Jim Jeffries vs...

[Goodnight, Irene]

the following, at the top of his game (& theirs), in 25-rounders...

Jack Johnson

Kenny Norton

Gene Tunney

Max Baer

Joe Frazier

Rocky Marciano

Sonny Liston

Evander Holyfield

[Panzerfaust]

I think with both fighters in their prime its would be dead even between Jeffries and Johnson. Johnson used his size and strenght alot, wich i think he would have a hard time doing versus Jeffries... maybe a slight edge to Jeff

rest i have to ponder

[gambler49]

Jack Johnson DRAW. ALTHOUGH I LEAN 2WARDS JEFFRIES

Kenny Norton LOSES BY KO AROUND 7

Gene Tunney LOSES BY KO AROUND 14

Max Baer LOSES BY KO AROUND 15

Joe Frazier WAT A FKN DREAM FIGHT... FRAZIER ENDS UP IN HOSPITAL BADLY HURT.

Rocky Marciano THIS MAN CAN TRAIN TO GO 25... ROCKY WINS ON POINTS

Sonny Liston LOSSES BY BRUTAL KO AROUND 15

Evander Holyfield LOSSES BY KO AROUND 14

[Goodnight, Irene]

Jack Johnson DRAW. ALTHOUGH I LEAN 2WARDS JEFFRIES

Kenny Norton LOSES BY KO AROUND 7

Gene Tunney LOSES BY KO AROUND 14

Max Baer LOSES BY KO AROUND 15

Joe Frazier WAT A FKN DREAM FIGHT... FRAZIER ENDS UP IN HOSPITAL BADLY HURT.

Rocky Marciano THIS MAN CAN TRAIN TO GO 25... ROCKY WINS ON POINTS

Sonny Liston LOSSES BY BRUTAL KO AROUND 15

Evander Holyfield LOSSES BY KO AROUND 14

Not bad choices, all-in-all. My gut says, though, that Jeffries' size, strength, & advantage over the bigger distance would give him the odds against Marciano --- Frazier, too. I think he stops them both in excruciatingly-brutal affairs. As to the rest...

Jeffries KO13 Johnson

Jeffries TKO9 Norton

Jeffries KO17 Tunney

Jeffries KO11 Baer

Jeffries & Liston, I am going to have to sit squarely on the fence on. Virtually no one could come at Liston & survive, but Jeffries was bigger, stronger, & more athletic than Frazier or Marciano, & unhumanely tough. Even so, I can't be sure how he'd respond to Liston's power, & range. Just can't make up my mind.

Jeffries TKO14 Holyfield

[BoxBuzz]

I think Baer at his best could be a spoiler. Very underated fighter overall. (Granted due to lack of consistency.) However at his best, he could hold his own with any of the top five and possibly upset almost anyone's applecart.

Ok he couldn't upset Louis or Ali's applecart. But just about anyone elses.

[Robinson]

I think Jeffries would do well against Johnson.
Either a draw or a close win by Johnson.

[HomicideHenry]

Under his rules (25 rounds+) believe me, and i dont believe any hw including muhammad ali to of ever beaten him. at his best and under those conditions he would never have lost.

[Robinson]

Under HIS rules HH, do you think the outcome between
Hughes and Royce would have been any different ?

If you KNOW your fighting a 25 or however long round
fight agains a guy with a good chin. You pace yourself
accordingly, which only makes it more boring for the crowd.
If you have a shorter amount of time, you are under pressure
to get the job done and have to take more risks.

In long time limited fights you can hide in that time period.
Ive fought under 10 min rounds to 3 min rounds. You feel
more pressure when you have a shorter time limit when
facing a tougher dude.

The whole notion that to fight for 100000 of rounds means
you have to be fitter really is determined by the intensity
of the fight.

I mean if you sprint 45km you are going to pass out early.
But if you jog or walk it, you will make the distance.
The longest wrestling macth went for 12hrs in the 1912
Olympics, do you think it was more intense a match
than those fought in subsequent Olympics?
Back in 1912 you had no penalties for being passive, so
you could 'stall and hold' you also had longer timer
periods.

