Jeff or Johnson-best comp as champ?

hey ksmith, any more books in the works?

 

Um, I think Jackson was over 185 pounds Mr. Expert. In addition, Corbett offered Jackson a 2nd fight. Jackson did not like the location and balked. My point that Corbett was 33, in shape, and performed well is what matters. He was not past his prime in 1900.

Yes, Johnson lost and drew too much on the way up, picked on novices that latter on became names, and as champion ducked far more competition! That is the difference. You're right. The career paths were different.

Griffin beat Johnson. Jeffries beat Griffin. Everett lasted but three rounds vs Jeffries, yet an older version of Everett went the distance of 20 rounds with Johnson. As for Armstrong, Johnson did not fight him. I wonder why? Maybe it’s because Arm strong was even in size and experience with Johnson, and unlike Martin did not have a glass jaw. Speculation on my part. I find it odd that when Johnson meet fighter near his size, and experience, he could not tame Choynski, Griffin or Hart. Why? Simply stated he was no where near as good as you think he was. Oh, and Jeffries has a reported Ko over Childs.

There were plenty of exhibitions. That was my point KSmtih. Matt only said none were in Ireland, which is a place I never listed. Do you find it odd that some colored title matches were 3 or 4 round title fights, but when Jeffries as lineal champ goes 4 or 6, it’s an exhibition? Hmm.....

Jeffries said I will not fight Johnson, but did when the money is up. See how quickly perception changes Ksmith. Anyone can use the press. The ducking starts when a fight can be made with a good financial offer, which in this case did not happen until 1910! Besides, Johsnon was nothing speical in 1903, and lost whatever spot he had when Hart defeated him in 1905. I betcha if Hart were black, you'd say Jeffries ducked him too.
If you can find a promoter willing to give Jeffries a real offer of say 30-50K to fight Johnson, he might have very well changed his mind.

Unforgivable Blackness and Bert Sugar say it is not, and claims the story has been verified by sorces that inclide Jeffires himself. . What proof do you have the story is crap? The story goes, Johnson meet Jeffries and asked for a fight in a bar. Jeffries told Johnson you can’t draw files. ( What was Johnson’s best purse up to 1903 by the way ) Johnson asked again, then Jeffires said lets go down to the cellar and lock the door. Whomever comes out is the new champ. Johnson tucked tail and walked away.

McVey was how old in 1903? And who did he beat? Munroe at the time might have been a better challenger.

Once again, Jeffries had the better title reign, the cleaner record, and ducked far less men as champion Ksmtih. Throw whatever you want to see what sticks on the wall. This last paragraph is true, and you know it.

 

We will call it even, as you took the swipes first. As for a debate on this topic, I don't think you'll be able to win. You’re simply dealt a losing had from the start.

Amazing, the people who knew Corbett thought 1 ) he was in great shape, and 2 ) this was his greatest effort. Past his prime at 33? Not a chance. Funny you don’t mention Corbett's win over a decent McCoy after this fight. I have the news read. It was a war.

So does this mean you going to excuse Corbett for losing to Fitzsimmons too? After all, that fight took place in 1897, which is about 5 years form you version of a prime Corbett. I think you've painted yourself in a corner here. Please explain. And also explain why you stated Fitzsimmons was better than either Jeffries or Johnson. Now that is a thread I'd like to read.

Disagree. Johnson lost to white and black fighters in the 1890-1905. Being white or black had nothing to do with it. Get over it. If Jeffries were black, he probably would have badly beaten the same version of Langford, Jeanette, and McVey that Johnson did, and unlike Johnson he'd have a lot more than a grand total of one knockout win in the long series. I do agree that Jeffries would have to wait for Hart or Burns for a title shot though.

McVey at the end of 1903 was 19 years of age, and had a record of 8-2! This is hardly a contender, Ksmith. In fact McVey would go on a three fight losing streak from Dec 1903 to Aug 1904.

When fighters fight the same opponents, and have different results with one doing much better than the other, this is one way on how they differentiate themselves from one another. It was not only Everett, we can look at the Choynski, Munroe, and Griffin fights too. See who did better, Jeffries or Johnson. This type of comparison and ranking is done all the time. You can look at any era. For example, Ali, Frazier and Foreman all fought each other and many of the same opponents. It is an accident that Ali is seen a #1, Foreman as #2, and Frazier as #3 after their careers were over? Heck no. Results count. Embrace them if you want to be objective.

