Page 2 of 3
Posted: 16 Apr 2008, 12:57
by raylawpc
BTW, for anyone interested, Jeffries first statement drawing the color-line is found in the Chicago Daily Inter Ocean, 12-28-1901, at p. 4. (And it didn't have anything to do with Jack Johnson!!)
There is a long quote in the Chicago Chronicle, 12/30/1901 p. 10:
“No, not Martin, for I bar the blacks in a championship match. Perhaps if I got him for a good side bet I would meet him and, then again, maybe not.” [Jeff is referring to a challenge match such as the one he had with Griffin a few months earlier.] When asked “But suppose you fought Martin and he beat you, wouldn’t he be looked upon as the champion?”, Jeffries responded, “Well, I suppose, but I don’t think that is going to happen. Ruhlin used to bang Martin around pretty freely in training quarters, they tell me, and I guess that gives me a pretty good line on the black man. And then, too, I do not see where we could get any money by fighting Martin. Nobody knows him outside of his connection with Ruhlin. I would be the card and I cannot see anything in letting him have a losing end. That’s all I can see they are after, from Madden’s talk. They tell me he has some money posted to make the match. I will let Delaney attend to that for me. But, of course, it will be the other fellows first.”
Posted: 16 Apr 2008, 13:06
by granberry
bjermaine wrote:granberry wrote:The best heavyweight champion.
Best chin.
Heaviest puncher.
Best endurance.
Best physical specimen (for boxing).
yes, the greatest "white" heavyweight champion ever. he didn't fight even fight black guys (until the end) (':D') choynski even took him to school giving away 50 lbs.
Live with it, bjermaine.
You wrote in your attempt at spite that Jefferies never fought a black fighter "until the end."
That is dead wrong.
Posted: 16 Apr 2008, 13:16
by yancey
granberry wrote:The best heavyweight champion.
Best chin.
Heaviest puncher.
Best endurance.
Best physical specimen (for boxing).
Interesting.
Granberry, I would love to hear your Top 5 heavyweights of all-time.
Posted: 16 Apr 2008, 13:18
by raylawpc
yancey wrote:granberry wrote:The best heavyweight champion.
Best chin.
Heaviest puncher.
Best endurance.
Best physical specimen (for boxing).
Interesting.
Granberry, I would love to hear your Top 5 heavyweights of all-time.
I hope we can do it on another thread.
Posted: 16 Apr 2008, 13:19
by bjermaine
granberry wrote:bjermaine wrote:granberry wrote:The best heavyweight champion.
Best chin.
Heaviest puncher.
Best endurance.
Best physical specimen (for boxing).
yes, the greatest "white" heavyweight champion ever. he didn't fight even fight black guys (until the end) (':D') choynski even took him to school giving away 50 lbs.
Live with it, bjermaine.
You wrote in your attempt at spite that Jefferies never fought a black fighter "until the end."
That is dead wrong.
yes, i will have to live with not writing "in title fights" at the end of my sentence for the rest of my life. i hope i can live with myself. he cleaned out all the black heavyweights of the time...all three of them :) i'm willing to bet granberry was part of the start of the race riots after johnson knocked out jeffries. ray leonard who hardly fought has twice as many fights as jeffries. when he first retired from the sport jeffries may have been the greatest heavy ever. i think that's what time you currently live in.
Posted: 16 Apr 2008, 13:20
by bjermaine
btw, happy birthday mr. jeffries.
Posted: 16 Apr 2008, 13:28
by raylawpc
bjermaine wrote:raylawpc wrote:bjermaine wrote:
never fought a black guy during his "white" title reign. jeffries was still great. i just post to trash you. i'm part of the observable hate-white ken burns agenda??? do i have an id number? are there membership fees? 95% of everyone on here knows that anything you post is shit. the other 5% are brits.
Well, neither did any of the American bareknuckle champions, John L. Sullivan, James J. Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, Jess Willard, Jack Dempsey, or Gene Tunney through Max Baer. Joe Louis defended his title against only two African-Americans. Jack Johnson only defended his title against one African-American.
Tunney never fought a black fighter - period, and Dempsey - if memory serves - only fought two or three African-Americans.
On his way up, Jeffries fought Hank Griffin, Peter Jackson and Bob Armstrong.
In 1901, when a fight was suggested with Denver Ed Martin, Jeff said he would not defend the title against an African-American. Why? He didn't want to run the risk of losing the title to a black fighter. (And, in the case of Martin, Jeff didn't think it would be much of a fight, and wouldn't draw.)
Different times, different attitudes. Doesn't make it right, but it was what it was.
finally a response that i can respect. excellent points. the heavyweight champs in this era i think tend to be overrated because they didn't fight all comers in their title reigns. race played a big part in everything then. it's not that all those guys weren't all-time greats, there's just a lot of questions to be answered if everything was on a level playing field. some of them may never have been champs. imo all the footage from this era is priceless. i could study these old fights for days.
