Ring magazine is officially lost it

I would certainly agree with the reverse (Schmeling's win over Louis being worth more than Jeff's entire career), but Schmeling's age in the second Louis bout would preclude that win from being worth more, IMO.

 

Essentially yes.

If you are asserting something, then I would ask you to prove it, or acknowledge that it is an assumption.

But it wouldn't be a division consisting of three men.

Every heavyweight division in history, has consisted of thousands of men, including many big and athletic men.

If Arguello and Butterbean are legitimately the two top contenders, then they would have demonstrated their superiority over that division.

Arguello would have had to either beat the big heavyweights of the era, or at the very least demonstrate his superiority over men who had beaten them.

then you would be left with the possibility that he was just a phenomenon who could have done the same in other eras.

I think that breaking the Ring Magazine top five in any era, takes a fairly capable fighter.

I think that consistently beating such men, takes an exceptional fighter.

 

Then it is difficult to see what Jeffries could have done with the opposition available to gain your approval.

 

You make this argument like it matters. Let’s say there is only 10 guys for me to fight there the only guys I can fight they’re all garbage. I beat them dominantly for years. It proves nothing. Just because you couldn’t get the comp to prove yourself doesn’t mean you can be compared to the ones that did.

 

So your argument seems to be that Jeffries could never prove himself, because his era sucked.

I see two problems with that.

Firstly, how could we ever prove that Jeffries era was weaker than Louis's?

Secondly, even if we did, you could still make the case for Jeffries, based on what he accomplished relative to his era.

 

Obese fighters--the guy who comes closest to filling the obese fellow getting to the top slot is Andy Ruiz, although he definitely is skilled. One of the problems raised by boxing history is that the old timers actually seem to have been in better shape and to have had better stamina.

"garbage"--in practice this sort of claim always turns out to be a circular argument. If you want to put down a fighter, you argue his era and opponents were garbage.

Arguello and Butterbean--this is an abstraction to provide an over-the-top premise for a debating point. When has the heavyweight division going back to Figg been dominated by 130 lb men or someone so obese he can't go more than four rounds? Jeffries has been mentioned here. He fought some small men, but Fitz and Choynski weren't that small and there were a lot of bigger guys. Armstrong was 6' 3" and nearly 190 and with a terrific natural physique. Take a look at his photo. Corbett was 6' 1" and close to 190. Ruhlin over 6' 2" and 200. Until the size explosion beginning in the 1960's, these men would always have been considered decent sized heavyweights as would most of Jeff's opposition.

The problem with head to head based on size is that it might be as true of the mediocre as the good. Yeah, the 2020 Tampa Bay team would probably dominate the 1960's Lombardi Packers. But then again so might the 2020 Detroit Lions. They are a lot bigger and are modern also. Should we really rely on a standard that grants greatness to mediocrity.

 

In fairness, Louis' era was much longer. That is a valid consideration.

 

He sucked- his comp sucked and Louis’s era was better and you know it. Who is Jeff’s best win again?

 

Perhaps that's not the best example then.

Let's say Sharkey's era for the sake of argument.

 

Bob Fitzsimmons, who is still in Ring Magazine's top twenty if you look at the OP.

Believe it or not, I do have opinions on which eras are stronger than others.

I just know that they might well be wrong.

 

Bob Fitz the lightest HW champ in history past his best days. Wonderful win.

 

"Who is Jeff's best win again?"

Fitz. Who was a triple champion who lost honestly only to Jeff in 14 years. Fitz's weight is given as 172. Conn at 174 gave Louis holy hell. Gibbons at 175 went 15 with Dempsey. Neither were as accomplished in their eras as Fitz was in his.

 

37-39 years old Fitz yes a premium win.

 

Other than the bizarre and likely unfair DQ loss to Sharkey, whom he later KO'd, Fitz lost only to Jeffries in a 14 year period in which he was a triple champion. Are you certain age is always decisive. Tell it to Tom Brady.

*I don't know what happened here. But this answer was to the 37 to 39 post.

 

By most accounts correct me if I am wrong Jeffries pretty much outlasted Fitz up until the moment he tired Ruby Rob was winning in both fights?