James J Jeffries?

Mendoza is gone now.

I don't think that a single person in this thread, is disputing that Jeffries said that he woudl not risk his title against a black challenger.

That is the one point that everybody agrees upon.

 

Do you want to try the exercise then?

If I am wrong, then show me how Jeffries could have achieved a much better title reign, but keep it realistic.

Don't include ideas like him defending against Denver Ed Martin, when we know that he was inactive due to injury.

 

Why does that have to be a reason to completely disregard Graney's assessment though? A friend is certainly capable of bias, but is also equally capable of being objective about another friend's performance. Unless Graney has been caught overrating fighters he was friends with in the past or afterward, I don't see much of a reason to completely ignore his assessment of the fight. From what I've read on Pollack's chapter of the fight there seemed to be a bit of truth to it; Corbett did have his moments especially in the 2 rounds prior to the stoppage.

As does the blatant disregard of recognizing Jeff's injuries against Sharkey significantly impacting those performances, and underperforming in stylistically unfavourable matchups. This is done consistently on this thread and many others, which is mind boggling given how well documented his injuries were. These takes Jeff being a poor aggressor compared to a counter puncher with regard to skill come from the time period had including the two most important people with regard to judging Jeff's style; Tommy Ryan and Jeffries himself, who seemed to agree that he was a far better defensive counter puncher than he was an offensive fighter.

Jeffries got cut on the forehead in round 5 of the first Fitz fight, in the same round where he's described as "ducking under most of the leads" (p.227). That’s solid evidence to me that a lot of Jeff’s vulnerability to being cut may come from natural skin condition issues like many other fighters, alongside his willingness to be an aggressive rusher depsite being notoriously poor at it. Other evidence you could look at is Jeffries frequently getting cut up in training prior to fights like during the Fitz-Jeff spars/exhibitions during 02-03. Contemporary reports note a difference in the fashion Jeffries rushed in Corbett 1 and Corbett 2, though a lot of that may have to do with Corbett’s mobility as well.

Many of the contemporary reports from the Fitz 1 chapter believed Jeffries was taking a breather in those middle rounds where Bob found most of his success. Some even thought he was a bit gassed by that point, including Corbett who used it as a justification for why he himself would defeat Jeffries.

It’s not like what I’m saying doesn’t have receipts behind them.

 

Jeffries was completely against fighting a black contender ... the mistake of his life because the Jeffries who crushed Ruhln had a much better shot against the Johnson that fought Hart then he did years later in Reno.

 

I feel like Mendoza’s 20 year reign of autism gave the forum as a whole too much PTSD to ever look at Jeffries objectively, Sullivan is thought of in a much more open-minded way from what I’ve seen from pretty much everyone here.

 

I agree.

Obviously we don't know how the fight turns out, but if Jeffries was ever going to fight Johnson, then he needed to do it at his peak.

He should have either put up the gloves on 1904, or stayed retired.

As it was, he got the worst of both worlds.

He failed to avoid Johnson, he failed to beat him, and he failed to fight him on advantageous terms.

He even failed to come up with a semi convincing lie, that woudl have made him look better in retrospect.

Most champions who drew the color bar managed that.

 

Of course the scenario of x beating the champ and x becoming # 1 applies to everyone.

I didn’t state or imply otherwise. You said Jeffries was the best of his era but he didn’t face his outstanding challenger. Johnson, who might’ve unseated him.

Per the normal criteria applied, Johnson was clearly due his shot. He was the coloured HW Champ.

Many sections of the media said that Jeffries should drop the colour line and face Johnson - the media further reasoning that Johnson would present as Jeffries’ toughest challenge to date.

Jeffries specifically addressed Johnson’s eligibility and the growing demand for Jeffries to take him on - Jeffries basically only precluded Jack by way of the colour line. Johnson was “known” and very much on the radar.

Corbett didn’t earn his shot at Jeffries in the first instance.

If you believe he didn’t deserve an instant rematch then you should also reason that he didn’t deserve a rematch at all. So that would equate to Corbett receiving 2 undeserved bites at the cherry.

The rematch didn’t pivot on the McCoy win, rather, it was Corbett’s performance in the first fight that was the only “reasoning” that could be relied on - and that “reasoning” was arbitrarily applied by Jeffries 3 years too late - yes, Johnson was, of course, the alternative.

It would seem the effort to unreasonably calculate and preclude Johnson from his rightful chance is being pursued far more vigorously than the due criticism
that should be applied to Jeffries for the clearly less worthy challengers he chose to face instead.

 

I’m not guilty of ignoring any context.

Many sections of the media said that Johnson was due his shot and would present as Jeffries’ greatest challenger to date.

They further stated that Jeffries should drop the facade of the colour line. Why ignore that?

At any rate, the context and public demand you mentioned do not change the fact that Jeffries didn’t face his most outstanding challenger, Johnson, as and when he should have.

Fitz was a huge draw in 1900 due to his quality post title streak of wins. He deserved the rematch then and there.

You’re unreasonably freezing and taking that eligibility through to 1902 to argue for the justification of an arbitrarily timed rematch.

Rinse repeat for the Corbett rematch.