You can make that claim about most professional sports. Boxing was probably "integrated" earlier than others. We had George Dixon as a champion in the 1890s, but we didn't have Jackie Robinson until the 50s (although Moses Fleetwood Walker and his brother, Welday, an outfielder, played in the American Association in 1884 or 85), Kenny Washington and Woody Strode, pro football players, in late 40s; Chuck Cooper, pro basketball, in 1950; and Willie O'Ree, pro hockey, in the late 50s.
Although boxing was filled with inequality, African-American pro boxers had a greater chance than their counterparts in other sports.
Posted: 16 Apr 2008, 13:30
by raylawpc
bjermaine wrote:granberry wrote:bjermaine wrote:
yes, the greatest "white" heavyweight champion ever. he didn't fight even fight black guys (until the end) (':D') choynski even took him to school giving away 50 lbs.
Live with it, bjermaine.
You wrote in your attempt at spite that Jefferies never fought a black fighter "until the end."
That is dead wrong.
yes, i will have to live with not writing "in title fights" at the end of my sentence for the rest of my life. i hope i can live with myself. he cleaned out all the black heavyweights of the time...all three of them :) i'm willing to bet granberry was part of the start of the race riots after johnson knocked out jeffries. ray leonard who hardly fought has twice as many fights as jeffries. when he first retired from the sport jeffries may have been the greatest heavy ever. i think that's what time you currently live in.
We all have our crosses to bear . . . 
Re: More on Jeff
Posted: 16 Apr 2008, 18:51
by Chuck1052
Tom- As someone whose father working as a Certified
Public Accountant, the 15th of April was significant day.
But I still wish Jim Jeffries a belated happy birthday.
- Chuck Johnston
Posted: 16 Apr 2008, 18:53
by raylawpc
And its ironic for me - a tax lawyer - that my favorite fighter's birthday is tax day.
Favorite old-time fighter, that is. My favorite modern is Ruben Olivares.
Posted: 16 Apr 2008, 23:34
by I Feel Fine
Either I'm having a memory lapse or a second post I made in here yesterday is gone. What's that about?
Posted: 16 Apr 2008, 23:58
by Goodnight, Irene
I Feel Fine wrote:Either I'm having a memory lapse or a second post I made in here yesterday is gone. What's that about?
I thought I noticed the same thing about my own posts a while back. Thought I was just going crazy
Posted: 17 Apr 2008, 12:16
by HomicideHenry
Notice that the 15th of April is the deadline to pay income
taxes in the United States as so many Americans know
well. Of course, income taxes at the federal level in
America were illegal until an amendment to the
the U.S. Constitution was passed in the 1910s.
- Chuck Johnston
And, what does that have to do with the price of jelly beans? It seems to me its slander, stating that because the 'white hope' lost to Johnson that his birth date was put down as the deadline for taxation, just to serve as a reminder of what the white man lost...is that it Chuck Johnston? Not to be racist or even biased, but that observation you made, was only put down because it's a slam against Jeffries because he was white, and no black man would ever hold Jeffries up because Johnson's win over an old, bald man who been retired six years and had to lose 110 pounds and get in shape for a 45 round fight in just a matter of months, cant be tarnished for the sake of black history, else it would just be racist on the part of the white man for taking it away from them.
Well I am sorry, but the truth hurts, Johnson never beat the man at his best, who he defeated was not even a shadow or even an echo of James Jackson Jeffries.
And Granberry, I salute you!
Happy belated birthday Mr. Jeffries
Re: Jim Jeffries
Posted: 17 Apr 2008, 13:58
by Chuck1052
I don't have any great hate for Jim Jeffries. In fact,
I admire Jeffries while realizing that he had some
faults like any human being. In regards to the fact
that Jeffries was born on the 15th of April, I thought
it was humorous due to the Federal Income Tax
implications of the date. In other words, I wasn't
trying to attack Jeffries in any way.
- Chuck Johnston
Re: Jim Jeffries
Posted: 17 Apr 2008, 18:02
by granberry
Chuck1052 wrote:I don't have any great hate for Jim Jeffries. In fact,
I admire Jeffries while realizing that he had some
faults like any human being. In regards to the fact
that Jeffries was born on the 15th of April, I thought
it was humorous due to the Federal Income Tax
implications of the date. In other words, I wasn't
trying to attack Jeffries in any way.
- Chuck Johnston
That was obvious.
And thanks for your comments on April 15.
Mine would not have been printable.
Posted: 17 Apr 2008, 19:55
by Robinson
I dont even think the great Jeffries could lick the IRS.
Posted: 17 Apr 2008, 20:32
by The Great John L
Robinson wrote:I dont even think the great Jeffries could lick the IRS.
If they fought fair he could.
Posted: 17 Apr 2008, 20:48
by Robinson
well if they are anything like our ATO...then I agree.
Posted: 17 Apr 2008, 22:29
by theone
Overrated, when judging in an all-time sense. Jeffries was so great because he was so much bigger and stronger than everyone he fought. A more modern fighter like Louis or Foreman would have decimated Jeffries toughest competition.
