Jim Jeffries v Rocky Marciano 15rds

Which is why I pick Ricardo Lopez to beat Dereck Chisora.

 

Jeff would get hammered. Marciano wouldn't have too tough of a time winning at all.

Anyone who's seen the films should be able to see that.

Butterbean would flatten that fool.

Seriously.

 

I understand the point you are going for, but Jeffries in fact failed to defeat a man about 20 lbs. lighter than Marciano, (Joe Choynski) and plodded through 45 rounds with a fighter about 5 to 10 lbs. lighter than Marciano (Tom Sharkey).

So I don't think this reductio ad absurdum argument really hits home in this case.

 

"it's just a fact that he never beat a guy who would be a modern sized HW fighter."

Neither did Jeffries. That is the flaw with the size argument concerning this particular match-up.

I was just wondering. What if both were matched with Willard. Marciano in fact fought men closer to Willard in size than Jeff did. Willard would be a step up in size for Rocky, but Marciano did face men who were much bigger than he was, so would the somewhat bigger Willard make a critical difference?

Jeff would be much closer to Willard in size, so one way of looking at it is that such a case size wouldn't matter as much, and perhaps it wouldn't,

but Jeff would go from being the much bigger dog in his every fight to being the smaller dog.

How would this impact? We just don't know.

But for me the bottom line is that fighting men just as big, and actually bigger, than Jeff fought, Marciano had the better record, despite Jeff's record being compiled while generally enjoying gross weight advantages.

So my take, and I admit it is wide open for anyone to have a different view, is giving Jeff extra credit for being big is kind of like giving double value to his size. It is already in his record.

I wouldn't penalize Jeff for being big, but I wouldn't give any extra stature for being big either.

 

Since 1960 there has been an explosion of size so it becomes hard to compare with earlier times. As both Jeff & Marciano fought prior to 1960, I don't it unfair to look at what happened in their eras,

rather than decades later when for whatever reason, the heavyweight division became a totally different world

 

Only If you include the modern era.

 

Why would you not include any era?

 

Again though Rocky has never proven he can beat someone who's as big as Jeffries other than Shkor.

So I all depends on what you make of that fight and how much a leap of faith you're willing to make.

I think everyone agrees that Rocky is better than Jeffries p4p, the question is then is his advantage enough to offset the 30 pounds weight difference.

I don't think he is, not in this fight. Being undefeated just tell us he never came up against his stylistic weakness or it tells us he never fought anyone better than he. But he is still very limited in terms of projecting him against modern sized fighters.

For example Dempsey beat Willard and Firpo, we know he can beat a big man who fights at world level, so I'd be confident picking him in this fight.

For me to favour Rocky we have to allow him to bulk up. If we're saying he's giving away 30 pounds then I'm saying he's not winning this fight.

 

Because this thread is about two guys who never fought after 1960. Seems pointless to use a future Maxim against two men who fought before it was even relevant.

Don’t get me wrong, throw a champ from the 1950s into Jeffries era and the advantage is with the men from that time.

 

More data is never pointless.

I don't see Rocky winning this fight whilst giving away 30 pounds

 

yes weight “difference” not weight “advantage”. You are stuck on the later concept where weight difference became an advantage at a much, much later period that does not concern this matchup.

in a lot of cases if you put a modern sized fighter into a classic era he’s not even going to be a modern sized fighter anymore. The era itself is most responsible for size of fighter it takes to come out on top.

why would he need to bulk up against a man who fights a completely different code of boxing? Especially one where weight difference at world level was simply that. A difference of weight. Not necessarily an advantage in title fights.

Jim fought at a time where there was no combination punching. There was a lot of fencing for openings. Punches were rarely full force. They’re looking to time and respond to a completely different format.

Under these rules Jim is offering a much bigger target for Rocky. He won’t expect a finishing attack right at the start of a fight or full force blows thrown in combination. He could be a lamb to the slaughter outside of his own era. And vice versa for Rocky. We must respect each champ as being what they were because of the time they fought.

And if big men back then had access to all of the advances that later evolved in world championship boxing this would be a strong point. Instead you Can have a totally exposed duck out of water here. And it works both ways. Each champ to his own era has the advantage. You can’t expect somebody to adapt into something that never was needed in his day.

And Joe Louis. Don’t forget that. Joe Louis that Rocky beat was still a good fighter. On paper that version could be better than all the guys Jeffries fought. Put Jeffries out of his comfort zone of the early gloved era and in a ring with a 1951 Joe Louis and he would seriously struggle to adapt. He might even lose to the sophistication of an old joe Louis in relation to the way he understood how to fight.

 

Since boxing began there's been weight classes. Size has always been an advantage, always.

It isn't the only thing that determines the outcome of course but it is an advantage and always has been.

Jeffries is a fighting machine, he's a world class champion who was never really beaten.

Rocky is a great fighter but I don't think he's able to overcome the size disparity he's facing here.

 

it’s always been an advantage up to about 180 pounds. After that the best 190 pounder could beat everything else out there. Strictly With world class men though. And Title fights to 1960 bare this out. Historically that was the case until modern advances in training.

Everything changed after that.

the biggest factor here is eras and boxing format. Whoever is fighting in his own era is also in his own comfort zone and has the biggest advantage. This way advantage is measured by the ways of that time.

he clearly was a phenomenal fighter under those rules. Under his terms he beats Rocky.

The size disparity is less relevant because Jeffries in the 1950s dosnt understand the way you had to fight in order to be successful at that time.

The advantage with Rocky could be equal to the advantage Floyd Mayweather had over the much bigger Connor McGregor since boxing at the turn of the century was as different a sport to boxing in the 1950s as the stand up striking part of MMA is to boxing today.