Was James j jeffries one of the greatest?

[Dr Z]

Jeffries was losing on the cards to both Corbett and Fitzsimmons before his 30-40 lbs weight advantage wore them down.

He was an athletic and strong big man but his actual boxing skills do come into question.

Not so. Read the NY Times excellent round by round report on Jeffires vs. Corbett 1. The fight was even until the KO. Round 1-5 were in Jeffries' favor. Round 6- 16 were in Corbett's favor. Rounds 17 to 23 were definitely Jeffries Basically that is how it went. I posted a round by round review before.

In Jeff vs. Fitz 2, the round by round report has it 2 round a piece and the other rounds even. Then the KO suddenly happened. I have posted it before.

Fitz 1 and Corbett 2 were blow out wins for Jeffries.

[Anomalocaris]

What I believe the above post was trying argue about reverse racism is that all White Champions who fought before 1930 are immediately suspect for not having crossed the color line (even when some did.)

Every HW Champion from John L. Sullivan to Gene Tunney (with Jack Johnson ironically thrown on the list) have had their 'greatest' challenged and diminished, based on the 'color line' theory.

This reverse racism is a contempary issue, not a reference to the original color line. It is a strong bias held, and James J. Jeffries has been a popular target of this groups' wrath.

Racism is such a red flag word and is best avoided.

But I too argue that the 'color-line guys' who post on this forum are driven by a bias that clouds their perception of these early White Champions.

These Champions are not given a fair shake going in. They are discredited before the research even begins.

That is the point I believe he was making.

P.S. Phil should correct me if I misinterpreted his meaning.

You are exactly right.

Thank you.

[ShoulderRoll]

Not so. Read the NY Times excellent round by round report on Jeffires vs. Corbett 1. The fight was even until the KO. Round 1-5 were in Jeffries' favor. Round 6- 16 were in Corbett's favor. Rounds 17 to 23 were definitely Jeffries Basically that is how it went. I posted a round by round review before.

In Jeff vs. Fitz 2, the round by round report has it 2 round a piece and the other rounds even. Then the KO suddenly happened. I have posted it before.

Fitz 1 and Corbett 2 were blow out wins for Jeffries.

That contradicts this account from The Fight City.


“In front of an awestruck audience of over eight thousand, the veteran Corbett put on a boxing clinic worthy of remembrance.

For 22 of the scheduled 25 rounds, he boxed circles around the younger champ. He danced, weaved, ducked and moved and made Jeffries look like a fish out of water. “The Boilermaker” chased after Corbett the way a poker player on his last stand chases after the river card, but he didn’t seem to even belong in the same ring as Corbett. No matter how hard he tried, Jeffries’s bombs kept hitting air, while he received constant punishment from Corbett’s precise and perfectly timed blows.

By round twenty, the Boilermaker’s corner had worked itself into a panic, warning the champ he needed a knockout to win. Jim was well ahead on the scorecards, and showed no sign of losing steam as the fight neared its end.”

https://www.thefightcity.com/may-11-...-championship/

[ShoulderRoll]

And of course Jim Jeffries took a tremendous battering in the second fight with a 39-year-old Fitzsimmons before eventually knocking him out. So yeah, his level of boxing skill can definitely be questioned.

Newspaper cartoon depicting the one-sided nature of the match:


fitz-vs-jeff-blood-cartoon.jpg

[QueensburyRules]

Jeffries was losing on the cards to both Corbett and Fitzsimmons before his 30-40 lbs weight advantage wore them down.

He was an athletic and strong big man but his actual boxing skills do come into question.

- - So what. His record against common opponents of JJohnson blows Johnson out of the water.

Nobody then and now cares what wannabee boxing fans think about history they are clueless about.

[JAB5239]

Jeffries did give Hank Griffin ( who was black ) and beat Jack Johnson once, beat him another time, but had to settle for a draw, and drew time in thier final match, a 1901 fight. He was the lineal champion then as such if he lost that fight,Griffin is the next lineal champ.

He also gave Jack Johson a shot at his lineal title in their 1910 fight.

In 1905 Marvin Hart and Jack Johnson fought in an elimination match to meet Jeffries. Hart won. Jeffires said he would fight Hart if there was money and a demand for it. There was not so he retired.

