How many historians ranked Jeffries #1, up to 1940?

Thanks Matt. I agree that was not 6'3". Jeffries is listed as 6'1" 1/2, with a best weight of 215-220. Listed reach is either a 76.5" or 77" reach in most papers, with impressive tale of the tape measurements across the board in most areas..

Where I disagree a bit is on power. Jeffries by style was a patient type of fighter, but he could certainly score a clean ten count suddenly, when the other fighter was in good working condition. For the most part, Jeffries only fought the best. He did not have many listed fights vs journeyman, and he was moved up the ranks very quickly vs class oppositions, so KO% ( Which is still good ) might be a bit misleading. Outside of his comeback fight, he scored a knockdown ever time.

 

Kennedy's weight for the Ruhlin fight was 195,he fought Jeffries 2 years later ,so while its possible he put on 30lbs ,I think its unlikely.He was 6 2.Ruhlin is listed as 6 2 and weighed 200lbs for both Jeffries fights making him the biggest top flight man Jim faced.

 

Box rec gives Munroe's weight for the Leffries fight as 186,bearing in mind he was under 6 foot, I think that's probably correct.

 

To be fair, I am making to case for Jeffries beating todays heavies, not the historians. I believe they were rating them on sheer greatness not head to head.

 

It's hyperbole. Specifically I'm thinking of fights like McVey-Jeannette. That must have made the Thrilla in Manilla seem like Holyfield-Ruiz II.

Explain yourself. I can see a possible case that boxers of the 1930s hadn't fully adapted to changes in the rules, however I can see little concrete evidence of that in the film. They seem to be boxing in a different paradigm (a lot of which had to do with the behaviour of refs and the nature of their careers) but with a style that is no less sophisticated and specialised to this paradigm than that of modern boxers.

 

I meant the first of the two paragraphs to be directed at the historians.

I think this list does fall of its own weight. You say they selected on "sheer greatness" but, of course, holding the championship longer and defending it more often than anyone else is not a mark of sheer greatness in their judgement, nor is winning all of one's fights and knocking out every name fighter you fought. What is, I might ask? I don't think anyone could give a really clear answer except they accept that the 1890's was a "Golden Age" among heavyweights from which the first two-thirds of the 20th century was one big drop-off. The 1890's were a decade in which there were 5 heavyweight championship bouts. Of the six men who fought for the championship, two, Mitchell and Fitz would be modern middleweights or super-middleweights.

How did the fighters or "experts" of the turn of the century era view their successors? Here is Jack Johnson on Joe Louis:

"There is only one man who stands out today, Joe Louis, and in my humble opinion, not only could I haved whipped Joe when I was at my best, but I'll name Sam Langford, Jeffries, Corbett, Choynski, Tom Sharkey, Fitz, and Tommy Ryan among some of the old timers who would have taken Joe into camp." Ring Magazine--July, 1946.

TOMMY RYAN??--Ryan was listed in the old Ring Record Book as 5' 7" and change and 142 to 154 pounds, but Johnson thinks he beats Louis! How far over the top can you go?

Why does he think they would win? Well, they "knew every angle of the game, knew how to stand properly to get the best leverage for a punch; knew the most important art in boxing--how to feint--and could take a punch far better than the Brown Bomber."

Could take a punch better than the Brown Bomber? Which ones, exactly. Choynski who was knocked out 10 times. Fitz, also knocked out several times. Or Johnson himself, knocked out several times. Jeff alone has a record which argues he might have taken a punch better than Louis.

Nor was Johnson alone with the old time ego. Here is Jim Jeffries on Walcott and Charles:

"It's a big joke, men like Ezzard Charles and Joe Walcott fighting for the championship of the world. They'd be lucky to get a semi-windup in the days of the real fighters." SF Chronicle 5-4-1953 Eddie Muller quoting Jeffries.

This over-the-top old timerism might be expected, I suppose, from Johnson and Jeffries, but when "historians" reflect similar nonsense, I don't have to honor their judgements.



The second paragraph was only my comment that while Jeff himself was huge, his opposition was in fact smaller than that of any of the old-time ATG claimants, Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, or Marciano.

 

San Fan Chronicle, who covered the fight in great detail says 210 for Munroe, and looking at the pictures, this seems about right.

Box rec is a great tool, but they miss out on lots of little things. It is likely the weight of 186 comes from a ring record book. Ring Record books are in a marco sense for results, but not as good on the little stuff.

I have the full fight report if you want to see it.

 

The boxing Hall of Fame puts Jeffries at 6'3 and every bio I can and ever have found says 6'3 except Boxrec.
Do a web search on "james jeffries tall" and 6'3 is the only height you will find.

As for his power this link gives alot of info in general on Jefferis as well as his power and document freakish athleticism:

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/jjj.htm

 

The newspaper tales of the tape tell a different story, though.

San Francisco Chronicle 7-16-1897, tale of the tape on Jeffries-Ruhlin fight:

Jeffries 6' 1 1/2" -- 212 lbs --76 1/2" extension

Ruhlin 6' 2 1/2" -- 198 lbs --79" extension

The tale of the tape for Jeffries-Choynski in 1897 is similar

Jeffries 6' 1 1/2" -- 217 lbs

Choynski 5' 11 1/2" -- 165 lbs

Perhaps the most interesting article on Jeffries was written on 5-22-1896 in the San Francisco Chronicle. This article was BEFORE Jeff's fight with Dan Long.

Excerpts:

"Muscled like Sandow, with a frame like a youthful Hercules, and quick-footed as a cat, James Jeffries is put forward as a man who will some day be the champion of the world."

"One has only to see him in training punching the bag or sparring to be willing to believe that he is in the legitimate succession to the wreath that so long adorned the brow of John L Sullivan."

"Jeffries has fought not a few men, and has won every battle he has had, though some antagonists had nothing better than local reputations at most."

"Jeffries has bested his opponents in short order. Two rounds, three rounds, five rounds is the history of his fights. He put George Griffin out in eleven seconds. Frank Childs, the 'colored cyclone' of Los Angeles went out in two rounds, and Childs had bested LaBlanche and 'Billy' Smith. It took the young giant the same length of time to put out Joe Cotton."

Within this article, Jeffries is described as 6' 1" and over 200 lbs.

It is most interesting that this article lists fights which do not appear on modern records. I guess each of us will make of that what we will.

 

Well, this is Joe Goddard on 3-2-1898 from the SF Examiner:

"He's big and strong and has two good hands. He can strike hard with either hand. Cleverness is useless against men like him. He'll do up Jackson as he did me. Jackson has no show against this young fellow. I couldn't do anything to stand Jeffries off when he came after me. When he struck me on the body, he knocked the wind out of me. He has the vigor and the weight and I'm willing to bet he'll be the champion inside of a year if the other fellows will meet him."

In August 1903, the Chronicle did an evaluation of Jeffries after he defeated Corbett for the second time, rating him the best of all American champions going back to Hyer as he had defeated the top men of his time more thoroughly than any previous champion.

 

I just want to mention that I consider this a great thread. Keep up the work.

I also want to add that I think Jeffries was right about Charles and Walcott not beeing fighters. I think since boxing became modern there were only few fighters like Jeffries like Frazier or Holyfield. The rest are boxers but no fighters in the way I assume Jeffries meant it.