James Jeffries, was he that good?

[pound per pound]

Those who saw him routinely rated him #1-3, ahead of Joe Louis, Marciano, et al

Unlike most old timers he was a legitimate heavyweight weighing in at 220 pounds. He would be 235 lbs today. At 6'1" with a 76.5" reach he has the style to be effective. But frustrating there is little clear film on film there is runs painfully slow and is blurry making a modern evaluation impossible. And his best knock outs are not on film. He was a great athlete capable running the 100 in a little over 10 seconds, and clearing a high bar with his feet of six feet! If you get a chance see his sparring clip where he jumps rope very impressive and moves like Jersey Joe Walcott making his man miss and countering as he darts in and out. He also shows his strength shows tossing ( his brother who was 200 lbs ) like a rag doll. He also runs like deer with Tommy Ryan. I kid you not. The skills where there in his prime. This cat can move. You have to own these films.

Was he as good as they say or does the lacks of clear film which is limited make him a forgotten man?

What would Ali, or Louis two universally accepted top 5 ATG's look like if they only clear film on them today was vs Holmes or Marciano which ran slow? Probably like crap, which if Jeffries problem. Now one is alive today to say the best fights he was in were something...else, yet they rate him highly where they were alive. In the MaCallum survey which consisted of ten historians voting in the 1960's he came out #1 overall

Well?

[pound per pound]

No message

[goose 5]

I'm with Cus D'amato and Jimmy Jacobs in believing that Jeffries era was the pits-none of those guys could compete in later eras.

[pound per pound]

I'm with Cus D'amato and Jimmy Jacobs in believing that Jeffries era was the pits-none of those guys could compete in later eras.

Good, but their information based it on second hand, didn't see Jeffries live, and are stuck with the same films we are.

My question is this, Jeffries near universally viewed to as better than the same people who saw Louis and Marciano?

Jack Dempsey said he would have got his chin knocked off, and John L Sullivan said Jeffries would have put it on me bad indicating he was far more skilled than he was. Johnson called him the greatest. Are their opinions and the the opinion of the living historians form 1890-1969 not to be trusted? Better than Louis and Maricano, two fighters with lots of clear film for us to judge they say.

What D'amato and Jacobs say doesn't rate as first hand. Far from it.

[Boxingguru75]

Love these topics. It is difficult because history remembers him as the guy Johnson handled pretty easy. He was long retired and clearly no longer the athlete or fighter he once was. There are reports about how bad he did in sparring leading up to it. Proud man wouldn’t step down. Or he needed the money. Much like early UFC it is hard as the competition simply wasn’t as thick and you could get a shot with fewer fights. That isn’t to diminish the incredible toughness these men had in long drawn out fights. Finish fights. Johnson the more his career is studied outside all the press and following in recent years wasn’t as dominate as advertised. Still great and introduced a new style to the game. Tommy Ryan introduced the crouch which Jeffries used to great advantage. As did Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier and Tyson to different degrees. Tommy Burns was really only a middleweight but defended his crown 14 times. Willard was a huge man who used his height well. Why did he take so many years off before defending. The wild card in history is the largely forgotten. Luther McCarty who was big fast and also a good athlete. He and Willard drew in what was probably Willard’s prime. He knocked some good heavies quickly who were contenders for years. Sad strange death at 21. So was Jeffries great? Yes of course in his era. No way to know. He was a great athlete who shined at a time when techniques in gloved fighting were evolving. Gloves were extremely small then as well. Would he beat the mentioned Louis - in my opinion no way. Louis was so incredibly fast with his straight right and had a beautiful jab and hook. But then again I watch Ernie Shavers who some claim the biggest puncher knock down Ali and Holmes: who in turn looks slow and is beat by Tex Cobb. In a finish fight with small gloves Jeffries was damn hard to beat.

[DrDuke]

Back in those times it was possible to find an opponent in the local bar. Jeffries was probably a bit ahead of his time, that's why he was successful. However, he definitely goes lower than the likes of Louis and Marciano, who competed in the more advanced eras.

Actually, ratings are highly dependant on certain periods of time. It has always been common to ripp off the modern fighters. Look at the Ring all-time rating in 1975: https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Divi ... f_All-Time By that moment Ali and Frazier proved to be better than the majority of the ranked above them.

In the 60s memories of Louis were fresher than the ones of Jeffries. It was easier to recognize an older veteran. The same stuff takes place today and it will always be.

[cfang]

Jeffires was the best heavy in the world for a few years so of course he was great but film of him and his contemporaries is pretty disappointing. He fought much smaller men which helped his cause as he was smashed up pretty badly for a while by fitzimmons in the rematch and outpointed for a long time by corbett, Film of those guys just shows that they fought very differently than what came later, They seem to me to fight like bare knuckle boxers, lots of single shots and clinching, It wouldn't be hard to see jeffries wrecked by a dempsey or louis throwing in combinations. Thats not to put jeffries down its just boxing seemed to move on pretty fast the first 30-40 years or so.

