James J Jeffries?

Here I have to disagree.

In his previous three fights Munro had beaten Peter Maher, Al Limerick and Tom Sharkey.

Were these opponents carefully chosen?

Undoubtedly.

Did these wins make Munro a contender?

I am going to say yes.

 

I am not going to waste my time responding to ad hominem attacks.

If Jeffries was fighting teh wrong opponents, you should be able to articulate which ones he should have been fighting.

If you don't like my rules feel free to make your own, but please address the question.

Three weeks is a tiny window between Johnson winning the colored heavyweight title, and Jeffries entering negotiations with Corbett.

So how was Johnson perceived after this win?

When he signed to fight Sam McVea for his next bout, the Philadelphia Record described them as "the most promising heavyweigth novices that have come to the front in a couple of years."

The Oxnard Courier sad that McVea along with Johnson was "one of teh best emerging heavyweights."

Hardly sounds like a man who Jeffries is going to beat a path to the door of three weeks after the fight.

 

OK, you are prepared to take Corbett's statement at face value, while I woudl like to see a bit more evidence.

Lets move on.

But there were people who picked Corbett, as I have shown.

That in itself implies that the fight was still seen as being relevant.

No but you can see how Jeffries might have wanted to preempt this.

This is simply not true.

In his previous three fights Munro had beaten Peter Maher, Al Limerick and Tom Sharkey.

That is the primary reason why he got his title shot.

 

I haven’t posited any ad hominem attacks.

I have articulated several times already as to who Jeffries should’ve been fighting instead and who he should’ve been fighting during other available windows.

Inexplicably, you’re simply not converging at all on the points I have already presented in that regard.

It’s not a case of simply not “liking” your rules - I’ve already illustrated that your so called rules are flawed and self serving.

I don’t impose rules to favour my position nor any rules absolute. Why would I?

Logic rules. After Johnson defeated Martin the window was open.

That Corbett pushed for a rematch, which Jeffries initially baulked on and that Jeffries gave that rematch consideration about 1 month later - (and to repeat, yet again, they were negotiations NOT a contract at that stage) doesn’t suggest a small window of opportunity - it suggests an open ended window of opportunity that was quickly shut in order to accomodate a challenger who absolutely didn’t deserve the opportunity.

As the originally uninterested Jeffries said re the possible match, “Easy money”…remember?

I disagree that Johnson was hardly a guy that Jeffries would’ve/should’ve entertained fighting - and I’ve already provided support for that opinion.

Simply saying that Jeffries was hardly going to entertain fighting a man who had just won the Coloured HW Title doesn’t make it so.

I’ve already illustrated why Jeffries could have and should have entertained Johnson.

Just 3 weeks prior…and? If Johnson did win a fight that you deemed to make him eligible for a shot that fight would always be X weeks prior until Jeffries signed to fight Jack or fight another undeserving challenger instead.

The 3 weeks prior is simply relative to Jeffries entering negotiations with Corbett, thereby shutting that window (and not actually shut until a contract was in place - as you suggested previously) - that’s something Jeffries could do forever and a day upon each and every significant victory of Johnson’s.

You’ve posited an artificial preclusion. What’s more, Jeffries wasn’t beating a path to Corbett who hadn’t fought in 3 years, let alone 3 weeks prior. Your approach is very inconsistent.

Why wouldn’t I or anyone take Corbett’s word on face value?

He wasn’t divulging something that it was self complimentary.

At any rate, you’ve introduced a number of third party statements that you’ve clearly accepted because you think they suit your argument.

You began trying to suggest that I was “assuming” and that a long count wasn’t a thing. You then moved to a long count not being illegal.

NOW, pushing yourself further into a totally unjustified defensive realm, you’re questioning Corbett’s own black and white interpretation and relating of long counts afforded to him by the ref, a close friend.

As I said before, the root of these incrementally more irrational arguments re the subject of those long counts has been to unreasonably reject Corbett’s true lack of viability displayed over the course of the rematch.

Corbett had just a few backers and not all were at arm’s length.

You previously suggested that I was guilty of not taking on board media and public opinion (pervading, as implied).

The popular opinion was that Jeffries would handle Corbett more than comfortably - and that’s exactly how the fight played out. Just a few backers for Corbett didn’t make the fight relevant.

I think you also noted that Corbett tried to claim the crown based on Jeffries’ inactivity - you see, inactivity was a “thing” also back in the day - but your “rules” for Jeffries didn’t allow for due analysis and scrutiny of same.

Re Munro. I clearly stated that BUT for the prior exhibition and the circulated myth that Munro dropped Jeffries - Munro would not have received a shot - so the premise for granting him a shot was very thin and based on a lie at any rate.

