Jeffries cleans out the division as champion

The Griffin bout was a 4 rds exhibition with Jeffries undertaking to stop Griffin inside the distance or forfeit $100 he failed. No one has done more exhaustive research on Jim Jeffries than Adam Pollack, he came up with ZILCH regarding contests against Childs and Martin.As the Colored Champion Martin challenged Jeffries and a promoter guaranteed Jeffries a good purse, he declined to defend against him.Jeffries many ,many times said openly and in print he would never take a chance of defending against a black fighter,i'ts a matter of public record.

Please stop with the same tired old lies, Jeffries was never going to risk his title against a black man. END OF.
Johnson against O Brien is a NO DEC. Hart a controversial decision loss.Burns an absurdly easy win over the man who whipped Hart and O Brien.
After losing by ko to Fitzsimmons in March 1897, Corbett next fought Sharkey in Nov 1899 whilst on the verge of being stopped his second entered the ring causing Corbett to be automatically disqualified. On the back of those 2 consecutive defeats then fought Jeffries in May 1900.
Please explain which performance by Corbett [all 2 of them,both inside the distance losses] in the 3 years before he challenged Jeffries merited/earned him his title shot and made him,as you put it, "next in line"?

 

without supporting Mendoza on this one, I have a question

What would have happened if in the Griffin-Jeffries "fight" Griffin had KO'd Jeffries?

Do you think folks would have considered Griffin the champion?

 

I don't believe the fight between Griffin and Jeffries was for the lineal title though. I don't believe that is true.

Never seen any record of Jeffries fighting Martin or Childs, so I'm not sure why they are brought up.

Sharkey isn't beating Johnson, and I'm not sure why you think so.

You listing Fitz, Corbett and Sharkey sound nice, but the reality is vastly different isn't it? These men weren't prime when Jeff beat them, so they lose a lot of luster because of it. It's like me saying, well Toney beat Holyfield more convincingly than Lewis did, there he's a better HW. Ummm those were two different versions of Holyfield, and that context matters. Corbett and Fitz weren't prime when Jeff beat them. Are you really hanging your hat on the Sharkey fight, was that some kind of monumental performance by Jeff there?

Next, Hart and Jeffries fought nothing alike, so I'm not seeing the relevance there. Not only did Johnson beat Hart by modern standards, most of the reports show that Johnson was clearly a class above Hart. Just because the ref wants to judge a fight based on aggression, and aggression alone, doesn't mean I'm going to discount the reports that Johnson was clearly the better boxer and landed the more telling blows. Hart looked like he'd been in a fight, Johnson looked like he was out for a stroll in the sun. Yet, you're hanging your hat on that? Besides, even if Hart did win (which he didn't imo), they fought nothing alike. Hart pressured and swarmed Johnson, Jeffries was more the stalking type, not the pressure type. So what success Hart did have, isn't necessarily translating to Jeffries, because they didn't fight the same, so why should it translate. IMO view, Johnson is clearly the better fighter on film and I think the better fighter. So that being the case, why would I think jeffries going to beat Johnson?

 

Jackson never defended that title which by the way was a spurious one ,just added to the bill by the promoter.
Two titles were advertised as being at stake that night ,"The Heavyweight Championship of England, "which was nonsense since one boxer was from the Virgin Islands and the other was Australian and by the rules of the UK which then applied neither was eligible to even fight for that title.
Prior to becoming champion Jeffries never fought Denver Ed Martin,Frank Childs, or Klondike Haynes ,as champion he did not fight Martin,Childs Johnson ,or Carter ,Armstrong, and McVey,all ranked in the top ten you refer to during his title tenure.
Jeffries had a good title reign but your claim that he cleaned out the division is patent nonsense.

 

If Jeffries had defended his title against Jack Johnson, say instead of Munro or after Munro, then I would find it hard to fault his title reign!

 

Griffin went to the floor several times without being hit his only aim was to last the 4 rds and collect the $100 which he duly did.
Pollack did research Jeffries in the UK, he was in contact with me,thats why I get an acknowledgement in his book!" Adam was unable to find one shred of evidence that Jeffries ever fought Childs or Martin and in the 2 autobiographies which were ghosted by others and attributed to Jeffries, he at no time claims to have fought them!
Pollack does NOT say O Brien was better than Johnson.I have both volumes of that biography.
You are beat all ends up on this, but keep digging if you like, I can correct and rebutt you 24/7 it costs me nothing and just shows you up. The O 'Brien v Johnson bout was a six rounds NO DECISION fight,NO DECISION means exactly that NO DECISION was rendered!

 

Me too! Ditto if Dempsey had defended against Wills !Sadly they did not.

 

He did as good a job as anyone for a very long time.

How many examples can you find that did a better job? Let alone that early when there was so little incentive too.

 

I think that Jeffries had the best title reign before Joe Louis.

 

While Johnson likely had the best pre-title run even past Louis.

 

I concur.

 

No, but I think he would have been promoted into a title shot as Munroe was on the back of Jeffries going off balance and hitting the deck against him in an exhibition,an exhibition during which Fitz who seconded him urged Jeff to put Munroe away ,to which Jeffries replied I'm giving the crowd a run for their money.

Jim Jeffries Los Angeles, Ca EX 4 -Griffin lasted four rounds and claimed a "Draw"; Jeffries knocked Griffin down three times; Griffin was knocked down in rounds one and two and ran thereafter; Reports vary - "ND 4" - "L 4"