If you can honestly watch film of both Jefferies and Spinks and come to the conclusion that JJ was the better fighter then I really don't know why I'm on this forum to discuss boxing with you. You are right though, in JJ's prime Spinks wouldn't even be a rated heavyweight. He was too good and too black to get an opportunity. At least Burns gave Jack Johnson a shot. I honestly don't know what the love affair is with that era? Bad footwork, no defense and excessive clinching.
Jeffries finished his career with a nose that had been broken 3 times ,scar tissue above and below both eyes, and a cauliflower left ear . All these marks of battle accumulated in just 24 fights! Defensively clever he was not!
You're an idiot. Tangstad's record is very inflated with no names and losers, and he didn't have any power. He was also stopped by a light puncher the year before. It was a safe title pick for Spinks. I bet Tangstad wasn't even rated in the top 30! [url]https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/2514[/url] Cooney was shot as I said. A drinker, and with managerial issues. Does it matter if he had an easy 1 round KO fight? No. He was out of the ring for over a year and rusty. Who cares about Finnegan, he was not close to Jeffries best title defense. I always say when a guy who doesn't belong in the ring fights the champion, the champion should blow him out, which is what happened. Finnegan lasted 55 seconds. This was even quicker Tyson's 91-second effort vs. Mike Spinks. An older Holmes hurt Spinks. Jeffries would cripple him with a body shot or start the end as soon as his hook landed.
Actually if you watch Jeffries throws a triple hook here. Jeffries was highly praised during his time as champion. Experts do not bestow such high praise upon poor fighters. Unfortunately with the lack of decent footage expert opinion must be leaned upon. I would give no credibility of anything Seamust writes. He loves to lie.
How do look at yourself in the mirror knowing that you are f*cking lowlife coward, that you are not man enough to back up the accusations you make? That sounds like a truly pathetic existence. I feel for you, buddy.
Funny McVey says the same thing in the same format ad nausea! You two should get a room, in the same nuthouse. And you might want to read the papers of the time, Jeffries had some ability on defense. But why let facts get in your way, you are on a roll! Ta-ta Tony.
This is a difficult fight to pick, because we don't know exactly what Jeffries was. That aside, unless you are a modern is better cultist, you would probably cautiously install Jeffries as the favorite. You are comparing one of the best lineal heavyweight champions on paper, to one of the worst. why would you favor the latter, other than an overwhelming stylistic advantage, or a belief that his era alone was reason enough to favor him?
I just think that Spinks would be too good just based on what I've seen of JJ. Also add that to the fact that at 6'2 200-212 lbs (I like the 208 pounds that Spinks was against Cooney, that seemed like the perfect weight for the HW version of Spinks) he'd be the biggest skilled man JJ ever faced and likely one of the hardest punching. JJ was given rough rides by super middle's. Can't see any super middle (coming in the ring as a super middle on fight night) doing anything with a HW version of Spinks.
