BoxRec

jamesmcdonnell wrote:235 for the first fight, 246 for the second. Interestingly, he never got back under 240 for the rest of his career until the 2nd Golota fight, when he apparently took diuretics I heard.

Looking at his early career, he often scaled under 230, and his best weight range judging by performances was against 225-235.

He actually scaled UNDER 220 twice early on in his career.

235! 16st 11lbs. Might be a message in that. Might not. All I do know is, a lot of heavies would fight a lot better if they lost some weight.

I've often thought that over a certain weight, any advantage in weight and size is negated by the loss of agility and movement.

Ask yourself this, how badly do you reckon Ali would have whupped Vitali K, despite the advantage in height and weight Vitali enjoyed?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I've often thought that over a certain weight, any advantage in weight and size is negated by the loss of agility and movement.

Ask yourself this, how badly do you reckon Ali would have whupped Vitali K, despite the advantage in height and weight Vitali enjoyed?

Yes indeed. And we all saw a 15 stoner wipe out a whole succession of fat heavies in the 80's.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:George Foreman, Sonny Liston and Jim Jeffries all weighed a lot less than Lennox Lewis and were all a lot smaller.

they were smaller - not a lot smaller. besides, that means little - the question was "big hulking heavies who could fight" - if you're trying to tell anyone that these guys weren't big fellas then you've got your work cut out.

Foreman 6'3 1/2" - 215-230 lbs in his prime, though probably weight drained by the sounds of things in a lot of fights. 240 tops would have been his best weight probably.

1 inch and 5 lbs smaller than lewis - yeah i see what you mean...

Sonny Liston 6'1" and 210-215 in his prime.

sonny was much smaller than people realised at the time - he was actually slightly smaller than clay which surprised a lot of people that thought sonny would blast out the "smaller" man. he was still a huge specimen, though, and had a longer reach and bigger hands than lewis

Jim Jeffries. 6' 2" 220 in his prime.

jim jeffries was actually over 6'4" - the poundage issue is moot. if you're fighting a guy who's barely over 200lbs you don;t need to go up to 250. imo, as bennie has said, there's no reason for a hw to be up at 250 unless he's about 6'8" - both klitschkos for example are excellently conditioned at 240-245. jeffries could have carried an extra 10 lbs with no problem had he wanted / needed.

There have been men of Lewis' size and bigger prior to his arrival, but none of them could fight like Lewis. Lewis and Bowe are the only two men of that size to combine size and skills so well. Primo Carnera, Buddy Baer, Abe Atell, Jess Willard and many others were as big and bigger, but none were that skifull.

sorry - but you're quibbling over inches and a few pounds. just because lennox is 6'5" doesn't mean a man who's 6'3" / 6'4" is a midget next to him - that makes no sense.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Lewis was probably at his best around 240 lbs.

imo, lewis physical prime was between the ages of 27 and 32 - when he weighed around the 230 mark. he improved in terms of his technique and ringcraft with experience - lennox is one of the most mentally proficient hw champs in terms of his understanidng of the boxing game - but this compensated for his declining physical skills it didn;t compliment them.

there is also the issue of endurance. Ali and Frazier threw phenomenal amounts of punches in their fights compared to most modern heavies.

Look at Tua and Ibeabuchi, record breaking punches for a heavyweight fight, Tua scaled in at 227, Ibeabuchi at 235. Fast forward to last year and he weighs in with bitch tits at 245, and where are all those punches now?

Muscle tissue metabolises oxygen very quickly, and the more you have the more you burn. Also the heart muscle has to work harder the more weight you have, and being big limits cardio work as the stress is higher. All that extra bulk doesn't help a tad when it comes to workrate, in fact it hinders. Think Lewis was capable of the workrate he showed against Mercer when he 'filled out' later in his career? No way.

Perhaps, I should have said fat, hulking heavies, then Buster Mathis would get a mention and that's it (Buster Mathis Senior that is). There's no doubt Jeffries, Liston and Foreman were really big men for their day who could really fight.
But today nearly all heavies are bigger. And can't fight.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:there is also the issue of endurance. Ali and Frazier threw phenomenal amounts of punches in their fights compared to most modern heavies.

Look at Tua and Ibeabuchi, record breaking punches for a heavyweight fight, Tua scaled in at 227, Ibeabuchi at 235. Fast forward to last year and he weighs in with bitch tits at 245, and where are all those punches now?

