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

OK, guys, just for clarification 10.5 seconds in the 100 YARD dash is not very fast, and nowhere near as Charley Paddock's 10.4 seconds in the 100 METERS. Please note the difference. It was as fast as this old cheesebag ran when 14 years old... not too impressive.

 

I used to run the 100 yds .The world record for the 100 metres did not change from 1891 to1900 it stood at 10.8sec
In the 1904 Olympics held in St Louis the majority of the track and field were American,the winner of the 60 ,100,and 200 metres was Charlie Archie Hahn a German American his time was 10.1 sec
ps The USA wanted to introduce a tobacco spiitting contest , but the idea was nixed.
Paddock ran the 100yd dash in 9.2,5sec, in 1928.A world record.
I think 10.4 at 14 is damn good , certainly better than my times :good

 

Floyd Mayweather makes a million dollars plus per fight. The older equivalent of say Barbados Joe Walcott didnt quite earn that much. Therefore, he fought Bigger men to make ends meet. Strangely enough, he had a surprisingly good record against some of these guys. Mayweather has never felt the need to. Why would he waste his time, when he can earn less fighting other so called world champions? Does this mean there is not a heavyweight alive that Mayweather couldnt beat? I doubt it.

Adamek is an interesting case. He couldnt beat light heavy champ Chad Dawson, so he went up and beat the cruiserweight champ. Then he started campaining as a heavy where he looks on track to at least get a world title shot, who knows if he beats the klitchskos or not.

Dan Creedon is another interesting case. He was a middleweight champion (no light heavy or cruiser titles in those days). So he issued an open challenge to fight any other fighter in the world except Bob Fitzsimmons. If he were around today, he would have just fought for WBA, WBC, IBF, or WBO (even if he lost to the "Super" Champion) or waited till the champion was stripped and fought someone else (like he did to Valuev) or simply went up or down a couple of pounds to super middleweight or light middleweight and had another 8 options at his fingers. Why would he fight heavyweights?

Nowadays, it seems like Europe is catching right up, but i am not sure what that matters. The biggest fights in the US at the moment are not heavyweight fights, are they?

Many heavys are up to 30 lbs overweight. In the past, look at say Toney, Kirk Johnson, Tua, Areola, etc. Is this because they have a much better chance? And if that is the case, why does every single large heavyweight go into a fight saying they would like to "get their weight down".

And Jones Jr - Sanders (jones jrs next fight) fell through because their wasnt enough money in it for Jones Jr!

Yeah Toney wasnt 170lbs. He would have been half as good if he was in his prime and weighing 170lbsatsch

[/quote]

More money? Yeah right.

He isnt going to get a shot against the Klitchskos just yet, so their is no big money bout. I suppose a Haye opponent would get a decent pay day, but really would Haye be any more interested in him than even Audley Harrison? If he gets a fight it would be a Monte Barrett style fighter. Yeah huge pay day, i am sure that would rake in the cash. And fighting natural heavyweights, you are against guys with a bigger punch so you would be risking an upset KO which would ruin his career and any potential mega pay days. Adamek would need at least (probably more) 2 or 3 fights to land a world title shot against the champion where he would receive a decent pay day and if he wins, he might start to get megapay days.

Of course another option would be to stay at light heavy where (if all goes to plan which it probably wont) something like the following might happen. He will eventually be rated higher and higher as he keeps winning. Who knows the winner of the Super 6 tournament might become a superstar and Step up to the plate against the light heavy champ, giving Dawson the mega match. from there, who knows maybe a lighter p4p star like Mayweather or someone will have bloated enough to give him another mega fight. Then by then, Adamek might be the man, and that would be another instant mega fight.

I think it make no business sense at all for Dawson to fight at heavyweight. Unless of course he loses form and is beaten by someone, like Adamek was, that is a different story.

