If Jeffries Stayed Retired ...

[he grant]

I feel that Jeffries is one of the most overated legendary fighters in history. I'm sure he was tough, well conditioned, had a good chin and punch but to say he was an all time great to me is a big stretch.

The man was huge for his day and enjoyed a big advantage over his much smaller opposition. He defeated old men like Corbett and Fitz or much smaller guys like Sharkey. Ect, ect, ect ...

I wonder how he would be remembered today if he never came back and suffered the loss to Johnson. Imagine how high he'd have been rated. His career kind of reminds me of Marciano as he beat older , ex-champs, defeated an icon (Jackson who was 37) and retired undefeated ...

[red cobra]

Of course if Jeffires had retired and stayed retired he would have attained a mythical status, with the great "what ifs" abounding as to what would have happened between him and Jack Johnson. Bet he wished he had stayed retired.

[Bummy Davis]

Well lets remember. the Jeffries that retired was a far better fight than the one who came back at 35 without a tuneup fight and had to losee 100 lbs before the fight. Jeffries was retired for 5-6 years and came back at 35-36 ? I think if we did the same to Ali and that ripe age or even Foreman who worked his way in gradually. What if Ali quit at 30 ( I think he was about 30 ish ) and had to come back after 6 years, lose 100 lbs, no Quarry, Bonavena fights and walk right into a prime and fit Joe Frazier.....How do you think he would have done.....We can not really consider the Johnson fight in our evaluation of Jim Jeffries

[he grant]

I'm in complete agreement. That's why I asked your thoughts.

[Mendoza]

I feel that Jeffries is one of the most overated legendary fighters in history. I'm sure he was tough, well conditioned, had a good chin and punch but to say he was an all time great to me is a big stretch.

The man was huge for his day and enjoyed a big advantage over his much smaller opposition. He defeated old men like Corbett and Fitz or much smaller guys like Sharkey. Ect, ect, ect ...

I wonder how he would be remembered today if he never came back and suffered the loss to Johnson. Imagine how high he'd have been rated. His career kind of reminds me of Marciano as he beat older , ex-champs, defeated an icon (Jackson who was 37) and retired undefeated ...

Jeffries main problem these day is the only clear film on him is him at his worst as a rusty old man vs Johnson. What if the only film on Ali was him vs Holmes? What if the only clear film on Louis was him vs Charles or Marciano. What if the only clear film on Holmes was vs Tyson. I take it you get my point. Film has a lasting impression.

The loss to Johnson really did not hurt his legacy much as he was pretty much seen as a top 1, 2, or 3 guy until he 1960's! So I disagree that he would be more over rated if he never lost his comeback fight.

In fact, fighters like Johnson, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Burns, Dempsey, and many historians who saw him felt he was the best of all time. Historians conducted a survey called the MacCallum survey, where they voted on who the best heavyweight was. All the main boxing figures like Fleisher, and Rose were there. Jeffries came out #1 overall. The date of the poll was in the early 1960's.

When the fighters and historians who were familiar with Jeffries died out, Jeffries slide. With little film, and a long period of time, it was a case of out of site, out of mind.

The only clear and up close film on Jeffries is his 1901 workout and sparring clips. I recommend watching them, as your perception of his agility, and skills might change.

[Dempsey1238]

I would not class Jeff with Marciano, when Marciano retire, he clean out his era, when Jeff retire, there was Jack Johnson waiting for his title shot.

[guilalah]

Personally, I don't think I would be rating Jeffries an iota more or less if he had stayed retired. I don't think boxing folk put any great weight on his loss to Johnson, either. Loosing to Johnson probably hurt Jeffries public Ubermensch mystique, though.

[Arka]

I think you'll find it's the the same case with most individual sports,Mendoza.

Tennis historians ,well into the 1960s,used to consider Bill Tilden the greatest tennis player of all time .

Who still holds that opinion-let alone has heard of him ?

[Mendoza]

I think you'll find it's the the same case with most individual sports,Mendoza.

Tennis historians ,well into the 19560s,used to consider Bill Tilden the greatest tennis player of all time .

Who still holds that opinion-let alone has heard of him ?