Muscle tissue metabolises oxygen very quickly, and the more you have the more you burn. Also the heart muscle has to work harder the more weight you have, and being big limits cardio work as the stress is higher. All that extra bulk doesn't help a tad when it comes to workrate, in fact it hinders. Think Lewis was capable of the workrate he showed against Mercer when he 'filled out' later in his career? No way.

exactly. but it's a lot easier in theory than in practice. which is why the guy who's currently at the top of the tree is bigger than just about any hw champ in history. if it's so easy for the small guy to knock these big lumbering hulks off the top then we can sit back and look forward to toney or tarver beating the big ukrainian's ass in the next few months - you agree?

journeyman wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:George Foreman, Sonny Liston and Jim Jeffries all weighed a lot less than Lennox Lewis and were all a lot smaller.

they were smaller - not a lot smaller. besides, that means little - the question was "big hulking heavies who could fight" - if you're trying to tell anyone that these guys weren't big fellas then you've got your work cut out.

Foreman 6'3 1/2" - 215-230 lbs in his prime, though probably weight drained by the sounds of things in a lot of fights. 240 tops would have been his best weight probably.

1 inch and 5 lbs smaller than lewis - yeah i see what you mean...

Sonny Liston 6'1" and 210-215 in his prime.

sonny was much smaller than people realised at the time - he was actually slightly smaller than clay which surprised a lot of people that thought sonny would blast out the "smaller" man. he was still a huge specimen, though, and had a longer reach and bigger hands than lewis

Jim Jeffries. 6' 2" 220 in his prime.

jim jeffries was actually over 6'4" - the poundage issue is moot. if you're fighting a guy who's barely over 200lbs you don;t need to go up to 250. imo, as bennie has said, there's no reason for a hw to be up at 250 unless he's about 6'8" - both klitschkos for example are excellently conditioned at 240-245. jeffries could have carried an extra 10 lbs with no problem had he wanted / needed.

There have been men of Lewis' size and bigger prior to his arrival, but none of them could fight like Lewis. Lewis and Bowe are the only two men of that size to combine size and skills so well. Primo Carnera, Buddy Baer, Abe Atell, Jess Willard and many others were as big and bigger, but none were that skifull.

sorry - but you're quibbling over inches and a few pounds. just because lennox is 6'5" doesn't mean a man who's 6'3" / 6'4" is a midget next to him - that makes no sense.

Plonker. Foreman's prime weight was 215-220, he never actually weighed in at 240 or anywhere near it in his prime.

Your point was that all those men were massive, well compared to Lewis they weren't. They all weighed significantly less, Foreman only weighed over 240 when he came back as a far blob.

I'm sorry but the difference between 6'1 and 6'5 is a big difference, go and stand next to someone 4 inches taller than you. Foreman weighed about 15-20 lb less than Lewis in his prime.

Yes longer reach and bigger hands, and? You made the point that he was dwarfed by Ali, and yet your claiming Lewis wouldn't have dwarfed him, how do you figure that, Lewis was about 25 lbs heavier than ali, and was a naturall far bigger man. Ali had broad shoulders, but quite a slim frame. He barely weighed 200 lbs early in his career, whereas Lewis was scaling 230+ even early on in his career.

You say Jeffries could have carried 10 lbs more, what is this based on, have you met the guy, all there is is photographs and written evidence, yet you claim he could have put another 10 on. Jeffries only weighed heavy late in his career when he was out of shape.

The point is, Lewis is the exception that proves the rule that bigger is not better. Over 230-240 there seems no advantage. Vitali is well conditioned at his weight, but he is hardly Nijinsky is he? I honestly think that Vitali is lucky the division is so weak, because his skills look rudimentary at best when someone starts hitting him.

bennie wrote:Perhaps, I should have said fat, hulking heavies, then Buster Mathis would get a mention and that's it (Buster Mathis Senior that is).

yeah, i was thinking that - you'd have buster, bowe, corrie sanders. actually, that's quite a good trio...

journeyman wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:there is also the issue of endurance. Ali and Frazier threw phenomenal amounts of punches in their fights compared to most modern heavies.

Look at Tua and Ibeabuchi, record breaking punches for a heavyweight fight, Tua scaled in at 227, Ibeabuchi at 235. Fast forward to last year and he weighs in with bitch tits at 245, and where are all those punches now?

