How Does Jeffries Do Over 15 rds?

[mcvey]

How would the Boilermaker have made out if his title fights had been scheduled for 15 rds.
Would he have lost a couple of fights?
For example the Corbett first fight?
The Fitz first fight?
Or would the shorter distance have prompted him to up his workrate and pressure ,instead of relying on wearing down his man over the long haul?
What do you think?

[guilalah]

Fifteen rounds, the first fight with Corbett (1900)would probably have been very close, can't call it without seeing it. Ditto Jeffries-Sharkey II (1899).

Fitzsimmons, he was a pretty tough cob, maybe he could have lasted trying for a points win (1899, 1902)?

By 1903/1904 I don't think Jeffries is as much disadvantaged by a fifteen round distance.

[janitor]

Fifteen rounds, the first fight with Corbett (1900)would probably have been very close, can't call it without seeing it. Ditto Jeffries-Sharkey II (1899).

Fitzsimmons, he was a pretty tough cob, maybe he could have lasted trying for a points win (1899, 1902)?

By 1903/1904 I don't think Jeffries is as much disadvantaged by a fifteen round distance.

This is how I see it.

It would be less of a problem towards the end of his career as he improved as a finisher.

Earlier on he might have had problems.

[mcvey]

This is how I see it.

It would be less of a problem towards the end of his career as he improved as a finisher.

Earlier on he might have had problems.

I did not start this thread as a stick to beat Jeffries with,but what makes you sure he improved as a finisher?
His win over Ruhlin was corner stoppage,though I have no doubt he would have stopped Ruhlin at some point.
His second wins over Corbett and Fitz could ,and in my opinion should be attributed to the fact that they were considerably past their best by then.I dont count the Munroe fight as of any significance.

[janitor]

I did not start this thread as a stick to beat Jeffries with,but what makes you sure he improved as a finisher?
His win over Ruhlin was corner stoppage,though I have no doubt he would have stopped Ruhlin at some point.
His second wins over Corbett and Fitz could ,and in my opinion should be attributed to the fact that they were considerably past their best by then.I dont count the Munroe fight as of any significance.

I conclude from contemporary acounts that he became much more methodical in breaking oponents down, and finishing them when they were hurt, later in his career.

Ruhlin fight have technicaly been a corner stoppage but Jeffries wrecked him with a body shot and left him helples on the ropes.

Corbett also was stopped by a body shot the same that Fitzsimmons had used to stop him years before.

The Munroe fight comes across as a systematic breakdown.

[mcvey]

I conclude from contemporary acounts that he became much more methodical in breaking oponents down, and finishing them when they were hurt, later in his career.

Ruhlin fight have technicaly been a corner stoppage but Jeffries wrecked him with a body shot and left him helples on the ropes.

Corbett also was stopped by a body shot the same that Fitzsimmons had used to stop him years before.

The Munroe fight comes across as a systematic breakdown.

I agreed Ruhlin , would have been kod at some point, as it was it was a corner retirement. Ruhlin had been kod cleanly a year earlier by Fitz.
And earlier than that in 1 rd by Sharkey,so it was no big feat was it?

Munroe was nothing.
Corbett was 37 years old ,and had been inactive for 3 years ,he conceded 27lbs, yet still went 10rds.
Fitz was 40 conceding 47lbs,yet he went 8rds .
I see no evidence that Jeffries finishing improved.

[Russell]

How about the Choynski draw? :yikes

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey;3828646]I agreed Ruhlin , would have been kod at some point, as it was it was a corner retirement. Ruhlin had been kod cleanly a year earlier by Fitz.
And earlier than that in 1 rd by Sharkey,so it was no big feat was it?


Well Fitzsimmons was the gold standard of the era as a finisher. The mark by which you are judged.

The Sharkey Ko of Ruhlin was seen as a fluke in some circles but again Sharkey was a puncher.

I do see this as being a more methodical finish than we see in Jeffries earlier fights.


Munroe was nothing.


This seems like a gross exageration.


Corbett was 37 years old ,and had been inactive for 3 years ,he conceded 27lbs, yet still went 10rds.


Corbett lasted for ten rounds because he was a defensive fighter but got soundly outboxed. 37 years old or not nobody expected Jeffries to outbox him and it caused no small surprise.

