Jeffries vs Schmeling who is greater

I'm not confused.
The only thing I was really disagreeing with was that "Fitz was probably a cruiserweight" for the Jeffries fight.
Or the idea (not necessarily yours) that he was routinely 180-something pounds or above the 175 mark. I tend to doubt it. That's all.

Of course they don't have to.
But if they do something like that, it enhances the point to an inescapable degree.

:good

No, but if he's bigger than some of the guys I thought he was smaller than, then, yeah, it would make me reduce his rating.

 

Imo, he probably weighed about 180.

He gave away weight to a great hw and almost defeated him.

He spent 13 years as the best boxer on the planet.

The difference between him weighing 170 or 180 for his hw career is negligible imo. There are no recorded weights so any guess is as good as the other.
The guy's legacy is signed, sealed and delivered.

 

A Fitz weighing somewhere in the 170's puts him at about the same size as Conn, and Conn gave a prime Louis a terrific fight. (There is a claim that Conn weighed 169 for that fight, but I don't credit it).

I agree that Fitz's remarkable legacy p4p is not affected by whether his weight was 170 or 180 something. He is still much smaller than Jeffries.

*There is also a bit of a sleight of hand being done on this thread about the weights of Jeff and his opponents. His opponents are being dismissed as small because they were so much lighter than Jeffries. They are actually about an averaged-sized pre-1960's group of heavies (excepting perhaps Choynski and maybe Fitz)

But even Fitz and Choynski were certainly in the size ballpark of heavyweight champions and contenders such as Burns, Flynn, Ketchel, Carpentier, Gibbons, Greb, Walker, and Conn. Dempsey was knocked down 9 times by Sudenberg, who was smaller than Choynski. Yes, it was early in Jack's career, but Choynski was early in Jeff's career.

Max Schmeling at 6' 1" and about 190 was around the same size exactly as Corbett, and shorter or lighter than Armstrong, Jackson, Ruhlin, and several others of Jeff's opposition. He would probably have to give up around 30 lbs to Jeff.

***and also Apollack's input, off his extensive research, further weakens this obsession with size. If you are dealing with a fantasy fight with modern heavies, there might be something here. Dealing with a fantasy match with a 1930's opponent (or the 1920's to 1950's) I don't think there is anything at all. Jeffries would have been huge compared to the 1950's champions.

 

Yeah, and he was knocked out by Jeffries.

It's the 'heavier' men he beat that become an issue if Fitz was actually as big as them.

 

Speaking for myself, personally, I don't have an obssession with the size of Jeffries' opponents or disregard what he did for beating "smaller men" ...... BUT when people are quick to raise such a claim as "Schmeling didn't beat a prime Joe Louis", it's worth remarking that the size and AGE of Jeffries' best opponents is far more relevant and accurate and fair point to raise.
Joe Louis is 1936 was possibly better than anyone Jeffries beat by quite some way, and Schmeling beat other fighters who were good too.

 

About a "prime" Joe Louis.

You are talking to the wrong man here. I agree with you. There are posters playing games with prime as well as with weight.

Schmeling deserves credit for beating a prime Joe Louis.

*My point concerning this fight is it seems out of the ballpark from Schmeling's otherwise good but not outstanding career. The best analogy I can think of is Buster Douglas. Jeff had the much better overall career.

 

Every Jefferies thread is the same ... you either consider him a neanderthal, a dancing hippo who feasted on ancient, tiny stiffs or you give him credit for his strength, toughness, stamina and underrated speed ... there are little in betweens ...

 

Fitz should get a lot more credit than he does for his second loosing effort against Jeffries.

He was 39, heavily outweighed, and fighting the greatest heavyweight of all time who was coming into his prime.

Fitz completely reinvented his style to frustrate Jeffries, and gave him the toughest fight of his career.

 

One other point.

If Ring Magazine had kept a p4p top ten, late in Jeffries career, he would probably have made the list!

 

One argument which has been made on this thread which I have been thinking about and really disagree with is that Schmeling's biggest win is bigger than any by Jeffries and therefore Schmeling deserves to be ranked ahead of Jeffries despite his many poor performances.

Who thinks Randy Turpin deserves to be ranked ahead of Carlos Monzon? The fact is beating an exceptional fighter does not prove the winner is himself an exceptional fighter. Witness Turpin, Douglas, and, yes, Schmeling. It is worth pointing out that Jeffries did not lose to Louis, nor Monzon to Robinson. We might think they would, but the losses to Turpin and Schmeling seem as much due to an off night by the great fighters as any intrinsic "greatness" on the part of the winners, the rest of whose careers were spotty.

 

Of course Schmeling has the best win of the two, but then he probably would if you put him in the same room as Muhamad Ali.

It dosn't in and of itself make him grater.

 

Terrific point ..

 

Not impossible.

I suspect that Joe Gans or Joe Walcott would have occupied that lofty position.