James J Jeffries?

So Jeffries as the source written 30 years after the event.

"He says in his pursuit of Munroe he slipped and fell--adding that Munroe was ten feet away"

Against this is version of the San Francisco Examiner:

"Munroe hit the champion square on the point of the jaw and sent him to his knees, following up with several ugly jabs that nearly made a knockout possible." (Adam Pollack, page 563)

No one today can say for certain what happened. But I would consider the ringside report by a newspaper noted for covering boxing as more reliable than a Jeffries version from many years later.

If in fact Jeff ran into a punch by the about 200 lb. Munroe, it is certainly possible he didn't remember exactly what happened even if he was striving to be honest. Boxers' memories being totally confused when hit, such as Dempsey's recollection of the first Flynn fight, is common.

So the bottom line is I am not dismissing the best evidence--a ringside report by a supposedly neutral observer.

 

History is what happened. Why the take that Jeff was knocked down by Munroe is anti-Johnson strikes me as a stretch and more importantly beside the point.

Perhaps Jeff was not knocked down, but there are ringside reports that he was. Do you have evidence they made all this up?

It is ironic that arguing Jeff in fact was knocked down by Munroe is somehow viewed as pro-Jeff or at least anti-Johnson.

The knockdown, whether real or myth, seems to have been the basis of the 1904 Munroe defense. But this isn't the reason Johnson didn't get a shot. If Munroe had never fought that exhibition, Jeff still would not have defended against Johnson. Jeff's excuse was the color line, and who was viewed as a worthy contender only an outgrowth from that excuse.

 

There were very pro-Munroe reports disseminated around the country regarding his exhibition with Jeffries. They made Munroe instantly famous and a hot commodity with the public.

However, there is evidence that such reports were embellished and even false. My book discusses this as well, using local primary sources published within a day or several days of the exhibition.

 

You are right in one respect.

It would have been in Jeffries interest to fight Johnson at the earliest point when he could justify it, and pick him off while he was green.

Let us move forward in time to Jack Johnson's bout with a shell of Bob Fitzsimmons, and look at two quotes one before and one after.

Philadelphia Record

"A decided victory for either man will do him a lot of good. It woudl be a great feather in Fitzsimons cap to knock out the man who the other white heavies have been dodging. Johnson by putting Fitz away in a decisive manner can strengthen his claim for a fight with Burns, or any other heavyweight who claims the championship."

Jack Johnson

"The oddest thing about the whole affair was that this knockout earned me a huge leap in everyone's esteem. He knocked out Bob Fitzsimons! This Jack Johnson must be a real boxer! This goes to show how reputations are made. For years I had been fighting the best men who ever put on the gloves, and all those bouts put together did less for my reputation then knocking out poor old Bob Fitzsimmons."

Don't you find it interesting?

 

Adam. As long as you are here. I have your biog of Jeff, but what is the evidence the Examiner is not accurate? I don't remember you saying much about this other than it was a Hearst paper. Would anyone on their editorial board be interested in faking boxing reports? Who filed this report? I am thinking they had a reporter on the scene. Did they?

Embellishment is what flaks are all about, but was Jeff indeed knocked down? It is conceded, even by Jeff himself, that he was off his feet.

 

The other question, is do we really care?

Either it happened or it didn't.

Whatever the truth, Munro's management managed to capitalize on the story, whether it was true or not.

In either case, it was not why Munro got his title shot.

What sealed the deal, was that his managers were able to match him with three low risk high reward challengers, back to back.

He only marginally got past a couple of them, but he got the win each case, and he advanced.

Munro is a textbook example of a manufactured contender.

As boxing fans we see this as being ungentlemanly, but it is ultimately within the rules.

Would we be capable of doing the same thing, if we were responsible for the interests of a contender, who was marginal for getting a title shot?

 

I made no anti Johnson comments nor did I say or imply others did
If I was out to derogate Jeffries I would accept that Munroe dropped him,but I'm not ,and I don't.

