Could Heavys like Jeffries, Corbett, Fitz hang with the heavys over the last 40years?

Today's boxing is a cousin sport of yesterday's (pre 1990) boxing.

So IMO the comparison is naive, like comparing your favourite pear to your favourite apple.

I preferred the boxers of yesteryear, the sport (IMO) was more entertaining and I had a bigger connection and respect with these fighters, hence the reason I am in the Classic Boxing forum.

 

In head to head "time machine" bouts, I am a big proponent of the modern fighters over these guys. However, that stance is more based on faulty framing of a question than my real beliefs.

Let's turn this topic on its head and ask a different but extremely relevant and complimentary question. How many of the modern greats would rise to the top of the heavyweights if this route required barnstorming, occasional malnourishment, battle royales, unregulated smokers in saloons and barns, absolutely ZERO amateur schooling or Olympic pampered programs, riding the rails, no video preview of your opponent, irregular or non-existent training camps, no plastic surgery, neanderthal dental surgery, winner-take-all purses, threat of incarceration by participating in a match, having the sport outlawed in many regions, months of travel to participate in a single match, the list goes on ...? How many of the modern ilk would have had the grit to endure that lifestyle?

The struggles and obstacles are different between eras, and the end product may appear more exceptional in one era to the other, but all factors included who really were the greater fighters?

 

Depends how you do a comparison. Is it a fair comparison, i.e. do you assume the old-timers are born 20, 30 years ago and benefit from modern diet, training, and coaching? Or is it an unfair comparison where you give the modern fighters the benefit of the last 100 years of advances in boxing knowledge, training methods, nutrition etc?

If it's a fair comparison then I think they would do well. If it's the unfair one then they would be worse.

And bear in mind, the differences between the modern and old fighters under the unfair comparison are *nothing* to do with modern fighters as individuals, and everything to do with external factors (nutrition, genetics, coaching etc). Seems strange to judge an individual fighter over something they have no control over.

 

Hah, that's an even better way of looking at it! Can you imagine Lennox Lewis coming up as a saloon brawler, then turning into a hard-training pro athlete? Or Wlad carrying on when some of his teeth are knocked out and his eyesocket shattered to score a comeback KO?

I'll give you all a minute or two to pick yourself up from rolling around on the floor laughing.

A lot of the old-timers actually had to *invent* training methods or boxing tactics because they didn't exist at the time. They didn't have an Emmanuel Steward to teach them how to punch properly or avoid getting starched in 2 rounds, they had to learn the hard way. Was Cus D'Amato a genius coach or did he just watch some Dempsey film reels and copy everything he saw?

You have to give the old-timers credit for doing what they did in the era they were in.

 

First you need to understand the subject of this thread, it is .
"Could Heavies like Jeffries ,Corbett,Fitz ,hang with the heavies over the last 40 years"?.
It does NOT say .Could the heavies ,given today's supplements ,training etc?

Therefore we are taking the old fighters AS THEY WERE ,and transporting them to today.
Weights underepresented,? Which of Jeffries weights were underepresented?
Jeffries only scaled 220lbs for a defence twice, against Griffin he was 220lbs and ,fat at 240lbs for Finnegan .
Jeffries average weight in title defences is under 220lbs.
Even if we take 6 foot 2in as Jeffries height which is generous,220lbs is plenty.Max Baer ,for example was 6 foot 2 in and a half,and had a massive chest and shoulders, his best weight was 210 lbs. Sonny Liston at 6 foot 1 inch was bigger than Jeffries in build and at his peak weight was 212lbs, likewise Ali,Cleve Williams, again bigger than Jeffries, was 215lbs.
What would Jeffries gain from the added poundage?
Athleticism is subjective and does not translate into ring ability.
Ali for example ,the fastest footed Heavyweight was a crap runner.
Jeffries, as far as I know, NEVER had any formal wrestling matches.
To say he was a top wrestler is bull****,ditto track and field, he NEVER competed in it.
Claimed times for 100 yd dashes do not constitute proven competitive superiority.
Rolling around on the mat with his buddy Gotch ,does not make Jeffries a Hackenshmidt,or a Thesz.
Likewise bullying his brother Jack around in training proves nothing.
Jack Johnson had several wrestling matches, so did Fitz ,but no one is asserting they were of championship class .
I have researched the times for the Olympics of the day, and the times quoted for Jeffries are pure hyperbole ,exactly like tales of him carrying deer several miles whilst at a dead run.
I am rather selective?
That's rich ,coming from you.
You don't need to condescendingly try to explain why people are taller today, I think I have a reasonable grasp of it.