As was expected, Munro was rolled just like Corbett was and expected to be 1 year prior.

 

I gave my names who he should have been fighting.
So Johnson and McVey were promising novices?
For his first fight with Johnson,
McVey was 8-0-0
Johnson was 11-3-6
When Finnegan challenged Jeffries he was 4-2-4 and had been floored multiple times and kod by Ruhlin in his previous fight wasn't he also a novice ,and an unsuccessful one to boot?
When Munro challenged Jeffries he was 7-2-0 wasnt he also a novice?
Its Official !
Chief Apologist For Jim Jeffries= JANITOR

 

Just on Jack Munroe and the Jeff "knockdown" exhibition:

Adam Pollack quotes the San Francisco Examiner on December 22, 1902, the second morning after the fight:

"Munroe hit the champion square on the point of the jaw and sent him to his knees"

and the Billings Gazette

"at one time the champion went to his knees and a knockout seemed possible"

So is this is a myth, it is at least a myth backed by ringside (or apparent ringside) reports.

*You just have to take my word for this one, but years ago when I was living in SF and browsing the old papers, I came upon articles in 1916 when Munroe was erroneously reported to have been killed in battle. (he was wounded and lost an arm) A separate short piece contained Jeff's reaction in an interview. In the piece Jeff said he was off balance and slipped but Munroe did catch him with a punch, and Jeff said that could have been considered a knockdown. Mere graciousness? Or the truth when long past the day?

I know the criticism of this post which will be made. It is just off memory. I am in my eighties and no where near the SF library anymore. And I can't give your the date or even the paper. But this story is there and I read it.

The bottom line is that Munroe seems to have performed much better in this exhibition than anyone expected. Jeff might have taken it easy for a round or two but when he tried to turn up the heat Munroe proved more than expected and lasted.

As for the 1904 fight, Jeff's rep would be much higher if he had fought Johnson. No issue there. How about the Munroe challenge? Well, he was puffed up, but that is hardly unique. Think Firpo. Think Cooney. Munroe was fed past it old lions Maher and Sharkey to give him "name" victims, the same as the above two. The difference is Munroe was considered at best a marginal contender. Firpo and Cooney were built up as outstanding contenders.

Had Jeff taken on Johnson after fighting Munroe, I would have no major criticism of the Munroe defense. Worse men have been given title shots.

 

I have already given my opinions on Finnegan and Munro.

I am prepared to roll with the Finnegan defense on teh basis that it was a tune up, but I think that there were a number of better challengers than Munro available.

With regard to Jack Johnson, we need to ask the following questions.

1. At what point does Johnson become a viable challenger, and by that I mean one that Jeffries woudl not be criticized for fighting.
2. At what point does Johnson become the standout challenger, and by that I men there is not another challenger that Jeffries could pick with equal justification.

My interpretation is that the first point might be after the Martin fight, and the second point certainly is.

 

Mendoza will be disappointed.

 

**** that ****!

 

In 1932, a panel of 8 experts gave their opinions in the Evening Star as to the greatest Heavyweight of all time, and named James J Jeffries. They each awarded 5 points for their top fighter, 4 for second, etc. down to 1 point for fifth. Their combined list was as follows:

1) James J Jeffries (30 points)
2) Jack Johnson (26 points)
3) Jack Dempsey (19 points)
4/5) John L Sullivan / Bob Fitzsimmons (13 points)
6) Gene Tunney (8 points)
7) James J Corbett (6 points)
8) Peter Jackson (5 points)

The experts were as follows:
James Coffroth (Hall of Fame promoter)
Frank Wiener (chairman of the Pennsylvania State boxing commission)
Tommy Reilly (world championship referee)
John Clinnin (president of the National Boxing Association)
Joe Humphreys (Hall of Fame announcer)
Bryan Hayes (boxing referee)
Lou Magnolia (boxing referee)
Bobby Gunnis (promoter)

 

I have never seen a single contemporary article saying, "Oh my God, Johnson just outpointed Martin, Jeffries needs to meet him now."

After Johnson had beaten McVea, who was very heavily touted, then you start to get chatter.

After Johnson destroys Martin in the rematch, the calls for Jeffries to give him a shot become very loud.

If I am missing something, then by all means show me.

Jeffries would have been a prohibitive favorite over anybody at this stage, and Johnson more than many.

 

Valid list for pre-Louis rankings, number 1 is between Johnson and Jeffries imo and not much separates them.

 

Not least because their resumes have polar opposite strengths and weaknesses.

 

You are old enough to know what I did when Mendoza went after Johnson.