Good points. Here how I would hawser the question. A historians opinion is good for say 60 years. My point is if you use the fighters or historians benchmark, Jeffries was thought of as an ATG #1 to #3 all time heavyweight until the late 1960's. In most cases those who saw him felt he was ahead of Dempsey, Louis and Marciano. the three men are still highly thought of today? Why? FIlm. Guys look great scoring knockouts on flim. I think Jeffries main problem is lack of film. When you don't have film, you are out of sight, and out of mind.


If you were to ask me who the best basketball players I have seen, I would say Jordan, and Chamberlain were the best followed closely by the following players in no particular order... Jabar, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Kobe, James, and Olawajaun ( spelling ). I am not a basketball guy, but to illustrate my point, these names were the best, and if you were to ask basketball historians who lived from 1950 to present who the best was they would say Jordan is and Chamberlin were probably #1 and #2. Just the same if you were to ask a boxing person who lived from 1890-1960 who the best was, they would say Jeffries was #1,, #2, or #3. But without the film people forgot about him.

As for the tennis player ( Tilden ) you mentioned, I really can not say. I never saw him play. Best guess is the modern tennis players are much better. Boxing is one of the lone sports where historians think the players 50+ years ago are better than the players around today. I think you can argue that boxing was better in the lower to middle weight classes for sure, but at heavyweight, the fighters are much bigger and stronger these days. I do think Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano would have a sever size handicap if they were around today. Maybe they could add 10 pounds on their frames without losing their best stuff, but the disadvantage would still beret there. Jeffries is a unique historical fighter, because he was the most athletic of the heavyweights pre 1950, and he had the size to be a modern fighter. If he were around today, I think 230-235 in shape would be his fighting weight.

[he grant]

I think so much of the guy was built on word of mouth ... to begin with he really had only about 20 fights or so ... among those lets say six were heavily covered by media. In an age of zero t.v. and extrremely limited film, how many people ever even saw the man fight ?

[mr. magoo]

=he grant;4249988]I feel that Jeffries is one of the most overated legendary fighters in history. I'm sure he was tough, well conditioned, had a good chin and punch but to say he was an all time great to me is a big stretch.

The man was huge for his day and enjoyed a big advantage over his much smaller opposition. He defeated old men like Corbett and Fitz or much smaller guys like Sharkey. Ect, ect, ect ...

Jeffries won the heavyweight title with very few professional bouts - something that is often overlooked. While Fitz and corbett were definately in the twilight of their careers, they still weren't slouches, and again Jeffries was more or less a novice when he fought them. His other fights against Choynski, Munroe and Sharkey are nothing to scoff about either.. And, returning to the ring after 5 years of inactivity at the age of 35 to battle a prime Jack Johnson for 15 rounds, only helps him in my opinion. Yes, he enjoyed a hefty size advantage over many of his opponents, which may have had some bearing in a cross era matchup against a man who matched his size and strength. But if we're talking about legacy, I think his resume is pretty solid.

I wonder how he would be remembered today if he never came back and suffered the loss to Johnson. Imagine how high he'd have been rated. His career kind of reminds me of Marciano as he beat older , ex-champs, defeated an icon (Jackson who was 37) and retired undefeated ...

Having no losses to speak of can help any fighter to look a bit better. Its a rare thing to be able to claim that you were never beaten. That said, If there were anything that I can think that might have helped Jeffries' legacy, I would say that it might have been to his benefit to fight one last time against top challenger Marvin Hart before retiring permanantely. Hart had just beaten Jack Johnson and a few other decent men. Had Jeffries beaten Hart and done so convincingly, he might not have had as much pressure to come out and fight Johnson.

[Mendoza]

I think so much of the guy was built on word of mouth ... to begin with he really had only about 20 fights or so ... among those lets say six were heavily covered by media. In an age of zero t.v. and extrremely limited film, how many people ever even saw the man fight ?

Lack of fights would Jeffries at a disadvantage with more seasoned oppoents. I believe there are at least a dozen undocumented Jeffries wins out there. One news paper says Jeffries was something like 22-0 with 20 Ko's before he fought Fitzsimmons. The Cyber Boxing Zone historians say Jeffries KO'd many men in Europe. The same web site has reports newspaper Ko wins over Martin, Cotton, and some other fighters.

