Johnson vs Jeffries

[kal.majeed]

Maybe, I should have left Mercer and McCall out of the picture - I was just trying to make a general point about how a boxer struggling (or losing) to second level performing fighters would lead one to logically conclude that they could not defeat first rate boxers...

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Maybe, I should have left Mercer and McCall out of the picture - I was just trying to make a general point about how a boxer struggling (or losing) to second level performing fighters would lead one to logically conclude that they could not defeat first rate boxers...

That point is wholly misguided. Most of the greater fighters lost to a second level fighter at some point and time. Sugar Ray Robinson included. Disregarding the styles make fights cliche is a good reason to analyze fights after they are over. You will have very little luck before hand going strictly off of previous results without paying any attention to how, when or why.

[kal.majeed]

Yes - again, I'm speaking in general; if, at their best, such as Moorer was in 1994 (barely winning over an ill Holyfield - who knocks him down) and just a few months later getting stopped by a 45 year old Foreman leads one to logically conclude that if Moorer had fought a 1994 champion Bowe or a 1994 champion Lewis - in their winning bouts - that Moorer would be in a great deal of trouble.

Again, struggling (or losing) at their best with a second level performing boxer would equate to certain defeat at the hands of a first rate performing boxer.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Yes - again, I'm speaking in general; if, at their best, such as Moorer was in 1994 (barely winning over an ill Holyfield - who knocks him down) and just a few months later getting stopped by a 45 year old Foreman leads one to logically conclude that if Moorer had fought a 1994 champion Bowe or a 1994 champion Lewis - in their winning bouts - that Moorer would be in a great deal of trouble.

Again, struggling (or losing) at their best with a second level performing boxer would equate to certain defeat at the hands of a first rate performing boxer.

I don't think Moorer would beat either of them. But Lewis was stopped by Rahman at his best, not to mention he struggled with an old Holyfield. Bowe struggled with Tyrell Biggs and Tony Tubbs.

Your biggest error was mentioning the Tua fight and using that reasoning to include Mercer & McCall. I mean Ray tried to bribe Jesse Ferguson in his prime.

Again, your premise is terribly misguided.

[kal.majeed]

OK, so we agree that a 1994 Moorer (at his best) would lose to a 1994 Bowe/Lewis (at their best) - let's retire that one.

Remember, I've removed Mercer and McCall from the picture - so let's retire that one (an error in judgment on my part - just speaking generally, OK).

Now, if Lewis is at his best in 1994 (and earlier) - before the loss to McCall - how can he still be at his best in a 2001 loss to Rahman - seven years later?

Basically, what I do in the book is get a boxer at their very best - one single year and bout choice - and match them with another (at their best) - one single year and bout choice.

GENERAL example: Let’s say that Tyson (at his best) is on 11/22/1986 – the night he stops Berbick to win the world HW title and become the youngest HW champion in history.

Now, let’s say that Patterson (at his best) is on 11/30/1956 – the night he stops Moore to win the world HW title and become (then) the youngest HW champion in history.

Now, how would that (single) best example of Tyson perform against that (single) best example of Patterson?

Again, it is one choice of a best example against other single choices of a best example.

The details on cross era match-ups are in the book – you’ll have to wait for that one.

I’ll make the same deal with you as I made with Second God – if you buy the book and do not like anything at all about it, I will apologize (in public) for wasting your time and refund DOUBLE your money – sound fair??

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I'm not buying a book when I think the whole premise is silly. But I wish you good luck on the sales.

[Giancarlo]

We'll ALL know what happened AFTER the event.

You would like to think that. Sadly, it isn't always the case.

OK, everyone apart from Irene and Yancey. I forgot about them. Good pickup.

[kal.majeed]

I'm not buying a book when I think the whole premise is silly. But I wish you good luck on the sales.

I appreciate any and all feedback and take no offense if you are not interested but if you can provide a follow up on your statement, I would be even greater appreciative.

What would be a good premise - give me some specific examples - I can always add additional points of view and extend the release of the book...

P.S.

Thanks for the best wishes.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I'm not buying a book when I think the whole premise is silly. But I wish you good luck on the sales.

I appreciate any and all feedback and take no offense if you are not interested but if you can provide a follow up on your statement, I would be even greater appreciative.

What would be a good premise - give me some specific examples - I can always add additional points of view and extend the release of the book...

P.S.

Thanks for the best wishes.

That isn't my profession and I rarely buy books these days so I'm not anyone's demographic. I'm quite deep in the computer age at this point. Last year I bought a book on Sam Langford and one on Hearns and they were the first Boxing related books I've bought in 15 years.

