Is James J. Jeffries the most underrated HW champ?

I think there are cases for both Machen and Folley but yeah, this isn’t the thread to dive too deep into it. Cheers.

 

Johnson was his recently clarified no. 1 contender - outstanding, at least to me, would imply Johnson had a longer & more established place as Jeffries’ top challenger, which is not really the case in real-time. During almost all of Jeffries’ reign, Johnson had not yet achieved that status, & he had not been without failures which delayed his climb. It’s true he was the top contender when Jeffries retired, but that was not clearly the case until very near the end.

‘Not rock solidly behind’ well again, this is a matter for which there is some subjectivity. But what’s not subjective, is that the prevailing opinion of the day, taken as a whole, was that the colour line was both morally & financially justified. There were those who opposed it, just as there are those who staunchly oppose today the idea that races & cultures are equal (in fact, if you look outside the western world, this is still the prevailing opinion of our age). Those against the colour line being towed held neither political nor sporting sway. There were many more cartoons, pamphleteers, & sports writers in support of the colour line than there ever were against in 1905.

“Three short years” between Jeffries allegedly sidestepping Johnson & the Burns fight is, in fact, a long time by the standards of that time. Today, a Boxer in Johnson’s position might have only two or three fights in that window, barely more. Johnson had more than twenty bouts between Jeffries’ retirement & his own fight with Burns. That makes it a long time in which a lot changes (unlike today).

Burns did fight Johnson to financial success, which does hurt the (fairly logical) claim by Jeffries it wouldn’t have made money. It had to happen as a sideshow though, in a country starved of Boxing & driven by a curiosity not found in Pugilist-heavy America, on the other side of the world. They put together an event, but it was far flung in its imagining & hardly something a n American fighter of the time could be accused of short sightedness for not thinking of.

Burns would have showed Jeffries up if Johnson had been in the position of no. 1 for as long, & as clearly, as he was when he fought Burns. But for all anyone knew when Jeffries, retired, Johnson was not going to become done lasting great & was still within the realm of falling away (recall his losses during Jeffries’ reign). The fact he went on to become a lasting Champion & legend washes away the facts of the day. Johnson was just another contender who at the time had reached no. 1 status, but no more than that, & only just before Jeffries retired.

 

Cheers for your considerate reply.

Whether his claims became even stronger, I think Johnson did firmly establish himself as # 1 during 03/04.

Certainly enough for Jeffries to address the strong question of fighting Johnson but Jeffries invoked two reasons only - Johnson’s colour and claiming that the fight wouldn’t draw sufficient interest. Jeffries said nothing about Johnson not deserving a shot otherwise.

3 years in terms of a flip in moral conventions isn’t that long - because it wasn’t a sudden 180 deg. flip - there were strong noises being made during Jeffries reign for Jeff to drop the colour line - even when Burns did agree to fight Johnson in 1908, I believe the retired Jeffries still baulked at Burn’s decision to grant Jack a shot.

When Johnson was heading in to fight Hart, Jeffries made it clear before the fact that, whether Jack won, lost or drew, Jeff wasn’t granting a shot to Johnson because Johnson was black. Period.

Harts own eligibility for a shot, of course, was not null and voided however, his potential granting of a title shot being subject to the outcome and Harts performance therein.

The decision rendered in that fight was a joke. Johnson beat the **** out of Hart but the ref falsely gave credit to Hart for his grunting, groaning and go forward aggression - even though he was counterpunched to death with Johnson obviously being the true winner on points.

So, after Johnson vs Hart, Jeffries then elects to fight neither man and conveniently retire with Johnson finally “removed” from the picture with the air let out of the hitherto mounting pressure on Jeffries to fight Johnson also removed.

But for the one anomaly on Johnson’s record during that time (vs Hart, fraudulent decision), Johnson continues his streak. It stands out like a pimple on a pumpkin.

Prior to the Hart loss, Johnson already had a terrific winning/non losing streak - commencing March 02, and particularly through 03/04 and during this time Jack ultimately became the coloured HW Champ also.

Whatever Johnson did thereafter, he was already there to be granted a shot during Jeffries reign.

Jeffries more or less acknowledged Johnson’s eligibility otherwise - the colour line being Jeffries’ highlighted, primary reason for embargo - and no, there were many who didn’t agree with Jeffries drawing of that line as at the time.

Burns did show Jeff up, he professed to fight any man and actually saw it through - and as I think I already said, even at that time, Jeffries was even still baulking at Burns own election to fight Johnson in 1908 - so that tightens the focus on Jeff standing somewhat independently on the colour line matter, as opposed to completely falling in with the times.

