Based on the footage I'd say not, as well as the fact that he was having severe problems making the Bantamweight limit by that point of his career. To me he just doesn't look as fast, active, or generally as energetic as he does in the footage of his fight with Medel. Given how close their fights were as it was, would you say Jofre at his best would've beaten Harada? As much as I like Harada I'd probably say so. Olivares would be the only Bantam I'd have neck and neck with Jofre overall, with Jofre's durability giving him the edge.
Considering he had well known struggles with making 118lbs and he retired almost right after their 2nd fight, I would say no. Harada's style probably caused a few of the problems you stated, but at his best I do favor Jofre, but Harada's speed, workrate, durability, and aggression would always make it pretty close. I favor Jofre over every fighter in the division's history.
At his best Jofre beats every bantam that ever lived imo. Zarate, Olivares and McGovern would probably be the hardest to beat, but I still think he beats them, and probably by KO too.
In my book, I have Eder Jofre as the greatest bantanweight of all time. I would have Carlos Zarate at second with Ruben Olivares at third. However, all of them would be extremely close. I feel that guys like Harada, McGovern, Attell would be a notch below. As far as Jofre-Harada is concerned, I think it was somewhat like Ali-Frazier. Harada's style would always create problems for Eder, but at his best Jofre would have edged Harada in a close fight.
I consider Jofre to be the greatest bantamweight of all time. Better than Zarate, Olivares or any other. What makes Harada's two victories over Jofre so impressive and significant is that Jofre never again lost a fight, and actually retired as a featherweight titleholder years later. I think Harada just had Jofre's number at bantam, and could be just as great as Jofre. In fact he probably was.
I would rank Olivares no 2 ,Zarate no3 to Jofre's no1,but Harada was a buzzsaw ,who would allways trouble the Brazilian.
I relly dont see any way for Jofre to beat Harada, Harada was a swarmer in the mode of Armstrong. There fights were pretty one sided, and Jofre was not any were close to shot. It was a styles thing, and also Harada was a great fighter in his own right. I belive no matter when they fought, Harada would have always won imo. Like I said, I dont see how Jofre could complete with that punch out of Harada, he didnt have the punch to keep the buzzsaw off of him.
Sure he did.Jofre was a huge puncher. and hardly anyone sees those fights as one-sided.They were both highly competitive for the most part.
First of all, the fights were not one-sided at all, though Harada definitely won. Second of all, compare the Jofre of those fights to the version of the Medel fight, he is simply not on the same level IMHO. He shows the ability to bang it out in the trenches and deal with pressure and power very well in the Medel fight. Just much more active and effective, faster as well. Not to mention Harada could and did play the role of boxer-puncher along with being a swarmer, he wasn't an all out Armstrong type.
I think speed is the key to Jofre beating Harada. He definitely has the power to KO Harada, but he needs speed to be able to catch him clean and knock him out. I think a prime Jofre was a tad quicker than the one Harada fought, and that would make the difference, as Jofre would catch Harada often enough and clean enough to take him out. Stylistically he'd always be troubled by the quicker Harada, whose constant punching would offset him (just as Meldrick Taylor's quick, constant punching offset Chavez) but he is by no means incapable of overcoming the stylistic hurdle. As it was I think Jofre came in better shape in the second fight and almost beat Harada. A tip top Jofre would have got the win.
