BoxRec

Ali was never, "forced" to end his title reign, at all. Ali chose to end his title reign early (& it was an appalling decision, on his part), but, whatever you think of his decision, it was his decision. I won't give him points because he, "probably" would have reigned longer otherwise. He didn't.

I agree with most of what you said, though.

Why should any fighter be stripped of their title for political reasons.
He hadn't even been convicted yet. There have been fighters who have done much worse things than Ali who were and are still allowed to fight. I wonder about whether or not he should have gone to Vietnam, but I don't agree with the way he was stripped and banned from boxing.

I Feel Fine wrote:Why should any fighter be stripped of their title for political reasons.
He hadn't even been convicted yet. There have been fighters who have done much worse things than Ali who were and are still allowed to fight. I wonder about whether or not he should have gone to Vietnam, but I don't agree with the way he was stripped and banned from boxing.

No questioning the hypocrisy of it, brojam. Ali can't continue boxing, but rapists & murderers can?

I just never agreed with this line of thought as justification for Ali's refusal. A lot of people say (as you just did), "Well, they did much worse..."

Yes, they did, & they should be stripped, & stripped ahead of Ali, at that. I don't see that as acquitting Ali's decision, but rather, shifting the focus to shirk any wrong-doing. Ali did choose to lose it, though, he wasn't forced. That said of Ali, never been a badder dude in history than the worst elements of the Government 8)

Ali, IMO, did the wrong thing by not going, & deserved to be stripped. It's just that so many people have done considerably worse, & kept their license. That's an outrage. Before you say we don't hear anything of them, though, well, that's just a fact of being so good. You take the positive with the negative, fair or otherwise. Ali got his share of breaks those other fighters would never have seen.

Ali would have boxed exhibitions if he had gone in the army.

He would never have been sent to Vietnam.

Joe Louis, Tony Zale, Billy Conn and others lost YEARS of their careers while they served in World War Two.

Even then, as I said, they stripped and banned him on that very day, before he had even been convicted. That seems wrong in my opinion. Not saying he would have defended his title in that time, but just the principle of it, they should have at least waited for him to get convicted.

Again, I'm not sure if I agree with Ali not going, but I do think he was a conscientious objector. Not sure if he was the perfect example of one, but I don't claim to know enough about how those laws work. As granberry just said, he wouldn't have actually fought in Vietnam; hence he was probably risking more by not going, which sounds like a conscientious objector to me.

Anyway, that's not to say that another person in his position who wasn't Heavyweight champion wouldn't have gone to jail, they obviously would have.

All that said, I just wonder if it was handled properly. I'm obviously not one of those who seem to think that Ali's being banned was one of the worst crimes in history, but I do think its unfair that a fighter would lose a title simply because of their political beliefs. And my initial point was simply that Ali lost his title under odd circumstances, not having to do with boxing. His reign was cut short, regardless of whether or not he was right or wrong.

Ali's 60s reign was so good because he looked so good in winning but it doesn't compare to the great reigns being mentioned. It's still good but you can't put it up there.

Fighting 50 times, as pointed out, just cannot be encompassed by a nine fight schedule.

Ali - Jones? I scored it 6-4 to Ali. But Ali won his rounds a bit more conculsively. If you think Jones won then I think that's a fair call. I mean, I don't agree, but there's enough room in my garden for that opinion to deserve a plot. I think its legitimate to call any fight that's close either way. if there are enough dissenting voices then they must have a point.

A lot of people seem to be getting their knickers in a twist over nothing. put up a poll who is the greatest HW of all time, or do a tournament and vote for the winners. Ali and Louis will be 1 and 2 (or 2 and 1). I guarantee it. Hopefully that will satisfy everyone.

One guy criticises Ali and then a load of usually sane posters start making all kinds of ridiculous claims that only play into the hands of the detractors. Is our faith in our picks as the top HW really so shakeable that one guy's opinion (a guy most seem to ridicule anyway) has everyone rattling the bars of their cages or trying to rip off their straight-jackets.

