James J Jeffries?

"another source" is not something I will accept over Adam Pollack.

"Do you have quotes clamoring for Jeffries to defend against Finnegan and Munroe"

I don't know if anyone was clamoring for Louis to defend against McCoy or Musto either. But I find this a terrible argument. The issue isn't bad defenses or tune-ups, but did the champion put his title on the line against the men thought at the time to be his top contenders. Sharkey, Corbett, Ruhlin, and Fitz fill that bill. Johnson would have in 1904. Jeff deserves all the criticism he gets for not defending against Johnson. Childs was just not considered a contender on the same level as the other four mentioned above.

 

I would be genuinely interested to hear who you think Jeffries should have defended his title against and when?

Same for McVea.

The rules are that you cannot make Jeffries take a fight when he didn't take one, or take a training camp when he didn't take one.

You can merely substitute in another opponent, who was clearly available at the time, who you think was more suitable.

What you are asking of him has to be provably possible.

I am also liable to pull you up if your timetable does not allow realistic time frames for contracts to be signed, and training camps to take place, in places where they did.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

So the Nova Scotian HOF is basically making stuff up to embelish the legacy of one of their members?

 

Jeffries is his own worst enemy in these threads.

He seems to have lacked the imagination to invent some sort of lie, that would have thrown enough dust in our eyes, to raise questions over his motives for not fighting the top black contenders.

By the same token he could always have pretended that he thought that Munro was a good challenger.

 

I have consistently addressed your counter-points throughout my reply. I even agreed that Dempsey would not be the best example for the Jeffries analogy compared to LaMotta because of the points that you made as a decent technician with competent defense throwing it out of the book due to the confidence in his own abilities compared to mainly doing it because your opponent is hurt. Still I feel like Jack must’ve had some contempt for Jess’ ability given how wild he was immediately following the first knockdown compared to his other filmed performances with opponents hurt. This fight shaped mine, and many others’ view on the Dempsey era from a technical perspective.

And no, Dempsey's punches aren't technically sound and had shaky leverage due to poor balance. It was still a crude which you can't really debunk or disprove, because after that first knockdown it is. You can use reasons to justify why but in the end it's not really that different from the reasoning I use to justify Jeffries' poorest performances. They're justifications for crude performances either way. You cannot tell me that Jack doesn't look like he belongs with the Gentleman Jim crowd of crude technique if THAT was the only film we had of him.

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

Not really, all of my critiques are completely valid. Maybe they weren't the best example to use to compare to Jeffries, but I don't think it's a completely weight-less comparison due to the fact that I was looking for examples of crude performances by good technicians. Not as good of a stylistic equivalency compared to LaMotta. You argue that Dempsey only acted so aggressively because of how hurt Willard was, but if you look at the knockdown Willard may stumble around a bit on the ground but he still gets back up relatively early around the count of 6. There isn't that much of a justification of flail like Dempsey does in the seconds following the first knockdown. Surely some of this comes from confidence in Jess' ability to not be able to hurt him, like Jeff's confidence in fights where he rushes comes from the fact that he knows he can't really be hurt. I don't think the comparison is entirely baseless.

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

No, you are baselessly enhancing the effects of age and inactivity in this context for an unjustified critique of Jeffries, even when the evidence points to the contrary. No evidence points to Fitzsimmons being any worse between 1900 and 1902 in fact those who saw Fitzsimmons fight Jeffries thought he never fought better which you ignore with the justification of how poor Jeffries was to make Fitz look that good.
There's some truth to that due to the style matchup in comparison to Jeffries-Fitz 1, same thing with Corbett-Jeffries 1. Lateral movement just troubled Jeffries. But Jeffries' aggression also forced Bob to be more technical than he'd ever been before. I've also cited another all time great who overcame adversity with regard to age and inactivity against top competition in Jem Mace. There isn't much of a reason to think that rust actually got to Fitz in this fight, and in the Corbett fight yes Jeff's strategy largely made Corbett look as good as he did but Corbett by all accounts had rejuvinated during training as well and was in the best condition since Sullivan. The fact that he was able to out-speed and out-generalize a middleweight ATG does demonstrate why his speed and generalship would trouble Jeffries so much alongside the poor style matchups, which you haven't yet refuted considering how much you've clowned the idea of these underperformances being due to Jeffries being ass on the aggressive compared to being reactive. I've used Ryan and Jeffries himself as examples as to why his offense was poor early on and how he preferred to fight an aggressor.

