James J Jeffries?

I'm out.

 

Honestly I’d say Jeffries cleaned out the division by 1902 but there isn’t any excuse to justify not facing Johnson, Martin or McVea after Corbett II.

 

But, whatever qualifications/eligibility Corbett had a for rematch were long gone by the time they did fight again - and the complexion and outcome of the rematch affirmed that fact.

Cornett had clearly and well and truly gone back since their last fight and that was strangely ignored in the conclusion that Jeffries himself had improved somewhat.

In fact, Corbett also had done nothing to deserve the initial fight - rather his results and inactivity over the several years preceding were marks against him.

Likewise for Fitz though Bob did give Jeff a good pasting for the better part of 8 rounds - which could be viewed as more an indictment on the allegedly ever improving Jeffries.

Personally, in lieu of facing fresh and more eligible opposition, I wouldn’t describe Jeffries turning back to previously vanquished opponents who were that much older and inactive again, in woefully belated rematches, as noble.

Informally, I’d describe more accurately as indulging in an exclusive, old boys club - no rhyme or reason to it otherwise.

Without rigidly deferring to Jeffries own arbitrary choices in respect of his selection of opposition, I think there was far more than a small window of appropriate opportunity for him to have fought Johnson if NOT for his drawing of the colour line.

Johnson beat Martin in Feb 02 for the coloured HW Title. Do we know that the belated Fitz rematch was signed by then? - not that Fitz was more eligible than Johnson anyway.

Same goes for Corbett being granted his belated rematch a year after Fitz’s.

That Jeffries inappropriately put Fitz and Corbett back in the picture doesn’t mean that Johnson himself wasn’t in the picture, and more legitimately so than the “old boys”.

 

There’s the highlighting of Jeffries primary ability to absorb punishment (not dodge it) that I spoke of Mel.

3 years in as Champ against the smaller, aged and inactive Fitz. Where are the technical improvements?

 

Again, you only have Jeffries as the relative barometer to gauge Fitz’s quality in 1902. Circular.

Dempsey against Willard looked far better than Jeffies does in any of the available footage.

Suffice to say, the Dempsey roll then perfect left hook to floor Willard for the first KD is still a technical sight to behold some 100 + years later.

Dempsey also looked better against Firpo.

You also have to account for the fact that Dempsey was fighting through a fog from early on in the fight. No offence, but you don’t seem to be taking that on board. Dempsey’s punch technique and leverage was still quite sound - a swish of the left hook saw Firpo down multiple times.

Dempsey also looks so much better in his training films as compared to Jeffries in like footage.

 

Not technical improvements so much as putting on your best performance of your career. WW Naughton noted that Fitz fought more on the defensive than he did in his whole life.

The National Police Gazette noted that Fitzsimmons fought “as he had never fought before, cleverly and scientifically, and he surprised even his most faithful adherents.”

I don’t think it’s that crazy to think that Fitz to have put on his best clinic at 39 and out of the game for 2 years, but it wouldn’t be the craziest thing ever. You can argue some of Bob’s other peak performances were when he battered Sharkey and Ruhlin in 1900 when he was like 37 and significantly undersized. That was arguably the best version of Fitzsimmons that ever fought at heavyweight, and the Jeffries performance just being an extension of that greatness alongside fighting a stylistically unfavourable fight for Jeff with Fitz’s usage of excessive lateral movement. Fitz still also remained an elite fighter until the O’Brien rematch, so he’s already an anomaly with regard to talent anyway. Him reaching such a pinnacle so late doesn’t seem out of character to me.

That quote is from the second Fitz fight though, which is probably the ultimate example of Jeffries’ poor front foot skills. I don’t think that reflects how a more favourable stylistic matchup goes.

 

I have frequently used other examples to demonstrate Fitz’s class past 1902. He arguably stopped O’Brien in their first encounter when the bell was rung early, arguably the best LHW of the 1900s. He also beat Gardner who you could consider a top 5 LHW from that era as well. His class in 1902 is demonstrated by his class afterward, as well as the praise anointed by those who saw him fight Jeffries and compared it to prior performances. I haven’t seen anyone note a period of significant decline from the Fitz that fought Ruhlin and Sharkey to the one that fought Jeffries, compared to the one that fought Gardner and O’Brien later on. Many fighters retain class over the course of inactivity, though I do think Fitz’s great performance had much to do with the styles not being favourable to Jeffries.

