James J Jeffries?

I am also of the opinion that Jeffries had ‘pasty white boy’ syndrome and was one of those fighters that got cut pretty easily. This dude used to get cut up during camp ffs.

Regardless, getting cut up in round 4 did not reflect his performance against Fitzsimmons first time around. Referee Siler said he would’ve given the fight to Jeffries on points prior the knockout. Here are other interpretations;

“He out feinted, out boxed, out generated and outfought the champion….his quickness and ducking, his foot work and his general speed set all the wise people wondering. He was faster than Fitz! When he wanted to corner Fitz he succeeded, and he had no trouble slipping away from Fitzsimmons at will.” New York Journal

“The men who prepared him for his fight worked wonders with him. They taught him nearly perfect defense.” Asbury Park Daily Press

“Fitzsimmons tried every trick he knew to get Jeffries in position for one of his famous blows….when he subsequently tried and failed to reach Jeffries’ jaw, owing to the ease with which the latter could block up and throw the blow off, he was utterly powerless….With his handy left and his strong guard he met the champion’s rush and both punished him and hugged him into weakness.” National Police Gazette

“He was as lively as a lightweight on his feet and repeatedly ducked repeatedly under the cutting swings of his opponent.”

Fitz himself thought that Jeff’s cleverness was on the level of thong Jesus himself:

“Jeffries is a hard puncher, and I think he is fully as clever as Corbett….Jeffries was a hard man to get at…..Jeffries is a wonder. I never saw a fellow get away so well from a punch or show so much speed on his feet….I tried every ruse at my command to beat him, but it was of no avail. He got away with such surprising skill,”

Of course, his defense was good but not perfect. To be objective, here’s the interpretation by the New York sun. He wasn’t unhittable;

“Fitzsimmons tried every known method of attack, and landed repeatedly….in short, Jeffries, while reasonably clever in defensive work, showed a wonderful amount of ability to take punishment without showing its effects.”

Still though, being “reasonably clever” in defense is different to being the Homer Simpson of boxing. We know that he incorporated ducking and blocking, as well as utilizing his shoulder as a guard for the right hand and his right hand as a guard for the left.

 

My criticism of Jeffries are based on thinking he'd get obliterated in other eras and being lucky to be undefeated. But despite the criticism of extending his reign with rematches against old legends, relying on his size and struggling against his best opponents he was still the best HW of that era.

Also the era right after Jeffries was so small LHW was briefly discontinued because there was no need for it and Childs was small too. Martins really the best guy Jeffries didn't fight. Also while he wasn't old Martin did start to struggle at the exact same time Jeffries would have fought him. And the Martin win would fall into the basket of fighting guys at the right time.

Jackson, Johnson, Langford and Wills were the 4 "colored" champs who reached a point where white champions needed to fight them for their legacy and failure to do so would leave a stain. The former 3 were considered the real champ by a large percent of the boxing world and Wills was a pseudo champ who only didn't gain a belt because of the credibility Dempsey had built up during his early reign that he used to not fight for 3 years. While the rest of the group deserved title shots and most of them didn't get them(and the ones who did got one) single white champions failure to fight them doesn't cast the shadow failure the other 4 do. This includes all the "colored" champs between Jackson and Johnson including Armstrong who Jeffries did fight after receiving Sharkeys title claim albeit on originally on a planned double fight night.

Part of why thats the case systemic as the black title system of unlimited rematches among the top fighters discredited any champ who wasn't better by a healthy margin a system Jackson predated and Johnson escaped by beating Burns. While top white fighters(or post integration black fighters) having rematchs of decisive fights more than 2-3 times is rare in any era unless they are named Jim Barry. But we can't really undo that those fights all happened and how they aversley effected how the public viewed that fighter opposed to if they never happened.

You say that Jeffries isn't excused by bringing up other champs how many of the white champs lineal or otherwise fought more than 1 "colored" champ and came out with a winning record? Cardiff who should have been lineal champ fought Jackson, Godfrey and Wilson and most of those fights were draws or losses. Fulton who wasn't a champ went 2-2 with wins over Langford and losses to Wills and Godfrey. Most other contenders who fought a similar grouping lost all or almost all of those fights Lang for example. Jeffries fought the 2 of the aformentioned big 4 he had access to(even if neither fight really means anything for obvious reasons) and Armstrong who being the tallest elite HW in the sports first 30 years or so was a unique challenge for someone who relied on their size like Jeffries.