Come on... there are plenty of great fighters out there. Ali, Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Dempsey... I've seen people rate them all as the number 1 and I've read compelling arguments for them all. Furthermore, I actually enjoyed the opinions that were different to mine. I did not label these people as 'anti' or 'as having an agenda'. I actually enjoyed the fact they brought me a fresh perspective. I'd rather read/discuss the opinions of someone with a different opinion but who maybe has a little more respect for the fighters and for other posters than what seems to be going on here.

How do you guys think Jones would have fared against Floyd Patterson around 1962-63 ?

Robinson wrote:How do you guys think Jones would have fared against Floyd Patterson around 1962-63 ?

I'd have to favor Patterson but Jones would have a chance of pulling a Folley-like upset IMO.

dempseyfire wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

dempseyfire wrote: The first Liston fight was a year before.

Ali had 9 fights in that time-span.

Amrstrong had 54!! Two fights less than Ali had entire career wins. But oh no, he lost once to all-time great Lou Ambers. Robinson had 37 fights in his 3 years. If Ali fights 37 times in 3 years, he's so great he doesn't have one fight that could be judged a draw?? You're in dreamland.

I have been saying 1964-1967 all along. The Liston fight was in 1964. Thats why I am counting it. Who you beat to win the title has to be considered when rating someones title reign.

Yes the amount of fights has to count for something; however quality is much more important. He rarely bothered with journeyman. He had more title fights than everyone mentioned but Louis during this time.

And no I don't think if Ali fought that many times in a year he would ever have a draw with a fighter that bad. Robinson also had some other close calls as I mentioned earlier.

Obviously in a way this apples and oranges. If he fought back then and was in a lower weight class he would have fought more. If Robinson, Armstrong, and Greb would have fought in the 1960's they would have fought less. Just because someone fights more doesn't mean they are better (or worse for that matter)

Imagine if he would fought 30 or so no-hopers in non-title fights. He would be getting ripped for that. He already gets enough grief for fighting Brian London.

I will ask this: Do you really think anyone else would have fought the amount and quality of fighters that he did and always win easily?
Realistically, what more could he have done during this title reign?

THat's 4 years, not 3. You want four years, add in 1938 and Joe's knockout of Max Schmeling.

You're apples and oranges argument doesn't make sense. Clearly, more fights vs top contenders in a year/more wins equates to a more impressive record. And coupled with the names you've never heard of are several HOF opponents. Fighting that often and winning vs such a wide array of tough competition is clearly more impressive than beating a handful of contenders, that's just life. I even seperated their best wins in those years. If you think Terrell, Cooper, Patterson, old Liston are better opponents overall than Barney Ross, Lou Ambers, Baby Arizmendi, Ceferino Garcia . . .Kid Gavilan, Bobo Olson, Jake LaMotta . . . etc. I don't know which well to lead you to b/c yours has certainly run dry. The welterweights/middleweights are almost always "deeper" divisions than Heavyweight. Put Brian London in a 147 lb body and he doesn't make it past small-town smokers.

Also, you're mighty quick to say Henry Brimm was "that bad a fighter". Do you know anything about Brimm beyond his boxrec record? Do you have newspaper accounts of the fight saying whether the draw was legit or a bad decision? One is making pretty sweeping judgments.

-My point about it sort of being like apples and oranges is that boxing is different when you are comparing fighters from small weights long ago to a heavyweight in the 1960's.
If you want to give a lot of credit for these guys beating alot of ordinary fighters, fine. However it works both ways. You have to count their losses as well. You also have consider that their opponents were often fighting on short notice, not at 100% as well.

If the Greatest would have fought a dozen non title fights a year against ordinary fighters (like Greb,Robinson, etc did) would that really have raised his stock as far as being an alltime great?

I consider Ali's title fights from February 25 1964-March 22,1967 to be 3 years. It's less than 3 years and 1 month. That is a lot closer to 3 years than 4 years. Count anyone elses title fights over a 3 year, 1 month period.

