Jim Jeffries v George Foreman

And had he been i'd rate james a hell of a lot higher.

I do agree with you. They were the men to beat and jeffries did beat them. But you have to appreciate there is a world of difference between facing fitz, corbett or sharkey and facing foreman, bowe or lewis.

It seems a bit autistic saying "he beat the top contender so he could always beat the top contender".

As I say, his greatness isn't in question, it's how he matches up with the champions that came after him considering the huge majority of said champions are much bigger than the guys james beat.

 

How many ATGs have actualy faced a prime Foreman Bowe or Lewis?

Jeffries was essentialy beating the type of challengers that were available to every ATG prior to the 70s.

Fitz, Corbett and Sharkey all got their contender status by beating the best men over 200lbs.

I have never said that, but I will insist that beating the top contender always trumps beating a bigger guy who was never the top contender.

Again, we have this obsesion with the size of the guys he beat!

There were pleanty of big fighters in Jeffries era.

Would it mean a lot to you if he had beaten Denver Ed Martin or Sandy Ferguson, instead of Bob Fitzsimmons who was the top challenger?

 

Frazier, ali, holyfield and tyson.

It's about stylistic comparison. Jeffries hasn't remotely faced anyone who can remotely match foreman stylistically.

I agree, ofcourse it's better to beat the top contender. Greatness is much more important than a hypothetical never to happen fight.

Size is the reason we have weight classes. None of jeffries top victories would be in today's hw division.

Why pick them when johnson was waiting in the wings? Or hart?

James retired in his prime and hadn't fought a range of styles. He could have continued had he so desired.

 

I agree with Janitor that the size of opposition argument is tricky. Not fighting a big man is not at all the same as not being able to defeat one. Dempsey and Louis had highly rated giants to fight. Jeff and Marciano did not. But the big fellows did not give Dempsey or Louis their toughest fights. Smaller men well within the range of the best opponents Jeff and Marciano fought were also the toughest for Louis and Dempsey.

*The best analogy I can think of is from the natural world. Cougars in North America prey on wapiti and moose, which might weigh 1000 lb for the wapiti to 1400 for the moose. The largest prey of the jaguar is the tapir, peaking at about 700 lbs. It doesn't follow at all that a jaguar wouldn't prey on the wapiti or moose if it shared range with them.

Lack of evidence is not proof. One has to be careful how far this logic is pushed.

 

No, it is not an obsession with size. That is only half the equation. It is when size and skill are combined.

Ed Dunkhorst, Ed Dunkhorst, Ed Dunkhorst... there, I written your rebuttal for you.

 

Edward.

Ofcourse it isn't proof.

Who knows, maybe james would beat foreman, we'll never know.

I'd just be reluctant to pick him based on his career in respect to foreman's.

 

One thing to ponder here is guys like Peter Jackson ( 195 ), Tom Sharkey ( 183 ), and Jim Corbett ( 188 ), and Ruhlin ( 200 ) had a very low body fat percentage on them. And they had to as the fights were often scheduled past 20 rounds.

Many of Foreman's best opponents in the 70's had higher percentage of body fat on them. If they were trimmer and trained as hard as the old timers did, or fought under the same conditions, I believe many of Foreman's best opponents would weight 10-20 pounds less. Was Frazier better at 215 or 200-205? 200-205 clearly.

 

Kennedy had a known record of 10-3-3 when Jeffries Ko'd him in two.

Ah, then by the same logic Langford was a middle weight, and Jeannette, a super middle weight when Johnson beat them.

Baker lost twice in 10 listed matches, once via Ko to Jeffries, the other via DQ. Is 1 clear defeat in 10 vs. a hall of fame guy a " ham and egger "?

 

No they didn't you're trying to spin but it's not selling, you can see certain things at low bodyfat levels, ie abbs and stirations in the muscle. None were below 10% bodyfat and none had a lower bodyfat than Norton for example who had very low bodyfat

 

[quote=Mendoza;12482654]Kennedy had a known record of 10-3-3 when Jeffries Ko'd him in two.

And this has to do with Kennedy fighting Van Buskirk precisely what?:huh


Ah, then by the same logic Langford was a middle weight, and Jeannette, a super middle weight when Johnson beat them.

Langford was a middleweight when he fought Johnson,who has attempted to say anything different?

I don't accept Jeannette's version of events, and the scales in his previous ,and subsequent fights support my opinion.


Baker lost twice in 10 listed matches, once via Ko to Jeffries, the other via DQ. Is 1 clear defeat in 10 vs. a hall of fame guy a " ham and egger "?[/quote]

Baker had 21 fights, and won just 6 of them , his ko % is under 10%.

He was kod by159lbs Butler 2 fights before he fought Jeffries.

Baker came in between 170-175lbs.


Yes , he was a light heavyweight ham & egger.

 

Jackson probably had a low % of body fat, alcoholism ,and tuberculosis will do that to you.

Sharkey had more fights under ,and around 180lbs than he did over it.

Likewise Corbett was prime around 178/180lbs.

 

Foreman's pre-title opponents of Chuvalo and Peralta were possibly better than anyone Jeffries beat. Most concede that all sports progressed from 1900-1970