How high should Jeffries rank in top ten lists?

How high do people think The Boilermaker should rank when assessing top ten heavyweights (if indeed you think he belongs in the top ten). He is a nailed on top five for me, in fact I had him at number 3 the last time I tried to make a list but he tends to drift between 3 - 5 but never lower.

Completely dominated his era, only losing to a fellow ATG in Jack Johnson, and this after Jeffries had grown fat and happy on his farm in retirement. Maybe Johnson had Jeffries number anyway but I think it is fair to say big Jim was clearly way past his best in 1910.

Great record, with stellar wins over Corbett x 2, Fitzsimmons x 2, and notable wins over Sharkey x 2 and Peter Jackson. He was a fabulously conditioned fighter with a terrific punch and a rock solid chin. His technique was perfectly adapted for the style of fighting at the time where physical strength, of which Jeffries reportedly had no equal, was a must. He became a much better "boxer" as his career progressed and had genuine power in both hands. All this, allied to his murderous training regime and will to win made Jeffries a formidible foe for anyone

I appreciate it is always difficult to compare one era to another, but in terms of record, dominance of an era and skills required to suceed in that era, Jeffries must be a top fiver at least?

You'll find plenty on here who will agree with you, Tino. Three is too high for him - he can't be ahead of Johnson, even if Jim was a relatively spent force by 1910. I wouldn't put him ahead of Holmes, either, but I would certainly give him the call over men like Dempsey, Frazier, Holyfield and Lewis.

That leaves us with Foreman and Marciano. For me, Foreman's twin careers represent a towering achievement, bearing in mind the eras in which he fought, enough to give him the number five spot. Although many seem to disagree, I also retain the most enormous respect for Marciano as a fighting machine who got the job done, whatever his limitations. However, I'm prepared to allow that Jeffries has a case to be ranked somewhere near him - similar dominance of the era, better opposition. I find it hard to be dogmatic about this one, so would content myself with placing Jeffries either sixth or seventh in my list.

For me he is top five. The list of fighters beaten such as Fitz, Corbett and Sharkey compare favourably with nay heavyweight in history and could be argued are second only to Ali. Worth remembering he won the title early in his career after only something like 13 fights so was very much a work in progress even as champion and his skills were underrated. A lot of reports had him outboxing even the peerless Corbett for large stages of their rematch.

For me we can only assess fighters against the rules they fought in at the time and over 20 or 25 round fights where fights were often scored against the perception as to how the fight would have gone had the fight gone the distance Jeff was almost unstoppable. Had limitless stamina, a superhuman ability to soak up shots, and geuinely carried his power late into the fight. Like yourself I always have Jeffries as a top five guy. He is behind Louis and Ali but beyond that my opinion can change through the day.

Whilst he is slightly crude by modern standards he has the natural size, athleticism and power to convert and succeed in any era and is IMO one of the most frequently under rated and overlooked of the heavyweight champions as it is not without exaggeration to say he was considered untouchable in his prime in a way few if any heavies can claim.

Thanks Captain, interesting reply and all good points.

What is the basis of your belief that Johnson should be higher? Genuinely interested as his record as champion is not all that brilliant?

As champion, I'd agree. By 1908, though, the heavyweight division was beginning to hit a relatively fallow spot - Johnson bestrode the division like a colossus and there seemed to be no-one out there to give him a test, hence the need to disinter Jeffries in 1910. Not really Jack's fault.

Johnson, of course, had to wait until he was 30 to get his rightful shot at the title, and what he had done beforehand against Jeanette, Langford, Flynn, Fitz and so on can't be ignored. I also don't think that Jeffries would have beaten Johnson on his best day, which makes it very difficult to give Jim the call over Jack. I'm not knocking Jeff, you understand - he was clearly a force of nature in his prime. However, I do think that there has been something of a revisionist movement to downplay Johnson's achievements in the last few years. Yes, he should have granted a shot to a couple of the outstanding black contenders of the day; however, he would have started a prohibitive favourite even against them.

rowley wrote:For me he is top five. The list of fighters beaten such as Fitz, Corbett and Sharkey compare favourably with nay heavyweight in history and could be argued are second only to Ali. Worth remembering he won the title early in his career after only something like 13 fights so was very much a work in progress even as champion and his skills were underrated. A lot of reports had him outboxing even the peerless Corbett for large stages of their rematch.

For me we can only assess fighters against the rules they fought in at the time and over 20 or 25 round fights where fights were often scored against the perception as to how the fight would have gone had the fight gone the distance Jeff was almost unstoppable. Had limitless stamina, a superhuman ability to soak up shots, and geuinely carried his power late into the fight. Like yourself I always have Jeffries as a top five guy. He is behind Louis and Ali but beyond that my opinion can change through the day.

