James J Jeffries

A lot of credit for beating old men and twerps. He was basically an amateur, who by sheer athleticism ran roughshod over a pathetically weak division. He displayed little imagination in the ring and was want to absorb considerable punishment in order to execute his own offense. I wouldn't give him much of a chance with any heavy champ that came after, maybe Braddock of Neon Leon.

 

He is definitely one of the all time great champions.

It would be fair to say that he has the best title reign pre Joe Louis, and that has to count for something.

 

The boxing pundits from the early and mid 1950's say, that he was by far -

The most physical of any heavyweight, an incredible 'behemoth' during his reign.

A fighter, who would have thrown Joe Louis, Max Baer, Jersey Joe Walcott, Primo Carnera or Jess Willard all over the ring.

Forget about Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano, Archie Moore or Floyd Patterson, as they would have most likely suffered broken collar bones.

Jack Sharkey, Max Schmeling and James Braddock would have been ruined.

Gene Tunney and Jack Dempsey may have survived, but they would have never been the same.

Robert Fitzsimmons and Gentleman Jim Corbett proved that you could fight Jim Jeffiries, but beating
him was a completely different story.

Tommy Burns, Marvin Hart and Jack Root wouldn't even qualify for Jim Jeffries sparring partners, and
would have suffered horrible beatings.

John L. Sullivan may have battled Jim Jeffries even through 15-rounds, but he would have never lasted
the Championship 25.

Jack Johnson fighting Jim Jeffries in his 'prime' would have been a tactical fight, with neither fighter
getting the edge.

This content is protected

 

Decent fighter by todays retroactive standards... Great by the romantic standards of his time... The truth is probably in the middle.

 

Jeffries was great for his time, but who did he ever ,"throw all over the ring"?
Not Corbett 182lbs,Fitzsimmons172lbs,Choynski 167lbs,Sharkey 183lbs. Jeffries never threw anyone all around the ring.

 

McVey,

That's not from me,,,,,,,,,

That came out of the Saturday Evening Post, with all of the boxing pundits from
the early days, adding their 2-Cents.

From what I gather, they saw Jim Jeffries fight, and based upon there account, he was the best.

 

I don't buy it, its unsubstantiated hero worship,and,as such is worthless. Jeffries was a giant compared to the men he fought , apart from 200lbs Ruhlin , [ his heaviest opponent until his abortive comeback,] and he had been ruined by Fitzsimmons 15 months earlier.
Today Jeffries would be a smallish heavyweight.

 

I think we can argue jeffries worth till the cows are turned into steaks, but whatever else he was, Jeff was a tough SOB.

 

Obviously, a major point of argument is the advancement of the sport.

So to give the early fighters a chancec in the eyes of the critics, why don't we split the 20th century in half at 1950, then produce a top 5 list for each half?

Obiously, anybody on either list would have to be given due credit.

Then we could compare the two lists.

Also, it would protect modern fighters against people like me!

 

Honestly its not a bad idea. Although the cut of date is arguable.

 

It would guard against era bias both ways.

Wlad would get left out until 2050.

The 19th century guys could have a similar ranking system, if enough people cared.

 

Jim Jeffries,,,,,

Never lost to a 'bale of hay'

As he tossed those 200 lb. babies like 'toothpicks'

This content is protected

 

In training in Northern California...

This content is protected

 

Even Jack Johnson said he wondered how he would have done against Jeffries prime vs prime.