Jim Jeffries or Jack Johnson

[MarkScott]

Jeffries said he could have never beat
johnson.

http://www.amazon.com/Joe-Gans-Biogr...d_bxgy_b_img_b

[LondonRingRules]

Jeffries said he could have never beat
johnson.

** Ali said that Tyson would've knocked him out.

And how many times have fighters been interviewed on upcoming fights and picked the wrong fighter?

Means nothing to the historical fact that Johnson never, ever beat the quality of prime heavies that Jeffries did and couldn't even make himself useful enough in their primes to compel a title challenge.

Johnson's greatness is down to being a seminal historical character rather than his superiority as a fighter, otherwise Marvin Hart, Joe Jeannette, Klon***e Haines, Big Jess and Hank Griffin would be more widely celebrated.

[marciano1952]

Jeffries.....

[T.Horton]

The argument for Jeffries seems to be similar to that of Mike Tyson - to quote Teddy Atlas: 'he was a comet that burned brightly for a minute and then burned out' or something along those line.

[T.Horton]

** Ali said that Tyson would've knocked him out.

And how many times have fighters been interviewed on upcoming fights and picked the wrong fighter?

Means nothing to the historical fact that Johnson never, ever beat the quality of prime heavies that Jeffries did and couldn't even make himself useful enough in their primes to compel a title challenge.

Johnson's greatness is down to being a seminal historical character rather than his superiority as a fighter, otherwise Marvin Hart, Joe Jeannette, Klon***e Haines, Big Jess and Hank Griffin would be more widely celebrated.

Wow. I hate to say it but but it seems that you have an axe to grind.

Versus Klon***e Haynes Johnson was barely out of the the battle royale stage of his career. Gerald Suster describes him at the time of that fight as 'gaunt and nearly starved' yet a green Johnson was handling him well for the first two rounds up until the KO in the third (I believe).

With regard to Joe Jeanette - how many times does he have to beat Jeanette who would, had Johnson not been around, likely have been a legendary type of fighter (from what I have read in numerous sources) he just happened along at the wrong time.

Choynski - no doubt Johnson was green still. He may have been in to tough against Joe, who if memory serves, drew with Jeffries while busting him up pretty good and beat Jim Corbett (I will have to check my fact on this one though....too much maryjane I think.

For all intents and purposes, many, if not most thought that Johnson won the fight with Marvin Hart.

Johnson was a three to one underdog vs Burns who was coming off eight straight KO's as champ which was a record for the time.

[LondonRingRules]

Wow. I hate to say it but but it seems that you have an axe to grind.

Versus Klon***e Haynes Johnson was barely out of the the battle royale stage of his career. Gerald Suster describes him at the time of that fight as 'gaunt and nearly starved' yet a green Johnson was handling him well for the first two rounds up until the KO in the third (I believe).

With regard to Joe Jeanette - how many times does he have to beat Jeanette who would, had Johnson not been around, likely have been a legendary type of fighter (from what I have read in numerous sources) he just happened along at the wrong time.

Choynski - no doubt Johnson was green still. He may have been in to tough against Joe, who if memory serves, drew with Jeffries while busting him up pretty good and beat Jim Corbett (I will have to check my fact on this one though....too much maryjane I think.

For all intents and purposes, many, if not most thought that Johnson won the fight with Marvin Hart.

Johnson was a three to one underdog vs Burns who was coming off eight straight KO's as champ which was a record for the time.

** My misguided friend, that phantom axe that I've been grinding to a fine edge, why you have grabbed it and sunk it into your foot with dire results.

I've already given that Johnson was a great fighter and greater historical figure, but the disrespect you show for the fighters who beat him is deplorable for anyone calling themselves a boxing fan.

As of 1901 Jeffries was the undefeated champ against vastly superior comp, do you deny this? Was Johnson fit to fight for a title with a record of 4-3-4 with two KO losses?

As to Klon***e Haines, he had only been fighting for a year when he faced Johnson who'd turned pro the year before. Boxrec took some of Johnson's early fights off, whatever, regardless, Johnson and Klon***e were identical peers and Klon***e sparks him. Jeannette 0-3-0, notched ALL his wins after his meeting with the experienced black heavy champ Johnson, a much superior record to Johnson's, so pray tell us why o why Johnson is rated over him by a substantial margin? If Jeffries had fought the novice Jeannette and knocked him out a half dozen times which is what the result would've been, would you be on here touting that as an accomplishment?

The guys who beat Johnson had fine records, so why don't you rate them? What in your world is making Jack Johnson better? Of the 5 who beat him prior to the Burns bout, only one of them gets a title shot in spite of fine records. Did Johnson offer any a title shots after he became champ?

Why is that?

You do realize that there were more than a half dozen black and white contenders, mostly champions of various sorts with a combined record of over a 1000 wins that Johnson avoided in his title reign? This is easily verifiable and as obvious as a traffic light or police siren.

