People first started talking about Johnson as a potential challenger around 1903, after he had beaten Denver Ed Martin. Realistically if he was going to defend against Jack Johnson, it woudl have to have been in 1904, say in place of the Munro fight. This actually leaves a very small window for the fight to happen.
Fitz kod both Sharkey and Ruhlin ,the 2 leading white heavies in the space of 2 weeks,why instead of defending against Ruhlin whom Fitz beat badly didnt Jeffries defend against Fitz.why wait 2 years 2 years in which Fitz was retired? No ,he dominated the small group of white heavyweights. He ignored the challenges of the best black contenders.
I got Martin mixed up. Childs beat Armstrong 3 times? He also beat Klondike,Butler,Everett,and Bonner in that time scale . Wasn't he more of an outstanding heavyweight than Finnegan in1900 ? Jeffries had 2 draws on his record when he got his title shot,is that only a detriment when you are black?
The problem with this argument is that Finnegan was a tune up. Childs would have been too good to be a tune up, but not good enough to be a contender in place of someone like Sharkey or Ruhlin. Now the Munro fight is a different kettle of fish, because he was being sold to the public as someone who was a qualified challenger. Johnson woudl have been a better challenger, and in hindsight even someone like Ferguson woudl have been. However that still leaves you a small window for the fight to happen, and even if Johnson wins, then not much changes.
Finnegan was a title defence end of.If you defend against a no hoper, that's on you Childs beat Armstrong in1897 In August 1898 Jeffries beat Armstrong over 10rds . Childs had ko'd Armstrong in 6 rds 7 months earlier,and he repeated the trick later. What was to stop Jeffries having a full training camp?
Jeffries fighting Johnson to avenge his brother is a complete non starter in my eyes. Johnson would not have been seen as a credible challenger yet, and Jeffries would rightly have been criticized for taking the fight. Furthermore he would have been giving Johnson a pay day well beyond his current earning potential. It would have taken a very small man to take that fight.
You do understand that if a champion takes a tune up, the opponent has to be somebody suitable for the role, and the level of preparation the champion allocates to it? It's no good saying "Oh look he fought that bum, so he could have fought Frank Childs." In order to take on Childs he would have needed a full training camp, and that would have made it a very different kind of fight.
I never suggested Johnson and Jeffries at the time Jack beat Jeffries brother,but,since you brought it up. Jeffries could have excused it by saying it was," a tune up." LOL
Jeffries had fought 5 months prior to defending against Finnegan which is rather more desirable than the 2 years Fitz was out of the ring or the 3 years Corbett was retired, or the 5 years plus Jackson was retired Yes it would have been a very different fight,a competitive one and not the 55 second farce the Finnegan one was!
OK, but you also have to factor in their training activity and injury history over those periods. I am sorry but I must insist that Childs can't simply be substituted for Finnegan here. You could probably substitute Johnson for Munro, since Jeffries had a very good training camp.
As champ Jeffries had no problem fighting his sparring partner Kennedy, You are putting obstacles in the way of a Jeffries v Childs fight that simply did not exist.In reality the only obstacle was the color of Childs skin.
It is very reliably documented that Jeffries had injured his arm in the Sharkey fight. Mindful of the old injury, he probably took the Finnegan fight as part of his preparation for the Corbett fight, a few weeks later. Childs would not have been suitable for this role. He woudl have needed a full training camp for Childs, and that means taking on Childs instead of Corbett. He was also coming off an injury when he fought Kennedy, so again we are looking at a tune up. Taken out of context these title defenses look bad, but when you factor in teh circumstances and injury history, they start to look a lot more reasonable.
I think the why’s and where’s are important context to why Johnson was passed over for a title shot. America was a much different place, and Sullivan had set up precedent that all champions following used to excuse themselves from fighting black fighters once champions. It’s pretty simple and straight forward policy. Now no challenger stood out as much as Johnson as a clear cut title threat until Jeffries reign. However even then, he probably doesn’t begin to be that deserving candidate until after he defeats Denver Ed Martin in February of 03. Jeffries retires as champion in August of 04 - or should I say has his last fight as he may not have announced his retirement immediately. That’s not a tremendous lap in time. But what happens shortly after Jim’s retirement, Johnson gets Beat by Hart. I know a lot of insight to the criteria of that fight have been examined in the years since the event took place but in short the combatants knew what was going to be judged and Hart led the way. Johnson has only himself to blame for that loss. A loss he should have never absorbed. As Johnson continues on and becomes champ with his dominant run - in turn avoiding his best challengers as champion - it’s not until then that Jeffries feels the pressure to return, foolishly after 6 years and receives the beating he justly deserved. I do not think his omission of Johnson during his prime is as bad a duck, as some later champions avoidance of their top contender is/was, although the reason given “color line” is the most abhorrent.