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

It is hard to say precisely how bad Jacksons drink problem was when the fight took place, but it was sufficiently bad to have come to the attention of the contemporary press.

 

Excellent OP and thread.

Having read the SF papers on the Ruhlin and Choynski fights, I did not get the impression either decision was unfair to Jeffries. They were close fights.

Jeffries had a tremendous run to the title. One problem, though, is that he did not beat anyone of substance after the age of 26 that he had not already beaten. After the Corbett fight in 1903, one SF paper recommended Johnson and McVea as opponents, but these title defenses never came off.

I rate Jeff in the lower half of the top ten, but had he defended successfully against Johnson, he would be top five for certain and a strong contender for number one.

 

Mendoza says: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.

Mendoza says: I have seen a picture of Van Buskirk with his shirt off. He's tall and rather thick. Bigger then Ruhlin who was 200 pounds.

Mendoza says: Kennedy was a pro fighter, and big by the standards of his time. 200-220 pounds. He lasted two rounds, and was spectacularly knocked out by one punch, which highlights Jeffries power when he wanted to fight aggressively. You asked how Jeffries does vs bigger guys. My point is those bigger guys who were not as fleet footed as Corbett or Choynski did not last long.

Mendoza says: I agree. He was only listed based on size, and a limited numbers of rounds which he lasted.

Mendoza says: The actual footage of Jeffries in 1901 shows an extremely agile and flexible 220 pound man. very few post Jeffries were his size, as agile and athletic, and those who were did not have his durability and punch. Show me one 6'1-6'2" 220 pound guy who looked like that? Ali, Walcott and Holmes moved well, but they were lighter and did not hit has hard. You could say Liston or Foreman, but they were slower.

Who were the many big men you are referring to that have all of these qualities???

In closing you asked who Jeffries would compare to men his size. He has more speed, stamina and athleticism than the Liston's or Foreman's of the world, and more size and power than the Ali's or Holmes of boxing. I think he would match up well with modern sized heavies post 1960, and if he were around today his fighting weight would be at least 10-15 pounds. Jeffries had the type of frame to add this type of weight properly. Jeffries is perhaps the lone champion pre Sonny Liston that has modern size, good hand and foot speed, durbility, power, and endurance.

 

This depends. Jackson had some issues with power punchers. Goddard floored and hurt him in a shot fight. The papers ( which I can post ) said Jackson was in good form, and at his old fighting weight. While Jackson was not in his prime at all, the swift ending to the fight makes me wonder.

Jackson who had a very good first round was essentially done for in round two after being knocked down twice. Stamina was not an issue in this fight, and we really can not say for sure how bad his TB issues were. The papers said he looked very good. They did not paint the picture of a shot fighter looking for a pay day.

Either way, no ATG I can think of faced a legend in before his 10th pro fight. Jeffries handlers must have had good confidence in him. Very few high profile mixed race matches took place in those days.

My take on this fight is when a top fighter faces a past his prime or very green guy, he should blow him out which is exactly what happened in this match.

 

And the papers based their opinion on what ?

Jackson had not fought in 3 years, and that, a 6 rd no dec over a nobody ,prior to that he had been inactive for a further 3 years.

Jackson was not just past his prime, he was finished as a fighter, and had been for 6 years.
Did Holmes take Ali out early?
Did Marciano take Louis out early?
Results depend entirely on circumstances,some fighters are content to win ,others want to destroy their opponent.
Some have more power than others ,with which to effect a ko ,or stoppage.

Corbett beat Sullivan by making him miss and, countering him ,using his legs to wear out the old man, because he lacked the punch to put him away early.

Jeffries was a heavy, if not a dynamite puncher, fighting an alcoholic who had TB and was 37 years old, and had not fought in 3 years,
and only had 6 rds in 6 years ,whatever way you spin this, it is a nothing result..

It would have been astonishing if the fight had turned into a protracted one,imo.

Its likely Roy Jones eased up on McCallum.
Charles on Louis
Johnson took out Fitz early but ,accepted no credit for it, indeed uncharacteristcally he said Fitz was an old man who was finished, and, that it was no great feat to defeat him,yet Fitz was undeniably a legend and ,a bigger one than Jackson .
Each fight is different ,and with its own set of circumstances.

 

WHICH FOOTAGE OF JEFFRIES IN A FIGHT SHOWS HIM TO BE EXTREMELY AGILE AND FLEXIBLE?
Jeffries was smaller than Ali and his average weight for fights was lighter,he rarely scaled 220lbs.
Comparably big heavyweights I would say were as fast or faster than Jeffries would include.Ali, Holyfield, Dokes,Tubbs,MathisSnr,Tucker,Chambers,Williams, Holmes.
Do you beleive Corbett at 34 would go 23 rds with Ali or Holmes?
Do you beleive a 39 year old Fitz would go 8 rds with Ali or Holmes?
Do you beleive either of them would go 10 rds with Liston or Foreman?
Speculating about how much weight a 1900's fighter might ,could, is likely to put on in modern times is irrelevant , and hypothetical , we judge fighters on what they actually looked like when they fought ,and, what they actually DID.
That is all we can judge them on.
On film Jeffries fighting, does NOT look any more impressive than BOB Baker to me, his results may be better, he might be better ,but I am referring to what I actually see on film.

 

Always confuse Flynn and Fulton but the point is Johnson was Ko'd by a small puncher in Choynski and Fitz did his share...A puncher can KO anyone and did Willard hit harder than Sharkey or Fitz...Point is Jeffires took shots from hard punchers regardless of size and WHO was a big man that we think would over power Jeffires, Willard?, next best big man was Primo. Do we think Primo would beat Jeffries...Jeffries was solid,strong and fast for a big man...he would adapt

 

Let's make this one point CLEAR...I have old Ring Mags going back to the late 1920's...Virtually ALL the great boxing writers who saw All the great heavyweights from Sullivan to Louis, always described James Jeffries ,as the strongest heavyweight til the Louis era...The early Jeffries was built like an Adonis, powerfully built, swift , and agie for his weight...And unbeatable until public pressure,forced Jeffries, retired for six years. to make his fatal match with Great Galveston Giant Jack Johnson...No one beats Father Time...Never has and never will...So with Jeffries...

 

George Foreman?

 

Petethe Prince, I define strength,and endurance, as one attribute....Forman strong and powerful had nowhere's the stamina of Jim Jeffries...Forman might have hit harder,than Jeffries [might] ,but could you imagine Jeffries, being exhausted by the 8th round in Zaire, in 1974 ? I can't...Gosh Jeffries went 25 tough rounds,against Tom Sharkey in 1899, in Coney Island...Under burning lights I might add...In the first Sharkey fight,Jeffries went twenty rounds...This is why i call Jeffries the strongest heavy champion ever...Keep punching....