What if Jeffries had not comeback

[6 Pack]

What would history say of James J. Jeffris if he had not returned from a 6 year hiatus clearly past his prime and fought an all-time great in Jack Johnson?

Like ROcky Marciano Jeffries would have been an undefeated heavyweight champion. He also would have twice beaten former heavyweight champs Corbett and Fitzsimmons among other top contenders of that day.

That decision of his to come out of retirement most likely cost him his all-time great standing. Had he stayed away he most likely would have been in the top 10 or even top 5. Look what retiring undefeated did for Rocky!

If he never came back there would also be alot of people who would have claimed he would have beaten Johnson anyways.

He was precieved as invincable in the early 19th century, and most likely was when he was on top. That all went down the tubes when he came back and fought Johnson. WHite America never forgave him, even though they were the ones that urged him to comeback.

How do you guys feel history would look at Jeffries had he stayed retired?

[Tomato-Can]

I agree 6-pack. Had Jeffries not come back he would be rated above Johnson in most all-time great lists. I also think most folks would say he would have beaten Johnson. His unbeaten status would have taken some luster off Marciano too. A top 5 all-time rating for Jeffries would have been a real possibility.

[Jaclem]

agreed...Jeffries would rate much higher, and he already rates , at least among the old time fans, very very high. I like Max Kellerman, even though he is a little nuts, but a few weeks ago he was asked who was the most under rated heavyweight champion and he said JIM JEFFRIES!! Under rated by who? (make that whom) He was battered around by the 167 pound Fitzimmons for a while and outboxed for most of his first fight with the past his prime Corbett.He had fewer fights than virtually every heavyweight champion, so there's no long string of impresive performances, yet he is usually rated right after Johnson and by some even above him by the historians of that era. No question he was a good fighter in his time, but I can't see any justification for calling him one of the greats.

[barry]

I have to disagree with the (battered around by Fitzsimmons and out pointed for several rounds against Corbett.) From my recollection of newspaper reports, Jeffries handily battered both fighters mentioned (although I'll have to look back on my paper clips.) I'll respond back, but first let me re-read the reports.

[6 Pack]

Jaclem, while it is true he did not have a lot of fights it is not true what you said about him not having a string of impressive victories.

Jeffries successfully defended his title 7 times, with 6 KO's and had cleaned out the division when he retired in 1904. THere was not a big contender left, white or black.

He defeated all of the major fighters of his time even if it only took him 20 fights to do it. His lone loss came after 6 years of inactivity and he was 15 pounds overweight and had no business fighting for the heavywei8ght championship of the world.

[Jaclem]

hey, six pack, i agree that Jeffries' fight against Johnson shouldn't have any bearing on his standing in history. okay..everybody agrees that he retired because he cleaned out the division. Well,of white fighters anyway. As far as a string of impressive victories though, I don't think a fighter with 20 fights has a STRING of ANYTHING. That's not even a string of FIGHTS. In totals he's right in there with Ingo the Swooning Swede. Still, he may have been the best of that early crew. My main point, again, is that I can't understand Mad Maxie Kellerman calling him under rated, and my question stands..under rated by whom? Besides me, I mean.

[Tomato-Can]

Well one guy who did'nt underate Jeffries was Nat Fleischer the founder of Ring Magazine. Fleischer never gave much credit to anyone who fought after WW2 had Jeffries as his number 2 all time heavyweight. Jack Johnson was number 1. Had Jeffries not come back, I am certain Nat would have had him as number 1.

[6 Pack]

Jaclem I agree he did not have a lot of fights but he did get started fast and by the time he was done he had clean out the division. There was not much in the way of black contenders at the time. This was before Johnson was a top contender. Before Langford was fighting heavyweights. Before Sam McVEy and Joe Jeanette were even in the picture.

Jeffries literally cleaned out the division. He is underrated because for a guy to clean out a division and retire undefeated and still not crack the top ten in most peoples all-time lists does seem odd.

