Best title reign: Jeffries' or Marciano's?

Yeah it never fails to amaze me how idiotic journalists spout utter bilge a lot of the time and the rest of the public (sheep) fall in line - even Ali (at his peak!!!) was questioned - I have a magazine amongst my collection, 1965 Boxing Yearbook - on the cover of it there's a really cool classic picture of Ali and then a caption which reads "Can Cassius Clay Really Fight?" - Can Cassius Clay really fight!!!!!!????? What were these guys thinking - it's unbeleivable - here you had arguably the greatest heavyweight of all time at the peak of his powers and journalists still, STILL (!!) not giving him his due???? Totally crazy - and pretty embarrassing for the idiots who wrote it now I'm guessingatsch

 

You don't know what you are talking about. Bigger? Jeffries fought bigger guys in title matches. Younger? Moore and Walcott were older. Tougher era? Historians and those who saw both eras tend to disagree.

 

Marciano easy

Marciano didn't need any gifts against his opponents, he stopped them. Jeffries beat an ancient light-heavyweight Fitz. Was outboxed by an old Corbett until he faded late. And many people said Sharkey beat him in Coney Island.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROUiZnnFfAw[/ame]

youtube.com/eslubin

 

If I can change those matchups suggested by Appollack, just slightly, we would see:

Walcott v Corbett - Too extremely similar fighters. Both considered master technicians who could outbox the best fighters. Both fought fading versions of all time great fighters considered by many as the greatest ever at the time. Corbett KOd his man, while Walcott had a controversial points win. Corbett was probably considered quicker, but Walcott probably hit a little harder and may have taken a slightly better punch. Corbett was ranked much higher than Walcott was during his own time. Both tried to come back after losing their title and faced the new champion twice. Corbett probably put in the better performances over the two fights, and for this reason he was probably the slightly better scalp, although balance this out, by the fact that WalcottII might have simply been a better performance by the champion. To be fair, i would call this a draw.

Charles v. Fitzsimmons - Undisputedly, two of the greatest light heavyweights ever. In his prime though, Fitz' record, particularly at heavyweight is far better than Charles. His run of wins over Corbett, Sharkey and Ruhlin is unsurpassed and really is all time great material. In fact, i wonder where a win over Jeffries would have placed him in all time great material. In saying this, Charles still has his own great resume and should not be underestimated. Still, Fitz was the better wins.


LaStarza v. Sharkey - Both fights were made to set the score straight on close or controversial pre title decisions. Sharkey was considered a fair bit better in his time than La Starza. But this is balanced out by Marciano winning quite a bit more impressively. Slight advantage probably goes to Marciano.

Moore v. Ruhlin - Ruhlin was a naturally bigger fighter, but Moore was considered a little bit higher than Ruhlin, in their time, i think. Jeffries won the more impressively against Ruhlin. I think this probably makes this about even.

Cockell v. Munroe - I think that Munroe would probably have been considered a slightly better challenger, although this is perhaps a little unfair on Cockell who may have been considered better at the time, if he was american. Still, Jeffries actual form was more impressive than Rockys against cockell. Advantage Jeffries.

All in all, it is amazing how similar these two guys careers actually were. In fact, imagine if Rocky had actually come out of retirement to face Ali (instead of fighting with a computer). Then their careers would have been near identical. Particularly if Ali had won, like would be expected. Even their pre title opposition has both fighting an ancient version of arguably the greatest fighter of all time. Although, i do think that Jeffries had quite a bit better pre title opposition than Marciano.

 

Why?

Before his second career, Clay didnt really have his chin or heart tested. Because he was more a dancer, it was assumed that his chin or heart wouldnt be that great and he coudnt soak up punishment. Gene Tunney currently suffers from the same assumption, despite him soaking up plenty in his career. Ali was untested.

We say now that Ali is the greatest ever (i nearly always agree). But, what if he only had an average or even poor chin, on the same level as most boxers and poor recuperative power and heart. I dare say, that his records may include further losses to Foreman, Norton, Frazier, Cooper, Shavers, an early KO by Holmes etc. If that were the case, i wonder whether we would be so quick to criticise someone saying that Clay cant fight, when considered on an all time great level. It is a fine line between a great a contender. I find it amazing really that the best fighter i have ever seen had to rely so heavily on his chin and heart to survive. IN fact, i am sure the same went for the "monster" Jeffries, the great Joe Louis, and many if not all other All time greats.

 

Marciano fought 5 # 1 ring magazine heavyweight contenders and a # 2 ring magazine heavyweight contender in his title defense. Can Jeffries match this stat? No, cause he fought an unheralded, unrated opponent in one of his title defenses.

 

Yeah, but I don't think there was such a thing as " ring ratings " in Jeffries' time, so how can we use that as a criteria?

 

In 65 he had just beaten Liston in two questionable fights ... by 67 he was viewed as an all time great by most. You can hear it in the fight commentary against Williams and Folley.

 

You're splitting hairs .. both fought the top former champs, both fought other top contenders. Both had a lemon thrown in there ... the huge difference is that Jeffries refused to consider Johnson while Marciano basically fought everyone. That aside, they are very comparable.

 

These are my thoughts as well. I don't have a problem rating Marciano well above Jeffries, but more for the reasons that you've listed, and not because of things like ring ratings, which don't even apply to Jeffries' era.

 

Resume wise I think they are prety close.

The only answer I would object to is sombody arguing for a substantial margin in favour of either fighter.

 

Both fought in a weak era. Hard to choose.

 

So the reason you two guys dont rate Jeffries reign better is because he didnt face Johnson, who was, at best the no2 contender to the title when Jeffries retired. Yet, there is no mention of Marciano not fighting Valdez, who was the number 2 fighter for much of Rocky's reign or Patterson, who went on to become champion after Rocky, but like johnson wasnt ready for a shot at Marciano when Marciano retired.

And for those who think that Jeffries should have fought Johnson before this or would not fight blacks, let us not forget that Jeffries demolished Hank Griffin in 4 rounds with about 3 Knock downs, right before Hank beat Jack
Johnson 1-0 in a lengthy 4 fight series.

And finally, when Johnson did earn is status on par with Jeffries, Jeffries, not only fought him, but he came out of a lengthy retirement to fight him. Jeffries doesnt deserve any criticism at all for his actions regarding Johnson.