I agree that Dempsey looks better than Jeffries on film, in the first 2 minutes of film against Willard and his infighting against Firpo, but I still don’t agree with most of your assessment of the Firpo and Willard fights especially Willard. Sure he threw a good combo that first dropped Willard but it doesn’t take away from the fact that he spent the vast majority of the round mindlessly battering Willard. Frequently off balance, with little regard for defense or technique after that first knockdown. It’s an example of supreme confidence in ability and power, as well as durability to at least some extent.
He also got dropped in the first 5 seconds mindlessly rushing at Firpo, I think that reflects how little he respected Firpo’s abilities. This is similar to how Jeffries had supreme confidence in his durability when rushing opponents down, despite being crappy at it

 

You provided a quote that virtually stated that Jeffries won only due to his ability to take punishment.

To add to that, after the rematch, Fitz stated that he hit Jeffries with everything he but Jeffries was simply impossible to hurt. Basically, a sponge for punishment. Thus Fitz’s pursuit of a lower weight title.

Again, the measure of Fitz’s performance is circular - what did Bob do at HW otherwise?

Bob could punch for his weight (a weight so much less than Jeffries, btw). Jeff could be easily hit. 1 + 1 = 2.

That Bob punched the **** out of Jeff for near 8 rounds before gassing wasn’t any revelation or necessarily an absolute reflection of Bob’s broadly applied viability otherwise.

Dempsey vs Willard. It wasn’t just a good combo - it was a great combo - the like of which was well beyond Jeffries capabilities.

Willard was a sitting duck after the first KD. Why would Dempsey have worried too much about technicalities thereafter except for hitting Willard hard and often, which is exactly what Jack did without forgoing a more effective attack?

Willard was simply one tough SOB and was only seconds away from a 1st round KO loss.

So was Corbett another anomaly who, despite inactivity and a not so flattering record preceding him, when he outboxed Jeffries for the better part of 23 rounds or near enough too?

Again, Sharkey not KO’d or stopped despite an extremely affording 45 rounds to do so.

How many compensatory notes (some, being less affording, might call them excuses) does one have to make on Jeffries’ behalf in respect of multiple fights during which he saw alleged improvements?

 

As I’ve said previously, the fact that Jeffries sustained tremendous punishment in the second Fitzsimmons fight does not reflect how formidable his defense was under a matchup that was more favourably stylistically. Fitzsimmons was far more aggressive in their first fight yet found Jeffries very difficult to find. And when you look at Jeff’s dramatic crouch, it makes sense why excessive lateral movement opened him up so much more than an aggressive opponent would. This does not reflect how good Jeff’s defense is when the styles are in his favour or just not as unfavourable as a mover. It’s not like fighting Jeffries was Bob’s only accomplishment as a heavyweight, he also beat a peak Ruhlin which you could argue was his best win.

It could be a good combo, it could be a great combo. It could be a the Tire Iron Jones of all combos, it still doesn’t take away from how reckless and careless Dempsey was for the rest of the round. Just a few seconds after the first knockdown and Dempsey’ off balance rushing at Jess excitedly, not even clear just how hurt Jess was by this point. Using your logic with regard to Willard being hurt and Dempsey pouncing on him without care for fundamentals; why would Jeffries care about technicalities when pouncing on his smaller, older, undersized opponents dancing away from him despite knowing he didn’t have good front foot offensive skills? He knew they couldn’t hurt him, and he also confident in how tough and durable he was and why wouldn’t he be given his results? There wasn’t much of a reason to stick to his strengths against these guys when the other option was so much easier, even when knowing he’s bad at it.
Moreover, everyone knew it was Jeff’s weakness compared to when he was fighting more stationary opponents, including Jeffries and Ryan themselves. Both Dempsey’s willingness to abandon fundamentals against Willard, and Jeff’s willingness to slug it out against movers, both reflect their confidence.

