Who would you rate higher : Tim Witherspoon or Jim Jeffries ?

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Witherspoon has a better resume than Hart.

A subjective interpretation at best, which prety much brackets Witherspoon.

I don't know whether they were the best or not.
I am quite happy to accept that they were the best around .

But I'd like to know how and why Corbett (0 wins in 6 years) could be among the top contenders ?

Everyone here with their knowledge of boxing should be able to see that there's something wrong with that picture.

Because Jeffries had prety much worked through everybody else.

Subsequent results suggest that Corbett probably was as good as could have been managed.

Also, the fact that Jeffries struggled somewhat with these older, smaller, often inactive opponents should be open to criticism.

Champions who genuinely fight the best around, have problems with somebody, even in a weak era.

So in summary, I disagree.

It's okay saying he beat everyone around, but look who was around and look how he performed against them.

Again, even in a weak era there should be somebody around who can give you some problems. Witherspoon's era wasn't exactly the strongest there has ever been, so why didn't he benefit from the weakness of the era in the same way that Jeffries did?

Further to that, it is only in hindsight that anybody regards Jeffries era as a weak era. Up to the mid war period, it was taken as a given that Jeffries had the best title reign of any champion before Louis, and that he dominated one of the stronger eras.

[edward morbius]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Arguably he was the best from 1983 to 1984, or at least for a few months in 1984. He lost a disputed decision to Holmes, then beat Tillis and Page (who Holmes didn't want to fight), while Larry was feasting on Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier.

AND during 1986, while Spinks and Berbick were his rival title-holders.

"Spinks and Berbick"

You rate them above Tyson?

"Tillis"

Beating Tillis makes you #1?

I think it kind of a spectacular stretch to consider Witherspoon ever the best heavyweight in the world.

[Unforgiven]

"struggled" "had a hard time putting him away"

It is interesting that victories, and in some cases ko victories, are being downplayed in favor of losses. The criticism of Jeff is yeah he won, and beat them all, but he didn't win decisively enough. But very few in history beat them all, and none did it without struggling now and then.

Objectively, struggling for 23 rounds to put away an older, significantly smaller man, who hasn't won a fight in 6 years and has been KO'd and beaten up by smaller men in that time, IS WORTHY OF CRITICISM.

And, yes, losing a close decision to an active champion of a big, strong, "live" young contender may in fact be a more worthy performance.

Witherspoon lost many of his major fights even at his peak.

He lost 3 fights in his prime years.

L12 Holmes (disputed decision, against excellent active champion)

L12 Thomas (close but clear loss to strong young contender)

LTKO1 Smith (bad result, awful performance against a tremendous puncher who he had dominated in a previous encounter)

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by edward morbius

"Spinks and Berbick"

You rate them above Tyson?

Before Tyson beat Berbick, yes.
Everyone did.

"Tillis"

Beating Tillis makes you #1?

No.

Many would argue that Witherspoon beat Holmes.

I think it kind of a spectacular stretch to consider Witherspoon ever the best heavyweight in the world.

But several people did.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Not his fault at all.
But he struggled with a couple of them, quite severely, when he seemed to have all the advantages.
That should make people question this supposed "reign of dominance", but apparently not.



And can anyone explain how and why Corbett - who hadn't won a fight in 6 years, and had been KO'd and beaten up in the mean time - managed to be viewed in such a way ?
It beggar's belief.

What's worse is that Jeffries had a really hard time putting him away.

I am not disagreeing with you ,just trying to look at it as it was viewed or,as I imagine it was viewed at the time.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by mcvey

I am not disagreeing with you ,just trying to look at it as it was viewed or,as I imagine it was viewed at the time.

Yeah, and I'm putting the question out to everyone on the thread.

Can anyone explain how Corbett was considered a top, logical contender on the back off 6 years win-less and two serious defeats ?

[edward morbius]

"he lost three fights in his prime years"

Three more than Jeffries lost.

"significantly smaller man"

This doesn't matter. This man was heavyweight champion for five years.

"WORTHY OF CRITICISM"

But how worthy? He won decisively in the end. Great old fighters sometimes pull it together for a last hurrah. Perhaps Corbett did. Be that as it may, Jeff did not lose as Witherspoon did, nor did he let it go to the judgement of an official.

And it speaks volumes that the focus of criticism is on a Jeffries ko victory over a former champion.

[edward morbius]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Yeah, and I'm putting the question out to everyone on the thread.

Can anyone explain how Corbett was considered a top, logical contender on the back off 6 years win-less and two serious defeats ?

How was Foreman, coming off a loss to Tommy Morrison?

But Foreman won.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by edward morbius

How was Foreman, coming off a loss to Tommy Morrison?

But Foreman won.

Foreman wasn't considered a top contender for Moorer.
It was largely considered a cynical match-up.

The fact that Foreman somehow won doesn't change the fact that he was an undeserving contender.
If Moorer had won, no one would have congratulated him on 'beginning to clean out the current contenders'.

[Seamus]

Unforgiven, are you possibly hinting that times were different in the 1983 than they were in 1900?

Perish the thought.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Yeah, and I'm putting the question out to everyone on the thread.

Can anyone explain how Corbett was considered a top, logical contender on the back off 6 years win-less and two serious defeats ?

Childs, Klondike, or Martin would seem to have been as least as qualified as Corbett in 1900, but of course they lacked one crucial qualification.

[bodhi]

Unforgiven pulling a PP here.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Childs, Klondike, or Martin would seem to have been as least as qualified as Corbett in 1900, but of course they lacked one crucial qualification.

Martin wasn't realy seen as a top contender until a bit later. Klondike was never realy seen as being world class anyway.

The top black contenders around the time of the first Corbett fight were George Byers, Frank Childs and Bob Armstrong.

Its not hard to see how an inactive Corbett was seen as abetter bet.

[Colonel Sanders]

Originally Posted by Pachilles

Tubbs, Smith, Page and Bruno are superior H2H heavyweights than any middleweight Jeffries beat. And the WBA World Heavyweight Title is superior to the White North American Title

Originally Posted by edward morbius

I think the major points have been made.

"Jeffries dominated an era, while Witherspoon was just a contender"

Janitor puts his finger on the bottom line here.

In terms of historical greatness, this is no contest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about head to head?

For me it is a meaningless criteria, and becoming more meaningless year by year as the sizes of modern athletes explode.

Probably any ordinary, even losing, modern NFL team could beat the 1960's Packers who won five championships (and whose largest player was 260 lbs) and any ordinary, even losing, NBA team could handle the Celtics of the 1950's & 1960's who won 11 titles in 13 years (and whose tallest regular was Bill Russell, at about 6' 9.5").

A criteria which places mediocrity in one's own time over greatness in the distant past is useless to me.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by janitor

Martin wasn't realy seen as a top contender until a bit later. Klondike was never realy seen as being world class anyway.

The top black contenders around the time of the first Corbett fight were George Byers, Frank Childs and Bob Armstrong.

Its not hard to see how an inactive Corbett was seen as abetter bet.

The 1900 Corbett might have had his work cut out with any of the top black guys.