One also shouldn’t divorce themselves from the possibility that Jeffries had the view to age the old guard out - given the reasonable difficulties they gave him in the first instance.

Additionally, if we’re talking contemporary context, undue delays and periods of inactivity might’ve been more common but they weren’t readily accepted by the public or the media at the time.

Fitz’s own 2 year hiatus after winning the title was heavily criticised - and there is the famous cartoon lampooning Fitz - with prospective challengers like Ruhlin, Corbett etc. trying to hoist Fitz back into the ring.

 

I think I’ve already reasonably laid out my answers to said questions over multiple posts.

Btw, Jeffries’ own arbitrarily chosen schedule and opponent selection (including ridiculously delayed rematches for which he is inexplicably being allowed a pass for) aren’t the fail safe preclusions or safety shields you might think they are.

All said fights were made with no intention of facing a more deserving black challenger.

The “rule” you’ve tried to impose is artificial and self serving. Sorry, no dice.

Jeffries granted Corbett a completely undeserved rematch which went down in Aug03.

Johnson became the Coloured HW Champ in Feb of the same year. Johnson would’ve been the more eligible challenger.

If the contract for Corbett was signed before Feb03 - it doesn’t matter.

It was a fight that Jeffries shouldn’t have signed up for in the first place and if a rematch was due, it should’ve already been sorted much sooner.

Remember, no black challengers entertained - so Jeff only signing up to defend against whites - contracts already being in place for said white fighters are no defence for Jeffries.

Let’s move to 1904. Just one defence after another years break and against the woefully unqualified and undeserving Munro - based on an exhibition and the myth that Jeffries was decked.

Sufficient to raise Jeff’s ire and sign the fight - though, apparently Johnson flattening Jeff’s brother back in 1902 wasn’t sufficient inducement for Jeff to seek revenge and get in the ring with Jack.

Yeah, why not Johnson instead? Or Johnson even after that. Munro was a none too taxing defence - could’ve even been described as no more than a tune up.

Instead, Jeffries sat on the title until Johnson’s streak was fraudulently broken. Then, surprise, surprise, Jeff retired and rode off into the sunset.

Too many trees being hugged here whilst ignoring the forest.

 

Not dismissing you out of hand but I haven’t read all of your most recent posts - real life time constraints.

However, what I have read so far is literally repetition of points I’ve already addressed.

Yes, as I’ve already well illustrated, you’re making one excuse after another to invent Jeffries into being a fighter that he ACTUALLY wasn’t.

So Jeff’s poor boxing IQ “allowed” old and inactive Corbett to shine - BUT, in Fitz’s case, old Bob achieved an amazing recapture of himself with Jeff being the victim of a bad stylistic mesh at the same time.

I mean, I might’ve said “you wouldn’t read about it” except for the fact that I just have.

Your continued unsupported attempts to unjustly down Dempsey in order to excuse Jeffries go beyond the pale - and yes, I’ve already countered your points in that regard thoroughly.

You haven’t converged on my points. Most recent example atop many?

My provision of Corbett’s OWN admission, per his auto bio, that he was afforded multiple long counts in order to extend his life during the rematch. He was a shot duck before first bell.

 

Or Corbett himself who admitted that a good measure of whatever longevity he enjoyed in the rematch was fraudulently afforded to him by his “good” friend. Even Corbett had to tell him - enough already! Lol.

 

Corbett himself said that he was afforded multiple long counts by Graney during the rematch. So much so, Corbett had to ultimately say stop with that, I’m done.

 

Let’s isolate motive from glaring omission so as to not muddy the waters.

First port of call, before needing to examine motive, is the FACT that Jeff refused to defend against black contenders, chiefly the clearly eligible Johnson. Period.

That removes the “But Jeff woulda IF…” side track. He purely and simply didn’t and that omission impugns the claim that he was the best of his era.

 

I’ve self implanted a few false memories in my life. Nice, positive ones, mind you.

Anyway, that advert was just something cooked up by Sam’s manager Joe Woodman - the same guy that claimed Johnson was KD’d by Langford a few times in their fight - never happened.

I mean the undertaking to fight anyone was legit - Langford was fearless. Given the chance, he would’ve fought Jeffries in a heart beat.

But the preclusion of Jeffries was superfluous, unnecessary.

Jeffries colour line already made it clear that Jeffries would never face a black contender like Sam.

In practical terms, there was absolutely no need for Sam to except Jeff from his blanket challenge - Jeff had already excepted himself.

Why insert the caveat re Jeffries?

I would say to score brownie points. Making the best out of a hopeless situation.

Obviously, Jeff wasn’t fighting Sam in the first instance - so Sam gains favour by “precluding” Jeffries - due deference afforded to the whites only Champ.

I think Sam also picked Jeffries to win against in 1910. Deep down, I’m pretty sure Sam knew better than that.

Sam himself had a very good chance of rolling that version of Jeffries in quick time.

 

Nice traffic on the old timers btw. I’ve just done my bit. Exhausting. Now there’s too much to read back on and too many replies to attend to.

I “think” I’ve cleared my in tray and am now up to date, but for how long……