For which performance do you think Jim Jeffries was at his absolute physical peak?

If you are correct ,and without proof its just conjecture on your part,do you think these cowshed affairs are suitable fodder for world title challengers? Since Munroe went out in 2 rounds offering token resistance ,your assertion that it was a measured boxing display by Jeffries makes me laugh.Ive given Jeffries all the props I think he,s entitled to,but he shouldn,t have been sullying his hands ,and the title fighting the likes of Finnegan and Munroe.

 

Where did I say that Munroe was a worthy challenger? I did not. I said he was " not a world beater ", listed some name fighters he beat or drew with, then wrapped it up by saying he got a shot for being on hot streak / personal reasons.

It is plausible that by 1904, Munore would be a viewed as a top 10-15 heavyweight, as many of the past names were fading. Munroe was not a " stiff "

My comment on Jack Sullivan was just a reminder not to use those 0-0 fighters as a benchmark for anything without seeing how their careers went.

In closing the fights with Munore and Finnegan are not among Jeffries best oppoents. No one says they are. They only serve as examples as to what a good champion should to guys who did not deserve title shots. In Jeffries case this means setting a record for the quickest lineal KO, and KOing a man who was never stopped in any of his other 21+ recorded fights.

 

I would say that Finnegan and Munroe must rank as two of the worst and very possibly are the worst challengers for the title ever,I see you glossed over my correction of your assertion that Sullivan was beaten by Munroe.You agree they didnt deserve title shots ,thats enough for me ,thats all I wanted acknowledged.

 

Most long tenured champions give a guy like Munore a title shot. Johnson, Bruns ,Louis, Patterson, Ali, and Holmes had there share of Jack Munroe like oppponets, the differnce is they didn't flatten them in 2 rounds or less.

My point on Sullivan was he was not likely 0-0 when he fought Munroe, and he had a good account for himself vs some name fighters, beating Fireman Flynn, who of coruse got a title shot himself.

As for the worst man to recevie a title shot, one could argue it was Tony Ross. Ross was Ko'd four times before he meet Jack Johnson and was on a 2 win 5 loss streak going into the title match. Why did he get a shot?

Tommy Burns pick of Jewy Smith is also a good choice. Smith ended up 11-25.

As for Munroe, let me put it this way, he was in the ring vs some name guys prior to facing Jeffries, he wasn't a multiple Ko looser or even stopped, and he was not on a losing streak either. That should put things into perspective.

 

Let us hope that Appollack can unearth these fossils for us in his pending book . Of course there could be fossils detrimental to our heroes,but thems the breaks.Jim Jefffries is probably sitting up in Valhalla ,on his segregated rocking chair surly and gruff,wondering why we still are talking about him,at this date.

 

Unearthing fossils is fine. It is better than using box rec. I'd like to see Apollack come up with new information, but to do this he's going to have to work. Reading Two Fisted Jeff, getting access to the USA South West and West papers, and French and Brittish papers are where he should start. The main thing woudl be the cost.

I tend to think Jeffries vs Joe Kennedy could be viewed as a title fight because it is listed in 1901 Almanac as a title fight and Boxing cards printed a few years after the event have it as a KO win.The fight took place in front of a large crowd. If other fighters can have 3-4 round matches on their resumes, then so should Jeffries.

The ball is in Appolack's court. I have not read his stuff yet. I hear his Fitz book is the best of the three.

 

Box rec isnt the be all and end all but its a valuable aid,any new info that Appollack can dig up will be most welcome by us all I,m sure.

 

Agreed!

 

Murky, but probably the best look we have at Jeffries

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVa0GNDAP8E

 

While I think Nat would certainly think Jeffries fought better comp than Marciano (or Ali) given his old-timey leanings, he made this comment in 1950, so it did not include Marciano (or Ali).

Still, as best I can determine, Nat did not see Jeff or his competition in their prime. The first championship fight he attended was apparently Johnson-Jeffries in 1910. His is an interesting opinion, but I don't know if it should be given extra weight.

Do you think Jeffries faced tougher competition than Louis? Dempsey? Johnson? Dempsey and Johnson maybe, Louis no, but he did definitely clean out the division between 1898 and 1903 and only Johnson and Louis can also make that claim during the first half of the century.

One fact stands out when looking at Jeff's competition. The best opponents he defeated at the time he defeated them were probably Fitz, Corbett, Sharkey, and Ruhlin. Fitz knocked the other three out and actually looked better against them than Jeff did.

 

"Walcott and Charles were awful post-Marciano. Walcott did not win another bout"

Contrast that with this with your Post #13:
"Jeffries gained a great deal of skills as his career progressed. His two best performances were his two last fights between Munroe, and Corbett."

You handle the opposition of these two men rather differently. Munroe was always a journeyman. But what is interesting is Corbett compared to Walcott. Beating Corbett is one of Jeff's best performances, but Corbett had not won or even had a fight in three years and he did not win another bout after Jeffries. However awful Walcott is supposed to be, coming into his first bout against Marciano with a win three months earlier over Charles, one can certainly make a strong case that Corbett was much worse.

I might add I don't really buy that "Walcott was awful after Marciano". Walcott retired. That doesn't make him awful. Dempsey retired after Tunney. Does this prove Dempsey was awful? Lewis retired after defeating Vitali Klitschko. Does this prove Lewis was awful? If Walcott not winning a bout after Marciano proves Walcott was awful, what does Lewis not winning a bout after Vitali say about Vitali?