James Jeffries vs Deontay Wilder

There are three serious problems with the arguments being fielded for Wilder here.

One argument hangs heavily on Wilder's power, and we are matching him against a man who was never stopped, anywhere close to his prime.

That makes it a big ask to pick Wilder on his power alone.

Another argument hangs heavily on the idea that the boxing technique has advanced, and Wilder sucks from a purely technical perspective.

That makes it a big ask to pick Wilder based on his technical ability.

The final argument hangs on the size of their respective opposition, but Wilder was no heavier then Jeffries.

That makes it a big ask to pick Wilder based upon his size.

What does that leave?

 

To state the obvious, the quality of the film makes it hard to gauge how good Fitzsimmons was, or even what exactly he was doing!

 

The Quality of the film clip I posted was PRISTINE. It's from the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. Blow it up Full Screen. Stream it on a flat screen. It looks great.

PROVE YOUR POINT. Post clips and do your analysis ... since we don't know what we're talking about. Show us what we're missing.

 

The "final" argument?

I've posted video of Wilder outboxing Stiverne over 12 rounds (after Wilder had broken his hand) to show his boxing skills.

(You've posted nothing demonstrating Jeffries boxing "skills." NONE. ZERO.)

I've posted video of Wilder knocking out top-rated guys 40 pounds heavier than he is.

(You've posted nothing demostrating Jeffries knocking out anyone heavier than him, because Jeffries NEVER DID, whereas Wilder hasn't weighed more than his opponent in EIGHT YEARS.)

Here's a crazy idea, try proving Jeffries can even compete in the same ring with Wilder. Because bowling over 167 pounders who haven't fought in years isn't a big seller.

The onus isn't on whether Wilder can beat Jeffries. By modern standards, Jeffries looks like **** in every available footage of him.

Prove Jeffries was EVEN ORDINARY compared to modern fighters. I don't think you can even do that.

Prove he could beat and stop a heavyweight even a couple pounds heavier than him. Can you even do that?

All hail the pioneers of the sport. We wouldn't have a sport without them. But 120 years have passed. And Jeffries isn't getting fights with guys the size of Billy Joe Saunders if he's in the ring in today's world.

Jeffries couldn't even outmuscle Jack Johnson with 20 pounds over him.

And you think he's going to outbox, outmuscle and outpunch Wilder?

LOL. Where's that film analysis?

 

You said, "Fitzsimmons was better fighter than Fury and I don't care that he wasn't large."

If you can look at that film and make that statement, then there is nothing to discuss.

Fitzsimmons clearly was not a better fighter than Fury is now.

Not in any way, shape or form. Not only is Fitz not a better boxer than Fury, he's 100 pounds lighter, eight inches shorter, and his reach is TWO FEET SHORTER.

There is nothing about Fitz that was better. Nothing.

And Wilder beats Jeffries, because Jeffries wasn't better than Wilder at anything.

If you post some clips or make any effort to prove any of your points (instead of just trying to run down Wilder), let me know. Otherwise, we're just talking in circles.

 

I know it felt good when you typed that. But he isn't.

I doubt Fitz could even beat most of the current 168 pound champs, because they're all much bigger when the bell rings themselves, and they have more tools than he did.

Fitz would be a Super Welterweight today. They usually weigh around 167 when the bell rings. I'd give him a shot against the Jarrett Hurd, but Hurd would have the reach on him, too.

That's how ridiculous this whole thread is.

Fitz wouldn't even be a heavyweight today. He wouldn't even be allowed in the ring with one. Shows what a garbage argument all this is.

 

Weigh ins were held the day of fights back then. Not 30+ hours before. Todays Super Welterweights enter the ring in the 160s. I think Hurd hit the 180s for the Lara fight.

Bob Fitzsimmons never came remotely close to weighing 200 pounds in his career. When he could weigh whatever he wanted, he never came close to that.

The most he ever weighed was 175. That's significantly less than 200, which is the cruiserweight limit today.

And it's too bad Wilder never got to fight some guys who weighed 167 pounds as a pro, and Wilder could weigh whatever he wanted, like in Jeffries' day.

I'm sure he could make a lot of money fighting Callum Smith, Canelo Alvarez, Billy Joe Saunders and then brag about all the "names" he beat, like Jeffries did.

I'm sure that would go over great. (LOL)

I'm out of here. The nonsense was all too much.

 

No, he's not at all. (LOL)

And we're not talking about pound-for-pound.

We're talking about two guys who were heavyweight champs/title challengers.

One is 6'9", 270 pounds (fit), with an 85-inch reach.

One is 5'11, 170 pounds (fit), with a 71-inch reach.

And the BIGGER guy is a better boxer BY MILES.

MILES.

If Bob Fitzsimmons was a foot taller, a 100 pounds heavier and added two feet in reach (so he was similar in size to Fury), and yet Bob still possessed the same boxing skills as he had in 1897 against Corbett, I still don't know if he beats Fury. Because FURY IS CLEARLY THE BETTER BOXER.

Add the ridiculous size difference, and it's no contest.

The fact that you're even debating this shows how stupid this discussion is. It's like a car wreck. I can't look away. But I'm going to now.

 

Damn that’s some solid footage. I can stabilize it, which it desperately needs.

Corbett looks to have heavier punches than I imagined. Fitz let off an explosive 2 punch combo to the body that looked painful.