James J Jeffries vs Anthony Joshua

This content is protected

 

Sharkey was called for decades an uncrowned champion. Corbett was one of the greatest boxers ever to live. In tough bouts Jeffries prevailed. Corbett and Fitz are ATG fighters and considered such for many decades. Walcott although an excellent fighter was never considered a ATG fighter.

 

Whilst no ATG Joshua is hardly a "nothing". Descriptions such as this will make a mockery of you just as quickly as those going uber silly over Joshua already.

 

Joshua is an amateur level hwt in terms of skills. Ponderous and musclebound.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

Fighters from that time period were masters at the finer parts of the game...feints, blocks, parries etc. Boxing at that time was not for the faint hearted. It was a rough tough sport fought under very difficult and at times severe conditions.

Films of Jeffries, Corbett and Fitz are few and far between and are of very poor quality. Even Dempsey, as highly skilled as he was, looks poor simply because film quality does not allow for the exhibition of boxing skill. It was a revelation to everyone on here when Rez showed Dempseys slipping seven consecutive punches but not for me since I've been watching these same films since 1970.

 

This content is protected

 

It would make things a whole lot easier if Perry learnt how to use the quote function.
Half the time it appears that he is having a conversation with himself.

 

This content is protected

 

He did the same thing when he was Houdini.
Has he mentioned that he watched a fight live yet?

 

I'm not attacking Jeffries, I'm trying to get some perspective here.He was a giant for his times fighting older much smaller men , his two best wins are over men coming out of retirement.
He had great durability and relied heavily on it but being hit by lightheavies no matter how good they are as punchers and let's face it he only faced about 3 bangers in his entire career ,one was167lbs and he went 20 rds to a draw,one was 167 and 172lbs he turned his face into raw hamburger in their second fight and it would have been stopped today and the other was a crude 5'8" 183lbs swarmer. ps Any fighter who is 36 &39 and coming out of a 2 years retirement is NOT prime.
His best wins are over:
A 36 and 39 years old man coming out of 2 years retirement and conceding 47lbs and 39lbs!
A 33 and 36 years old man coming back after a year and a half retirement and finally coming back after 3 years retirement! and conceding27lbs and 30lbs!
That isn't his fault but its nevertheless true.
I agree a few years younger Wlad beats the present Joshua.I wouldn't pick Joshua to beat either Johnson and Walcott at this stage.
Joshua is a good 30lb s heavier than Jeffries, and 6 inches taller he also had 5 and a half inches of reach on him and I think hits appreciably harder.
We never saw Jeffries hit by a modern giant,so to say with any confidence he wins this is taking an awful lot on trust.

 

Yes I'm pretty sure he as ,and that he"was around in that era".Don't think he has said," if you really know boxing , and what you are looking at," for a while. He makes some good posts .

 

When Corbett came out of retirement to challenge Jeffries he had not won a fight for over 6 years and that was a win over an aging middleweight Charley Mitchell who was 5'9" and 165lbs.
Fitz was suffering badly with his hands they had been badly broken in a couple of fights,he used to ask for permission to wear extra tape, he wasn't prime.The reports of the second Jeffries fight are unequivocal that if they had been near the same age and size, Fitz would have won. Fitz was drunk the night before the first Jeffries fight and William Muldoon the famous wrestler and physical culturist ,and later to be Boxing Commissioner for New York carried him home.He badly underestimated Jeffries for that fight.