Best heavyweight Jim Jeffries could beat?

And my point remains-- Tua wold have knocked out most of these men very, very quickly.

 

"On paper" if you ignore tons of relevant information that we know about these fighters, their abilities, and their physical attributes. Not sure why you think that objectivity requires you to pretend that beating 5'10/170-lb men who couldn't jab well or throw combinations is comparable to beating an athletic, skilled 6'3/220lb man, but you are deeply mistaken.

 

It is hard to say what is relative information here?

If you are making a head to head argument, then it would be entirely legitimate to bring in these issues.

If you are making a resume argument, then it is almost impossible to consider such issues.

Size of opposition could only be factored it, if you thought that an era where the heavyweights were bigger on average, was necessarily better.

Otherwise it is irrelevant to that argument.

Assessing fighters on film is so subjective, that we can’t really factor that in either!

 

Do they get to fight back?

 

So, you do include a 153 pound Sam Langford on Johnson's deep resume of heavyweight victories.

 

This cuts both ways, though.

The small gloves suggest that Jeff's chin was really solid, but they also suggest that he might not have been as big a puncher without them.

 

One fifty six,a pound less than Fitz was when he ko'd Corbett.

 

Completely disagree. Is your position that the only way to judge the strength of a fighter's resume is by adding up the number of champions and contenders they've defeated? Even if this were a plausible approach for lower weight classes (and I dont agree that it is), it doesn't work at all at heavyweight. Especially when you are counting wins over men too small to ever step foot in the ring with more recent champions. Barring substantial countervailing considerations, 175/185-lb "heavyweights" don't have as much resume value as 210/220-lb ones.

 

Not sure what difference it would make but sure, they could try.

 

No I don’t.

Obviously the fact that he weighed 153 lbs. wouldn’t have stopped me.

He just wasn’t operating at a world level back then.

See how it works?

 

Langford ,who had 51 fights under his belt was "operating at world level," just not at heavyweight at that point in his career.

 

"175/185-lb. 'heavyweights' don't have as much resume value as 210/220-lb. ones."

Prior to 1960, this is nonsense. Which 210+ heavyweight defeated Dempsey? Louis? Marciano?

Take the Marciano era. Nino Valdes and Bob Baker were the two best 210+ fighters (after Louis left). What was their record against the 175/185 lb. Archie Moore, Harold Johnson, Bob Satterfield, and Clarence Henry?

no wins--eight losses.

The smaller men were obviously much better additions to anyone's resume.

 

Jeffries floored every man he fought, save his 1910 come back vs Johnson when he was out of the ring for 6 years and became a 300-pound man.

He did not fight with wraps, which took a little away from his power. With wraps, especially the tightly wound 1 inch of tape we see today, your hitting power goes up. It could have been a wash.

I suppose the ultimate would be tightly wound wraps with lighter gloves.