Deontay Wilder v James Jeffries

You heard wrong.

 

If you have multiple figures quoted, then how do you go about establishing which is wrong?

 

It would be Wilder vs Arthur Spzika part two.

 

Hence the initial comment.

 

To try to knock him out perhaps? Why does Wilder close the distance on anyone?

 

Jeffries was thought of very highly by those who saw him fight in his prime. Jeff was rated as one of the greatest hwt champions for 80 years. Wilder in contrast has accomplished nothing in his career. That being said it's a function of distance. A short distance fight favors the rangy quick fighter. Similar to Obrien doing well vs the great Jack Johnson in a six round bout. Long fight the proven ATG wins by ko.

 

Those who saw him fight in his prime had seen who? Sullivan,Corbett , Fitz and5' 8" Sharkey.
The fight is over 15rds.
Wilder has not faced an opponent as small as Jeffries in his last 12 fights,the smallest was 6'2"232lbs, it might be a refreshing change for him to be facing a 6 foot 215lbs man.How much Jeffries would enjoy facing a 6'7"230lbs + man is open to question.
How do we know Jeffries was quicker than Wilder? Does his handspeed on the ancient cameras indicate this is so?
As to power I would vote solidly for Wilder here.

 

QUOTE="lufcrazy, post: 18364894, member: 44674"]To try to knock him out perhaps? Why does Wilder close the distance on anyone?[/QUOTE]
Wilder can win this from a distance, he can jab Jeffries from range and deliver his power before Jeffries can even get in range .Why would Wilder voluntarily give up his 6.5" reach and 7 inches in height advantage? He isn't fighting huge men like his last 12 opponents he is facing probably the lightest and certainly one of the shortest men he would encounter.He has options, Jeffries does not, he has to get inside and make it a mauling close range war, once there he would discover he isn't bullying an old supermiddleweight like Fitz around , nor pounding on an aged 180lbs+ light hitting Corbett, or a 5'8" 185lbs ,one dimensional Sharkey.He is fighting a prime superheavyweight,with top end power,and a fast telescopic jab, something he never experienced.

 

He doesn't have to give up his height and reach, but then again he never has had to, he just chooses to, aside from against Stiverne.

 

Difference being that for the most part his opponents were super heavies too!

 

in fairness most of them have been very **** shw's.

 

Yes indeed ,poor quality, but maybe as good as if not better than:
Jack Munroe 8-1-2
Joe Kennedy 10-3-5[ Jeffries sparring partner]
John Finnegan 4-2-4
Dan Long 0-2-0
Theodore Van Buskirk 4-0-2

 

lol, pretty hard to comeback at that.

 

Back to height. Napoleon was probably the best known man in the world in his day. When I read about him when I was a little shaver, his height was given as 5' 1" and of course he had a Napoleonic complex about being so short. Now historians say he was actually 5' 7" which made him 2" taller than the average Frenchman of his time. There was a mix-up between French and international measurements.

The point is that Jeffries is obscure next to Napoleon. And if they got the "Little Corporal" wrong?

I will repeat this quote from box rec:

"Jeffries was examined by Dr. D. A. Sargent at Harvard University in December of 1903 and was recorded to be precisely 6 feet tall."

This is not just a guesswork source. It does answer basic questions--Who? Where? When?

And as I said, it dovetails with the little film we have of Jeffries. The films of Jeffries standing or walking next to Corbett (from The Legendary Champions) are consistent in showing Corbett noticeably taller. If Jeff was really 6' 2 1/2" Corbett would have to be about 6' 4"

But Corbett's height is pretty consistently given as 6' 1"

I am open to better evidence, but Dr. Sargent's measurement seems to be the best out there.

 

None as tall or as rangy from memory. Some fighters give up their height, just one of those things.