Why do you guys post turn of the century greats against modern fighters

good point:good

 

The nature of the sport of boxing is such that they would be able to win given the right circumstances.

However the sport of boxing might change a punch on the chin can always put a man to sleep.

 

I think it's pointless to analyse and guess and talk about styles of fighters where there is no film footage or very little clear footage.

I dont agree that the old-timers from 1900s wouldn't beat more recent fighters. I think probability dictates that some would.
You can never write off greatness, and the qualities of truly great fighting men. Doesn't matter what era.
Take Bob Fitzsimmons for example. Even if it were true that his style would be primitive and obsolete now, he's still got the qualities of greatness that you canNOT write of in a fighter. Heart, determination, toughness and concussive power - when elevated to levels of greatness - are the same in any era.

 

another good point.i could see mister jeff not landing a single punch against ali.

 

yeah against ali. the fastest heavyweight ever.
but let's put jeffries against some 70ties 80ties and 90ties champs and contenders.
for example :
i see jeffries beating ron lyle, frank bruno, trevor berbick, leon and micheal spinks, riddick bowe.
what those all timers have over modern fighters is there ferocity, there hunger, there stamina

 

I honestly see Jeffries beating none of those guys.

 

ron lyle would make a mess of mr jeff

 

Men like George Foreman, Ali and Roy Jones are not just forged in training -- they are born. Sam Langford seems physically very similar to the kind of monster Foreman was. Also goes for mental toughness -- for all the great training Ray Arcel gave him, the kind of heart and determination Duran showed against Leonard and Barkley is not something you're taught -- it is deep inside you.

Currently boxers are on average bigger, better prepared and more athletic. This might very well make a difference. On the other hand older fighters fought more often, and there's a heck of a lot in experience, especially for the cream of the crop.

George Foreman's comeback at an advanced age, while carefully constructed, did prove that boxing has not improven bounds and leaps since the seventies.

I'm no expert on the specific time period you mention, so I'll refrain on giving a clear answer, but I believe some fighters are just born with an athletic advantage, then mentally strengthened through early adversity, then sharpened through sage tutelage and wisened by experience. The older fighters should only lack one of these four factors -- the tutelage and preparation.

 

Speed, Skill, Strength have all generally been taken to new and better standards on average (well at least into the 90s, they have somewhat declined since). Some posters here have some seriously rose tinted glasses, I've even heard the claim that Fitzsimmons, Corbett and Jeffries were as fast as Roy Jones and the poor film disguises how fast they really were

 

Actualy Jeffries would probably have beaten Ali in a fight to the finish.

The only way he would be able to stop Jeffries would be by putting him down for a count od ten. If Ali can't stop Jeffries then it is going to come down to whetehr he can run for 45 rounds.

 

ali would have no problem KOing jeffries