It works against Jeffries that he fought so long ago. Most people, even some hardcore fans, don't really know much about him and have not really read much about his career.

Forget about the fact he had only 21 fights for now. Remember he was champ for 5 years. He took every thing champions Corbett and Fitzsimmons could offer and still cameback to crush them. He was way bigger than the average heavyweight of that time and very intimidating. He cleaned out the top contenders during his respectable title reign and retired undefeated.

Sure he had only 21 fights, but in just 21 fights he faced 5 hall of famers, and two of them twice! of those 21 fights 9 were championship bouts! and I don't mean cheese title bouts like some of the ones that happen today they were for the real deal.

He was the best of his time and was unstoppable. Yet because he only had 21 fights and he fought 100 years ago people dismiss what he has done. That is why he is under rated.

Ask your friends if they think James Jeffries is an all-time great, you will be lucky if they even know who he is, that is why he is under rated.

Check most of the guys all-time great lists on this forum and I would be surprised if even two had him on there, that is why he is under rated.

[Jaclem]

okay six pack.you;ve sold me. I started reading about boxing in 1945 and the writers for Ring magqzine, in addition to Nat Fleischer were of the old school and they all were very high on Jeffries, and so was I from what I read about him. Some of those writers had seen him fight He was big enough and strong enough to have fought in the era of bigger heavyweights, and maybe would have cleaned out the field when Dempsey was champion. Just shows how hard it is to compare fighters from different eras. And you make a good point about not having a lot of fights. If he fought the best of his time , there was no reason to pad oput his record with second raters.

[Trajan]

[quote="6 Pack" re: James J. Jeffries: by the time he was done he had clean out the division. There was not much in the way of black contenders at the time. This was before Johnson was a top contender. Before Langford was fighting heavyweights. Before Sam McVEy and Joe Jeanette were even in the picture.

Jeffries literally cleaned out the division. He is underrated because for a guy to clean out a division and retire undefeated and still not crack the top ten in most peoples all-time lists does seem odd.]

*Shrug* I don't know that Jim Jeffries "cleaned out the division," even of the white contenders...and this has much to do with the lack of fights mentioned re: Jeffries. There are always legitimate contenders coming along, including for champions who "retire undefeated." For example, what was Jack Munroe doing getting a title shot when Marvin Hart and maybe Jack Root were IMO more deserving? This shows that Jeffries was slipping already, taking this easy fight.

What bothers me is some of the criticism Hart has gotten over the years for not fighting (and beating) Jeffries. It's a fight Hart wanted, he was even willing to go toe to toe with Jack Johnson (which Jeffries wouldn't, until that last comeback fight). Yet it's somehow made to look as if Hart was ducking Jeffries, rather than (more accurately) the other way around.

Anthony

[6 Pack]

Hart was not a big fight. He was more or less one of the last men standing. Jeffries did not see much reason to keep fighting as there was no more big fights. Sure there was always going to be another contender like Hart to come and he would be replaced just as quickly after he was beaten.

But why keep continuing when there is no more big fights left? Hart was a respectable contender and rightfully won the title after Jeffries retired, but he was nothing special.

He got a decision over Johnson that I have read to be a robbery. Jack Root was nothing all that special either. Hart lost the title pretty quick to a man much smaller in Tommy Burns.

I really don't think Jeffries ducked Hart. When he retired no body cried "but what about Marvin Hart?". I think most just figured Jeffreis would have beaten him anyways.

You must be a big Marvin Hart fan. I have not read any one say Jeffries ducked Marvin Hart before. I don't see how he would be intimidated by Hart, he just lost the fire. No more mountains to climb. Most did not see Hart as a major challenge to Jeffries nor did they see Root or Burns as a big challenge.

[Marvin Hart]

Jeff retire because there was no money in fighting Hart and didn't want to fight Jack Johnson

[Ezzard]

I was just enjoying this to and fro but the thread ended too soon...

