What of Jeffries now?

"But I was wondering how such a bout could escape any contemporary mention in the press."

I was looking at Hank Griffin's record at boxrec. Of his first 21 fights, 14 were date and location unknown (but listed in a record printed in 2001 in the Oakland Tribune). What if the Tribune hadn't printed that record? Fights such as Griffin-Childs (if it indeed occurred) would be lost to history.

Griffin fought one Bob Jones twice just before fighting Jack Johnson. He fought to a 15 round draw, and then was stopped in 11 rounds. Jones has only five fights listed. Now Jones either was a prodigy like Jeffries who could beat world class fighters right out of the gate, or, what I think is much more likely, he had a lot of fights which were never recorded.

Certainly even fights by famous fighters fell through the cracks in more recent years. In the old Ring Record Books in the early 1980's, Billy Conn had been stopped twice only by Joe Louis. Now a 3rd knockout defeat has been found. And boxing was far more mainstream in the 1930's than in the 1890's.

Bottom line--I think some are greatly overestimating the coverage of boxing in the 1890's, when the sport was often illegal, and newspaper sports pages were much less extensive in many papers than they would be in later decades.

 

As usual Ed nails it.

 

Jeffries as lineal champion easily thrashed Hank Griffin. Griffin of course was black. I assure you that had Griffin somehow won by knockout, he's the next champion. This proves that Jeffries as champion was willing to fight black opponents, at least on Griffin's level. This is the same Griffin, who defeated Jack Johnson and drew with him twice, so how bad was he?:deal

As for the overseas matches, can you list them all to prove they were not real fights? If you don't have the facts, stop pretending your in the know. Some of Johnson's fights were three rounds, and they are considered legit, correct?

You're an embarrassment to this forum.

 

Does Jeff crack the top ten all-time?

h2h--not even close in my judgment. Except for Louis, I give him a good shot against the pre-1960 champions, but it is certainly a total shot in the dark to picture him beating the more recent giant champs. He had plenty of weaknesses on defense, off the ringside reports, and generally suffered severe facial damage in his tougher fights, not a good sign against the later jabbers. Critics in his own day also scored him for being a one-handed fighter, with a great left but a nothing much right.

legacy--here he has a much better case. I credit him with basically cleaning out the division up to 1902. It is to his credit that prior to becoming champion he defeated three top black heavyweights. I give him a pass on Martin, who came and went so fast I think it unfair to score against Jeff for not fighting him. But not fighting Johnson in the 1903 to 1905 period because of the color line Jeff so vocally supported pulls him down. A victory over Johnson at that point would have won him a high rating legacy-wise even today, probably top five. I give him no credit on contemporary or modern speculation favoring him winning. The stark fact is he lost to Johnson.

I rate Johnson and Louis higher. Dempsey is a close call, but I'd go with Jeff on that one (for legacy only). I give Marciano the edge as he fought and beat the best out there. Ali, Holmes, Holyfield, Lewis, and Wlad I see as having more impressive overall careers.

Foreman? Tough call, actually, as Foreman was never the best out there, losing to Ali and Young in the seventies, and to Holyfield in the nineties. I guess this depends on how one balances a very long career with two championships decades apart against a short but dominant career.

Bowe and Frazier--their biggest wins are better than Jeff's, but both went back quickly.

Schmeling--his biggest win is definitely better than anything Jeff did, but too erratic to rate above him.

Vitali--tough call. He lost the two fights which would have put him near the top, but was a durable long-term champion.

Bottom line--Jeff fits in most comfortably between 10 and 15 if rating totally on legacy and ignoring the evolution in size and boxing skill.

 

Walcott is one of the guys I'd give Jeffries a decent chance against to be honest.

 

I still have him in my top ten. Without a doubt, Jeffries had plenty of power, durability, stamina and heart. If you add in good athletic ability and watch his work out clips which include sparring ( The only clear prime film of Jeffries in action ) you have tremendous potential. Jeffries was the only old timer pre-1960 that had both ability and size.

Just because a good foot solider used to advance a certain way in 1900, doesn't mean he could not learn 2014 tactics.

Give Jeffries modern new trainer, and modern supplements and you’d have a 230+ pound mobile tank.