Who takes Jeff over 25 rounds?

First topic message reminder :

A common opinion I hear of Jim Jeffries is that he would probably lose to other great heavyweights over 12-15 rounds but the odds would tilt back in his favour and he would be hard to best over 25 or more. Theres no doubting his strength, stamina and will to win but is the above an accurate assessment of him?

Would he even survive 12-15 rounds with the elite HWs allowing him to take advantage of his superior strength and stamina? Would his strength even be superior considering he wouldn't be that big a HW and wouldn't enjoy the size advantages he did back in his day. How would he deal with eating the jab of a Liston or Holmes for 15 rounds or the punching power of a Foreman or Louis or the sheer size of a Lennox or Vitali? These are things he never had to deal with and I wouldn't have the confidence that some do that he could deal with for 15 rounds before allowing his strengths to take over for the next half of a fight.

Theres no doubt he was strong and durable and proved that he had the stamina and spirit to win in the marathon fights he used to contest. But just because the fighters that came after him never had to, doesnt mean they couldn't show the same qualities if they fought in such fights. Do you think Jeff would more than likely overwhelm his fellow HW greats the longer a fight was scheduled for or is this just a myth? Which boxers in your top 15 HWs could take Jeff over 25 rounds and who do you think would struggle the most?

Cheers.

manos de piedra wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Didnt know that story regarding Fitz and the loaded gloves. Were that the case his reputation would plummet in my eyes and would be a serious black mark against him.

Story goes that Jeff felt it when they shook hands, manos, toyed with asking for an inspection, but decided against it. He and Fitz became great friends, going on tour together, and on one occasion Jeffries, who felt that Fitz had sensed that he had ' twigged ' about the gloves at the weigh in, asked Fitz outright if they had been loaded. Fitz would neither confirm nor deny it.

If I can find a link to the story I'll drop it here.

Yeah it sounds interesting. Never came across that before. Hope it isnt true anyway!

So do I, mate.

Great fighters in their day but can anybody really give him a sniff against a Klitscho??

Against Wlad quite possibly...Wlad doesn't like come forward aggressive fighters and, as demonstrated by the supposedly china chinned David Haye, Wlad clearly doesn't pack concussive power with every shot he throws. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to suggest that if Wlad doesn't fight well off the back foot (he doesn't), he loses his main weapon, the jab, which sets up his big right hand...so what does he have left?

Vitali is a different ketle of fish through. Doesn't mind getting stuck in and possesses a decent chin...unlike his brother who, if Jeffries lands his left hand, is looking at an early night.

Notice Windy is avoiding the argument Scotty!! we'll take that as victory..

DAVE you've never seen Jeffries fight.....

Stay on the porn thread..

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:What film is there of Fitzsimmons? He looks basic against Corbett to me. Single shots, hands down, lots of grappling. Plus he considered himself a Middleweight, and weighed well below 200 against Jeffries.

We don't have film for some of the most important events in history, but if the sources are good we trust them. If you can tell how good Fitz was from the Corbett fight you have far better eyes than I do. To me, it's almost unwatchable.

There's a mountain of evidence which stands meticulous cross reference which says that Fitz was a master of timing, judging distance, accurate punching and subtle feints. We either trust those sources or we don't. I just happen to be one of those who do.

It's watchable enough to see single shots, grappling and low hands.

Eye witnesses sources can only compare him to what they had seen. They would say Bannister was fast, but compared to modern runners he wasn't. He was fighting at the crossover of gloved boxing.

On the contrary, they could also compare him to what they would see later. The world didn't stop when Fitz retired.

Vitali Klitschko fights with his hands low. So did Lennox Lewis.

But htey are 6ft 5 and 6ft 7 respectively...

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:What film is there of Fitzsimmons? He looks basic against Corbett to me. Single shots, hands down, lots of grappling. Plus he considered himself a Middleweight, and weighed well below 200 against Jeffries.

We don't have film for some of the most important events in history, but if the sources are good we trust them. If you can tell how good Fitz was from the Corbett fight you have far better eyes than I do. To me, it's almost unwatchable.

