Is Jim Jeffries criminally underrated today?

Jeffries has reported KO's via news papers over Ed Martin, Frank Childs and Kid Cotton which likely means it happened. His early career is very much incomplete but its clear Jeffries had no color line on the way up. Usually what's reported is true, and when its not the press mixes up the names with someone else. When he press makes a mistake its usually dates or ages, seldom is it names or results. That's my experience in 20 years of reading older fights. With three fights here, I would bet a lot of money at least one of them happened.

The KO 1 over Martin would be a solid win. Martin could move and box, his problem is was a very tall and thin type with limited punch resistance the durability and was KO'd 7 times inside of four rounds.

I agree Jackson was older.past his prime , but he was also in shape and according to the press reports had regained his form. When a past his best great faces another great at heavyweight it should be a quick ending, as this one was. The thing is at that period in time Jeffries was viewed as a rising contender. Peter Jackson was viewed as greater than Johnson by their common trainer and George Slier ( Famous ref ). Who knows maybe he was.

 

You said Nat never changed his ratings, which as I showed he he most certain did. Spamming information won't change that. As time passes things change. As for Ras maybe he's back to chew on you a bit. I'mstaying out of that one.

 

Fleischer made his first all time ratings in 1953, this is from his own mouth so you are once again wrong with your claim of 1949.
From 1953 until1971 ,his last ratings, he never changed the position of his top 6, all he did was add to it. As usual you produce no evidence for your claim whereas I produced Fleischer's list in his own words Youre 100% wrong ,and so is your tag partner Rhas.No surprise there then!
The Ring Record Books 1972 all divisions all time ratings.

This content is protected

 

Jeffries has a strong record against good men of the time, so there is no reason to rewrite history. Here is the San Francisco Chronicle on Jeff's first bout with Ruhlin 7-17-1897

"The Ruhlin-Jeffries bout 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."

The description of the fight has Jeff knocking Ruhlin down in the 5th and 6th but Ruhlin rallying to hurt Jeff with rights, plus cutting him over the eye and bloodying his nose. Ruhlin is described as having the best of the fight until the 20th round when:

"Ruhlin had undoubtedly 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 with a left swing to the ear."

Ruhlin stumbled up at 7 and was reeling but managed to clinch until the bell saved him. So off this ringside report Jeff was out boxed and on his way to defeat when he pulled out a draw in the last minute.

The Choynski fight:

SF Examiner--W. W. Naughton, 12-1-1897

"Bout ended in a draw and referee McDonald's decision was a just one."

Naughton describes the fight as a battle of lefts with neither fighter doing much with their rights.

"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 profusely, his stamina was not diminished."

The Examiner quoted some ringside boxing celebrities:

Joe Goddard--"The decision was just. Choynski landed the hardest blows, but Jeffries seemed to balance matters by being aggressive."

Tom Sharkey--"Referee McDonald rendered a just decision."

SF Call--Choynski most assuredly scored the most points . . . and certainly had the better of the night's contest, having scored the cleanest hits and in defensive work he more than proved his superiority over the big Los Angeles heavyweight."

By the way, according to The Call in the 3rd round Jeffries scored "the first and only knockdown of the fight." Ruhlin was down three times. Choynski only once. The Call also describes Choynski as mainly relying on a straight left to the nose.

So the draw decisions seem to have been fair.

 

Thank you for your unbiased post!

 

here is Joe Goddard on Jeffries. SF Examiner 3-2-1898

"He's big and strong and has two good hands. Cleverness is useless against men like him. He'll do up Jackson just as he did up 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."

 

There's a mention in a paper early in Jeffries career that he beat Frank Childs. Not many people believe it, I think it could well be true though. He was also said to have had early fights Arizona and New Mexico as well as southern California.

No one to my knowledge has found reports for the fights with Child, or the ones in Arizona and New Mexico, but a lot of undercard fights were underreported, and it's pretty common they get names of fighters wrong, I've seen James Jeffries called E. Jeffries before.

An early win over Childs wouldn't do anything for how a rate Jeffries personally, I find it hard to really rate him reading stuff like him running in terror from Dan Creedon.

 

I've not looked into the Ruhlin one as much but I've read a lot of the reports of the Choynski one, and I agree the draw decision appears to have been considered the correct one.

Worth noting a lot of the papers critized Jeffries for not using his size advantage, however he claimed the police threatened to stop the fight if he did use his weight.

 

Hard to say, with the lighter ounce gloves he used, I would say yes. Jeffries produced a knockdown in all of his fights, except his 1910 comeback fight. No one else who was champion can say this. In many of his KO's, the opponent fell face first. He has plenty of 10 counts what's known of his record includes very few fighters with losing records.