Here is what they did in their title reigns when the title was on the line:

Greb August 31, 1923-Feb 26 1926
W15 Johnny Wilson
W10 Bryan Downey
W15 Johnny Wilson
KO12 Fay Kaiser
W15 Ted Moore
W 15 Mickey Walker
W 15 Tony Maurullo
L15 Tiger Flowers (Greb eysight was bad by then.)

Robinson Dec 20 1946-Aug 9, 1950
W15 Tommy Bell
KO8 Jimmy Doyle
KO6 Chuck Taylor
W15 Bernard Docusen
W15 Kid Gavilan
W15 Charley Fusari

Why is that so much better than :
RTD 6 Liston
KO1 Liston
TKO 12 Patterson
W15 Chuvalo
TKO6 Cooper
KO3 London
TKO12 Mildenberger
TKO3 Williams
W15 Terrell
KO7 Folley

Take out the 2nd Liston fight if you want, though it wasn't fault that Liston took a dive or whatever happened.

Armstrong title fights are a little more complicated.
On Oct 29, 1937, He won the featherweight title against Petey Sarron. No defenses.
On August 22, 1939 he won the lightweight title on a close decison over a great fighter, Lou Ambers. Lost the rematch in his only defense.

On May 31, 1938, He won the welterweight title against a great fighter, Barney Ross. He had a lot welterweight defenses, however most were against guys who weren't even Top 10 contenders.
Against Top 10 competition:
W15 Cerfino Garcia
W10Baby Arizmendi
KO12 Davey Day
W15 Ernie Roderick
(Montanez was no longer a ranked contender)

On Oct 4, 1940, Armstrong lost the title to Fritzie Zivic.
During this period Armstrong also fought for the middleweight title against Garcia and had a draw in a fight that many people thought he won.

If you want to say that Armstrongs 3 year period was better fine. He obviously had some huge wins. However he did lose to Ambers and Zivic and had less wins against Top 10 competiton than the Greatest's title reign. It certainly isn't head and shoulders the best.

-Pick any period of Joe Louis title reign of the same length and it isn't as impressive. He fought weaker overall competition and had more trouble. It's that simple.

-Jeffries Did beat Fitz for the title, defended it against Sharkey in a tough fight and was losing badly until knocking out Corbett in the 23rd round. That is impressive, but it simply doesn't compare with the absolute best. He had major trouble in 2 of the 3 fights and was only fighting once a year.


As for some of the smaller points-
-Brian London (the worst challenger) wasn't that bad. He was the British champion, he lasted 11 rounds with Patterson and almost knocked out Johannson.

-Old Sonny Liston. That is BS. He was 31, had not had much wear and tear, and had shown absolutley no signs of slipping. He was a lot closer to his prime than Schmeling (younger and less wear and tear) was when Louis beat him, and was a far better fighter than Schmeling ever was.

-Robinson's draw with Brimm (Which I didn't count against him because it wasn't a title fight) -Why don't I think he was that good? Becasue he lost a lot and never beat anyone.
Was it a bad decision? Well lets see, what are the chances of Ray Robinson getting screwed on a decison against journeyman? If anything, that Robinson only got a draw an indication that Brimm probably should have got the decision.


I'm not saying that these other title reigns weren't impressive or that this isn't debatable. However, the 1964-1967 title reign is certainly right up there with anyones. It doesn't just look great on paper; it looks great on film as well.

He won the title against a great champion, he defended the title frequently, against good competition, didn't duck anyone, and completely dominated them. There were no knockdowns, no getting hurt, no remotley close fights. 10-0, 8 knockouts, 2 lopsided decisions.

I will once again ask the question that never gets answered: Realistically, what more could he have done?

Donated his entire career earnings to the widow's and orphan's fund?

Why 3 years?

Oh, I know...

That is how long he was the champion before the title was stripped.

Ambling Alp wrote:-Jeffries Did beat Fitz for the title, defended it against Sharkey in a tough fight and was losing badly until knocking out Corbett in the 23rd round. That is impressive, but it simply doesn't compare with the absolute best. He had major trouble in 2 of the 3 fights and was only fighting once a year.