 

Good point, I just included it because I liked it and past about 1:00 it shows his basic athletic ability. Ive seen bits of Jeffries and while strong and durable with good stamina he doesn't look to have the boxing ability to get to the better of the big heavyweights now.
He may be not dissimilar to a Vitali Klitschko of his time, in that he was a tough durable big man that also had great stamina, and wore down opponents physically rather than with comprehensive displays of punching power and skill.
Vitali is probably a bit better boxer. They arent that close but not miles apart

Jack Johnson may have had a shot as a good defensive fighter, Ill check him out some more

 

The old guard had a different way of fighting, for sure they did not lack for stamina..unlike todays crop.
They fought more rounds and were better conditioned, fought for fairly good money and used much better tactics than these days.

To be sure a Corbett..who was proberbly the smartest ring general, a Fitzsimmons..Jeffries ect ect..well these guys were not bums!
They trained hard and fought well, to look to the past and try to denigrate these founders of boxing is ridiculous.

Your views are just that..your views. no one knows for sure how the old school of boxing..the noble art of self defence..the fight to the finish, the 20/25/45 round bouts that these masters of the squared ring made so much of an impact on..that such a legacy, so huge an impact.that today..now..we still revere them in such awe and wonderment, and that sometimes we forget and make belive that factory fed dumbed down scum, musclebound bums with zero skill or stamina could posssibly be the ultimate fighter, the best ...the WORLD CHAMPION.

 

Problem is ,Jeffries was a big man feasting on small men ,most of whom were past prime , today he would be no more than an average heavy in size , facing men as big, and some considerably bigger ,they would also be his age.He may well have overcome this ,but we do not know.

 

I am not so sure that this is completely correct. If he was to fight for a world title today (so far as that is possible), Wlad would be 35 and Vitali 39. Fitzsimmons was 36 years old the first time and 39 the second time. Corbett was 34 and 37. Todays fighters are not spring chickens in terms of age!

Interestingly, if he were to beat the aging klitchskos, his likely challengers would probably be David Haye (who has about as many World class heavyweight scalps as the miner Monroe). That would leave a long scrap against a tough (but naturally small man who was a former light heavy) in Tom Adamek (shades of Sharkey?) . Jeffries might somewhere along the line fit in a fight with a third rater like Finnegan (Would maybe an owen Beck or Albert Sosnowski fith the bill here?). then he could retire with no challengers on the horizon. And hopefully a young, dominant champion sitting in the wings and on the verge of emerging.

Todays scene isnt really that much difference to what was around regarding age. Size is where the difference is. And even then, with the exception of the Klits, the big guys seem to be losing to the cruisers going up in weight.

 

Yes Dolt. I read it. The initial author did not spell out if if the early fighters did or did not get the same benefits of modern fighters.

Wrong again, I too have boxed. Too bad your a such a cancerous old man. You would not last any longer than I wanted you to in the squared circle. In fact, my hunch is once you saw who you were dealing with you would back out.

How do you know it was BS. It was mentioned in books. I see you only take in what you want, and disregard the rest when it comes to books. Classic.

There is a correlation to good foot workouts on flim and good footwork in boxing. Watch Ali or Holems work out, the footworks is very much the same in the ring. The papers of the times said Jeffries moved like a lightweight. More than one credible source said he was very athletic, and speedy. Yet you out of an obvious agenda try to go out of your way to argue he was not.


Lets say Jeffries comes out of a time machine in 1904. Does he get to bring his light ounce horse hair gloves that would be illegal today as they are well under 12 and 16 oucnes. Also keep in mind these gloves he used nicked up and split apart, upping the chances for cuts. Since you claimed to have boxed, surely you know such light gloves hurt far more to the head or body.

I suggest you read the book, " Super Athletes. "Jeffries is mentioned in detail here. In addition I have the author's personal heavyweight rankings, which has Jeffries at #1.

[url]http://www.oldtimestrongman.com/super_athletes.html[/url]

 

When you are a durable puncher type, the smaller speedy boxers who can evade you tend to give you a harder time. The larger or slower fighters Jeffries fought did not last as long.