The two Corbett fights provide as good an illustration as any.

Compare acounts of Jeffries last three fights to his earlier fights and it is aparent that he is operating verry diferently.

Incidentaly I can tell you without having laid eyes on the coming Pollack biography that it will suport my overall conclusions.

[janitor]

How about the Choynski draw? :yikes

A considerable acomplishment given Jeffries inexperience at the time.

[mcvey]

A considerable acomplishment given Jeffries inexperience at the time.

And the relevance to this thread is?

[janitor]

And the relevance to this thread is?

The US army call it misin creep.

[mcvey]

[quote]


Well Fitzsimmons was the gold standard of the era as a finisher. The mark by which you are judged.

The Sharkey Ko of Ruhlin was seen as a fluke in some circles but again Sharkey was a puncher.

I do see this as being a more methodical finish than we see in Jeffries earlier fights.



This seems like a gross exageration.



Corbett lasted for ten rounds because he was a defensive fighter but got soundly outboxed. 37 years old or not nobody expected Jeffries to outbox him and it caused no small surprise.

The two Corbett fights provide as good an illustration as any.

Compare acounts of Jeffries last three fights to his earlier fights and it is aparent that he is operating verry diferently.

Incidentaly I can tell you without having laid eyes on the coming Pollack biography that it will suport my overall conclusions.

Jeffries beat Corbett in 10 rds as opposed to 23 rds in their first fight,,my contention is that was because Corbett was A. 3 years older.B Had been inactive for 3 years. He was 37 fighting a man 28.C His legs went on him.Soundly out boxed ? I dont think so, soundly out worked ? Yes!
I know nothing about the Pollack book but have heard good reports about his work.I look forward to it.
I think we are going off track here because ,I wanted to sound out whether people thought Jeffries would have been able to adapt to the 15 rd distance,or whether his "wear them down" modus operandi would have worked to his detriment.
I'm happy to explore the direction that this is going, but don't misconstrue me.Jeffries when he came on the scene was a force of nature,I dont want to just put him down, but , rather put him in perspective.

[mcvey]

The US army call it misin creep.

Which means ?

[MRBILL]

Jim Jeffries was too big and strong and young for either "Corbett & Fitz" in 1899 to 1904....... A 24 to 29 year old Jeffries eats these guys alive, just like he did...... I'm sure the older "Corbett & Fitz" would win some rds, but Jeffries was peaked then..... Jeffries was great.....

MR.BILL

[Boilermaker]

I dont think that it makes too much difference at all.

Jeffries finished his early fights within 15 or he didnt finish them at all. Choynski and Ruhlin would both have probably ended up as wins for Jeffries if modern scoring was used but under the scoring used at the time, both would probably still be draws after 15.

The two Sharkey matches may have been a little closer (is that really possible) and maybe there was a draw in their but realistically, you would think that Jeffries would still get the nod from what i have read.

This leaves the just the first Corbett fight. There are varying reports on this. Corbett certainly being a sentimental favourite may ahve edged the decision. I doubt Jeffries coudl have knocked him out just because there was less rounds but it is possible that a last round rally is produced to end the fight, like he eventually did in the 23rd. Realisticaly though, a draw would probably have been given. I also think from the reports that this fight was a lot closer than the 'boxing lesson' that was reported. There is no way it would be reported as a boxing lesson if it was a decision and there would be no disgrace in dropping a decision (avenged) to Corbett of all people. I think the champ would have retained (controversially with shades of Don King?). Corbett though, may have really went up in ranking, with these 15 (or even better 12) round rules. As a bid of an off topic question, who would have won the Corbett v Jackson fight over 15?

BAck to Jeffries, his final loss was to Johnson in the 15th. To me, it looks as if Jeffries had gassed by the 15th round. If this were the last round, it changes everything. It far easier to go for 1 more round than for another 45. I am not convinced that Johnson would have knocked Jeffries out after 15 rounds. In fact who knows, he may not have even knocked Jeffries down as in the 15th round, Jeffries would ahve had something to fight for and may have done enough to even avoid the knockdown. In the emotionally charged times, the decision would have been interesting here. From a legacy point of view, Jeffries legacy would have raised massively. Although this may have effected Johnson's legacy also.