Back in those times it was possible to find an opponent in the local bar. Jeffries was probably a bit ahead of his time, that's why he was successful. However, he definitely goes lower than the likes of Louis and Marciano, who competed in the more advanced eras.

Actually, ratings are highly dependant on certain periods of time. It has always been common to ripp off the modern fighters. Look at the Ring all-time rating in 1975: https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Divi ... f_All-Time By that moment Ali and Frazier proved to be better than the majority of the ranked above them.

In the 60s memories of Louis were fresher than the ones of Jeffries. It was easier to recognize an older veteran. The same stuff takes place today and it will always be.

[Ambling Alp II]

He had a great chin and great stamina. Stylewise, he is sometimes lumped in with guys like Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, and Tyson. He wasn't as aggressive as those guys (especially Marciano) but he did have a decent workrate. He was a pressure fighter more than anything else, however doesn't really fit neatly into one style of fighter.

He had a great chin and great stamina. Hard to imagine someone blowing him out easily. He actually fought a wider range of opponents than many think. Corbett was a boxer who could move and throw combinations. Fitzsimmons had a herky-jerky style with power incredible for a man his size. Sharkey was a tough inside fighter.

Though he didn't have many fights, he actually fought a lot of big names; 9 Hall of Famers, plus a fight with Joe Goddard and two with Gus Ruhlin.

Was he that good? Well there were better. Obviously Ali and Louis. Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Johnson, Holyfield and Lewis were as well.
I put him a little behind Marciano, Dempsey, Tyson and Liston. A little ahead of guys like Charles, Walcott, Patterson, Norton, Langford and Wills.

Historical rankings are interesting. (You aren't even going to find two people that have the exact same Top 10)
Years ago, many people used to rate fighters from way back very highly; maybe too highly in some cases.

i.e. Someone who was a fan in the 1960-1970s would rate fighters from the 1900s to 1920s very highly.
Then it shifted to where many rated more modern fighters more evenly with the old timers.
Now we have many current fans who have very little respect for that came before them. (Often cherry picking weight a "advantage" only when it helps there case).

Jeffries was not the best, but he was a truly great fighter.

[Caractacus]

They asked gentlmen Jim Corbett about that.

[Cap]

In his time he was considered a monster. Tom Sharkey was 5'8" and usually less than 185, often around 175. Corbett was not much more than 185 but could look Jeffries in the eyes. Fitzsimmons was actually a light heavyweight when he fought Jeffries, Legs of a middleweight and a heavyweight's torso. Gus Ruhlin and Jack Munroe were almost as big as Jeffries, but the Boilermaker loomed over them. Corbett said he hit Jeffries with the best punch he ever threw and didn't make a dent. Fitzsimmons, who was considered a murderous puncher, cut Jeffries up but couldn't really hurt him. It's impossible to gauge how Jeffries would have done against Dempsey or any of the top boys from the 20s and 30s never mind Louis, Marciano or the modern heavyweights. If they fought him in his era with small gloves, no gum shield or padded cup, 25 rounds or longer, more lax attitude to fouls and wrestling, it would be interesting.

[pound per pound]

Good info, Jeffries certainly proved his chin with fighters over Sharkey and Fitzsimmons. He took all the punches they had, over 45 rounds of boxing. He had legs of steel, and a body to match. Never down until his lame comeback attempt in 1910.

[HomicideHenry]

Part of Jeffries success in his era was the fact that he was nearly 6'3" and fought anywhere from 220-240 pounds, even as high as 280 for lesser opponents and exhibitions. He looked absolutely like a giant in comparison to most of the heavyweights of this time.

One of my favorite videos of him was him acting as referee during the Burns vs Squires match, and he not only towered over the both of them but when the crowd came into the ring he was head and shoulders above most of the people in the ring.

You combine this with the physical conditioning of the man which was comparable to Marciano, and his own toughness it's really no wonder why he was thought to be unbeatable and was generally ranked by many for decades as one of the top three heavyweights of all time.

However I've always said if all fights were 45 rounds or 100 rounds with 3 oz gloves and referees who were not squeamish he may very well have been unbeatable in his prime, but if you were to put him against a lot of good or great heavyweights in 10 or 15 round contests he would have a heck of a time being able to do much with them because a lot of his success was simply the fact that he outlasted his opponents much like Chuvalo and Cobb.

The sad part is that most people base Jeffries off of his performance against Jack Johnson, but in his prime he was quite light on his feet and put his punches together good. Also how we see boxing today is not necessarily the same sport as it was at the turn of the 20th century because the emphasis was on body blows and fighting in and out of clinches.

Furthermore how gloves were designed at that time you could literally grab somebody's arms and stop them from hitting you so there were a lot of tactics done back then you necessarily couldn't pull off today. Especially when you consider you could still hit a man if he got up to one knee, and there was no neutral corner rule. Plus the mindset back then was not so much winning fights on points as it was the idea that fights were to the finish--- meaning that a fight was not considered over until somebody was knocked out.

