Was Jim Jeffries Undefeated When He Made His Comeback?

I did all of the work to resolve these debates and dispel myths. All anyone has to do is refer to my book on James J. Jeffries.

 

It was a tour type of fight. Sullivan and Dempsey had plenty, but they do not count in their records either.

Jeffries was clearly the better in the ring, flooring Munroe several times. Jeffries won the fight by anyone standard. Munroe won the side bet by lasting the distance.

Ad for racists can you elaborate why you said its in the Italians' DNA to cheat? I'd really like to know. You never bothered to tell us.

 

Adam disagrees:

 

I was always led to believe that Jeffries record upon his initial retirement was 20-0 and his comeback years later against Johnson I don't rate either way, the Johnson v Jeffries fight is one of the biggest farces in history. I think Johnson was a hell of a fighter but who did he really beat ????? some good fighters to be sure but just about every one of class was way smaller than Jack making Jack somewhat of a bully, just look at langford.... small........ Burns... infinitessimally small... next to jack you almost need a microscope to see Tommy.... Then theres ancient old fat Jim Jeffries.. yeah he trained real hard and lost an amazing amount of weight and looked reasonably good for the fight but it was akin to giving a bald man a wig.... he is still bald. Johnson may have been mor impressive BEFORE he won against Burns. Jeffries is hard to rank because 21 career fights is very light on, yet his reputation when champion was massive and some at the time rate him the greatest so like I said, he is hard to get hold of to rank him, but he must have been a very good fighter all the same. he sure was big for a heavyweight in those days.

 

I got onto a Jack tangent that's all, yeah I agree with you, Jeffries did have a few decent wins, Corbett, Tom Sharkey, Fitzsimmons , Ruhlin, Choynski and maybe most impressive name, Peter Jackson. I think Jackson was on the tailend of his career by then though, Fitz is too small, Corbett and in fact everyone he beat was a lot lighter with Fitz and Choynski the lightest at just 167 lbs with Jim's weight anything from 202 yo 220 lbs. Fact is Jeffries AND Johnson were somewhat physical freaks at that time for boxers and they simply had the physical advantage but at least those names above are impressive all of whom are great fighters with the exception of Ruhlin who I don't know much about, those guys were fairly big for those days so I guess Jim and Jack are simply giants so they should have dominated and that they surely did.

 

These are the fights he has after winning title, some are not title defences.
Well lets look further into it, 1st defense, Jack O'Brien (some doubt here that this is a defense due to it being a ND bout) O'Brien 162 1/2. :, Tony Ross 214 (jack 207) but who is this guy ??, this is a non title fight anyway, Kaufman 191 also a non title fight, Ketchel 170, Jeffries 227 way over his fighting weight and coming out of retirement, Jim Flynn 193, Battling Jim Johnson 222 (9 pounds heavier but again a second rate guy) ends in a draw, admittedly it seems Jack suffered an arm injury, Frank Moran 203 (Jack is 221 1/2.......... there is something going on here and a pointer towards his decline, ever since his fight with Ketchel, Jack is losing control of his own weight, against Ketchel, Jack was at just 205 1/2, from there in progression of these fights Jack weighs 208 - 212 - 213 3/4 - 221 1/2 - and two fights later against Willard Jack has blown out to 225 nearly 20 pounds above his prime weight, this is probably the main reason he lost his title)......... ....................................... Then he fights Jack Murray and it's a non title bout and neither fighters weight is recorded in Boxrec then he loses his title to Willard who weighs 238 1/2. ................... ..................... so the defences are against Ketchel, Jeffries, Flynn, Jim Johnson and Moran..... thats just 4 defences, obviously Jeffries and Willard were bigger and so was the almost unknown Jim Johnson which ended up a draw and Frank Moran who is smaller but well known as a good fighter....... I will not comment further I will just let the facts support me, yes you are right to an extent but I am not far wrong either, ............... If Jack had kept control of his weight he may just have beat Willard.

 

Yet the big names of O'Brien, Ketchel are very small compared to Jack, all I am saying that when Jack fought other big guys they were either nobodies or Willard who won or Jeffries who by than wasn't even half as good as his prime, I feel that Jacks opponents from Burns to Willard are either very ordinary or they are smaller and that Jacks title reign is not as impressive as it was at a glance.... that's all mate, yeah Jeffries record isn't so great either.......... I should add that all this is relativity because Jack was deemed a brilliant fighter so maybe these other guys aren't so ordinary, anyway that is my opinion and I have no problem with yours, indeed I enjoy most of your posts very much.

 

So how is his pelvis ??

 

And mine came from his post here. It would take long for you to starting using double standards on some of his opinions.