Jeffries also beat Griffin who while never even fighting for the "colored belt" was on that level he just lost to Martin when Martin wasn't champ. He fought young Johnson 3 times and didn't lose. Martin didn't just lose his belt to Johnson he got KO'd by Armstrong around the same time Jeffries would have fought him. While Martin is the better HW this brought his H2H with Armstrong to a tie with both Armstrongs wins being KOs. The 2nd best black HW of that era was Childs who was the same age as Corbett while being the size of Sharkey and he started losing around the same time. Is that a matchup Jeffries needed for his legacy? Armstrongs probably 3rd. What exactly is there to criticize here?

With Johnson, Jeanette and McVea even Langford you run into what I call the "Tunney issue" where ATG guys Jeffries could have practically fought timeline wise on the backend of his career were not viewed the same way they would be by history. Johnson was "colored" champ in 1903 and Schmeling was(briefly) EBU champ in 1928 when Jeffries and Tunney were still around but that didn't mean they were Johnson and Schmeling yet and that Jeffries and Tunney had any idea that these were fights that would have mattered to their legacy according to people on the internet. Likewise Sharkey had drew or lost multiple eliminators and how much more important beating Jack Sharkey was compared to Tom Heeney is something only we know same with Schmeling v Ermino Spalla or McVea v Munroe.

The truth is before Louis every long reigning lineal HW champ who kept the belt for any meaningful period except Burns would have been stripped under the alphabet system for inactivity. And Burns would have probably been stripped for fighting Squires 3 times. Jeffries 1902-1904 period was bad but compared to Sullivan, Corbett, Johnson, Willard and Dempsey it might be the least egregious. Fitz and Corbett were old but their first fights with Jeffries kinda gave reason for a rematch? If they were 10 years younger no one would have an issue.

 

I could see Jeffries not being stripped discounting the color line considering how many of the active champions fought once a year like him during their reigns. Jeffries was pretty active early on with memorable fights so maybe fans would be more forgiving toward a memorable entertaining champion despite rarely fighting. Or they would think poorly of him due to struggling so much in his defenses, like people from the time did, hard to say.

I could see Sullivan keeping the title until he’s stripped in the years following Kilrain. Corbett probably gets stripped shortly after the Mitchell defense.

 

Excellent response to a long litany of excuses.

 

Wouldn't it have been absolutely incredible if Jeffries did not perform better against a near 37 years old 3 years retired Corbett than he had in their first fight?
Corbett did not have the option of going for an inside the distance win against Jeffries,he did not have the power to stop him,and his style relied on speed and reflexes. Thirty seven in the early1900's was old for a boxer,especially one who had not been in an actual fight for 3 years.
A 3 years younger Corbett couldn't manage to last the 25 rds to win a victory that was in his grasp,why should he later be expected to do better over 20rds when he hadn't fought for 3 years?
It's nonsensical , and now I'm "being mean," when I call Janitor the chief apologist for Jeffries,well he has company, and if pointing out facts makes me an "old curmudgeon",I've no problem with that
Jeffries toyed with the washed up Corbett who had oxygen between rounds,that's the very definition of a hollow victory.

Bottom line Jeffries benefited from several mismatches. In this he was not by any means unique ,but in 4 of them he was defending his world's title.
Goddard 40 years old
"Goddard's seconds threw up the sponge at the close of the third round, but upon the announcement by Referee John Brink that no money would be paid unless the fight proceeded, Goddard came up in the fourth round and was severely punished. The referee stopped the fight in the middle of the round and gave the decision to Jeffries." (Wire in San Francisco Call) Jeffries appeared to be at least twenty pounds heavier than Goddard."

Jackson 36 years old ,alcoholic and consumptive hadn't fought for 5 years.

"Other than exhibitions, this was Jackson's first known fight in over five years. BoxRec has Jackson fighting Gustav Wilkie in 1895, but Cyber Boxing Zone claims that was another Peter Jackson."

