Who was the best heavyweight that Gibbons ever beat and how much did he weigh? Whatever else, Jeff does on his training films show that he could move around for a big guy. I think he would just pound Gibbons to the body all night and I don't see Gibbons having the firepower to do much about it.
You literally said prime doesn't matter. If that were true then it wouldn't matter at what point of Joe Louis' career he got beat by Marciano, its still a win over Joe Louis. Jeffries was reported as looking like a complete beginner against Corbett. When you enjoy 50 lb advantages over guys who aren't even in the heavyweight lower limit and struggle to beat them. That is something to criticize. Most of his opponents fell closer to 180 than 200. Some were well under it.
If Gibbons could go15rds with Dempsey who was much more explosive than Jeffries ,he ain't going anywhere against the Boilermaker. Gibbons had 62 fights and was stopped just once, in his last fight. Whose the best heavyweight Jeffries beat, how much did he weigh, and how old was he?lol
I am not being facetious. Dempsey was above average in the 1920's. But why does this prove he would be above average in the 1970's, at least to the same extent. Dempsey, after all, lost several fights on the way up. Jeff didn't. Dempsey was beaten at 31 by Tunney. Jeff didn't lose except when 35 and having laid off for 6 years. For all the flaws in Jeff's resume, how is it so much inferior to Dempsey's that Dempsey is credited with being to able to compete decades later but Jeff clearly couldn't. I can't see how film can be the proof as there just isn't enough of Jeff to draw such a strong conclusion, and Jeff has the better record of the two.
Why does Gibbons have to go anywhere. If Jeff doesn't stop him, Gibbons loses by decision. As he did with Dempsey. I certainly think Fitz was better at heavyweight than Gibbons whatever his weight or age. Anyway, this punching power stuff can be tricky. Robinson didn't stop Basilio. Fullmer did twice.
You obviously know that I wasn't saying a fighter has to live from 1892- the present day to be an atg. Nothing proves Dempsey would be above average in the 1970s. It is just my opinion. This entire thread is an opinion. We are just trying to use facts to form an implication and debate our conclusion with other posters. Jeffries retired at 29. Had he not ducked Johnson and gave him a title shot in 1905 or 1906 then in my honest OPINION he would have lost. Because Dempsey ravaged guys in 1 round. He brutally beat the champion into submission as well as all of the contenders. Imo outside of the Willard fight we don't have film on the best Dempsey which was in 1918 to early 1919. Not because he physically left his prime in his early 20s but because he wasn't hungry anymore. Jeffries struggled with guys who weren't even close to prime and who he enjoyed colossal size advantages over. Dempsey fought guys bigger and about his size. Some were smaller but not anywhere close to the size advantages that Jeffries held. I have reached my opinons on Jeff almost entirely from newspaper accounts. Imo Dempsey has the better resume. He beat ALL of the top contenders on his way up and took out the heavyweight champ with ease it seems. That is so much better than beating past prime atgs who were 40-50 lbs smaller than you. If Dempsey's best wins were over guys who weighed 150 lbs and 165lbs and he wouldn't even be talked about.
Its training. It doesn't necessarily translate to a title fight. We have footage of the Ruhlin fight and Jeffries doesn't show any fast footwork for a big guy. Gibbons too Dempsey for 15 rds and Dempsey was a supreme body puncher. Jeffries wouldn't enjoy any more success. He doesn't have to have any great heavyweight wins to beat Jeffries. If a past prime atg middleweight Fitzsimmons can enjoy large amounts of success against Jeffries then why can't a prime atg light heavyweight with great defense like Gibbons have the same if not MORE success against Jeffries?
"prime doesn't matter" It doesn't in the sense that A being in his prime and B not being in his prime doesn't prove that A is better than B or can beat B. Boxing history proves this over and over again and I've given examples from Robinson and Moore and Brown and there are many others. The problem with prime in boxing is that superior skill can overcome in many cases physical regression. "When you enjoy 50 lb. advantages over guys . . . and struggle to beat them. That is something to criticize." If we are talking heavyweight boxing and not p4p, it is nothing more to criticize than if you have only a ten or fifteen lb. advantage or no advantage at all. A 220 lb. heavyweight taking ten rounds to knock out a 175 lb.er is no worse than a 180 lb.er taking ten rounds to knock out the same man. Being big is not a valid criticism against a heavyweight. Unfortunately, I have to leave, but I hope to drop back in tomorrow to see how much flak I have drawn.
Correct but we have to operate on a case by case basis when determining that. Jeffries struggled with a 39 year old past prime Fitz. It is completely plausible that Fitz most likely would have beaten him had he been prime. This is just undeniable. What??? That is completely outrageous. A 220 lb taking the same amount of rds to knock out a 175 lbr as a 180 lbr is NOT the same thing. I can't believe I just read that tbh. The fact that you actually believe that shows me you have a very big bias towards Jeffries.
Corbett and Fitzsimmons were ranked alongside Johnson and Dempsey in discussions about the greatest heavyweight champions, as recently as the early years of Joe Louis. Rightly or wrongly, nobody questioned that they were better than Brennan, Carpentier, Firpo, or Gibbons. If Jeffries was not a great heavyweight champion, then there is no such thing as a great heavyweight champion before Louis!
You are getting hung up on the statistics here, and not looking at the reality of the fights. Ali was a brain damaged shell when Leon Spinks beat him. Fitzsimmons might have been a former middleweight, but he was objectively the best heavyweight in the world apart from Jeffries himself, and would still be some years later. He cleaned out most of the top contenders after Jeffries beat him. Yes I would absolutely have steered Tyson clear of somebody like Michael Spinks, when he had only had ten professional fights.
Why cant Gibbons out box Jeffries ? SRR was past prime for Basilio,Fullmer was just too big and strong for Carmen.
That is just the point though, they often do. Dempsey, Louis, Liston, Foreman, Holyfield, Klitschko, all had issues with this type of fighter.