Jeffries won the title against Fitzsimmons on June 9, 1899. He defended it on November 3, 1899 against Sharkey, and again on May 11, 1900 against Corbett. That's three title fights in one year. Four if you count the April 6, 1900 bout against Jack Finnegan, which some people regard as a title bout.

Jeff reinjured his left arm in the fight with Corbett (he had previously injured it while training for Sharkey), and couldn't fight in NY before the repeal of the Horton Law on Septmeber 1, 1899.

Did Jeff have a tough bout with Sharkey? You betcha, but he also only got in less than a four weeks serious training for a 25 round fight (thanks you, Billl Brady! ), and in a training camp were his two trainers - Billy Delaney and Tommy Ryan - were bickering over his training. And, found his training disrupted when he injured his left arm. Sharkey, on the otherhand, was trained to the nines.

Yet, incredibly, after fighting on even terms over the middle 15 rounds (Jeffries was in contol over the early rounds), it was Jeffries who came on strong and steamrolled Sharkey to get the decision. Jeffries actually got stronger as the fight progressed - so strong that Sharkey's camp accused Jeffries of receiving a stimulant between rounds late in the fight.

Was Corbett in the lead after 19 rounds? You betcha. But this is the same Corbett who later said that this fight against Jeffries was the best performance of his career. And yet, Jeffries won.

I am not diminishing the accomplishments of Ali or any of the other remarkable champions we as boxing fans have been blessed to watch and read about.

But I think for his era, Jeffries ranks right up there among the remarkable fighters of all times.

Jeffries was usually all left hand. Massive, battering jab, left hook.

With his torn left shoulder for the Sharkey fight, Jeffries threw a lot of right hands to the body against Sharkey as Sharkey came in. He broke Sharkey's ribs.

Just as he broke Corbett and Ruhlin's ribs.

You can see part of the second Jefferies - Sharkey fight on YouTube.

Both seem tough and Jefferies looks so strong.

Its ashame that the quality is so poor. :(

I personally am of the opinion that had boxing never quite adapted/evolved (perhaps de-evolved) into the 12 round format of today that would be considered a mere sparring session at the turn of the century; James Jackson Jeffries could quite possibly have been the greatest of all time. Jack Dempsey and Jack Johnson both cited that he was the greatest heavyweight they ever saw, and even the legendary Sam Langford openly ducked Jim Jeffries as he always promoted himself as being "Willing To Take On All Comers, Except For Mr. Jeffries."

No he wasn't the most clever of boxers, but his mere strength, and conditioning and sheer athleticism at the turn of the century was such that he was above and beyond anyone of his time, then throw in his amazing ability to take punishment. The great John L. Sullivan was often quoted as saying of Jeffries that he was "the fastest big man I ever saw," so unlike this biased view against Jeffries due to his loss to Johnson six years after his retirement, he was exceptionally fast.

The lay off, inactivity and nature of that fight clearly hurt Jeffries.

Though he never did face a man like Johnson...though it could be said that Jefferies was the best and strongest of his mould of fighter...

I guess the new rounds in theory are suppose to compress and intensify the action. Though I do enjoy a good 15 rounder.

Turn of last century was to inconsistent with its round standards. 25, 45, 10, 12, 15 seemed some what random at times.

HomicideHenry wrote:I personally am of the opinion that had boxing never quite adapted/evolved (perhaps de-evolved) into the 12 round format of today that would be considered a mere sparring session at the turn of the century; James Jackson Jeffries could quite possibly have been the greatest of all time. Jack Dempsey and Jack Johnson both cited that he was the greatest heavyweight they ever saw, and even the legendary Sam Langford openly ducked Jim Jeffries as he always promoted himself as being "Willing To Take On All Comers, Except For Mr. Jeffries."

No he wasn't the most clever of boxers, but his mere strength, and conditioning and sheer athleticism at the turn of the century was such that he was above and beyond anyone of his time, then throw in his amazing ability to take punishment. The great John L. Sullivan was often quoted as saying of Jeffries that he was "the fastest big man I ever saw," so unlike this biased view against Jeffries due to his loss to Johnson six years after his retirement, he was exceptionally fast.

