James J. Jeffries vs. Jersey Joe Walcott

You are also entitled to disagree with my interpretation, and explain your reasoning.

 

Good ,interesting work , as I would expect from you, one caveat Johnson signed to defend against Jeannette twice and signed to defend against both Langford and McVey.The fact that these fights fell through was not Johnson's fault.

 

How can a draw/ no contest ever be seen as a conclusive result?

Corbett never proved himself the master of Jackson and actively avoided defending his title against him.

 

I like it too.Janitor and I regularly cross swords and since he is invariably polite I must endeavour to respond in kind.
My take on this match is Walcott should be favourite, but I certainly do not rule out the possibility of a Jeffries win .

 

I believe I have answered your invitation,but should you require further information please don't hesitate to ask, I am always happy to explain any and all of my opinions.

 

Sharkey's chin may be overestimated, he was dropped twice by163lbs Kid McCoy .
Do you see Marciano being floored by McCoy?
Durability ? Sharkey was ko'd by a bodyshot from a super middle ,a very hard hitting man its true, but still a super middleweight,and Fitz repeated the feat later. Just facts to ponder imo.
I do believe Sharkey was as impervious to pain as any fighter that ever lived and as courageous as any as well.


Sharkey was also ko'd by Ruhlin a good puncher but not one classed as a terrific banger.
Sharkey was also ko'd early in his career,I dont have the circumstances for that so cant comment

 

The argument would go that Corbett proved himself the equal of Jackson, and that it basically didn't matter whether Jackson or Corbett got the title shot.

He should have rematched Jackson, but is is failure to do so enough to invalidate the entire lineage?

After Jackson there is a dearth of talent among the black contenders, so it isn't really an issue until stronger contenders emerge.

 

Marciano being floored by McCoy isn't an impossibility either, and I don't think it automatically makes Sharkey's chin any less good. And can we really blame him for being KO'd by Bob Fitzsimmons of all people?! Everyone not named Jeffries was clocked by Fitz!

You cannot deny that Sharkey is one of the tougher, more durable fighters of history. I don't think these points take that away, and Walcott would probably struggle

 

Also Sharkey wasn't KO'd by Ruhlin, yes he was dropped but it was his corner that threw in the towel

 

My response would be to sayJackson was slightly past his best when he fought Corbett and that Sullivan would almost certainly have lost to a prime Peter when he himself was past it and that, given Jackson was slightly past prime when he held Corbett equal,Jackson may very well have beaten both.
"It didnt matter?"
It mattered to Jackson who, disillusioned and inconsolable stopped looking after himself and became a falling down ,consumptive drunk after his fight with Slavin .Slavin inflicted the rib injures which are believed to have been instrumental in the origins of Jackson's TB.

NB I do not personally invalidate the lineage,but I think it undeniable a case could be made for doing so.

 

I think Sharkey was as brave as any man that ever stepped into a ring,that is not the same as saying his chin was inpenetrable ,it wasn't.

 

Ruhlin floored Sharkey 4 times,
"Sharkey was out on his feet now,and when he stood up for the11th he clinched,Ruhlin around the neck and dragged him around the neck.
Eventually they broke and every time Ruhlin struck Sharkey went down. Four times in all.
Sharkey got up each time ,but the last time he really did not know where he was.
As the round ended Sharkey's corner went to him and tried to get him ready for another push.
But Tommy Ryan ,one of Sharkey's seconds, knew the game was up.
He walked over to Ruhlin's corner and gave in on Sharkey's behalf."
"I Fought Them All",by Greg Lewis and Moira Sharkey.
I don't think we need to quibble about the ending Box Rec records it as a TKO.Its not as though Sharkey was stopped on cuts whilst still full of fight,he was out of it.If he had been sent out for another round he might have been killed.

 

Had you given this hypothetical response to this hypothetical argument, then the hypothetical counter response would be a bit like this:

Sullivan was retired between the Killrain fight and the Corbett fight.

During this period matches were made between Jackson and Slavin, and Jackson and Corbett, who were the three best men left.

By the time Sullivan came out of retirement, Corbett was as valid a choice of challenger as Jackson.

You might then hypothetically respond by asking who was the first fighter who could have beaten Sullivan in the timeline, and the person making this argument might have to acknowledge that it was Jackson.

 

I see both sides of the argument. But, I lean towards Jeffries. By all accounts, Jeffries was incredibly strong, durable, fit, athletic, and consistent. Walcott is the craftier boxer. He would likely make him look foolish at times, and, land some hard shots. But the later the fight goes, I see Jeffries as the last man standing when the dust finally settles. I think Walcott's valiant efforts against Joe Louis flatter him. Louis was really losing some steps by the time he fought Walcott. A prime Louis would have likely decimated any version of Walcott in about 4-6 rounds. Possibly sooner.

 

You might hypothetically conclude, that the resulting sh1t show is is why we accept the current lineage, imperfect as it is.