As tough an SOB as Jeffries was, I can still see say an
Ali stopping him late or out scoring him over that
length of time.

Cobb famously said that had he fought Holmes over
50(or however many rounds) that he would have
eventually won. Well the reality is that if you keep taking
unanswered blows over a longer length of time then
they will have an effect.

[HomicideHenry]

And cobb is right. he may lose 20, 30, 40 rounds but he would have eventually gotten holmes. conditioning and toughness was key. cobb, chuvalo, jeffries, marciano, etc had it in spades.

[Robinson]

It does not work like that HH though.

They will wear down. Just because they
seemingly can hang on for 15 rounds or
however. That does not mean that they will
be able to absorb that many blows over an
extended period. Attrition will take its toll.

Jeffries in his entire career was never hit
by any one like a Holmes, Tyson or Ali.
Sure he faced the tough men of his era and
proved his supremacy. But those men were
at another level.

It is extremely academic. And it is an assumption
made with some degree of arrogance by those
in an arm chair or on a bar stool. I gurantee those
with their boots in the ring do not share such an
opinion.

In defeat you can always conjure up exceptions,
that would have seen you victorious.

Cobb could boast that had it been kickboxing that
he may have won, or that had he fought for 6 min
rounds he would have won, or if he was allowed to
use a baseball bat... whatever. The fact remains
he ate hard shots and over however long the fight
was going, he would have been worn down.

As for Jeffries besting Ali, Holmes, Tyson, etc etc
over 25 rounds. More time does not mean he would
win.

Sakuraba still bested Royce under 'His' rules. All it did
was prolong the punishment.

[raylawpc]

It does not work like that HH though.

They will wear down. Just because they
seemingly can hang on for 15 rounds or
however. That does not mean that they will
be able to absorb that many blows over an
extended period. Attrition will take its toll.

Jeffries in his entire career was never hit
by any one like a Holmes, Tyson or Ali.
Sure he faced the tough men of his era and
proved his supremacy. But those men were
at another level.

It is extremely academic. And it is an assumption
made with some degree of arrogance by those
in an arm chair or on a bar stool. I gurantee those
with their boots in the ring do not share such an
opinion.

In defeat you can always conjure up exceptions,
that would have seen you victorious.

Cobb could boast that had it been kickboxing that
he may have won, or that had he fought for 6 min
rounds he would have won, or if he was allowed to
use a baseball bat... whatever. The fact remains
he ate hard shots and over however long the fight
was going, he would have been worn down.

As for Jeffries besting Ali, Holmes, Tyson, etc etc
over 25 rounds. More time does not mean he would
win.

Sakuraba still bested Royce under 'His' rules. All it did
was prolong the punishment.

I disagree, and my disagreement isn't the product of an "arrogance by those in an arm chair or on a bar stool." I've boxed and I've trained boxers. It is fundamental that some guys are just naturally more durable, tougher, and have better endurance than others. That's just human physiology. And while "more time does not mean he would win," more time increases the odds for victory when you have a well trained fighter with natural endurance and toughness.

The fact that "Jeffries in his entire career was never hit by any one like a Holmes, Tyson or Ali" proves nothing. The fact he never had to take their punches doesn't mean he couldn't have taken their punches. They, on the otherhand, never fought for 25 rounds in 5 ounce (or less) primitive leather/horsehair gloves, in primitive 8 post rings, and without mouthpieces, etc. They never took his punches either. But so what? The fact they didn't doesn't mean that they couldn't.

The fact is this: Jim Jeffries had tremendous natural endurance and toughness that served him well in long distance bouts.

[Ezzard]

What’s always interested me when I’ve witnessed fights that have lasted hours is the psychological effect of simply not giving in. I’ve seen men outclassed and outfought for long periods but if they do not wilt they eventually always have their moment.

IF Jeff can absorb the punishment (and we don’t know) then there will be a moment when the tide turns. You’ll see this in almost all sports. Football followers will tell you that when your team has all the ball, all the chances but doesn’t score you just know that the opposing team will have their chance at some point. The team that’s been on top then deflate very quickly.

