Been reading up on him. i just saw a remastered fight of him vs gus ruhlin. The stories of him being able to take a beating and being very strong i would say are true. But him being on the greats no. I have seen 3 of his fights He fought with his hands down slow footwork pawing with his glove. imagine a guy walking toward tyson dempsey or foreman or louis even frazier with there hand down. they would get koed quickly. Ali would would cut him up to ribbons I dont think wlad and vitali are great fighters but they would destroy jim. Sonny liston would destroy him plus many more. Lennox would ko him Marciano to if he re learned how to fight in another era he could have been great. But from what i have seen he is lucky to have fought in the early 1900s
He was very good for the times that he fought in. He'd never have beaten Jack Johnson,though, no matter at what stage of his career he'd got in the ring with him.
All of the above is totally irrelevant. Even if we accept your assumption that he would get destroyed today (never a given), it would not in any way detract from his historical standing as a dominant champion. He was clearly the best heavyweight of his era, and quite probably the best that there had been up to that time. That by any definition makes him one of the heavyweight greats.
naw i just do like how racist writers tried to say he could have beat foreman louis marciano jack and ali and frazier
Jeffries was percieved as being a top ten ATG at heavy by many writers into the 50's, but as the old guard passed away so did his support . In the 50's Dempsey was seen as much better than the new king Marciano, now the majority, [not me,] think Marciano beats him. It's a cycle.
Every era has guys who say "The old-timers were way better than the guys today." And others who say, "The guys today would kill the old timers." Could it be that good fighters are good fighters in any era? I think every top fighter, every top era, has strengths and weaknesses. A lot of how these fights play out has more to do with how particular styles, strengths and weaknesses match up, as well as the rules in play and scoring criteria. There are so many factors - fight to finish or limited number of rounds, maximum number of rounds, glove size, referee style, scoring criteria/method, straight Queensberry rules or clean break, smelling salts allowed, fight can or cannot be stopped on cuts, don't stop fight unless count to ten, allow unlimited number of knockdowns, ring size, etc. Makes it harder to translate one era to the next.
The early 1990s i say was a wild time for boxing. less rules. i do not think the heavyweights were great then. jack johnson was the best of them all. with those size gloves i think foreman or tyson might have killed jim. max bear might have to. now boxers from the 20-80s are better than the fighters today alot of great technique fighters have stopped using
Jeffries is clearly an All time Great. He fought 9 future Hall of famers losing only one of those fights and it was after a 6 year layoff to a fellow all time great. His resume speaks for itself. He also fought and defeated several good to very good black contenders on the way to the title, names like Hank Griffin, Peter Jackson and even Bob Armstrong. Too judge him against anitquated recording equipement and only seconds worth of prime footage is unfair. Against his peers he stands up to any era's top heavyweights.