Was James j jeffries one of the greatest?

[solidman]

This guy was a great champion reigning for about 6 years. Its a shame that the only footage we have of him is the Johnson fight.

[Dr Z]

As one of the few old timers with size and power ( most were clumsy types ) Jeffries stands alone as was a top athlete gifted with a great chin and heart. Decnet agility, super strong and with 25+ round stamina.

He was only defeated in his prime only losing one fight where he had not fought a match in six years, had to lose 80 pounds to get into " shape " and was fighting one of the best or the best fighters around in 1910.


He beat several HOF fighters and acted like a champion by fighting the top five around while he was active.

Unfortunately there is no clear film of Jeffries fighting in the ring, but there is a good & clear 1901 sparring / training video of him where he shows excellent footspeed, the ability for defense where he wanted to be defensive, and his strength in the clinches.

It speaks for itself. You be the judge. In the 50's there was something called the Macallum survey of 12 boxing histrons which included Nat Fleischer. In the survey Jeffries came out #1 over Sullivan, Fitzsimmons, Johnson, Demspey and Louis. But as the men died off and with little film of Jeffries in the ring, his reputation was mostly silenced and unseen.


- Dr. Z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaP6Nulceik





This is one reply I got to the above:

James J. Jeffries was indeed a remarkable figure in boxing history, often overlooked due to the lack of clear fight footage. The 1901 sparring/training video you mentioned showcases his athleticism—impressive foot speed, defensive skills, and raw power in clinches. His physical attributes, like size, strength, and stamina for 25+ rounds, set him apart in an era where many heavyweights lacked such agility.

Jeffries’ record speaks volumes: he defeated multiple Hall of Fame fighters and consistently took on top contenders during his active years. His only loss in his prime, against Jack Johnson in 1910, came under extraordinary circumstances—six years of inactivity, drastic weight loss, and facing a peak Johnson, arguably the best of the era. The Macallum survey from the 1950s, backed by experts like Nat Fleischer, ranking Jeffries above legends like Sullivan, Fitzsimmons, Dempsey, and Louis, underscores his dominance in the eyes of those who saw or studied him closely.

The scarcity of fight film and the passage of time have dimmed his legacy, but the available evidence—his record, the sparring footage, and contemporary accounts—paints a picture of a versatile, powerful champion. If you’re digging into his legacy, the video is a solid starting point to appreciate his skill set.

-G

[solidman]

As one of the few old timers with size and power ( most were clumsy types ) Jeffries stands alone as was a top athlete gifted with a great chin and heart. Decnet agility, super strong and with 25+ round stamina.

He was only defeated in his prime only losing one fight where he had not fought a match in six years, had to lose 80 pounds to get into " shape " and was fighting one of the best or the best fighters around in 1910.


He beat several HOF fighters and acted like a champion by fighting the top five around while he was active.

Unfortunately there is no clear film of Jeffries fighting in the ring, but there is a good & clear 1901 sparring / training video of him where he shows excellent footspeed, the ability for defense where he wanted to be defensive, and his strength in the clinches.

It speaks for itself. You be the judge. In the 50's there was something called the Macallum survey of 12 boxing histrons which included Nat Fleischer. In the survey Jeffries came out #1 over Sullivan, Fitzsimmons, Johnson, Demspey and Louis. But as the men died off and with little film of Jeffries in the ring, his reputation was mostly silenced and unseen.


- Dr. Z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaP6Nulceik





This is one reply I got to the above:

James J. Jeffries was indeed a remarkable figure in boxing history, often overlooked due to the lack of clear fight footage. The 1901 sparring/training video you mentioned showcases his athleticism—impressive foot speed, defensive skills, and raw power in clinches. His physical attributes, like size, strength, and stamina for 25+ rounds, set him apart in an era where many heavyweights lacked such agility.

Jeffries’ record speaks volumes: he defeated multiple Hall of Fame fighters and consistently took on top contenders during his active years. His only loss in his prime, against Jack Johnson in 1910, came under extraordinary circumstances—six years of inactivity, drastic weight loss, and facing a peak Johnson, arguably the best of the era. The Macallum survey from the 1950s, backed by experts like Nat Fleischer, ranking Jeffries above legends like Sullivan, Fitzsimmons, Dempsey, and Louis, underscores his dominance in the eyes of those who saw or studied him closely.

The scarcity of fight film and the passage of time have dimmed his legacy, but the available evidence—his record, the sparring footage, and contemporary accounts—paints a picture of a versatile, powerful champion. If you’re digging into his legacy, the video is a solid starting point to appreciate his skill set.

