ron lyle vs jim jefferies

I don't know how the man would have responded to modern training, nutrition, etc.. As it is, he was a work horse back in his day, and at 6'0", 215 lbs, or whatever he was, he looked like he had basically hit his focal point... Any additional weight, may have hindered him more than helped him, but thats all speculative.. We'll never know..

As for his techiniques being changed for the period, the first thing that comes to mind for me, that would need to change is his defense... Jeffries held his right hand low, with his left hand out in front of his face, and consequently had his nose broken three times, plus took loads of punishment over many rounds.. He could not afford to have this happen against some of the most treacherous hitters of all time.. Foreman, Frazier, Shavers, Lyle, and perhaps even Norton are not the men that you want to have a lacking defense against.... Another thing that I don't particularly like was his tendency to hold on the inside and use his size and strength to wear men down... That might work against 5'11", 175 men who were past their primes, but it sure as hell isn't going to be very effective against guys who were 6'3", 220 lbs and built like Ken Norton....

 

Holding in close certainly seemed to work for John Ruiz against these types of guys, didnt it?

 

He also wasn't exactly a very good fighter, lost to David Tua in under 20 seconds, and didn't compete during the 70's, but if that's the comparison we need to use, then sobeit..

 

I thinkit is a great example. A very ordinary fighter, who lost in under 20 seconds and as a result became very successful against big slow guys by holding on the inside. In fact he greatly overachieved. why then does holding in close not seem like a good idea for jeffries.

 

because Ruiz did it in the weakest era in Heavyweight history, and the 70's is the greatest era in history.

 

true but if jeffries utilized a similar style, he would likely find success to. I'm inclined to lean towards jeffries becoming even more physically imposing: as magoo stated he was a work horse and a phenom physically in his prime, notable for his nimbleness and running (aparently a brilliant sprinter). his athleticism and physicality were his greatest assets and if he could maintain those advantages, he favours well in any era. if he can't, he'd likely be a contender at best because he was not notable for his fundamentals, technique or revolutions to the game. a tough, strong SOB

 

Frankly, I don't consider losing to any man in 20 seconds, struggling through a 3 fight series with a shot Holyfield and having a mixed bag career of wins and losses against fighters of all different levels, good and bad " over achieving. " He certainly never became a lineal claimant the way that Jeffries did in his era, and I don't see see Jeffries repeating that in most of the later periods...In addition, Ruiz did not seem to have the defensive problems that literature on Jeffries described, and nor was he fed a steady diet of sub 200 lbs men... Lastly, neither man fought the likes of Ali, Foreman, Lyle, Frazier, etc...

Now, I am not saying that Jeffries absolutely " can't " beat Ron Lyle.. But, I think that to write off Lyle just because Jeffries was labeled as a big puncher and an unusually strong man in HIS era, makes him an automatic favorite.. The circumstance were obviously very different in Jeff's time, from that of Lyles, and some of those differences stick out like a sore thumb...

 

Lyle would have been considered to be an ATG if he had been recreated in Jeffries' era. I take Lyle to upset Big Jeff in a spirited slugfest.

Lyle KO 7 Jeffries

 

I DISAGREE.
Here's why.
Jeffries two best wins were over Corbett and Fitz,
Corbett was 33 and 36 years old had not fought in two years and had not won a fight in six years.

Fitz was thirty seven and thirty nine years old , and had not fought in two years.


Lyle 6' 3'' 219lbs Ruhlin 6'2'' 200lbs
Shavers 6'0'' 212lbs Choynsky 5'11'' 167lbs
Young 6' 2' 213lbs Armstrong 6' 3'' 187lbs
Quarry 6' 0'' 198lbs Munroe 5'1 11/2 186lbs[as listed, may have been more]
Frazier 5'11 1/2" 205lbs Sharkey 5'8" 183lbs
Foreman 6'3 1/2" 224lbs Fitz 5' 111/ 2" 167lbs
Foster 6' 2" 212lbs Baker ? 170lbs
Ellis 6'1" 200lbs Griffin 6'1" 180lbs

Jeffries fought ONE CLASS man of 200lbs
The size disparity between the two eras, is glaring.