Did you know that they were also fighting Johnson's title comp in his reign and were posting identical at very least, and sometimes superior results? Save Jeannette, these are all a new subset of fighters competing his era, yet you give them no credit that I can see.

Why is that? Do you hate boxing and only love Jack Johnson?

I'd like to hear you address the above in your own words. In my words I indicated Johnson was a great fighter and greater historical figure, but that is not good enough for you.

Your turn on the soapbox:

[T.Horton]

** My misguided friend, that phantom axe that I've been grinding to a fine edge, why you have grabbed it and sunk it into your foot with dire results.

I've already given that Johnson was a great fighter and greater historical figure, but the disrespect you show for the fighters who beat him is deplorable for anyone calling themselves a boxing fan.

As of 1901 Jeffries was the undefeated champ against vastly superior comp, do you deny this? Was Johnson fit to fight for a title with a record of 4-3-4 with two KO losses?

As to Klon***e Haines, he had only been fighting for a year when he faced Johnson who'd turned pro the year before. Boxrec took some of Johnson's early fights off, whatever, regardless, Johnson and Klon***e were identical peers and Klon***e sparks him. Jeannette 0-3-0, notched ALL his wins after his meeting with the experienced black heavy champ Johnson, a much superior record to Johnson's, so pray tell us why o why Johnson is rated over him by a substantial margin? If Jeffries had fought the novice Jeannette and knocked him out a half dozen times which is what the result would've been, would you be on here touting that as an accomplishment?

The guys who beat Johnson had fine records, so why don't you rate them? What in your world is making Jack Johnson better? Of the 5 who beat him prior to the Burns bout, only one of them gets a title shot in spite of fine records. Did Johnson offer any a title shots after he became champ?

Why is that?

You do realize that there were more than a half dozen black and white contenders, mostly champions of various sorts with a combined record of over a 1000 wins that Johnson avoided in his title reign? This is easily verifiable and as obvious as a traffic light or police siren.

Did you know that they were also fighting Johnson's title comp in his reign and were posting identical at very least, and sometimes superior results? Save Jeannette, these are all a new subset of fighters competing his era, yet you give them no credit that I can see.

Why is that? Do you hate boxing and only love Jack Johnson?

I'd like to hear you address the above in your own words. In my words I indicated Johnson was a great fighter and greater historical figure, but that is not good enough for you.

Your turn on the soapbox:

I am not really feeling the condescending manner in which you're responding. Any chance that you could turn that off for the time being?

So let me get this straight -- Jeffries, who was a part time fighter, who also drew the colour line throughout most of his career -- gets a pass but Johnson, who fought all of the best white and black contenders while losing a few a long the way EARLY in his career and then drew the colour line just the same as all white champions prior to him is held under INTENSE scrutiny despite the fact that he fought the best blacks and whites of the day?

Sorry son, but Johnson had the longer and a helluva lot more impressive career than Jeffries. I don't know why you're intent on talking only about title reigns. Both champions were choosing from a rather small talent pool AS CHAMPS seeing as they both avoided the best Black fighters. But overall there is no comparison - none.

Hell, after Willard, when nobody would give Johnson another shot, Johnson still fought on and went years without losing again. Head to head, while it admittedly doesn't count for much because of where Jeff was in his career at the time has Johnson ahead as well.

Bottom line is that you can't fight 23 times, going even up in a few of those, and be called the best. Especially not in those times when fighting champs were fighting as frequently as once a week at times and choosing from a much deeper talent pool.

[T.Horton]

** My misguided friend, that phantom axe that I've been grinding to a fine edge, why you have grabbed it and sunk it into your foot with dire results.

I've already given that Johnson was a great fighter and greater historical figure, but the disrespect you show for the fighters who beat him is deplorable for anyone calling themselves a boxing fan.

As of 1901 Jeffries was the undefeated champ against vastly superior comp, do you deny this? Was Johnson fit to fight for a title with a record of 4-3-4 with two KO losses?

As to Klon***e Haines, he had only been fighting for a year when he faced Johnson who'd turned pro the year before. Boxrec took some of Johnson's early fights off, whatever, regardless, Johnson and Klon***e were identical peers and Klon***e sparks him. Jeannette 0-3-0, notched ALL his wins after his meeting with the experienced black heavy champ Johnson, a much superior record to Johnson's, so pray tell us why o why Johnson is rated over him by a substantial margin? If Jeffries had fought the novice Jeannette and knocked him out a half dozen times which is what the result would've been, would you be on here touting that as an accomplishment?

The guys who beat Johnson had fine records, so why don't you rate them? What in your world is making Jack Johnson better? Of the 5 who beat him prior to the Burns bout, only one of them gets a title shot in spite of fine records. Did Johnson offer any a title shots after he became champ?

