James J Jeffries?

Jan, you don’t understand what you’re saying NO to.

Your reply is incongruent with the quote (partial quote again) and also suggesting a statement that I clearly didn’t make.

Pulling it back into line.

Did Peter Jackson’s legendary status see him granted a shot at the title - even just once?

Fitz and Corbett were granted shots (in Corbett’s case, a second bite at the cherry) 2 and 3 years after the facts of their last fights, respectively.

Jeffries had made the statement that he would retire after he had beaten all eligible white contenders - that’s pretty loud and clear, isn’t it?

Whether they deserved their shots or not, if you want to play Fitz and Corbett as most deserving, then Jeffries explained it himself - the “best” of the white bunch.

Black fighters reputations didn’t duly advantage them - rather, their reps could be taken advantage of IF a white fighter actually fought them and IF that white fighter actually beat them.

See: Jeffries on the way up beating a well deteriorated Jackson to boost his own rep and career.

See: A potential win for Fitz over Johnson being viewed as a great feather Bob’s cap while an emphatic Johnson win would only strengthen Johnson’s claim for a title shot - a shot that still only came some 2 + years after Johnson KO’d Fitz in 2.

You’ve actually highlighted a black HW, Peter Jackson, whose worth was clearly understood (just like Johnson’s was in 1907) but one who was unjustifiably denied a shot at the title. His well earned rep. was only a potential asset to white contenders, not himself.

 

Again, I won’t dismiss outright that Corbett might’ve possibly dropped Jeff, BUT…..

…one can still read between the lines in all objectivity.

How many of these witnesses were at arm’s length and how many tales do we hear out of camps that were fabricated, clearly framed to bolster the fighter in question?

This was Corbett training for his fight with Fitz. Jeffries not a “name” as yet - so perhaps an easy sacrificial lamb who agreed to fall in with the scam.

Jeffries did relate another time in sparring during which he was “set up” by Corbett.

Corbett asked Jeffries to box in a certain fashion so as to allow Corbett to work on a specific aspect of his game - an innocent aspect that didn’t imply any significant harm to Jeff.

As it turned out, Corbett had conned Jeffries, setting him up to receive a significant and damaging punch - one that pushed one or several of Jeff’s teeth into his top lip.

There was no KD but Jeffries was extremely peed off by Corbett’s manipulating him into receiving that punch which Corbett apparently put everything he had into.

Gentleman Jim? NOT! Lol.

 

It’s funny.

It reminds of a term that used to go around, maybe still does - “Pickle Jarring” - handing a pickle jar for the hubby to open - even if the Mrs could’ve easily done it herself.

With a huff and puff, Hubby proudly opens pickle jar, wifey has pumped him up and everyone’s happy.

But the term could apply to numerous similar situations, motives and outcomes.

My Mrs often says, ooh, you’re so strong, could you move x furniture item from A to B (the umpteenth move of said item, I must add).

With such requests, I always respond in sarcastic humour “Are you Pickle Jarring me?”

The Mrs just rolls her eyes every time and repeats, somewhat more assertively “Can you just move it, please?”.

The ongoing manipulations of WE men are not addressed nearly as much as they should be.

 

Just another discussion point for its own sake - how reliable are some of Bob Fitzsimmon’s recorded weights?

I also understand that sometimes weights were provided by the fighter or his camp as opposed to literally being weighed in. I think quite a few of Jeffries’ weights were provided thusly.

Where there are available photos/vision of Bob in and around the time of some of his fights, Bob doesn’t always appear quite as light as recorded.

The Lang fight in 1909 lists Bob as having weighed just 156 lbs vs Lang’s 187 1/2 lbs.

To me, Bob looks heavier than that, certainly not appearing to be 31 1/2 lbs lighter than Lang - but I’m no expert at guessing weights.

Thoughts?

I will add that Bob famously had the well built upper body naturally and also enhanced by manual labouring…but an upper body that was in stark contrast to the rest of him since he had those damn skinny legs, lol.

I googled and apparently the legs on average account for a reasonable 35% of total body weight - is that sufficient to reconcile Bob to the overall lighter weights claimed for him?

He certainly had a paradoxical build - a fighting machine on stilts as John L described him.

Jeffries massive legs on the other hand likely accounted for a notably higher % than average of his total body weight.

Come to think of it, Jack Johnson had pretty thin legs also - at least as far as his calves went.

 

I'm not saying I agree but McVea over Johnson at this point(late 1902 early 1903) was a credible argument. McVeas an undefeated prodigy prospect, Johnson might seem like a journeyman "colored" champion. Boxingrec shows 6 not 8 wins for McVea btw. I believe you since they are deleting some earlier fights for some reason. Johnson v Murray is another example. Maybe they consider them exhibitions? I don't know.

The period he was losing 4 of 6 came instead of gaining momentum for a title shot. We've been discussing several points here in 1902,1903 and 1904 when this losing streak occured. If Jeffries had no aversion to fighting black fighters whatsoever expecting him to fight 6/8-0 teen McVea who hadn't fought for the "colored" title yet isn't exactly reasonable. If they'd have fought at all it'd have been at the very end of the Jeffries period if McVea had ran through Johnson and Martin.


Martin at this point went on an unexpected losing streak. McVea KO'ing him was his third loss in a row.