Finnegan 3rds rater.
"Finnegan landed the first blow as they came to the center of the ring, and Jeffries then put his left on the Pittsburgh man's jaw and he went to the floor. Finnegan came up in a few seconds only to be sent to the floor again with a blow in the same place. He stayed down longer this time and when he again rose he was in visible distress. He had hardly assumed a fighting position before the champion put his left in the pit of his stomach and Finnegan went down completely out. Referee Siler counted the seconds off and when he stepped back it was seen that Finnegan was crying. He staggered to his feet, reeled against the ropes and his seconds rushed into the ring and carried him to his corner. It was several minutes before he recovered sufficiently to leave the ring. Jeffries said he weighed 220, but he looked 30 pounds heavier. Finnegan weighed but 180, and he looked like a boy beside the champion." (Brooklyn Daily Eagle)


Munroe Hype job.
The battle was decided by the first big punch landed by Jeffries, a terrific left hook to the jaw that dropped Munroe for a count and from which he never recovered. (Jeff had refused bandages for his hands while Munroe wore them.) Referee Graney stepped between them to prevent Jeffries from administering any further punishment with Munroe insensible. [San Francisco Call]


Corbett 2 Totally washed up.

• Jeffries' left glove tore at the thumb in the fourth round, but the glove was not replaced until the end of the round, and this only at the insistence of the police constable on duty. Corbett seemed to benefit from the additional rest.
• Corbett's seconds administered oxygen to him after each round.
• Gate receipts amounted to $62,340. The fighters received 70% of the gate, with 75% going to the winner and 25% to the loser.
• The Baltimore Morning Herald reported the following on August 15, 1903:

James J. Jeffries, champion heavyweight of the world, played with Jim Corbett for nine rounds and a half tonight and then Corbett's seconds motioned Referee Graney to stop the fight in order to save their man from needless punishment. The end came shortly after the beginning of the tenth round, when Jeffries planted one of his terrific left swings on Corbett's stomach. The man who conquered John L. Sullivan then dropped to the floor in agony, and the memorable scene at Carson City, when Bob Fitzsimmons landed his solar plexus blow, was almost duplicated. This time, however, Corbett struggled to his feet and again faced his gigantic adversary. With hardly a moment's hesitation, Jeffries swung his right and again landed on Corbett's stomach. Jim dropped to the floor, and then it was that Tommy Ryan, seeing that it was all over, motioned to Referee Graney to stop the punishment."


It's a good job a couple of these posters aren't matchmakers today,or we might see such stirringly competitive matches as, Dubois v Bruno Jones Jnr v Beterbiev !

 

Maybe it was Jeff’s Ali-Williams moment; a dominant win over washed opposition but one that demonstrated skills at their finest. It does seem like every part of boxing society that had seen the fight thought Jeffries had reached pinnacles a big man’s never seen before technically. We will never know how good that version of Jeffries that Fitz fixed up was compared to 1899-1902 Jeffries. He did reportedly mentor Gans after all, and had his utmost admiration. Who knows what Fitz did with him.

If Graney is to be believed, then Corbett made a creditable showing in spite of his age, lack of mobility, and the fight’s outcome being clear after round 2. Jeffries said that he wanted to prolong the fight and prove that he could outbox Corbett to the annoyance of Fitzsimmons who wanted Jeffries to knock Jim out earlier.

 

Due respect but there’s a lot of digression there and I’ve already dealt with many of the points otherwise.

This thread is an examination of Jeffries’ quality as a fighter, the integrity of his reign and overall rating.

He didn’t prove himself to be the best of his era. He didn’t face his most outstanding challenger, abjectly refusing to face Johnson due to his drawing of the colour line. Pure and simple.

Otherwise, I have also critiqued in detail Jeffries the fighter and what I believe to be an exaggerated perception of Jeffries’ abilities - his primary attributes being his durability and stamina.

The repeated attempt to rationalise and justify belated rematches some 3 years after the fact of the first matches is more than bemusing - actually, it’s irrational - especially given the intervening inactivity of both Fitz and Corbett.

IF rematches were warranted, they should’ve been afforded much earlier in the piece which would’ve also “freed” Jeffries up to actually face his more eligible comp. later in the piece.

 

I'm saying if we dump the 1980s-Present alphabet bodies in those times.

Yeah when alphabet bodies started existing they were very cautious about stripping champs to the point a lot of alphabet reigns like Langford have a very vague end date. In the 1920s IBU stripped Uzcudin and Schmeling for going to the US giving the belt to Pierre Charles which was not the smartest thing in the world. Think the NBA stripped Schmeling for Stribling but when Schmeling beat Stribling they tried to pretend the whole thing never happened. But these were all new titles. What your long reigning champs did that made it so hard to strip them is they went on a crazy run in the beginning then took it easy and at that point theres really no way to dispute the title.


