James Jeffries vs Deontay Wilder

The guy hits like a truck, not doubt about it.

Power on its own is a grossly over rated commodity however!

 

I am well aware what everybody weighed thank you very much.

My point is that I will not give somebody more respect for beating bigger younger fighters, if they were not the best or brightest of their era.

We could pick a man off the street who weighed as much as Wilder's opponents.

 

Ok let's use that example.

Fighter A knocks out a 38 year old shopworn Thomas Adamek with several losees who hasn't fought for 2 years but he's somehow ranked.

Fighter B knocks out a 28 year old prime Audley Harrison but he's unranked.

Oh and fighter A is 50 lbs heavier than Adamek and fighter B is 50 lbs lighter than Harrison. According to you, if Adamek is the highest ranked fighter, that knockout is somehow more impressive? All that matters are rankings and credentials?

 

Yes, if Adamek was still in the top ten, it would absolutely be a more impressive win!

 

Have you ever boxed before? Or done any sort of combat sport?

 

Yes, what are you getting at?

 

Wilder's been fighting the wrong guys. Someone get Daniel Jacobs on the phone. Then Canelo. Then the Charlos.

Instead of Fury, maybe Saunders.

He's been approaching this all wrong. Blowing out name super middleweights he outweighs by 40 pounds is the route to go, apparently.

That's the Jeffries way.

 

No he has been approaching it just right.

If he had fought better opposition, he would have picked up loss sooner.

 

But they'd be ranked by Ring. So I'm sure you'd give him full credit for the KOs.

Deontay Wilder vs. Billy Joe Saunders. Has a nice Jeffries ring to it.

Then again, Jeffries never fought anyone who was undefeated with so many wins. The only undefeated guy he fought was Jack Munroe, who had seven wins in nine fights (two draws).

Someone 29-0 might be too tough for Jeffries, especially a fighter as big as Saunders (I heard he weighs almost 180 when the bell rings). Jim might advise against it.

 

Actually he didn't ,as champion he didn't face any of the best black guys such as Childs, Martin, McVey, or Johnson

 

What im getting at is that I am once again having a hard time believing that you believe the words you are typing.

By saying yes to my questions you basically just admitted that you believe ranking is the end all be all, athletic ability, skill, and age be damned. You do realize boxing is a sport and not chess or a video game right? In chess one guy can be 5'2 and 50 years old and still crush opponents 3x younger and 3x bigger. That rarely happens in boxing for a reason.

If canelo challenged wilder and knocked him out, he would be GOD. They would probably dedicate an entire month as a holiday to celebrate his success. Nobody would care if Wilder was ranked or unranked when it happen AND YOU KNOW IT so why are you being disignenuous?

If Wilder knocked out a 38 year old inactive Canelo, he would probably get death threats and he would need extra security. Mexico would likely ban him from travelling there for fear of riots and you know it.

So if you KNOW what it's like to actually put on gloves and fight, I find it equally perplexing that you would make the absurd observation that a fighter giving up 50 lbs and knocking out Harrison is less impressive than a fighter having a 50 pound advantage and knocking out an old inactive Adamek. Do you think ANY sports writer on the entire planet would be praising the 2nd fighter? There would be all kinds of memes and viral videos blasting that boxer!

You do know it's normally HARDER to defeat, let alone knock out a guy 50 lbs heavier than a guy 50 lbs lighter, especially if the bigger opponent is younger and fresher to boot? Why do I even need to explain this to someone who supposedly boxed? Why do you think Manny Pacquiao and Thomas Hearns and Jack Dempsey get so much praise for taking on much larger opponents and battering them?

If for example, Wilder knocked out an unranked Daniel Dubois in July this year, would that be less impressive than Joshua stopping a ranked, old flabby Povetkin? Now lets say that instead of Wilder, in July Dubois fights a tomato can with a record of 1-8-14 and suddenly ring magazine decides to put him in The top 10 rankings. He then fights Wilder in November and gets knocked out. By your logic, The Wilder win suddenly becomes better the moment ring magazine arbitrarily decides to give him a ranking based on a win over a garbage opponent? Did Dubois become a better fighter in that time frame? Does he have better defense, combinations, stamina, head movement, etc? If NOTHING in Daniel Dubois' skill set changed, how exactly is the knock out any more impressive? Because ring magazine said so? Do you see the flaw in the logic here?

 

This is a good point about the Ring. The Ring presents itself as some paragon of virtue above the grubby politics of boxing, yet they've been embroiled in a few scandals over the years when they were caught taking bribes to rank certain fighters. They were also known to put foreign fighters in their ratings in order to boost sales in those countries. And it is currently owned by a famous promoter and ex-boxer (no conflict of interest there...). So it's silly to act as if Ring ratings are the final word on how good or bad a contender is when their ratings are really no less arbitrary or biased than anyone else's.

 

Want to take a look how Armstrong fared against Childs?