Should Jeffries rank over Marciano?

If only to get my mind of the increasingly tedious Haye and Chisora debates and to remind myself of a time when heavyweights tended to do their fighting in the ring, have been thinking a lot about Rocky Marciano, particularly in relation to a fighter I often think gets a bit of a rough ride from history James J Jeffries and would ask if others agree with me that the boilermaker deserves to be ranked above Marciano.

When one looks at these two fighters there are similarities, both are guys who could be comfortably outfought, Jeff against Fitz and Corbett and Rock against Walcott, however both had serious power and will to win that normally resulted in them outlasting their opponents and finding a way to get the win. Both had very few defences, although with Jeffries this was more a reflection of boxing’s questionable legality than any lack of willingness of his part. Could also argue that the bulk of both guys best wins were against guys who they held decent size advantages over, with Jeff beating the likes of Corbett and Fitz and Rocky beating light heavies in Moore and Charles, however think it is fair to say that both guys beat the best their respective eras had to offer but for me where Jeffries holds the edge is that for me his level of opposition is far stronger, whilst the likes of Charles, Moore and Walcott are decent enough, is pretty undeniable that in two of these guys cases their best work was at light heavy. If we compare that with Jeffries, he has the likes of Fitzsimmons, Sharkey and Corbett, three outstanding fighters pretty close to their respective peaks. For me Jeffries reign is pretty much without comparison in terms of the ratio between quality and guff.

Stylistically there is very little to choose between the two, both are pretty crude and unlikely to be mistaken for Pernell Whitaker any time soon, but again I would favour Jeffries over the Rock because at the time Jeffries was fighting fights were over 20 or 25 rounds distance and as the era was soon after the bareknuckle era fights were often scored on who inflicted the most damage or in the event the fight went the distance the decision was often given not to the guy who won the most rounds but to the guy who either inflicted the most damage or looked like he’d have won had the fight gone the distance, as such it could be argued a fighter of almost limitless stamina, terrific powers of recovery, decent punching power and the ability to absorb terrific punishment was almost the perfect fighter for his era.

Will be honest am fast becoming something of an obsessive about Jeffries, so my analysis may not be the most balanced on this issue but for me Jeffries is a top five heavyweight and deserves to be ranked above the Rock but realise there are plenty out there that hold the Rock in greater esteem than I do so would welcome their contributions or counter arguments.

As this is an old thread I posted on the old 606 apologies to anyone who has already seen it and Az if you could manage to get through it without explaining to us how Pele Reid would beat Rocky that would be massively appreciated.

No

Good stuff, Rowley, and I agree with the large bulk of it; Jeffries above Marciano, for me. Although I wouldn't be too fussed if others saw it the other way round.

Longevity at any meaningful level is fairly equal, but I'd give an edge in opposition beaten to Jeffries. It's also worth noting that Marciano's opponents, despite being past their best in a few instances, often managed to make light of the physical disadvantages they faced for long periods against him. It is, of course, to his ever lasting credit that he got through such tests each and every time, but I'm not sure I'll ever be able to shake the feeling that Marciano was, to an extent, the right man in the right place at the right time. Still a magnificent fighter, mind.

The possible tie breaker of a hypothetical match up between the two also sees Jeffries winning, for my money - regardless of which era they'd fought in.

Jeffries on the cusp of a top five in my eyes, with Marciano at the low end of a top ten.

No arguments for me mate - I dont think Marciano makes it top 10 while jefferies does or near about does depending on the day. Racist issues sort of sidelined him as america became more and more embarrased about their past in that regard but he genuinely overwhelms marciano for me.

Before this goes down the "Rocky was rubbish" "No he wasn't" line - (I'm looking at you az) - we have a precious but short opportunity to actually discuss the topic at hand - which is CONFINED - to Jeffries and Marciano.

I'm a fan of both men - but I lean to Rocky here.

In terms of size advantage - much is made of Rocky's beating of "LHWs" - but as is proven in the statistics and the tales of the tapes - its not really fair. All of the men had some experience at similar poundage to the Rock. Whereas with Jeffries - he significantly outweighed Fitzsimmons and Corbett - by about 40 pounds in fact. Further - whilst Fitz was a fantastic, incredible boxer and without any shadow of a doubt a top 10 all time p4p candidate - he was only a middleweight. He himself only considered himself to be a middleweight and objected to any rating of himself as anything heavier than that.

Stylistically - they are both crude - but both incredibly effective. Both, also, were fantastically well conditioned - and by the end of Jeffries' career - he had a reasonable skillset on him. Much is made of Corbett outboxing Jeffries in their first encounter - but the reverse occurred second time around - Jeffries laid a whipping on Corbett.