As for who saw Jeffries fight, the Jeffries vs Sharkey II fight film was #1 at the box office for several months. His fights with Fitzsimmons, Ruhlin, Munroe, and Corbett were also filmed.

Film really helps confirm a fighters greatness, but it is not necessary. Look at Greb. No one here has seen him fight. But few if any question his greatness.

Have you seen the full 1901 training clips HE Grant?

[he grant]

Back to my point on Jeffries, who I do like, is that he had so few fights and managed to win the title based on brute strength ... obviously he had some skill and a great (for the time) set of physical sklills but really couldn't a George Chavalo or an Oscar Bonavena done the same if not better ? They would be looked at as incredibly strong, iron chinned , KO punching giants by the guys from that age ...

[janitor]

Back to my point on Jeffries, who I do like, is that he had so few fights and managed to win the title based on brute strength ... obviously he had some skill and a great (for the time) set of physical sklills but really couldn't a George Chavalo or an Oscar Bonavena done the same if not better ? They would be looked at as incredibly strong, iron chinned , KO punching giants by the guys from that age ...

I used to think this way.

Jeffries is one of the most misunderstood heavyweights of all time.

I have seen popular books that say that his primary strategy was to use his body as a punch bag to sap his oponents strength.

Even historians who rate Jeffries highly emphasise his brute streength and durability but do not bring up other aspects of his game.

The reality is that Jeffries wasnt just big and durable he was also as quick as a cat for a man his size. Based on the footage of him sparring aluded to by Mendoza I would say that he was probably the fastest fighter over 220 pounds in lean peak condition who ever lived. He is like like a balet dancer on his feet and repeatedly makes his sparring partner miss by a few inches by pulling his head back like Muhamad Ali!

Basicaly Jeffries fought for the title as a novice and learned his trade on the job. He eventualy matured into a well rounded boxer and finisher. He actualy outboxed Corbett in their second encounter!

I honestly think that Jeffries retired just as he was coming into his peak because there were no big fights left. In adition to his renowned strength and durability he had become one of the better boxers around from a technical standpoint. He was a good finisher and his speed and reflexes were starting to translate into offensive prowesin in ways that the hadnt earlier in his career.

At that point in he wasa quantum leap over anything that had been before and anything that would be again for some time.

[mr. magoo]

I
i honestly think that Jeffries retired just as he was coming into his peak because there were no big fights left.


That's really a shame. I think fighting Marvin Hart and a few others may helped him a bit..

[Arka]

......

If you were to ask me who the best basketball players I have seen, I would say Jordan, and Chamberlain were the best followed closely by the following players in no particular order... Jabar, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Kobe, James, and Olawajaun ( spelling ). I am not a basketball guy, but to illustrate my point, these names were the best, and if you were to ask basketball historians who lived from 1950 to present who the best was they would say Jordan is and Chamberlin were probably #1 and #2. Just the same if you were to ask a boxing person who lived from 1890-1960 who the best was, they would say Jeffries was #1,, #2, or #3. But without the film people forgot about him.

As for the tennis player ( Tilden ) you mentioned, I really can not say. I never saw him play. Best guess is the modern tennis players are much better. Boxing is one of the lone sports where historians think the players 50+ years ago are better than the players around today. I think you can argue that boxing was better in the lower to middle weight classes for sure, but at heavyweight, the fighters are much bigger and stronger these days. I do think Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano would have a sever size handicap if they were around today. Maybe they could add 10 pounds on their frames without losing their best stuff, but the disadvantage would still beret there. Jeffries is a unique historical fighter, because he was the most athletic of the heavyweights pre 1950, and he had the size to be a modern fighter. If he were around today, I think 230-235 in shape would be his fighting weight.

Well.....one of the problems might be,along with the lack of footage,there doesn't seem to be many fighters who modeled themselves on him or cited his fighting style as an influence.

Johnson was an avowed admirer of the defensive skills of Corbett.

Fitzsimmons acted as a teacher to Joe Gans ,who in turn influenced Jack Blackburn who trained Joe Louis.

I put the name of Bill Tilden out,but ,in addition to his career, he wrote respected manuals and furthered the technical level of the professional tennis game.