Whilst he is slightly crude by modern standards he has the natural size, athleticism and power to convert and succeed in any era and is IMO one of the most frequently under rated and overlooked of the heavyweight champions as it is not without exaggeration to say he was considered untouchable in his prime in a way few if any heavies can claim.

Good point about Jeffries taking the title so early in his career. It would be very unusal for something similar to happen now, especially for such a dominant, genuine world champion as well.

I've long beaten the drum for Jeffries and will continue to do so whenever I can. On the basis of statistics alone, the man is a phenomenon. He won the world title as a relative rookie, remained unbeaten until the ill - advised comeback against Johnson, was never off his feet until the Johnson fight, held for 100 years, ( and may still hold, though I can't be bothered to check, ) the record for the fastest ever knockout in lineal heavyweight title history, and faced HOF opposition in one third of his fights.

As a fighter, he was one of the strongest ever, was surprisingly quick on his feet, carried an awesome left hook and was almost impossible to hurt. Even Tunney, who was seldom effusive in praise for any of his predecessors, ( apart from Dempsey, of course, ) concluded that Jeffries, while possessing ' the most uninteresting of styles ' would be a match for any heavyweight. Given that Tunney lived until the late '70s that is high praise.

Jeff's relative crudeness is sometimes overplayed. In his early days he was, indeed, crude, and fought out of a strange crouch with his left hand extended, much in the way that Max Schmeling sometimes fought. It was Fitzsimmons who persuaded Jeff to be less reliant on the crouch, telling Jeffries that he was far too easy to hit. Despite his having regressed to the crouching style under heavy fire from Johnson, Jeffries heeded Fitzsimmons' advice and developed - very quickly - the rudiments of orthodox technique. The improvement was so dramatic that, by the time of the second Corbett fight, newspapers were describing Jeffries' boxing as being ' scientific.'

In a twenty five rounder, which was Jeffries' territory, I believe that very few beat him. He would be disadvantaged in a modern ring over twelve rounds because after twelve Jeff was just warming up, but if we adopt a ' horses for courses ' philosophy Jeffries is, for me, an absolute nailed on certainty for the top ten and sometimes I'm tempted to put him as high as fifth.

captain carrantuohil wrote:As champion, I'd agree. By 1908, though, the heavyweight division was beginning to hit a relatively fallow spot - Johnson bestrode the division like a colossus and there seemed to be no-one out there to give him a test, hence the need to disinter Jeffries in 1910. Not really Jack's fault.

Johnson, of course, had to wait until he was 30 to get his rightful shot at the title, and what he had done beforehand against Jeanette, Langford, Flynn, Fitz and so on can't be ignored. I also don't think that Jeffries would have beaten Johnson on his best day, which makes it very difficult to give Jim the call over Jack. I'm not knocking Jeff, you understand - he was clearly a force of nature in his prime. However, I do think that there has been something of a revisionist movement to downplay Johnson's achievements in the last few years. Yes, he should have granted a shot to a couple of the outstanding black contenders of the day; however, he would have started a prohibitive favourite even against them.

Captain, I think I may have read somewhere that Jeffries claimed that Jack would have beaten him at any point so maybe that has to be considered. Don't get me wrong, I rate Johnson highly, I really do, just think Jeffries edges him out for me for the reasons outlined earlier.

HumanWindmill wrote:I've long beaten the drum for Jeffries and will continue to do so whenever I can. On the basis of statistics alone, the man is a phenomenon. He won the world title as a relative rookie, remained unbeaten until the ill - advised comeback against Johnson, was never off his feet until the Johnson fight, held for 100 years, ( and may still hold, though I can't be bothered to check, ) the record for the fastest ever knockout in lineal heavyweight title history, and faced HOF opposition in one third of his fights.

As a fighter, he was one of the strongest ever, was surprisingly quick on his feet, carried an awesome left hook and was almost impossible to hurt. Even Tunney, who was seldom effusive in praise for any of his predecessors, ( apart from Dempsey, of course, ) concluded that Jeffries, while possessing ' the most uninteresting of styles ' would be a match for any heavyweight. Given that Tunney lived until the late '70s that is high praise.

Jeff's relative crudeness is sometimes overplayed. In his early days he was, indeed, crude, and fought out of a strange crouch with his left hand extended, much in the way that Max Schmeling sometimes fought. It was Fitzsimmons who persuaded Jeff to be less reliant on the crouch, telling Jeffries that he was far too easy to hit. Despite his having regressed to the crouching style under heavy fire from Johnson, Jeffries heeded Fitzsimmons' advice and developed - very quickly - the rudiments of orthodox technique. The improvement was so dramatic that, by the time of the second Corbett fight, newspapers were describing Jeffries' boxing as being ' scientific.'