All in all, i think the 15 rounds makes no difference at all to how Jeffries would be viewed, all the possible loss of the undefeated tag may hurt his legacy a little (if it happened). It is quite ridiculous really that Jeffries power is questioned because some world class fighters went the distance with him (Sharkey, Ruhlin, Choynski) and because an ATG in Corbett lasted longer than 15 rounds before succumbing. Tyson, Foreman, Louis, Liston etc all had similar problems with world class fighters. It is a fact of boxing that you cant put on your very best performance every single day of the week. Even John L Sullivan who kod nearly evyone in 4 rounds had his share of longer fights.

[mcvey]

I dont think that it makes too much difference at all.

Jeffries finished his early fights within 15 or he didnt finish them at all. Choynski and Ruhlin would both have probably ended up as wins for Jeffries if modern scoring was used but under the scoring used at the time, both would probably still be draws after 15.

The two Sharkey matches may have been a little closer (is that really possible) and maybe there was a draw in their but realistically, you would think that Jeffries would still get the nod from what i have read.

This leaves the just the first Corbett fight. There are varying reports on this. Corbett certainly being a sentimental favourite may ahve edged the decision. I doubt Jeffries coudl have knocked him out just because there was less rounds but it is possible that a last round rally is produced to end the fight, like he eventually did in the 23rd. Realisticaly though, a draw would probably have been given. I also think from the reports that this fight was a lot closer than the 'boxing lesson' that was reported. There is no way it would be reported as a boxing lesson if it was a decision and there would be no disgrace in dropping a decision (avenged) to Corbett of all people. I think the champ would have retained (controversially with shades of Don King?). Corbett though, may have really went up in ranking, with these 15 (or even better 12) round rules. As a bid of an off topic question, who would have won the Corbett v Jackson fight over 15?

BAck to Jeffries, his final loss was to Johnson in the 15th. To me, it looks as if Jeffries had gassed by the 15th round. If this were the last round, it changes everything. It far easier to go for 1 more round than for another 45. I am not convinced that Johnson would have knocked Jeffries out after 15 rounds. In fact who knows, he may not have even knocked Jeffries down as in the 15th round, Jeffries would ahve had something to fight for and may have done enough to even avoid the knockdown. In the emotionally charged times, the decision would have been interesting here. From a legacy point of view, Jeffries legacy would have raised massively. Although this may have effected Johnson's legacy also.

All in all, i think the 15 rounds makes no difference at all to how Jeffries would be viewed, all the possible loss of the undefeated tag may hurt his legacy a little (if it happened). It is quite ridiculous really that Jeffries power is questioned because some world class fighters went the distance with him (Sharkey, Ruhlin, Choynski) and because an ATG in Corbett lasted longer than 15 rounds before succumbing. Tyson, Foreman, Louis, Liston etc all had similar problems with world class fighters. It is a fact of boxing that you cant put on your very best performance every single day of the week. Even John L Sullivan who kod nearly evyone in 4 rounds had his share of longer fights.

I don't know that Jefffries power has been questioned.But since you brought it up I tend to think he was a solid hitter,but not an earth shattering puncher .Sharkey went the distance with him twice yet he was wrecked by Fitz ,Ruhlin also was kod cleanly by Sharkey and Fitz .Choynsky was a terrific puncher but not very durable he was stopped several times . How Jeffries is viewed is personal opinion,I'm interested in whether he could have adapted to the shorter distance ,given his style.
Jeffries met 5 alltime great fighters .He drew with 1 when he was inexperienced[Choynsky]
Beat one easily when he was a drink sodden relic .[Jackson]
Beat another by ko twice when he was past his best in both fights,the 1st fight was close whichever way you look at it [Corbett].
Beat another the same when he was past his best ,and after taking serious punishment.[Fitz].
Was well beaten and humiliated in his comeback by a man at the top of his game ,when he himself was a shell.[Johnson]
I beleive Johnson carried Jeffries and could have put him away earlier.He punished him and taunted him ,and the white audience , it was pay back time.
Anyone ever go the distance with Sullivan ,who had been kod quickly by say,Mitchell,Slavin or Kilrain?