The thing with Sullivan and everyone up to Dempsey is his status didn't come from an official belt so no one could strip him. Its not just the duration he was away its that he'd really just lost to Cardiff and Peter Jackson winning not just that lineage but virtually every official Queensbury HW belt that existed. "Colored", Northwest, Pacific Coast, Commonwealth, Police Gazette he got them all. Won the Australian belt and whether he was the Irish champ or not he handed Maher his first loss in Ireland. Drew with Corbett and had the claim to every lineage combo you could think of. And Sullivan kept his made up belt through all of it due to an unofficial status he held in 1886. Of course Jackson copied Sullivans 5 year vacation but he lost the last of his many recognitions by 1896 while Sullivan is still considered the first lineal champ. So I don't think sanctioning bodies would have helped there because Sullivan didn't need anything except the power of imagination. He really set a terrible precedent there and maybe thats why these early champs were so comftorable with their inactivity.

Jeffries was the first truly undisputed HW champ ever having united the Jackson, Goddard/Sharkey, Maher/Fitz/Sharkey and Corbett/Fitzsimmons lineages. Both Sullivan and Jackson had taken 5 year vacations and Corbett was going 6 years between wins. In that universe defending ones title once a year doesn't seem too bad. No doubt this bought him time. There also wasn't a clear alternative. If Wills wasn't around would people care as much about Dempseys 3 years? Maybe not.

 

Ringside reports state Jeffries toyed with him,that does not indicate a "credible showing."

 

Due respect again but you’re simply not converging with my points/counter points.

Rather, you’re just repeating points I’ve already addressed and comprehensively refuted - including my point that Dempsey did not require perfect technique given an already, near fatally wounded Willard before him.

Even so, Dempsey’s punches were still sound and perfectly leveraged.

You are definitely downing Dempsey beyond reason in attempt to float an invalid point/excuse on behalf of Jeffries.

Yes you are dismissing the effects of age and inactivity in an unjustified defence of Jeffries.

Not just Fitz, but Corbett also somehow pulled the trick of “reeling back the years” against Jeff, whose ultimately prevailing attributes were his size, youth, stamina and durability - as I’ve already highlighted, repeatedly.

So you’ve also introduced a straw man. You’re asking me why shouldn’t Jeffries be applauded for his durability? See above.

Durability and stamina should be celebrated in due proportion - and it’s not so flattering when those attributes, along with relative youth, are, more or less, the only primary traits that see you over the line.

Seriously, you really need to re-read my previous reply which already dealt with the above points and your illogical switching of horses.

The “facts” as you perceive them amount to an endless stream of excuses on Jeffries’ behalf for several less than stellar performances in fights that are apparently cornerstone to Jeff’s legend.

Injuries, poor boxing IQ, bad stylistic match ups against aged opposition, etc. Lol.

What’s left otherwise to materially uphold Jeffries to be the fighter you claim him to have been? You haven’t left yourself much room there.

Btw, you do know that old Fitz had bad hands and smashed them to pieces beating on Jeff’s cinder block head in the rematch. Stylistic nightmare?

Yeah. Jeffries was very easy to hit and Bob could still punch well beyond his weight.

I’d call that a nightmare for Jeff also - but not due to an unlucky stylistic mesh.

At any rate, that’s just another point I’ve already highlighted also.

I duly highlighted the damage done to Jeffries from legitimately hard punches in the first Fitz fight in response to your exaggerated claim that Fitz “couldn’t find” Big Jeff.

Now, atop all else, you’re trying to float the suggestion that Jeff was also prone to cutting easily? Henry Cooper like?

The folder for compensatory notes is expanding by the minute and beginning to give out. We’re definitely gonna need a bigger folder.

 

You can be the undisputed best by a small margin. That is a thing and that really what I'm getting at here. Jeffries also was born 9 years Corbett 12 years after Fitzsimmons and Jackson 18 years after Goddard. Lucky timing or not it is what it is. Same with him being 6 inches taller than Sharkey. This gave Jeffries advantages he needed to have the career he had but those advantages can't really be taken away.

If Mayweather for example fought everyone he fought at their absolute peak and took a loss or two does that mean someone else is number 1? And I think thats the thing here Jeffries could have taken an L during his reign with worse timing but if he did whose the best of that era? Whose the best HW of the late 1890s early 1900s period besides Jeffries? Whether its cause of age or size its Jeffries.

