Compared to the small heavies of his day, Jeff would've seemed a giant. And really, what kind of competition did he have? Aside from Corbett and Fitz who were a little long in the tooth and light on the scales, and the clumsy brawler Tom Sharkey, there wasn't much. He supposely defended his title against some bozo named Finnegan whose only claim to fame was that he was worse than Gus Ruhlin, another Mister Mediocre. Oh, yeah. Almost forgot Joe Choynski, the super-middleweight.alrightjim wrote:Where do you get Jeffries was slow? There's nothing gleanable in the historical record to draw such a conclusion. It smacks of argument by crass assertion. In fact, observations by contemporaries state just the opposite, that in his prime Jeffries was quick. It is best not to confuse the old Jeffries who came off the alfalfa farm at Jack London's behest with the undefeated champ of the turn of the century, anymore than you should confuse the Tyson that was dropped by Danny Williams with the young dynamo that blasted out Larry Holmes, anymore than you should confuse the Holmes that was blasted out by Tyson with the slick warrior that punched Ali silly, anymore than you should confuse the Ali that was punched silly by Holmes with the Ali that dropped Foreman. Getting the picture, Cap?
Jeffries was tough enough to take the punches of middleweights and light heavyweights. And he could hit pretty hard, though he couldn't kayo Tom Sharkey, although Fitz did it twice and Ruhlin once. He was being made to look like a novice by both Fitz and Corbett before they tired themselves out. At his best, Jeffries was built a lot like a white Mike Weaver. If he fought in the 60s he would have won some and lost some. He wouldn't have been anything special.
Chuvalo had trouble with good boxers, which Jeffries wasn't. When George lost to Foreman, he was past it. The prime Chuvalo of the early 60s would've cleaned Jeff's clock, if he could avoid a crooked decision like in the Bonavena and Terrell fights.
Cap
