How high should Jeffries rank in top ten lists?

First topic message reminder :

How high do people think The Boilermaker should rank when assessing top ten heavyweights (if indeed you think he belongs in the top ten). He is a nailed on top five for me, in fact I had him at number 3 the last time I tried to make a list but he tends to drift between 3 - 5 but never lower.

Completely dominated his era, only losing to a fellow ATG in Jack Johnson, and this after Jeffries had grown fat and happy on his farm in retirement. Maybe Johnson had Jeffries number anyway but I think it is fair to say big Jim was clearly way past his best in 1910.

Great record, with stellar wins over Corbett x 2, Fitzsimmons x 2, and notable wins over Sharkey x 2 and Peter Jackson. He was a fabulously conditioned fighter with a terrific punch and a rock solid chin. His technique was perfectly adapted for the style of fighting at the time where physical strength, of which Jeffries reportedly had no equal, was a must. He became a much better "boxer" as his career progressed and had genuine power in both hands. All this, allied to his murderous training regime and will to win made Jeffries a formidible foe for anyone

I appreciate it is always difficult to compare one era to another, but in terms of record, dominance of an era and skills required to suceed in that era, Jeffries must be a top fiver at least?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So Foreman takes him out within five and that's it then

You say you've back up your opinion but you have not, being skilled doesn't effect someone ability to take a punch and i'm fairly certain Fitzsimmons hit harder than 98% of heavies with Dempsey, Marciano, Foreman and Shavers hitting harder.

I realise your on the wind up so will just ignore your foundationless comments in future

All this stuff about a boxer of 100 years ago hitting harder than so one as so forth is silly. No-one alive saw his fight live (windy perhaps)/ How can you guage who hits harder between Jeffs and Lewis?

I have backed up my opinions on this thread. Others have read it and acknowledged it.

How can you therefore guage who hits harder, yet you pass it off as fact rather than opinion, rather silly thing to say really.

I've not read this backing up nor do I wish to, would find it more interesting someone trying to explain the benefits of syphillis to me.

To start with Jeffries, statistically, would be 6ft. 4ins. and around 240lb. had he been born at the same time as Holyfield.

Secondly, it doesn't require too great a leap of the imagination to suppose that, had he been born in the mid sixties, he would have had the benefit of all these mysterious ' modern skills ' about which you keep harping on.

Finally, you might consider that, even in the modern era, we have seen fighters who aren't blessed with silky skills but have still been able to compete at the highest level courtesy of stamina, strength, power, resilience, guts, etc., each of which Jeffries had in spades.

Your simplistic analysis of Jeffries does neither him nor you any credit. Again, Tunney lived till 1978, scarcely had a good word to say about any of his predecessors except Dempsey, described Jeffries as having possessed ' the most uninteresting of styles, ' yet STILL opined that Jeff would be a match for any heavyweight in history.

One word from Tunney is worth a thousand of yours.

Windy windy windy. It has nothing to do with post 1960s boxers. If Jeffs was born in 1900 he would have been a better boxer. Of course boxers from that era will big up certain boxers. Its natural and a given. It makes them look better. But you cant take a gcse student and ask him to sit an MSc exam.

Because Tunney is well known to be complimentary of others isn't, again a speaking generalisation

Imperial Ghosty wrote:How can you therefore guage who hits harder, yet you pass it off as fact rather than opinion, rather silly thing to say really.

I've not read this backing up nor do I wish to, would find it more interesting someone trying to explain the benefits of syphillis to me.

If you read my 2nd from last post to you, you will read that I said "imo". I am giving my opinion and so are you. None of us have any empirical data to back up any argument we have.

Syphillis addles the brain. Think about it.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Because Tunney is well known to be complimentary of others isn't, again a speaking generalisation

Ali said Tyson would have KO'd him. Do you agree with him?

Could you provide a link to that quote?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Could you provide a link to that quote?

It was on the Arsenio Hall show with Tyson, Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard. Its on you tube. I'm not a google monkey.

I also need the context it was said in

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I also need the context it was said in

They were talking about how great Tyson is and then Ali said what he said. Tyson laughed and disagreed. All friendly banter. I thought Ali was being kind and humble as he later became. But, boxers mellow with age and say very generous things knowing their heads or legacy was not on the line.

Well in the context of that he has reason to joke about do would you not agree whereas complimenting someone who stood for all you thought was wrong with boxing is something entirely different. One is quite clearly a joke, the other is quite clearly a genuine compliment.

azania wrote:But you cant take a gcse student and ask him to sit an MSc exam.

Let me know how you get on with your 11 Plus.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:But you cant take a gcse student and ask him to sit an MSc exam.

Let me know how you get on with your 11 Plus.

Ha. I didnt sit them. Its an age thing windy.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Well in the context of that he has reason to joke about do would you not agree whereas complimenting someone who stood for all you thought was wrong with boxing is something entirely different. One is quite clearly a joke, the other is quite clearly a genuine compliment.

This was when Tyson was still Kid Dynamite, the darling of boxing.

Tyson said the best HW ever was Louis and when asked how he would fare against Dempsey (his favourite boxer) he said it was a different era and almost a different sport so there can be no comparison.

Exactly, proving my point even more

That's Tysons opinion isn't it, he's someone well known for being a scholar of the history and has the utmost respect for it unlike some I could mention

I figured you out a long time ago Az, waiting for the others to realise too

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Exactly, proving my point even more

That's Tysons opinion isn't it, he's someone well known for being a scholar of the history and has the utmost respect for it unlike some I could mention

I figured you out a long time ago Az, waiting for the others to realise too

That's exactly what I have been saying. Different eras. Guys from the infancy of boxing would not be able to handle guys from this era. They simply did not know enough. I disagree with Tyson about Dempsey. He would have been handful for any cruiser at any time.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Exactly, proving my point even more

That's Tysons opinion isn't it, he's someone well known for being a scholar of the history and has the utmost respect for it unlike some I could mention

I figured you out a long time ago Az, waiting for the others to realise too

That's exactly what I have been saying. Different eras. Guys from the infancy of boxing would not be able to handle guys from this era. They simply did not know enough. I disagree with Tyson about Dempsey. He would have been handful for any cruiser at any time.

One word from Tunney is worth a thousand from you.

I disagree with Tyson for the record, it's too simplistic to judge upon eras alone and considering this was a good sensible debate until you got involved i'm sick to death if it

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Exactly, proving my point even more

That's Tysons opinion isn't it, he's someone well known for being a scholar of the history and has the utmost respect for it unlike some I could mention

I figured you out a long time ago Az, waiting for the others to realise too

That's exactly what I have been saying. Different eras. Guys from the infancy of boxing would not be able to handle guys from this era. They simply did not know enough. I disagree with Tyson about Dempsey. He would have been handful for any cruiser at any time.

One word from Tunney is worth a thousand from you.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I disagree with Tyson for the record, it's too simplistic to judge upon eras alone and considering this was a good sensible debate until you got involved i'm sick to death if it

Grow up. A good sensible debate for you is when all agree with your opinion.

Tino, out of respect for you this thread is now locked. If you wish me to unlock it, please PM me.

It was a superb thread, by the way.