You might want to ponder your preposition that Jeffries weights were.
"UNDER REPRESTNED".
Because ,if you were right, that would mean he had even more of a weight disparity advantage over his opponents.
I have seen guys in gyms all my adult life ,and many of the big fella's could skip as good as that, it is NOT RELEVANT to actual ring combat.

In his day Bob Armstrong was said to look unbeatable in the gym, but,that is the gym, not the ring

Check out Jack Johnson moving around the ring in training ,carrying dumbells in his hands, he is easily as quick as Jeffries.

Watching the footage of Johnson, you would assume that he fought up on his toes ,presenting a very mobile target,,in fact he fought the complete opposite, standing flat footed ,waiting to counter.
And ALL the film of Jeffries in ACTUAL fights shows him to be down off his toes NOT displaying agility or mobile foot work.
On a personal note
I had a great day Sunday celebrated your 4th of July,and also the CENTENARY of a FIGHT can you guess which one?

ps.Yoo speelt yoore naime rong MENZODA.:good

 

I find this topic quite interesting. I have been looking at quite a lot about Jeffries in his early days (pre title). It is interesting, that Corbett (though i havent looked much into his real early days is always talked in terms as if he is a natural athlete. Yet Jeffries is always referred to as the big fellow from California.

Do you (or mendoza or anyone else) have any references to Jeffries athletic feats that are either pre title or even while he was champion? On one of the other threads, i posted a short article about a 6'7 guy who was an athlete and who wanted a shot at Jeffries as soon as he finished college as he was a natural and better athlete. Bit of a strange article, to hype a challenger on athletic prowess if Jeffries himself was the natural athlete with the great track record. That particular article never once mentioned it or tried to compare Jeffries records. You would think it would have.

 

Originally Posted by Mendoza [url]

This content is protected

[/url]

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

The title says could they hang with which implies if they were around today. Fighters today all get the same training and supplements, you dolt!

.

I see you have never boxed. Wrong! Athletic traits such as reflexes, agility, coordination, balance and flexibility do translate into ring ability, and are part of a boxer's natural assets.

Take the time of 10.5 in the 100 yard dash then compare it to the Olympics time in 1896. Also take the high jump of 6 feet and compare it as well, and remember in those days your feet cleared the bar, as no one practiced the modern back flop technique. Jeffries was a good wrestler. Everyone of the time said so. To say he was in no formal matches is a cop out. I see you did not make a comment on baseball, which is another sport Jeffries excelled at. All signs point to a good athlete.

And how do you know that?! It depends on who under represented their weights more. When Fitz gave his weight for the 2nd Jeffries fight of 170, Jeffries simply laughed saying well put me down for 144 then. In other words Fitz likely weighted more than that.

There is a correlation to those who skip rope and moved around well while doing it with footwork in the ring.

In his day Bob Armstrong was said to look unbeatable in the gym, but,that is the gym, not the ring

And you point? No one says Johnson was not quick. He was. He also lost too many times, had crappy title defenses, and struggled more than an all time great should prime.

As did I. By the way, those who live here spell the the word century!

 

Extremely well made point.

 

How far could Jeffries shotput and Discus throw?

I found some distances for Herbert Slade (who once fought John L Sullivan) in a NZ paper last night under competition results. If i can find them against they might make interesting comparing.

 

When you compare Jeffries' body type to Liston or Max Baer why do you choose to leave out the fact that Jeffries had legs twice the size of the twigs that Baer and Liston had ? Your writing about completely different body types with such conviction but ignoring key components. Jeffries was a broader body type than the guys you were referring to ... in addition, Mendoza is corect regarding fight weights. Often they were not properly verified and in most of Jeffries bouts ringside reports detaled he looked much larger than his "said" weight.

AS far as how the fighters match up, let's also factor in distance of the bout and ring size. Jeffries was not a balls to the wall aggressive fighter based on style. He was more of a cautious counter puncher. However, he was very concious of pacing himself for 20 or 25 round bouts. I am fairly certiian he'd accelerate the pace for 12 ... in addition, fighting Corbett in an 18 or 20 ft ring is a far easier challange than in a 24. All these points need to be factored.

AS far as the other items of the Jeffries legend, his super human strength, his speed, his wrestling ability, ect, I really have no comment as I have read no proof of any of it ..

 

Jack Johnson would be the only man who'd make top ten in the last 40years, the rest would do well to be gatekeepers to the top20.

 

Do you have reading and writing difficulties? Because the the thread is,
.

and I quote.


"Could the guys from the early day,hang with the modern era"?

