No, the bottom line is his best opponent would be a super middleweight today, four divisions BELOW heavyweight. Jeffries' best opponent wouldn't even be allowed to fight him today because they actually have ratings and sanctioning bodies and FOUR DIVISIONS between middleweight and heavyweight ... and 39-year-old super middleweights who have been out of boxing for two years don't get World Heavyweight title shots. The bottom line is, both times Jeffries fought Fitz, Bob had been out of the ring for TWO YEARS before they fought. His best opponent was an inactive, 39-year-old super middleweight. OF COURSE HE WON. Jesus Christ. How dense are you guys?
A SMW who stopped heavyweights. I don't care how big you are as long as you compete against bigger than you. So the same as Fury, except that Jeffries won fights, Wilder didn't. Inactive, aging SMW who is top 20 HW ever and has a case for GOAT P4P fighter. It's you who are dense...
I know that size is everything, but Ezzard Charles would be by far the best HW Wilder ever fought. Same with Archie Moore. Same with Bob Fitzsimmons. Or Evander Holyfield. All these fighters started at lower weights and I'd bet on all of them beating Wilder who spent his whole career on beating scrubs and when he upped competiton, he won two tought fights against old Ortiz who wasn't anything special and lost two fights to Fury who came out of 2 years break. That's his entire resume. Sorry, but I believe in more than just size. Charles would school Wilder. Moore and Fitz might knock him out and I don't even want to think what Holyfield would do to him.
Tyson Fury is 100 pounds heavier than Fitz, has a TWO-FOOT reach advantage over Fitz, has a nine-inch height advantage over Fitz and is a better boxer than Fitz ever was. Fitz fought in an era when 39-year-old 170 pounders who hadn't fought in two years could get a heavyweight title shot because there were no governing bodies, no ratings and the division was SO GODDAMN AWFUL he seemed like a worthy challenger. Fitz fought in an era when a 170-pounder could win the World Heavyweight Title because the champ was a 180-pounder with 10 WINS under his thong. The sport has grown immeasurably in 120 years. None of these guys - Fitz, Corbett, Jeffries - would be factors today. Hell, Fitz and Corbett wouldn't even be heavyweights.
So you don't see smaller fighters beating Fury? Fury isn't a better boxer than Fitz, he just uses his size well. No, he got a shot because he stopped two best challengers within a few weeks in dominant fashion. I mean, most champions today have very few fights too. Corbett was experienced boxer with amateur history, he just didn't fight often. If Wilder had beaten Joshua, should I say that it's not impressive because he had 20 fights on his record? Probably not, Corbett would fight at CW and Fitz would stay at LHW because there is enough money in these divisions now. It doesn't mean that they wouldn't be able to compete.
Wilder lost ONE FIGHT to the LARGEST WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION in history (6'9" 270). Jeffries' best opponent was the lightest heavyweight champion in history (a whopping 167 pounds) who hadn't fought in years. Do the math. Einstein.
You make a good case Dubblechin, not so much about how bad the division was, but that the size disparity would be too much to overcome. If we think about the very best guys who fought at the size of Fitz throughout history-& given rehydration today he could easily fight at Super WW & be the same 167 in the ring-none could compete against big top HWs as is. But you need to be more careful about the facts that you insist upon. Because the wingspan differential between Fitz & Fury is not 24": it is just 9 & a 1/2 ". That is a massive difference in itself between what you claim & reality man.
So again, size right? So Carnera is second best fighter ever now, slightly behind Fury. Again, Wilder lost against his best opponent, Jeffries won.
Jeffries had ability. The 5 minutes of footage in his prime just doesn't show it clearly on hard to view / slow film. Maybe one day I'll break it down for those who want to look closely. But aside from ability, he was as durable as say Tua, hit harder than Dempsey and measured out better than Fitzsimmons on a PSI machine. His hand speed and footwork were good and he's one of the few old-timers that wasn't too small to be a heavyweight today. If I were to say who would you pick between Tua ( A guy who could punch and take a punch like Jeffries ) and Wilder and add a few inches in height and reach to Tua making him faster, and take away his excess fat giving him 15+ round stamina ( giving Tua some stuff that made Jeffries great ), who would you pick? Heck, I think Tua who really lacked skills would talk Wilder out without giving him anything extra. If you don't consider Wilder great ( thank goodness ) then who do you? Keep in mind Jeffries came out #1 overall in a survey of 12 historians over Johnson, Dempsey, Louis Tunney, and Marciano in the late 50's with people voting who either saw him fight, or were very familiar with him. A #1 rank with the backdrop of history 50 years after your prime really says something. I think you can change your mind if you learn a bit more.
NB Jeffries power was measured against that of a 39 years old Fitz who had bad hands. Of those that rated Jeffries top, how many had actually seen him fight?
I know that and Jeffries also destroyed Ruhlin. He gave Fitz second chance and Fitz put up marvelous performance. I wouldn't expect different results with quicker rematch.
Size alone wont cut it size and talent is a pretty tough combination to beat.Nobody on this forum,in the 16 years I have been here even ranks Carnera in the top 10 so please just stop with that crap.
You don't think the Fitz who kod Ruhlin and Sharkey would perhaps have done better than the two years older two years inactive version that Jeff fought?You do know Fitz half killed Ruhlin? I know you think Jeffries **** rockets and farted thunderbolts ,but do you think Gus was the same fighter when he faced Jeffries later?
mcvey, says effries was a never stopped in his prime so we know he was durable but he was never hit by a modern heavyweight with the power of Wilder.The two hardest punchers he remained erect against were probably Fitzsimmons and Choynski. Fitz was a light heavy at best, and Choynski, whom Jeffries said hit him harder than anyone, a super middleweight.I believe therefore there is a legitimate question mark about Jeffries ability to weather Wilder's right hand,a punch that judging from the Ruhlin footage he looks very open to. The best big man Jeffries faced and beat was Ruhlin 6'2"199lbs who definitely underperformed. I certainly do not rule out Jeffries chances here, I don't think much of Wilder skill wise, but he has proven he can take out modern heavyweights with one shot. Jeffries seldom did that,even against the smaller guys he was facing ,he generally wore them down, shipping quite a bit of facial punishment along the way. Silly talk of Wilder having a glass jaw should be tempered by the realization of which poster claims it,and dismissed out of hand,as palpable nonsense. This content is protected