There was no world class fighter Jeffries size, however just about every top fighter he fought had more experience, and in most cases his top competition had far more experience than Johnson's top competition did as heavyweights. If you really want to compare Johnson top competition ring record, and experience levels vs. Jeffries top competition ring record and experience levels, you will be badly trumped.

The amount of prize fights matters far less than the quality of competition. It matters who you beat, who you lost to, and when the matches happened. If you want to compare #'s, give Johnson more fights, give Jeffries a better winning percentage, a better Ko percentage, less Ko losses, more title defenses vs top competition, NO Losses to lesser fighters, and so on. I think you see where my point is going here.

This is prize fighting. They fight for the prize. What fighters say and do when the money is up can be two very different things. We know this. I asked for a report where the money was up for a Jeffries vs Johnson fight prior to 1905. I see NONE. Why should Jeffries fight Johnson, who at the time was hit or miss for little money? When the money was up in 1910, Jeffries returned for the fight. I beleive if the money was big enough in 1903-1905, we see the fight. I also beleive had Johnson performed well vs Hart in 1905 ( He did not! ) there might have been enough interest to piqué a promoter to put the money up. The book on Unforgivable Blackness says this as well.
And speaking of Hart, he initaly told the papers I will not fight Johnson " because he's black and my firends would disown me " , but changed his mind once the money was up. See how this works, Ksmith?

Many felt that since Jeffries retired as champ, he was still the champ when he returned. Look it up.

We can not say for sure. You might want it to be a load of crap. I'm sure you are aware that Bert Sugar loves Jack Johnson and has no love for Jeffries. Why would Sugar re-hash a falsehood? He wouldn’t. He simply tells the tale that has been passed down to him and verified by sources.

By the way, the DVD video of Unforgivable blackness makes mention of this very story of Johnson approaching Jeffires and asking for the fight in the bar. Watch it sometime.

 

Something that should interest ye lot, Sam McVey is the only one of the top black heavyweights not to lose to a white fighter. BTW he was was probably 14-2-2 when he lost to Johnson the third time. Maybe only Jeffries was a quicker developer! He had fought in Australia beating a Peter Jackson(not that one!) and 6-7 fights in the Oxnard area. i have some of them on record somewhere but cant locate them at present. He also helped Sharkey prepare for the 1902 Jeffries fight.

 

Good info ,well done ,thanks.

 

This is the type of information I like to read. Well done. Please update McVey's record in the archives. Even if McVey was 14-2-2, he was 18 or 19 years old in 1903.

While McVey never lost to a white fighter, he did not beat any good one either. McVey's best win over white fighters using the Box rec information is likely Lang ( who was 24-10-1 ), Pelky ( who was 23-6-5 ) or Ferguson who was ( 38-22-12 ). Lang and Ferguson were on the slide. Pelky was an above average " white hope ", certainly not in Smith, Moran or Willard's class. In fact Pelky was carrying a three fight KO losing streak when he meet McVey in 1914.

I think its fair to say McVey did not fight any of the best white fighters from 1900-1920.

It’s not like McVey mixed with Hart, Choynski, or Burns, and he certainly would have been up against the odds vs Fitzsimmons or Jeffries in 1903 or earlier. Of course McVey was close to fighting Burns in 1908. That would have been a good match.

PS: Sharkey did not fight Jeffries in 1902. Do you mean 1899? If so, McVey was 15 years old then.

 

I think his best "white" wins were Carter, Devere, Stewart and Barry(first fight) if you take the form of his opponents at the time into account. Not a very impressive lot, i have to admit.

 

This makes sense to me. Sam McVey deserves his own thread. I have seen him before on film, and read a bit about him. McVey looks like a real tough guy in pictures.


Researching boxing can be interesting. The saying don’t judge a book by its cover applies to McVey. While McVey was tough, I was a bit surprised to find out that this rock hard specimen of a man actually complained a bit in the ring. I get the sense McVey was a real slugger who beat the guys he was supposed to beat.

 

I challenge you to find where in this thread that I took a personal swipe at you. Produce it and we will call it even. In the meantime, please keep it in check.

