Who would you rate higher : Tim Witherspoon or Jim Jeffries ?

After the Hart affair, it was fairly unanimous among writers that neither Johnson nor Hart had anything to offer Jeffries. At least from what I have read in next day accounts. I am sure Pollack's book will shed more light on this.

 

If you want to argue the relative worth of the eras, that's a whole nuther topic. And there are many tangents outside of boxing, from economics to sporting culture to pop culture, that bear real relevance.

Again, "rate higher" is a very vague request.

 

There is a narrow window in which Jeffries could have defended against Johnson and Martin but it was not a prolonged time lapse.

Jeffries challengers were for the most part undersized ,and over the hill , but that was not his fault.
Fitz, Corbett, & Sharkey were viewed as the best around by a huge consensus. He fought each man twice, swifter returns with Fitz ,and Corbett might have been more meritorius, but they had retired.

Jeffries leads Witherspoon comfortably in historical perspective.
The first heavyweight champ to retire undefeated.
Head to head the gap narrows appreciably, imo.

 

"Witherspoon wasn't mediocre"

I should clarify that I posted the CRITERIA allows those mediocre in their time to be rated over those great in their time, and it does. Witherspoon clearly wasn't the force in his time Jeffries was in his.

"He was arguably the #1 heavyweight in the world for a time"

What time? He lost in 1983 to Holmes. He lost in 1984 to Thomas. He was stopped in 1 in 1986 by Bonecrusher Smith. How exactly does he get rated above Holmes, Spinks, or Tyson?--or Thomas or Smith, for that matter?

"Jeffries challengers were for the most part undersized"

Most of Jeff's opponents fell into the 180 to 200 lb range where most top fighters in the pre-Ali era fell. I don't think they were historically that small. Fitz is the kicker--although Adam Pollack has posted that he might have been heavier than his announced weights--but he still was in the same ballpark sizewise as Tommy Gibbons or Billy Conn.

"and over the hill"

Better point, although Fitz rebounded from his loss in 1899 to Jeff to score several of his most impressive ko's, and rebounded from his loss in 1902 to win the lightheavy title. Corbett seems to have been somewhat past it, and Jackson all but finished. This is the norm for young guys on the way up, though, and in fairness, the best men Jeff beat were the best of the era, not just young contenders who themselves were never the best.

"struggled" "had a hard time putting him away"

It is interesting that victories, and in some cases ko victories, are being downplayed in favor of losses. The criticism of Jeff is yeah he won, and beat them all, but he didn't win decisively enough. But very few in history beat them all, and none did it without struggling now and then.

Witherspoon lost many of his major fights even at his peak.

 

"older" "inactive"

Fair enough.

"smaller"

Than whom? Every good fighter was small compared to Jeffries and so would have been later champions such as Dempsey, Tunney, Schmeling, Charles, Marciano, Patterson, etc.

Being big is not something to criticize in heavyweight boxing. It is just a fact of life. Jeff was probably the biggest top heavyweight prior to Foreman (or perhaps Ali).

Peter Jackson was actually bigger than the champions I listed. Corbett trained his weight down for long fights, but he was taller and rangier than the men I listed above.

 

"Spinks and Berbick"

You rate them above Tyson?

"Tillis"

Beating Tillis makes you #1?

I think it kind of a spectacular stretch to consider Witherspoon ever the best heavyweight in the world.