In a twenty five rounder, which was Jeffries' territory, I believe that very few beat him. He would be disadvantaged in a modern ring over twelve rounds because after twelve Jeff was just warming up, but if we adopt a ' horses for courses ' philosophy Jeffries is, for me, an absolute nailed on certainty for the top ten and sometimes I'm tempted to put him as high as fifth.

Windy, agreed about the 25 rounders. I know guys don't train for that distance these days but can you imagine what a "modern" heavyweight would be doing after 12 rounds with Jeffries.

I most certainly can, Tino, and it wouldn't be pretty.

In my opinion, only a man with a very measured style and excellent technique, ( Johnson, Louis, for example, ) goes twenty five with Jeffries and comes out with a win. Corbett did magnificently in taking Jeff almost all the way, but from what I've read Gentleman Jim wasn't ' on his toes ' for the duration, relying rather on his brilliant technique to outbox Jeffries while conserving energy.

It would have been interesting to see if Marciano's legendary stamina would have been up to the job, though I have to imagine that, with smaller gloves, his efforts would have been curtailed, due to cuts, somewhere along the way.

Over 12 rounds I maintain that Jeffries gets outboxed by most of the top heavyweights but that was not his forte so tend to rate him on the basis of being a 25 round fighter where his strengths make him almost unbeatable over that distance. Have him as a borderline top ten guy, he only really has two wins over Corbett and a win over Jackson that are great heavyweight wins, the wins over Fitz are impressive most notably the second where he soaked up incredible punishment from a huge puncher but do always think of him as a middlweight rather than a heavyweight.

As you have alluded to Windy think of all the heavyweight greats the Rock would struggle in this era. His power and stamina would suggest he would thrive but as you rightly say his suceptability to cuts would be his undoing. In an era where clinching and head use was more prevalent and tolerated, evan allowing for less squeamish referreing have to think Marciano's face ends up like Swiss cheese. Can you imagine the damage some of Sharkey's less than textbook techniques would have on his face.

Cannot see Rocky ever quitting but there comes a point where an inability to see becomes something of a hinderance.

HumanWindmill wrote:I most certainly can, Tino, and it wouldn't be pretty.

In my opinion, only a man with a very measured style and excellent technique, ( Johnson, Louis, for example, ) goes twenty five with Jeffries and comes out with a win. Corbett did magnificently in taking Jeff almost all the way, but from what I've read Gentleman Jim wasn't ' on his toes ' for the duration, relying rather on his brilliant technique to outbox Jeffries while conserving energy.

It would have been interesting to see if Marciano's legendary stamina would have been up to the job, though I have to imagine that, with smaller gloves, his efforts would have been curtailed, due to cuts, somewhere along the way.

My bet doesn't start until saturday night. I am convinced I'll win the bet anyway so I'll pass my wealth of knowledge on Jeffries.

Good boxer.....for his time. He knew what a jab was. That's it.

He beats Rocky at any time though.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I've long beaten the drum for Jeffries and will continue to do so whenever I can. On the basis of statistics alone, the man is a phenomenon. He won the world title as a relative rookie, remained unbeaten until the ill - advised comeback against Johnson, was never off his feet until the Johnson fight, held for 100 years, ( and may still hold, though I can't be bothered to check, ) the record for the fastest ever knockout in lineal heavyweight title history, and faced HOF opposition in one third of his fights.

As a fighter, he was one of the strongest ever, was surprisingly quick on his feet, carried an awesome left hook and was almost impossible to hurt. Even Tunney, who was seldom effusive in praise for any of his predecessors, ( apart from Dempsey, of course, ) concluded that Jeffries, while possessing ' the most uninteresting of styles ' would be a match for any heavyweight. Given that Tunney lived until the late '70s that is high praise.

Jeff's relative crudeness is sometimes overplayed. In his early days he was, indeed, crude, and fought out of a strange crouch with his left hand extended, much in the way that Max Schmeling sometimes fought. It was Fitzsimmons who persuaded Jeff to be less reliant on the crouch, telling Jeffries that he was far too easy to hit. Despite his having regressed to the crouching style under heavy fire from Johnson, Jeffries heeded Fitzsimmons' advice and developed - very quickly - the rudiments of orthodox technique. The improvement was so dramatic that, by the time of the second Corbett fight, newspapers were describing Jeffries' boxing as being ' scientific.'

In a twenty five rounder, which was Jeffries' territory, I believe that very few beat him. He would be disadvantaged in a modern ring over twelve rounds because after twelve Jeff was just warming up, but if we adopt a ' horses for courses ' philosophy Jeffries is, for me, an absolute nailed on certainty for the top ten and sometimes I'm tempted to put him as high as fifth.

Windy, agreed about the 25 rounders. I know guys don't train for that distance these days but can you imagine what a "modern" heavyweight would be doing after 12 rounds with Jeffries.

