Let's talk about James Jeffries

This is a remarkable find.

Call boxrec.

 

i tend to feel Jeffries power is over-rated considering the admittedly iron-tough but small fighters he mostly fought. He certainly was a powerful athlete. I am just not convinced this power translated to his punches.

 

Thing is we rate Johnson high and Jeffries came back afther 6 years at the age of 36 and losing 100 lbs with no tune-up and lasted to the 15th...even if Johnson could have finished him early...Jeffries was the greatest fighter at the time...was he better than Willard who preceded him...I would say YES...was he better than Johnson...tough call but these men would have to be rated pretty close...The smaller fighters were the better skilled guys at the time but there were big men but other than Willard and a few others like McCarthy who were on there way but the smaller big men like Sharkey were top guys.....If you are going to rate Johnson high you must rate Jeffries neck and neck.....for there times they stood out..Nat Fliecher had them rated high and he was an eye-witness with a solid opinion

 

Jeffries power is something that I have never been able to reach a firm conclusion about.

It might have been up with Liston or Foremans and it might have been slightly better than Holyfields.

 

With what? We still don't have primary sources for any of these mythical fights. Maybe Adam finds something.

 

Boxrec do somtimes add footnotes quoting newspaper articles that suggest a number of unspecified fights for a given fighter.

Sam McVea for example.

 

His record already contained my comment with that info, just it's only visible to other editors. No point adding it for everyone to see, unless we have some actual proof.

 

Johnson said "Jeffries had a solid wallop ,Fitz could knock your brains out ,but Choynsky could plum paralyze you".Whether he was talking about the Old Jeffries ,and even older Fitz he fought I dont know, but he had first hand knowledge of all three.
Jeffries by all accounts was fast afoot and he looks reasonably agile for his size ,when he is sparring with his brother The thing is at the time Jeff came to the fore he was viewed as something of a collossus, 6 2/1/2"43" chest with a 5 inch expansion,very muscular ,the writers were somewhat in awe of him "The Strongest Man In The World","The Iron Man".Today Jeffries would be smaller than Holyfield.

 

Holyfield is the same height as Jeffries ,bigger in the chest ,biceps and neck ,his best weight being around 210,Jeffries was around 215.My point was that Jeffries would not be a big heavyweight today.I have not read Pollack's book ,but it has good reviews I beleive.I hope it is a definitive study whatever it reveals,actually I dont think we are as far apart as you seem to think ,where we differ is basically on Jeffries defensive technique .I would say that Jeffries was the best heavyweight before Johnson,and would have given him a mighty tussle,but I believe,he would have lost by decision.

 

I certainly agree that Jeffries would have walked through the champs from that era.

 

Jeffries is biger than Holyfield. Check the tale of the tape. Jeffries is bigger at nearly every measurement. If Jeffries were around today, he'd be at least 225-235 in shape.