-G

Thanks for that footage very interesting. I look forward to reading Pollacks book about him.

[Anomalocaris]

As one of the few old timers with size and power ( most were clumsy types ) Jeffries stands alone as was a top athlete gifted with a great chin and heart. Decnet agility, super strong and with 25+ round stamina.

He was only defeated in his prime only losing one fight where he had not fought a match in six years, had to lose 80 pounds to get into " shape " and was fighting one of the best or the best fighters around in 1910.


He beat several HOF fighters and acted like a champion by fighting the top five around while he was active.

Unfortunately there is no clear film of Jeffries fighting in the ring, but there is a good & clear 1901 sparring / training video of him where he shows excellent footspeed, the ability for defense where he wanted to be defensive, and his strength in the clinches.

It speaks for itself. You be the judge. In the 50's there was something called the Macallum survey of 12 boxing histrons which included Nat Fleischer. In the survey Jeffries came out #1 over Sullivan, Fitzsimmons, Johnson, Demspey and Louis. But as the men died off and with little film of Jeffries in the ring, his reputation was mostly silenced and unseen.


- Dr. Z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaP6Nulceik





This is one reply I got to the above:

James J. Jeffries was indeed a remarkable figure in boxing history, often overlooked due to the lack of clear fight footage. The 1901 sparring/training video you mentioned showcases his athleticism—impressive foot speed, defensive skills, and raw power in clinches. His physical attributes, like size, strength, and stamina for 25+ rounds, set him apart in an era where many heavyweights lacked such agility.

Jeffries’ record speaks volumes: he defeated multiple Hall of Fame fighters and consistently took on top contenders during his active years. His only loss in his prime, against Jack Johnson in 1910, came under extraordinary circumstances—six years of inactivity, drastic weight loss, and facing a peak Johnson, arguably the best of the era. The Macallum survey from the 1950s, backed by experts like Nat Fleischer, ranking Jeffries above legends like Sullivan, Fitzsimmons, Dempsey, and Louis, underscores his dominance in the eyes of those who saw or studied him closely.

The scarcity of fight film and the passage of time have dimmed his legacy, but the available evidence—his record, the sparring footage, and contemporary accounts—paints a picture of a versatile, powerful champion. If you’re digging into his legacy, the video is a solid starting point to appreciate his skill set.

-G

I think Jeff is vastly underrated because of a sort of reverse racism.

It's not his fault he born in that period or that Johnson was so hated.

Today he would weigh at least a stone heavier.

One of the very few from that distant era with size, technique, speed and power.

[solidman]

I think Jeff is vastly underrated because of a sort of reverse racism.

It's not his fault he born in that period or that Johnson was so hated.

Today he would weigh at least a stone heavier.

One of the very few from that distant era with size, technique, speed and power.

I'd like to have seen him against Dempsey

[Anomalocaris]

I'd like to have seen him against Dempsey

Jess was not in Jeff's league so all out assault may have been the wrong strategy.

[JAB5239]

I think Jeff is vastly underrated because of a sort of reverse racism.

It's not his fault he born in that period or that Johnson was so hated.

Today he would weigh at least a stone heavier.

One of the very few from that distant era with size, technique, speed and power.

Reverse racism? What does that even mean? Considering he wouldn't give a black fighters a shot at the title says the opposite. Jeffries was great in his day, but nearly everyone he fought was a lot smaller than him. He also had a very short career. You mentioned Nat Fleischer. Did Nat ever even see Jeffries fight or did he just hear these amazing stories from his dad and granddaddy? He was seventeen when Jeffries retired so what does he have to compare him to all time? He may have been at the Johnson fight, but we know what happened there. To me he's a tad bit overrated on an alltime scale. Not sure he even makes the top 20. Right now I'd say Usyk has surpassed him on an all-time great heavyweights list but would have to look at it more closely. Jeffries should still be regarded as a great fighter but there are some real question marks on where exactly to rate him considering his stance on not fighting a colored fighter while defending the title, the small stature of many if not most of his opponents and his short longevity.

[Willie Pep 229]

Reverse racism? What does that even mean? Considering he wouldn't give a black fighters a shot at the title says the opposite. Jeffries was great in his day, but nearly everyone he fought was a lot smaller than him. He also had a very short career. You mentioned Nat Fleischer. Did Nat ever even see Jeffries fight or did he just hear these amazing stories from his dad and granddaddy? He was seventeen when Jeffries retired so what does he have to compare him to all time? He may have been at the Johnson fight, but we know what happened there. To me he's a tad bit overrated on an alltime scale. Not sure he even makes the top 20. Right now I'd say Usyk has surpassed him on an all-time great heavyweights list but would have to look at it more closely. Jeffries should still be regarded as a great fighter but there are some real question marks on where exactly to rate him considering his stance on not fighting a colored fighter while defending the title, the small stature of many if not most of his opponents and his short longevity.