Muscle tissue metabolises oxygen very quickly, and the more you have the more you burn. Also the heart muscle has to work harder the more weight you have, and being big limits cardio work as the stress is higher. All that extra bulk doesn't help a tad when it comes to workrate, in fact it hinders. Think Lewis was capable of the workrate he showed against Mercer when he 'filled out' later in his career? No way.

exactly. but it's a lot easier in theory than in practice. which is why the guy who's currently at the top of the tree is bigger than just about any hw champ in history. if it's so easy for the small guy to knock these big lumbering hulks off the top then we can sit back and look forward to toney or tarver beating the big ukrainian's ass in the next few months - you agree?

I give Toney a good chance if they fight. After all, Joe Louis beat the living shit out of Primo Carnera, weighing less than Toney. I will be betting some money on a toney win. I'm not saying Toney is quite as good as Louis as an all around fighter, but he's got a good shot.

Tarver isn't good enough he won't have the punch power to pull it off, Toney is naturally more aggressive and a better technician.

The little guy has to be significantly better than the big guy, and I don't believe tarver is that savvy to beat Vitali. I

What does Klitschko weigh?

Vitali is the top guy at the moment in a very weak era indeed. He may stay that way in the current scene, but he's no great heavyweight.

I agree there should be a weight limit imposed, at the moment brute strength is the order of the day and the amount of fast handed, skillful Heavies is at a minumum. The Heavyweight division is boring anyway, nearly every fight is a boring hugging match with minimal action, the participants are both so lazy and overweight they just tire after the early rounds. And they can get away with it because they know there opponent will be in the same condition! That's why people like Ruiz are thriving, he gives it that extra energy and goes that extra mile in training and is reaping the rewards

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

journeyman wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:George Foreman, Sonny Liston and Jim Jeffries all weighed a lot less than Lennox Lewis and were all a lot smaller.

they were smaller - not a lot smaller. besides, that means little - the question was "big hulking heavies who could fight" - if you're trying to tell anyone that these guys weren't big fellas then you've got your work cut out.

Foreman 6'3 1/2" - 215-230 lbs in his prime, though probably weight drained by the sounds of things in a lot of fights. 240 tops would have been his best weight probably.

1 inch and 5 lbs smaller than lewis - yeah i see what you mean...

Sonny Liston 6'1" and 210-215 in his prime.

sonny was much smaller than people realised at the time - he was actually slightly smaller than clay which surprised a lot of people that thought sonny would blast out the "smaller" man. he was still a huge specimen, though, and had a longer reach and bigger hands than lewis

Jim Jeffries. 6' 2" 220 in his prime.

jim jeffries was actually over 6'4" - the poundage issue is moot. if you're fighting a guy who's barely over 200lbs you don;t need to go up to 250. imo, as bennie has said, there's no reason for a hw to be up at 250 unless he's about 6'8" - both klitschkos for example are excellently conditioned at 240-245. jeffries could have carried an extra 10 lbs with no problem had he wanted / needed.

There have been men of Lewis' size and bigger prior to his arrival, but none of them could fight like Lewis. Lewis and Bowe are the only two men of that size to combine size and skills so well. Primo Carnera, Buddy Baer, Abe Atell, Jess Willard and many others were as big and bigger, but none were that skifull.

sorry - but you're quibbling over inches and a few pounds. just because lennox is 6'5" doesn't mean a man who's 6'3" / 6'4" is a midget next to him - that makes no sense.

Plonker. Foreman's prime weight was 215-220, he never actually weighed in at 240 or anywhere near it in his prime.

Your point was that all those men were massive, well compared to Lewis they weren't. They all weighed significantly less, Foreman only weighed over 240 when he came back as a far blob.

I'm sorry but the difference between 6'1 and 6'5 is a big difference, go and stand next to someone 4 inches taller than you. Foreman weighed about 15-20 lb less than Lewis in his prime.

Yes longer reach and bigger hands, and? You made the point that he was dwarfed by Ali, and yet your claiming Lewis wouldn't have dwarfed him, how do you figure that, Lewis was about 25 lbs heavier than ali, and was a naturall far bigger man. Ali had broad shoulders, but quite a slim frame. He barely weighed 200 lbs early in his career, whereas Lewis was scaling 230+ even early on in his career.

You say Jeffries could have carried 10 lbs more, what is this based on, have you met the guy, all there is is photographs and written evidence, yet you claim he could have put another 10 on. Jeffries only weighed heavy late in his career when he was out of shape.

