George Foreman ‘73 vs. James J. Jeffries ‘03

I'd say Fitz's and Corbett's sparring match, due to Fitzsimmons' later performance against Jeffries, proves that Corbett still had good enough boxing skill to compete with a man who would still go on to be relevant in the light heavyweight division for 3 more years. If he was competitively sparring the Fitzsimmons who lost to Bill Lang, who was positively shot, then I'd say the spar was meaningless. But in this case, Corbett was still being technically competitive with arguably the best LHW in the world at that stage. If he's able to compete with a formidable Fitzsimmons with regard to technique and speed at this stage, then I'd say Jeffries desrves more credit for being able to not just beat him, but outbox and outspeed him.

It wouldn't be the first time Fitzsimmons did something in defiance of boxing history, given how much of a freak of nature he was. His aging did seem to affect his cardio above all else. That's something that hurt him more later on, as well as against Jeffries.

'Jeffries having the trouble that he did have in the Fitz rematch - that’s IF Jeff was worthy of the praise that some afforded him - particularly the claim that he had “near perfect” defence.'

But Fitzsimmons taking Jeffries out of his comfort zone, and on to the front foot, is likely what caused his defense to be so poor. Odds are being pushed out of his comfort zone and on the offensive opened Jeffries up for numerous counters that wouldn't have been there had he fought in his normal, more reactive style.

You do make a good point with regard to Corbett-Jeffries 1 though, we don't have other performances from Corbett to judge upon from that period. I've also read somewhere that Corbett's great performance was partly a result of Tommy Ryan's poor tactics in Jeffries corner, and that the tide of the fight began to turn once he was removed. Maybe you can fact check me on that one.

'Then Jeff again faces a woefully inactive and even older version of Corbett that has to be logically concluded as that much inferior to the 1900 model - surprise, surprise, Jeff does better.'

Can we really logically conclude whether or not the Corbett of 1900 and the Corbett of 1903 were radically different. It's a more likely possibility than the contrary that's for sure, given that 33 is just an all around more athletic age than 37, but it doesn't really seem possible to prove regardless. Fitzsimmons of 1902, for example, was better than the Fitzsimmons of 1899 despite being older.

Another perspective of this could be that Jeffries faced a more stagnant version of Corbett (mainly due to Jeffries body work) which is what led to Jeff doing better. SCorbett did say he was in peak physical condition in the rematch, and we've seen later footage of Corbett in his 50s that show he still maintained a lot of his former speed. Even if it wasn't the Corbett that dethroned John L., it does seem like Corbett was still formidable at this stage.

 

Though I disagree with you , I like the way you have presented your argument,cogently,intelligently. and with courtesy,as per usual.

 

Top response to which there will be no logical answer.

 

Foreman did swing wildly. Selecting instances in which he didn't does not and will not change that fact.
When did I ever claim that he didn't have a good jab, or that he wasn't good at smothering and posture manipulation. Foreman was good at a lot of things but he did have a tendency to swing wildly. You call me a liar and then invent an argument that I never even made.
There are lots of guys that Ali didn't embarrass. And Ali's speed wasn't what it was in his prime.
I didn't say that Foreman going life and death with Lyle was 'embarrasing'. So thats the second lie you've told.
Cus D'Amato said that Rocky had deceptively good defense. If you watch Rocky's fights closely you will find that he kept his head off the centre line, was adept at bobbing, weaving and rolling with punches when he needed to. If you watch the Walcott knockout closely you'll see that Rocky looks at Walcotts body, starts the left hand and then throws his right. Again the idea that any great champion is completely lacking in ring intelligence and has no understanding of boxing is idiotic to say the least. Rocky was even smarter than Foreman. Foreman himself held Rocky in high regard.
I have answered every single point you McVey and Pugguy have brought up. If you didn't pay attention to my responses then thats your problem.
Not idiotic, the fighters that take the least punishment live the longest. The anomaly of Tex Cobb doesn't disprove the rule. Jeffries fought 20+ rounds with 5-ounce gloves, in Foreman's time the glove size went up to 10-ounces.

Tom Sharkey was TINY and could've made light heavyweight today. Getting hit by him multiple times is not as impressive as getting hit by big men weighing anywhere from 205-230+. Foreman has the better chin based on actual results and common sense.
Well there are a lot more variables to the power of a punch than height and weight but I wouldn't expect a simpleton like you to understand that.

How does Foreman's gold medal apply to Jeffries? I saw Foreman's olympic fights and his style was anything but scientific. He mostly overpowered his opponents with size and strength. Stop acting like he's Ray Robinson, he was a limited fighter.

Everybody knows that Frazier was not the same fighter after FOTC, he had health issues which were exacerbated by that fight. Anybody who watches the Daniels and Stander fights can see that clear as day. He was not in his prime. Foreman said so himself, that Frazier was no longer at his best. If you can watch FOTC Frazier and say that that was the same calibre of fighter that Foreman beat then you're blind as a bat. I never criticised Foreman for beating Frazier, you're just too dumb to tell the difference between stating an objective fact and making a criticism. When I state something about Foreman which is self-evident I'm penalising or criticisng him but when you say something about Jeffries your 'stating facts'.
Foreman knocking him out is a big 'IF'.
Like I said in my first comment towards you: most of what you're saying is hard to prove without footage.
Jeff's unrecorded fights are definitely relevant to the discussion -- it points to the fact that information about him is incomplete. Why would that be irrelevant to anyone interested in boxing history?
Jeffries was capable of countering. If you read Melankomas' posts you would see quotes which describe him as having the ability to box and counter.