There’s less evidence to suggest Corbett was as significant of an anomaly as Fitzsimmons was, given Bob’s well documented success in the years proceeding Jeffries. However, he probably was a fighter that retained speed even in his later career. Corbett did out skill and out-speed McCoy right after Jeffries 1 which I personally find impressive and reflective of Jim’s speed and boxing ability by this point in time. McCoy was on a run of his own and was a fast, intelligent ATG. Jeffries probably fought a very formidable version of Jim Corbett first time around, though with regard to their rematch all we can really base Corbett’s ability on is the sparring session he had with Fitzsimmons a year prior to fighting Jeffries in the rematch, where Corbett kept up a good pace with Bob. As we know, Bob was still very formidable at this stage so being able to keep up with him at all must reflect some ability and speed. A lot of Corbett’s success first time around, like against Fitzsimmons in their rematch, had to do with Jeff’s approach. In this case in a different way; he tried to outbox the thongmaster! Beat him at his own game! Pretty foolish idea, so much so Brady even questioned if Ryan was trying to fix it by having Jeffries fight such a stupid fight before launching him out of that corner around the 20th round. When Corbett was more stationary in their rematch Jeffries messed him up, but then again according to Corbett and the referee the fight’s outcome was inevitable after Corbett was hurt by a body shot in round 2 that forced him to move less.

Again, Jeffries has vigorously well documented injuries with regard to his hands and arm in the Sharkey fights. They do not reflect a peak Jeffries’ skills or power. They’re only excuses if they’re baseless, after all. Jeffries’ poor front foot skills compared to his countering abilities in less movement-oriented fights were also documented at the time as well. I feel like you can find nuggets of greatness from what we have of Jeffries, perhaps not as emphatic as Dempsey’s but there’s stuff to admire like his constant patience and how methodical he is with the accurate shots he picks against Ruhlin, or how he sets Sharkey up with good short left and right hooks in their spar as a geezer. Also an efficient infighter, his bicep control with the right hand while working with the left, leaving his left hand up when throwing rights,

 

You made an error Johnson beat Martin in early 1903.

Champions getting mileage off their past status is a tale as old as time. It is kind of crazy how long Corbett milked victories over the class of the mid 1880s without doing much of anything until 1903. But at the same time you kind of get why that happened.

The thing with Jeffries is he did the same thing Jack Johnson and Dempsey would do he went on an impressive run after first winning the belt then started treading water. Before Louis, Tommy Burns was the only lineal champ to defend consistantly throughout a reign opposed to going on a run and living off the status. But while Jeffries wasn't dominant against non old people he was undefeated against a whose who of 19th century HW boxing. Its like Mayweather picking his spots to remain undefeated maybe if he hadn't done that he might have lost but he was still the best regardless.

Johnson emerged in this "treading water" period. While Griffin was not a "colored champ" he was 1-0-2 against Jack Johnson and Johnson at the time was 1-2-3 against Jeffries opponents and these were Choynski, Griffin, Kennedy and Everett. He would later add Munroe and Fitz to the list in 1905 and 1907 but when first becoming "colored champ" that was his resume. If there is a main black fighter Jeffries didn't get to it is Denver Ed Martin. Boxing rec says Jeffries was going to fight Martin after Fitz II in 1902 but then Martin lost his title to Johnson in early 1903 then got KO'd by Armstrong a 2nd time. Jeffries drawing the color line was either political or something he changed his mind about at some point.

Also Jeffries fought Johnson eventually. And Jeffries arriving on the scene by taking 5 year retired champ Peter Jacksons lineage then having the same thing done to him by Jack Johnson is perhaps the most ironic tale in the sports history.

 

McVea won less than 30% of his fights against "colored" champs and did not win that belt until 1909. The reality is for most of his career he was the 4th or 5th best black HW and while he won the "colored" belt multiple times due to the more round robiny format but he never held it long. McVea was better than Martin(but not during Jeffries reign), Childs, Armstrong etc but they were 1 or 2 for most of their career and in that round robiny format thats really what was needed to get in the discussion because rematches were so plentiful they prevented a champ from gaining momentum unless they were dominant. While McVea was better than Jim Johnson and deserved a title shot more McVea was 0-3 against Jack Johnson while Jim was the best black fighter Jack hadn't fought.


Martin lost to Johnson and Armstrong at the height of his momentum when he had clearly pulled away from Childs and Armstrong. Jeffries after Ruhlin seems to have been treading water only sporadicly defending but might otherwise have fought Martin instead of Corbett. Martin and Childs are no question the best black fighters or HWs period Jeffries didn't face in the context of his era but Jackson, Armstrong, Griffin and coming out of retirement to fight Johnson were really enough to avoid the "didn't fight the best black fighters". The only lineal HW champ truly guilty of that charge is Dempsey. Sullivan of course is guilty of ducking everyone(sorry I couldn't resist).

To me the bigger issue is the asterisks on the Jackson, Armstrong and Johnson fights none of which told us anything because Jackson and Jeffries were so rusty during their final fights and because the Armstrong fight might have been a robbery(we don't know because theres no scoring system but from the more vague accounts its possible Armstrong won). That to me is the bigger issue.

