False Jeffries was never starved, Poor food might have been a contributor on the liberal East coast but not out west, Small and Big Farmers provided plenty of meat, fruit and vegetables...small Homesteaders in cal/idaho/Montana etc lived off their life stock, own grain and supplemented it with the best meat possible, wild game, Mule deer , Elk Goat and sheep. Jim Jeffries had the best nutrition available to him when he lived, a healthy 210-220 ponds, essentially organic with no pesticides or artificial enhancers . Modern"Nutrition" is PED's , pioneered by the Eastern Commies, perfected by Capitalists. If you are interested read Elmer Keith's "Hell, I was there" , a true frontier story out west of rugged individualism starting in the early 20th century
What exactly is a modern schooled fighter? If you look at Jeffries training regime, you will probably find it more impressive than those of many of his modern contemporaries. You are probably right here. Jeffries would most likely have drawn the color line against Hide, even if he was confident of beating him. I think the idea that Hide would be successful on size alone should be challenged. There were a lot of heavyweights the size of Hide in that era, its's just that none of them were particularly good, apart from Jeffries himself. Then again Hide wasn't exactly a standout in his own era! This is an eroneous view of Jeffries style. While he might not have been a defensive wizard, he did not simply absorb punches with his chin. Indeed he actually out boxed Corbett in their second encounter according to ringside observers. Again, I would have to challenge the idea that Hide would have been one of the best heavyweights around back then. His resume is very thin in his own era, and he wasn't really beating the best, or even the guys who weren't quite the best. Why assume that he would have been better than Fitzsimmons, Sharkey, Ruhlin, or even Monro?
Got all his books, was quite the character , some of them are now collectors items, I even have "Safari" Have you read "Hell I was there" ? One tough life including loosing his daughter and getting almost burnt to death.
Jeffries was a passionate hunter, and I suspect that his larder was well stocked with game. One factor that does bear mentioning however, is that Jeffries dehydrated himself before most of his fights, in the misguided belief that it would help his endurance. He saw the error of his ways in the twilight of his career, but it can't have helped his performance in his earlier fights.
Picking Hide on the basis of him being 6'2"and 220lbs would be silly. Picking him because he was very fast,a good boxer , and a legitimate big puncher,[over 81% kos], would be logical.
I think he would ko Corbett, Ruhlin, Munro ,the relic that was Jackson, and the 40 years old Godfrey. Equally you could say how many class heavyweights, ie men of 185lbs and over with ability did Jeffries beat? How many did he beat who were prime? How many class men did he best who weren't coming back from a long spell of inactivity? I'm not saying Hide wins this match up, but to deny he has a real chance is pretty silly. If it's over 15 or 12 rds ,I think Hide should be favourite.
Off topic, but it appears that next to boxing you also fancy shooting and hunting. There is also some great reading from outstanding Hunters /tough guys from your side of the Pond , in Africa, John"Pondora" Taylor, James H Sutherland and W D M Bell, all outstanding Professional Elephant Ivory Hunters from a by gone era and from India, Jim Corbett, who killed man eating Tigers single handily.
What separates them is that Jeffries beat the top fighters of his era. The only thing that you might question is the quality of the era. I acknowledge that my predictions carry a health warning, because I am making a lot of assumptions about what Jeffries was/wasn't. He is one of those fighters where you have to fill in a lot of blanks.
His training regime for he Munro fight is documented in considerable detail. I think you would find it fully equal to a modern champion's
