One reason why I rate Jim Jeffries verry highly among the great heavyweights.

Jeffries scores extremely high in the criteria of "beating the best boxers of your time". The top heavies of his time (excluding himself) were Fitzsimmons, Sharkey and Corbett and he beat all of them twice. I do think his style would not translate well to what boxing would evolve into over the 30 years after he retired, but he beat the best of his time... what more can you ask of a man?

The fact that some of his opponents were old or small does drop his rating a bit, but he's undoubtedly a great fighter.


To me, Jeffries has always been an icon of strength and resilience. Even though Johnson mopped the floor with him, he still has that aura of invincibility to me. There are not many in history who i'd favor against him under his own ruleset.

 

Agree that Jeff fought better opposition pre-title than anyone else and I'm not taking anything away when I say that the Jackson fight is TOTALY meaningless for the reasons stated above by various posters.

 

Good stuff, Jim Jeffries beat some very good fighters of his time and the best around. I really dont see him having trouble with the bigger men such as Willard or even Carnera because Jeff was quick of hand and foot. In these modern times there are big men with speed and power but If we brought Jeff up to this time with his athleticism I have to guess he would adapt. Look Jeff fought punchers and took punches well. Johnson was KO'd by Chonski and Dempsey by Fulton so it happens but it did not happen to Jeff and to judge Jeff on the Johnson loss would be like judging Ali vs Berbick or Holmes vs Tyson or Louis vs Marciano and calling it prime to prime. In fact Louis had 8 fights before Marciano and the Ali and Holmes were active fighters prior to there final destructions. Jeff came back after losin 100 lbs and 6 years off at the age of 36 with no tune up fights and fought the worlds best.

Unless you throw out everything prior to Dempsey you got to rate Jeff high and if you rate Johnson, Jeff is stuck to his side

 

Dempsey was kod by Flynn,not Fulton ,and Jeffries was 35 not 36 ,but ,that aside I would agree with you.
I am surprised when people put stock in Jeffries loss to Johnson ,he was patently finished as a fighter then.

 

Van Buskirk was 6'3, and looked to be well over 200 pounds. He was Ko'd early. Jeffries KO'd Kennedy in 2, and he was 200+ pounds. Of course he TKO'd Dunkhhorst in a exhibtion match, and he was well over 240.

How would Jeffries do vs men his own size, say 6'2" 220 pounds?. I think Jeffries had the toughest time vs more experienced quick fighters who could move. Very few if any heavies at 220 had the athleticism, stamina, and speed that Jeffries had, so he would have that edge.

 

Buskirks height is given variously as 6' 0'' to 6' 3'',his weight between 180lbs and 203lbs,what pictures have you of Buskirk that lead you to believe he was "well over 200lbs"?
Kennedy was a long time sparring partner for Jeffries I don't give Jeffries much credit for him beating Kennedy, but beating Buskirk is a creditable performance so early in his career.
Dunkhorst was a joke ,a fat tub of lard who could not fight.
Maher gave him 75lbs and beat him.
Choynsky gave him 68 lbs and beat him.
Childs gave him 57lbs and beat him.
Fitz gave him 90lbs and flattened him in 2rds.
Plus it was an exhibition ,you have a habit of including these in boxers records.
How many wins would Dempsey and Louis have, if you included all their exhibitions?
Dempsey kod Big Ben Wray, 7'2'' 300+lbs , with two punches ,breaking his jaw in three places,it was a spar .

Lets stick to actual fights.

I would submit that actual footage of Jeffries fighting, does not show the speed ,or athleticism you mention .
.Let us say that he did posssess these qualities,do you not think that there have been several [I would say many big men] since, who have been shown to possess such athleticism and speed ?.
Therefore I do not think you can take it as a given that Jeffries would have any advantage in these departments were he competing from, say the 1960's onwards.

 

He fought some very very tough fights on the way up.

But I think he fought a lot of old and over-the-hill fighters in his career who were coming off layoffs and loses (Jackson, Fitz, Corbett etc.). I guess that's the same with lots of great fighters though.

 

I had a friend who passed from alcohol related liver failure. In his last few years his balance was completely gone even when he soberred up. Obviously balance isthe most important thing for a boxer.

Its also likely a chronic alcoholic isnt going to go 2-3hours without a drink, meaning Jackson likely didnt have any legs under him

 

This is precisely how I've always felt as well. He was a strong fighter who's dedication to training and conditioning methods were years ahead of his time. A peak Jeffries vs Jack Johnson would have been a great fight, regardless of who ended up winning it.

 

Jackson also had TB when he fought Jeffries.

 

Peter Jackson was an old alcoholic, who hadn't fought in years, and already had tuberculosis ?

Sounds like someone George Foreman might have fought on his 1987 comeback !

 

I have often heard many times that Peter Jackson was a truly great fighter in his prime, and one that Sullivan had apparently avoided. Had he been at his best, it certainly would have been a big feather in Jeffries' cap.. But listening to the stories of how inactive and deconditioned Jackson was when Jeffries faced him, I don't know how much credit he can receive for the win.. It sounds like its very much on par with Holmes' win over a thoroughly deteriorated Muhammad Ali.

 

Of course it is entirely possible that Jeffries would have beaten a prime Jackson, but certainly not in 3 rds.

 

It certainly would not have been the onesided thrashing their 1910 encounter developed into.
I vote for J J to win:yep