Jeffries considered Johnson for a title match pre 1905 in the press. He also said he would not fight Johnson for the title. Both are true. The color line is complicated if you review it, but one thing is not. This is prize fighting and what a fighter says and what he does can change when MONEY is on the line. That has not changed in 200 years.

Also Jeffries was filmed numerous times. Vs Fitz, Sharkey, Ruhlin, Munore, amd Johnson to name five. I assure you that Nat F did see Jeffires fight. You have to be a fool to say he didn't. He rates Jeffries #2 of all time at heavyweight. Did you know that?

Did you also know there are reported reults if him beating Ed Martin and and Frank Childs who happend to be black in fights?

Reported But Not Conffrimed : Frank Childs KO Kid Cotton KO "Denver" Ed Martin KO


http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/jeffries.htm

The fight with Griffin was a four round exhibition. Jeffries said that himself. Griffin was also descride as "looking like a famine sufferer".

Jeffries no longer held the lineal championship when he fought Johnson. He gave that up when he retired. But Johnson did give the opportunity to Jeff.

You can assure me Nat saw Jeffires fight? How so? And even if he did, he would have been 12 or 13 at time. That is a very impressionable age, one where you see stars and heroes as giants.

Reported But unconfirmed. No doubt exhibitions if it ever turned out to be true.

Jeff was a great fighter for his time, but he did struggle with men much smaller than himself. He did show toughness and perseverance though

[Dr Z]

That contradicts this account from The Fight City.


“In front of an awestruck audience of over eight thousand, the veteran Corbett put on a boxing clinic worthy of remembrance.

For 22 of the scheduled 25 rounds, he boxed circles around the younger champ. He danced, weaved, ducked and moved and made Jeffries look like a fish out of water. “The Boilermaker” chased after Corbett the way a poker player on his last stand chases after the river card, but he didn’t seem to even belong in the same ring as Corbett. No matter how hard he tried, Jeffries’s bombs kept hitting air, while he received constant punishment from Corbett’s precise and perfectly timed blows.

By round twenty, the Boilermaker’s corner had worked itself into a panic, warning the champ he needed a knockout to win. Jim was well ahead on the scorecards, and showed no sign of losing steam as the fight neared its end.”

https://www.thefightcity.com/may-11-...-championship/

The fight city site of which I am a fan of, made some errors here. Corbett was 33, not 34 as they claimed. The fight city lazily reached the fight and took Corbett's tale that he was way ahead, which he was not.

He was down in round 17, I think, and you can score the rounds for yourself based on a decent round by round report.

He is one from a pimary sorce and the news paper is HQ'd in Brooklyn where the fight took place.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...P8UhAAAAIBAJ&s jid=ZJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6665,698133&hl=en


By the way the Brooklyn Eagle is excellent resource for boxing and it is free



https://news.google.com/newspapers

[Dr Z]

JAB5239

You can assure me Nat saw Jeffires fight? How so? And even if he did, he would have been 12 or 13 at time. That is a very impressionable age, one where you see stars and heroes as giants.

You see, you are trying to twist the facts. You reply as if Nat never saw Jeffries. I assure you that Nat saw numerous boxing films of Jeffires much of which have disappeared and been degraded over time in his writing years.

[JAB5239]

You see, you are trying to twist the facts. You reply as if Nat never saw Jeffries. I assure you that Nat saw numerous boxing films of Jeffires much of which have disappeared and been degraded over time in his writing years.

You assured me Holmes was kicked out of Ali's camp. Not true. You assured me Tyson was ahead in the Botha fight when he finally stopped him. Not true. You assuring anything is less than reliable at this point. What fights did he see and how are you going to back it up? Right now you're not assuring anything, you're guessing.

[Dr Z]

You see, you are trying to twist the facts. You reply as if Nat never saw Jeffries. I assure you that Nat saw numerous boxing films of Jeffires much of which have disappeared and been degraded over time in his writing years.

You assured me Holmes was kicked out of Ali's camp. Not true. You assured me Tyson was ahead in the Botha fight when he finally stopped him. Not true. You assuring anything is less than reliable at this point. What fights did he see and how are you going to back it up? Right now you're not assuring anything, you're guessing.

And I stand by reading that. Maybe it was not in the Ali book. Maybe it is. I do not own the book. This is a Jeffries thread please stop switching the subject.

Do you really think Nat did not see Jeffires on film. That is asinine. Yet you write, "

You can assure me Nat saw Jeffries fight?"

YES, I can.