[guilalah]

Generally, it seems to me that people thought that the Corbett who challenged Jeffries in 1900 gave a fine performance. I recently read Brooklyn Daily Eagle's account, they said it was regarded as Corbett's best performance since his stoppage of Sullivan. Many noted that Corbett looked bigger and stronger than ever before. Against the notion that Jeffries skill-lessness made Corbett look good, it seems like observers were not unaware that Jeffries was still raw, so it's not like they were taking that into account when evaluating Corbett (also, BDE notes that, though Jeffries looked slow, this could be ascribed to his being in the ring with a superlatively fast fighter).

Similarly, NYT's coverage of the 1903 rematch opines that Jeffries looked more skilled, quicker, and fought at a faster pace. It also reported that Corbett had generally slowed, and that his former technical brilliance was only appearant in flashes.

The point I'm trying to make is that observers of the time were not oblivious to the fact that the qualities of one's opponent can either put ones own abilities in the shadows or highlight them, as the case may be; they were quite aware of this, and made an explicit effort to account for such influences upon their evaluations.

As for Jeffries punching abilities, I think he hit hard, and that his body punching had a gradually debilitating effect. I don't think he was generally in a hurry to finish a guy -- he regarded time as being on his side -- he was noted as not seeming a killer, and I doubt he put his punches together so well as, say, a Dempsey or a Louis. I think it was more a steady wear-down. Think of a starfish that gets a hold of a clam and keeps up a continual tug until the clam finally tires.

[mcvey]

Generally, it seems to me that people thought that the Corbett who challenged Jeffries in 1900 gave a fine performance. I recently read Brooklyn Daily Eagle's account, they said it was regarded as Corbett's best performance since his stoppage of Sullivan. Many noted that Corbett looked bigger and stronger than ever before. Against the notion that Jeffries skill-lessness made Corbett look good, it seems like observers were not unaware that Jeffries was still raw, so it's not like they were taking that into account when evaluating Corbett (also, BDE notes that, though Jeffries looked slow, this could be ascribed to his being in the ring with a superlatively fast fighter).

Similarly, NYT's coverage of the 1903 rematch opines that Jeffries looked more skilled, quicker, and fought at a faster pace. It also reported that Corbett had generally slowed, and that his former technical brilliance was only appearant in flashes.

The point I'm trying to make is that observers of the time were not oblivious to the fact that the qualities of one's opponent can either put ones own abilities in the shadows or highlight them, as the case may be; they were quite aware of this, and made an explicit effort to account for such influences upon their evaluations.

As for Jeffries punching abilities, I think he hit hard, and that his body punching had a gradually debilitating effect. I don't think he was generally in a hurry to finish a guy -- he regarded time as being on his side -- he was noted as not seeming a killer, and I doubt he put his punches together so well as, say, a Dempsey or a Louis. I think it was more a steady wear-down. Think of a starfish that gets a hold of a clam and keeps up a continual tug until the clam finally tires.

Good objective post.
Do you think ,given your take on Jeffries style, that he would be as effective over the 15rds distance?
Would Jeffries put more urgency into his work ?
Would he be able to catch up with fast skilled boxers over the shorter distance ,given that in his prime he needed time to do so?

[janitor]

Which means ?

You go into Iraq to tople Sadam Huseins then leave, but are there fighting insurgents years later.

[Boilermaker]

I don't know that Jefffries power has been questioned.But since you brought it up I tend to think he was a solid hitter,but not an earth shattering puncher .Sharkey went the distance with him twice yet he was wrecked by Fitz ,Ruhlin also was kod cleanly by Sharkey and Fitz .Choynsky was a terrific puncher but not very durable he was stopped several times . How Jeffries is viewed is personal opinion,I'm interested in whether he could have adapted to the shorter distance ,given his style.
Jeffries met 5 alltime great fighters .He drew with 1 when he was inexperienced[Choynsky]
Beat one easily when he was a drink sodden relic .[Jackson]
Beat another by ko twice when he was past his best in both fights,the 1st fight was close whichever way you look at it [Corbett].
Beat another the same when he was past his best ,and after taking serious punishment.[Fitz].
Was well beaten and humiliated in his comeback by a man at the top of his game ,when he himself was a shell.[Johnson]
I beleive Johnson carried Jeffries and could have put him away earlier.He punished him and taunted him ,and the white audience , it was pay back time.
Anyone ever go the distance with Sullivan ,who had been kod quickly by say,Mitchell,Slavin or Kilrain?