NOTICE THE WORDING EARLY DAY?
I boxed competitively something you have never done , and ,boxed in gyms for nearly 2 decades
The time claimed for Jeffries 100yds would make him faster than Charley Paddock, bull****.
I did not comment on base ball because it is not a game played in my country ,so ,I am obviously not able to comment as to Jeffries ability at it.Something that has never stopped you by the way.
Sullivan and Marciano were both good players how good, I cannot say ,and ,since Jeffries never played in a league ,neither can you.

I am aware of the moment the Fosberry flop came into being thanks.
MY Point is a few seconds of footage of Jeffries skipping rope and sparring with his brother does not translate into a fleet footed defensive wizard.BASED ON THE FILMED FOOTAGE OF JEFFRIES IN COMBAT.
I used Johnson as an example to show even handedness, something completely alien to you ,.IE. Johnson is shown dancing around the ring dispaying remarkable agility and speed ,HE DID NOT FIGHT LIKE THAT.
GOT IT NOW?
We spell it Century?

No actually you don't, it was the Centenary of the Johnson Jeffries fight.



Press Release: June 21, 2010
As part of the Jack Johnson vs. Jim Jeffries centenary in Reno, Top Rank Incorporated, the Grand Sierra Resort, and Let's Get It On Promotions present an evening of professional boxing.


This is from an AMERICAN site. Fight Kings .Com
I know you have trouble with joined up writing and words of more than a few letters but I thought you might have mastered your own ******* language.:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl
PS. It is called ENGLISH , like me.

 

I take your point on differing build types, how about Tua ? His best weight was under 230lbs, are his legs and body mass big enough for a comparison.The question is what would 15-20 lbs give Jeffries?
It is academic anyway because the thread states,"Could the guys from the EARLY days hang with the modern era? " This implies to me taking them as they were.
You have read no proof of Jeffries wrestling ability? Neither has anyone else. training with Gotch is one thing ,it is unlikely Gotch would go all out as in a real match , any more than Jeffries would look to ko him in a spar do you agree?
There is so much bull**** surrounding Jeffries athleticism, separating the wheat from the chaff is impossible.For example if he could run the 100yds as fast as is claimed he would beat medal runners of the 1920's like Charley Paddock.
ps sorry about the capitals ,I am used to emphasizing my points to MENZODA:huh

 

I have always been a diehard Jack Johnson guy and I never really had any positive feelings about Jeffries based on his position regarding the color line as well as his arrogance in how he treated Johnson with regards to Reno 1910 ... I always viewed him as the Paul Bunyon of heavyweight champs with all the myths of his fabled strength, stamina, toughness ect .. this has changed to some degree based on Adam's excellent book .. based on all I have read in that book and in conjunction with it, I am pretty impressed with Jefferies as a physical talent. I do not feel he would do too incredibly well if he were simply "blinked into a ring from 1898 to 1998. However, I do feel that if the same genetic material was groomed today, with plenty of amateur bouts, great professional training and match making and top of the line physical conditioning and hand treatments, Jeffries would be a 6'2", 235 pound rock in the mold of a Tommy Morrision with a great chin ... basically a hell of a fighter ...

The more I read about Fitz the more amazed I am by him .. while I do not see him dominating at heavyweight, simply too small, I can definately see him being a terror from 154 through cruiserweight ... the man was exceptional ..

Gotta run ...

 

Do you honestly believe that's a fair comparison?

I mean, really?

Mayweather has been a top fighter since 1999 and his star status is growing by every fight because he wins so easily most of the time. Adamek, on the other hand, has only been at the top for a few years and never looked as impressive. Plus, he's not American like Floyd - like it or not, but fact is that there is a way larger American fan base potential than Polish.

When was the last time they OBJECTED? Boxers aren't keyboard warriors: they know they stand a much better chance fighting heavyweights when they are 210lbs instead of 180lbs.


And yes, they would most definitely make more money. Look at how much people watched Jones-Ruiz simply because it's a smaller guy fighting a larger guy.

1. Toney's record against ranked heavies 1-1-1-1. The only heavyweight contender that Toney ever beat was a 42 year old, injured Holyfield. Hardly impressive.

2. Toney wasn't 170lbs when he fought said heavyweights, was he? In fact, he was already 170lbs for most of his middleweight bouts.

3. He used steroids and has been caught several times, but no one cares since it's James Toney.

If he can very likely do the same at heavyweight, then WHY DOESN'T HE?? There's a lot more money to be made.

Sidenote, Dawson (and Adamek alike) is already 190lbs on fight night, the classic heavyweight if you will, due to 30-hour prefight weighins.