There's a mountain of evidence which stands meticulous cross reference which says that Fitz was a master of timing, judging distance, accurate punching and subtle feints. We either trust those sources or we don't. I just happen to be one of those who do.

It's watchable enough to see single shots, grappling and low hands.

Eye witnesses sources can only compare him to what they had seen. They would say Bannister was fast, but compared to modern runners he wasn't. He was fighting at the crossover of gloved boxing.

On the contrary, they could also compare him to what they would see later. The world didn't stop when Fitz retired.

Vitali Klitschko fights with his hands low. So did Lennox Lewis.

They have massive reach advantages so can dictate range.

Don't forget Jesse Owens and Usain bolt both used two feet when sprinting as well...

Some similarities there as well.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Notice Windy is avoiding the argument Scotty!! we'll take that as victory..

DAVE you've never seen Jeffries fight.....AND I NEVER SAW SRR FIGHT AT WELTERWEIGHT EITHER...your point being?

Stay on the porn thread..

TRUSSMOAN, just when it looks like you may have the makings of a semi-decent person, you resort to being a clown.....again. Wlad doesn't fight well off the back foot, he can't but just becasue there's been precious few fighters who've taken advantage of this fact recently doesn't mean it isn't a valid point. You said Jeffries wouldn't have a sniff of a chance against either K Bro and I've just given reasons as to why you assessment is far too simplistic for that fight to be a one horse race. Wlad's a dominant Champion is a poor era. Jeffries was more than just fodder

Shame you lack the decency to accept someone may have a differing opinion to your own that holds water and as for your assumption that no-one else could possibly have read a book or two......

I think the klichkos would beat him easily to be honest wouldnt matter if it was 12 or 25 rounds.

Nice argument for Fitz here :

http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/casey/MC_Fitzsimmons.htm

manos, the ' loaded gloves ' story is mentioned during this article, together with a rebuttal. I'm afraid it isn't the link to which I alluded, but it's all I can come up with for the moment.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/jeffries.html

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Notice Windy is avoiding the argument Scotty!! we'll take that as victory..

DAVE you've never seen Jeffries fight.....

Stay on the porn thread..

Avoiding what argument?

I blew your entry level analysis out of the water with one post.

HumanWindmill wrote:
Avoiding what argument?

I blew your entry level analysis out of the water with one post.

How? Fleischer was born in 1887. Hardly likely he saw much of Fitzsimmons.

In every facet of life people think things were better back in the day. Fitz was fighting in the first generation of gloves boxing and a new ruleset.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:
Avoiding what argument?

I blew your entry level analysis out of the water with one post.

How? Fleischer was born in 1887. Hardly likely he saw much of Fitzsimmons.

In every facet of life people think things were better back in the day. Fitz was fighting in the first generation of gloves boxing and a new ruleset.

You weren't the target, Scott.

Fleischer is by no means my only source, and I never once said he was. Anyway, I'm not sure it benefits anybody, our going round in circles. You have an opinion and, on the strength of your posting history, I have every reason to respect it.

I simply hold a conflicting opinion.

Anyway, fellas, I shall be logging off, shortly. Thanks for the fun, and enjoy the rest of the evening.

My opinion differs slightly Windy but as always you make a hell of an argument..

Thank you, paperbag, and you hold up your end extremely well, also.

Entry level analysis.....Like that line..

Considering most of the others agree with me...maybe I could rebut...

But never mind..

I'm no Oliver Reed but I am Scottish so I would fancy my chances against Rowley over 25 rounds in my local.

Anyhoo - I think the arguements that the brothers might have the betaing of jeff over 25 rounds are valid. Both tick all the right boxes in terms of economy of movement and strength and they would both fo a hellish amount of damage to jeff with their jabs and straight rights. We know Vitali has the chin so the only real question hangs over Wlad's durability. I think we saw pretty clearly against Haye how well Wlad can deal with an opponent only looking to throw single shots. Jeff wouldn't be throwing combnations and I'm not convinced he had the skill to land that shot against the athletic and defensively sound Wlad.

superflyweight wrote:I'm no Oliver Reed but I am Scottish so I would fancy my chances against Rowley over 25 rounds in my local.

