Jeffries v Quarry

Both.

 

What would consider to be his ideal list of title challengers over that period?

 

"Jim Jeffries has to be one of the most overrated fighters of all time."

He completely dominated his era. He might be underrated if one thinks in terms of record in one's own time. How many champions held the title longer and made more defenses and retired undefeated? I think only Joe Louis.

"boxing ---- infancy"

Boxing went back to the early 1700's

"under modern rules"

You are assuming he wouldn't adopt a different style if fighting a 10 round fight versus a 25 round fight. We know he fought both successfully, Modern fighters do not fight those long distance fights.

"Nat's opinion"

Nat was an old-timer freak. No doubt. But how many contemporary experts doubted that Jeff was great? If not the best, at least one of the best? And a handful for anyone?

"Jeffries was a clubbing puncher"

He pounded guys into jelly.

Here's Bob Fitzsimmons on Jeffries quoted by Gilbert Odd

"He's a *******-jack and don't make any mistake. He'll be champion for a long time. And he's so tough and strong."

"The first time he really hit me in the body, I thought his fist had gone right through me. His crouching stance and the way he threw that long left. Every time I hit him, he punched back even harder. His gloves were like lead. I was well beaten tonight by a man too big and strong for me and I have no complaints to make."

I think Quarry is a much better pick as the most overrated.

 

"he dodged the best black challengers"

He deserves the criticism he gets for dodging Johnson.

However, were the "best black challengers" the best challengers?

I think this is just modern political correctness imposed on a past era. Johnson is a fair criticism, but the others were not outstanding contenders of the stature of Jackson, Langford, or Wills.

**Just to step out of boxing for a bit, the USA was a mostly agrarian country back then with the black population mainly in the rural south. There was a massive migration to the northern cities to work in the factories in later decades. I think it a mistake to assume black fighters were of the number or perrhaps ability they showed several decades later.

To cut to the bottom line--What is the evidence that any black fighter other than Peter Jackson would have been considered a really top heavyweight prior to 1902 or so when Martin began coming on? And Jeffries also fought Griffin and Armstrong on the way up.

 

Nat Fleischer did go back to that era. Here is the listed Jeffries title fights in the 1976 Ring Record Book

June 8, 1899--Bob Fitzsimmons--ko 11

Nov 3, 1899--Tom Sharkey--W 25

May 11, 1900--Jim Corbett--ko 23

Nov 15, 1901--Gus Ruhlin--ko 5

July 25, 1902--Bob Fitzsimmons--ko 8

August 14, 1903--Jim Corbett--ko 10

August 25, 1904--Jack Munroe--ko 2

So the fights with Finnegan, Kennedy, (and Griffin) were not actually title defenses TO THE FOLKS OF THAT ERA. There is a gray area of exhibitions. I agree that Munroe was certainly not the top contender, and possibly totally unworthy.

Corbett is a tough issue. He had lost, after all, only to Fitz and Sharkey, top men.

A modern Corbett would fatten his record with several joke fights leading up to Jeffries. They seemed to think this was not necessary back then.

So of the recognized defenses-Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Fitz, were better than any black contender of those years, yes. Corbett was an ex-champion and I think folks wanted this fight.

Johnson was certainly a better contender than Munroe.

**By the way, If Finnegan and Kennedy are considered title defenses, as well as Munroe, I don't agree with the logic that Jeffries should be put down because they might be alternate contenders out there who were better than the worst he fought. The question is did he defend against the best. I think, other than Johnson, yes. Martin faded from the scene too quickly I think to use him as a dodged challenger. Being less unworthy doesn't make you worthy.

 

Never heard anyone say Jerry was overrated. He came in 2nd best in a very deep era. I just believe his versatility (box, punch, counter-punch) his toughness, his far greater experience - I'm not talking age i'm talking a lengthy amateur career with a lengthy pro career against one of the deepest heavyweright eras of all time combined with modern training - is more than enough to handle the very methodical and predictable Jim Jeffries and all he learned in his 23 fights against 170 lb. men.

 

"Never heard anyone say Jerry was overrated"

There is always a first time.

"very deep era"

He was beaten by Ellis, who was a puffed up middleweight with a mediocre record at middle.

The real big names of the era--Ali, Frazier, Norton--destroyed him--Liston-He did not fight Liston. Machen--beat him. Chuvalo--ko'd him.

He was never one of the top three active heavies, if that high. Ellis was better and I once watched Ellis lose to Don Fullmer on TV.


*Quarry "toughness"

He was stopped 6 times in 66 fights (all before reaching 30)--that is simply not the record of a super tough fighter.