Top 10 ATG White Heavyweights

i'm not sure how I feel about the constant Jeffries-Johnson debate. On one hand I find it informative and amusing as the Eastside protagonists know their boxing. On the other hand it's a bit boring and repetitive and especially predictable as the old chestnuts are brought out- old Corbett, Fitz, Jackson, inept Monroe, overated Hank Griffin, Gunboat, Ketchell. novice McVey, robbed Battling Jim Johnson, baby Langford, Choynsky et al.
For all of you, I have a question-is it mutally exclusive that BOTH Johnson and Jeffries were great Hw's of their time, maybe the best ever seen at that point???

 

I cant call one way or the other, but why is this fight listed on Cyberboxingzone. They are normally pretty good with accuracy. Was it an exhibition, and if so, how did it go down?

Fair enough. Peter Jackson really deserves a bit of scrutiny on his own thread there are a lot of question marks, he was either very very good, or overated. Still I see not much difference between a 3rd round quitting or KO. He obviously won the fight quite comfortably.

Yeah, sorry - I posted too quickly (much like the current post) and misread things. It was childs KO ing Armstrong, not the other way around.

Childs was KOd early by Joe Choynski though, who Jeffries did fight to a draw. Also, he only Drew with Jeffries victim Armstrong. And (the final killer) in 1899, he was KOd very early by Jim Janey. I dont think this built him as a legitimate challenge.

Might i just clarify my position in relation to Jackson at this stage, in case I have confused. I dont say that Jackson would have (at that time he faced Jeffries) necessarilly defeated every other coloured fighter in the world. I just say that that is one legitimate perception. Much like when Lennox fought and beat Tyson and even shortly after this when Lewis-Tyson II was proposed (and Tyson ended up losing to Williams instead). Lewis had beaten everybody, but i think that at this time, Lewis was the best in the world and if he took another fight, Lewis Tyson was a fight which you cant say shouldnt have been made or meant nothing even though Tyson was shot and eventually lost to Danny Williams and Kevin McBride (Are these two any worse than Jim Jeffords?). Obviously, i think Jackson was probably more shot than Tyson, but that is the point, regarding Jackson. ie. By defeating Armstrong, Griffin and Jackson Jeffries has pretty much asserted dominance over all the coloured fighters. In fact, if he was eligible, there is no doubt whatsoever, that he would ahve been the recognised coloured champion (is there?)

When i get time, i will definitely look at the record of Stevenson and Smith and see if they had any claims to mount a claim, as they are not often talked about.

 

I think that they were both absolute greats of their time.

Also, WITH HINDSIGHT, Jeffries Johnson was definitely a fight that should have happened before Jeffries retired, and it would have been a great one

 

Quite a bit, when there is no doubt (that i know of) that at one point in time, probably this point in time Jackson was the best coloured fighter in the world. In fact, at one point Jackson was argued by some organisations to be the recognised world champion wasnt he. If you dont think it is fair to say that Jeffries was the best coloured fighter in the world, when he beat Godfrey, then who was?

When i wrote best three, i really should have wrote best 4 (i will use my fingers next time)

I think that too many people are called average just because we no longer know anything about them. You may be correct regarding the McVey Langford Jeanette comment, but that is the point isnt it? When Jeffries held the title, he had proved dominance over the best coloured and white fighters in the world.

There is no doubt that Jackson broke down when Corbett refused his rematch. He was still a good fighter though, just not as good as he used to be. I dont really know the details of the break down as well as you would, but the more things are discussed here, the more it becomes obvious that we need an ESB Peter Jackson thread (or to drag back some old ones).

So you agree that Jeff (prior to his retirement) had proved not only that he was the best fighter in the world, but that he was the best fighter of all time! What else do you want the guy to do in his career, before he retires! that is all any other fighter has ever been able to do or will ever be able to do. The perfect career, one might say. And unlike everone so far who has done it (with the possible exception of Marciano if anyone thinks he was the greatest of all time) he is the only one who had ever done it without losing a fight. That is dominance, that is what legacies are all about it and that is one of the main reasons i rate Jeffries very highly.