I can and it wont last long or be pretty. Jeffries wouldn't last 5 rounds and loses to most with the exception of Rocky whom he beats.

HumanWindmill wrote:I most certainly can, Tino, and it wouldn't be pretty.

In my opinion, only a man with a very measured style and excellent technique, ( Johnson, Louis, for example, ) goes twenty five with Jeffries and comes out with a win. Corbett did magnificently in taking Jeff almost all the way, but from what I've read Gentleman Jim wasn't ' on his toes ' for the duration, relying rather on his brilliant technique to outbox Jeffries while conserving energy.

It would have been interesting to see if Marciano's legendary stamina would have been up to the job, though I have to imagine that, with smaller gloves, his efforts would have been curtailed, due to cuts, somewhere along the way.

Crikey, can you imagine Marciano v Jeffries. Or Dempsey v Jeffries for that matter. They would be brutal affairs over 12 rounds or 25.

Interesting that you mention Louis, as he is just about my favourite fighter to watch and I have him second in my top ten heavyweights. His economy of movement and the leverage in his punches are a joy to behold. Do you think he could really keep Jeffries off him for 25 rounds? Jeffries would take him to some dark places that is for sure. Having said that, despite Jim's almost inhuman ability to absorb punishment, some of the combinations that Joe would unload on him would be sickening.

Excellent debate and points all round. However, in pointing out that Jeff was a relatively slow starter, isn't it entirely possible that a Foreman (or maybe even a Liston) would simply blitz him before he'd even got out of the traps? Stamina was Foreman's problem over 12 or 15, so 25 doesn't bear thinking about, but is it not more likely that Jeff, who took a dreadful hammering for a while from the much smaller, albeit murderous punching Fitz, simply doesn't get to hear the bell for round three or four?

Windy, you mention that the measured, technically excellent style of a Louis or Johnson was what would be required to defeat Jeff over 25. Would you not agree that Holmes would be another in this category?

It could well be that these people have the proven ability to take inhuman punishment because theyr defence was so poor and pourous?

Tough guys though. Respect to the pioneers.

And I'm ducking out of this thrad.

Enjoy guys. I hope to learn something from it (seriously).

captain carrantuohil wrote:Excellent debate and points all round. However, in pointing out that Jeff was a relatively slow starter, isn't it entirely possible that a Foreman (or maybe even a Liston) would simply blitz him before he'd even got out of the traps? Stamina was Foreman's problem over 12 or 15, so 25 doesn't bear thinking about, but is it not more likely that Jeff, who took a dreadful hammering for a while from the much smaller, albeit murderous punching Fitz, simply doesn't get to hear the bell for round three or four?

Windy, you mention that the measured, technically excellent style of a Louis or Johnson was what would be required to defeat Jeff over 25. Would you not agree that Holmes would be another in this category?

Holmes' stamina bothers me, captain.

I remember his getting out of jail against Mike Weaver when he - Holmes - was looking very weary indeed, and I believe that Jeffries' physical presence would demand even more of Larry's reserves than did Weaver's.

Interesting point about Foreman, though. He might be one of the very few who could take Jeff out via the short route, though if he doesn't get the job done in five I'd bet my house on Jeff to turn the same trick on him.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Excellent debate and points all round. However, in pointing out that Jeff was a relatively slow starter, isn't it entirely possible that a Foreman (or maybe even a Liston) would simply blitz him before he'd even got out of the traps? Stamina was Foreman's problem over 12 or 15, so 25 doesn't bear thinking about, but is it not more likely that Jeff, who took a dreadful hammering for a while from the much smaller, albeit murderous punching Fitz, simply doesn't get to hear the bell for round three or four?

Windy, you mention that the measured, technically excellent style of a Louis or Johnson was what would be required to defeat Jeff over 25. Would you not agree that Holmes would be another in this category?

Captain, hope you mind if put my opinion in here, even though it was adressed to Wiindy. I think Holmes has the technique to give Jeffries enourmous problems, and may well keep him on the end of that great job for a relatively comfortable decision. However, over 25 rounds, Larry better hope he doesn't get nailed like he did with Snipes or Shavers as I would fancy Jeffries to finish the job bearing in mind his terrific stamina. Shavers, for all his one punch power was not a particularly awesome finisher (and I am not for one minute taking anything away from Holmes here whose heart and powers of recovery are not in doubt) and in those later rounds, when both guys are blowing, you would not want Jeffries coming after you following a big knockdown.

I think we can only base our assessment on what Jeffries did and whilst we are talking about the very real possibility of someone like Foreman or Liston taking him out early we also have to counter this with the fact that prior to Johnson Jeff was never off his feet and certainly never stopped. Whilst heavies were on the whole smaller then guys like Fitz and Sharkey carried a genuine dig. Even if the bigger guys potentially carried more power think it does the boilermaker a disservice to think he cannot ride out the storm.

