More of this any stick to beat the dog takes. "sparring partner" Why isn't Martin described as a Ruhlin sparring partner, as he was for the Jeff fight. Kennedy did fight Childs. They fought to a draw on October 18, 1899. "obstacle" But was there any demand for the fight at the time? Childs would have been giving up over 50 lbs. (Yes, Choynski gave up about 50 lbs back in 1897 when Jeff was green. Choynski had KO'd Childs.) I would agree that Jeff would have drawn the color line if Childs had been a top contender, but there was no need to go there. This is like scoring Dempsey for not defending against Joe Beckett. Dempsey's place in history would not change if he did and the fact that he didn't doesn't matter much. "Jack Finnegan" This is what Adam Pollack had to say about the Finnegan fight. Pollack, In the Ring with James J. Jeffries, page 344--"it was only scheduled for 10 rounds, and appears to have been a non-title tune-up in preparation for the Corbett title fight"
Was Kennedy a sparring partner for Jeffries or not? I think we can say Denver Ed Martin was a cut above Joe Kennedy! Jeffries looked in fine shape," reported the Daily True American, which was less complimentary of the champion's opponent. "Kennedy was in fair shape, but pretty fat," the newspaper stated, "and it seemed as though he might have been better fit to fight the champion of the world had he weighed about fifteen pounds less." The San Francisco Call reported the following on September 23, 1901: The second in the series of boxing contests between James J. Jeffries, the champion of the world, and heavyweights of lesser importance will be decided at the Reliance Club, Oakland, tomorrow night. Joe Kennedy will be the big fellow's opponent. When Jeffries signed for his fight with (Gus) Ruhlin, it was with the understanding that he might engage in a series of four-round contests with aspiring pugilists who wanted the privilege of standing up before the champion of the world. These contests were limited to four rounds each and Jeffries said he would meet a few candidates for ring honors and would endeavor to stop them in four rounds (or forfeit $100). The San Francisco Call reported the following on September 25, 1901: A championship fight In miniature was the battle between Jeffries and Kennedy last night in the Reliance Club ring, Oakland. From the sound of the gong which sent the men together in the first round until the end came unexpectedly in the second round it was one of the prettiest exhibitions of boxing ever seen here. Jeffries was in superb physical condition and fought throughout like a champion. Kennedy proved a great surprise to all the spectators. He stood his ground and gave blow for blow. In fact, he was the aggressor for the greater part, of the fight. The pity of it was there was no steam behind the blows he landed, and when Jeffries learned there was no sting in them he changed his style of fighting at once. The crouching attitude was cast aside and he stood up, advancing quickly, irresistibly upon his opponent. Kennedy landed four hard blows on Jeffries' head in the first round, but the champion did not seem to mind them. He kept coming ail the time and for every blow he received he landed two. His favorite was a right to the body, each time just before they clinched. This seemed propelled as if by the force of a battering ram and looked as though it would go through Kennedy. The knockout blow was a wonderful one. It was give and take for two minutes of the second round, when for an instant the vulnerable point of Kennedy's chin was exposed. Jeftries saw his opportunity. His left glove hardly traveled three inches when it came in contact with Kennedy's chin. Kennedy was lifted clean off the floor and fell half outside the ropes. He was completely out while the ten seconds were tolled off and had to be assisted to his corner. Behind the blow was the full weight of Jeffries' body, which gave it its tremendous effectiveness. Jeffries enjoyed huge weight advantages in many fights. Childs had Kennedy going twice ,but the fight was only a 6 rounder. I have the Jeffries book, Box Rec lists it as a title fight and it was promoted as such.
And Jeffries was a sparring partner of Corbett. Dempsey was a sparring partner of Morris. Ali was a sparring partner of Johansson. My point is your use of "sparring partner" as a negative is pointless. "Jeffries enjoyed huge weight advantages in many fights" As he would have with Dempsey, Tunney, Schmeling, Charles, and Marciano. Being big in heavyweight boxing is a fact a life not a basis for criticism.
Nope.Jeffries WAS a sparring partner for Corbett,but NOT when they fought. Ali sparred with Johansson, but was never his sparring partner. Dempsey did not fight Morris while he WAS his sparring partner You need to apply the time period to put this on context otherwise its just deliberate misleading . My point is Jeffries fought Kennedy, that isn't used as a negative and Jeffries being so much bigger than most of his opponents isnt a criticism it 's a fact and I mentioned it because you implied Childs would be too small to make a fight with him.