The point is, Lewis is the exception that proves the rule that bigger is not better. Over 230-240 there seems no advantage. Vitali is well conditioned at his weight, but he is hardly Nijinsky is he? I honestly think that Vitali is lucky the division is so weak, because his skills look rudimentary at best when someone starts hitting him.

james, i'll tell you this one time - keep it respectful: there's no need for the insults. i didn't insult you - i'd appreciate it if you could show the same respect in return.

now on to your points.

i wasn't comparing these fighters with lennox lewis - they were all considered to be big hulking heavyweights who could fight in their day. that was the question and they are a number of valid answers to it.

also, the idea that foreman and jeffries are dwarfed by lewis is bs. sorry to have called you on that - but you shouldn't have made the point if you didn't want someone to call you it.

i never said that sonny was dwarfed by ali - he wasn't. sonny was a big man - if you can;t accept that then you must be one hella big guy yourself, so i won;t argue. but i'm 6'2" and 210lbs and sonny was bigger than me by all accounts and by everything i've seen of the man.

i also take issue with your assertion of lewis' prime physical peak. at his peak he was 225-235. foreman's peak as you have listed it is 215-225 - that's 5-10lbs as i said.

jeffries could easily carry an extra ten pounds - have you ever seen pictures of the man? film footage? my thinking is all you know about jeffries is what you've read on his boxrec profile.

You are being very presumtuous if you think my only reading about Jeffries is from here, and you are incorrect.

Jeffries was a huge man for his time, but I'm sorry, he wasn't as big as Lewis.

Sonny Liston WAS physically dwarfed by Ali, the crowd and Sonny himself were shocked by the sight, what is your definition of dwarfed? In boxing a height and weight difference of 3 inches and 10-15 lbs can be a hell of a lot.

The evidence shows that the same fighter can be like two different men when only weighing 10-15 lbs more, Tua, Lewis and Bowe all prove this point as at differing weights they fought entirely differently.

I think you are missing the point of this thread, we were discussing whether over a certain size heavyweights get worse rather than better, not whether 6'2" equals big or small, or whether Sonny liston was a 'big man' Of course all heavyweights over 200 lbs are going to be big men. I'm 6'3" and about 190 lbs, and yes Liston would have been physically much bigger than me, hell Johnny Nelson is bigger than me, I'm overweight and out of shape, that's not the point.

It would seem if you scrutinise the records of heavyweight champions, that bigger is not better, the fighters over 6'4" who were great heavyweights, is a very small list. Perhaps that will change in time, but I doubt it. After all, there were men as big as Lewis in boxing 50 years ago, and they were invariably below his class.

Lewis and Bowe are significantly naturally larger men than Liston, Ali, Jeffries et al. That is my point. And the difference is proven when you look at their earliest recorded weights.

On another note. Jeffries was 208 when he won the title, presumably near or at his peak. Lewis turned pro at over 230, and was 235 when he beat Tucker, are you seriously telling me they weren't different specimens?

Sadly we cannot stand them side by side to compare.

The fact they were considered 'big men' in their day is surely irrelevant. If I went back to the 13th century I would look like Andre the giant, the average height in the UK was about 5'4 then, and 6'0 was considered pretty huge.

Usually at this point some annoying bastard ruins a discussion "Let's just agree to disagree" It has to be me.....

Let's just agree to disagree

Please don't hurt me

I knew someone would have to say it soon.....

In answer to the "should the heavyweight division be banned?"

my answer is no.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You are being very presumtuous if you think my only reading about Jeffries is from here, and you are incorrect.

Jeffries was a huge man for his time, but I'm sorry, he wasn't as big as Lewis.

Sonny Liston WAS physically dwarfed by Ali, the crowd and Sonny himself were shocked by the sight, what is your definition of dwarfed? In boxing a height and weight difference of 3 inches and 10-15 lbs can be a hell of a lot.

The evidence shows that the same fighter can be like two different men when only weighing 10-15 lbs more, Tua, Lewis and Bowe all prove this point as at differing weights they fought entirely differently.

I think you are missing the point of this thread, we were discussing whether over a certain size heavyweights get worse rather than better, not whether 6'2" equals big or small, or whether Sonny liston was a 'big man' Of course all heavyweights over 200 lbs are going to be big men. I'm 6'3" and about 190 lbs, and yes Liston would have been physically much bigger than me, hell Johnny Nelson is bigger than me, I'm overweight and out of shape, that's not the point.

It would seem if you scrutinise the records of heavyweight champions, that bigger is not better, the fighters over 6'4" who were great heavyweights, is a very small list. Perhaps that will change in time, but I doubt it. After all, there were men as big as Lewis in boxing 50 years ago, and they were invariably below his class.

