the best fighter in the world but as long as I am champion I will never take a chance on losing my title to a black man"Jim Jeffries ."Will you give Johnson a chance at your crown","Im not into fighting skunks yet" Jim Jeffries. "Johnson may be better than the whole Japanese Navy but I wont take a chance on losing to a n*gg*r".Jim Jeffries.
" I could beat that d*nge but I'm not giving a n*gg*r a chance at the title".
Jim Jeffries.

" Jim Jeffries has always been leery of Johnson and wants none of his game he is afraid of him." William Brady Trainer of Corbett and Jeffries.

 

I am saying that I don't know.

 

You are missing the important point.

The same papers that were most vocal in criticizing him for not fighting Jack Johnson, still thought that Johnson would be pretty long odds to beat him.

They thought that he was wrong to refuse Johnson a shot at the title in principle, but they had every expectation that he would be just another challenger.

Now either Jeffries was seeing something that they weren't, or he was just acting in line with his belief that he was right to draw the color line.

 

He would certainly have been a more credible one than either John Finnegan,Jack Munroe or Jim Corbett second time around!So would Denver Ed Martin and Sam McVey!

 

If that man the size of GGG had fought and sparred with a wide range of large heavyweights, then he would be able to judge a heavyweights power as well as any other man.

Jeffries punching power was actually measured using a pressure sensor once, and he recorded a higher figure than Frank Bruno would manage 90 years later.

I am not particularly trusting of such tests, but if the comparison is a valid one, then it really puts what Fitzsimmons did into perspective.

Again, you keep criticizing his choice of opponent, but you do not say what you would put in their place.

So starting from when he won the title from Fitzsimmons (which he had no choice in), why don't you suggest alternative opponents, who he could have fought on the same dates?

 

You are all over the place with the timeline here.

None of these guys was remotely on the radar at the time if the Finnegan fight, and besides it was obviously a tune up fight.

If Jeffries was going to fight somebody like Denver Ed Martin, it would have had to be a title defense with a full training camp, so you would probably have to scrub another such fight to make room for it.

So I put the same question to you as I did to richdanahuff.

Give me your idealized title reign for Jeffries.

To keep it realistic, you can't add a fight without removing a fight, and you can't make Jeffries undergo a full training camp for a fight where he did not do so in the real world.

 

I gave the names as examples of gimmee defences that Jeffries had . 3 out of his 7 title defences were gimmees!
Jeffries fought Munroe in1904 and Corbett the 2nd time in1903 Martin and Johnson were contenders then and so was McVey.The Finnegan fight was a title defence no ifs or buts!
Bottom line Jeffries had 7 defences and 3 of them were walkovers!

 

Then you should not have any trouble selecting better opponents, who were available at the time, and where Jeffries could realistically have met the level of training necessary to defend against them.

 

I don't, Martin, McVey, and Johnson were better challengers than Munroe, yes or no? Jeffries didn't train for Munroe, he knew the result before hand!

 

We are talking about a potential fight on 26/08/1904.

That is the only date that would realistically have been on offer.

Johnson was clearly the standout challenger at this point, absolutely not argument there.

Martin and McVea were both coming off a string of losses, which made Munro a much more credible challenger, even for all his limitations.

With the benefit of hindsight, we might conclude that McVea was an appreciation asset, while Munro was a depreciation asset.

We can't ask Jeffries to see into the future though.

 

This is just plain BS! Jeffries could have defended against any of that trio from1903 until he retired in1905 he never had any intention of doing so and made that plain many, many times!
Jeffries retired because his last defenceagainst a no hoper, lost money and he couldn't re-cycle Fitz ,Corbett,Sharkey ,or Ruhlin any more and get the public to buy it! Fitz was then over 40,Corbett was totally washed up, as were Sharkey and Ruhlin.
The only credible challengers were black and Old Jeff wasn't taking a chance on risking his title against them!

 

I'm certainly no oil painting, but I hope I'm an improvement in the beauty stakes on old Sam!

 

You still haven't said who he should have fought, and instead of who.

Frankly I have no problem with him picking Munro over Martin or McVea when they were on a losing streak.

There is no crystal ball to see into the future in boxing.

 

Not seen enough footage of Jeffries to comment