Roy Jones Jr vs Jim Jeffries

One number may not be reliable, but a string of 10 weights all between 180lbs and 190lbs coupled with the fact that he looks exactly that same weight in pictures, should be enough evidence.

Take off the rose colored glasses. Corbett was as big as Jones.

 

August 29 1900 Geoff Thorn Ex3
July 9 1901 Gus Ruhlin Ex
Dec 1901 Tom Sharkey Ex5
May 1902 Jim Corbett Ex3

 

No Ive never heard " styles make fights", is it similar to," be first", " don't let him back you up". etc
I used the comparison as a yardstick to Sharkey's standing among his contempories and as a comparison of Jeffries power against Fitz.
I though that was self evident .but maybe you were so busy being condescending you didnt see it?

 

Maybe. But why do you ignore the point of Janitor that Jeffries was an attrition puncher like Marciano or Frazier while Fitzsimmons was a finisher like Dempsey and Louis. What do you make of that?

 

My point was that Jones was not prime, I don't say he was particularly durable ,but statements that he would fold from the first punch that Jeffries connects with are bull****.

 

No buill**** but it's exagerating. Same with the guys who think Jeffries wouldn' land on Jones. Ruiz did, I can't see Jeffries not landing.

 

For attrition puncher read good puncher,for finisher read great puncher.
That's what I make of it.
Jeffries, possibly, was in the Frazier class as a hitter,but without the constant volume.
Fitz ,was in the upper echelons as a puncher.imo.

Jeffries was banging on men considerably smaller than himself and ,for the most part needed time to wear them down.He never beat a man anywhere near his class who scaled over 200lbs,in fact he only met ONE.
Fitz, was knocking spark out, men that outweighed him,often by significant amounts.

 

I repeat, I picked Jeffries, just not in a blow out.:good

 

We aren't far apart here but I think a good hitter at hw is oo much for Jones. And I want to add that Jeffries output may have been lower than Frazier's due to him fighting over longer distances.

I never said so either.

 

There is a difference, however. Jones used modern weight training and chemicals and managed to bulk up to 191--his highest effective fighting weight. Corbett usually drained himself down and came in consistently at 185, and once around 190. Given equivalent training, Corbett would be the bigger man.

Of course, this depends on whether you give credence to the idea of a "naturally" bigger man being more effective than a "bulked up" man at a certain weight.

Incidentally (not that it proves anything, but it's interesting), here's some footage of an older Corbett sparring with Kid McCoy--a 5'11" former middleweight who got up to lightheavyweight. Gives you some idea of the height differential.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YitgDxYyJx0[/ame]

 

Sorry, but i don't buy the dehydration stories of Corbett. You don't need a PhD, even in that time, to know that it's suicide to dehydrate before fight 25+ rounds.

Or let me put it this way: the "dehydration" they are talking about is not what we interpret it to be. Maybe he meant that he didn't drink anything 2 hours prior to the fight. Who knows?


And the "given equivalent training..." argument is irrelevant because it is pure speculation. We can only go by what actually happened.


p.s. Jones' weight on the unofficial scales before the fight was 199lbs.

 

Well, that's what the training manuals recommend in a wide variety of contemporary sports. If you like, I could probably dig some of them up on Google Books and post them, though it might take a while to find.

Take it as you will.

They give specific instructions for limited water intake for weeks before the fight. Not "dehydration", exactly, but they dried themselves out by drinking less water than a 180+ pound athlete in training should have.

Normally, I don't like to use hypotheticals, but modern training clearly produces more muscular athletes. The question then becomes: does being a "naturally" big guy make a difference in performance compared to weight-enhancement?

Didn't know that. Interesting. :think

 

No, Jones was capable of bulking up using modern suplements, to be the same weight as Corbett at his lowest viable fighting weight.

It is still misleading to say that he was as big as Corbett.

Now Corbetts published fighting weights are probably fairly accurate but those of many fighters of the period were not, notably Fitzsimmons.