Sullivan is a silly example, he was probably the most dominant knock out artist ever. It is like comparing the number of people that defeated Rocky Marciano. (or a prime Jeffries for that matter).

Ruddock went the distance with Tyson, despite being KOd quickly by David Jaco, Tommy MOrrison and Lennox Lewis. James Tillis also overcame his first round loss (among others) to Tim Witherspoon to go the distance with Tyson. Mitch Green was knocked out in 3 by Bruce Johnson, soon after going the distance with Tyson. Bonecrusher smith overcame a knockout on his pro debut by a nobody, as well as a Larry Holmes late KO to go the distance with Tyson. It is hard to fault Tyson's power!

The reason Jeffries is not considered to have explosive Tyson style power is simply that he fought all good fighters. They were good enough to last a few rounds. When he didnt fight world class fighters, he kod them early. Look at Finnegan (who knows how good he was or wasnt).


Back to the topic, who is to say that Jeffries needed to adapt his style for the shorter 15rnd period. Looking at his results, with 15 rounds (and i presume you would also want a 10 point must system), without changing anything he would probably still have gone through his career undefeated with a very high knockout percentage and only the very best world class fighters capable of going the distance. Why would he need to modify this style?

[janitor]

Sullivan is a silly example, he was probably the most dominant knock out artist ever. It is like comparing the number of people that defeated Rocky Marciano. (or a prime Jeffries for that matter).

Ruddock went the distance with Tyson, despite being KOd quickly by David Jaco, Tommy MOrrison and Lennox Lewis. James Tillis also overcame his first round loss (among others) to Tim Witherspoon to go the distance with Tyson. Mitch Green was knocked out in 3 by Bruce Johnson, soon after going the distance with Tyson. Bonecrusher smith overcame a knockout on his pro debut by a nobody, as well as a Larry Holmes late KO to go the distance with Tyson. It is hard to fault Tyson's power!

The reason Jeffries is not considered to have explosive Tyson style power is simply that he fought all good fighters. They were good enough to last a few rounds. When he didnt fight world class fighters, he kod them early. Look at Finnegan (who knows how good he was or wasnt).


Back to the topic, who is to say that Jeffries needed to adapt his style for the shorter 15rnd period. Looking at his results, with 15 rounds (and i presume you would also want a 10 point must system), without changing anything he would probably still have gone through his career undefeated with a very high knockout percentage and only the very best world class fighters capable of going the distance. Why would he need to modify this style?

It is a valid point.

Nearly all of Jeffries recorded fights were against world class fighters or fringe contenders.

Your knockout percentage falls off rapidly when you step up in competition.

[mcvey]

You go into Iraq to tople Sadam Huseins then leave, but are there fighting insurgents years later.

J, I'm not very smart but I'm smart enough to know it, do you follow?
Forgive me for being a trifle obtuse but what the **** does that mean in the Queens English?

[mcvey]

Sullivan is a silly example, he was probably the most dominant knock out artist ever. It is like comparing the number of people that defeated Rocky Marciano. (or a prime Jeffries for that matter).

Ruddock went the distance with Tyson, despite being KOd quickly by David Jaco, Tommy MOrrison and Lennox Lewis. James Tillis also overcame his first round loss (among others) to Tim Witherspoon to go the distance with Tyson. Mitch Green was knocked out in 3 by Bruce Johnson, soon after going the distance with Tyson. Bonecrusher smith overcame a knockout on his pro debut by a nobody, as well as a Larry Holmes late KO to go the distance with Tyson. It is hard to fault Tyson's power!

The reason Jeffries is not considered to have explosive Tyson style power is simply that he fought all good fighters. They were good enough to last a few rounds. When he didnt fight world class fighters, he kod them early. Look at Finnegan (who knows how good he was or wasnt).