And it’s not all about pacing yourself. There’s much more to it than that. There’s a definite psychology to being on top but not being able to close the show. When you know there are 3 rounds left is one thing, when you know you could be going for another 2 hours then that’s another…

[Goodnight, Irene]

Not many want to take a stab at the fights here, though...

[Ezzard]

Not many want to take a stab at the fights here, though...

Haven’t seen enough of Jeffries to be honest.

I can put a picture of him together as a durable man, with a crouching defence, a good solid puncher with speed and determination… Starts slow and comes on late… I can see his dimensions but I can’t really tell you which punch he’s more likely to get hit with, etc…

I’m sure some on here could do him better justice than me.

[raylawpc]

What’s always interested me when I’ve witnessed fights that have lasted hours is the psychological effect of simply not giving in. I’ve seen men outclassed and outfought for long periods but if they do not wilt they eventually always have their moment.

IF Jeff can absorb the punishment (and we don’t know) then there will be a moment when the tide turns. You’ll see this in almost all sports. Football followers will tell you that when your team has all the ball, all the chances but doesn’t score you just know that the opposing team will have their chance at some point. The team that’s been on top then deflate very quickly.

And it’s not all about pacing yourself. There’s much more to it than that. There’s a definite psychology to being on top but not being able to close the show. When you know there are 3 rounds left is one thing, when you know you could be going for another 2 hours then that’s another…

Well said.

[raylawpc]

Not many want to take a stab at the fights here, though...

For most of the guys listed, it is hard to say. They fought in different eras under different conditions - too far removed to make a reasonable guess.

Regarding Johnson: Prime v. prime, its awfully close but I'd like Jeff over 25 rounds. At 20 rounds - I'm not so sure. If Johnson had fought Jeff in 1905 instead of Marvin Hart, I think Jeff would have wrecked him over the last ten rounds.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Not many want to take a stab at the fights here, though...

Haven’t seen enough of Jeffries to be honest.

I can put a picture of him together as a durable man, with a crouching defence, a good solid puncher with speed and determination… Starts slow and comes on late… I can see his dimensions but I can’t really tell you which punch he’s more likely to get hit with, etc…

I’m sure some on here could do him better justice than me.

How much have you seen?

[HomicideHenry]

I agree 100% with u raylawpc regarding jeffries

[Mr E]

It does not work like that HH though.

They will wear down. Just because they
seemingly can hang on for 15 rounds or
however. That does not mean that they will
be able to absorb that many blows over an
extended period. Attrition will take its toll.

Jeffries in his entire career was never hit
by any one like a Holmes, Tyson or Ali.
Sure he faced the tough men of his era and
proved his supremacy. But those men were
at another level.

It is extremely academic. And it is an assumption
made with some degree of arrogance by those
in an arm chair or on a bar stool. I gurantee those
with their boots in the ring do not share such an
opinion.

In defeat you can always conjure up exceptions,
that would have seen you victorious.

Cobb could boast that had it been kickboxing that
he may have won, or that had he fought for 6 min
rounds he would have won, or if he was allowed to
use a baseball bat... whatever. The fact remains
he ate hard shots and over however long the fight
was going, he would have been worn down.

As for Jeffries besting Ali, Holmes, Tyson, etc etc
over 25 rounds. More time does not mean he would
win.

Sakuraba still bested Royce under 'His' rules. All it did
was prolong the punishment.

I disagree, and my disagreement isn't the product of an "arrogance by those in an arm chair or on a bar stool." I've boxed and I've trained boxers. It is fundamental that some guys are just naturally more durable, tougher, and have better endurance than others. That's just human physiology. And while "more time does not mean he would win," more time increases the odds for victory when you have a well trained fighter with natural endurance and toughness.

The fact that "Jeffries in his entire career was never hit by any one like a Holmes, Tyson or Ali" proves nothing. The fact he never had to take their punches doesn't mean he couldn't have taken their punches. They, on the otherhand, never fought for 25 rounds in 5 ounce (or less) primitive leather/horsehair gloves, in primitive 8 post rings, and without mouthpieces, etc. They never took his punches either. But so what? The fact they didn't doesn't mean that they couldn't.

The fact is this: Jim Jeffries had tremendous natural endurance and toughness that served him well in long distance bouts.