It is an interesting parallel - because their careers are so similar in many ways. Corbett - like Walcott and LaStarza - did much worse in their rematches than in their first stab at a title. Rocky had a reputation for "ruining opponents" - one that was not particularly undeserved.

If we were to rank Marciano based solely on Walcott, Charles and Moore - then Jeffries would be higher. To ignore LaStarza and Louis, in my opinion - would be a bit duplicitous. Yes - Louis was very faded - but he was still 8-0 in his comeback - and even a faded Louis still posed an awful lot of questions. And Dundee rated LaStarza for years as the best HW he saw not to win a title.

We have to also consider an outcome of a H2H - and lets call it over 20 rounds. In my mind - the idea of absorbing punishment against Rocky would be a mistake. As everyone of his era is so fond of reminding me - Rocky never really cared what he hit, as long as he hit you. You don't want to absorb that kind of punishment.

Maybe Jeffries' power is enough to stop Marciano - after all Jeffries would have a hugely significant size advantage (also about 40 pounds). However - maybe Marciano wears him down. Rocky was well conditioned enough to go for 20 - if you gave him his customary 6-9 months of preparation time.

I would still lean to the Rock over Jeffries.

Oxy you do make a fair point on the weights in that it is more than possible the gap between Rocky and his notable scalps and Jeff and his was probably less in the Rock's part, have just done a quick scan of Pollack's biography of Jeffries and according to that in their second fight Jeff came in around 218 and Bob claimed to be 160, however the news papers pegged Bob as being anywhere between 168 to 190. The problem is heavies didn't tend to do offical weigh ins so most of it was either what the trainers told them or guess work but does appear a weight gap of 40 pounds would not be too generous a guess, or a super middle against a heavy.

Have to admit, where Bob is concerned - I'm inclined to believe his later claims that he didn't weigh in over 170. As you say - in an era where for HWs - the scales were largely irrelevant - and so - as with Charley Burley when he was fighting at LMW - he was allowed to wander in - write down a number and wander off again - without ever actually tipping the scales.

My point regarding the weights is that its a bit duplicitous to accuse Marciano of beating smaller men to the same extent as someone like Jeffries.

Were we to do a H2H matchup between the pair - of course - Marciano would be massively outweighed by the boilermaker.

I stil say though - that stylistically - I don't think a style based on absorbing punishment with incredible stamina is the best way to beat Rocky. (That's not to say it couldn't, of course). It would also guarantee us one hell of a fight - were a contest between the 2 possible.

It is as close a fight then anything because the styles were not that different. Jeffries would have fought many men who employed a crouching, brawler or slugger type style. I am not saying their individual styles were the same but there is not a lot of difference between them although there are many years separating them.

I think Marciano became a better ring general as his career panned out and met a lot of styles from slugger to smart/clever fighters and technically sound operators so would give him the edge.

I suppose it depends on what you value. The two eras were so distinct it makes drawing comparisons tough.

The criticisms of Marciano and his oppositions are well documented on here so Il leave that untouched for the moment. But whilst you cans say with Moore and Charles their best work was middle-light heavy it should be ackowledged that the light heavy division wasnt really established in Jeffries day.

Ive always viewed Fitzsimmons, Corbett or Sharkey to be more or less blown up middle/light heavies and I would bet money on Charles or Moore beating Corbett or Choynski and to a lesser extent Fitzsimmons. And Jeffries hiself usually enjoyed a bigger size advantage than Marciano did who himself was really no more than a cruiserweight. This isnt intended as a slight on Jeffries but merely trying to draw some parity with Marciano.

Then theres the issue of timing. Again it can and has been argued that timing very much favoured the Rock regards his opposition. But anymore so than Jeffries? His bouts against Corbett and Fitzsimmons were against old men really. Corbett was mid thirties, fairly inactive and at the end of his fighting days. He retired after the Jeffries bouts. Fitzsimmons was even older.

I dont think theres a particularly right or wrong answer as it depends on what you value. But I do think some of the criteria is a bit skewed. What it boild down to me is a number of issues:

Opposition: I think Marciano takes it. I would take wins over Moore, Walcott, Charles, LaStarza and a washed up Louis over Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Ruhlin, Jackson and Sharkey. Cant help feel that if you took the fighters Jeffries beat and matched them against the fighters Marciano beat that Marcianos would emerge as winners and the better all around fighters.

Timing: I cant say it favoured Marciano anymore than Jeffries. Corbett mid thirties, Fitzimmons late thirties, Jackson late thirties for example.

Size: Probably favoured Jeffries more than Marciano. He tended to hold a more significant size advantage over his main opposition than Marciano did. I dont think the argument that Marciano benefited from this more is really the case. If anything the opposite.

