Let's see.... Jeanette was tiny, possessed of a science that impressed the neanderthals (similar to showing a dog a card trick) and lost his share of fights early on. He had a streak where he was decent against the various plodders and non-athletes of the day. Fought a lot of the same bums over and over again, a feat for which we are told to be in awe. Kudo's for him for being decent in a nascent and relatively horrible era. Broad Axe. Made of science. An athlete through and through. Unmotivated and lackadasical. Underacheiver. KO'd Bonecrusher. A promising product of a great era. Broad KO5 Jeanette. What thinks you?
A) I am talking PRIME Broad. B) The lesser Frazier was a terror. Please to mention the 180 pound fighter who gave Broad fits?
I think that you probably assume that the pyramids were built by aliens because the primitive people of the time could never have mastered the complex mathamatical principles involved.
I think you're selling Jeanette short. He was alot better than you give him credit for and I'd pick him to win this fight.
This was as prime as Broad ever got. Unbeaten, 25 years old, in his best ever shape (still not exactly great shape though). Jeannette weighed about the same amount as Frazier. 198 lb Jeannette vs 215 lb Sandy Ferguson: "Jeannette worked the big man's body, hurting him there in the third, and having him reeling in the sixth and seventh. In the eighth round, Ferguson collapsed from the accumulated punishment and his corner threw in the sponge." Sounds a lot like the Frazier-Broad fight.
At 27 years old, Jeannette weighed 185. So the burden of doubt here seems to be on Broad, of whom we much footage both as an excellent amateur and a lazy-ish though sometimes excellent pro. Jeanette we essentially have nothing of, certainly during his prime, except the heresay of observers who doubtfully ever saw a modern boxer, and if they did, did so in their advanced age. Not a great witness pool by any standards. It appears the real arbiter in these match-ups is the overactive, and provenly biased. imaginations of those who think it possible to render an accurate prediction.
It's a somewhat legitimate topic in my opinion, even if Seamus is not being entirely serious. I'm well aware that I'd probably get laughed at if I said to the average boxing fan that a 190 lb boxer from the early 1900's would beat a 230 lb boxer from the 1980's.
I didn't have the impression was being too serious after reading that. Seems like nothing but pure "trying to get people pissed off" trolling.