 

It was a great combo by Dempsey, the like of which Jeffries never pulled off on film or per the reports.

The logic is sound. It wasn’t a case of Dempsey knowing that a Willard connection couldn’t hurt him - Willard was in no condition to even return fire, and of course he didn’t return fire.

Advancing on an opponent, relying primarily on durability, willing to take multiple shots just to land one of your own because you know your opponent can’t fatally hurt you isn’t the smartest thing to do - but then Jeffries was simply fighting within the limitations of his capabilities.

The description in the above paragraph is exactly what you’re putting forward for Jeffries.

You’re trying to unreasonably downgrade Dempsey in order to float an invalid point re Jeffries.

The first Corbett fight was perceived as an anomaly and Corbett’s record, even going back 5 years from that fight was so much less creditable than that of Fitz’s going back 2 years prior to his rematch with Jeffries.

Kid McCoy - a LHW. Not a strong recommendation for Corbett’s worth at HW and that fight reads as very sus anyway.

Corbett moved less in the rematch simply because he was that much older and inactive again.

I won’t stake my life on it but I recall reading Corbett noting that he knew before the rematch that he could no longer move as he once did - which give his age, etc. was a no brainer.

Being thusly self aware, this, Corbett could not and did not try to execute/repeat the successful strategy he did in the first fight - he was forced to modify.

I also believe that in compensation for his naturally decreased mobility. Cornett tried to build himself up a bit for the rematch in order to punch with more authority.

Fitz’s performance vs Ruhlin? To repeat again, that was a whole 2 years before Fitz’s belated rematch with Jeff and the second last match of Bob’s post title streak before being inactive for 2 years.

The 1900 version of Fitz worked his way back into a form and match fitness that he clearly didn’t take into first fight, more than reasonable to believe that version of Fitz would have done that much better than the 1902 version.

The 1899, 2 years inactive and complacent Fitz didn’t actually find Jeffries that difficult to connect on in the first fight. Not as badly as the rematch but Jeff was well marked up in the first fight also.

You’re selling the effects of advancing age and increasing inactivity far too short. That Jeff was the common denominator on the short end of two “unexpected” performances from old, inactive past masters, well past their prime, should tell you something more about Jeff than them.

The compensatory notes are adding up. Jeff excused for not KO’ing the crude Sharkey due to an injured arm/right hand. Jeff fighting dumb in the first Corbett match. Jeff at a stylistic disadvantage in the Fitz rematch. Corbett and Fitz somehow fighting their best ever fights against Jeff, so and so forth.

It seems you taking a very convoluted path to paint Jeffries as a far more capable fighter than what he materially displayed.

Now you’re saying Jeff should be applauded for his patience and durability??? - yes, his primary attributes as I’ve already highlighted and attributes I haven’t argued against.

That’s not what you were arguing for in the first instance and thereafter - rather, you’ve been trying to suggest that Jeff had a lot more strings to his bow - strings he didn’t actually have.

I dunno man, there’s not a lot more to say without falling into endless repetition. Not a directive but perhaps best to just agree to disagree.

 

Good correction. Cheers. I did get it right and state Feb03 in an earlier post - too many dates and fights whizzing around in my head. Lol. How about Jeffries should’ve sought due revenge for the KO of his brother by setting up a fight with Johnson after the Fitz rematch?

 

Sure, Jeff wasn’t entirely unique in his less than ideal opponent selection and timing .

However, it’s Jeff’s reign that’s in focus, in order to determine if he truly reigned over the best of the field.

Citing other champs who may or may not have done same doesn’t dilute Jeff’s own omissions.

Other champs can and have been examined based on their own individual cases.

Conversely, examining Jeff’s case doesn’t preclude by default the due and isolated examination of other Champs who possibly didn’t face who they should have.

 

I don’t think I’m unreasonably downgrading Dempsey at al@, I’m just calling it as I see it from the film. Dempsey abandons technique basically at the moment Willard gets off his feet from the first knockdown. Literal seconds afterward, see 2:44 and onward:

This content is protected

It is a crude performance, which is why I used it as an example in the first place. Good technicians are capable of abandoning technique in a lot of their fights due to confidence in their abilities. In Dempsey’s case there’s more of a reliance on power than Jeff’s but surely he must’ve had a good taste of Jess’s power before hand to make him swing for the fences so carelessly.
Perhaps Dempsey-Willard wasn’t the best example due to Jack mainly being so eager to finish Willard, but I still think it’s a solid example of a usually good technician putting up a crude effort. Another example I’d use is LaMotta in a few of his fights. I’ve seen LaMotta put up some beautiful defense but sometimes the dude legit says **** it and brawls without care. Maybe he’s a better example for the Jeffries analogy; a solid technician when he wants to be, with the tendency to just abandon all of it due to confidence in his own abilities and durability? Big George seems to also do that frequently as well.