I find Johnson's comments not only honest but accurate.Fitz was a shell as was Jackson against Jeffries.

 

Are we perhaps seeing a picture, that the legends like Fitzsimons and Corbett, had reputations that transcended their recent activity?

I am getting that message loud and clear.

 

Adam does his level best to gather and include all sources,including them does not mean he personally endorses them.

 

Jason, in a previous post you stated you recollected an article dated circa 1916 (just 12 years after the fact of the Munro fight) that Jeffries did indeed confirm that he slipped and that he might’ve been caught with a punch on the way down.

The 1935 article maintained the slip but did not mention any happenstance punch landing as Jeff was falling from the slip.

In fact, Jeff expressly rejected the landing of any punch.

But then you’ve also quoted a report stating that Munro clearly and cleanly caught Jeffries for a legitimate KD.

I appreciate your deference to closer to time, primary sources but it seems that there also maybe some confirmation and assumption bias in play.

You’ve quoted Adam’s book in so far as any reports lending to a legit KD but in due balance Adam also questioned the veracity of those reports.

I can’t recollect or say for sure but I would think that it would be very likely that there are contemporary quotes of Jeffries completely refuting Munro’s claim of a KD.

 

I find all relevant information interesting but unfortunately it appears that you don’t - now you’re skipping to 1907 and associated quotes.

At any rate, I always deal.

Firstly, we should appreciate Johnson’s candour and balanced view on matters.

He said it was the “oddest” thing - and the reputations being “made” were those of white fighters only.

You should also understand that Jeffries’ wholesale bar on black fighters would naturally curtail some sections of the press from even entertaining a match that Jeffries was clearly never going to be party to.

Johnson had also previously made it clear that he believed Jeffries had been blatantly ducking him. Let’s maintain balance.

Fitz’s last fight was about 1 1/2 years prior and a loss. By the time of the Johnson fight old Bob was what, 44 yo? Johnson accurately assessed Fitz dilapidated state before and after the fact.

IF the media felt that Fitz’s scalp would strengthen Johnson’s rep., then they were clearly skewed in their thinking and if they maintained that view after the fact of the fight, they were even more out to lunch - reports clearly detailing Fitz’s poor showing.

Also remember, you’re quoting a black fighter referencing wins over equally under sold black men - Jack’s best wins to date.

The preface also was that Fitz was being avoided by other white fighters and that a win over Johnson would be a great feather in his cap (Johnson already had rep.) whilst a decisive win for Jack would merely “strengthen” his claims for a shot at Burns.

As to the victory increasing Johnson’s standing? Well, he still didn’t get his title shot until near 2 1/2 years later. That speaks for itself.

Your post has been fully addressed.

 

Yes. Of course. I am not criticizing this excellent book in the least. I just draw different inferences from the evidence presented.

Because Adam did so much research is the reason I asked who filed the report of the Examiner. Did they have a reporter following Jeff and Fitz and who was on hand? Was this a wire service report? Is the writer unknown?

One thing about the Examiner. They covered big fights often. They had reporters on staff who were practiced at watching a fight and reporting it accurately. So this seems a solid source on the face of it. Certainly better than any of Jeff's memoirs from years later.

But reading the same source can produce different takes off the same evidence. For example, Adam gives this info and draws this conclusion:

"'Jeffries and Fitzsimmons wound up the program with a lively four round exhibition.' If Jeff was fatigued, hurt, and about to be done up, it is not likely he would continue on with 4 more lively rounds with Bob Fitzsimmons."

But cancelling a promised climactic exhibition with Ftiz would have been an admission by Jeff that he had taken a bad going over from Munroe. Taking a knockdown and being in trouble but shaking it off to come back to fight several or many more rounds is not unusual in boxing history.

Adam quotes Jeff--"I want to say that the Associated Press report sent out from Butte that Munroe had me going and that I was down on one knee is absolutely false."

