Jeffries-Johnson a different question . . .

[travestyny]

Do you think that Jeffries-Billy Delaney (trainer) ever saw Jack Johnson before Reno?

I would suspect that if they did it would be against those few known white fighters JJ tangled with, e.g. Hart, Choyniski.

I can't see them visiting all black fights. But maybe.

At that point JJ was probably only avaible on film for the Burns fight. That could have made its way to North America in two years. Not sure how good studying film was back then.

Anyway do you think Jeffries/Delaney had a chance to study JJ?

Do you think JJ got to scout Champion Jeffries when JJ was climbing into position?

P.S. Tunney never missed a Dempsey fight, he was planning his attack as early as 1920.

Oh man. Duhhhhhhh.....we have all missed the obvious it seems.


Remember. Jack Johnson defeated Jim Jeffries brother, Jack. And who escorted jack to the ring? Jim Jeffries.

[Ivich]

Oh man. Duhhhhhhh.....we have all missed the obvious it seems.


Remember. Jack Johnson defeated Jim Jeffries brother, Jack. And who escorted jack to the ring? Jim Jeffries.

After koing JackJeffries Johnson leaned over the ropes and shouted to Jeffries," I can do the same to you too ! "

[travestyny]

After koing JackJeffries Johnson leaned over the ropes and shouted to Jeffries," I can do the same to you too ! "

He certainly wasn't lying, and I believe Jim knew it, too.

[Ivich]

He certainly wasn't lying, and I believe Jim knew it, too.

Billy Delaney always insisted Jeffries was afraid of Johnson,and that whenever his name came up he would change the subject.Delaney said Jeffries," wanted none of Johnson's game."

[Willie Pep 229]

Billy Delaney always insisted Jeffries was afraid of Johnson,and that whenever his name came up he would change the subject.Delaney said Jeffries," wanted none of Johnson's game."

Yea but didn't he use to alway insist that after Jeffries fired him?

[Ivich]

Yea but didn't he use to alway insist that after Jeffries fired him?

Delaney said he left Jeffries because Jeffries reneged on a negotiated deal to fight Bill Lang which was to lead toa fight with Burns.Delaney said had those fights happened Johnson would probably never have gotten his tilte chance,but would continue to have been frozen out of the picture.Who is telling the truth , I don't know,. but I've never seen a public rebuttal from Jeffries to Delaney's statements Jeffries said he fired Delaney because Delaney told him Johnson would lick him.well we know who was right about that!

[Willie Pep 229]

Delaney said he left Jeffries because Jeffries reneged on a negotiated deal to fight Bill Lang which was to lead toa fight with Burns.Delaney said had those fights happened Johnson would probably never have gotten his tilte chance,but would continue to have been frozen out of the picture.Who is telling the truth , I don't know,. but I've never seen a public rebuttal from Jeffries to Delaney's statements Jeffries said he fired Delaney because Delaney told him Johnson would lick him.well we know who was right about that!

Good some context to the quote. But no direct statement that the public quote came after the falling out. Which of course it did.

Jeffries fired Delaney over a 'Johnson remark.'

Jeffries says this?

That was quite a weak relationship, don't you think? Got to believe there were many other things leading up to that separation.

[Ivich]

Good some context to the quote. But no direct statement that the public quote came after the falling out. Which of course it did.

Jeffries fired Delaney over a 'Johnson remark.'

Jeffries says this?

That was quite a weak relationship, don't you think? Got to believe there were many other things leading up to that separation.

Id think it obvious he made the remarks after he left Jeffries,he would hardly be likely to have said them while he was in his employ would he? I ddnt think stating the self evident was necessary.
Obviously I was wrong .
Jeffries parted company with Delaney when Delaney told him he had no chance against Johnson, he also ceased speaking to Brady that's Jeffries version of events.
I'm old but not old enough to have been around at the time so as I said, believe what you want to believe.I'm just trying to flesh out posts and hopefully make them a little more interesting.
Unfortunately whenever I do so you seem to want to hold me up to scrutiny,well sorry I can't give you any more info I'm just about to eat and dont feel like ploughing through books at the moment.
Hows about you take a look and see what you come up with?

[Willie Pep 229]

Id think it obvious he made the remarks after he left Jeffries,he would hardly be likely to have said them while he was in his employ would he? I ddnt think stating the self evident was necessary.
Obviously I was wrong .
Jeffries parted company with Delaney when Delaney told him he had no chance against Johnson, he also ceased speaking to Brady that's Jeffries version of events.
I'm old but not old enough to have been around at the time so as I said, believe what you want to believe.I'm just trying to flesh out posts and hopefully make them a little more interesting.
Unfortunately whenever I do so you seem to want to hold me up to scrutiny,well sorry I can't give you any more info I'm just about to eat and dont feel like ploughing through books at the moment.
Hows about you take a look and see what you come up with?

New information is good: So it not only came out after they split, you identify it as the cause of the separation. That adds to it validity making it more interesting.

Sorry I believe you do have an obligation. I am not suggestimg deep research, but mere time placement of a quote, when it makes a profound claim, is important. And I know you know that.

Throwing out quotes and leaving them open to interpretation by an limited-educated listener will result in wrong extrapolations.

Not saying deep research, not even saying post the proof. (I am taking every word you write at face value.)

But I am saying a ittle more effort protecting against unintended bias would be nice.

You have some obligation to 'history' to offer a touch of context to your quotes.

or so I say

[Ivich]

New information is good: So it not only came out after they split, you identify it as the cause of the separation. That adds to it validity making it more interesting.

Sorry I believe you do have an obligation. I am not suggestimg deep research, but mere time placement of a quote, when it makes a profound claim, is important. And I know you know that.

Throwing out quotes and leaving them open to interpretation by an limited-educated listener will result in wrong extrapolations.

Not saying deep research, not even saying post the proof. (I am taking every word you write at face value.)

But I am saying a ittle more effort protecting against unintended bias would be nice.

You have some obligation to 'history' to offer a touch of context to your quotes.

or so I say

I'll keep it in mind.