BoxRec

Tex Rickard sed he was the greatest of his time. By that did he mean he was better then Dempsey? Others sed he was better then Johnson, Dempsey or Louis.. But was he?
One thing I do kno is, is that he was one of the biggest HWs of all time! The man was HUGE. He had bundles of stamina and heart. And a great chin. His record is faultless. And you can't hold the Johnson loss against him, that would be silly.
So my question is to the people that have studied him in detail... How good was he?
How do u think he would of faired against the Modern day fighters like Liston, Clay, Frazier, Ali, Foreman, Holmes and Tyson wiv 10oz gloves over 15 rounds?

I think Jeffries was the best fighter of the pre-Dempsey era. I think if he had fought Jack Johnson at the time Johnson fought Marvin Hart (March 1905), he would have defeated Johnson. I think he was especially well suited physically and mentally for his era - an era that demanded a lot of toughness and endurance.

I have no idea how he would have done against modern fighters because he never fought under those conditions (just as I have no idea how they would have done had they fought in his era). But, by all accounts, Jeffries was a natural athlete and so I suspect he would have adapted to modern boxing and done very well. But who can say with any certainty? I can't.

raylawpc wrote:I think Jeffries was the best fighter of the pre-Dempsey era. I think if he had fought Jack Johnson at the time Johnson fought Marvin Hart (March 1905), he would have defeated Johnson. I think he was especially well suited physically and mentally for his era - an era that demanded a lot of toughness and endurance.

I have no idea how he would have done against modern fighters because he never fought under those conditions (just as I have no idea how they would have done had they fought in his era). But, by all accounts, Jeffries was a natural athlete and so I suspect he would have adapted to modern boxing and done very well. But who can say with any certainty? I can't.

Fair comment it's near imposible to compare different eras.
Still it's food for thought all the same.

raylawpc wrote:I think Jeffries was the best fighter of the pre-Dempsey era. I think if he had fought Jack Johnson at the time Johnson fought Marvin Hart (March 1905), he would have defeated Johnson. I think he was especially well suited physically and mentally for his era - an era that demanded a lot of toughness and endurance.

I have no idea how he would have done against modern fighters because he never fought under those conditions (just as I have no idea how they would have done had they fought in his era). But, by all accounts, Jeffries was a natural athlete and so I suspect he would have adapted to modern boxing and done very well. But who can say with any certainty? I can't.

That's a very good post. Looking at how few fights Jeffries had, one has to admire how quickly the man climbed the ladder, & how he fought & bested world-class opposition in such short order, in regards to his inexperience.

I think he could adapt as well (but could the men you mentioned adapt to Jeffries' era, which is no less legit a question?) we simply favour fifteen or twelve rounds & gloves of a larger size because it's what we know, & somewhere along the way, we mistakenly attribute that to being the true conditions of Boxing, when they aren't. I see Jeffries beating the following greats of the division...

Marciano
Frazier
Johnson
Holyfield

He would also have very good or possibly very good chances with Dempsey, Foreman, Liston, Tyson --- it's difficult to be sure in some cases (hence why I say, "possibly very good chances" in some bouts), but he was undoubtedly a deserving ring legend. There were also some very good (not top-ten) division champions I would also favour Jeffries to beat --- Patterson, Moorer, Walcott, Charles.