I'll be diplomatic and split it between them; Frazier probably made more effective use of his power, while Jeffries was likely the stronger of the two.
...Yes, that's what's called a truism. What's your point, here? The topic is "Better overall puncher: Jeffries of Frazier?" If you mean to say that my choice is invalidated by my statement that Jeffries likely had the harder single shot, then I have to point out that there is an obvious difference between "better overall" and "harder." To my knowledge, Jeffries never stopped a high-level opponent with his right. Both Frazier and Jeffries could work effectively with their right hands, but were heavily-reliant on their lefts to produce the finisher. I don't see any great contrast between their results in this department.
Both men were accused of being one-handed fighters, dependent on the left. Both more often than not wore their better opponents down. Several posters have made the useful point that Frazier fought bigger men. Very close pick, but I would give Frazier a small edge.
Certainly not all papers. Here are a couple of examples of ringside observers criticizing Jeff for not having a right: SF Chronicle--7-17-1897 following Gus Ruhlin fight: ""The Ruhlin-Jeffries fight was declared a draw--a decision which was undoubtedly fair and just. "Jeffries displayed no more science than when he first stood in the ring. He seemed last night to merit the name of a one-blow puncher. He used the right less than a dozen times in the 60 minutes of fighting, and then only in a half-hearted sort of way, depending entirely on his left." SF Examiner--12-1-1897 follow Joe Choynski fight: W W Naughton called the fight "a battle of lefts . . . with neither man doing much work with the right." "Choynski settled on the straight left as a steady thing, and possibly in a contest to the finish he might have won out with it. Jeffries has the stamina of a young draft colt and although he bled freely, his stamina was not diminished." Hype Igoe--Ring Magazine, Jan 1931 on Tex Richard: "It was a never-ending argument with us. I always insisted that Jack Dempsey, with his two great, punishing hands, would have whipped Jeff at his best, but you couldn't convince Tex of that. When I challenged Tex with the remark that no one-handed heavyweight ever lived who could whip the Manassa Mauler, Tex would shoot back. "Hype, you're crazy." Igoe obviously felt Jeff was a one-handed puncher. I have seen all the film extant on Jeff, and I must say he had a strong left, but I have not seem him even TRY an overhand right. The only time the right seems to be used at all is in close-in flurries. His right might indeed be less effective than Frazier's.
We have been over this before, OLD FOGEY. The Brooklyn Union has a detailed Jeffires vs Ruhlin I fight, and clearly states Jeffries was very good with the right hand and threw it often. I posted it here a while back. Its in the archives. In the Sharkey fight, Jeffries landed plenty of good right hands and right handed uppercuts. Igoe was intersting, but it should be noted the term " Hype " came out of those who smiled at his hyped opninions.
Was the Brooklyn Union at ringside for two young heavyweights fighting in San Francisco? I don't see any reason why the ringside observer of the Chronicle or W W Naughton of the Examiner would invent the idea that Jeff did not show a good right. It seems reasonable to accept the ringside reports that Jeff did not have a good right at least at this point in his career. The modern word hype comes from the Greek hyper meaning over or beyond--as in hyperbole. I don't think it has anything to do with Hype Igoe, who was a respected sportswriter and perhaps the most respected boxing writer of his era, along with Tad Dorgan.