Having read Pollack's biography of Jeffries one of the assets that is most commented upon is his ability to take an almost unbelievable shellacking in some rounds only to come out for the next session as fresh as a daisy. This suggests to me recuperative powers that would stand him in good stead across any era and in any company.

I also feel that it is instructive to factor in Foreman's fights against Chuvalo and Lyle. He pounded Chuvalo mercilessly and, while it's fair to say that Chuvalo was wilting, come the end, Foreman still hadn't put him down. Jeffries was almost certainly as durable as Chuvalo and was bigger and stronger, with a mighty wallop of his own.

I could envisage Jeffries v Foreman playing out very much in the manner of Foreman v Lyle, and while I certainly believe that George might have the firepower to upend Jeff, I can just as readily see it the other way round.

one of the things I love about boxing fans is that they still talk about fighters from the 19th century with authority. When rugby fans (rugby being my first love but recently dropping behind boxing) talk about top 10s they rule out people from before their lifetimes so if this had been a rugby discussion someone would undoutedly have said that you can't include Jeffries on an all time top 10 because nobody alive saw him fight. That attitude gets right on my nerves though. Personally I think we should be considering Daniel Mendoza in all time top 10s but maybe that's pushing it a bit far...

mckay1402 wrote:one of the things I love about boxing fans is that they still talk about fighters from the 19th century with authority. When rugby fans (rugby being my first love but recently dropping behind boxing) talk about top 10s they rule out people from before their lifetimes so if this had been a rugby discussion someone would undoutedly have said that you can't include Jeffries on an all time top 10 because nobody alive saw him fight. That attitude gets right on my nerves though. Personally I think we should be considering Daniel Mendoza in all time top 10s but maybe that's pushing it a bit far...

Think we are ok though as Windy saw Jeffries fight live.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:one of the things I love about boxing fans is that they still talk about fighters from the 19th century with authority. When rugby fans (rugby being my first love but recently dropping behind boxing) talk about top 10s they rule out people from before their lifetimes so if this had been a rugby discussion someone would undoutedly have said that you can't include Jeffries on an all time top 10 because nobody alive saw him fight. That attitude gets right on my nerves though. Personally I think we should be considering Daniel Mendoza in all time top 10s but maybe that's pushing it a bit far...

Think we are ok though as Windy saw Jeffries fight live.

His work mates bought him the ticket as a retirment present

I was only a lad, really. I sat on Colonial Lion's shoulders to watch Johnson v Jeffries.

HumanWindmill wrote:I was only a lad, really. I sat on Colonial Lion's shoulders to watch Johnson v Jeffries.

Colonial must have been getting on a bit then. He was ringside for Cribb v Molyneux!

I have to disagree cordially, Windy and suggest that no-one, ever, in heavyweight history, not even Jeff, has been as durable as Chuvalo. Frazier couldn't shift him, Foreman couldn't, Patterson couldn't, Ellis couldn't, Quarry couldn't, Terrell couldn't, Folley couldn't, Bonavena couldn't....the list is almost endless and extends to nearly 100 fights without tasting the canvas. One wonders how Chuvalo might have got on over 25 rounds!

One also has to consider that George was only about eighteen months into his pro career when he fought Chuvalo, albeit that he'd had twenty-odd fights by then. Agreed that Jeffries had an offensive arsenal that was denied to Chuvalo, but think that the Canadian was simply sui generis. A chin fashioned by Satan himself.

Right, this was my first ever thread, a serious piece about a giant of the sport and now you guys are just ruining it.

I am off to start a thread about PED's.

rowley wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I was only a lad, really. I sat on Colonial Lion's shoulders to watch Johnson v Jeffries.

Colonial must have been getting on a bit then. He was ringside for Cribb v Molyneux!

Ha !

His stamina in letting me sit atop his shoulders for fifteen rounds did him great credit, jeff.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Right, this was my first ever thread, a serious piece about a giant of the sport and now you guys are just ruining it.

I am off to start a thread about PED's.

Write one that can be dragged round to some tenuous Manny reference if you want to see a thread ruined. Count yourself lucky you did not ask which modern fighter would do best over 25 rounds, that would have been all the opportunity some would have needed.

captain carrantuohil wrote:I have to disagree cordially, Windy and suggest that no-one, ever, in heavyweight history, not even Jeff, has been as durable as Chuvalo. Frazier couldn't shift him, Foreman couldn't, Patterson couldn't, Ellis couldn't, Quarry couldn't, Terrell couldn't, Folley couldn't, Bonavena couldn't....the list is almost endless and extends to nearly 100 fights without tasting the canvas. One wonders how Chuvalo might have got on over 25 rounds!