I find it eminently reasonable that Jeffries rematches Corbett based on his showing in their previous fight, and his subsequent win over Kid McCoy. By the time Johnson was in teh picture preparations for Jeffries Corbett II would have been too advanced to readily turn round. Sot that effectively leaves Johnson chasing Munro's slot. Jeffries was clear enough about his reasons for not fighting Johnson, but even if he fights Johnson at the earliest realistic point, not all that much changes.
You find it "eminently reasonable ,"for Jeffries to defend against 36 years old Corbett who had been retired for 3 years and had won 1 fight in the previous 9 years? Then I guess you think Jeffries fighting Peter Jackson and Jeffries winning was a fine thing and a great win for Jeff?
Yes given Corbett's showing against him, and his win over Kid McCoy. It was probably overdue quite frankly. Yes, for an up and coming fighter with nine professional fights to his name.
His "showing" was 3 years earlier,since then he had not fought. Tom Sharkey stated Jackson was an empty shell and that he would have been ashamed to fight him.
I'd describe Fitz, like Corbett, as a good technical boxer that just doesn't have favourable footage that demonstrates his skills as efficiently. Gans felt that the Fitzsimmons that fought Jeffries in the rematch could've beaten anyone else on the planet that night. It does seem like he incorporated technique more in the second Jeffries fight than in any of his other fights barring the Gardner fight. Referee Grady in the rematch felt that Corbett made a creditable performance in spite of being grossly outmatched, sure he was past his peak but I wouldn't consider Corbett a completely shot fighter at this stage nor would I consider it so for the first fight. Many who saw Corbett fight Sharkey and Fitz felt that Corbett was a rejuvenated fighter against Jeffries and McCoy in 1900 with regard to speed. Also worth mentioning that Corbett's speed and technique held up in a spar with Bob according to reports in 1901-02, who would continue to be a top fighter until at least 1905. This was a year ahead of the Jeffries rematch. Graney on the Jeffries-Corbett rematch; "It was the best heavyweight contest I've ever seen....Corbett was extremely clever. He should not be cast down by defeat, as he did splendidly....I think Corbett put up the best fight in his whole career." Pollack Jeffries book, page 613 The size of Firpo doesn't change my point; a crude, poor technical performance by a good technician is still a crude, poor technical performance. If anything choosing to brawl with a 6'4 215 pound puncher is a worse idea than brawling with a significantly undersized opponent who is fighting in a stylistically unfavourable matchup to you.
I don't agree with your assessment of Dempsey's performances against Willard and Firpo; in fact when I watched those fights as a kid they were my only gateway into what Dempsey looked like and I thought he, and the rest of his era, were crude barroom brawlers who didn't know a lick about boxing compared to the 40s and onward. Crudely swinging from the hip with poor balance at his opponents, it wasn't until I watched Dempsey-Sharkey, Dempsey-Tunney, Dempsey-Brennan and the Dempsey-Tate spar where I got a more accurate idea of what Dempsey fought like when he actually took defense and technique into account. Like Jeffries in his worst technical performances; I don't think we could blame Dempsey that much for these poor performances since they were in large part due to his confidence in his chin and power, which was the same reason Jeffries often abandoned what he was good at when facing lighter quicker technicians. It was simply the easier route to victory than trying to outbox them, same thing with Dempsey in the Firpo and Willard performances. There's zero doubt in my mind that Fitzsimmons was still very formidable by this stage of his career, hell it's probably the best version of Bob that ever entered the ring. Sure you can use age and inactivity as a reason against that, but keep in mind that Bob was a freak of nature in general that would remain an elite fighter until the O'Brien rematch in 1905. It's rare, but many fighters do overcome inactivity and ring rust to put up career-defining performances. In my eyes Fitz was still a top fighter by this stage. Good enough for Gans to think that anyone else on the planet barring Jeffries would've lost to that version of Fitz.
You have to bear in mind that this was an era where a champion could go that long without defending their title, and still be considered the champion. Actually this is exactly the kind of fight that you would expect an up and coming fighter to take.
Joe Gans on Fitzsimmons-Jeffries II--"Fitz could have licked anyone else in the world last night. His punch was enough to put anyone away barring the man he met." p. 552 In the Ring with James J. Jeffries
How many other champions defended against 3 years retired men nearly 37 years old? How many defended against 2 years retired men nearly 40 years old? Corbett and - - - - Why do you continually talk to me as though I haven't read and researched this era?
The operative word there is retired. If a fighter makes their living by fighting regular exhibitions, then I would not class them as retired, or even inactive for that matter. I also feel that we can't ignore contemporary opinion regarding who the standout challengers were.