-Hit harder than Jeff
-Had an arguably better chin than Jeff
-Factually has more experience than Jeff
-Factually faced a wider variety of styles
-Is arguably more skilled than Jeff
--was a million times better with a wider variety of punches.
-Had better defense than Jeff

All either wrong or unproven. You cannot make the vast majority of these points without substantial footage.

 

You didn't actually address anything or refute anything.

Literally all of your arguments are to constantly downplay Foreman or his opponents while hyping up Jeff's opponents. You have double standards.

29 year old, undefeated Frazier is old and past his prime according to you, but damn near 40 year old Fitzsimmons and Corbett were quality opponents.

Getting hit by 180 pound Tiny Tom Sharkey is proof of Jeff's toughness, but you criticize Foreman being floored by 220 Lyle.

You scoff at a gold medal and a pro career that was 3x longer than Jeff's when I say it's evidence Foreman had way more experience, has seen a lot, fought many kinds of styles, etc. But at the same time you want to speculate about fights Jeff "may" have had while telling me not to be too critical since he doesn't have a lot of footage.

The worst offense of all is you IGNORING what writers of the time said about Jeff, that he was a caveman and a slugger who relied on his toughness and beat up light heavyweights.

You're a biased idiot and you do not know how to debate or analyze fights.

 

Give me an example of me downplaying and putting down Foreman.
You can disagree with my statements without lying about what I've said.
You're a liar. I didn't say that Frazier was 'old' and I didn't even say he wasn't a quality opponent. I said he was past his prime which is clear to anybody with a pair of eyes. All you have to do is watch the Daniels and Stander fights in comparison to FOTC, Ellis and Foster.
It was common for fighters to have dozens or even hundreds of unrecorded fights in those days, so why wouldn't you take that into consideration? Is that unfactual?
You didn't even quote a writer of the time calling Jeffries a 'caveman' you presented a link of an article from 2023. What was the name of this 'writer of the time' you quoted then?
I could literally say the same about you.

 

This is why I can't take you seriously.

If 29 year old Frazier was "past his prime", then wtf would you call 39 year old Bob Fitzsimmons...???

 

When did I say Fitzsimmons was in his prime? Pull it up then I'm waiting. He wasn't at his peak but he was still good.
Fitzsimmons was 35 years old when he won the Heavyweight Title.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
There's a difference between being 'washed-up' and being 'past your prime'. A 'washed up' fighter is a shell of himself, a 'past prime' fighter can still be good.
Frazier is one of my favourite fighters I would never put him down. Anyone who analyses his career post FOTC can see that he wasn't the same fighter afterwards. Prime isn't necessarily just about age, there are many fighters who slipped out of their primes relatively early.
Now you're just arguing for the sake of it.

 

Exactly Mc - Yes, I was making broad references to same but you’ve brought it into sharper, more detailed focus. Good stuff.

 

I was seriously thinking exactly the same thing as I read Mel’s last reply to me - (before I read your above reply).

I don’t have to necessarily agree with someone to identify them as a top poster - which @Melankomas is imo also.

Very well said Mc.

 

This Haemorrhoid Hank troll isnt worth responding to,he will be just as ignorant on boxing in10 years time, as GCC says he is just a biased fool.

 

No, I don’t need to necessarily fact check you at all - for one thing, you’ve displayed good knowledge and present yourself genuinely, sources don’t have to always be militantly sought - for another thing, I’ve also read the story re Ryan being booted from the corner by Brady.

Can’t recall exactly, was Ryan pulled out around the 19th round? - at any rate it was obviously very late in the piece - when Corbett’s own exertions were well and truly already beginning to tell on him anyway -

For the sake of the point, one could hypothesise a corner change for Willard, say around round 22-23 and endeavour to attribute that to Willard “coming on” to win.

But the true meat of the Havana story, as we know, was that Johnson was clearly tiring well before round 26, becoming increasingly vulnerable at an increasingly faster rate.

Pulling Ryan from the corner sounds good - but why leave it to the 11th hour as they did?

I think the tide turned as it naturally would anyway with old, inactive Corbett beginning to flag badly per his own efforts over the course of many rounds.

Not to ignore your other points (which I might or might not have already covered previously) but I just had to enough time to cover off on this particular reference.

 

Have you had your meds?

 

I love it when these discussions devolve into imagination celebrations where sawed-off wharfbrawlers learning on the job, blown up middleweights and a full-time actor with a Chaplin-esque fighting style are equivocated with Frazier, Lyle and Norton. Watching the mental gymnastics required to do such is truly the impressive thing here, more impressive than any of the fighters in question.

 

Not sure, but I can't say that I would be in too much of a rush to tell Tommy Ryan, one of the best P4P boxers on the planet by this time, that he was wrong.