Back to the topic, who is to say that Jeffries needed to adapt his style for the shorter 15rnd period. Looking at his results, with 15 rounds (and i presume you would also want a 10 point must system), without changing anything he would probably still have gone through his career undefeated with a very high knockout percentage and only the very best world class fighters capable of going the distance. Why would he need to modify this style?

You picked fighters who had had their moment in the sun and been found wanting ,their ambition was on the wane ,and in some cases their skills.
Ruddock was stopped by Jaco on a tko ,he was in the middle of an asthma attack. Tyson stopped him in their first fight which you did NOT mention,he was on the slide and 20lbs overweight when Morrison kod him ad Morrison ,for all his faults was a legitimate ko puncher.As was Lewis.
If Jeffries had met Corbett over 15 rds intheir first fight the likely hood is that he would have lost a dec.Forget Sullivan I was trying to give an example who you pick is not important. Mitch Green fought to survive against Tyson not to win.Ditto Tucker,Smith.
JEFFRIES NEVER BEAT A GREAT FIGHTER IN HIS PRIME.He only met 5,3 were past it, one conceding tons of weight went the distance without being floored ,[though he had a suspect chin]and held him to a draw,in fairness to Jeffries he was green.Jeffries in his prime was held nearly even TWICE by Jack Sharkey who was wrecked by Fitz.The only great he met who was in his prime,was when he was well past his.

"Who knows how good Finnegan was?" Well ,as he had been kod in 4 rds by Ruhlin 3 months before meeting Jeffries and only won 1 fight out of 6 ,I think we have a pretty good idea.

I think Jeffries would have struggled to mantain his unbeaten record under 15 rd rules because he relied on a systemantic wearing down of an opponent ,while absorbing punishment himself, he traded on strength and durabilty against smaller ,and for the most part older opponents,over the shorter d istance that advantage would have been considerably reduced imo.

[guilalah]

McVey
Good objective post.
Do you think ,given your take on Jeffries style, that he would be as effective over the 15rds distance?



Thank you.

My first post (post #2) indicates how I think Jeffries might have done over 15 rounds, in his day. It's possible he might have lost both Fitzsimmons fights, the first Corbett fight, and the defense against Sharkey. Or he might have won them all, anyways. My guess is two wins, a loss, a draw.

In 1903-1904, Johnson's the only guy I see offering problems.

As for Jeffries in the later era of fifteen rounders I think that (even if he came along in those times) if the champion was strong he'd need a bit more seasoning (than 1899 Jeffries had) before tackling him; however, given competent training, I think he'd become an outstanding challenger.

[janitor]

J, I'm not very smart but I'm smart enough to know it, do you follow?
Forgive me for being a trifle obtuse but what the **** does that mean in the Queens English?

Mision creep means you start with one objective, but while trying to acheive it you get drawn into another objective (usualy less sensible)

[Mendoza]

I don't know that Jefffries power has been questioned.But since you brought it up I tend to think he was a solid hitter,but not an earth shattering puncher .Sharkey went the distance with him twice yet he was wrecked by Fitz ,Ruhlin also was kod cleanly by Sharkey and Fitz .Choynsky was a terrific puncher but not very durable he was stopped several times . How Jeffries is viewed is personal opinion,I'm interested in whether he could have adapted to the shorter distance ,given his style.
Jeffries met 5 alltime great fighters .He drew with 1 when he was inexperienced[Choynsky]
Beat one easily when he was a drink sodden relic .[Jackson]
Beat another by ko twice when he was past his best in both fights,the 1st fight was close whichever way you look at it [Corbett].
Beat another the same when he was past his best ,and after taking serious punishment.[Fitz].
Was well beaten and humiliated in his comeback by a man at the top of his game ,when he himself was a shell.[Johnson]
I beleive Johnson carried Jeffries and could have put him away earlier.He punished him and taunted him ,and the white audience , it was pay back time.
Anyone ever go the distance with Sullivan ,who had been kod quickly by say,Mitchell,Slavin or Kilrain?

Jeffries ruined Sharkey. He also had Ruhlin down three times, inlcuding out for the count at the end of the final bell, but the fight was rulled a draw because Ruhlin was saved by the bell.

Johnson did not carry Jeffries. He played it safe in the early rounds until Jeffries ran out of gas and went for the Ko from round 13-15. Watch the fight, and you will see.

