If Jeffries Stayed Retired ...

Of course if Jeffires had retired and stayed retired he would have attained a mythical status, with the great "what ifs" abounding as to what would have happened between him and Jack Johnson. Bet he wished he had stayed retired.

 

Well lets remember. the Jeffries that retired was a far better fight than the one who came back at 35 without a tuneup fight and had to losee 100 lbs before the fight. Jeffries was retired for 5-6 years and came back at 35-36 ? I think if we did the same to Ali and that ripe age or even Foreman who worked his way in gradually. What if Ali quit at 30 ( I think he was about 30 ish ) and had to come back after 6 years, lose 100 lbs, no Quarry, Bonavena fights and walk right into a prime and fit Joe Frazier.....How do you think he would have done.....We can not really consider the Johnson fight in our evaluation of Jim Jeffries

 

Jeffries main problem these day is the only clear film on him is him at his worst as a rusty old man vs Johnson. What if the only film on Ali was him vs Holmes? What if the only clear film on Louis was him vs Charles or Marciano. What if the only clear film on Holmes was vs Tyson. I take it you get my point. Film has a lasting impression.

The loss to Johnson really did not hurt his legacy much as he was pretty much seen as a top 1, 2, or 3 guy until he 1960's! So I disagree that he would be more over rated if he never lost his comeback fight.

In fact, fighters like Johnson, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Burns, Dempsey, and many historians who saw him felt he was the best of all time. Historians conducted a survey called the MacCallum survey, where they voted on who the best heavyweight was. All the main boxing figures like Fleisher, and Rose were there. Jeffries came out #1 overall. The date of the poll was in the early 1960's.

When the fighters and historians who were familiar with Jeffries died out, Jeffries slide. With little film, and a long period of time, it was a case of out of site, out of mind.

The only clear and up close film on Jeffries is his 1901 workout and sparring clips. I recommend watching them, as your perception of his agility, and skills might change.

 

I would not class Jeff with Marciano, when Marciano retire, he clean out his era, when Jeff retire, there was Jack Johnson waiting for his title shot.

 

Personally, I don't think I would be rating Jeffries an iota more or less if he had stayed retired. I don't think boxing folk put any great weight on his loss to Johnson, either. Loosing to Johnson probably hurt Jeffries public Ubermensch mystique, though.

 

I think you'll find it's the the same case with most individual sports,Mendoza.

Tennis historians ,well into the 1960s,used to consider Bill Tilden the greatest tennis player of all time .

Who still holds that opinion-let alone has heard of him ?

 

Good points. Here how I would hawser the question. A historians opinion is good for say 60 years. My point is if you use the fighters or historians benchmark, Jeffries was thought of as an ATG #1 to #3 all time heavyweight until the late 1960's. In most cases those who saw him felt he was ahead of Dempsey, Louis and Marciano. the three men are still highly thought of today? Why? FIlm. Guys look great scoring knockouts on flim. I think Jeffries main problem is lack of film. When you don't have film, you are out of sight, and out of mind.


If you were to ask me who the best basketball players I have seen, I would say Jordan, and Chamberlain were the best followed closely by the following players in no particular order... Jabar, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Kobe, James, and Olawajaun ( spelling ). I am not a basketball guy, but to illustrate my point, these names were the best, and if you were to ask basketball historians who lived from 1950 to present who the best was they would say Jordan is and Chamberlin were probably #1 and #2. Just the same if you were to ask a boxing person who lived from 1890-1960 who the best was, they would say Jeffries was #1,, #2, or #3. But without the film people forgot about him.

As for the tennis player ( Tilden ) you mentioned, I really can not say. I never saw him play. Best guess is the modern tennis players are much better. Boxing is one of the lone sports where historians think the players 50+ years ago are better than the players around today. I think you can argue that boxing was better in the lower to middle weight classes for sure, but at heavyweight, the fighters are much bigger and stronger these days. I do think Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano would have a sever size handicap if they were around today. Maybe they could add 10 pounds on their frames without losing their best stuff, but the disadvantage would still beret there. Jeffries is a unique historical fighter, because he was the most athletic of the heavyweights pre 1950, and he had the size to be a modern fighter. If he were around today, I think 230-235 in shape would be his fighting weight.

 

Jeffries won the heavyweight title with very few professional bouts - something that is often overlooked. While Fitz and corbett were definately in the twilight of their careers, they still weren't slouches, and again Jeffries was more or less a novice when he fought them. His other fights against Choynski, Munroe and Sharkey are nothing to scoff about either.. And, returning to the ring after 5 years of inactivity at the age of 35 to battle a prime Jack Johnson for 15 rounds, only helps him in my opinion. Yes, he enjoyed a hefty size advantage over many of his opponents, which may have had some bearing in a cross era matchup against a man who matched his size and strength. But if we're talking about legacy, I think his resume is pretty solid.

Having no losses to speak of can help any fighter to look a bit better. Its a rare thing to be able to claim that you were never beaten. That said, If there were anything that I can think that might have helped Jeffries' legacy, I would say that it might have been to his benefit to fight one last time against top challenger Marvin Hart before retiring permanantely. Hart had just beaten Jack Johnson and a few other decent men. Had Jeffries beaten Hart and done so convincingly, he might not have had as much pressure to come out and fight Johnson.

 

Lack of fights would Jeffries at a disadvantage with more seasoned oppoents. I believe there are at least a dozen undocumented Jeffries wins out there. One news paper says Jeffries was something like 22-0 with 20 Ko's before he fought Fitzsimmons. The Cyber Boxing Zone historians say Jeffries KO'd many men in Europe. The same web site has reports newspaper Ko wins over Martin, Cotton, and some other fighters.

As for who saw Jeffries fight, the Jeffries vs Sharkey II fight film was #1 at the box office for several months. His fights with Fitzsimmons, Ruhlin, Munroe, and Corbett were also filmed.

Film really helps confirm a fighters greatness, but it is not necessary. Look at Greb. No one here has seen him fight. But few if any question his greatness.

Have you seen the full 1901 training clips HE Grant?

 

I used to think this way.

Jeffries is one of the most misunderstood heavyweights of all time.

I have seen popular books that say that his primary strategy was to use his body as a punch bag to sap his oponents strength.

Even historians who rate Jeffries highly emphasise his brute streength and durability but do not bring up other aspects of his game.

The reality is that Jeffries wasnt just big and durable he was also as quick as a cat for a man his size. Based on the footage of him sparring aluded to by Mendoza I would say that he was probably the fastest fighter over 220 pounds in lean peak condition who ever lived. He is like like a balet dancer on his feet and repeatedly makes his sparring partner miss by a few inches by pulling his head back like Muhamad Ali!

Basicaly Jeffries fought for the title as a novice and learned his trade on the job. He eventualy matured into a well rounded boxer and finisher. He actualy outboxed Corbett in their second encounter!

I honestly think that Jeffries retired just as he was coming into his peak because there were no big fights left. In adition to his renowned strength and durability he had become one of the better boxers around from a technical standpoint. He was a good finisher and his speed and reflexes were starting to translate into offensive prowesin in ways that the hadnt earlier in his career.

At that point in he wasa quantum leap over anything that had been before and anything that would be again for some time.

 

That's really a shame. I think fighting Marvin Hart and a few others may helped him a bit..