Why is that?

You do realize that there were more than a half dozen black and white contenders, mostly champions of various sorts with a combined record of over a 1000 wins that Johnson avoided in his title reign? This is easily verifiable and as obvious as a traffic light or police siren.

Did you know that they were also fighting Johnson's title comp in his reign and were posting identical at very least, and sometimes superior results? Save Jeannette, these are all a new subset of fighters competing his era, yet you give them no credit that I can see.

Why is that? Do you hate boxing and only love Jack Johnson?

I'd like to hear you address the above in your own words. In my words I indicated Johnson was a great fighter and greater historical figure, but that is not good enough for you.

Your turn on the soapbox:

I am not really feeling the condescending manner in which you're responding. Any chance that you could turn that off for the time being?

So let me get this straight -- Jeffries, who was a part time fighter, who also drew the colour line throughout most of his career -- gets a pass but Johnson, who fought all of the best white and black contenders while losing a few a long the way EARLY in his career and then drew the colour line just the same as all white champions prior to him is held under INTENSE scrutiny despite the fact that he fought the best blacks and whites of the day before his reign?

Sorry son, but Johnson had the longer and a helluva lot more impressive career than Jeffries. I don't know why you're intent on talking only about title reigns. Both champions were choosing from a rather small talent pool AS CHAMPS seeing as they both avoided the best Black fighters. But overall there is no comparison - none.

Hell, after Willard, when nobody would give Johnson another shot, Johnson still fought on and went years without losing again. Head to head, while it admittedly doesn't count for much because of where Jeff was in his career at the time has Johnson ahead as well.

Bottom line is that you can't fight 23 times, going even up in a few of those, and be called the best. Especially not in those times when fighting champs were fighting as frequently as once a week at times and choosing from a much deeper talent pool. Jeffries had it one helluva a lot easier than Johnson did -- that's for damn sure.

[LondonRingRules]

So let me get this straight -- Jeffries, who was a part time fighter, who also drew the colour line throughout most of his career -- gets a pass but Johnson, who fought all of the best white and black contenders while losing a few a long the way EARLY in his career and then drew the colour line just the same as all white champions prior to him is held under INTENSE scrutiny despite the fact that he fought the best blacks and whites of the day before his reign?

Sorry son.....

** I am sorry to see that you don't appear to be the least bit straight at all.

Don't know what part of Jeff's 15-0-2 record at the close of 1901 you don't understand against Johnson's 4-3-4 record in 13 fights you don't understand. Are you trying to prove that Johnson is a parttime fighter also in some kind of goofy round about way?

You say Jeff drew the colour line and indeed there are some quotes around 1905 or so dismissing Johnson along those lines to the handful of reporters pestering him, but approx 25% of Jeff's career is against era black heavy contender/champs, figure considerably higher than the % of blacks in the US, the majority of whom lived in the south and didn't box.

Jeffries is undefeated against common comp that Johnson records 2 losses against, but in your quest to "get it straight" it all passes over your noggin like so many fluffy clouds in the sky.

Why don't you just cut straight to the bait, post the best 10 fighters that Johnson beat, their record at the time of his win and the year he beat them.

I'll post Jeff's best 10 and we'll match them up sequentially. The only reason I appear condescending to you is because of your insecurity over your champion that I've exposed. You should feel insecure because as soon as you take the bait, gonna reel you in and land this year's first spring whopper.

[T.Horton]

** I am sorry to see that you don't appear to be the least bit straight at all.

Don't know what part of Jeff's 15-0-2 record at the close of 1901 you don't understand against Johnson's 4-3-4 record in 13 fights you don't understand. Are you trying to prove that Johnson is a parttime fighter also in some kind of goofy round about way?

You say Jeff drew the colour line and indeed there are some quotes around 1905 or so dismissing Johnson along those lines to the handful of reporters pestering him, but approx 25% of Jeff's career is against era black heavy contender/champs, figure considerably higher than the % of blacks in the US, the majority of whom lived in the south and didn't box.

Jeffries is undefeated against common comp that Johnson records 2 losses against, but in your quest to "get it straight" it all passes over your noggin like so many fluffy clouds in the sky.

Why don't you just cut straight to the bait, post the best 10 fighters that Johnson beat, their record at the time of his win and the year he beat them.

I'll post Jeff's best 10 and we'll match them up sequentially. The only reason I appear condescending to you is because of your insecurity over your champion that I've exposed. You should feel insecure because as soon as you take the bait, gonna reel you in and land this year's first spring whopper.

Oh brother. "my champion"? "i'm a fan of Johnson and not boxing' you deduced this from me thinking that Johnson was the greater fighter and had the greater career? I guess everybody who disagrees with you is a nuthugger, huh?

I'm finished with you.