One also has to consider that George was only about eighteen months into his pro career when he fought Chuvalo, albeit that he'd had twenty-odd fights by then. Agreed that Jeffries had an offensive arsenal that was denied to Chuvalo, but think that the Canadian was simply sui generis. A chin fashioned by Satan himself.

Certainly a persuasive argument, captain, and I wouldn't dispute what you say with any conviction. Chuvalo was, most certainly, fashioned out of something other than mere flesh and bone. Nonetheless, I would still be of the view that Jeffries v Foreman would be a fight which could go either way.

How would you guys see him doing against Lewis and Holyfield?

Or perhaps a Klitschko? I'm genuinely interested as I haven't watched Jeffires is in years; all my fight films from that era are back in England unfortunately.

Back to the thread for a moment......does anyone think Tunney would have had the wherewithal to keep Jeffries at bay for 25 rounds. Beautiful boxer, sound technique and did most things to a very high level but would he have lacked the physicality at heavyweight to keep Jeff off and would Jim have simply walked him down later in the fight. I tend to think the latter would be the case, despite my admiration for Gene.

Tend to agree with you Tino. The thing to remember is such tactics as holding and borderline wrestling moves were tolerated in Jeffs days and as Gene whilst not a powder puff puncher is not a powerhouse puncher he is not a guy I see stopping Jeff I have to think the holding and sheer physicality of Jeffries over 25 rounds is simply too much for Gene to resist and it would not surprise me to see Jeff stop him, all be it whilst a country mile behind on the cards.

samevans1 wrote:How would you guys see him doing against Lewis and Holyfield?

Or perhaps a Klitschko? I'm genuinely interested as I haven't watched Jeffires is in years; all my fight films from that era are back in England unfortunately.

Sam, as people have alluded to, it is so difficult to compare their respective eras but I would strongly fancy Jeffries against both. Certainly either Lewis or Holyfield would give him trouble early with their solid fundamentals, but I would expect Jim to impose his will and break them both down. Over 12 rounds, it is more difficult to predict although I would still fancy Jeffries, over 25 rounds, forget it.

Oddly enough, perhaps, would prefer Holyfield's chances against Jeffries to Lewis's, certainly over 25. Can see Lennox running out of ideas and gas almost simultaneously. Holyfield's fortitude, endurance and boxing ability would give him a chance, I suppose, against Jeff. Still fancy Jeff to overpower Vander, though.

It also breaks my heart to pick against Tunney, but I can't see him being big enough to keep Jeff off for the full 25 rounds. 15, yes. Over the long haul, it doesn't require too much imagination to see Tunney building up a massive lead, only to see it whittled away and finally reduced to irrelevance by a late combination.

samevans1 wrote:How would you guys see him doing against Lewis and Holyfield?

Or perhaps a Klitschko? I'm genuinely interested as I haven't watched Jeffires is in years; all my fight films from that era are back in England unfortunately.

Vitali Klitschko is an interesting one, sam.

I've always maintained that Klitschko is a slightly more refined and accurate Jess Willard. Stylistically they are, in my opinion, peas from the same pod. They also share the same strengths and weaknesses. I've always been intrigued by the question of Klitschko's stamina. On the one hand, he often appears to be a little distressed, physically, whereas on the other hand analysis of his punch stats over the duration of his longer fights is pretty impressive.

The Willard who beat Johnson v Vitali Klitschko would be very interesting, unsung though Willard may be. As to Jeffries v Vitali, I would doubt that Klitschko has the devastating single punch power to stun Jeffries, and I'd imagine that Jeff would slowly grind Vitali down after the halfway mark, gradually eating away at a points deficit to win by way of narrow decision or late stoppage.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Oddly enough, perhaps, would prefer Holyfield's chances against Jeffries to Lewis's, certainly over 25. Can see Lennox running out of ideas and gas almost simultaneously. Holyfield's fortitude, endurance and boxing ability would give him a chance, I suppose, against Jeff. Still fancy Jeff to overpower Vander, though.

It also breaks my heart to pick against Tunney, but I can't see him being big enough to keep Jeff off for the full 25 rounds. 15, yes. Over the long haul, it doesn't require too much imagination to see Tunney building up a massive lead, only to see it whittled away and finally reduced to irrelevance by a late combination.

Captain, agreed with you and Rowley on Tunney. It seems that general concensus that over 25 rounds Jeffries would eventually get to Gene and take him out, as he would most people. Oddly enough, I feel the same way about Jeffries v Holmes. Larry would give him hell and be an absolute mile in front but I have a sneaking suspicion that Jeff would get to him somewhere after round 15 and not let him go.

Regarding Lewis, he would absolutely have to get Jeffries out of there early or he is finished. Lewis certainly could bang and delivered some shots (right uppercut) beautifully but as many have mentioned, Jeffries was monumentally tough and would, in my opinion, have way too much for Lennox.

