Jim Jeffries vs Tony Tubbs.

Then, do you realy want to pick him over sombody who dominated an era, however weak the era?

Come to think of it, can you even justify picking him over the weaker lineal champions?

This isn't Larry Holmes we are talking about.

 

These are good points. We will always have the occasional small man who who will steal an alpha title here or there, but to even suggest that this is comprable to the impact that a man like Bob Fitz had on the division and use it as a comparison for how he'd do today is ridiculous. Mike Tyson at 5'11", 220 lbs would be considered small by today's standards, and he had far greater size than Fitz who was like 5'10" and at times weighed 169 lbs or something.

 

No... I probably can't pick him over anyone great and keep a strait face.. But to think that he didn't have the kind of skills to trouble certain lineal champs wouldn't be accurate either.. He was a big guy who had boxing skill and very mobile for a man his size. He certainly could have given Jeffries some problems even if he didn't beat him.

 

Big Jeff gets picked apart.

 

They would do better than tubbs. the thread was about tubbs. a fighter with a thin resume at only contender level.

And far less seasoning.

Older styles of boxing for big men fighting mostly smaller men developed differently. most Big men today only fight other big men now.

Old giants rarely used combinations since they were more wary of being clipped by the faster man with smaller gloves so they pawed and sparred with extended arms not using full weight in their punches. they made up for that inside however and made an impresion with those tiny gloves.. It was still as effective just did not look so good because they fought mostly faster fighters who could compeat with power because of the smaller gloves.

granted, willard and carnera were not as good as Lewis or a klitchko but both primo and jess still would have given the klitchkos better fights than the majority of their chalengers and most of lewis's. Willard and carnera were not easy to beat. remember how the klitchkos struggled with sanders? how Lewis was troubled by akinwande, tucker and mavrovick? were tall fighters like sanders, mavrovick and akinwande better fighters than willlard and carnera?

dismissing carnera and willard is dissmisive of how good joe louis and dempsey were, nobody but great fighters made easy work of them.

 

I tell you where they have gone, they have gone for the protien shakes! Mike tyson training and eating like an old fighter would have been 190-200lb tops and so would 95% of all heavyweights under 6'3''. Did you know ali weighed only 201lb against cooper in 1966?

If they changed the rules to 6oz gloves again top heavyweights would come in a lot lighter and smaller classic sized heavyweights would fancy their chances.

 

Tyson at 13 was one pound lighter than Muhammad ali was in 1966?. I have seen that picture also. But Tyson was the same weight when he boxed Henry Tillman in the Olympic trials wasn’t he?

You asked where all the tough 189 pounders were today and I said they reached for the protein shakes meaning they also reach for the diet programs like the MMA fighters do to cheat the scales. many champions hold titles at a weight they make only for perhaps an hour then rehydrate their true weight back on by fight time - as much as 14lb. They fight at a division below if it suits them. Look at the "on the night weights" of most super middleweights, light heavyweights and tell me they are not making as high as 190lb on the night of the fight.

 

the attitude now is all about having a size advantage. You may as well ask where are all the 5'7'' middleweights? the answer, in the welterweight division.

natural 190 pounders think by cheating the scales they have the advantage at light heavyweight or even super middleweight just like natural 160 pounders want to fight at 140 just so they can be 160 on the night.

Are they fleeing from more lucrative divisions or are they just copying everyone else?


I think back in the day a 180 pounder made more impression hitting a 230 pounder with smaller, more precise gloves. It evened things out a bit more.

Today with 10oz gloves the bigger man wont mind getting hit 3 times to land one if he’s not getting cut and the smaller body builder is getting tired trying to do so.

 

With so many weight divisions, and belts around today and so few fights by contenders against contenders, by the time that the smaller fighteres go up in weight, they are old and past it. Toney was past prime when he went up, yet he still stopped a top 10 in holyfield. Imagine if he had come up earlier. Same with Jones Jr. He always would have had the shaky chin probably but he had every chance to beat them guys in their prime. As it was he beat a legit top 5 heavy easily. In the old days he would have more than one of these fights and scored more than 1 victory. Even if it was at middleweight. In fact, i think he brings a style that the best heavys today have never faced and had a chance of beating anyone.

Byrd trained down and was more successful against heavys and cruisers than his one shot at a light heavy. Is it not possible that although he lost to an average light heavy, that chris Byrd could have still beat average light heavys. A shot Tommy Hearns went up in weight and was not discgraced against cruiserweights even though he was totally shot. After losing to a light heavy, Adamek went on to become a top heavy. Common sense says he or those that beat him could have had similar results. Hopkins lost to middleweight champions before raising in weight to beat light heavy champs. The list is endless.

If there were no weight limitsand just one belt, with all fights being taken, I am still confident that the two Klitchskos would stand supreme. but behind this, thre are plent of others who could be in the top 10 contender list and would have wins over big heavys, particularly the older ones who are pas t prime and overweight. Obviosly, there would be plenty of good little guys, who would get Kod by poor heavys as well.

 

This man is NOT beating ANY Great fighter.

 

There is another verry crucial point that the sizenicks completely miss.

Fighters atain the level that they do in their era for a reason. The characteristics required for consistency and longevity, are verry rare, regardless of the era you are fighting in. That is why there are so few dominant champions.

An inconsistant fighter is going to be innconsistent in any era. You are never going to make him great just by finding a weaker era or one dominated by more smaller contenders. Those smaller fighters came to dominate the era, because they beat the biger fighters, and putting another mediocre big contender in the pool is not going to turn the ballance of power on its head.

You might be able to put Jeffries in an era where he is not the best heavyweight. You might theoreticaly be able to find an era where he is not in the top three. The point is, that whatever era you put him in, it is going to take another great fighter to beat him.

 

Corrrect. It seems one has to be about 5'9" or taller a middle these days, with most of the best ones being at or over 6 feet.

 

How about this guy? Who at 33 ,was 4 years older than Jeffries when Jeffries made his last defence.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj9sHfd_na0&feature=related[/ame]