You know, for a guy who loves stats you seem to completely ignore Corbett's stats leading up to his fight with Jeffries. From 1895 to 1900, what was his record a draw and two losses? Those numbers don't support your theory that Corbett was prime when he met Jeffries. So I think one of two things is true perhaps; 1) Corbett was not in his prime in 1900, or he was not that good to begin with. What you think?

Wasn't that after Jeffries I, and wasn't the Kid like a 170 pounder?

Please explain you question. I am not excusing Corbett for anything. I simply stated he was not prime in 1900. How is this painting myself in a corner. He lost.

Perhaps I will, but in the end, it is only an opinion.

You are not this ignorant about that time period, are you? I mean, BEING BLACK HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT? What is the purpose of even debating with someone who would utter such a statement. Being black, for Johnson, had everything to do with it. If he wasn't black we wouldn't be having this conversation because Jim probably would have fought him (while in his prime) and there would be nothing to debate--we would simply have the result. I am in a state of shock at the above statement.

Sure he would have.

Once again, someone more informed than you or I, someone with a lot of money, wanted to put a large purse up for Sam to fight Jeffries. Throw whatever, records and age and opinion you want up, Sam was viewed as a contender by some on the West Coast at the time and there was an offer made to Jim(such as the one you have been hanging your hat on in reference to Jeffries), which he, in turn, flatly refused. I will let you guess why.

Perhaps it is because, Ali beat both Foreman and Frazier, and Foreman beat Frazier. I don't know but that seems like a horrible example of what you are trying to convey. Once again, two different fighters with vastly different career paths, makes it difficult to compare.

Yada, yada. Jeffries also had tremendous age and size advantages over the three best opponents of his title reign. Again, experience is certainly important, but it is not everything. Does experience trump a weight advantage, does it trump an age advantage, does it trump skill level? In your world it does, in mine it does not.

If you were talking about a difference of 20 fights for one guy and 40 for another, I might agree with you. However, in this case, the difference is something like 100 fights. Its not even close. Your correct that it matters who you beat, who you lost to and when the matches happened. What also matters is all the details that go into each and every one of those fights, what the circumstances were and so forth and so on. It is not simply a matter of records and numbers and names.

I guess I have been saying all along that it is difficult to straight out compare the records of the two men--it is apples to oranges. Your point has always been to look at the entire thing from a bird's eye view.

I ask for a great deal of things that never get presented. But whether I have such a report is really not the issue. You stick to this argument because you think there is some validity to your point, or opinion that Jeffries would ahve fought Johnson had the money been there. I say once again, not even Jeffries had the kind of insight into his decision making process as you. Try this on for size and see if this has any bearing.

This content is protected

Again, not the same thing as you know. Jeffries was not the champ, despite your desperate attempt to fram him up as one("people still considered him the linear champ). if that were the case, that the world still considered him the champ, then there never would have been such a sweeping call for the "Great White Hope".

Jeff came back because he was begged to do so.

Your dreaming.

UGH, go back and see what Jeffries stated in the days before the fight and the days immediately after. He openly stated that he would not fight Johnson had the latter won. And once again, go read up on the Marvin Hart fight.

Marvin Hart is not Jim Jeffries nor was he champion. Two entirely different things. Jeff was begging to fight someone, just not Johnson.

I responded to this foolishness above.

That's his job, to tell good stories. He is not a boxing historian nor is he a source, never mind a valid one to be trusted as gospel. He tells the same tired apocryphal stories all the time. They make for good interviews and books, but they are hardly the fruit of some hard research. Johnson adamantly denied that this event took place. I think most would agree that it seems far fetched.

He told you this, or are you simply guessing that this is the case.

[/quote]
I will, and the next time you watch it, take special notice of the credits.

 

Let's look at it. Corbett lost via DQ to Sharkey, a man who lost but one fight in November 1898. DQ losses are incluclusive, and Sharkey was a leading contender. In May 1900, Corbett put up a great fight vs Jeffries who was the best fighte rin the world in 1900 for sure. Once again, Corbett was 33, in great shape, and performed well. Those familiar with Corbett say it was his best fight. Shot fighters do not do this Ksmith. After the loss, a paper had this to say:

I see no reference to Corbett doesn't have it anymore. After the Jeffries fight, Corbett came back to knock out a very good Kid McCoy who was 65-5-9. and still in his prime.

Read the report. Corbett doesn't sound like he's past it here either! Your claim is baseless based on News reads.