I think you’re overselling the effects of age and inactivity here; plenty of fighters have overcome both and if Fitzsimmons has proven anything it’s that he did. What of the writers and observers who thought that the Fitz who fought Jeffries in the rematch was the best version of Fitzsimmons there ever was? Why do we have to separate the Fitz who fought Ruhlin to the one that fought Jeffries, when there is no evidence of a decline during this period or thereafter? I see it as; Fitz was old and inactive, yet still showed up and put on a masterclass. Largely in part of Jeffries being a poor aggressive fighter, but also in part to Fitzsimmons’ own intellect and ability. I won’t act like the rust had any significant effect on his performance because literally nobody at the time felt that way, Fitz by all accounts was as impressive as he’d ever been, and we can’t just ignore that cuz he was out of the game for a few years. I doubt Fitzsimmons would be great in 1900, rusty in 1902 in what many considered his best performance, back to being great in 1903. The Fitz form the rematch does about as good against Jeffries as any version of Bob would.
Fitz may not have been top form in fight 1 but it was basically the only time he fought Jeffries at his own game and he was soundly outclassed. From my knowledge most of Bob’s success came in a few of those middle rounds where Jeffries slowed momentarily, I think this is when the cut happened as well.
It’s not that rare for old inactive fighters to at times make a successful comeback. It’s not an immediate indication of a poor showing. Jem Mace did it against Tom Allen at 40-41 in 1870 after a few years out of the game, Allen was arguably the best fighter in the world at the time.

Corbett’s lack of movement, according to Corbett himself and the referee, was also largely due to a Jeffries body shot in round 2. Did he have the tank to move for as long as he did in fight 1 at 37? Probably not, but I don’t see much evidence of decreased overall athletic ability during this period. The referee Graney actually felt that Corbett fought the best he’d ever fought in the Jeffries rematch, but was merely outclassed.

What you call compensatory notes, I call evidence-based facts. It’s only an excuse if there’s no evidence behind it after all, and there’s plenty of evidence that Jeffries was much more technically efficient when fighting less movement-oriented fighters, that he was injured in the Sharkey fights, and that he fought dumb because of Ryan in the first Corbett fight. These are rigorously documented facts from that era, I didnt pull them out of nowhere. Jeff’s own trainer knew about his issues fighting against fighters who utilized excessive movement, and how he fought much better when his opponent was the aggressor. It’s no knock on his technical abilities in his comfort zone that he looked bad when fighting out of it. Corbett and Fitzsimmons black g career defining performances could in large part have to do with Jeff’s poor aggression, but they also have to do with the fact that they both took training for a title shot from Jeffries much more seriously than their other matches. McCoy may have been tiny but he was quick and one of the best middleweights in the world, and the fact that Corbett outclassed him with regard to speed as well as intellect does show me how formidable Jim was during that period. I doubt the Corbett that fought Fitz or Sharkey gets those same results.

Of course Jeffries should be applauded for his durability, why shouldn’t he? I’ve praised it throughout this thread and have merely tried applying context as to why he relied on it so often. Just because he’s durable and likes to take advantage of that alongside his size advantage doesn’t take away from what he CAN do when he tries applying defense. Though I didn’t reference Jeffries’ durability at all in my final paragraph on my last reply so I’m not sure why you’re acting as if I’ve backtracked on that. I didn’t reference it at all when I brought up his patience.
His durability deserves praise ALONGSIDE the other strings on his bow, and it’s not his sole defining characteristic. There’s so much more to Jeff’s arsenal than just being a human punching bag that waits for his opponent to gas while hitting him.

The Jeffries debate rarely goes anywhere anyway lol, both sides are quite stubborn with regard to their own takes and opinions on the issue. Jeffries certainly isn’t an easy fighter to assess; in his best performances his best opponents weren’t in top form, and in his worst performances there’s a lot of baggage to uncover. Agreeing to disagree is usually the outcome in Jeffries discussions.