New book - A Brief History of the Heavyweights 1881-2010

:good

 

I think this is the first time I have seen Jim Jeffries anywhere near a top 10 spot.

 

Mmmyes. Quite.

 

I think if people are to criticise his list they should produce an alternate and justify it.

If Callis is to believe Jeffries would enter the ring as favourite against anyone who followed him, it's hardly the craziest of assertions. I don't personally believe it but I get just under 50% of my boxing predictions wrong. It's not like we have a time machine and can prove anyone wrong.

is it really so hard to envision that if Jeffries was born in 1980 he wouldn't be one of the top heavyweights in the world today?

 

I'm a fan of Jeffries and think he had enourmous potential, very naturally big and strong, insanely tough, alot of heart, good power in his left being a converted southpaw, underrated defense, very good chin and a training regime to match perhaps surpass Rocky. He was however a product of his time and at the time boxing was in it's very early stages of developing. If he was born in more modern times and taught more modern boxing he'd have alot of potential.

That's not my dig at his list tho, Jeffries fought and beat the best avaliable at the time including some good black fighters but I don't see any reason why he could be ranked above someone like Ali. Same with Dempsey. Also I can't see any reason why Corbett or Tunney would be rated so highly either...

 

When a Mormon comes knocking at my door and asks if i want to convert, i don't merely dismiss the man. I tell him gleefully that i love to drink, **** and listen to and r&b, sometimes all at once, and if those kinda acts are to send me to hell then I'll happily spend my afterlife in the burning fires of inebriation, lust and rhythm.

Ya get me?

 

Jeffries looks abysmal on film, didn't have too many fights, and his best win is over a man he outweighed by what, 40lbs?

I would gladly have him outside the top 20. Dempsey & Johnson aren't top 10 either IMO.

 

I think I agree with everything ya say here.

I do rank h2h but there's like entry criteria so I wouldn't rank someone like Ike because they didn't achieve enough plus I rank the cruisers separately so Jeffries just about makes my top 20.

 

Would you rank Kalambay in the top 10 middles based on his Bowe-esque H2H ability? Middleweight is deeper but Sumbu was more impressive for more fights than Bowe so would it even itself out?

 

Which Heavies from that period actually looked good on film?

 

Not far off actually, I had him number 16, one behind Nunn.

I had fitz very high because his power is sick and I figure he only needs one shot to beat most guys at the weight. Greb I didn't like rating but had to place him above walker and Dillon since he beat them.

I think it was very close around 10th, Steele, la motta, fitz, Nunn, kalambay were all in the argument.

I'm still in bed so I'm away from my computer but long story short, yeah he rated very highly.

 

I know fitz wasn't wholly refined but the fact he could slip and counter against someone as reportedly quick as Corbett and end it with one shot impresses me greatly.

I think Johnson comes off alright on film and my only concern is how he fares in shorter distance fights against more active people. But anyone who can pick off shots like he can and lead with an uppercut successfully is clearly very talented.

Burns looks awesome against squires who was highly rated by Australian folk back then.

It's like needle in a haystack though finding guys who pass the eye test before 1920

 

I certainly would, maybe top5

Despite losing to Nunn I'd have Kalambay higher H2H than Nunn, I see him beating more of boxing's historic figures. I can't see Nunn beating McCallum like Kalambay did. I could see both beating BHOPs actually though.

 

Once I'm back home I'll post my list and see what ya think.

I'll list the guys I think beat sunny and Nunn respectively.