Anyhoo - I think the arguements that the brothers might have the betaing of jeff over 25 rounds are valid. Both tick all the right boxes in terms of economy of movement and strength and they would both fo a hellish amount of damage to jeff with their jabs and straight rights. We know Vitali has the chin so the only real question hangs over Wlad's durability. I think we saw pretty clearly against Haye how well Wlad can deal with an opponent only looking to throw single shots. Jeff wouldn't be throwing combnations and I'm not convinced he had the skill to land that shot against the athletic and defensively sound Wlad.

But they're not romanticised black & white boxers.

"But I am Scottish......."

Still part of Britain I see after all these years..I'd pick Rowley with your Country's record....

Still as a lawyer you'd make a great case if it went to decision..

Oliver reed...great actor one of the first horror films I ever saw was "The Brood"..

Christ, truss I'm happy to be part of Britain. If left to our own devices we'd shortly be choking on our misplaced patriotism and xenophobia. It's bad enough now, god knows how backward we'd become if we were allowed to run this place.

William Wallace, Bonny Prince Charlie and Mel Gibson will be turning in their graves hearing that..

A tax avoiding landowner, an effeminate Italian and an anti-Semite - I'll take my chances.

Wlad is probably one of the boxers most susceptible to Jeffries over 25 rounds I think. His conditioning has been problematic in the past and if you look at the Purrity fight it shows that he can beat up on a guy for ten rounds but once he gasses hes done for. Hes also not a natual finisher so an early stoppage is unlikely and banging out the jab with that huge arm expends alot of energy. If Jeffries was still in the fight after 15 rounds I would fear for Wlad. Jeffries was renkowned for durability so I dont think he gets put away by the jab alone even though it would be very uncomfortable.

Having said that, its difficult to say because boxers now train for 12 round fights not 25 rounds so whos to say if a fight was scheduled for 25 then modern boxers wouldnt simply adjust?

These things to tend to degenerate into an old bs new debate and as my views have been aired on that topic to absolute tedium they do not bear repeating here. However the only thing I would say is a lot of reference has been made to the amount of holding and mauling back in the days of Jeff and Fitz, whilst I would not deny this is the case it does somewhat overlook the fact this was legal in their time, fighters were expected to work on the inside or sort their own way out of clinches. We see enough fights now that are hugfests, inevitable in an era it was permitted or certainly tolerated there would be more.

Also amuses me considering the rules, length of fight, method of scoring were so radically different there is a natural assumption one thrusts a modern fighter into those conditions they can make the adjustments and flourish without missing a beat, but the idea the old timers could do similar when the debate is reversed is dismissed out of hand.

And Superfly, with my conditioning if it goes more than a round you're favourite mate.

manos de piedra wrote:Wlad is probably one of the boxers most susceptible to Jeffries over 25 rounds I think. His conditioning has been problematic in the past and if you look at the Purrity fight it shows that he can beat up on a guy for ten rounds but once he gasses hes done for. Hes also not a natual finisher so an early stoppage is unlikely and banging out the jab with that huge arm expends alot of energy. If Jeffries was still in the fight after 15 rounds I would fear for Wlad. Jeffries was renkowned for durability so I dont think he gets put away by the jab alone even though it would be very uncomfortable.

Having said that, its difficult to say because boxers now train for 12 round fights not 25 rounds so whos to say if a fight was scheduled for 25 then modern boxers wouldnt simply adjust?

Seconded, Big heavy fighter with hi own size being an inhibitor to a long fight. What about someone like Tua? A Big hitting brute with a chin carved out of janet street porters teeth. How do you see a limited fighter who posesses extraordinary punching power and durability doing against Jeffries? Threw hell of a lot of punches and carried on non-stop for 12 rounds? One of those who needs em fighters who Lewis doesnt get enough credit for.

As for Jazzy Jeff Rowley - Lot of people look upon the past with contempt or Nostalgia, Rarely does anyone look objectively at it.

A lot of people look at the past with contempt...

Not on here....