I believe they were. In fact the write up in the Union far exceeds the San Fran write up. Its a detailed fight report which can be read here. Note the use of Jeffries right hand: [url]http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Search&Key=BEG/1897/07/17/4/Ar00405.xml&CollName=BEG_APA3&DOCID=1505015&PageLabelPrint=&Skin=BEagle&AW=1224467617437&GZ=T&sScopeID=UDR2&sPublication=BEG&sSorting=Score%2cdesc&sQuery=Jeffries%20Ruhlin%20&sDateFrom=%2530%2531%2f%2530%2531%2f%2531%2538%2538%2531&sDateTo=%2531%2532%2f%2533%2531%2f%2531%2539%2530%2532&rEntityType=&RefineQueryView=&StartFrom=16&ViewMode=GIF&GZ=T[/url]
No the Chronicle has a full write up on this fight. I just have no way of reproducing it, certainly not when I am living in New Mexico. They had a 20 round blow by blow. Here is all the quotes I wrote down from the Chronicle several years ago from 7-17-1897: "The Ruhlin-Jeffries fight was declared a draw--a decision which was undoubtedly fair and just." "Jeffries displayed no more science then when he first stood in the ring. He seemed last night to merit the name of a one-blow puncher. He used the right less than a dozen times in the 60 minutes of fighting, and then only in a half-hearted sort of way, depending entirely on his left." "His judgement is not good. Several times when he had his opponent winded, he didn't follow up his advantage." Then my notes on a long summation of the fight--Ruhlin is described as a good boxer who used his superior height and reach to hold Jeffries off with straight lefts and rights, while making a mess of Jeff's face. Ruhlin cut Jeffries over the left eye and bloodied his nose. Jeff mocked him down in the 5th and 6th rounds, but Ruhlin rallied late in the 6hth, with Jeffries "jolted considerably" by two right hand smashes. From the 7th through the 19th, it was a slow fight with Ruhlin having the edge due to his "science". Entering the 20th round, to quote again, "Ruhlin had undoubted the best of the bout, and he seemed good for a ding-dong finish. A minute before time he forced Jeffries to his corner, but the big fellow seemed to pull himself together again and started to mix. He got Ruhlin to the ropes and sent him to the floor hard, dazing him badly, with a left swing to the ear." Ruhlin stumbled up unsteadily at 7 and was reeling but managed to clinch until the bell saved him. That's what I have on notes from the Chronicle on this fight. The total fight report probably covers about three pages.
Well, I don't know. There are obvious differences. The SF papers have three knowdowns--in the 5th, 6th, and 20th. The Brooklyn Eagle seems to refer to two, in the 4th and 20th. The Chronicle ringside reporter goes out of his way to criticize Jeff's use of his right. The Eagle reporter seems to think it is the right that is doing the damage. The SF paper considers this a fight between Gus Ruhlin and Jim Jeffries. The Eagle correspondent reports a fight between Gus Ruhlin and Joe Jeffries. The last knockdown is clearly described as from a right by the Eagle and from a left by the Chronicle. You takes your choice, I guess, but I wonder how close the Eagle guy was to the ring, and was either of these reporters sober?
I think the fair statement would be that the papers' authors weren't entirely in agreement as to how good Jeffries' right was. Not surprising- if you were to ask a group of fans or sportswriters today to assess the quality of a particular punch from a particular contemporary fighter, there would be marked disagreement within the group, just as there was then. What we can say with certainty, though, is that Jeffries consistently relied on his left hand to finish opponents, as did Frazier. Certainly Frazier could work well with his right hand- no knockout-oriented fighter gets to the top and dominates the way these guys did without having at least a reasonably complete offense.
It is always good to see you post, MF. The papers do disagree, but I would make a couple of points. 1. Why did any observer come up with the idea that Jeff did not have a good right unless there was something to it, and more than just one observer felt that way. 2. The film I have seem backs up the "Jeff did not have a good right" point of view. Does he even TRY a right against Jack Johnson, despite Johnson often holding his left low. I have never seen an overhand right from Jeffries.
James Jeffries was a very large man by the standards of his day, while the vast number of his opponents were considerably smaller, some of whom were also past prime. Frazier, on the otherhand was a small to medium sized heavyweight by the standards of his day, and often KOing or stopping fighters who were his size or often bigger and either at or near prime. Lastly, along with Jeffries' size and youth advantage over his best opponents, he also fought during a period where much smaller gloves were used, and was oftne taken the distance over many rounds against physically inferior foes.... Despite the above comparisons, Joe Frazier actually finished his career with many more stoppages inside a shorter scheduled distance than Jeffries did. Sure their percentages are fairly close, but then Jeffries did not face an opponent like Oscar Bonavena or Muhammad Ali on a combined 5 occasions.. Some will argue ( and I have a pretty good idea of who they'll be ), that comparing physical differences between the contestants and their opponents are totally irrelevent. That modern training methods, which may or may not have prepared modern opponents for taking worse beatings are immaterial. That things like Glove size, or facing past prime foes have nothing to do with it, and nor that it took one fighter many rounds to dispatch his opponent, as opposed to his counterpart.... Nevertheless, I have my own criteria for judging these things, and while it can never be proved for certain, my pick is Frazier..