Did Jim Jeffries Benefit From Being Born At The Right Time?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Boucher, Feb 28, 2011.


  1. Boucher

    Boucher Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,596
    5
    Dec 18, 2010
    Jim Jeffries started as a pro around 1895,his best early victory was over another novice, Hank Griffin, he followed this up with a draw against Gus Ruhlin 6-2-0, and another draw against the classy, but hugely outweighed [67lbs] Joe Choynski.
    Jeffries next win was over the 40 year old Joe Goddard in 4 rds. Goddard had lost his last two fights to Theodore Van Buskirk 4-1-2[ allready beaten by Jeffries, ] and ,been kod by Tom Sharkey.
    Jeffries next took on the alcoholic, and 3 years retired 37 year old Peter Jackson , who was in the first stages of T .B. Jeffries, predictably stopped Jackson in 3 rds.
    Jeffries then faced Mexican Pete Everett, who had beaten no one, and, would only beat one name fighter,Sharkey, on a dsq .
    Jeffries would now fight 5 foot 8 inch Tom Sharkey ,we don't know what Sharkey weighed for this fight but ,7 months later he scaled 173lbs when he fought Kid McCoy. Jeffries scaled 205 lbs so around 30 lbs weight advantage to Jeffries ,plus ,up to 6 inches in height.
    Sharkey was a face first brawler , exactly the wrong sort of style to do well against a bigger, harder hitting, stronger man like Jeffries ,yet he went the 20 rd distance and gave Jeffries a very hard fight.
    Then came Bob Armstrong, really best known as a sparring partner.
    Armstrong had been kod a month before by Mexican Pete Everett, and had a history of underperforming in actual combat he was known as a great" gym fighter."
    Armstrong lost on points and in his next fight, could only draw with 40 year old Goddard.
    Armstrong was conceding 25lbs to Jeffries.

    Jeffries now met the Champ, legendary Bob Fitzsimmons,but Fitz was 37 and, had not fought in 2 years, he was ready to be taken by a young, strong challenger, especially one who had a monstrous 39lbs weight advantage over him.
    Jeffries took some stick, but kept walking forward and stopped Fitz in the 11th.

    Five months later Jeffries faced his old play mate Sharkey, Sailor Tom, giving away 32lbs to the new Champ,gives Jeffries the fight of his life, and quite a few think he is entitled to no less than a draw ,after 25 very closely contested rounds.Jeffries gets the nod.
    A joke of a defence against John Finnegan 4-2-4 ,giving away 60lbs to Jeffries, is followed by Jim Corbett the champ before Fitz.
    Corbett is now 33 years old ,giving 30lbs of weight away, and 8 years in age

    Corbett has not fought in 2 years, nor won a fight in the last 6 years, yet , he outboxes Jeffries and is in front after 23 rds ,before Jeffries finally nails him for the finish.
    Next up is a debacle, Hank Griffin, described as" looking like a famine sufferer "giving away 40 lbs, is stopped in a no contest.
    Joe Kennedy is the next sacrificial lamb ,no serious threat is Joe he could only manage 2 draws in his last 2 fights with" famine sufferer" Griffin, and had previously been kod in 2 rds by completely washed up ,alcoholic Peter Maher.

    Then comes Gus Ruhlin, a novelty for Jeffries, because he is nearly the same size as the Champ. Ruhlin could be good and he could be horrible, seriously inconsistant he had been recently kod by Fitz in 6 rds and, been beaten by our old friend Joe Kennedy 5-2-0.
    Ruhlin fights a back pedalling fight but Jeffries catches him in the 5th with a body shot ,and Ruhlin is retired between rds.
    He is the only man of any quality Jeffries will face, up until his first retirement, who is anywhere near his size.
    It's the turn of old Fitz again now and old is the word, nearly 40, Fitz has not fought in 2 years and is now giving away a whopping 47lbs to the Champion, plus 13 years in age.
    Fitz makes light of his handicaps, and beats the **** out of Jeffries for 8 rds smashing his face into a bloody pulp, unfortunately for the Ruby one ,he also smashes his hands to bits on the plodding Champs bony face . Jeffries knocks the old man out in the 8th.
    A year later the retired Jim Corbett, now nearly 37 ,and inactive for 3 years challenges Jeffries.
    Again Corbett concedes weight 27lbs, and his legs are no longer nimble .Jeffries finds it easier to trap him this time and stops him in 10rds.
    A joke fight against Jack Munroe is mercifully short, tko 2rds.
    Now Jeffries retires, just at his peak and ,as the cries for him to defend against his standout challenger the looming Jack Johnson begin to increase in volume. Jeffries waves the white flag of racism, and avoids Johnson by retiring.
    Well ,was Jeffries fortunate to come along when he did ?