[man]

... He was precieved as invincable in the early 19th century, and most likely was when he was on top. ...

he should have called it a day with the death of napoleon.
johnson's 70 year advantage was too much to overcome.

[raylawpc]

... He was precieved as invincable in the early 19th century, and most likely was when he was on top. ...

he should have called it a day with the death of napoleon.
johnson's 70 year advantage was too much to overcome.

That reminds me when somebody asked our boxing promoter in Oklahoma City how he thought Dempsey would do against Ali. "Not well at all," was Pat's reply. "Dempsey's 80 years old."

[Robinson]

In his era, and in his 21 fights did Jeffries face every viable challenger ?

I mean to retire at 28, a relative peak, after just 21 fights....

Sure he was the dominant force, but can any one say that he did not
deny decent challengers a shot ?

Had he not faced Johnson, I would say Johnson's legacy then and now
would have been effected, Johnson would not of had that all important
scalp to help propel him.

For Jeffries he would be less famous now, the Johnson fight helped to
immortalise him for better or worse in this modern era that likes to
read into the event for more social history reasons that athletic ones.

Jeffries worked hard to get himself into shape and maybe should of had
a warm up fight or two, but to say the peak pre retirement Jeffries was
better than more recent champions is revisionist romanticism.

For me Jeffries was a tough, hard jawed presence in the ring that
absorbed hard blows from his contemporaries and was able to
dish out good shots. He also seems to have been strong in the clinch.

I think Marciano's 49-0 against a lot more and better competition is
a greaterr achievement that the non Johnson fight Jeffries.

Just my opinion though....im no romantic boxing expert with a hat
and cigar.

[pound per pound]

I have to disagree with the (battered around by Fitzsimmons and out pointed for several rounds against Corbett.) From my recollection of newspaper reports, Jeffries handily battered both fighters mentioned (although I'll have to look back on my paper clips.) I'll respond back, but first let me re-read the reports.

Barry,

I have the news clips. Jeffries was about even with a then 33 year old Corbett in the first fight until the KO, and crushed him in the re-match.

Jeffries had an easy night with Fitz the first time around, but struggled a bit when Fitz apparently did something to his gloves to increase his already lethal punching power.

If Jeffries had not faced Johnson in 1910, I think he's rated higher in the modern era. 99% of boxing fans have only seen Jeffries at his very worst. If there was only film of Louis vs Marciano, or Dempsey vs Tunney, or Ali vs Holmes, these older champs would suffer too.

The interesting thing about Jeffries is the fighters, promoters and historians alive until 1950-1960 felt he was the best or in the top 3.

Jack Johnson, Sam Langford, Jack Dempsey, Jim Corbett, Tommy Burns, Tex Rickard, and a poll of many historians called the McCallum survey rated Jeffries #1.

Here is a very interesting article by Corbett comparing Jeffries to the other champions.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... ref=slogin

[witherspoon]

Jim a da Jeff don't do himself no favours, 'I wouldn't have caught Johnson in a thousand years' (although i personally respect such honesty).
If you watch the documentary of Johnson, Unforgiveable Blackness, the still shots of Jim in the ring before the Johnson fight look like he is in great shape. I can't remember the exact figure, but he had to shed a ridiculous amount of weight for the fight, bearing this in mind he looks physically very impressive.
My opinion is that the loss to Johnson does not detract from Jefferies' legacy. He DID retire as undefeated champ, after all, and how he would have fared against johnson in his prime is still a matter of conjecture.
PS - Outpointing Ali in '67 must have done wonders for Jims legacy

[raylawpc]

Jim a da Jeff don't do himself no favours, 'I wouldn't have caught Johnson in a thousand years' (although i personally respect such honesty).
If you watch the documentary of Johnson, Unforgiveable Blackness, the still shots of Jim in the ring before the Johnson fight look like he is in great shape. I can't remember the exact figure, but he had to shed a ridiculous amount of weight for the fight, bearing this in mind he looks physically very impressive.
My opinion is that the loss to Johnson does not detract from Jefferies' legacy. He DID retire as undefeated champ, after all, and how he would have fared against johnson in his prime is still a matter of conjecture.
PS - Outpointing Ali in '67 must have done wonders for Jims legacy

In fact, there are serious questions about the validity of the quote. Jeffries may not have said it.