Jeffries stands almost like a solitary figure. A physical specimen ,certainly ,even to the present day,but,from a boxing point of view, difficult to make an assessment of.

[janitor]

That's really a shame. I think fighting Marvin Hart and a few others may helped him a bit..

Undoubtedly.

Jeffries couldnt look into a crystal ball and see that Hart would be a name win in the 21st century.

The truth is that apart from Jack Johnson there wasnt anybody around who would have been a threat to him for a few years.

Fighting Johnson in his prime might have helped him even if he had lost.

[OLD FOGEY]

I feel that Jeffries is one of the most overated legendary fighters in history. I'm sure he was tough, well conditioned, had a good chin and punch but to say he was an all time great to me is a big stretch.

The man was huge for his day and enjoyed a big advantage over his much smaller opposition. He defeated old men like Corbett and Fitz or much smaller guys like Sharkey. Ect, ect, ect ...

I wonder how he would be remembered today if he never came back and suffered the loss to Johnson. Imagine how high he'd have been rated. His career kind of reminds me of Marciano as he beat older , ex-champs, defeated an icon (Jackson who was 37) and retired undefeated ...

1. On size--Jeffries is the only really big man who dominated and cleaned out his era until Lewis. Johnson was probably well under 200 lbs until into his thirties. Louis was around 200 lbs. The other top men were under 200 lbs until the 1960 era when modern nutrition, medicine, and probably supplements began to kick in.

2. Size of opponents--He was bigger than the men he fought but the men he fought were the normal sized opponents of the era. The two men much bigger than Jeff in his era--Dunkhorst and Plaacke--lost to Fitz and McCoy and would have been no test. Another way of looking at it--Fitz and Choynski were probably not much different in weight than the Conn who gave Louis a very tough fight or Carpentier and Gibbons who challenged Dempsey. Gibbons took Dempsey fifteen. Jackson, Ruhlin, Sharkey, Armstrong, and Goddard were as big or bigger than Tunney or Brennan or Jack Sharkey (and I would add Flynn) who beat Dempsey or gave him tough fights. They were as big or bigger than Schmeling, Charles, and Marciano who beat Louis, or Conn or Pastor who gave Louis very tough fights. The problem with the size of opponents argument is that the bigger men did not trouble any of the great champions as much as the more talented little fellows did.

3. Only fought 23 (or 21 or 20) fights. Well, he might have fought more which are lost to history, but I think what really matters is how many tough fights Jeff fought. No one's record has less fat on it. He fought Johnson, Fitz (2), Corbett (2), Jackson, Sharkey (2), Ruhlin (2), Choynski, Armstrong, Goddard, Griffin, Everett, and Munroe. That is 16 fights against name opponents. Nat Fleischer said in 1950 that he though Jeff fought more top men than any of his predecessors or successors. He fought the best of his era, white and black. I think the quality of his top opposition, in the context of his time, compares with anyone until Ali. He had as much depth of good men as most other champs other than Louis and Ali and Sharkey and beat all of them except Choynski and Johnson. He never had an embarressing defeat. He was way over the hill before Johnson finally wore him down.

4. I think boxing technique evolved a great after the Jeffries era, but in a historic sense he was clearly one of the most dominant champions. I think he is a very strong candidate for a top ten rating and he has a good case for a top five position, if rating on historical impact.

[OLD FOGEY]

Back to my point on Jeffries, who I do like, is that he had so few fights and managed to win the title based on brute strength ... obviously he had some skill and a great (for the time) set of physical sklills but really couldn't a George Chavalo or an Oscar Bonavena done the same if not better ? They would be looked at as incredibly strong, iron chinned , KO punching giants by the guys from that age ...

I think the weakness of comparing him to Chuvalo or Bonavena is that that by reputation and on film Jeffries was quick and agile. Chuvalo was tough but a plodder. A Jeffries who came into boxing in the sixties and had the training of that era would have been a far more formidable opponent than Chuvalo, I think.

[mr. magoo]

Undoubtedly.

Jeffries couldnt look into a crystal ball and see that Hart would be a name win in the 21st century.

The truth is that apart from Jack Johnson there wasnt anybody around who would have been a threat to him for a few years.

Fighting Johnson in his prime might have helped him even if he had lost.


