1904 James J. Jeffries vs 1882 John L. Sullivan

It is not so much that Fitzsimmons didn't want the title, as he didn't need it.

It would be unfair to imply that he was begging Jeffries for a title shot, and that Jeffries was the only thing holding it up.

There was obstruction on both sides, and Fitz was coining it with exhibitions.

There was wrangling, as with the major fights of recent times.

Fitz was a huge draw, to the extent that when matters were settled between him and Jeffries, the next logical move was an exhibition tour together.

Fitz was challenged by Denver Ed Martin, and he said very candidly, that he was not interested because he could make more money doing exhibitions with Jeffries.

 

He fought Ruhlin to avenge a draw. Simple, plus he has a contender. I already explained why Jeffries took time to fitz. I'm a Fitzsimmons fan. He did give him a re-match. Sharkey was a hurting man in the second Fitz fight, form Jeffries. In fact he didn't do well post 1900. You own many books! Which one is your favorite?

 

If Charlie Miltchel and the tiny Burke rate, you didn't fight the best . Bukre was only a 5 round affair he lasted the distance, In fact Sullivan ko's all but disappeared in 1885 to the time he retired and by the time he was fighting short fights, to save his stamina. He could have fought Peter Jackson but did not ! He could have fought Goddard the Aussie press calling for it, but did not. He sat and eventually was blown out by Corbett in 1892. He was active in 1886-88 but did not fight Killen. He was a 5 round fighter ( sometimes 4 rounds ) in the 1886-1888 you can look that up. Jeffries for stew fought better fighters, and of course he woud win. Sullivan himself said so as Jeffries was miles aheads of him. The game changed by Sullivan's time. He was a puncher who fought none,and meet easy competition, he was also a pioneer and that's how I rate him. Washed up before 30 and some of his opponents were also washed up. No Frank Slavin either. No punchers in general either, at least with gloves, If Charlie Mitchell was the best he fight, he isn't viewed as a top ten fighter...ten years later.

 

Jeffries ducked Johnson,Martin ,and McVey.
Corbett ducked Jackson.
Sullivan ducked Jackson, but I give him pass because it was right at the end of his career.
Johnson signed to defend against Jeannette twice ,both fights were vetoed by the NYAC,
He also signed to defend against both Langford and McVey in a two fight deal in Australia when Johnson jumped bail both fights were cancelled due to pressure from the Church and changing public opinion.
Sounds like you need to buy Pollack's 2 volumes on Jack Johnson!
Willard refused to fight Wills.

 

He fought Ruhlin after Fitz had ruined Gus.Avenging a draw? Why did it take him 4 years to get around to it?
Sharkey was level after 20rds with Jeffries but faded in the last 5 rds,unsurprising considering he was conceding 4 inches in height and 32lbs. I've over a 100 books on boxing,favourite? All Pollack's are great, InThis Corner by Peter Heller,Springs Toledo's trilogy,all McIllvanney's ,Izenberg's,Kimball's , too many to choose from really.

 

WTF! He publicly begged him over the top rope after stopping Sharkey!

 

Sullivan and Jeffries are both incompletes to me as fighters ..

Sullivan truly rarely trained with consistence of any sort from the early 1880's on and simply got by on natural ability .. by his own admittance he never even sparred and was never trained as a fighter. He was coached into physical condition but never had a trainer as a fighter .. that says a lot .. in addition, his M of Q experience against quality fighters is minuscule .. that said I personally believe from all I read he had terrific natural talent .. fast hands, killer instinct, a terrific chin, physical strength, natural endurance and of course true KO power .. at 5' 10" or so he had a decent reach too at about 74" .. I feel he is one guy that if trained by a DeForrest could have been a real threat .... he also never fought any of the terrific Australian fighters of the age that were far more advanced from a technical standpoint ..

If any fighter hurt himself by drawing the color line it was Jeffries .. whatever he may have lacked we do know that from 1899 to 1904 he was a very strong, extremely tough, well conditioned fighter with a granite chin, decent hand speed and very good two handed power when his hands were not injured and he chose to let them go .. I don't know who wins H2H in 1905 between Jeffries and Johnson but if Hart gave Johnson a fight at all then Jeffries would have been a much more dangerous challenge ..

 

After McVey beat Martin a promoter offered Jeffries a $15,000 guarantee to defend against him.Jeffries looked the other way.McVey was prominent in the sports pages with several reporters speculating that because of his size he would be a worthy challenger for Jeffries.There are plenty of news articles stating Mcvey would be a good test for Jeffries.
The underlined is palpable nonsense!
Jackson fought Corbett with an injured ankle and Corbett turned a deaf ear to his challenges.Knowing that Jackson did not feel he would get a fair shake below the Mason Dixon line ,Corbett refused to face him anywhere else. The Smith quote by you is just plain wrong and their respective resumes emphatically endorse that!

 

From 1900 when he beat Sharkey and Ruhlin until his fight with Jeffries in1902 Fitz engaged in NO EXHIBITIONS.He did a Graeco Roman wrestling match with Ruhlin on July9th1901 and a friendly5 rounder with Sharkey onDec14th the same year which was for charity.Coining it BS!
Fitz did not start engaging in exhibitions until after the Jeffries fight!

 

He was in at least three exhibitions during this period.

 

You are taking a complex series of circumstances, and making it out to be a simple one.

 

I'm not sure if you read my post re Slavin and Goddard and the time line, but I won't repeat the same facts but I'd be interested to hear who the were better than Burke and Mitchel on the 1882-87 period? BTW Mitchell wasn't top ten, ten years later because he hadn't fought a proper fight for EIGHT years...the Mitchell-Corbett was a money con, nothing more. I don't need to look up Boxrec to know the period and a 21 round stoppage by Corbett is hardly a blow out! Tiny Burke held Corbett, Slavin, Mitchell and Kilrain to even terms, who was better than him?

 

Mcvey was an unknown, and very young the time. Everyone wants a shot at the champion, it's big money. What else is new? Jeffries did not duck McVey or Martin at least no historian I read says so. Johnson lost to Hart before Jeffries retired the first time. He fought Johnson years later well past his best so he got his chance.