Well, Sullivan was quoted by Jeffries as saying it. But, in fact, Sullivan probably never said it (Jeff wrote in his autobiography – Two-Fisted Jeff (1929), p. 100-101 - that Sullivan said it after watching Jeffries spar the Sunday before the first Fitz fight - but Sullivan was no nowhere near Jeff’s camp in Asbury Park, N.J. that day; he was in Ohio, I believe.). Mike Donovan said it, however. Mike originally picked Fitz to win, then visited Jeffries camp and changed his pick, commenting on Jeffries speed and quickness. Boston Globe, June 6,1899, p. 12. Maybe Jeffries mixed up those two great old champions.

Jeffries was a phenomenal athlete. W. W. Naughton, the premier sportswriter from San Francisco, who saw nearly every Jeffries fight, wrote of Jeffries in 1902: “He boxes cleverly, defends himself well and strikes a hard blow. But back of all these are the qualities which have made him a champion, to wit, magnificent strength and wonderful endurance.” (W. W. Naughton, Kings of the Queensbury Realm (Chicago: Continental Publishing Company 1902), p. 120.) He was also a champion who continued to get better and better. By late 1904, Sam Austin of the Police Gazette commented: “That Jim Jeffries is the peer of all fighters is a fact admitted; that fact makes it apparent, too, that the fighting game, so far as the heavyweight division is concerned, will languish and remain inactive until he goes into voluntary retirement and leaves the title to be recontested . . . Jeffries is so good he is a bad thing to have around.” (The National Police Gazette, December 31, 1904, p. 10.) Another editorialist wrote: “The sporting world is now confronted with the serious problem of getting rid of the greatest fighter that ever put on a glove.” (This quote from the Cincinnati Enquirer is found in The National Police Gazette, December 31, 1904, p. 10.) Interestingly, Sam Austin did not particularly care for Jim Jeffries the person, but by 1904 regarded Jim Jeffries the fighter as the best that ever lived.

And, BTW Granberry, Jeffries hurt his left elbow preparing for Sharkey, not his shoulder.

raylawpc wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:-Jeffries Did beat Fitz for the title, defended it against Sharkey in a tough fight and was losing badly until knocking out Corbett in the 23rd round. That is impressive, but it simply doesn't compare with the absolute best. He had major trouble in 2 of the 3 fights and was only fighting once a year.

Jeffries won the title against Fitzsimmons on June 9, 1899. He defended it on November 3, 1899 against Sharkey, and again on May 11, 1900 against Corbett. That's three title fights in one year. Four if you count the April 6, 1900 bout against Jack Finnegan, which some people regard as a title bout.

Jeff reinjured his left arm in the fight with Corbett (he had previously injured it while training for Sharkey), and couldn't fight in NY before the repeal of the Horton Law on Septmeber 1, 1899.

Did Jeff have a tough bout with Sharkey? You betcha, but he also only got in less than a four weeks serious training for a 25 round fight (thanks you, Billl Brady! ), and in a training camp were his two trainers - Billy Delaney and Tommy Ryan - were bickering over his training. And, found his training disrupted when he injured his left arm. Sharkey, on the otherhand, was trained to the nines.

Yet, incredibly, after fighting on even terms over the middle 15 rounds (Jeffries was in contol over the early rounds), it was Jeffries who came on strong and steamrolled Sharkey to get the decision. Jeffries actually got stronger as the fight progressed - so strong that Sharkey's camp accused Jeffries of receiving a stimulant between rounds late in the fight.

Was Corbett in the lead after 19 rounds? You betcha. But this is the same Corbett who later said that this fight against Jeffries was the best performance of his career. And yet, Jeffries won.

I am not diminishing the accomplishments of Ali or any of the other remarkable champions we as boxing fans have been blessed to watch and read about.

But I think for his era, Jeffries ranks right up there among the remarkable fighters of all times.

I guess I wasn't looking at it the same way you were. I was just going by title defenses and Jeffries would make only one a year. (not including the Finnegan fight.)