Johnson could have been no more dominant over Burns and thoroughly thrashed Jeffries. The number of rounds doesnt concern me in the slightest. I dont think he could have KOd Jeffries in one (because it may have left him open to a KO shot in itself) but he thoroughly thrashed Jeffries. In fact, i think he did so well in that fight that there are things which would suggest that Jeffries would have never beaten Jeffries. It was a shell of jeffries, but the fact that Johnson was physically stronger than the shell must be of major concern to Jeffries if they ever met prime for prime.

To me it is quite obvious that Johnson peaked with Jeffries and after that point he simply did not train properly. Amazingly, he still held the title for many many years. Far more than Dempsey, Baer, Tyson or anyone else that pretty much stopped training and started partying when they won the world title. He was obviously very, very good, maybe the best ever. The only thing Willard means is that he was a far better fighter than willard, but he wore out. He would have won the title straight back in a rematch, imo. the fact that he wasnt beaten for another 10 years is astounding regardless of the quality of opposition, which wasnt all as bad as people say.

Shows smarts, if it is true.

I was probably a bit harsh criticising you for that comment. It means nothing though. I certainly dont think Jeffries lost to Johnson through overconfidence. He knew it was a battle and probably thought he would lose. I think that Lennox would think the same today if he came out of retired to fight one of the Klits.

This was all just nothing comments by both aimed at getting a mental edge. Johnson would have KOd Jeff if he had the chance this was his big moment in the sun and he was in no hurry to waste it (not relinquish it).

You totally misunderstand what is being said. Both were shells and both mean virtually nothing about how theyd go in their primes. Here is the point you have missed. When Johnson fought Jeffries, he didnt need to. Jeffries was (arguably) not the best white fighter in the world. He could have fought Hart, Root, a Burns rematch or anyone else. But if he did, and Jeffries fought and beat others not as good as Johnson then Jeffries would have had a claim that he was the legitimate world champion at the time. Johnsons win legitimised his dominance over the world. Jeffries win over Jackson (and later corbett) legitimised his claim over the world. Holmes win over Ali legitimised his claim over the world. In reality, they had all beaten better fighters.

 

No, it is you who misunderstands,Jeffries was in a unique position when he challenged Johnson.He was ,up till then the only Heavyweight Champion to have retired STILL Champion,and moreover undefeated,in the eyes of the general public he was STILL the Champ .The fact that he refereed a fight for his title and is said to have conferred on the Winner his crown ,[something he later denied]notwithstanding.If after watching the Jeffries Johnson fight ,you dont think that Johnson could have ended it earlier,I would have to question your ability to read a fight.Johnson did not go on the attack before the 10th round,several rounds after it was seen that Jeffries had nothing to offer except courage.Johnson fought Jeffries for the obvious reason $$$$$ Rickard the promoter guaranteed the fighters$101,000,and two thirds of the movie rights,in addition a cash bonus of $10,000 for each when they signed for the fight .Break that down, the winner got 75% of the $101,000 ,the loser 25%,both received additional revenue through their % of the film rights.,estimates by the NEW YORK EVENING NEWS ,said that if Jeffries won he would make around $667,750,and Johnson would earn $358,250,if Johnson won the film rights would be worth less,Johnson would make around $360,750,and Jeffries$158,000.Thats why Johnson fought Jeffries instead of Burns or Hart ,or anyone else,contrast those figures with the $30,000 guarantee that Burns got to defend against Johnson, as challenger its safe to assume Johnson received considerably less.
Jeffries win over Jackson did nothing for his standing in my eyes ,nor I venture in the eys of the sporting public ,as articles detailing his physical decline had been published worldwide including interviews with such boxing insiders as Con Riordan who had engaged in exhibitions with Jackson.
Johnson ,on the other hand was seen by the White public to be only a caretaker of the title ,till such time as Jeffries should decide to claim it back, Johnson did indeed need that fight to legitimise and cement his claim to be the Champion.
Even after the fight many white supporters decided Jeffries must have been drugged to put up such a poor showing, and, though Jeffries lost the fight with good grace,commenting that he could not have licked Johnson even when he was in his prime, he lamentably retracted this later and put his name to a ghost written article averring he lost because of "drugged tea".
To finish, you are entitled to rate Jeffries where you like,when I was younger I had him in my top 6, but I take issue with you ,and others when you make more of his win over Jackson than it warrants.
Jackson held an at best ,spurious title ,that he had never defended in 10 years ,a title for which the competition would seem to have been average ,he had been retired for 6 years , at the time he met Jeffries I doubt if Jackson would have been rated in the top 25 in the world ,if such ratings where in existence then.
I think I have been fair to Jeffries,and despite what Mendoza thinks I beleive the Boilermaker was a great Champ.

