Was James j jeffries one of the greatest?

[Bronson66]

- - Don't need to win when his debut is considerably stronger than both Johnson's debut and actual record vs Griffin, both miserable...

9 wins, 5 against debutees .Totally outclassed by Johnson who allowed him to stay the limit .

Your attempt to get a rise out of me has failed miserably Q.Bless your heart!

[QueensburyRules]

9 wins, 5 against debutees .Totally outclassed by Johnson who allowed him to stay the limit .

Your attempt to get a rise out of me has failed miserably Q.Bless your heart!

- - JJ was originally a weakling. All of a sudden he became superman by beating a 350lb 6 year retired fighter then an alfalfa farmer...priceslessness suits you well here...

[Bronson66]

- - JJ was originally a weakling. All of a sudden he became superman by beating a 350lb 6 year retired fighter then an alfalfa farmer...priceslessness suits you well here...

What a per****acious, erudite, and perceptive post!
Q.You have outdone even your previous best efforts with this post!!

Truly a unique contribution to our humble throng!

[them_apples]

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







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

let me sum this one up:

You think Jeffries is one of the few old timers who can hang simply because he was 225 lbs. Yeah, no - that's got nothing to do with it. You can either fight or you can't.