Good God, this is getting beyond ridiculous. Jeffries is a nailed on top 10 ATG not because of his talent, but simply because of who he beat. There is a world of difference between the talent then and the talents of Lewis Holy et al. To even consider a match-up between Jeffries and Lewis et al as being near competitive is allowing nostalgia to get the better of sound judgement.

As has been mentioned (not by me) he lewis et al have better fundermentals. With all the will in the world, Jeffries would not have a hope in hell of winning let alone being competitive.

It would be a massacre. Skill at the level of Lewis et al will trump all the will Jeffries brings to this fight. Its not even competitive to be considered a good fight. Who said you cant bring a baseball bat into a gun fight. This is a perfect example of that.

azania wrote:Good God, this is getting beyond ridiculous. Jeffries is a nailed on top 10 ATG not because of his talent, but simply because of who he beat. There is a world of difference between the talent then and the talents of Lewis Holy et al. To even consider a match-up between Jeffries and Lewis et al as being near competitive is allowing nostalgia to get the better of sound judgement.

As has been mentioned (not by me) he lewis et al have better fundermentals. With all the will in the world, Jeffries would not have a hope in hell of winning let alone being competitive.

It would be a massacre. Skill at the level of Lewis et al will trump all the will Jeffries brings to this fight. Its not even competitive to be considered a good fight. Who said you cant bring a baseball bat into a gun fight. This is a perfect example of that.

The only ridiculous element in this discussion is your arbitrarily drawing a line at some point in history and asserting that anybody beneath that line is talentless.

It wouldn't be so bad if you were to offer reasons even remotely related to boxing, but you never do. It is particularly irksome since it is patently obvious that you know precious little about the fighters being discussed.

Why don't you stick to your nice, shiny Mike Tyson boxed set ?

azania wrote:Good God, this is getting beyond ridiculous. Jeffries is a nailed on top 10 ATG not because of his talent, but simply because of who he beat. There is a world of difference between the talent then and the talents of Lewis Holy et al. To even consider a match-up between Jeffries and Lewis et al as being near competitive is allowing nostalgia to get the better of sound judgement.

As has been mentioned (not by me) he lewis et al have better fundermentals. With all the will in the world, Jeffries would not have a hope in hell of winning let alone being competitive.

It would be a massacre. Skill at the level of Lewis et al will trump all the will Jeffries brings to this fight. Its not even competitive to be considered a good fight. Who said you cant bring a baseball bat into a gun fight. This is a perfect example of that.

That's the beauty of it Az, we all have opinions. Not sure how you can be so authoritative about the outcome though. Jeffries was a supremely fit, hard punching and durable guy with underrated skills, characteristics that surely stand the test of time. I am willing to concede that over 12 rounds then things become a little tougher to say with conviction, but over 25 rounds, why would Lewis or Holyfield be such overwhelming favourites. If Jeffries can take the best they can offer early, which I think he could, then why can't he break them down over a longer distance.

Value your imput though.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Good God, this is getting beyond ridiculous. Jeffries is a nailed on top 10 ATG not because of his talent, but simply because of who he beat. There is a world of difference between the talent then and the talents of Lewis Holy et al. To even consider a match-up between Jeffries and Lewis et al as being near competitive is allowing nostalgia to get the better of sound judgement.

As has been mentioned (not by me) he lewis et al have better fundermentals. With all the will in the world, Jeffries would not have a hope in hell of winning let alone being competitive.

It would be a massacre. Skill at the level of Lewis et al will trump all the will Jeffries brings to this fight. Its not even competitive to be considered a good fight. Who said you cant bring a baseball bat into a gun fight. This is a perfect example of that.

The only ridiculous element in this discussion is your arbitrarily drawing a line at some point in history and asserting that anybody beneath that line is talentless.

It wouldn't be so bad if you were to offer reasons even remotely related to boxing, but you never do. It is particularly irksome since it is patently obvious that you know precious little about the fighters being discussed.

Why don't you stick to your nice, shiny Mike Tyson boxed set ?

No windy, I haven't drawn an arbitrary line and have NEVER said they were talentless. Guys in Jeffries didn't have the fundermentals that came later. Look at the thread. Damnit he was taught to stop using the crouch because a new technique was developed. What does that tell you about their fundermentals. They were still learning what a jab, uppercut and a check hook was.

I am not being disengenuous just plain practical and factual. On the contrary, making those guys to be something they are not is plain wrong. What they wer enot is skilled enough to handle Lewis and Holy. It simply would not be competitive as a contest. If it went 3 rounds I would be amazed.