 

I think Jeffries was the best heavyweight there had been until Johnson came along, does that answer your question?

 

One small quibble ,what victories did Cardiff acheive to make you think he was a candidate for the top ten?

 

Cardiff beat Wilson and Killen, drew with Sullivan and Mitchell, all top men at the time.

 

Boilermaker, a doubt now exists about the Childs-Janey fight.

 

Would have been great to see guys like Jeffries take themselves abroad... fighting local champs.. not defending against local USA based 'has beens'.

Comparatively, the 'clubbing' Jeffries recieved via the hands of Johnson is a better example of the credit Jeff's is warrented....

 

I respectfully disagree, for reasons which i hope will become apparent after this post.

With the exception of being able to end it earlier (and only because i think Johnson wanted to win at all costs and didnt want to risk losing this fight) I agree with everything else you have said, here. Incidentally, if this fight were a 6, 10 or 12 round fight and there was a risk of going to the judges cards well that might be a different story. In those circumstances, i think that maybe Johnson could or would have ended things earlier. I hope that clarifies, but if you or anyone else wants to youtube the full Johnson jeffries fight, well that might or might not change a few opinions.

I agree, except, I think that there is a difference between the eyes of the sporting public and the casual sporting public. Like when Holmes beat Ali, I think that casual fans equated a win with a win but i agree to those in the know it meant virtually nothing.

I agree, but only to the point that the title was only needed if Jeffries came out of retirement. If he stayed retired, they would have plucked the white hope stories out to make money (like they did with Paddy Ryan), but everyone in the know (like when John L was champ) would have known Johnson was the real champ.

I am sure some of the white supporters believed anything. Jeffries accepted defeat gracefully and like a champion, something i think goes well. I dont know much about the drugged tea story at all. If it was ghost written, i am guessing that it means nothing. More than likely Jeffries just got paid to write an article by a paper and just put his name to whatever was written. Possibly on reflection and when asked or goaded he likened his form to being drugged by tea. I am sure he performed like he was drugged by tea, for the simple reason that he was old. Who knows, maybe he wanted some money and sniffed a Johnson Jeffries II.

No matter what happened, i am certain that neither Jeffries or any other rationale supporter thinks that Jeffries could have beaten Johnson on the night they fought, fixes aside.

Okay, I am surprised that you seem to rate Jackson so poorly, even in his prime. I think that you would agree, though that the public did not share this perception at the time? Perhaps a little like Vlad klitchsko was for so long. Unproven at the top level, Kod by some below par fighters, but early in his title reign, he was still rated by many or even most people as the best in the world. Other than your in his prime rating of jackson though, i agree with what you say.

so, in case it hasnt become apparent, the reason i say i think you have misunderstood, is not because you have misunderstood the situation as it pertains to Jeffries, but you have largely misunderstood what i have said. I actually think that our position in relation to all this is not anywhere near as far apart as you seem to think.

Now finally, since i have probably started to bore everyone by recycling everything, i will say something a little different on the subject. This is based solely on my own hunch and there is nothing to suggest it other than what i read of the things that have happened, but I actually think that the colour line may be very overated during this period and not much more than a marketing tool.