Also if 220 pounds in shape is just average size, does this mean Johnson, or Joe Louis who was at their best in many cases were 15-20 pounds lighter would be out of his league in your book? Of coruse not. Stop with the transparent agenda.

Jeffries still has a very good tale of the tape in therms of legs, fist, back, and chest. Check the tales of the tape with previous modern champions and you will see.

 

The discrepancies I mentioned in my previous post related to the smaller HW's such as Burns, Corbett, Fitzimmons etc. against men the size of Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Holyfield etc. Men who have considerable advantages in height and reach and advantages in style. Style I feel is the biggest factor along with the evoloution of the jab. Does anyone here really think that Burns, Fitz, Corbett are really going to reach a prime Ali or Holmes or stop a rampaging Foreman with a single shot or trade fast combinations with a peak Holyfield? I don't. There just weren't as many good quality big men back in those early days of the ring which is why smaller good men were able to flourish. As the years went by you saw more good big men emerge and evolve and you no longer saw super MW's beating good HW's. Mind you I'm not denigrating those earlier pioneers. I think thier toughness and conditioning is something that more of todays HW's should try to emulate but a good big man will almost always beat a good little man and Many of the HW's that came along after these smaller men were good,,,Damn good which is why if you transported them to the more modern era I don't think they would do too well save for the bigger ones like Jeffries and Johnson.

 

You never saw Super middleweights beating the best heavyweights ever. Fitz did it, but he is the only person ever who has one a world title at themiddleweight limit. In fact, the only light heavyweight who ever held the world title is Tommy Burns. And he did it at a time where there wasnt any lineal champion ever, and most people didnt think he was the best heavyweight in the world. When he met the best heavyweight in the world, he was outclassed. So, in reality, Fitz is the only one ever that we are talking about and he really is a freak of nature. There are not many people (if any) with the size and dimensions of prime Tyson, with a punch like his. Fitz is no different. Dont judge everyone else off of his form.

Corbett is very underated as a fighter. A much better athlete than he is given credit for, he was physically big and easily could have packed on the beef to match up with most of the current guys. But in those days people trained for speed and endurance more so than power. If todays fighters trained (and ate) the exact same way as the old timers, they too would be similar sizes. Look at Chris Byrd (i know he was never huge), when he trained for it, he had no problem getting down to the light heavy limit even at his old age. If others trained and ate the same way, they would get the exact same results.

I suppose the question really is more, which training is better for current conditions. To be honest i dont believe that there is any point in sacrificing speed and stamina for power (when you are already big and strong enough naturally to start with) but i do realise i am in the minority.

 

They wouldn't succeed. They were **** compared to today's athletes.

 

But this is comparing Jeffries to the current top ten ,not the guys of the last 40 years.

Dont forget the inactivity of Corbett and Fitz before their challenges.


I would take Jeffries over most of the heavyweights of the last 10 years. I would have to think about the KLITS, but he would do well against the others I think.



His problems would be with big guys who are also fast with good jabs and power imo.
Ibragimov,Chagaev,Maskaev,Ruiz ,Peter , and the fat Mexican ,I see Jeffries cleaning these up no problem.
Haye is still really a question mark, against the top tier , but, if he fought a prime Munroe ,who has your money?
I think he beats the **** out of the miner.

 

Who is the top 10 today that we are talking about? They never fight each other so you never know, but if we could get those guys agreed on (for the purposes of this thread ) that would be a good start to look at comparisons. Are we talking:
1 Wlad, 2 Vitali 3 Povetkin 4 Haye 5 Adamek 6 Chambers 7 Chagaev 8 Valuev 9 Ruiz 10 Holyfield. Is that the line up we are looking at? Or do Ibragimov, Chagaev, Maskaev or peter or also make the list?

Do that and i will try to compare 1 guys from the Sullivan to JOhnson eras.

 

I think it would be better if you came in with an open mind. Instead of trying to see things that aren't there.