James J. Jeffries vs. Jersey Joe Walcott

Marciano being floored by McCoy isn't an impossibility either, and I don't think it automatically makes Sharkey's chin any less good. And can we really blame him for being KO'd by Bob Fitzsimmons of all people?! Everyone not named Jeffries was clocked by Fitz!

You cannot deny that Sharkey is one of the tougher, more durable fighters of history. I don't think these points take that away, and Walcott would probably struggle

 

Also Sharkey wasn't KO'd by Ruhlin, yes he was dropped but it was his corner that threw in the towel

 

My response would be to sayJackson was slightly past his best when he fought Corbett and that Sullivan would almost certainly have lost to a prime Peter when he himself was past it and that, given Jackson was slightly past prime when he held Corbett equal,Jackson may very well have beaten both.
"It didnt matter?"
It mattered to Jackson who, disillusioned and inconsolable stopped looking after himself and became a falling down ,consumptive drunk after his fight with Slavin .Slavin inflicted the rib injures which are believed to have been instrumental in the origins of Jackson's TB.

NB I do not personally invalidate the lineage,but I think it undeniable a case could be made for doing so.

 

I think Sharkey was as brave as any man that ever stepped into a ring,that is not the same as saying his chin was inpenetrable ,it wasn't.

 

Ruhlin floored Sharkey 4 times,
"Sharkey was out on his feet now,and when he stood up for the11th he clinched,Ruhlin around the neck and dragged him around the neck.
Eventually they broke and every time Ruhlin struck Sharkey went down. Four times in all.
Sharkey got up each time ,but the last time he really did not know where he was.
As the round ended Sharkey's corner went to him and tried to get him ready for another push.
But Tommy Ryan ,one of Sharkey's seconds, knew the game was up.
He walked over to Ruhlin's corner and gave in on Sharkey's behalf."
"I Fought Them All",by Greg Lewis and Moira Sharkey.
I don't think we need to quibble about the ending Box Rec records it as a TKO.Its not as though Sharkey was stopped on cuts whilst still full of fight,he was out of it.If he had been sent out for another round he might have been killed.

 

Had you given this hypothetical response to this hypothetical argument, then the hypothetical counter response would be a bit like this:

Sullivan was retired between the Killrain fight and the Corbett fight.

During this period matches were made between Jackson and Slavin, and Jackson and Corbett, who were the three best men left.

By the time Sullivan came out of retirement, Corbett was as valid a choice of challenger as Jackson.

You might then hypothetically respond by asking who was the first fighter who could have beaten Sullivan in the timeline, and the person making this argument might have to acknowledge that it was Jackson.

 

What if, hypothetically, a third person intervened to muddy the waters by citing the Maher Rule, whereby a champion keeps his belt during retirement?

In such a circumstance, Sullivan's retirement freezes the title onto his waist, as Corbett's would have done (if he'd been champion) during his failed attempt to install Maher as champ, and Jeff's (if he'd been champ) would have done when he retired, thereby eliminating the tumorous subplot of Burns and Hart entirely.

I suspect that under such circumstances, the hypothetical first party would stick to his guns and insist that since neither Corbett nor Jeffries were lineal champions, their retirements and un-retirements create no precedents.

 

I see both sides of the argument. But, I lean towards Jeffries. By all accounts, Jeffries was incredibly strong, durable, fit, athletic, and consistent. Walcott is the craftier boxer. He would likely make him look foolish at times, and, land some hard shots. But the later the fight goes, I see Jeffries as the last man standing when the dust finally settles. I think Walcott's valiant efforts against Joe Louis flatter him. Louis was really losing some steps by the time he fought Walcott. A prime Louis would have likely decimated any version of Walcott in about 4-6 rounds. Possibly sooner.

 

You might hypothetically conclude, that the resulting sh1t show is is why we accept the current lineage, imperfect as it is.

 

1. John L. Sullivan

[Permanent interregnum. London Prize Ring title dies, rendering all subsequent gloved champions pretenders.]

Problem solved.

 

I don't really buy the argument that Jackson was significantly past it when he fought Corbett (the ankle injury he carried is a more convincing excuse). Otherwise, we have to take his performances against guys like Dooley as the measure of his greatness, which just isn't enough for me. As far as beating Sullivan, he had his hands full with an aged, Sullivan prototype in Goddard. I'm just not convinced on that count either.

It is possible that Jackson just wasn't as great as people say.

 

On a side note Sullivan's first title defense, was originally scheduled to be against a black opponent.

A local fighter who didn't show, and got substituted for another local fighter, who happened to be white.

Now it is interesting to reflect what might have happened, if that forgotten local fighter had turned up, and taken his beating.

Sullivan would not have been able to deny, that he had fought a black title challenger previously.

Jack Johnson's first title defense was originally scheduled to be against Denver Ed Martin.

Martin was by this time a shadow of his former self, so the outcome would not have been in much doubt, but it would have made it harder for him to refuse Langford and McVea.

 

But we have documented proof that he did not refuse to give title shots to Langford and McVey ,nor Jeannete for that matter.He signed to defend against all three of them ,the fact that the fights were cancelled was through no fault of Johnson's.

 

Still not a knockout. I don't think Ruhlin knocking Sharkey down a few times takes away from the fact that the man was incredibly durable, he had to be with his fighting style and opposition. Big punchers in Jeffries, Maher and Choynski (although rookie Sharkey was dropped many times in their first encounter) couldn't knock Sharkey out. These, IMO, are bigger punchers than Walcott.

 

Also, I have never understood how or why a "half cast" Herbert Slade was not considered a coloured fighter. I am pretty sure he might be insulted at that thought.

The other problem with stripping the lineage for not fighting Jackson is that Peter Jackson actually lost his lineage claim to Peter Jackson. You can find plenty of articles referring to Peter Jackson as the world champion but they had to stop when Jeffries knocked him out. It seems a bit rough to consider Jeffries only the white champion when he actually beat the black champion. He also fought arguably the next two best black fighters in Hank Griffin and Bob Armstrong. As well, he come out of retirement to fight the next great black fighter jack johnson (albeit in a losing effort).

INterestingly, Fitz, never considered himself as good as Jackson (and he would know they sparred and fought in the same gym often enough) when jackson was in his prime. A prime Jackson, i think, would have beaten Fitzsimmons purely because of the mental advantage he seemed to have.

In relation to the original question, Jeffries had the better legacy but i agree that this is a very tough fight and Walcott can outbox him early. I dont think distance matters too much. Walcott has to knock him out to win. If Walcott cant do it in 10 he isnt doing it. But no one is inpenetrable and i think he wins it as much as he doesnt. Same goes for Jeff. If he doesnt start hurting and slowing down Walcott by Ten, he has a pure hail mary chance only and i dont like his chances.

If forced to pick i go with Walcott in an upset (right now only this could change) 2:1 with 1 KO each and a controversial Newspaper Decision.