Prime Peter Jackson v Prime Jim Jeffries?

Without film, I don't think there is any way to make a convincing pick.

I think Jeffries has the somewhat more impressive record,

so if forced to pick--Jeffries.

 

I will stand on what the papers and doctors of the times said. I posted the links and reports here. They said Jackson was in shape, regained his form in sparring, and was never described as slow. Jackson was never fat. His walk around weight was close to his fighting weight.

If you read the fight report, you will see Jackson was clever, and did well until he was hit hard. He did not look shot in round one at all.

Jackson had a fight in 1895 in May. This fight was March in 1898. Less then three years passed, and we really do not know how active Jackson was in-between.

Ali did not win 30 seconds vs Holmes, and went nine rounds until his corner stopped it. Jeffries won at least two rounds vs Johnson, had his share of moments in others, and lasted 15 rounds. Jackson had a good first round, then was blown out by power punches. In 1 1/2 rounds, stamina is not an issue. Sure, I agree Jackson was older and past his best, but I disagree with you if you think he did not look good until he was hit. Also, Jeffries did not have many recorded fights. You could argue he was green.

 

In the Ring With James J. Jeffries devotes a chapter on this fight, offering the pros and cons and all the analysis done at the time, both before and after the fight. Check it out.

 

This.

My favorite of your works so far.

 

Australian Peter Jackson didn't have a fight on May 30, 1895, at Baltimore. It was a colored fighter from North Carolina, fighting a preliminary bout, beating Gus Wilkie on points in 6 rounds. See here - http://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?nid=9fSugHr6AN8C&dat=18950531&printsec=frontpage&hl=en , scroll to page 8, article titled "Ullman had the best of it".

 

That is a really good find to put the issue beyond doubt.

 

Agree with his 100%
Jackson had the wrong style to beat Jeff, Fallon, Farnan, Goddard-particularly-and even Lynch and Lambert gave Peter trouble with pressure, rough-house even foul tactics. A great fighter with a chance of beating Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz and Johnson but Jeff was all wrong for him over a distance fight. But over 12-15 who knows?

 

in 1896 Bob Fitzsimmons who had just defeated Jim Corbett sparred with his friend and a man who used to be considered easily his superior in Peter Jackson. (according to CBZ). Peter who as i understand was an alcoholic by this time presumably would have needed money and of course wanted a shot at the title so desperately denied to him by Corbett.

If Jackson was anything but completly shot even at tthis time, dont you think he would have campained for the title and the riches as he was an obvious challenger and name fighter. I didnt see this happen and can only presume that jackson knew he was nothing like his prime self and not in the same class even then as the very best fighters. And was not capable of getting into such shape!

When he agreed to fight Jeffries he not only must have been a hell of a lot worse. I give Jeffries a lot of credit for the win, it was a good win, but it was not a win against Peter jackson the fighter. I think that really is undoubted.

In fact i think that he starts a heavy underdog against the Jeffries that lost to Johnson, the Ali that lost to Berbick and proably even Holmes, the Dempsey that lost to tunney, the Johnson that lost to Willard, the fitzsimmons that lost to Lang etc

 

Oh yes, great find, probably was Young Peter Jackson?
Without been rude, I don't consider the Jeffries-Jackson fight at all really, the man Jeff beat had nothing to do with the man that Corbett fought, I mean Jim Jeffords anyone?