Jim Jeffries v George Foreman

I actually give the second incarnation of Foreman a better chance because of how he ultilized his jab. He could bust Big Jeff up with that weapon. The younger Foreman probably still wins but also has a chance of gassing out. However, I think the more likely outcome if Foreman by doctor stoppage due to facial cuts.

 

2 of the most overrated HWs in history but Foreman fought in a none semi-pro era with a deeper talent pool. Foreman would simply brutalise JEffries who would be too easy to hit

 

Can't really call this fight. It was pretty commonly remarked that it was difficult to hit Jeffries in the really critical spots; Foreman could win if he can pull off a few such blows in a short span of time. This might happen, but don't think it's such a sure thing as this thread is allowing.
I'd go for the '1903-'04 Jeffries to meet Foreman, over the '1899/'00 model -- not so given to the croucher, quicker, stonger. A lot of thi fight may come to whether Jim can tie George up.

 

fair question but imo he can't. george is not smart but ridiculously strong

 

Foreman had a good offensive footwork IMO, cutting off the ring pretty well when focused and in good shape......Jeffries wouldn´t try to box with him (and if he would, Foreman´s jab was pretty decent to me).....this fight would be brutal, but I think it´s fair to say that Foreman is the harder hitter and durable enough......
I like Foreman in this one in 15 rounds......he would win because the first part of the bout......
Put this a 20 round bout and I have to say it´s hard to call....

 

Foreman ,at the age of 42 went 12 fast rounds with prime Holyfield , without once sitting down ,did he develop stamina ,once he was past 40?

If you can bring yourself to address it?
Ask yourself ,in what areas is Jeffries superior to Foreman?
You then have the answer to who wins this fight

 

Jim Jeffries could compete in modern boxing?Yes.Jack Dempsey always rated Jeffries as the best heavyweight fighter of all time,and you can see that Dempsey's style of fighting wasnt primitive at all,it was emulated by a very sucessfull Mike Tyson.My guess is this fight goes to decision with Foreman winning it,only because Jeffries stance was low like a Joe Frazier.

 

Absolutely. He would do great against today's middleweights, just like he did in 1900.

 

How anyone can pick jeffries is simply amazing.

Yes the guy achieved greatness but he's up against big george and it's a complete mismatch.

 

Possibly quite a lot.

Durability

Stamina

Deffence

Footwork

Handspeed

Technical boxing ability

You might just have your answer right there!

 

Handspeed is not difficult to believe.....possibly true....
Stamina is probably unquestionable......

I´m not sure about footwork.....because IMO, Foreman had a good offensive footwork.....
Technical boxing ability is hard to say without more footage, and because technical ability is quite a subjective point also...

Anyway, no way this is a complete mismatch like Luf said.....

 

Good point.

Foreman had some of the best offensive footwork in the buisiness, while Jeffries seems to have made better use of footwork defensivley.

Boxing ability is of course hard to prove, but Jeffries seems to have upped his game in this department latterly.

 

In the close range with a old timer referee I can see Jeffries being more skilled in the clinchs, perhaps......
Obviously even so this would be very hard because Foreman was too strong......

Like I said, I really like Foreman in this one.....but with the right circumstances for Jim he would be able to win this fight.....in my view...

 

Can someone tell me which hw jeffries ever beat to convince people he could beat foreman?

Or which hw foreman lost to to convince people that he could lose to jeffries?

Mismatch is the only word.