Lewis and Bowe are significantly naturally larger men than Liston, Ali, Jeffries et al. That is my point. And the difference is proven when you look at their earliest recorded weights.

i may well be being presumptuous but i can only go on what you write and how you respond to other posts - your own posts do not display much knowledge of jim jeffries therefore that leads me to think you have little knowledge of the man - if you're trying to hide your knowledge, congratulations on a job well done.

and in actual fact, you are the one who keeps comparing fighters to lewis. i actually think you believe lewis to be a much bigger man than he actually is - i've been in the same room as lewis and george foreman and can assure you there is very little difference in size between the two men. that, tho, is a moot point.

there has been a history of 'super' heavies and where you draw the line in defining them is at the centre of this - you obviously take lewis and bowe at 6'5" to be super-heavies, but foreman and jeffries at 6'4" are not - i say that's stupid and am merely highlighting that point for you - the fact that you've yet to respond to my posts with anything approaching a valid contradiction leads me to believe that you have none.

the issue that bennie raises is that the big guys are all out of shape and essentially lesser calibre fighters - my point has always been that essentially i agree with that, but if it's really true then smaller guys with better stamina and technique will prove it by beating the big fellas. they haven't so straightaway life teaches us that bennie's point is an over-simplification.

truth is, bigger is better right now, otherwise a smaller guy would be hw king. and he isn't.

btw, i happen to agree with you about toney and have posted the same repeatedly on this and other sites.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Think Lewis was capable of the workrate he showed against Mercer when he 'filled out' later in his career? No way.

To be fair Lewis was over 17st when he fought Mercer. He was 18st in his next fight against McCall.

I believe that the grueling war with Mercer did more to change the fighting style of Lennox Lewis than any other fight. He wasn't going to go through that kind of nightmare again.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:On another note. Jeffries was 208 when he won the title, presumably near or at his peak. Lewis turned pro at over 230, and was 235 when he beat Tucker, are you seriously telling me they weren't different specimens?

you see again you're overstating lewis' natural size. when he won the hw gold in seoul he was under 220 and when he turned pro he was overweight at 230. which can be seen by the fact he weighed around 225 when winning the british, euro and commonwealth titles.

and of course they're different specimens - for a start, one is black the other white. the physiology of men from different races, different continents and different times in history is obviously going to be different. what the funk are you smoking today, james?

The Boilermaker

journeyman wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You are being very presumtuous if you think my only reading about Jeffries is from here, and you are incorrect.

Jeffries was a huge man for his time, but I'm sorry, he wasn't as big as Lewis.

Sonny Liston WAS physically dwarfed by Ali, the crowd and Sonny himself were shocked by the sight, what is your definition of dwarfed? In boxing a height and weight difference of 3 inches and 10-15 lbs can be a hell of a lot.

The evidence shows that the same fighter can be like two different men when only weighing 10-15 lbs more, Tua, Lewis and Bowe all prove this point as at differing weights they fought entirely differently.

I think you are missing the point of this thread, we were discussing whether over a certain size heavyweights get worse rather than better, not whether 6'2" equals big or small, or whether Sonny liston was a 'big man' Of course all heavyweights over 200 lbs are going to be big men. I'm 6'3" and about 190 lbs, and yes Liston would have been physically much bigger than me, hell Johnny Nelson is bigger than me, I'm overweight and out of shape, that's not the point.

It would seem if you scrutinise the records of heavyweight champions, that bigger is not better, the fighters over 6'4" who were great heavyweights, is a very small list. Perhaps that will change in time, but I doubt it. After all, there were men as big as Lewis in boxing 50 years ago, and they were invariably below his class.

Lewis and Bowe are significantly naturally larger men than Liston, Ali, Jeffries et al. That is my point. And the difference is proven when you look at their earliest recorded weights.

i may well be being presumptuous but i can only go on what you write and how you respond to other posts - your own posts do not display much knowledge of jim jeffries therefore that leads me to think you have little knowledge of the man - if you're trying to hide your knowledge, congratulations on a job well done.

and in actual fact, you are the one who keeps comparing fighters to lewis. i actually think you believe lewis to be a much bigger man than he actually is - i've been in the same room as lewis and george foreman and can assure you there is very little difference in size between the two men. that, tho, is a moot point.