Looking at the results and articles, i get the feeling that Johnson and Jeffries actually got on a little better than what the Papers suggested. In fact, i think that they may have been billing Johnson for his last title match against Hart. I base this on the fact that there was the Lock in the cellar story, the I will draw the color line story, Johnson fought and beat Jeffries brother and Johnson started to fight and beat previous Jeffries opponents. And the fact that Jeffries had actually run out of other challengers when he retired. I actually think that this went out the window and retirement resulted when Johnson lost to Marvin Hart, as this finished any hope of turning the fight into a megafight. Why did Johnson lose, i think it was close but fair. Based on nothing i think if the fight happened today, Johnson would have been diagnosed with an energy sapping virus and he simply was too drained to perform at his best. I think this because i think the performance confused Johnson and i think he was on the level when he said Hart was the only one to lick him in his prime, but in reality i think that Johnson was far better than Hart.

Anyway, when Johnson beat Burns, the Johnson Jeffries was immediately put back on the agenda by the press. I think that Johnson saw this as a megafight to build towards and while Jeffries obviously enjoyed his retirement and still needed to be convinced to come back, I get the feeling that the two camps were not as far apart as most thought and i think that the race card which is floated in the press was not really prevalent among the fighters themselves.

As a bit of a side issue, one other story which is probably off topic, but for some reason i feel like sharing now, is a discussion i once had when watching one of the history of boxing Videos back in the 80s with my grandmother. I find it quite amusing, anyway. When the video showed Johnson v Burns, she told me that she had gone to watch that fight in Sydney and it was the most the disgraceful thing she had ever seen in her life. She said she thanked god that the police finally stepped in because that little man would not stop swearing, he was saying the most filthy things you have ever heard and the big man kept knocking him down and he just kept swearing twice as much. She was just so glad that the police finally stopped the fight because it was the most disgraceful language she ever hear in her life and he wouldnt stop using it.

I thought it was funny anyway, she was so worried about the language!

 

Why does this logic work against Jeffries, but wouldnt for Ali? Holmes thrashed Ali so bad, it would make anyone think had they met prime vs prime that Holmes would have beaten Ali as well. But of course, we all know better now dont we?

 

Okay.

It is hard getting a grasp on the standing of fighters in those days. There is also the rumours of an early Jeffries Childs fight having already taken place, as well as Jeffries Smith. With cuffs often being worn, No Decisions aplenty etc, it is near impossible to tell. For the most part, i think that you need to give fighters of the era the benefit of the doubt and then some and go with official decisions more than anything else. I think that when you do this with champions and challengers of the era, the more you look into things, the more such a stance is generally supported.

 

I concur.

Despite being 35 years of age and out of the ring for more than half a decade, Jeffries managed to go 15 rounds with Johnson, and even stole a round here and there. This man had no resemblance to the champion who was destroying and Fitz and Corbett many years earlier. Now, does this guarantee that Jeff would have beaten Jack had he been prime? Not necessarily. But, I do think that Johnson would have a serious problem on his hands. Johnson fought a style that involved a lot of holding and wearing down of his opponents. A young Jeffries was a much stronger man than the one who entered the ring with Johnson, and had a wrestling background as well. I don't know if a peak Jeffries would have been a victom.

 

It took 14 rounds in 110 degree heat, a dozen cuts over his face, as well as broken ribs, to knock him down. Thats almost unheard of, the punishment that man could take against arguably the best HW of all time up to that point. At his best, Jeffries would have taken probably twice as much punishment over 20 rounds, and still have enough to give Johnson fits. That sounds like crazy talk, but remember what Jim Corbett said after his first bout with Jeffries (after chopping Jeffries up for 22 rounds), "I couldnt hurt him, not even with an axe!"

Fitzsimmons cut Jeffries up something awful, breaking his nose, putting deep gashes above and below the eyes, and busted his lips, but was knocked out by a single blow in the 8th round of their rematch, and Fitz went on to reign holy hell on the HW and LHW division for the next decade!

Need I really go on to explain how tough an assignment Jeffries would have been for Johnson at his best?