I think most of the really great heavyweights could have adjusted for the era.

Corbett was leading after 22 against Jeffries but that doesn't mean he would have won a 15 round fight. Had the fight been scheduled for 15 instead of 25, Jeffries would have had to get going more quickly (or maybe you could say he would have had the luxury of opening up more quickly)-- and I think he would have.

Similarly, I believe guys like Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Frazier, Holmes, etc. could have adjusted their pace to 25 if required.

[HomicideHenry]

I just dont believe a high volume puncher like ali would have adjusted well to jeffries era. just one miscalculated punch in those 3-5 ounce horse hair gloves would mean a broken hand. ali wasnt a great in fighter and he'd have no choice but to do so under those conditions, cus ali is no superman he couldnt possibly run, dodge, duck for 25-45+ rounds.

[Robinson]

It does not work like that HH though.

They will wear down. Just because they
seemingly can hang on for 15 rounds or
however. That does not mean that they will
be able to absorb that many blows over an
extended period. Attrition will take its toll.

Jeffries in his entire career was never hit
by any one like a Holmes, Tyson or Ali.
Sure he faced the tough men of his era and
proved his supremacy. But those men were
at another level.

It is extremely academic. And it is an assumption
made with some degree of arrogance by those
in an arm chair or on a bar stool. I gurantee those
with their boots in the ring do not share such an
opinion.

In defeat you can always conjure up exceptions,
that would have seen you victorious.

Cobb could boast that had it been kickboxing that
he may have won, or that had he fought for 6 min
rounds he would have won, or if he was allowed to
use a baseball bat... whatever. The fact remains
he ate hard shots and over however long the fight
was going, he would have been worn down.

As for Jeffries besting Ali, Holmes, Tyson, etc etc
over 25 rounds. More time does not mean he would
win.

Sakuraba still bested Royce under 'His' rules. All it did
was prolong the punishment.

I disagree, and my disagreement isn't the product of an "arrogance by those in an arm chair or on a bar stool." I've boxed and I've trained boxers. It is fundamental that some guys are just naturally more durable, tougher, and have better endurance than others. That's just human physiology. And while "more time does not mean he would win," more time increases the odds for victory when you have a well trained fighter with natural endurance and toughness.

The fact that "Jeffries in his entire career was never hit by any one like a Holmes, Tyson or Ali" proves nothing. The fact he never had to take their punches doesn't mean he couldn't have taken their punches. They, on the otherhand, never fought for 25 rounds in 5 ounce (or less) primitive leather/horsehair gloves, in primitive 8 post rings, and without mouthpieces, etc. They never took his punches either. But so what? The fact they didn't doesn't mean that they couldn't.

The fact is this: Jim Jeffries had tremendous natural endurance and toughness that served him well in long distance bouts.

I do not dispute this fact.
BUT... it is all academic and extremely 'belief' based these assumptions.

Having fought under varying time limits, and with small sized gloves and varying
(limited rules). I can tell you that a shorter period of time puts you under greater
pressure to perform quicker.

The assumption that Jeffries would defeat ANY other HW under "His' rules is
extremely academic.
Would Ben Brain, Jack Broughton and Tom Molineaux be able to best Jeffries,
or any other subsequent HW under 'their' rules ?
An elite athlete is an incredibly conditioned and adaptible person who will
work in with the conditions that they are presented with.

I try to look at fights and fighters as a fighter, and not as some one who
embraces certain beliefs. For me personally who is not a boxer. I would
rather fight in Jeffries era than in todays era, as far as my success versus
competition and under those rules go. That is how I feel and what I 'beleive'
upon reading, watching and observing the sport and its athletes in
those eras.

[HomicideHenry]

john l. sullivan was a paradox in his era. championship bouts werent considered true unless under lpr rules, but sullivan perferred 4-6 round gloved bouts because it benefited his fast brawling style. jeffries was a giant for the era, but quick--he generally gets pictured as goin at a tortise pace to get the job done, but jeffries could stop greats in short order like fitz in 8 rounds. what amazes me was his toughness and conditioning; he got both his eyes cut and nose broke and still kayoed fitz.