there has been a history of 'super' heavies and where you draw the line in defining them is at the centre of this - you obviously take lewis and bowe at 6'5" to be super-heavies, but foreman and jeffries at 6'4" are not - i say that's stupid and am merely highlighting that point for you - the fact that you've yet to respond to my posts with anything approaching a valid contradiction leads me to believe that you have none.

the issue that bennie raises is that the big guys are all out of shape and essentially lesser calibre fighters - my point has always been that essentially i agree with that, but if it's really true then smaller guys with better stamina and technique will prove it by beating the big fellas. they haven't so straightaway life teaches us that bennie's point is an over-simplification.

truth is, bigger is better right now, otherwise a smaller guy would be hw king. and he isn't.

btw, i happen to agree with you about toney and have posted the same repeatedly on this and other sites.

Hang on, your lambasting me for knowing nothing, and yet your lumping Jeffries and Liston in with Foreman. Jeffries was 6'2 not 6'4" Don't mean to be petty, but tracers work both ways. If you're going to criticise me for lack of knowledge, then you should at least get the fundamentals right. Jeffries is listed at between 6'2" and 6'2 1/2 everywhere I've ever read.

It seems we are going nowhere with this, it all comes down to what you consider a 'significant' size difference. I'm willing to concede that Foreman and Lewis are in the same ball park, but not Liston and Jeffries.

As for the creation of a super heavy division, I would be against it for one simple reason, there simply isn't a big enough talent pool as it is, and a super heavyweight division would be a dire division filled with lumbering out of shape apeths gasping for air, dismal...

My major point all along is that really big men, and for me I think that once you get over 6'4" and about 235 lbs you are entering different territory because there are physiological changes which occur in big men to do with reflexes and the weight of the skelton and the like which affect flexibility and agility. My point is that Lewis is remarkable in being pretty agile and fast as well as possessing awesome power at over 240 lbs. Whilst Foreman was a very efficient fighting machine, he didn't have the same sort of agility Lewis had, nor the handspeed. Bowe too had phenomenal handspeed for a huge man, but nothing like the defensive prowess or footwork Lewis had.

As they say, a good bigun beats a good littlun, and a size difference can be very hard to overcome. The little guy needs to be signicantly better than the big guy to overcome those advantages. In the case of Vitali I think he has enough flaws to be overcome by Toney, though Toney may be a little too old, we shall see. He sure needs to stop eating for a while. He looked like Idi Amin in those photographs!


Here's one of The boilermaker in his prime, a tremendous physical specimen, and doesn't he look like a modern fighter with that physique, quite remarkable when you consider there was no weight training or protein shakes/steroids back then, the guy must have been an amazing natural athelete.



PERSONAL DATA

Jeffries was born on April 15, 1875 at Carroll, Ohio. He was the son of Alexis Jeffries, a farmer and minister, and Rebecca Boyer Jeffries. Jim had four brothers and three sisters. In 1881, the family moved to Los Angeles.

Jeffries was a clean-cut man of high moral and ethical standards and fair to all people.

He has been branded incorrectly as a racist because he came out of retirement to fight Jack Johnson and was labeled as the "Great White Hope" by sportswriters. It is often pointed out that he only fought White contenders for the title. But, all the champions at that time did so.

Even Jack Johnson drew the "color line" when he became Champion. The only black man he fought for the title was Jim Johnson, a mediocre boxer, when he was in Europe and needed funds.

As a youth, Jim became involved with wrestling and boxing but put off his career at the request of his mother and father.

Jeffries stood 6-2 1/2 in his fighting prime and in top condition weighed between 206-227 lbs. When not in top condition, Jeffries weighed between 250-280 lbs.

His fight manager was William Brady. There was never a legal contract between the men, simply a handshake. Brady said Jeffries' word was better than a contract.

His trainer for most of his career was Billy Delaney.

Jeffries could run 100 yards in a little more than ten seconds. He could high jump over six feet. Blessed with abnormal physical strength, he was considered a natural phenomenon.

A lover of hunting, he once killed a large deer and carried it on his shoulders nine miles to camp without stopping to rest. Friends who accompanied him had difficulty keeping up with him on the jaunt home.

He married in 1904. He and his wife, Freida, had one daughter, Mary.

In his later years, he trained a few boxers and promoted some fights at Jeffries' Barn.

He was well-liked, spent time with the local people, attended gatherings, and contributed much to his community.

Jeff died in his sleep on March 3, 1953 at Burbank, California.

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/jeffries.htm


By way of comparison....

http://www.ibhof.com/ibhftape.htm