I love mythical fights through time capsules. So I suppose it isn't the premise as much as your methodology that I find lacking. Too much fighter A beat fighter B. You seem to even delve into fighter J lost to fighter Y instances and to be blunt. You have no consistency. If you did, as faulty as I find your reasoning I could respect it. It seems you just use the poorer results that fit where you want your equation to end up. And that would be fine if you didn't come off like you're doing some deeply analytic science on Boxing. It comes off buffoonish to me.

[kal.majeed]

[/quote]

That isn't my profession and I rarely buy books these days so I'm not anyone's demographic. I'm quite deep in the computer age at this point. Last year I bought a book on Sam Langford and one on Hearns and they were the first Boxing related books I've bought in 15 years.

I love mythical fights through time capsules. So I suppose it isn't the premise as much as your methodology that I find lacking. Too much fighter A beat fighter B. You seem to even delve into fighter J lost to fighter Y instances and to be blunt. You have no consistency. If you did, as faulty as I find your reasoning I could respect it. It seems you just use the poorer results that fit where you want your equation to end up. And that would be fine if you didn't come off like you're doing some deeply analytic science on Boxing. It comes off buffoonish to me.[/quote]

OK, that's fair and I understand what you are saying (it is quite accurate); remember, however, that the vague type responses are necessary since I can’t give out the full details of the system. For some further insight (if you are interested) check out my other posts – specifically the Corbett/Tyson (and others) similarities and the “Secret to Fantasy Boxer Match-ups Revealed”.

[raylawpc]

Last year I bought a book on Sam Langford and one on Hearns and they were the first Boxing related books I've bought in 15 years.

That statement explains a lot!!

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I also bought the recent one on McClarnin. What literary masterpieces have I missed? Enlighten me.

[raylawpc]

I also bought the recent one on McClarnin. What literary masterpieces have I missed? Enlighten me.

That's nice. Did you read it? The above comment was intended as a joke, hence the s. Your comment amused me.

[Ambling Alp]

Boy did this thread get off track. Isn't this supposed to be about Jeffries and Johnson?

I think if they fought in 1904-1906 it would have been a great fight. The winner would be regarded much higher today than he is.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I also bought the recent one on McClarnin. What literary masterpieces have I missed? Enlighten me.

That's nice. Did you read it? The above comment was intended as a joke, hence the s. Your comment amused me.

I did, I usually don't buy them for decorative purposes.

[raylawpc]

I also bought the recent one on McClarnin. What literary masterpieces have I missed? Enlighten me.

That's nice. Did you read it? The above comment was intended as a joke, hence the s. Your comment amused me.

I did, I usually don't buy them for decorative purposes.

Never would have guessed that.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You should get that eye looked at.

[kal.majeed]

Let's put your theory to the test.

You have all the info at your fingertips.

Exactly how will the Haye - Klitchko fight play out this weekend?

Check out my new post under the "Corbett and Tyson: Much in Common?" topic section - it may answer your question (in greater detail) or not...

[The Great John L]

Let's put your theory to the test.

You have all the info at your fingertips.

Exactly how will the Haye - Klitchko fight play out this weekend?

Check out my new post under the "Corbett and Tyson: Much in Common?" topic section - it may answer your question (in greater detail) or not...

So, to summarize what I think I read from your post on the other thread -- you favor Wlad with the possibility of a Haye upset. Is that correct? If so, you have your feet firmly planted in the air with that prediction.

[kal.majeed]

To John L:

Thanks - I thought you'd like that! What, can't a guys have a little fun with history - don't tell me you were not (somewhat) entertained (lol)??? By the way, that historical "thread" is 2 to 1 in Klitschko's favor.

What is YOUR prediction - and what do you base it on???

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I'm not John L, but I think Haye is going to stop him pretty early. Based on Wlad's inability to deal with speed and power and his anxiety under fire. It's pretty much a 50/50 fight. I just think Wlad will have to go outside of his comfort zone more and Haye will ever a better chance of getting out of trouble.

[kal.majeed]

I'm not John L, but I think Haye is going to stop him pretty early. Based on Wlad's inability to deal with speed and power and his anxiety under fire. It's pretty much a 50/50 fight. I just think Wlad will have to go outside of his comfort zone more and Haye will ever a better chance of getting out of trouble.

That's fine - nice to hear from you.

Well, you are in good company - check out the link below - scroll down to center with the Foreman and McGuigan interviews.

Personally, I appreciate historical data but I will NOT commit to anything - wait and watch (for me) - for reasons that I have previously explained...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/boxing/default.stm