1899- Sharkey
1900-Corbett
1901-Ruhlin
1902-Fitzsimmons
1903 -Corbett
1904 -Munroe

You are right thought that he beat Fitz for the title in 1899 and defended against Sharkey the same year, so he did have two title fights that year.

That is impressive that he beat Fitz,Sharkey, and Corbett with in 12 month period of time. I think that that if asked the question "what heavyweight beat the best competition in a 12 month period of time?" you could make a good arguement for Jeffries.

However, if you asking who had the most impressive title reign over a 3 year period of time, then I don't think his was the best; though clearly it is underrated.

I am glad that you brought this up. I like reading and talking about fighters from this era as well. Jeffries was a great fighter and he and his rivals don't get enough attention.

Ambling Alp wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:-Jeffries Did beat Fitz for the title, defended it against Sharkey in a tough fight and was losing badly until knocking out Corbett in the 23rd round. That is impressive, but it simply doesn't compare with the absolute best. He had major trouble in 2 of the 3 fights and was only fighting once a year.

Jeffries won the title against Fitzsimmons on June 9, 1899. He defended it on November 3, 1899 against Sharkey, and again on May 11, 1900 against Corbett. That's three title fights in one year. Four if you count the April 6, 1900 bout against Jack Finnegan, which some people regard as a title bout.

Jeff reinjured his left arm in the fight with Corbett (he had previously injured it while training for Sharkey), and couldn't fight in NY before the repeal of the Horton Law on Septmeber 1, 1899.

Did Jeff have a tough bout with Sharkey? You betcha, but he also only got in less than a four weeks serious training for a 25 round fight (thanks you, Billl Brady! ), and in a training camp were his two trainers - Billy Delaney and Tommy Ryan - were bickering over his training. And, found his training disrupted when he injured his left arm. Sharkey, on the otherhand, was trained to the nines.

Yet, incredibly, after fighting on even terms over the middle 15 rounds (Jeffries was in contol over the early rounds), it was Jeffries who came on strong and steamrolled Sharkey to get the decision. Jeffries actually got stronger as the fight progressed - so strong that Sharkey's camp accused Jeffries of receiving a stimulant between rounds late in the fight.

Was Corbett in the lead after 19 rounds? You betcha. But this is the same Corbett who later said that this fight against Jeffries was the best performance of his career. And yet, Jeffries won.

I am not diminishing the accomplishments of Ali or any of the other remarkable champions we as boxing fans have been blessed to watch and read about.

But I think for his era, Jeffries ranks right up there among the remarkable fighters of all times.

I guess I wasn't looking at it the same way you were. I was just going by title defenses and Jeffries would make only one a year. (not including the Finnegan fight.)

1899- Sharkey
1900-Corbett
1901-Ruhlin
1902-Fitzsimmons
1903 -Corbett
1904 -Munroe

You are right thought that he beat Fitz for the title in 1899 and defended against Sharkey the same year, so he did have two title fights that year.

That is impressive that he beat Fitz,Sharkey, and Corbett with in 12 month period of time. I think that that if asked the question "what heavyweight beat the best competition in a 12 month period of time?" you could make a good arguement for Jeffries.

However, if you asking who had the most impressive title reign over a 3 year period of time, then I don't think his was the best; though clearly it is underrated.

I am glad that you brought this up. I like reading and talking about fighters from this era as well. Jeffries was a great fighter and he and his rivals don't get enough attention.

You want to talk "Jeffries" RayLaw is the "Man"

Hell, he even has a photo of Jeffries funeral!

Jeffries hurt his left arm in the gym when a wrestler unexpectedly threw a heavy medicine ball at him while he was walking by. Jeffries threw up his left arm, and got the injury.

He still went on with the 25 round title defense against Sharkey.

As shown by the films, Jeffries' main move during the fight was a right hand to the body as Sharkey came roaring in.

His payoff punch, his left hook, was not there. And he strill managed to beat Sharkey.