On the last point you know me too well It'd be better to have big wins of course than beating anyone but regardless who you were fighting multiple losses tend to set a fighter back as a contender.

 

I'm in no position to talk with authority on the matter Pug, but Fitz's recorded weights are something I'm uncertain on & find a little peculiar too.

When I was a child, I was bought a book as a birthday or Xmas present, which turned out to be the initial trigger for a (so far) life long interest in boxing history. It was A4 size and included 2-4 x pages of detail on each of the HW lineal champions. I distinctly remember reading that whilst Fitz's official weight vs Corbett was 167lbs, he weighed in fully clothed with weights in his pockets, and that during a private "stripped down" (I'm not sure what this meant, but I've heard that thongs were fashionable at that time) weigh in earlier that morning he had been 158lbs.

Sadly I can't recall the title of the book or the source, or even if a source was given, for the private weigh in claim, so can't vouch for it's credibility. I suspect for no other reason than that was my first exposure to a claim about Fitz's true weight (well, that and the fact he was a MW champion, though of course that doesn't preclude the possibility that he naturally outgrew the division), I've gone through the next 30-years thinking of him as being a natural MW throughout his career.

The only thing that I'd say with confidence, is that something funny has gone on with at least some of his weigh ins. 18-months prior to the Corbett fight Boxrec records his weight vs Choynski has 175lbs. Just 3-short months after that, in a fight for the then 158lbs limit MW title, his weight is recorded as a relatively whopping 2.5lbs under that limit, at 155.5lbs, vs Dan Creedon, who has bang on the 158lbs limit.

Again, I'm no authority on the matter, so my opinion is formed on little more than gut instinct, but I'm inclined, on the balance of probability, to believe 2 x things:

1) He didn't lose 20lbs in 3-months during a period he was active. That kind of weight loss (distinctly for an active & presumably in shape fighter from one fight to another, as opposed to an inactive fighter off the couch & through a camp towards a fight) in today's era of de & re-hydration and relatively advanced sports science & nutrition, would be extreme, but not unprecedented; and

2) His weight for the MW title fight is more reliable, for obvious reasons.

 

I think I first read this claim in Harry Mullan's 'Great Book of Boxing', so maybe that's it, Greg?

 

Box rec says McVey had 2 contests that are not recorded.

 

That wasn't the book where I read it mate, the book I had was purely about the HW lineal champions.

After a quick Google search I think (it was c.30 years ago, so can't be certain) it was this book - https://biblio.co.uk/book/kings-ring-100-years-world-heavyweight/d/994407026 - the description and year of publishing check out, whilst the cover is vaguely familiar to me. Either way, the book in question set me on the way to becoming hooked.

 

My first book was a Gilbert Odd one too (Encyclopedia of Boxing) so it could be in that as well. But I'm pretty certain it was in Mullan's also, so it is in 'print'.

 

Mate, at the very least, you’d be as much an expert about it as anyone else.

All we have are the recorded weights, some pics/vision of Fitz as he appeared at those weights around that time and some curious variations in Fitz’s recorded weights over certain periods of time.

Of course Fitz would’ve weighed at his lightest recorded weights at some stage of the game.

Because Fitz was knocking over men who were actually much bigger men, I wonder if it later became a “thing” to understate Fitz’s weight (harkening back to earlier weights in his career that he did actually weigh) to exaggerate the size disadvantages he was later up against.

I can only say with a greater degree of certainty - though still not certain - that Fitz likely weighed somewhat more than 156 lbs when he faced Lang in 1909.

Btw, great book to be gifted when you were just a kid.

My kick start? A Dad and somewhat older brother who were into boxing - quite a few of the old boxing mags lying around to leaf through - The Ring, Boxing Illustrated etc.

Initially at least, I particularly liked the articles on the old timers but, tbh, compared to what’s available now, the treatments were cursory and too inclined to run with a lot of myths and misinformation of the day.

Those old mags were my second most favoured reading at the time - they came a very long second to my Dad’s not so well hidden collection of Playboy Mags - lots to learn from those.

 

I used to have Henry Cooper’s THE GREAT HEAVYWEIGHTS. Pretty cool book for the time. I also used to borrow Nat Fleischers Pictorial History of Boxing from the library from time to time - always returned it well overdue.

 

I appreciate the compliment mate, but must disagree. To name just one, Adam Pollock's research into the earliest lineal HW champions eclipses my own by a substantial measure.

I think recorded weights in fights contested in divisions with a weight limit are more likely to be accurate than those in the unlimited HW division, for obvious reasons. So, I agree with you that his weights in HW contests are the most likely to be misleading, even if, due to that first book, I've always suspected they may have been overstated so not as to give his opponent too much encouragement, rather than understated to enhance his accomplishments from a p4p perspective, but truthfully, I can't be confident one way or the other.

I was already a boxing fan when gifted this book, but it introduced me to boxing history, which I now spend more time watching, reading about and discussing than I do current boxing, though for me nothing beats watching a big fight live when I'm uncertain as to what the outcome will be.

Haha, my parents separated when I was 11, so I had to rely on a fully nude set of playing cards my mate gave me when I was about 13. My Mum nor brother saw much of me the weekend I was given those, I can tell you.