Different times, different eras. Boxing has moved on from then. You can quote Nat Fleisher, Abe, Jesus and Moses and whoever saw them fight live. It is simply inconceivable that they can compete with what came 20 years later.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

azania wrote:Good God, this is getting beyond ridiculous. Jeffries is a nailed on top 10 ATG not because of his talent, but simply because of who he beat. There is a world of difference between the talent then and the talents of Lewis Holy et al. To even consider a match-up between Jeffries and Lewis et al as being near competitive is allowing nostalgia to get the better of sound judgement.

As has been mentioned (not by me) he lewis et al have better fundermentals. With all the will in the world, Jeffries would not have a hope in hell of winning let alone being competitive.

It would be a massacre. Skill at the level of Lewis et al will trump all the will Jeffries brings to this fight. Its not even competitive to be considered a good fight. Who said you cant bring a baseball bat into a gun fight. This is a perfect example of that.

That's the beauty of it Az, we all have opinions. Not sure how you can be so authoritative about the outcome though. Jeffries was a supremely fit, hard punching and durable guy with underrated skills, characteristics that surely stand the test of time. I am willing to concede that over 12 rounds then things become a little tougher to say with conviction, but over 25 rounds, why would Lewis or Holyfield be such overwhelming favourites. If Jeffries can take the best they can offer early, which I think he could, then why can't he break them down over a longer distance.

Value your imput though.

You value my imput???? You must have been hit very hard.

Their skills are not under-rated. Many here over-rate their skills. These guys barely know what a jab was to be honest. They thought feignting was passing out and duck was a bird that swam.

You can maje the fight 45 rounds, it wouldn't get past 3. Lewis et al are simply too skilled, strong, big and hit too hard for the impregnable Jeffries. He wouoldn't know what hit him and where it came from.

These guys were not freaks of nature. They were better than average toughmen. When boxing developed as a sport skills improved. These guys set the blueprint and others who came later improved on it.

rowley wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Right, this was my first ever thread, a serious piece about a giant of the sport and now you guys are just ruining it.

I am off to start a thread about PED's.

Write one that can be dragged round to some tenuous Manny reference if you want to see a thread ruined. Count yourself lucky you did not ask which modern fighter would do best over 25 rounds, that would have been all the opportunity some would have needed.

rowley you should know better than that. ANY thread can be dragged kicking & screaming round to THAT character...

Jeffries is overrated if he is in the top ten. Fitz was a middleweight, Corbet, Sharkey would have been light heavies today and even Jackson would not be a big heavy by todays standards.

A guy weighing around 220lbs, should be beating guys like that.

Did the guy make a huge ammount of defences?
Did he regain the heavyweight title after losing it?
Did he beat other true great heavyweight champions?


Can't see how the guy can get into the top tep when he fought in a weak era hand only had a handful of fights.

azania wrote:Damnit he was taught to stop using the crouch because a new technique was developed.

No, he wasn't.

He was advised to shun the crouch because Fitzsimmons believed that he was shipping unnecesaary punishment by using it. Other techniques were already established, and Jeffries' adopting a new technique was no different to Joe Frazier's abandoning the upright, jab - reliant style of his early pro career in favour of the bob and weave taught to him by Futch.

At the very least, acquaint yourself with the facts before trashing the opinions of others.

"It is simply inconceivable that they can compete with what came 20 years later."

****************************************************************************

Az, where does this start and stop though? Can Vitali be competitive with Larry Holmes? Of course he can. Can Holmes be competitive with Ali in 1964. Of course he can. Could Jeffries be competitive with Joe Louis? The point goes on.

Over Jeffries rules, and 25 rounds, then why is it so inconceivable that Jeff would be competitive. What magic shot or combination does Lewis throw that blasts Jeff out of there? If he doesn't, he is history.

D4thincarnation wrote:
Did he beat other true great heavyweight champions?

He might have been disadvantaged in this regard by there having been only three heavyweight champions, ( of whom he beat two, twice each, ) before him, don't you think ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Damnit he was taught to stop using the crouch because a new technique was developed.

No, he wasn't.

He was advised to shun the crouch because Fitzsimmons believed that he was shipping unnecesaary punishment by using it. Other techniques were already established, and Jeffries' adopting a new technique was no different to Joe Frazier's abandoning the upright, jab - reliant style of his early pro career in favour of the bob and weave taught to him by Futch.

At the very least, acquaint yourself with the facts before trashing the opinions of others.

More upright style. Yep, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Those techniques were just established and being improved up. I cant believe that a boxer suddenly decides to do something no-one has ever done before and all of a sudden he becomes an expert in which no-one since has been able t equal. Pure nonsense.

D4thincarnation wrote:

Did he beat other true great heavyweight champions?



This is what happens when someone goes swimming out of their depth. Back to the Pacquiao threads, then. Although why do I have a feeling that this was mere preparation for somehow turning a thread about a heavyweight from a century ago into yet another encomium in praise of the Filipino phenom?