The fact that there was no light heavyweight division established probably helps Jeffries out a bit as it makes it a little easier to mark down for some wins for Marciano. But in practical terms I think Moore and Charles are superior than Corbett, Chonski, Sharkey and Fitzsimmons and are not any smaller despite doing their best work at light heavyweight. If we want to nit pick, which I guess might happen in these kind of cases you could say that Marcianos unbeaten record counts for something extra and that Jeffries draw with the vastly smaller Choynski and the blemish Johnson put on his record are also pluses for Marcianos case.

This would largely be the basis for my argument for Marciano but as I said I dont think there is any right or wrong answers in many of these comparisons.

Manos has been assimilated by the lib dems there.

I don't like criticizing fighters based on simply the age of their opposition but everything you can throw at Marciano you can also throw at Jeffries, they both made a reputation from beating older, smaller fighters who for the large part were magnificent fighters. You couldn't hope to beat more eye catching names than Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Louis, Moore or Charles nor do I really think the weight of the fighters should be that important when we're judging heavyweights. Fitz and Corbett were smaller than Jeffries but they were also a former and present heavyweight champion which shows their ability especially with Fitz who was a great fighter using any measure of weight or ability.

Charles for me beats every one of Jeffries victims while Corbett and Fitzsimmons would have a fair chance against the rest including the versions of Louis and Moore that Marciano beat, top level opposition is very very close. The difference between the two could be the second tier where I think that LaStarza, Walcott, Matthews, Layne and Savold would represent better opposition overall than Ruhlin, Sharkey and Choynski.

Marciano for me but not by much.

88Chris05 wrote:Good stuff, Rowley, and I agree with the large bulk of it; Jeffries above Marciano, for me. Although I wouldn't be too fussed if others saw it the other way round.

Longevity at any meaningful level is fairly equal, but I'd give an edge in opposition beaten to Jeffries. It's also worth noting that Marciano's opponents, despite being past their best in a few instances, often managed to make light of the physical disadvantages they faced for long periods against him. It is, of course, to his ever lasting credit that he got through such tests each and every time, but I'm not sure I'll ever be able to shake the feeling that Marciano was, to an extent, the right man in the right place at the right time. Still a magnificent fighter, mind.

The possible tie breaker of a hypothetical match up between the two also sees Jeffries winning, for my money - regardless of which era they'd fought in.

Jeffries on the cusp of a top five in my eyes, with Marciano at the low end of a top ten.

I wouldnt have neccessarily thought that the smaller men made light of the size difference against Marciano more than they did against Jeffries. Choynski and Sharkey had long distance fights with him go all the way and in the first Corbett fight Jeffries only really managed to catch up with Corbett very late on. Probably would have lost a 12 or 15 rounder based on many of the reports of the fight.

Depends what constitutes as an advantage coming from size, Marciano was a pure 190lber through and through, with that came durability and power that Charles and Moore wouldn't have faced against light heavyweights, to me that is a size advantage too.

Will acknowledge the size difference is overplayed in the origninal thread for Marciano when the truth is Jeff enjoyed every bit as much of a size advantage. Still think there is very little in it in terms of opposition and just my personal view but I would probably edge it for Jeffries still, Corbett was undoubtedly coming to the end of his career but all the reports from his camp, which was wiely reported on in those days suggest he was in terrific shape and looking good in training, similarly whilst it is true Fitz was nigh on 40 for their second fight first time round he was in very good form going in and not really showing too many signs of regression, should also be mentioned Jeffries was fairly green experience wise at the time so even allowing for the size difference for a guy of so few fights to be able to beat Fitz is no mean feat.

As Manos as alluded to given the rules and length of fights were different direct comparisions are very tricky but part of the reason I think I favour Jeffries is in his era of fighting 20 or 25 rounds with grappling more tolerated and fights often scored on the perception of who was doing the most damage I don't see too many folk ever beating him, whereas over 15 rounds I would fancy a few heavies to get the better of the Rock, may not be the most scientific of theories but the margin between the two is pretty fine.

The most interesting aspect for me is the considered quality of opposition. As has been said, more or less the same criticisms can be fired at both Jeffries and Marciano in terms of size and timing.

On paper I would definately say Marciano faced tougher opposition. But what might equalise it is the potential for Jeffries opposition to have been in better nick or less faded. I think its pretty difficult to judge. Overall I still think Marciano takes it though.

In terms of a head to head I would no real conviction either way. Jeffries was known for durability but I doubt he had faced as big a hitter as Marciano. Marciano probably never faced any as durably as Jeffries though. What might swing it for me would be Marcianos workrate, punch output and engine which could make the difference if it became just an attritional contest.