Lyle has 19 lbs on Ruhlin
Shavers has 45lbs on Choynsky
Young has 26lbs on Armstrong
Quarry and Munroe , well we will leave this one out.
Frazier has 22lbs on Sharkey
Foreman has 57lbs on Fitz
Foster has 42lbs on Baker
Ellis has 20lbs on Griffin

More on the quality.
Munroe won 9 of 14 fights
Goddard had lost his last 2 fights one to Van Buskirk[4-1-2]the other by ko to Sharkey .
Goddard won 33 of 64 fights,kod 7 times.
Choynsky won 56 of 83 fights kod 10 times.
Corbett won 11 of 22 fights kod 3 times.
Munroe won 12 of 19 fights kod 1 time
Sharkey won 38 of 53 fights kod 4 times
Griffin won 28 of 43 fights ,kod 4 times
Baker won 6 of 21 fights kod 4 times
Armstrong won 15 of 34 fights kod 4 times
Ruhlin won 32 of 44 fights kod 5 times
Fitz won 67 of 99 fights kod 7 times
So ,out of 10 , 3 could not bat 50%wins, 2 were on 50%.So half of them had no better than 50% winning records.
Jackson was 37 an incurable alcoholic, even when he was based in the UK, he then contracted consumption and was slowly dying he had not fought in 3 years, comparing him to an old, but still dangerous Liston, is farcical .

Lyle had 51 fights won 43 kod 4 times
Ellis had 53 fights won40 kod 4 times
Foreman had 81 fights won 76 kod 1 time
Frazier had 37 fights won 32 kod 3 times
Shavers had 89 fights won74 kod 7 times
Norton had 50 fights won 42 kod 4 times
Young had 56 fights won 36 kod 2 times
Ali had 61 fights won 56 kod 1 time
Quarry had 66 fights won 53 kod 6 times
Foster had 36 fights won 30 kod 1 time.
Better winning percentages I think.

 

I do not go into hypothetical what ifs about modern nutrition etc.
I judge a man on what he was NOT on what he possibly might have been.

What if Corbett and Fitz had not been inactive?
What if Fitz had not been drinking heavily the night before he fought Jeffries?
What if they had both been in their primes ?
Jeffries had enough trouble with the diminished versions he fought
What if they were not conceding years and a ton of weight to Jeffries?
WHAT IF HE WAS REPEATEDLY HIT ON THE CHIN BY A, 6' 3" BANGER , SCALING 220LBS?
INSTEAD OF A 39 YEAR OLD 167LBS MAN WHO CARVED HIS FACE UP LIKE HAMBURGER?

What if Jeffries had not waited 2 years before giving, Corbett and Fitz rematches?
What if ? What if? What if?

Let's judge him on what we know of him, as he WAS.
A big man, for his time, feasting on older, inactive ,smaller opponents.

 

How fast Jeffries could run a 100 yard dash has absolutely no bearing on how he performed in a boxing ring,film of him actually fighting does NOT show this athleticism and nimbleness we hear so much about .
Watch him against Ruhlin ,it is the only film of him taking the initiative,and Ruhlin looks much the quicker , and nimbler of foot.

 

Boilermaker,

no offense but these are very questionable comparisons. I wouldn't favor one of these guys from jeffs era against the men you matched him up with.

Jack Munroe to Jerry Quarry? Are you serious?

 

Nice work..

A post like this should be written in just about everyone of these fantasy match-up threads.. It gets rather tedious when someone claims that one man can beat another, then after back and forth debating, throws in the what if this guy had a trainer like Steward? What if he had eaten egg whites and Tuna fish, rather than stake and chicken lard? What if he had access to a real training facility and not some barn on a farm somewhere? Like you I prefer to rate fighters in their true forms and not some ficticious character who never existed... Hey, what if Rocky Marciano had been born in 1970 rather than in the 1920's, and to a different set of parents? Maybe he'd be a lawyer instead of a fighter..... That's how ridiculous some of this nonsense is..

 

this is bang on and a much more elequant way of saying what i wanted to earlier. i hate making the argument for the jeffires that could have been. to be fair, the jeffries that actually WAS does not match up as favourably to modern era fighters as i hoped. i think he had a good chance but was not an invincible monster, even in his prime

 

Good points Boilermaker(except for Munroe who I dont rate at all.
It's a nonsense to give Jeff ant credit for stopping Jackson. I have to agree that Jeffries punch-power is very overated based on his record as is his size-he was lucky if he was 6-1. However he was very, very quick apparently and reports at the time dont dwell on his punching power or toughness but rather on his speed and strenght, two assets that should help him v Lyle. Also pre-Johnson nobody even rattled Jeff. Looks like a late stoppage or points win to Jeff but over 12 rounds Ron has a chance.
As for not fighting a black oppenent in their prime, I think both Griffin and Armstrong were around their prime.