 

Always hard to rate a lot of the champion heavies from that era as most of them ducked the best black fighters that were around,but out of the world champions of those times,I rate Jim the third best of the first quarter of the twentieth century after Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey.

 

"Johnson was just another contender who at the time had reached #1 status, but no more than that"

Which undercuts any take that we can't compare Jeff's duck with Marciano because Johnson turned out to be a an ATG heavyweight in the end. Moore in 1954 and 1955 was arguably a more formidable opponent on paper than the Johnson of 1904 and 1905. Certainly in the context of the time, and if not viewed with hindsight.

"and only just before Jeffries retired."

Not exactly "only just"

I read years ago an article in a San Francisco paper written right after the 1903 Corbett fight with Johnson named the logical next opponent for Jeffries. Also Jeff was barely 30 when he retired. Corbett in 1903 was 37 and had laid off three years. So Johnson was probably the best opponent out there from 1903 into 1905 and viewed as such.

It doesn't wipe out Jeff's earlier good work, but it does cast a cloud.

 

"golden era"

In popularity perhaps, but quality? I don't agree.

"Dempsey's era is demonstrably better than Marciano's because Dempsey had a deeper pool of fighters to draw from"

Nonsense. There is absolutely no evidence the pool of talent was deeper. The middleweight champion, Greb, proved better than Dempsey's heavyweight opposition. Plus there was the color line eliminating much of the best talent.

"some LHW stragglers"

Like Levinsky, Carpentier, and Gibbons?

'I'd argue Corbett, Fitz (in the 1st fight) and Tom Sharkey were all closer to their athletic primes than Louis, Charles, or Walcott when Rocky fought them"

Prime is a meaningless concept. It is how you are performing. In 1957 Ted Williams turned 39. He batted .388, had a .526 on base percentage, and a .731 slugging average. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of major league baseball players who never in their "athletic primes" posted marks like that.

Tom Sharkey being in his athletic prime? I pick old Louis to beat him easy. Not to mention Charles and Walcott. Corbett in 1900 hadn't won a fight in six years and had laid off two years. Fitz was a 36 year old light-heavy who had also laid off for two years.

 

More recently came across the fact it appears Armstrong was a sparring partner of Jeffries, Sharkey and Fitz at various points and all 3 had claims to the HW title around this time. There isn't a timeline on who was in whos camp when but this probably has something to do with Jeffries fighting Armstrong. What exactly? I don't know. But will be looking for more info on the topic going forward for sure.

 

Jeffries had been retired for 5 years. He was in good shape when he came back at 227lbs having had over a year to prepare for the fight.
Jeffries rep is based largely on beating smaller, past prime, coming out of retirement fighters.

 

Lol! He went life or death with smaller guys past their primes he should've knocked out in a couple of rounds. Jeffries "Popularity" rest on the fact that his come from behind wins were bloody and dramatic. But they were still majority smaller past their prime Champs he should of been steam rolling. He retired early because he could no longer duck black young heavyweights. Peter Jackson doesn't count because he was way past it.

 

Fine post.

 

Performing well doesn't mean you are in your prime. Walcott wasn't prime for Marciano ,nor were Charles or Moore. The fact that athletes can still perform at a level that inferior athletes cannot reach does not mean they are prime ,it simply means they are still better than athletes inferior to them inability they are prime

Because a top athlete can still perform at a good level ,a level superior to more average athletes just means he has retained some of the ability that they never possessed in the first place.it proves nothing else. Fitz had been laid off 2 years prior to the 1stJeffries fight and Corbett a year and a half.

Old Louis was kept away from punchers,imo its entirely possible a prime Sharkey who steam rolled Corbett and gave Jeffries life and death might beat the virtually one armed Louis. Just as its possible ,if not probable that other contenders of the 50's might have beaten Louis had he been forced to meet them. Greb was the middleweight champion,but he was also one of the best lhvy's around and the weight differential between the divisions was not so big as it became later.Is it perhaps significant that Greb never fought the likes of Fulton, Wills,Firpo,or Godfrey?

 

I always read that he was an absolute physical machine where only George Foreman
has comparable results in pure strength.

As far as his boxing skills are concerned, it will forever remain a mystery.
When it comes to his resume, he actually has to be in the Top 20.

 

I think Jeff is highly overrated beyond his own era and slightly overrated in his own. Yes he was dominate but he had no physical equal he would fight in his era and by refusing black fighters who were.

He gets wrecked in every era beyond his own. He would not have a significant size and strength advantage in other eras...his "iron" chin would look much different fighting 200lb fighters.

 

Smart man