Posted: 17 Apr 2008, 22:51
by The Great John L
theone wrote:Overrated, when judging in an all-time sense. Jeffries was so great because he was so much bigger and stronger than everyone he fought. A more modern fighter like Louis or Foreman would have decimated Jeffries toughest competition.
Modern? Louis fought 60-70 years ago, and Foreman was at his peak more than 30 years ago. The sport has evolved way past those small, crude guys. You probably meant large, athletic, modern guys Kirk Johnson and Sam Peter.
Posted: 18 Apr 2008, 01:15
by HomicideHenry
Overrated, when judging in an all-time sense. Jeffries was so great because he was so much bigger and stronger than everyone he fought. A more modern fighter like Louis or Foreman would have decimated Jeffries toughest competition.
Alot of the reason why Jeffries retired, believe it or not, to begin with was that very same reason. He was tired of fighting smaller opponents (hell he almost fought Kid McCoy), and nobody really stood out on the radar, though one could point out that Jeanette, McVey and Langford was out there as well as Ed Martin and others, but the so-called 'greatest' of the bunch (Langford) openly promoted himself as "willing to take on all comers, except for Mr. Jeffries," so it's pretty obvious that even the best of even the black contenders were scared shitless/witless of a prime Jim Jeffries.
He did almos tmake a comeback against the Australian heavyweight contender Billy Squires, who was a somewhat bigger man than what Jeffries was used to fighting when he was champion, and had a reputation as a puncher. Unfortunately, Squires, despite all his hype, was vaporized in a single round (I believe) against one of the smallest contenders, and certainly the smallest heavyweight champion in history, Tommy Burns.
To say he was bigger or stronger, if not both, against all his opponents is something to laugh at in ways, considering all he went through and whom he actually faced. You could point out that Fitzsimmons was so much smaller than Jeffries, but one forgets that this man who was 167 pounds packed enough power to knock out men 6'7" and 320 pounds inside of three rounds (check his record on CBZ, the gigantic heavyweight was one of seven men Fitz knocked out in a single day). Also, don't forget that Tom Sharkey was one of the strongest men of his era, as well as one of the dirtiest fighters in the game.
People say Jeffries was just a tough guy, and well conditioned. I don't necessarily agree entirely with that statement. He was basically years ahead of his time, being as big and strong as he was, but being also very fast for a man his size. He was a very well conditioned all around athlete.
Check out some training films of him sometime, you'd be amazed that despite the old hand cranked film cameras of the age, how fast Jeffries moved in the ring.
Posted: 18 Apr 2008, 06:35
by theone
The Great John L wrote:theone wrote:Overrated, when judging in an all-time sense. Jeffries was so great because he was so much bigger and stronger than everyone he fought. A more modern fighter like Louis or Foreman would have decimated Jeffries toughest competition.
Modern? Louis fought 60-70 years ago, and Foreman was at his peak more than 30 years ago. The sport has evolved way past those small, crude guys. You probably meant large, athletic, modern guys Kirk Johnson and Sam Peter.
As opposed to more than 100 years ago? Yeah, Louis is ALOT more modern.
As for you last line well, I didn't mention those guys did I? I used two "Modern era" greats as an example. Although with their size, Jeffries probably wouldn't want anything to do with them.
Posted: 18 Apr 2008, 07:11
by The Great John L
theone wrote:The Great John L wrote:theone wrote:Overrated, when judging in an all-time sense. Jeffries was so great because he was so much bigger and stronger than everyone he fought. A more modern fighter like Louis or Foreman would have decimated Jeffries toughest competition.
Modern? Louis fought 60-70 years ago, and Foreman was at his peak more than 30 years ago. The sport has evolved way past those small, crude guys. You probably meant large, athletic, modern guys Kirk Johnson and Sam Peter.
As opposed to more than 100 years ago? Yeah, Louis is ALOT more modern.
As for you last line well, I didn't mention those guys did I? I used two "Modern era" greats as an example. Although with their size, Jeffries probably wouldn't want anything to do with them.
Oh I forgot, boxers all learned how to fight using "modern" styles in 1920, or was it 1930? Many of us less knowledgeable about the evolution sport. Perhaps you could explain exactly when and how that happened?
Posted: 18 Apr 2008, 08:08
by Brute
The Great John L wrote:bjermaine wrote:yes, the greatest "white" heavyweight champion ever. he didn't fight even fight black guys (until the end) (':D') choynski even took him to school giving away 50 lbs.
He fought and KOd Peter Jackson, Bob Armstrong and Hank Griffin, who was a very good but now forgotten HW from that era.
It's always better to not comment if you don't know anything about the topic. Think about it.
Jackson was ill with tuberculosis when Jeffries gave him a shot in 1898. He died the three years later. Jackson had fought a 61 round draw with Corbett in 1891, but Corbett avoided him after he won the title, just as Sullivan had.
Posted: 18 Apr 2008, 08:27
by Robinson
Its safe to say that Jackson was very much past his best at that stage.
Surely it was a Ali-Holmes, Holmes-Tyson, Louis-Marciano type of match.