Could be wrong but sure it was more like the rounds we know as now. Where a fighter went down and was counted over. That was certainly the case by Johnson v Willard. There's a lot of guys on here that know everything about that Era that can tell us I imagine.
Who could fight for over 100 rounds as they did back in the early years? I believe that if there was a knockdown, or a fighter took a knee, it was considered a round back in the bare knuckle days. James would even have had trouble fighting for 100 of todays rounds. There's a book called Beyond the Ring, it's a great read into boxing from all angles.
Can I ask what Jeffries did better then a peak Qawi? Because Spinks completely tamed the raging bull in that one in a masterclass performance.
Depends how much power Spinks maintained at heavyweight, and how Jeffries reacts to it. The styles will certainly force Jeffries to slug instead of box technically, only question is how much Jeffries can take? Spinks would be the best big man he ever fought.
He’s roughly the same size as Gus Ruhlin was in their fight. The difference being, of course, talent.
That stupid low left of Jeffries would be so inviting for Mike. And Jim's face would look worse after 4 rounds than it looked after 25 rounds against that wharfbrawler Sharkey.
This is one where I have to agree with you. Jeffries was taken 20+ rounds and had his nose broken by dudes who were about the size of modern day super middles, minus the modern training, amateur backgrounds, etc