Jefferies was 6'2 215 lbs, the same size as Holyfield in 1996. I haven't seen much film on him, but in the 60s, Fleischer had him as the GOAT heavyweight. For those of you who know more about Jefferies, how do you think he does vs a young Mike Tyson? This content is protected
Bad matchup for Jeffries. Jeffries was an opponent who wore you down over 25 rounds, his regimen and training were off the charts as well as his athleticism. Jeffries has a very good left hook and solid power, who also had the ability to absorb terrific punishment and keep coming. I think he would weather the onslaught of Tyson early, then began to establish some of his own ability. Think Ruddock mixed with Golota when it comes to seeing what Jeffries had to offer. Despite all these capabilities that Jeffries had, he just cant win this after losing the first 6-8 rds on points alone, furthermore Tyson was faster and would have been landing vicious power shots throughout. I think if this fight went 25rds, Jeffries would pull out the win, and up to 12 rounds Tyson would dominate on points.
Jim would stand up to the bully and break his spirit, wearing him down with lefts high and low and sneaky rights over the top, stopping him with a left to the breadbasket in the 12th. Jeffries proves yet again that all you need to do is stand up to the bully and they end up cowering on the canvas.
Sadly, many of the greats from the past would have a hard time adjusting to the shorter fights. OF course, it would be less hard on them than a modern fighter trying to prepare for a 25+ round fight. Durability and Stamina would win the day in many cases. Jeffries was a incredible champion, fought several black fighters and smashed them, retired undefeated. Very underrated. That said, he WAS a slow starter, even in the days of 25+rd fights. That does not bode well for 12 round contests.
Five foot eight ,185lbs Tom Sharkey ,a crude face first brawler gave Jeffries life and death in two fights that went the distance of 20 rounds and 25rounds.Tyson is world's above Sharkey in speed, power, defence,skills,punch variety and durability.What does this say about the prospective result?
Jeffries stopped Griffin and subsequently was taken the 4 rds distance by him later in a bout he had contracted to stop the black fighter in. Bob Armstrong went the distance with Jeffries. Peter Jackson 37 years old tubercular and alcoholic not having had a real fight in 5 years and just a shell of himself was stopped in3 rds.Jeffries avoided the best black fighters and refused to fight them when champion.
First you have to define Jim Jeffries. Frank Loiterzo once said that Jim Jeffries might have beaten Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali in the same night, or he might have lost to people like Michael Dokes. I cannot in all honesty disagree with his assessment.
He might well have been outboxed by Dokes and lose a decision,but there is no basis for suggesting he could beat Louis and Ali in the same night so that is not only irrelevant, it's pretty silly.
That is probably a bit of hyperbole on Loiterzo's part. What he is saying is that he might have been the best ever, or he might have lost to heavyweights who were not the best or brightest of their own era, or he might have been anything between.
Would you need to be the best of your own era to beat Jeffries? Many subsequent eras had significantly more depth to them.This is obvious because in Jeffries time it was necessary to drag old retired aging champs out of retirement to give him competition!
If he was as good as people said he was towards the end of his career, then yes you would probably need to be the best of your era to beat him.
The last 3 fights of his prime were against a 39 years old man who hadn't fought in2 years,a 36 years old man who hadn't fought in3 years ,and a hyped nobody.Hardly reliable yardsticks to measure a fighters ability!lol
So you are very fond of telling me. None of this means that he was not as good as people said he was.