James Jeffries vs Deontay Wilder

I am not sure that it is to be honest.

The principles have always been the same.

The only things that change are stance, and guard.

 

How far would any ATG have got with the chin of David Price?

There have been greats who couldn't break an egg with there fist, but it is hard to find one without at least a serviceable chin!

 

No, we have 120 years of "clever" boxers who have been added to the pool that a boxer today has to be as good or better than to be considered "a clever boxer."

Nobody had seen Ray Robinson or Muhammad Ali or Jersey Joe Walcott or even a Gene Tunney or Tyson Fury when Jim Jeffries was champ. Someone might look pretty good until a 1,000 guys over the next 120 years come along who are better.

A fast sprinter in 1900 wouldn't exactly be considered a fast sprinter today, because what is considered a fast sprinter has changed over 120 years.

 

What have they added?

They would have seen Joe Gans.

Irrelevant.

Boxing does not advance in the same way as track sports.

Also there is some evidence that the best modern sprinters would not have beaten Jesse Owens on a cinder track.

 

Joe Gans?

You mean to tell me that Muhammad Ali, Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Pernell Whitaker, and every other clever boxer over the last 120 years didn't change how people define who is a clever boxer?

You're defending Jeffries to the point of stupidity.

I'm going. Not only was Jeffries not a "clever" boxer by today's standards, he didn't appear to be a clever boxer compared to any opponent we can watch him sharing the ring against.

Wilder can't punch? And Jeffries was a clever boxer? This thread is one for the archives, I swear.

Bye. Enjoy your weekend.

 

Wilder is less skilled than pretty much everyone he's faced. And he's KO'd all but one of them.

But then Jeff was less skilled than pretty much everyone he faced. It was his size, toughness and stamina that won him fights against smaller, more talented opponents. I can't think of any fight he won in which his skills and cleverness were thought to be the deciding factor.

 

Muhammad Ali. Sugar Ray Robinson. Sugar Ray Leonard. Wilfred Benitez. Pernell "Sweat Pea" Whitaker. And the godfather of them all, Jim Jeffries. (LOL)

Gotta go. It's been fun.

 

Yes, and as long as it worked, it wasn't a problem!

Now there I would have to disagree.

He put some bigger man out boxing the smaller man clinics on people!

If Bob Fitzsimmons had not turned up for the rematch, nobody would have asked why he didn't turn up!

 

I don't think it was his skills and cleverness that overcame Ruby Rob:

NEW YORK. June 9 —"I can't say any more than that Jeffries is the best man I ever met. He was too big and strong for me. It is proof positive that youth and weight will tell in a fight. I can make no excuses." -- Bob Fitzsimmons

 

• But a 39 years old 2 years retired Fitzsimmons did turn up ,and ringside reports say he handled Jeffries like a novice,hitting him when and where he pleased.
• Reporters concluded that had he not been 12 years Jeffries senior, and so very much smaller, he would have won.
• I'm quite prepared to entertain Jeffries beating Wilder who does not impress me ,but let's not pretend Jeffries was a clever boxer,he wasn't.
• Neither is Wilder,but what Wilder does possess is that,"get out of jail card, " terrific power.
• Jeffries was a good solid banger but,for the most part, he was hitting smaller ,older men and it took him time to gradually wear them down to a point which they were ready to go.
• Wilder has that rare power that can render a super heavyweight helpless with one right hand. I also am not convinced that because a 270lbs guy has stopped Wilder ,he is suddenly chinny,he has taken whacks from some pretty decent punchers and survived ,and there's nothing wrong with his ticker.I don't like him I think he is a deluded *****,but I don't question his heart.
• For me it remains a close fight I'm going to go 60/40 for Wilder ,but he wouldn't be getting any cake walk fighting Jeffries.

 

Nothing there qualifies as evidence

 

The proof is that Jeff beating an old 2, years inactive 50 lbs lighter man was enough to convince the public he was Hercules. It's not a conspiracy lol. That tells me all I need to know about the incredibly low bar they were setting for that era. The fact there was a separate bar for the "colored" competitors makes it even more egregious.

I don't understand why this is hard to accept. It isn't Jeff or the public's fault. Kind of like setting the health bar in street fighter very low and letting your younger brother think he beat you. Heck you dont even need to blame boxing commission or powers that be, boxing was in it's infancy and they were still figuring things out. We're talking about the same era where Sharkey attacked Jeff in his corner between rounds and somehow wasn't disqualified. The era where police could break things up and they relied upon newspaper decisions.

To the casual fan some people did. People who saw right through the farce weren't fooled though. I am not saying Jeff is comparable to a clown like Broner, I was using an extreme example to make a point about public perception.

That makes things worse. Much worse.

With the lack of footage, choppy records, and lacking a clearly defined list of contenders or a sanctioning body to organize the rankings, this sounds more like a martial Arts tournament in a video game or movie. Were promoters just deciding who'd fight who on a whim based on popularity or who looked good lately?

How do you even compare that to the current system?

 

Jeffries gave his opponents more openings than a Sunday hooker.

Hint: Don't give Deontay openings.

 

Wilder is good at controlling range and doesn't need many punches - make that right hands. Jeffries is there to be hit. The fat lady would need to be warming those vocals up during the introductions.

 

But that isn't reality and you know it so why are you playing games again? If Kevin Hart managed to suplex Shaquille O Neil and then Brock Lesnar demonstrates that he can do the same thing, they will not receive equal praise for obvious reasons. One would be completely unexpected and the other is expected.

So once again I'm asking why we're praising one boxer for doing the expected and bashing another boxer for doing the unexpected? Please don't duck the question again.

So is it a "massive" assumption to assume that the 90's were better than the jab and grab 2010's Wladmir Klitschko era? Is it a massive assumption and huge leap of logic to claim that the 70's were better than the 60's?