Do you consider James J Jeffries an ATG?

It does not, but your are talking to the poster Mcvey. It would not be in his agenda to accept such facts.

 

You literally have no clue what you're talking about. They weren't "bound" to do anything nor were they "required" to do so. They CHOOSE to do so for their own benefit. To perpetuate a platform meant to keep others down isn't a requirement, it's a choice, a choice made when they could've done otherwise. You want to take it out of their hands as if they had no other way, and this is totally and blatantly false. Would it have been difficult, sure, would they have felt a backlash from it, sure; but they still could've tried to implement change regardless, and they didn't. No amount of covering your eyes and ears will ever change that fact. If for nothing else, but from a competitive standpoint. You work your whole life to be the best at something, competition is in your blood, it's what you strive for; but then you eliminate some of your best competition from even taking place by the stance you take. That is totally against the spirit of competition and trying to be the best of the best. You've now only become the best of the White's, and that carries much less weight then and today. Again you show your ignorance of a capitalistic society, change very well might have come had they spoken up for it. If there's money to be made (there would be) then people would've stepped up to the plate to make it happen. That is what drives the system. Nobody is saying it would be easy, but to say there was no way it would happen shows your ignorance on the subject and how our system works.

 

Jeffries has reported KO's over Childs and Martin.

Martin was just 17 years old when Jeffries won the title in 1899.

By 1903, he was 21, and out of contention losing 6 of 8 fights from 1903-1907, 5 of the losses came by Knockout.

The interesting part is Martin, who had a glass body and jaw, was even with Jack Johnson in their 1903 fight.

This content is protected

So those who think Johnson was a serious threat to Jeffries in 1903 should re-evaluate. He was not. Nor was he in 1901 when Choysnki KO'd him cold, or in 1905 when he lost high stakes match to Marvin Hart, who wasn't as good as Corbett, Fitzsimmons, or Sharkey...so say almost all historians.

Jeffries told the press when he blasted out Jack Munroe in 2 rounds that Johnson was a possible title contender for him.

He also said he'd fight Hart after he defeated Johnson, but the money wasn't there so he stayed retired.

 

Kaufman rated above Jeanette or Mcvey in 1909? Says who. The reality is Johnson avoided the #1, #2, and #3 man from 1909-1914. Willard was probably top three by 1915, and he stopped him.

 

Many commentators (both writers and other fighters) noted that Jeffries' drawing of the color line was both inconsistent and very convenient. It's one thing to say in hindsight but another when contemporaries thought the same.

 

I'd say Denver Ed Martin,Sam McVey,Jack Johnson were all worthier opponents than John Finnegan and Jack Munroe you can add Jim Corbett the second time around too. All these 3 black fighters were ranked so was Frank Childs for 3 consecutive years ,when were Finnegan or Munroe ever ranked?

 

Jeffries in his autobiography made no mention of ever fighting Childs or Martin and Pollack doesn't believe they happened.

Martin certainly challenged him and he had a promoter behind him with a big guarantee.
During Jeffries reign,Martin beat,Childs,Armstrong,Ferguson,Craig,Klondike,Griffin,McVey, are you seriously saying he wasn't a better challenger for Jeffries than Finnegan or Munroe?
Jeffries would not go near a black challenger and said so ,so many times in public and print that it isn't even arguable.
Three days after beating Munroe Jeffries was asked by Tim Mcgrath if he would accept Jack Johnson as a challenger.
This is his printed reply."Well you might as well forget that ,because I'll never fight a n*gg*r".San Francisco Evening Post August 29th 1904.

Discussing Johnson, Jeffries said," Johnson is a fair fighter,but he is black and for that reason I will never fight him.If I were not champion I would as soon meet a negro as any other man,but the title will never go to a black man if I can help it".The Police Gazette October 1st 1904.

"Jim Jeffries lament over not being able to find an opponent worthy of his consideration would be silenced in short order if he would side step the prejudices and agree to fight a black man .Jeffries has no right to draw the color line."The Police Gazette Nov 5th 1904.

" Jeff doesn't seem to care one bit how many people may knock him and even accuse him of cowardice in warding off Johnson with the old-time color line.He won't budge from his position not withstanding the public clamor that he fight the negro champion.
Jack Johnson's record entitles him to a match with Jeffries,and he is the only man now in sight who would seem to have a chance with the hitherto invincible rivet driver.Jeff will not add any to his popularity by sticking to his lately adopted color line..On his part this position is most inconsistent,as Jeffries has fought more than one negro in the past.
The Police Gazette Dec1904."

Enough facts for you?
Stop the cr*p!

 

I have never disputed it.

 

I am saying no to a Jeffries Martin fight, and maybe to a Jeffries Childs fight.

If the Jeffries Childs fight did happen, it would have been when they were both local level fighters, and of minimal historical significance.

 

The underlined is bullsh*t and you know it!

 

If Pollack failed to come up with any proof, it didn't happen.

 

My take on where Jeffries sits in terms of the black contenders:

When he won the title, there was not a single black contender who would have made a worthy challenger. The Colored Heavyweight Title was held by George Byers, who had lost to Tommy West. Beyond him you have Childs and Armstrong floating around, and there was no reason for Jeffries to fight either.

The first major black challenger to emerge was Denver Ed Martin, who became a serious challenger around the middle of Jeffries title reign. Martin was highly touted by the press, and a few even favored him to beat Jeffries. He seems to have been much more highly regarded as a challenger than Jack Johnson, for reasons that I do not entirely understand. Even so, Martin lost to Jeffries sparring partner Bob Armstrong, so I can live with Jeffries not fighting him.

Jack Johnson emerged towards the end of Jeffries reign, and I will not defend Jeffries failure to defend against him. Johnsons record against the contenders while Jeffries was active is just ridiculous. Like with Jeffries himself, the media were slow to cotton on to how good Johnson was.

The teenage McVea was put forward as a potential challenger. Even after Johnson had beaten him, some in the media saw him as a better challenger than Johnson, because he had the size and punch to match Jeffries. In hindsight however, Johnson beat him three times.

If Jeffries had defended his title against Johnson, instead of Munro say, I would be very forgiving about his failure to meet Martin or McVea. It would be like Joe Louis failing to meet some black contenders that Joe Walcott had dismantled.

 

Yes, and maybe some knew that before the fight, but someone was going to get the kudos of beating Jackson, the Police Gazette title, and it turned out to be Jeffries.

 

He came up with two primary sources that said that it did happen.

We have to at least take this possibility seriously, for whatever it is worth!

 

Despite Jackson's circumstances, that was a very tough opponent for a novice like Jeffries.