My dates may be a tad off, but didn't Marvin Hart beat Jack Johnson right around the same time that Jeffries elected to retire?

[janitor]

My dates may be a tad off, but didn't Marvin Hart beat Jack Johnson right around the same time that Jeffries elected to retire?

The Hart Johnson fight was shortly before Jeffries retired and might just have been the catalyst for him retiring.

[OLD FOGEY]

The Hart Johnson fight was shortly before Jeffries retired and might just have been the catalyst for him retiring.

The real catalyst for his retirement, I think, was his marriage. He just didn't want to be separated from his bride by long months of training. At least that is my judgement after reading about his retirement.

[janitor]

The real catalyst for his retirement, I think, was his marriage. He just didn't want to be separated from his bride by long months of training. At least that is my judgement after reading about his retirement.

Eminently plausible.

He had all the money he wanted, a profitable farm and was hapily maried. Remaining a profesional fighter untill you were spent was not a rewarding option in those days if you had alternative wealth.

I addition the fact that Johnson had just lost to Hart lifted the pressure for him to meet Johnson.

Easy to see why he chose to retire.

[mr. magoo]

Eminently plausible.

He had all the money he wanted, a profitable farm and was hapily maried. Remaining a profesional fighter untill you were spent was not a rewarding option in those days if you had alternative wealth.

I addition the fact that Johnson had just lost to Hart lifted the pressure for him to meet Johnson.

Easy to see why he chose to retire.

All very good points from both you and Old Fogey.

I will say however ( though hindsite means little, ) that facing Marvin Hart in one last career bout, then retiring forever, might have boosted his legacy from the standpoint that he beat the man who had beaten Johnson.

[janitor]

All very good points from both you and Old Fogey.

I will say however ( though hindsite means little, ) that facing Marvin Hart in one last career bout, then retiring forever, might have boosted his legacy from the standpoint that he beat the man who had beaten Johnson.

Damn hindsight.

The contemporary press did not rate Marvin Hart. It is probably literaly fair to say that Jeffries would have got more credit for fighting the 40+ year old Bob Fitzsimmons again. To us today this seems absurd.

The contemporary press raved about Jack Johnson. Even when Marvin Hart was champion they were more interested in Jack Johnson's latest fight than Marvin Harts latest defence of his title. Jeffries received lucrative offers to come out of retirment and fight Johnson while Hart was champion. If he had done it Hart would have ended up defending his title on the undercard.

Hart was treated unfairly at the time and perhaps by history. In hindsight however he was a lot better than given credit for and even Jack Johnson would later acknowledge that.

[OLD FOGEY]

All very good points from both you and Old Fogey.

I will say however ( though hindsite means little, ) that facing Marvin Hart in one last career bout, then retiring forever, might have boosted his legacy from the standpoint that he beat the man who had beaten Johnson.

Perhaps, but in fairness to Jeffries, he did offer to fight Hart if there was any interest in such a bout. There apparently wasn't.

I myself don't consider his failure to meet Hart as detracting from his legacy at all. I read the reports of the Hart fight from the San Francisco press. The reporters emphasized that they did not see Hart as much of a test for Jeffries.

[mcvey]

Of course if Jeffires had retired and stayed retired he would have attained a mythical status, with the great "what ifs" abounding as to what would have happened between him and Jack Johnson. Bet he wished he had stayed retired.

Didn't you know he was" got at with drugged tea?":yep

[Mendoza]

Perhaps, but in fairness to Jeffries, he did offer to fight Hart if there was any interest in such a bout. There apparently wasn't.

I myself don't consider his failure to meet Hart as detracting from his legacy at all. I read the reports of the Hart fight from the San Francisco press. The reporters emphasized that they did not see Hart as much of a test for Jeffries.


Correct. Fans knew Hart was no real challenge vs Jeffries. Jeffries said if the fans wanted it, he would fight Hart. The demand was low. The money was never up.

Newspaper reports did see Munroe being a test for Jeffries, who by 1905 had become a polished fighter. One theory as to why demand for Jeffries vs. Hart was low is fans felt Hart would be blow out as quickly as Munroe was.

Hart was not as good as Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Sharkey. I think he was likely a notch below Hank Griffin, Gus Ruhlin and Joe Choynski too.