    Meeting 2, aging, past their best , considerably smaller , inactive champs ,a quality fighter
    [Choynski] whom he drew with ,although receiving 67 lbs in weight advantage, and a seriously undersized Tom Sharkey[ 5' 8" ,and 30lbs] who nevertheless, gave him lafe and death for 45rds in 2 fights.

    Jeffries met one man who was any good who scaled 200lbs. he drew with him in one fight and stopped him in the other.
    Sharkey who gave Jeffries such hard fights and whom ,some thought deserved the nod in one of them, was twice wrecked early by Fitz, yet he went the distance twice with the giant [to him[ Jeffries.
    Jeffries was a huge man , [for his times] fighting ,for the most part undersized old past it men.
    Was he lucky to be around when he was ?
     
  2. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,639
    Mar 17, 2010
    I was gonna come in here and give you a quick

    No


    But you do bring a lot of good evidence to the table.


    However I believe he would be top 3 in any era
     
  3. burt bienstock

    burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,285
    403
    Jan 22, 2010
    B, there are 2 ways to look at this I believe.
    1-According to your succint post,Jim Jeffries beat a string of 'has beens',
    and tomato cans during his career.What you write looks awfully convincing.
    Koing former greats as Fitz, Corbett, Jackson,and drawing with the older Choynski,and two close decisions against the smaller Tom Sharkey,doesn't
    make for an impressive resume,for the Boilermaker...
    2-But he beat whatever was in front of him at that time in history.Jeffries was not a slickster styled fighter, but one that like a tank ,rolled over you eventually. He retired in 1904,after having just 21 bouts under his belt, so he
    was still in the improving stage. Twenty one fights is a drop in the bucket
    experience-wise. He was at his retirement considered unbeatable,by the boxing fraternity,and went to his Alfalfa farm in California,wealthy and content...B, he beat all his opposition.Jeffries as other fighting Champions cannot be faulted with who his opposition was at his time in history. Fate
    dictates that. But Jeffries peers,[including Sam Langford],raved about
    his powerful abilities,up to his retirement undefeated in 1904. Wouldn't
    these boxing experts take into account,the backgrounds of the past prime
    greats as Jackson,Fitz, and Corbett, he kod in his truly short career ???
    And YET they called him invincible, at the time of his retirement !! My question is WHY ??? Was it group madness on their part, or was watching
    the might of the prime California GRIZZLY BEAR,so convincing ???:good
     
  4. guilalah

    guilalah Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,356
    308
    Jul 30, 2004
    Boucher, you do a very good job of presenting all the evidence on one side of the scale.:good

    I think Jeffries was fortunate in two respects:

    1) he met several fighters who were perceived as having made formidable showing -- Sharkey II, Corbett I, Fitzsimmons II -- and the fact that Jeffries none-the-less triumphed added to his prestige. It's true that, against Sharkey II and Corbett I, Jeffries was criticized for his lack of agression. (Though Jeffries suffered great facial damage in Fitzsimmons II, it was generally recognized that he was also giving Bob a reciprocal beatdown, just to the body, where it didn't show so much). As Jeffries matured as a fighter -- being judged c. 1903/1904 as quicker, more agressive, with better footwork and punching form -- and as people also got to see a Jeffries not hampered by a left arm displacement -- it became accepted that, in Sharkey II and Corbett I, Jeffries had turned back formidable challenges despite not being at his eventual best; so, in that sense, being able to catch Sharkey, Corbett and Fitzsimmons was very good for his eventual prestige.

    2) Jeffries -- especially the Jeffries of Sharkey II and Corbett I -- also probably profited by the 25 round distance of the time. Of course, the reason that profited him was that he was an extraordinarily durable guy.
     
  5. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,677
    27,391
    Feb 15, 2006
    I guess that a lot depends on whether you think that Jeffries would have fared well against larger fighters.

    He is often criticised for fighting older and smaller fighters, but what we can deduce from his record suggests that he might have been more dominant against larger and less mobile opponents. If this is the case then perhaps he does better a few years later.
     
  6. Boucher

    Boucher Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,596
    5
    Dec 18, 2010
    Langford raved about how Jeffries was going to beat the crap out of Johnson too, he could not have been more wrong.

    Langford said he would fight any man, except Jeffries ,true.
    Now lets look at it a bit closer.

    Jeffries had his last fight as Champion in August 1904 ,in December of that year Langford then weighed 140lbs small wonder he did not want to fight Jeffries who then scaled 219lbs.

    He was still drawing with lighteweights like Jack Blackburn at the time.

