Two big punchers but Briggs could take them better then Hide so I'm going with Briggs to finish this early. Thoughts?
Hide was the better boxer, better mobility and speed. But Briggs was too durable and powerful for him, stopping the "better fighter" imho. Thats were power*chin-level comes into play. Same thing made Max Baer very successful fighting CWs.
I pick Hide Briggs lost all the important fights he had, he was lucky against Liakhovich, Briggs is a 3 rounds fighter and Hide can move well.
What? Hide never even beat a good fighter. Briggs at least beat Liakovich, an old Mercer, and got a controversial draw against Botha/win over Foreman.
Briggs only beat Liakhovich.. old Mercer doesnt count, he lost with Foreman and draw with Botha Hide beat Bentt. Hide did not lose the same amount as briggs, in difficult fights briggs only won 1 of 8 or so, Hide lost against elite fighters
Hide beat Bentt who KO'ed Morrison in 1, he aslo demolished old Tucker. Briggs had much more troubles against Mercer who was 8 years older than Hide's Tucker. 49 y.o. Foreman clearly beat Briggs and so did very average Botha. Briggs only real good win was a last-second KO over Liakhovich in a fight which he was losing handily. I think his resume isn't better that Hide's one but I'd probably slightly favor him against Hide since Herbie had really glass jaw