And, although it's fashionable today to bash Nat Fleischer (which I won't), he did see every Heavyweight Champion and major non-champion, from at least as far back as Jeffries, and forward to Frazier. He still rated Jeffries #2 all time. (But there were some indications that Nat was reevaluating Joe Louis at various times, and may have been thinking about moving Joe to #2, thereby pushing Jeff down to #3. In doing so, he would have been actually giving in to his original thoughts about Joe Louis, dating back as far as 1949.)
I believe the only fight Fleischer saw of Jeffries was the comeback one against Johnson. Nat was very biased towards the old timers,and the fact that he found no space for Ali in his top ten severely damages his credibility for me.He was a force for good in boxing and I applaud his stand on many issues.
That's pretty absurd to have a guy who you've only seen fight once as the #2 of all time. And it's a fight Jeff lost!
I think that Jeffries hands looks quite fast in comparison to Ruhlin. His hooks were compact and seemed to carry considerable power. I agree that Ruhlin seems to have faster feet, though it's important to note that he tried to run away from Jeffries at this point.
I think BitPlayerVesti does here is fair. He gives you primary sources, which are the most valuable things we have on the subject - yes, even more so than the great book.
To be honest it is not just Fleischer. A huge number of contemporary observers gave Jeffries glowing endorsements, and continued to well into the Louis era. Is it plausible that they were all wrong? Sure. Is it plausible that they all believed something that a reasonable person would not believe? Probably not. Is it plausible that nobody who saw Jeffries would have called it correctly? Again, probably not. Jeffries was probably a lot better than most people on this board think he was.
Is it plausible, that reporters/trainers/boxers in their old age, looked back at their youth with a good bit of nostalgia?
You know not everyone from the day thought so highly of Jeff .. William Muldoon wrote he felt Jeffries was limited and very over rated by many .. I wonder how much of the Jeffries legend sprang top when the movement to get him to fight Johnson started as if many were convincing themselves of some Adonis coming back .. I have no doubt Jeffries was a very tough man from a very tough age .. he clearly took a terrific shot and was very strong however to this day I've seen nothing that proves to me he was more than a Chuvalo of his time in an age of smaller fighters .. he may have been more but also remember the man only had twenty fights .. I just don't know ..
No, Jeffries legend was not in any way a product of his comeback against Johnson. After the second Corbett fight, he was as highly rated as any champion has ever been, by contemporary observers. Seen as darn near invincible. Jack Johnson was seen as a no hoper against him, including by some who were critical of his decision to draw the color line. He was not only being praised for his size and strength, but also his speed and cleverness. There were plenty of other men his size around, and he was still seen as being the phenomenon of the era, who could probably beat any two men in the same night. He was not seen as a big man who won on durability. He was seen as a big man, who was much faster than anybody else his size, and much cleverer that anybody else his size. Almost every heavyweight champion between Sullivan and Dempsey, ranked him as the GOAT.
These are fairly logical conclusions to reach. Only problem is that Jeff's results and what we read about him do not always live up to the very high praise he received.