[witherspoon]

Jim a da Jeff don't do himself no favours, 'I wouldn't have caught Johnson in a thousand years' (although i personally respect such honesty).
If you watch the documentary of Johnson, Unforgiveable Blackness, the still shots of Jim in the ring before the Johnson fight look like he is in great shape. I can't remember the exact figure, but he had to shed a ridiculous amount of weight for the fight, bearing this in mind he looks physically very impressive.
My opinion is that the loss to Johnson does not detract from Jefferies' legacy. He DID retire as undefeated champ, after all, and how he would have fared against johnson in his prime is still a matter of conjecture.
PS - Outpointing Ali in '67 must have done wonders for Jims legacy

In fact, there are serious questions about the validity of the quote. Jeffries may not have said it.

I always thought it seemed very out of character with the way Jefferies behaved towards Johnson publicly, but who knows.

[Crease]

If Jeffries had not have come back, then people would have written about him avoiding Johnson... And his refusal of the fight would have been well-documented...

Stuff like this leaves a lasting impression on a boxer's legacy and how boxing historians remember him...

But even they had not fought, I don't think that Jeffries unbeaten record would have affected Marciano's record...

The big difference between them is that Rocky had a 100% win ratio...

Jeffries had a few draws and a no contest in there... It's not the same.

Not to mention the fact that Jeffries fought significantly fewer fights than Marciano...

Though it should be mentioned that the fights were longer...

[Crease]

And lastly, I understand that people are bringing Jeffries age into the discussion... Let's be realistic guys, he was 35...

OLD... YES

ANCIENT... Hardly

There are boxers who fight today who have pretty good records... Joe Calzaghe for example... And he's still on top of his game. :)

Though I do agree that Jeffries must have been somewhat "ring rusty" as he had fought for years previous...

[UpWithEvil]

"For example, what was Jack Munroe doing getting a title shot when Marvin Hart and maybe Jack Root were IMO more deserving? This shows that Jeffries was slipping already, taking this easy fight. "

Jeffries toured both the United States and England at various points in his career taking on "all comers" in exhibitions. In 1903 Jeffries (along with his touring partner Bob Fitzsimmons) toured through Montana and offered the usual challenge to the crowd - $500 to any man still standing at the ends of 4 rounds with the champion. Young miner Jack Munroe stepped up to answer the challenge. Unlike most of the volunteers who accepted the open challenges, Munroe was already a professional boxer, albiet an obscure one with perhaps a dozen bouts to his credit. He had been training in anticipation of accepting Jeffries' open challenge for weeks and practically leapt through the ropes when Jeffries asked the crowd for volunteers.

I have a brief report of the fight and have heard different details but the bottom line is that at the end of 4 rounds, Monroe was still standing (if bloodied) and Jeffries was furious, offering Monroe $1000 for two more rounds, but Monroe would have none of it and was declared the victor for surviving 4 rounds. Jeffries stewed over this for months; when Monroe eeked out a 6 round decision over a shot Tom Sharkey in 1904, Big Jeff jumped at the chance to avenge his defeat and got Monroe a title shot.

"Never before had I gone into a ring disliking an opponent or determined to knock him out and hurt him if posssible."

- Jeffries

So that's why an otherwise mediocre fighter like Monroe was given a championship fight with Jeffries.

[UpWithEvil]

"If Jeffries had not have come back, then people would have written about him avoiding Johnson... And his refusal of the fight would have been well-documented.."

Baloney. At the time of Jeffries' retirement Jack Johnson was in no way deserving of a title shot, and in fact was struggling to beat Hank Griffin, a veteran negro fighter whom Jeffries had battered twice.