What I believe the above post was trying argue about reverse racism is that all White Champions who fought before 1930 are immediately suspect for not having crossed the color line (even when some did.)

Every HW Champion from John L. Sullivan to Gene Tunney (with Jack Johnson ironically thrown on the list) have had their 'greatest' challenged and diminished, based on the 'color line' theory.

This reverse racism is a contempary issue, not a reference to the original color line. It is a strong bias held, and James J. Jeffries has been a popular target of this groups' wrath.

Racism is such a red flag word and is best avoided.

But I too argue that the 'color-line guys' who post on this forum are driven by a bias that clouds their perception of these early White Champions.

These Champions are not given a fair shake going in. They are discredited before the research even begins.

That is the point I believe he was making.

P.S. Phil should correct me if I misinterpreted his meaning.

[Dr Z]

Reverse racism? What does that even mean? Considering he wouldn't give a black fighters a shot at the title says the opposite. Jeffries was great in his day, but nearly everyone he fought was a lot smaller than him. He also had a very short career. You mentioned Nat Fleischer. Did Nat ever even see Jeffries fight or did he just hear these amazing stories from his dad and granddaddy? He was seventeen when Jeffries retired so what does he have to compare him to all time? He may have been at the Johnson fight, but we know what happened there. To me he's a tad bit overrated on an alltime scale. Not sure he even makes the top 20. Right now I'd say Usyk has surpassed him on an all-time great heavyweights list but would have to look at it more closely. Jeffries should still be regarded as a great fighter but there are some real question marks on where exactly to rate him considering his stance on not fighting a colored fighter while defending the title, the small stature of many if not most of his opponents and his short longevity.

Jeffries did give Hank Griffin ( who was black ) and beat Jack Johnson once, beat him another time, but had to settle for a draw, and drew time in thier final match, a 1901 fight. He was the lineal champion then as such if he lost that fight,Griffin is the next lineal champ.

He also gave Jack Johson a shot at his lineal title in their 1910 fight.

In 1905 Marvin Hart and Jack Johnson fought in an elimination match to meet Jeffries. Hart won. Jeffires said he would fight Hart if there was money and a demand for it. There was not so he retired.

Jeffries considered Johnson for a title match pre 1905 in the press. He also said he would not fight Johnson for the title. Both are true. The color line is complicated if you review it, but one thing is not. This is prize fighting and what a fighter says and what he does can change when MONEY is on the line. That has not changed in 200 years.

Also Jeffries was filmed numerous times. Vs Fitz, Sharkey, Ruhlin, Munore, amd Johnson to name five. I assure you that Nat F did see Jeffires fight. You have to be a fool to say he didn't. He rates Jeffries #2 of all time at heavyweight. Did you know that?

Did you also know there are reported reults if him beating Ed Martin and and Frank Childs who happend to be black in fights?

Reported But Not Conffrimed : Frank Childs KO Kid Cotton KO "Denver" Ed Martin KO


http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/jeffries.htm

[Biledriver]

Reverse racism? What does that even mean? Considering he wouldn't give a black fighters a shot at the title says the opposite. Jeffries was great in his day, but nearly everyone he fought was a lot smaller than him. He also had a very short career. You mentioned Nat Fleischer. Did Nat ever even see Jeffries fight or did he just hear these amazing stories from his dad and granddaddy? He was seventeen when Jeffries retired so what does he have to compare him to all time? He may have been at the Johnson fight, but we know what happened there. To me he's a tad bit overrated on an alltime scale. Not sure he even makes the top 20. Right now I'd say Usyk has surpassed him on an all-time great heavyweights list but would have to look at it more closely. Jeffries should still be regarded as a great fighter but there are some real question marks on where exactly to rate him considering his stance on not fighting a colored fighter while defending the title, the small stature of many if not most of his opponents and his short longevity.

Jeffries had 22 official fights, not counting NCs. That's not enough of a track record to make ATG. He certainly had first rate skills. I have him as a near-great and call it good. If he's overrated it's only because there's a certain segment of the Boxing Scene community desperate to big up every pigmentally challenged fighter they can.