    Jeffries was challenged by Sam Mcvey ,whom Johnson beat in dominant fashion three times, Jeffries ignored his challenge, as he did Johnson's .
    Jeffries beat what was in front of him,but he avoided the best fighter out there, Johnson ,and, retired rather than face him . FACT.
    There were many newspapers calling for Jeffries to face Johnson so somebody must have thought Johnson had a chance against the man you say was considered "unbeatable".
    Many unflattering editorials ,implored Jeffries to give Johnson his chance they are easily found for those who want to look.
    This thread was put up as a response to Mendoza's asking if Jack Johnson was born in a fortunate era?
    I contend that he could not have been born in a more unfavourable time, both as a boxer, and as a man of colour.
    If Johnson was lucky ,then Jffries was a damn sight luckier in that his two most celebrated opponents were past their best, inactive , and considerably smaller than him ,and that his other toughest opponent was a 5 foot 8 inch , come forward brawler with no science at all.
    Two of Jeffries other title defences were against Jokes that would make Frazier's against Stander and Daniels look respectable .

    Jeffries was the first reallly big heavyweight champ over 6 feet , and,200lbs plus and he had an appreciable size advantage in 99% of his fights.

    Those are the facts.
     
  7. Boucher

    Boucher Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,596
    5
    Dec 18, 2010
    On what do you base this deduction?
     
  8. burt bienstock

    burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,285
    403
    Jan 22, 2010
    B,You make some good points. I have not made up my mind completely as to Jeffries place in history. But I have read many opinions as to the greatness of Jim Jeffries,before his retirement in 1904. So many early boxing writers who saw James J Jeffries, and up to the time of Joe Louis, called big Jeffries,
    the greatest heavyweight of alltime. Were they by chance delusional,or were they asserting the truth ? Are their opinions [after seeing Jeffries,prime],less
    valid, than today's critics, 100 years later.. This is the question,we must ask ourselves today, I believe fervently...
    P.S. If it is true Sam Langford's remark stating " the only fighter I want no part of is Jim Jeffries ",is valid, his remark might have been made in 1906 or soon after, when Langford was bigger, and tackling the heavyweights ,
    though Jeffries was retired by then. Possible...Good show B...
     
  9. Boucher

    Boucher Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,596
    5
    Dec 18, 2010
    Joe Woodman, Langford's manager put Sam's challenge in the newpapers, it was while Jeffries was still active as a fighter, so my point is valid.
    Given that Jeffries had a hell of a time defeating a retired Corbett being behind at the time of the stoppage and, had his face made into hamburger, by a Fitz a couple of months off of 40 years old, one is entitled to ask how would Jeffries have done had they both been prime?
    I like your posts ,and respect you Bert, and we share a huge admiration for Jack Dempsey, but I have somewhat mixed feelings when Jeffries name crops up.
     
  10. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,677
    27,391
    Feb 15, 2006
    The fighters who gave Jeffries most trouble were all smaller mobile fighters. Corbett was a mobile fighter and Fitzsimmons fought as a mobile fighter in the fight where he actualy got somwhere.

    I will leave Sharkey of the list because Jeffries basicaly took the fight with one arm out of action and that is enough to explain Sharkeys sucess.

    Although Jeffries had some weight advantage over all of his title oponents, he was clearly much more destructive against the fighters who were in the 200lb+ size range. Ruhlin, Kenedy and Munroe were not great fighters, but they were demolished.

    This makes me think that Jeffries could have been verry effective against other fighters his own size, especialy ones who were not great. It also makes me thin k that certain fighters gave him problems because they were smal, as oposed to despite the fact they were smal.
     
  11. Boucher

    Boucher Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,596
    5
    Dec 18, 2010
    Ruhlin went 20rds to a draw in one of the fights with Jeffries. Kennedy,and Munroe are not reliable yardsticks to measure Jeffries effectiveness against men near his own size in my opinion .
    This content is protected



    Jeffries and the mighty. Jack Munroe.

    Van Buskirk ,an early victim

    This content is protected



    Joe Kennedy

    This content is protected
     
  12. turpinr

    turpinr Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,227
    1,255
    Feb 6, 2009
    in what division ??
     
  13. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    Heavyweight obviously. What other division would he be in?

    Anyway IMO Prime Fitzsimmons and Corbett would have had their way with him, and I suspect the same from a Peter Jackson as well.
     
  14. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,677
    27,391
    Feb 15, 2006
     
  15. gentleman jim

    gentleman jim gentleman jim Full Member

    1,640
    56
    Jan 15, 2010
    I think it's fair to say that Jeff, along with many of the old time HW's benefitted from the fact that at the turn of the century there weren't a lot of talented big men. Jeffries makes me think of the saying " Big fish in a small pond". Other HW's also were the recipients of the adage "Young fish in an old pond". Louis took care of the older HW's on his way up as did Marciano and Ali. The difference is that these champions also met men thier own sizes or larger whereas Jeffries didn't. This isn't a rap on Jeffries as it wasn't his fault. It relly wasn't until the mid to late 60's when we began to see big and mobile athletes more and more in all sports...Think of men like Ali, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain...Jim Brown and others. So yes I think Jeffries did benefit from being a big and talented HW during his time but it shouldn't necessarily detract from his legacy. Not fighting Johnson in his prime does because he would've met a fellow big talented and young HW contender. Aside from that a man can't choose his date of birth.