But he later admitted he was down. This quote does indicate an AP report.

The Butte Miner is quoted--"Jeffries' talk now about not desiring to stop Munroe, but that he wanted the people to see an exhibition, will not go down with those who saw the contest."

So my bottom line is the evidence does not force the myth conclusion and preclude Munroe doing rather well and scoring a knockdown. We don't and probably can't know for certain.

 

"you've also quoted a report stating that Munro clearly and cleanly caught Jeffries for a legitimate KD."

Which to me is a better, or at least potentially better, source than what Jeff said at any point.

The Butte Intermountain gives the strongest take on the knockdown being a myth--"It's too bad that an enthusiastic newspaper man allowed himself to be carried away to the extent that he sent an Associated Press report East to the effect that Jack Munroe had knocked Jeffries down." . . . "There is not a word of truth in the report. Jeffries has never been knocked down in his life."

What I take out of this is that it was a newspaper man who sent out the knockdown report. As for the Butte Intermountain writer, he weakens his credibility with me by saying Jeff had never been knocked down in his life. Someone writing for the Butte Intermountain had seen all of Jeff's fights? He repeats as fact what he didn't know, or took as fact someone's word for it,

But there is this report from 1897, again from Adam Pollack--"The New York World, which had a correspondent on the scene, reported that on the 9th, Corbett dropped both Jeffries and Woods. The title of the article was 'Big Jeffries knocked out.'"

"It was not given out for publication even to contract holders at Corbett's quarters, but it is fact nevertheless that last night Jim knocked out both Jeffries and Woods."

New York World, March 10, 1897, quoted in In the Ring With James J Jeffries, page 43.

"bias"

I don't think I particularly have much bias one way or another with regard to Jeffries. I only think buying completely into the "invincible" Jeff who was immune to punishment closes too many doors on historical interpretation. Two separate reports of Jeff being knocked down (or out in the case of sparring with Corbett) are only phony reports from dishonest reporters? A lot to buy into to buoy up Jeff's rep.

 

Basically true, but off his own words, Munroe had been in the ring for two years prior to meeting Jeffries. So was his manager hsi manager during this time, or did he pick up a manager after this fight?

The Jeff exhibition was the not the whole case for Munroe, but it is the root from which his later career grew. Would he have gotten those fights without the reputation he got from the Jeff exhibition?

 

Yeah, but buying into fights that were otherwise not recorded nor mentioned by Jeff and assuming that he might not have mentioned said fights lest it anger his parents is more than a bit much.

Bear in mind, the claims of one errant source can simply be replicated over a number of publications.

I doubt that many at all saw all Jeff’s fights - you’d have to be in live attendance - they certainly weren’t readily available on film for review - a luxury we enjoy today.

So yeah, the newspaper man would’ve been going by Jeff’s written record and his resume details otherwise.

As far as I know, until the Munro fight, Jeffries was never reported as having been dropped in an actual fight.

As to Corbett’s claim - I won’t say it’s phoney or not but again, I’m pretty sure that Jeff absolutely refuted Corbett’s claim as at that time.

Suffice to say, Corbett a reputed powder puff puncher was reported (ringside) to have rocked Jeffries at least once during their first fight - so there is that in Cornett’s favour in some measure.

Jeffries’ legend was certainly exaggerated otherwise. Carrying an ox over miles and miles, drinking a case of whiskey to cure pneumonia, lifting weights than no other man could, etc.

Perhaps one of the best was when a Dr, after drawing some of Jeff’s blood, claimed it to be unlike that of any other human.

Conversely, Big Jeff had a few injuries along the way (some clumsily incurred in training) that have been used to excuse some of his less than stellar performances - and particularly his inability to KO Sharkey over a total 45 rds.

Meanwhile, much older and lighter, brittle handed Fitz flattened Sharkey twice in less than 10 rounds total. No excuses required.

Some of the stories re Jeff literally suggest the stuff of Superman. Lol.