What of Jeffries now?

Very good points.

 

Pretty much already covered here.

(1) Almost no decent film exists of Jeffries or his best opponents.

(2) Jeffries was a racist jerk. Johnson was also a jerk, but he was an interesting and charming jerk who fit the modern zeitgeist a lot better than Jeffries.

(3) People don't understand how late 19th / early 20th century boxing skills worked, so they don't appreciate the occasional blips of skill on film that we do see from Jeffries.

(4) Johnson came right after Jeffries -- and Jeffries suffers by comparison. Johnson was the first great champion who produced enough film to assess him comprehensively, he was charismatic, he crossed the color line with the Burns massacre -- and thereby became the first heavyweight of any race who could claim to be the best in the world at a particular moment -- he clobbered an old Jeffries, and his record is arguably better.

(5) Racist jerk. Cannot be overstated.



Jeffries came around at the worst time he could have, really: just before quality film, just before the most charismatic champion ever to wear the belt, and just in time represent the wrong side in the most vicious outpouring of racist agitation in American boxing history...as an old man.

 

Rules?

 

For me at least it's the number of fights (recorded) he had, which was what? about 23?

Add that to the fact that he usually outweighed his opponents by 20+ pounds and I just don't see him in the same light that most boxing fans do.

Not that I don't consider him an ATG, I do, but to have him in the top 5 as many historian's had (have) him is a bit ridiculous as far as I'm concerned.

Top 15-20 seems more appropriate. But h2h he could be top 10-15 but it's hard to say cause I just don't know if he could beat fighters like Dempsey and Louis, or not, despite what the guys who seen him say, because the more I listen to what they say, the more contradictions I hear.

 

It appeared that Jim Jeffries was popular where he lived, the Los Angeles area. Of course, Los Angeles was a virtual backwater city at the time he was in his prime. The city of Los Angeles had a population of only about 100,000 in 1900. Notice that he had more bouts in New York City and San Francisco than in Los Angeles.

- Chuck Johnston

 

I respectfully disagree. Johnson stoked those fires himself. White society was like a frightened and angry coiled snake back then and Johnson loved nothing better than to flick at it.

Johnson brought the tensions to the boiling point. Not Jeffries. The black fighters of the day (and later generations) agree.

 

I'm not so sure he was a *****. Unlike Sullivan, Jeffries couldn't stand back-slappers and flatterers. He liked having a small circle of close friends who he could trust rather than a group of sycophants who he couldn't. It seems to me that if you were genuine and sincere, then he liked you. He was guarded against the aforementioned types and I think his sometimes gruff demeanor was his defense against them.

That said, I think there IS a better way to handle yourself than being unfriendly to people(even the phonies), which Jeffries was at times.

I loved reading about his friendship with Bob Fitzsimmons in "A Man Among Men". Hilarious. Like Mongo meets Crocodile Dundee or something.

 

More slanted spin, Langford named Dempsey as the greatest.
Johnson named Fitzsimmons,Corbett named Johnson as the cleverest boxer ever, as did Sharkey.
Burns was never likely to be objective when rating the champions he saw, he like Corbett hated Johnson, as did Langford and Sharkey.

 

Jeffries was a flawed man as we all are.He reneged on gambling debts which Rickard resolved to enable his fight with Johnson to take its course.He referred to Johnson as a skunk and other insulting terms, but he was a good friend to Sharkey when the Sailor was down on his luck,and by all accounts he was devoted to his wife, to whom he was married for 37 years until her death in a traffic accident.

 

Hart, Burns,Willard,Carnera.

 

The problem with Jeffries is he had so few fights and his biggest rivals were entering the ring as old and inactive, added to their significant physical disadvantages.

 

I think you've overstated it.
Lots of famous people were/are racist jerks. It hardly ever effects legacy. I certainly don't think 1890s/00s pugilists are expected to be anything other than racist jerks.

 

It is also only fair to note that despite his gruff demeanour, his conduct outside the ring seems to have been better than the vast majority of champions.

He seems to have been an honest man, and he seems to have set the threshold using violence outside the ring fairly high.