And again think Jeffries wouldn't be elite even 10 years after the fact. He relied on his size advantage and was fighting in an early era where the skill wasn't great. Not denying that. I don't think it means he wasn't the best in his era. Jackson, Fitz and Goddard very well might be better age for age and Sharkey and Childs are probably better P4P. Does that mean Jeffries wasn't the best when those guys were older and smaller?

The rematches were against old people who did good against him and who were ex champs. Who should Jeffries have fought instead of Fitz and Corbett who had a claim to be better than Jeffries at that time? I think Fitz and Corbett are entirely different cases btw. Corbett had 1 win in a whole decade. Fitz blasted Sharkey and Ruhlin after the first Jeffries fight and was still elite for another 3-4 years after that fight. You can say thats LHW but after Jeffries retirement LHW and to an extent MW took over the division for the next few years. No question Fitz wasn't in his prime but he did earn the rematch.

Also off topic in another thread brought up that Munroe almost knocked out Jeffries in an exhibition. That kinda explains that fight.

Johnson had won just over half his fights prior to winning the "colored belt". Johnson had a belt in early 1903 he did not have the credibility that Martin had before losing to him. Martin had been undefeated and untied against fighters not named Armstrong. He won another 10 or so fights before the Hart fight then he went on another huge run to get the Burns fight. Hence the Schmeling comparison. Also Jeffries did come out of retirement to fight Johnson when he was actually considered a top 2 HW. We don't know if prime Jeffries could have beaten Johnson. But we do know he had a much lesser chance in 1910. Same story with Jackson v Jeffries but reverse.


Maybe Root, Schreck or some LHW was the best at the very end of Jeffries reign. I dunno at the end of every era you have that thing where the best don't give new fighters a champ. Look at the whole Usyk/Fury/AJ/Dubois love quadrangle. Look at Marciano fighting Charles and Walcott 4 times. This is a problem in many eras champs have to have their often inflated status at the top taken away. Fighters are viewed as top guys and then if they don't embarass themselves against the champ this is viewed as a reaffirmation they are top guys. Though yes Corbett getting a decade of mileage off the Mitchell win 10 years after Mitchell was on top is absurd.

 

After koin'g the two leading challengers forJeffries title,[Sharkey and Ruhlin] in the space of 2 weeks ,Fitz leaned over the ropes ,looked down onJeffries ringside and demanded,"you'll give me a fight now won't you Jim?" "Get up and shake on it."
After a long hesitation Jeffries rose and shook Fitz's hand.
Jeffries honoured the hand shake ,but it took him 2 years to do it, in between defending against Ruhlin whom Fitz had half killed earlier,Sharkey who he had already beaten, and no hoper Finnegan.
Janitor puts the blame for the 2 years delay squarely on Fitz's shoulders,[no surprise there.]
Let's look at that.
After destroying Sharkey and Ruhlin and being in the best form of his life, the 37 years old Fitz decides to wait another 2 years before challenging Jeffries,2 years in which he engages in no fights, 2 years in which he gambles Jeffries will give him that rematch,and 2 years ,after which time he will be the wrong side of 39.
Yeah ,makes perfect sense!
But there I go ,being mean again!

 

If Corbett is to be believed, he claimed in his auto bio (THE ROAR…) that Graney (or was it the time keeper?) was a personal friend and had afforded him several blatant “long counts” during the rematch to allow Corbett to continue and extend his life during the fight.

Upon the last KD, Corbett said he shook his head indicating to Graney (or time keeper) that he was done - not wanting any more leg ups.

As would be reasonably calculated before the fact, rusty old Corbett was a shot duck and well and truly aged out by the time of the rematch.

 

Corbett did not do good against Jeffries in their rematch it was a farcical beatdown.
Munroe caught an off balance Jeffries with a lunge in an exhibition in which Jeffries was carrying Munroe and Jeffries briefly touched down,Fitz who was touring with Jeffries advised him," to get Munroe out of there" ,but Jeff said ,I'll let him stay and give the crowd a bit of a show, Jeffries wasn't hurt, or in anyway inconvenienced .
Munroe acquired a manager who went around telling all and sundry his charge had floored the champion and had him on the verge of a KO,pure BS.

 

Excellent info and just as importantly, cohesive conclusions/statements based on that info put forward yet again.

Though, I must say Mac, I’ve always figured you to be one of those Blue Meanies <jk>. Name that film!