Comments made after Jeffries-Corbett II

I always thought that Jeffries reached his peak in this fight.

By this point, he wasnt just bigger than all the other top heavyweights around, he was also a match for most of them in terms of science.

 

Corbett was nearly 37 and hadn't fought in 3years. Its easier to look better against such a shadow of the original man. The fact Jeffries was improving in his last year of his prime says to me as a boxer he was largely a pretty raw strong man. I think the small amounts of film evidence backs that up

 

He only fought once after this (excepting Johnson).

 

Thats the thing though his peers were Corbett, Johnson, Fitz. And he seemingly wasn't as skilled as either.

Another problem with objectivity is after a fighter wins, practically everyone says something nice about them. No mainstream journalist would write of Pacquaio today 'well his defense is still a tad open and he still may suffer against a quality counter puncher, but yes a decentish win against Margarito who hasn't had a significant win in 2 1/2 years and looked terrible in his last 2 fights' after hes won his 10,000th title

Jeffries was a physical force, his skills and package was likely significantly better than someone like Willard for sure but in terms of skill set compared to his peers his pales against the forementioned men

 

1. Yes but I feel there's a clear distance between them. The way I see Jeffries is as a HW version of Ricky Hatton or perhaps a less skilled version of Riddick Bowe. There are cracks there that get exploited but physical gifts allow them to get away with until they run into someone who can exploit them

2. This is true. And yes Pacquaio has criticism on this forum but every boxer does and that does not extend to the mainsteam press and it doesn't extend to other boxers, bar the Mayweathers and Malignaggi whos a Mayweather fan.

Boxers tend to have a love/hate relationship with the press depending on where they are on the rollercoaster of their careers. If they are right on top and popular, the press is kissing their ass

3. But how detailed was their analysis? Thats my point the analysis from press clippings isn't always that good, that educated, or necessarily from someone who has a clue about boxing or is writing about it for any other reason than 'thats my job'. And thats all assuming their isn't other agendas in the press at play.......

 

The Riddick Bowe anology is not a bad one, but rather than less skilled, i would suggest more proven is more accurate.

 

This was my interpretation as well. Jeffries retired just as he was peaking, and had several good years left. Too bad the money in the fight game dried up when Jeffries was hitting his prime. A time when his ample physical gifts could be complemented by years worth of training and experience.

 

McGrain, very good article.

To me Jeffries sounds like a Chavez type fighter, would you agree?

 

Well lets look at the facts.

He gave the smaller Fitz a boxing lesson in their first encounter, after only a dozen or so profesional fights. In the return match Fitz changed his tactics to fight a more mobile fight and outboxed Jeffries, but got broken down on pressure.

Corbett ran rings around Jeffries in their first encounter, but got broken down on pressure and body punching. In the rematch Jeffries outboxed the ageing Corbett easily.

I would say that by the time he retired his boxing skill was arguably prety close to this pair and of course he was a lot bigger.

Now if you put him in with the next teir of technicians such as Ruhlin then he is clearly better.