[url]http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9E05E5DA1039E733A25752C3A96E9C946197D6CF&oref=slogin[/url]

NICE TRY KSmith.

McCoy was about 175 for the fight, however he had beaten bigger men, and was skilled and on a winning streak when Corbett beat him. It seems your looking at weights. Does this mean you think Johnson's win over a 155 pound Langford who had little experience as a heavyweight is dismissable too? Or better yet how does a 180-185 pound Johnson defeat Jeffries, who was the much bigger and stronger fighter? If you're going to keep playing the weight cards, then I ask you who wins from 1903-1905, a 218 pound Jeffires or a 185 pound Johnson?

The history of boxing shows that when the money is high enough, most of the time the fight is made. To disagree is foolhardy, yet this is what you are doing. I never saw a purse offer for Jeffires vs Johnson from 1899-1905, and neither did you. Again what fighters say before the money is up and what they say after is different.

I wish you could quote me in context here by reposting what I said.

Let me re-hash:

Menzoda says : Disagree. Johnson lost to white and black fighters in the 1890-1905. Being white or black had nothing to do with it. Get over it. If Jeffries were black, he probably would have badly beaten the same version of Langford, Jeanette, and McVey that Johnson did, and unlike Johnson he'd have a lot more than a grand total of one knockout win in the long series. I do agree that Jeffries would have to wait for Hart or Burns for a title shot though.

Johnson lost because he was not good enough, not because he was black. As the black champion, Johnson lucked out. If people were out to get him, Johnson looses to Jack O'Brien on points ( And might have anyway ), and looses for sure vs Jim Johnson. He also got a DQ win over Flynn. The ref and judges helped Jack Johnson, period, end of sentence, end of paragraph, close the book! Got that?

So than argue for MCvey, not Johnson. McVey was a teenager and on a losing streak in 1903. Once again, I showed you what Hart said. He said he would not fight Johnson, but when the money was up, he did. And Hart was from the south, Jeffries was not. Get it?

It seems like you dislike comparing the records of two fighters who fought the same men. Once again, if we compare good working conditions of Griffin, Choynski, Munore, and Everett, Jeffires did MUCH better than Johnson did. Fact.

Apples and Oranges? Who about apples and onions? The two fought some of the same guys with different results. With Jeffries, he didn't have any poor performances. They were mostly juicy apples. With Johnson, he had some smelly Onion like performances, even vs no names or smaller guys where he had an incentive to knock them out. He also ducked his best competition when the money was up. How about those apples?

I suppose the all time purse had nothing to do with it then? . Come on! Issue that Purse in 1904-1905, and Jeffires is likely to fight.

Hart was Champion. He defeated Johnson who had a big time incentive to win the fight, and beat Root, when Jeffries retired. If Hart was not champion, then neither was or Burns. Some could argue the lineal torch was passed when Jeffries lost it in the ring in 1910.

I think Sugar has done enough research, and qualifies as a historian. With Sugar he focuses more on the sociological / popular culture side of boxing
than the action in the ring. One thing he is not is a make up artists. If he tells the story, there is a good chance it happened.

[/quote] I will, and the next time you watch it, take special notice of the credits.[/quote]


The editing of Unforgivable blackness and omissions of Johnson career take some luster off a very good doc. They show the wrong pictures, and screw up some facts. Yes, watch it. You will see the story re-told. Johnson walked away form the fight Jeffries offered. Had Johnson taken his lumps, he might have stired up enough interest for a ring fight..

 

There are many reports of offers of purse offers of $15,000 to $20,000 and various combinations of 85% of the gate, etc in the papers of late 1903 as regards a Jeffries contest with McVey or Johnson. "Jeff refuses an offer" headlines a report of a Colma Club offer of $15,000, Oakland Tribunr November 5 or a similar report in the Trenton Times Nov.2.
The Daily Northwester, Wisc, carries a report of a $20,000 offer in ite Nov,5 edition. There are many more such reports. There seems to be no doubt that Jeff got genuine offers, whats seems to be at issue is why he refused them.

 

I noticed that you conviently did not respond to the newspaper report that I posted. Typical.

You want to battle on and on about Bert Sugar, Corbett's prime, Marvin Hart, and what Jeffries "would" have done, but simply refuse to take heed of what Jeffries "was" doing--ducking Johnson based on his color.

I cannot argue my point any clearer than I have.