For the modern, politically correct Ken Burns types who have zero interest in or knowledge of boxing, Jeffries exists only to sell Jack Johnson.

kikibalt wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

raylawpc wrote: Jeffries won the title against Fitzsimmons on June 9, 1899. He defended it on November 3, 1899 against Sharkey, and again on May 11, 1900 against Corbett. That's three title fights in one year. Four if you count the April 6, 1900 bout against Jack Finnegan, which some people regard as a title bout.

Jeff reinjured his left arm in the fight with Corbett (he had previously injured it while training for Sharkey), and couldn't fight in NY before the repeal of the Horton Law on Septmeber 1, 1899.

Did Jeff have a tough bout with Sharkey? You betcha, but he also only got in less than a four weeks serious training for a 25 round fight (thanks you, Billl Brady! ), and in a training camp were his two trainers - Billy Delaney and Tommy Ryan - were bickering over his training. And, found his training disrupted when he injured his left arm. Sharkey, on the otherhand, was trained to the nines.

Yet, incredibly, after fighting on even terms over the middle 15 rounds (Jeffries was in contol over the early rounds), it was Jeffries who came on strong and steamrolled Sharkey to get the decision. Jeffries actually got stronger as the fight progressed - so strong that Sharkey's camp accused Jeffries of receiving a stimulant between rounds late in the fight.

Was Corbett in the lead after 19 rounds? You betcha. But this is the same Corbett who later said that this fight against Jeffries was the best performance of his career. And yet, Jeffries won.

I am not diminishing the accomplishments of Ali or any of the other remarkable champions we as boxing fans have been blessed to watch and read about.

But I think for his era, Jeffries ranks right up there among the remarkable fighters of all times.

I guess I wasn't looking at it the same way you were. I was just going by title defenses and Jeffries would make only one a year. (not including the Finnegan fight.)

1899- Sharkey
1900-Corbett
1901-Ruhlin
1902-Fitzsimmons
1903 -Corbett
1904 -Munroe

You are right thought that he beat Fitz for the title in 1899 and defended against Sharkey the same year, so he did have two title fights that year.

That is impressive that he beat Fitz,Sharkey, and Corbett with in 12 month period of time. I think that that if asked the question "what heavyweight beat the best competition in a 12 month period of time?" you could make a good arguement for Jeffries.

However, if you asking who had the most impressive title reign over a 3 year period of time, then I don't think his was the best; though clearly it is underrated.

I am glad that you brought this up. I like reading and talking about fighters from this era as well. Jeffries was a great fighter and he and his rivals don't get enough attention.

You want to talk "Jeffries" RayLaw is the "Man"

Hell, he even has a photo of Jeffries funeral!

I think Jeff would have had more defenses if only (a) New York hadn't repealed the Horton Law in 1900, and (b) Bill Brady had stayed as his manager. Brady wanted Jeffries to defend his title before the repeal of the Horton Law, but Jeff's arm problem prevented it. After New York repealed the Horton Law, Brady arranged for Jeff to face Ruhlin in Ohio in February 1901, but the fight was blocked by the governor. I think if Ohio had permitted boxing, Jeff would have continued with Brady, and fought more frequently in Ohio.

But with heavyweight title fights essentially banned in the East, Jeffries really was left with the only alternative of fighting out West. Brady was an Easterner and had few boxing connection out West, so he and Jeff parted company in June 1901.

The purses were less in California, and Jeffries remarked he could make more money on vaudeville than defending the title. (He and Fitzsimmons had cleaned up financially on their 1902-1903 tour. In one published report, he said that he and Fitz made $1,000 per week on tour.) By contrast, he gross a little over $7,000 for his defense against Jack Munroe.

Being too successful on the stage harmed the careers of Jim Corbett and Terry McGovern.

Later Max Baer was so succesful on the radio that that worked to the detriment of his boxing career.

Jeffries would have given you a stiff argument that Corbett's stage career had not yet proven detrimental by May 1900. . .

raylawpc wrote:Jeffries would have given you a stiff argument that Corbett's stage career had not yet proven detrimental by May 1900. . .

I have a long article by one of Corbett's trainers about the damage Corbett's three shows a day stage career just after fighting Sullivan did to his physical condition.

Terry McGovern's career went downhill after he was a big success on the stage.