Jim Jeffries v George Foreman

Because the 1970 Foreman was better than the 1970 Quarry? Or is it a styles issue?

 

He boxed better against Chuvalo than he did against Ali.
I think Foreman's added confidence actually ******ed the limited skills he was developing. He certainly didn't get noticeably better.

I agree.

Bonavena's style might have suited Foreman better.

It just takes me to a review of it and a picture of the front cover, and says no ebook version available.
Perhaps because I'm in the UK ?

 

It's a style issue to some extent, definitely. I think Foreman benefited from that in several fights. His whole career (both of 'em) smacks of it.

But Chuvalo was of good enough quality to be a decent guage of a fighter's ability too.
Foreman rightly deserved to be rated among the Quarrys and Bonavenas with his win over Chuvalo.
Even his performances against Peralta don't make him a level below Oscar and Jerry. It's not as if those guys never struggled either.
Foreman was well on his way to being the man who whipped Frazier and Norton.

I'm not saying he beats Bonavena in 1970, but it surely isn't ridiculous to say he does.

 

Here's the Google U.K. version. It's page 48:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bonavena&f=false

 

"I asked when did the last lightheavy POWERPUNCHER invade and control the heavyweight division."

I don't think any ever did. Fitz is most impressive, ko'ing Corbett, Sharkey, Maher, Ruhlin, etc, but as Legend X pointed out, he didn't sustain and couldn't handle Jeffries. Although rare, some lightheavies carried their power up. Satterfield ko'd Williams and Baker. Spinks ko'd Cooney. Toney ko'd Holyfield. Conn ko'd Pastor.

But many lightheavies have outboxed heavies.

"when did a slick boxing-type go after a low-hanging fruit beltholder and immediately retreat into retirement"

Other than that low-hanging fruit bit, I would say Tunney

"Toney and Holyfield"

Well, Toney ko'd Holyfield, something Foreman, Tyson, Lewis, Rahman, and Valuev failed to do. Hard to see how this proves Toney couldn't punch as a heavy.

Peter--Toney was 38 fighting a 26 year old man. It appears to me he was just growing old.

**It seems to me fair to say that Fitz's ability to consistently ko top heavies is so unusual it explains why oldtimers held him in such high esteem. You are trying to push him into a "conventional niche" and he will just never fit. Fitz was sui generis.

****"juiced to the gills"--This sounds like gawking at a flock of a few thousand birds and singling one out for having feathers.

 

Just to expand--in my estimation, no lightheavy ever dominated the heavyweight division.

The dominant heavyweights were

Jeffries--215-220
Johnson--205-220
Dempsey--190*--but only the white section
Louis--200-210
Marciano--185
Ali--210-225
Frazier--205*--Perhaps disputable, but I would say 1968-1972
Holmes--210-225
Lewis--240
Klitschkos--240+

Marciano (and Dempsey if counted) are by far the smallest. None should be considered lightheavies.

The smaller guys

Fitz--ko'd Corbett, but never successfully defended his title and was stopped by Jeff.
Burns--paper champ between Jeff & Johnson-Never best fighter
Tunney--defeated Dempsey & almost immediately retired.
Schmeling--short reign, but one of better small men
Charles--sustained perhaps the best, but eventually failed against Walcott & Marciano.
Patterson--champ a fairly long time, but part of this was due to rarely meeting best contenders.
Spinks--with win against Holmes, and successful defenses against Holmes and Cooney, perhaps the most successful of the lightheavies overall.
Jones--wins title against "low-hanging fruit" beltholder and then goes back.
Byrd--I think never the best man out there, but a solid contender quite a while.

 

Toney stopped a 41 years old facsimile of Holyfield.

The difference here is all these men gained weight to compete among the heavies, Fitz did not.

 

I think he looked just a tiny bit better when he edged past joe frazier

 

I agree, although he wasn't really utilising the jab like in the Chuvalo fight he paced himself well, threw short tight punches and didn't go into that 'frenzy' after he had Frazier hurt like against Chuvalo.

 

Wow, this thread just keeps going and going ... funny because to me there is so little of Jeffries to go on as far as actually footage and against large opponents ... maybe he has speed and movement to survive George ... however we have zero to go on ...

 

I was reading the NY Times of July 5, 1910 on the Johnson-Jeffries fight, and come this extremely interesting tidbit from the AP report on the fight.
----------------------------------------------------------

"Stand up and fight, you coward," yelled Corbett as Johnson tucked away a body blow in the ninth.
"Just wait," said Jack. He waited for a lead, and then put a hard left to the body, but Jeffries stopped it with his glove. As the round ended he hit Johnson in the ribs in a way that was not relished. After this round, George Little, Johnson's ex-manager, placed several hundred dollars at 10 to 9 on Jeffries
-----------------------------------------------------------------

*I have no comment, except that it is interesting that Little was putting down money at odds on Jeffries after the ninth.

 

Things I learned today from ESB Classic Board:

Weight Divisions are a meaningless construct.

 

Weight matters some of course, but so do styles, and the strengths and weakness of the fighters. Can a light hitting sub 215 pound man beat a bigger puncher? If the puncher has stamina and skills problems, and was never fast, the answer is yes.


Example: Jimmy Young ( who really was not that fast, and had little power ) drew with Shavers when he was only 200.5 pounds. At 209 when he gave Ali a very close fight, 210 when he defeated Lyle, and 213 when he defeated Foreman. Looking at Young's build, he was better off around 195-205.