I think Jeffries is the lone champion to score a knockdown in all of his fights, save his come back fight. Jeffries said all of his KO people fell face first, with the exception of one man, which is a real sign the other guy is out.

Fighters often took a while to get down to business in the 20-25 round era. Jeffries did not go for quick ending as often as say Tyson or Marciano did. He knew he had plenty of time. Sometimes crowds in those days booed quick endings. The gate for the next fight could have been in a fighters mind.

I think Jeffries would probably have more earlier Ko's and get to work a bit sooner in the 15 round era. It should be noted that Jeffries went at his guy from the gate in 4 round matches. Examples are the Griffin, and Kennedy matches.

Some may question what if the first Corbett fight was scheduled for 15 rounds. Credible round reports suggest Jeffries took most of the early rounds, with Corbett doing well in the mid portion ( rounds 10-15 ) of the 25 round fight, and Jeffries tuning the tides back his way in round 17-23, with a knockdown in round 19, and the 10 count Ko in round 23.

[janitor]

Some may question what if the first Corbett fight was scheduled for 15 rounds. Credible round reports suggest Jeffries took most of the early rounds, with Corbett doing well in the mid portion ( rounds 10-15 ) of the 25 round fight, and Jeffries tuning the tides back his way in round 17-23, with a knockdown in round 19, and the 10 count Ko in round 23.

So a 12 rounder would have favoured Jeffries.

[Mendoza]

JEFFRIES NEVER BEAT A GREAT FIGHTER IN HIS PRIME

Are you saying Tom Sharkey was out of his prime when Jeffries beat him? Come on now. Sharkey was surely great. A hall of fame guy, and some say uncrowned champion. Jeffries beat the best version of Sharkey. I do not think Fitz was past it either when jeffries beat him.. Check the results after Fitz lost the title. He was as good as every for a while. And Corbett was only 33 when Jeffries beat him, and as sharp as ever accoding to reports. Split hairs if you must, but I think your statment of NEVER is way off.

[Mendoza]

So a 12 rounder would have favoured Jeffries.

In the first Corbett match, yes.

[janitor]

In the first Corbett match, yes.

Expect more in this vein from the Pollack biography.

[Boilermaker]

You picked fighters who had had their moment in the sun and been found wanting ,their ambition was on the wane ,and in some cases their skills.
Ruddock was stopped by Jaco on a tko ,he was in the middle of an asthma attack. Tyson stopped him in their first fight which you did NOT mention,he was on the slide and 20lbs overweight when Morrison kod him ad Morrison ,for all his faults was a legitimate ko puncher.As was Lewis.
If Jeffries had met Corbett over 15 rds intheir first fight the likely hood is that he would have lost a dec.Forget Sullivan I was trying to give an example who you pick is not important. Mitch Green fought to survive against Tyson not to win.Ditto Tucker,Smith.
JEFFRIES NEVER BEAT A GREAT FIGHTER IN HIS PRIME.He only met 5,3 were past it, one conceding tons of weight went the distance without being floored ,[though he had a suspect chin]and held him to a draw,in fairness to Jeffries he was green.Jeffries in his prime was held nearly even TWICE by Jack Sharkey who was wrecked by Fitz.The only great he met who was in his prime,was when he was well past his.

"Who knows how good Finnegan was?" Well ,as he had been kod in 4 rds by Ruhlin 3 months before meeting Jeffries and only won 1 fight out of 6 ,I think we have a pretty good idea.

I think Jeffries would have struggled to mantain his unbeaten record under 15 rd rules because he relied on a systemantic wearing down of an opponent ,while absorbing punishment himself, he traded on strength and durabilty against smaller ,and for the most part older opponents,over the shorter d istance that advantage would have been considerably reduced imo.

I picked fighters who went the distance with Tyson, one tht amany consider went was the greatest ever finisher. I could have used pretty much any fighter and found guys who went the distance with them but who were not as good as them and who lost ko victories to lesser fighters (as opposed to Fitz who was the biggest hitter of the time). Joe Frazier was KOd clean by Foreman, is it a slur on your legacy to go the distance with him? Give me your three biggest hitters (outside John L) and i will almost certainly find guys going the distance witht them who have been kod by others.