Prime Peter Jackson v Prime Jim Jeffries?

Probably Peter Jackson on points.
I think Jackson was about on a par with Corbett, was considered just as clever, probably not as quick on his feet but bigger and stronger, a good deal more powerful.
I wouldn't hesitate to pick prime Corbett over Jeffries.

 

This is a great fight for the ages, and impossible to pick with any degree of certainty. If jackson is as good as his peers rated him then he probably wins. Jeffries, i think has the better record.

Stylistically both really seem made for the other on paper. But i think that Jackson might not have the chin to get by jeffries.

 

Jackson decisions Jeffries. Far better all round boxer. That's if Jeffries did n't hide behind the 'colour bar'

 

Jackson is under rated in modern times. I view him as a bigger version of Ezzard Charles, and feel he belongs in the top 25 heavyweights since Queensberry rules. Hall of fame referee Siler who saw both Jackson and Johnson in the ring ( sometimes as the referee ) , felt Jackson was better than Johnson. However as skilled as Jackson was, he was never the most durable type. He had a thin neck for his size, and was floored by Joe Goodard in a tough fight that ended up in a draw, and suffered broken ribs in the Slavin fight. Jackson wasn’t a defensive type or runner by nature. He was more action oriented. It is doubtful he could hold up to Jeffries head or body shots, so Jeffries would win.

Although Jackson was in-active and older, the papers of the time said he was in shape and had regained his form for the Jeffries fight. Jackson looked sharp in round one vs. Jeffries, but things quickly went south for him once Jeffries landed a hook to the jaw. I would pick Jeffries mid round KO.

 

Not an easy call, but 20/25/45/finish-fight, I'd go with Jeffries to wear Jackson down. I think the more upright, quicker Jeffries will catch Jackson, though eating a lot in the process. But a prime Jackson, vs. a crouching, slower Jeffries and a stubborn corner job by Tommy Ryan? That's harder to call, especially if the scheduled rounds were shorter.

 

Says Jackson trained hard and was in fine condition by physicians. Who are you to argue otherwise, they were there.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C00E0D6123CE433A25750C2A9659C94699ED7CF


Says Jackson displayed some of his old cleverness in round one by ducking and jabbing, and had a lively 2nd round until he was hit…In other words, it was not lack of skills, but durability vs. Jeffries power that ended the match quickly

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...g=5896,5688061&dq=peter+jackson+jeffries&hl=e


Jeffries says Jackson landed several stiff punches

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&dq=peter+jackson+training+for+jeffries&hl=en

If you check the Brooklyn union, they say Jackson looked good in camp.

15", which is small for a heavy. This can be found in the tale of the tape vs Corbett. Jackson was built for speed and grace, not to take punishment.

 

Haven't seen enough footage of Jackson to make a worthwhile pick.

 

The win by Jeffries was impressive, because of the manner.

Jackson did not turn up a blubbering mess like, i dont know say James toney in some of his heavyweight fights.

Jackson (like Jeffries) was in good shape and would have beat some decent top fighters.

But, zero credence can be given to the News reports of the fighters condition and his training. The press are going to be told by everyone how great he looked because the fight is being hyped.

In fact, with the right promotion, you will find that Mike Tyson was in his best form for Lewis, Williams and McBride. Fitzsimmons was a true master showing unbeatable skills for Bill Lang or Jack Johnson. Jeffries of course was in fine form for Johnson.

I have no problem with arguing that Jackson was a better win than Jeffries is given credit, because of the manner, or Jackson was capable of beating other fighters not named Jeffries. In fact, i would probably lean to agreeing. But to suggest that Jackson was even close to his prime form, as seems to be happening, and to base this on pre fight reports is just crazy, imo. In fact even Jim Jeffries disagrees. He is very emphatic that (while he did not know it going into the fight), the victory he had over Jackson was not a victory over the real Peter Jackson.


Putting the class of fighters into perspective, on one view of things, depending on what you believe of course, Jeffries went tooth and nail with old versions of Corbett and Fitzsimmons and you would assume would struggle much worse with prime versions of both. Fitzsimmons, when in his prime was not considered to be in the same class as Peter Jackson, even though they both trained together at Larry Foleys. Fitz was just too small to even be considered a chance for a fight with jackson. And Corbett in his prime couldnt beat Jackson in 60 rounds even though many say he had an injured foot and the flu. He was certainly more competitive against Corbett in the early rounds than jeffries was against old corbett.

 

Who says Jackson was washed up? Not this newspaper leading up to the fight. They say Jackson was in form, agile, and still clever. I hope the link works.

http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary....ne=&Body=%62%6f%78%69%6e%67&ViewMode=GIF&GZ=T

 

Very hard to say prime for prime.

You would have found people willing to pick Jackson, even when Jeffries was riding the crest of the wave in terms of perceptions of him.

I lean towards the idea that Jeffries would have won, based on the problems that pressure fighters gave Jackson at various stages of his career.