Long story short, a lot of his success could have only happened in his own era. I'm not so sure he could have made a successful transition to a future era. Maybe he could have, but he certainly wouldn't have been undefeated since the emphasis would have been on points and the vast majority of his opponents would have been the same size or similar size.

[Cap]

Congrats. You are the first person I've ever seen who described Jeffries as nearly 6'3". At best Jeff might have been almost 6'1" and that's stretching it. Tommy Burns was 5'7" and Squires was very nearly 5'10", so of course Jeffries in street shoes towered over both of them.

[HomicideHenry]

Congrats. You are the first person I've ever seen who described Jeffries as nearly 6'3". At best Jeff might have been almost 6'1" and that's stretching it. Tommy Burns was 5'7" and Squires was very nearly 5'10", so of course Jeffries in street shoes towered over both of them.

I've always seen him listed as 6 ft 2 or 6 ft 2 and 1/2 but regardless the man was absolutely enormous for a heavyweight in those times. I'm sure there is literature out there that will show that I'm not mistaken because I have seen him listed multiple times as being nearly 6 ft 3.

https://coxscorner.tripod.com/jeffries.html

For example Monte Cox has Jeffries listed as 6'2.5" in height and it can be said that he is probably the foremost expert on Jim Jeffries other than maybe Adam Pollack who probably got most of his information from Cox's research.

BoxRec tends to under sell people's height for some bizarre reason, and I'm reminded of a discussion a year or two ago on the forum about whether or not Harry Wills was in reality six foot three or six foot four. An awful lot of people wanted to under sell his height when the truth was most of the newspapers of that time listed him as taller than what BoxRec stated.

[pound per pound]

I have some press clips and he measured at 6 feet 1 1/2" with a 76.5 or 77" reach. Peak weight is 215-220. If he was around today he would probably be 230 pounds in shape, maybe a little taller. He certainly had the right body type.

Most of the old time builds at heavyweight would be modern crusiers or below. That is up the Rocky Marciano. Joe Louis, and Jack Dempsey would be modern cruisers too.

[Ambling Alp II]

No way in the world would they be cruiserweights.

[Wee Tommy]

No way in the world would they be cruiserweights.

The current champ was a cruiserweight and he absolutely dominated one of the so called ‘modern super heavyweights’ so I don’t even understand why it’s seen as some kind of major negative.

[Billy Tully]

No way in the world would they be cruiserweights.

The current champ was a cruiserweight and he absolutely dominated one of the so called ‘modern super heavyweights’ so I don’t even understand why it’s seen as some kind of major negative.

Yeah, I thought cruiserweight being a pejorative would have died out after Usyk. They had to ring the final bell early to save a colossus from the onslaught of the blown up cruiser!

I get that the majority of cruisers aren't very good but when we're discussing Great fighters, which Jeffries was, the normal rules don't apply.

[goose 5]

I doubt Jack Dempsey ever saw Jeffries win a fight-he was too young.

[Cap]

Jeffries was examined by Dr. D.A. Sargent of Harvard University in December of 1903 and was recorded to be precisely six feet tall.

[Caractacus]

I have some press clips and he measured at 6 feet 1 1/2" with a 76.5 or 77" reach. Peak weight is 215-220. If he was around today he would probably be 230 pounds in shape, maybe a little taller. He certainly had the right body type.

Most of the old time builds at heavyweight would be modern crusiers or below. That is up the Rocky Marciano. Joe Louis, and Jack Dempsey would be modern cruisers too.

yeah, but the modern Cruserweights of today
would have been natural super-middleweights back in the 1930's

[Cojimar 1946]

No way in the world would they be cruiserweights.

Probably light heavyweights

[Cojimar 1946]

I have some press clips and he measured at 6 feet 1 1/2" with a 76.5 or 77" reach. Peak weight is 215-220. If he was around today he would probably be 230 pounds in shape, maybe a little taller. He certainly had the right body type.

Most of the old time builds at heavyweight would be modern crusiers or below. That is up the Rocky Marciano. Joe Louis, and Jack Dempsey would be modern cruisers too.

yeah, but the modern Cruserweights of today
would have been natural super-middleweights back in the 1930's

Plenty of modern cruiserweights stand 6'2-6'4. That's taller than the top heavyweights of many prior eras let alone middleweights. These are Ali, Norton sized guys not middleweights who ate their way up in weight.

[margaret thatcher]

many modern cruisers are actually about 210 or even more on fight night in the ring

[Ambling Alp II]

No way in the world would they be cruiserweights.

Probably light heavyweights

Absolutely not.
Dempsey and Louis feasted on big heavyweights.
There is no reason to be a light heavyweight or cruiserweight when you are a great heavyweight.
Joe Louis was the 2nd best heavyweight of all time.