1961 ATG heavyweight list. boxing illustrated.

Sullivan was referring to his feet, and how many big men did he have to compare Jefries with?

 

Neither were great heavyweights , imo.
And in the opinion of just bout everyone who saw them.
Read the contemporary assessments of them.

Then produce ONE that refers to either as a great heavyweight.
If you can't, maybe your emoticons are inappropriate?

 

How do you know this? Fast feet almost always go with fast hands. Can you name a heavyweight who had fast feet but slow hands? Impress me! They are far and few between.

If you see Jeffries work out clips in his prime, you will see both fast feet and fast hands.

 

I know it because I've seen the original quote.

RJJ,Mike Dokes, Tyson, Patterson, and Meldrick Taylor had very fast hands, their footspeed however was average.
GGG has quickish feet, but slowish hands.
That enough examples ?

If you see both Jeffries actual fights, with Ruhlin and Sharkey both his feet & handspeed is decidedly average.Ruhlin is definitely quicker.

 

We already see Ali or a Frazier being torn down by many a modern fight fan. In 30 years what will the list of the time read like? I imagine the old time fighters will slip on down the list as they fade from the memories of fans and writers alike.

 

That seems to be the trend .

 

I cant agree with them and their assessment seems to be that they rate Dempsey high so they have to rate Willard high based on the beating he took in that fight. Willard was not fast at all, at any time in his career and hi jab was not all that they make it to be. His right hand was better than they give it credit for, long and thudding and better yet he threw it to the body and head equally. The one punch which Willard was really really good with but which he seems to rarely get credit for (and which he was said not to have during his era) was the uppercut. He was strong and took a good beating but I dont know if those qualities are worth rating him so highly.

Id say his rating highly among those old timers in comparison to Carnera is a combination of things. First he was American that right there gave him a leg up. Second there was a fair amount of skepticism attached to Carnera, rightfully so although I think by the time he won the title Carnera was as good as Willard at the least. It also didnt hurt that Willard beat Jack Johnson, a legendary great and that Willard was the guy who returned the title to the white race (this is pre civil rights america we are talking about). Yeah, Id rate Willard and Carnera pretty close. Willard was probably the more dangerous guy but he was clumsy and oafish. Carnera at least was a pretty good athlete. Carnera gets the edge in skill IMO and Willard in Power.

 

Some questions:
1. How old were the people rating the fighters?
2. How many were white?

 

I have to disagree on Roy Jones jr and Tyson's footspeed both were very fast of foot in their respective primes IMHO. I would like to add Amir Khan blazing hands with rather slow feet.

 

I don't see that Johnson had any choice but to try and get Willard out of there, being a fat ,dissipated 37years old, he wasn't likely to outlast him over 45 rds in a country where the average temperature for April is 84 degrees and God knows what the humidity is.

 

Subtract 2 ,add 1, I think my point stands.:good

 

Does Burt Sugar's top 10 heavyweight list count