Prime Jim Jefferies vs Prime Lennox Lewis

I dare say they couldn't do worse than they did against Jeffries.

 

If you assume that size is everything, then no doubt!

 

You don't think size played a significant part in Jeffries career? Personally I think when size advantage is combined with skill advantage,and with other factors such as age ,and wear and tear being equal,its a pretty compelling reason to pick the bigger man.Im under the impression that is why we have weight divisions ,but I'm happy to be disabused of it! Make your case, I will be here all day!Perhaps you would also like to speculate on my other question namely,how Corbett,Fitz, and Sharkey would fare against Lewis?

 

You think Corbett goes 23 rds with Lewis? 167lbsFitz goes 11 with him? Sharkey goes the distance twice, for a total of 45 rds?GTF!

 

I like how people like to use pro-modern arguments only when it suits to their agendas.

 

I think that he was a big man for his era, but I don't think that he would have necessarily done worse against bigger opponents, like say Sandy Ferguson, than he did against smaller more elusive fighters.

If he was winning simply because he was big, then the other big heavyweights of the era would have had more success.

I also don't measure the worth of a win, by the size of the person beaten.

For example is a win over Michael Grant, really worth more than a win over Bob Fitzsimmons?

I imagine that eh would have done very well against them given his size, but that does not necessarily mean that he would have beaten Jeffries.

Even if he did better than Jeffries, based on styles and size, that doesn't mean that he beats Jeffries.

Then again, even for a monster like Lewis, being matched so hard so soon, could turn out to be a bit of an ask!

 

That is quite an extreme position to take.

Is it far fetched tho think that the Jeffries of the Munro fight, could have been as good as McCall or Rahman, or even somewhat better?

 

It is a fairly universally misused argument!

 

A win is a win at the end of the day.

A guy who wins spectacularly, is not necessarily doing a better job than a guy who wins ugly.

Evander Holyfield probably took rounds to dispose of people who post prison Tyson could have obliterated.

 

I think he was better than Botha. Jeffries at least had power while Botha's power was below average for the top level (at best).

But Lennox Lewis would beat Jeffries EASILY, and by stoppage

 

Are you serious? Botha was a slug opponent who lacked power. Jeffries was far better than this.

I'd go with Lewis on points but would not rule out a Jeffries TKO/KO. Lewis didn't have a reliable chin, and hated body shots. When Lewis fought Holyfield in the re-match, he wore padding well above his trunks, as Holy was a pretty good body puncher. It's one of those things you laugh at. I saw this fight at a bar, and there was an old man who said look at that, it's embarrassing the heavyweight champion of the world cannot take a body shot. Of course, he wanted Holy to win, but he wasn't wrong with his observation.

 

People were talking about Jeffries as the best P4P fighter they'd ever seen.

 

As usual there are errors. Fitz was 36 ( not 37 ), and well above the middle weight limit. Corbett well above the light heavyweight limit. You remain a joke. Any good puncher has a chance vs Lewis.

If McCall can take Lewis out inside two rounds and Rhaman could do it in five rounds, 100's of other could, including Jeffries who would not take night off the way Tua did when he fought Lewis.

 

Jack Dempsey said so. Johnson called him the greatest. Burns, Fitz and Corbett felt he was the best as well. Langford felt the same way. The fighters of the times know.

 

Because he probably WAS the best they'd ever seen - 120 years ago!