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

I haven't strawmanned at all lol, I was referring to when you treated my last comment as backtracking when no such thing was done. You accused me praising Jeffries' durability and I said 'yeah, why wouldn't I?'. Because while it was not at all relevant to my point, I do think Jeffries still deserves credit for his durability just not as emphatically as you'd suggest. There's much more to him.

'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.'

Except they aren't, and I have extensively provided quotes proving otherwise. I agree that that context is needed to understand why a fighter takes so much damage but if I've done anything I feel like it's that.

'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?'

The fact that Fitz has injured hands has nothing to do with why the style matchup was unfavourable toward Jeffries lol, the style matchup was due to excessive lateral movement which opened Jeffries up while on the aggressive. His hand condition doesn't affect what made the style matchup bad at all, demonstrating how little you've been actually taking my points into account.

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

Funny, I would say the EXACT same thing to you! I don't feel like I've switched in any way at all, aside from using Dempsey as the main example of Jeff's 'give some to take some cuz u know u can take anything' analogy.

"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."

Except they aren't excuses, they are easily provable facts. It is a rigorously documented fact that Jeffries was injured against Sharkey and that he was a poor aggressor compared to his comfort zone as a counterpuncher where he was quite efficient. You can call them excuses all you'd like, it won't add any truth to it given that they have been documented pretty damn significantly. Would you like me to post evidence, even if I do I'm not sure they will change things either way.

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

All literally things provable by various contemporary opinions and sources from the time

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

Bob certainly didn't think so first time around, when he was the aggressor and playing into Jeff's hands stylistically! He called Jeffries the best defensive fighter he'd ever encountered, and even if it isn't peak Bob that statement carries at least some weight;

“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,”

 

Reached the word count limit on the last post so here's the sequel;

'I’d call that a nightmare for Jeff also - but not due to an unlucky stylistic mesh.'
I'm curious, why wouldn't you be open to the idea of it being a stylistically unfavourable matchup given Ryan and Jeff's own admission of being a poor aggressor, which is likely why Bob utilized so much movement to begin with?

'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.'

From the accounts I've seen he was only able to find Jeffries when he was slowing down from a strong early pace in the middle rounds, I've highlighted Jeff's defense in that fight being praised considerably even though he wasn't unhittable. The fact that Jeffries got cut up by 2 slow rounds doesn't surprise me much, and further proves to me that he has white boy syndrome.

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

Is it really THAT crazy? There are reports of Jeffries being cut up considerably during training camp, and with the first Fitz fight being used as an example he was being cut in some of the same rounds his defense and ducking was being praised in. You can get cut and bruised up and still be an efficient defensive fighter, in Jeff's case there's a good chance this was the case.

 

Graney was the referee of the rematch, who personally felt Corbett made a good account of himself despite the domination by Jeffries;

"It was the best heavyweight contest I've ever seen....Corbett was extremely clever. He should not be cast down by defeat, as he did splendidly....I think Corbett put up the best fight in his whole career." Pollack Jeffries book, page 613

This suggests there was some ounce of formidability in the Corbett that fought Jeffries, and given that Jim's athleticism appeared to carry into old age in the film we have of him I don't think it's that crazy to think he'd still have some spark at 37. The only question is how long that spark would last.

 

Probably because he had no intention of facing them, likely due to outdated social views about blacks not being worthy of the belt. I’m certain he would’ve fought Johnson, McVea and Martin if there was no belt involved.

 

It doesn't matter he has enough people making excuses for him now.

 

Well ,you can either believe Graney ,a close friend of Corbett's ,or the reporters who were ringside.

 

This stretches like elastic! lol

 

This may surprise you ,but what you will,and will not accept isn't exactly high on my list pf priorities.

 

It clearly does, because the people that you accuse of making excuses for him, are very blunt in admitting what he said.

 

That is your take on it,but not necessarily others.

 

It is only fair to note that Graney also gave Jeffries a very good write up.

Jeffries suggested him to Corbett as the referee, because he saw him as being trustworthy.