He beat Hank Griffin as a teen. He beat (washed up) Jackson in his 10th fight and Pete Everret in 11th fight. Then in next two years he beat Sharkey, Armstrong, Fitz and Corbett. He also defended against the best fighters in the world (which is rare in HW division) - he gave Fitz rematch and gave chances to fighters who he struggled with the most when he was younger - Sharkey, Ruhlin and Corbett. He destroyed them all. Jeffries is penalized for being bigger than his opponents, because his competition isn't small in comparison to other champions until Ali. He didn't miss anyone notable until his retirement (some may argue that Denver Ed was legit contender but he wasn't clear choice). Besides fighting less bums, what makes his record worse than Marciano? Of course, had he kept fighting for a few more years and beat Hart/Johnson/McVea, he would have become lock top 10 ever. His resume lacks depth but he had many quality wins. Beating ancient Fitz is something only he accomplished. Bob was basically unbeaten in 1890-1904 period if you exclude Jeffries bouts and he faced all of the best fighters from various weight classes.
I also ask people for stop calling Fitz that fought Jeffries ancient. He was arguably in the best period of his life at that time. He was old, but somehow it worked for him, which is reasonable because he was very strategic fighter, experience always help guys like him. It's like calling Archie Moore from 1950s past prime, even though he was arguably never better.
Depends on rules.....Fights to the finish ya I’d say so and that includes Louis....15 rounds, in his prime Imo, he loses to Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, and Louis, and he has a very hard time with Bear
Paulino Uzcudun was good defensive fighter with great chin and he struggled Baer. Jeffries wasn't probably much worse than him on defense while being more dangerous offensive fighter. Baer could give problems to any fighter though.
What makes his record worse than Marciano? Jeffries had an excellent record, but not really as outstanding as Marciano's. First, he didn't win all his fights, losing to Johnson and drawing with Ruhlin and Choynski. Two, many of his most significant wins were over men who were coming off long layoffs. 6 years for Jackson. Two years by Corbett in the first fight and three years in the second. Two years by Fitz in both the first and second fights. Third, two of his major opponents hadn't won fights in a long time. Six years for Jackson. Five for Corbett. Fourth, it isn't true he defended against all the top contenders, although he did better than most. I've read Adam Pollock's well researched biography of Jeffries and there was a lot of pressure for him to fight Jack Johnson in 1903 and 1904 when he was champion, but Jeffries drew the color line in no uncertain terms. This clearly separates him from Marciano.
To first point - losing to Johnson is not important. If Marciano decided to fight against Johannson (he considered that) and got destroyed, would it change his rating? Ruhlin and Choynski were when Jeffries was very young, he destroyed Gus in rematch. Marciano fought his first real fight in 25th fight, Jeffries beat one of the best black fighters in the world as a child. Much different circumstances. To second point - I agree but keep in mind that they were not retired but they fought and trained a lot even in lay-offs. Besides, Ruhlin and Sharkey were active when James beat them. To third point - Corbett and Jackson are not his best wins. To fourth point - yeah, fighting Johnson would be huge for him. That's only 2 years of his reign, plenty of fighters did worse as champions. In this aspect Rocky is more impressive, I agree. I don't think that his resume is better than Rocky's but he's not as far as some think. Had he beaten Martin and Johnson, he would be top 5 fighter ever. He didn't, though I believe he would.
He was a lot weaker not long after against Gardner, but that was because he was ill, perhaps overtrained, and had injured hands.
Corbett, Fitz, Langford, Burns, and Dempsey all said Jeffries was the best. Johnson called him the greatest, so sure he could beat Louis.
A few errors here. Ruhlin was 200 Pounds. Jackson depending on the source was 195-200 pounds. Kennedy was also likely over 200 pounds. As for Jeffries total amount of fights, he said his first one was 1893. As the champion, he went to Europe and KO'd 10 men. He holds reported wins over Ed Martin, and Frank Childs. The fight program for the first fight with Fitz lists him as 20-0, or something close to that. DO you still think he had only 22 fights? A better guess would be 35. In his 22 listed fights, there is very little if any fat on it. He fought 8 battles against hall of fame competition. Nat Fleischer the top historian of the time called his competition the best. Also Fitz was 36. Fitz and a better fighter than when he was 26.
Ruhlin was198 or199lbs for the Jeffries fight. The European bouts were exhibitions ,and described by Jeffries as such. Two of Jeffries partners for these were George Chrisp and Jack Scales,Chrisp was penniless and took the job to get some cash ,Scales was a youth and never attempted to punch with his full weight so Jeffries treated them both pretty indulgently.Others Jeffries exhibited with are Jack Walsh and Arthur Morris,British club fighters. Many of these exhibitions were against his brother Jack who entered the ring under various psuedonyms. No one has been able to verify the speculated fights with Childs, or Martin as both were prominent fighters we can expect these fights would have been mentioned at some point.Jeffries himself never claimed they happened. Jackson was 197lbs for Jeffries ,though his weight is meaningless as the bout was really a farce,Jackson being too far gone to show any opposition. Kennedy was in poor condition for the Jeffries fight, his best weight was 190/195lbs but he came in against Jeffries at an estimated 220/230lbs.The bout was originally to have been an exhibition along the lines of the Griffin one, with a forfeit being paid if Jeffries could not stop Kennedy inside the four rounds the bout was scheduled for .However Jeffries was concerned that this would mean Kennedy would adopt the running and falling down, survival tactics Griffin had, being concerned solely with staying the distance and collecting the forfeit. Jeffries withdrew the forfeit offer to induce Kennedy his former sparring partner to come into the ring trying to win. Fitzsimmons had bad hands for the last years of his career certainly not uncommon for hard punchers and he had not fought for 2 years when he attempted to regain his title from Jeffries.Regarding experience,he might have been a better fighter at 36 than he had been at 26 , but he was certainly not the fighter he had been even 2 years before when he ko'd both Sharkey and Ruhlin.Two years of inactivity at his age does not help either your condition,reflexes,stamina, or judgement of distance. Fitzsimmons won the title in 1897, I refuse to believe he was a better fighter 3 years later against Jeffries when he had spent 2 of those years without having an actual fight.
Langford named Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight fighter he ever saw. Johnson said Fitzsimons was the best heavyweight before himself. Fitz and Corbett both named Jeffries. Dempsey said Jeffries must have been a great fighter, but as far as I know never named him as the greatest,and I believe he never saw him fight.
The difference between 200 and 201 is something you can ponder. If you want to be exact a person at 200 pounds no ounces Is rare. He’s likely a few ounces more, hence he is over 200 pounds. Heavyweight has no weight limit and back then guys trained down to drop weight. But hey if you’ve got an ax to grind by all means. Pollack did not research Jeffries in Europe I asked him. He had access to a few papers, not 100 of them or defunct papers. Tracking down boxing matches in the west coast or south west can a real challenge, a reason why many of Jeffries fights prior to becoming champion remain missing.
Fitz is ranked lower than should be at HW because he was too small. Jeffries is ranked lower than should be because he was too big. Strange logic...