While the gloves were lighter, the protection they offered to the hands sucked, and most punchers had issues with their hands back then, so the lighter gloves are a double-edged sword.

Jeffries trained with a 300-pound heavy bag, which was filed not with foam, but with sand. I could jolt a heavyweight bag, which usually weights about 100 pounds. 300 pounds filled with sand? No way. It would barely move. You have to have serious power to move a bag that heavy. I have seen a rare film of Jeffries hitting the bag, he looks like Sonny Liston, wow that bag flies when he connects.

Jeffries could have added to his punching power, but he fought without wraps. A wrapped hand, especially one with tape over it, increases power. Liston and Foreman had wraps. Jeffries was a patient fighter. He didn't wing punches like say Rocky Marciano did which makes his KO's a bit more impressive. He could send 190-200 men fling backward, or KO a man with a punch that only traveled a few inches.

Hard to say exactly how hard he hit. He was most certainly a puncher.

I'd put him slightly below Liston and Foreman ( as with most heavyweight punchers ) , but if he had hand wraps, and did not have to worry about his hands, who knows?

 

That May 22, 1896 article also includes this:

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

The article then lists some names, which you repeat above. If there is truth to this, it cuts both ways. Jeff has a few more names and "not a few" more victories, but he then becomes far less inexperienced. As the Griffin fight seems to have been in 1893, his rise would not be particularly fast, taking six years. Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, and others have gotten to the championship faster.

Your second paragraph contains one dubious judgment, which I posted on earlier, that Jeff was clearly superior to Ruhlin and Choynski in 1897.

The valid point is that Jeff fought the best of his time in depth and beat them, which is where his claim to ATG status rests.

 

That's fair, with the caveat that they were the, " best white men of his time."

 

Reading this thread, I find the focus on Jeff's athleticism misplaced. How fast he ran and how high he could jump I think have very little to do with his fighting abilities.

I think the focus should be more on

1--the quality of his opposition which was certainly the best of his time

2--his possible weaknesses as a fighter. Was he a one-handed fighter? What about his defense? He seems to have suffered a great deal of facial damage in fights, all the way to the Fitz fight in 1902. Cuts, broken noses, and the like.

3--his known strengths as a fighter.

 

1.He fought the best white challengers out there.
2. Not a skilled boxer, nor one with a great defence . A cauliflower ear ,ridges of scar tissue above both eyes,and a thrice broken nose,prove his defence was porous .
A near 40 years old Fitz was described as hitting him when and where he wanted.
I don't think he was one handed in the sense that perhaps we think of Joe Frazier,but there's no doubt his left to the body was his best punch,Fitz and Corbett remarked on its effect on them ,but they were significantly lighter men and also older.
3.Very strong, and very durable , prepared to take punishment with the confidence and self belief that he would prevail, so obviously brave and extremely tough ,a good solid puncher who carried his power late into a fight , with a top chin and excellent stamina. I think Fitzsimmons was the superior fighter p4p , but the size, weight, durability ,and youth of Jeffries was too much to overcome.
I think Sullivan and Fitz both hit harder,but there is a solid case for making Jeff the standout heavyweight before Johnson ,and one could reasonably say prime for prime he might have beaten Jack, I don't suscribe to that view ,but it's certainly not outlandish to think so.

 

NOPE this was your post
Of course he is; Nate Fleischer (founder of the Ring Magazine) rated him as the best heavyweight ever.

Ra's Al-Ghul, Monday at 6:51 PMReport
And its just plain WRONG what's more I know it and you know it.
But you havent the honesty, guts ,or common courtesy to admit it!


Sugar was a self invented teller of tall tales, nobody with any pretensions of serious archivism ,boxing history, takes him seriously.

 

Thanks for your answer.
However, I remain doubtful about the correctness of the draw with Ruhlin and Choynski.

Ruhlin was down three times. It is true that he hit Jeffries hard, but he did not go down.
Moreover, in the twentieth round, "Ruhlin was sent down and almost out by a terrific right swing on the jaw, and only the call of time saved him."
The Sacramento Daily Union title on match: "The decision was hissed".
The public was not very convinced and in any case Ruhlin, saved by the bell, down three times, had had the worst.


Choynski was down once time, Jeffries no. Choynski ran away from Jeffries for many rounds.
Moreover, why did Choynski get a draw?
"Some disagreed with the decision, believing that Jeffries did enough forcing to earn the nod, but Joe was so impressive in the science he displayed in the ring that the referee gave him part of the honors in ruling the affair a draw." From referee, Choynski's superior ability was recognized, but that doesn't mean he was equivalent to his opponent. It's different.
The san Francisco wrote that "Decision did not meet with general approval".

No spectator, in the two fights, gave the victory to Ruhlin or Choynski. Instead, many gave the victory to Jeffries. The balance of observers tilts in Jeffries' favor