James Jeffries, was he that good?

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes of course it’s still two men fighting however I do think the overall ability of fighters has improved since the fighters of that era. If you watch some of the grainy footage of the great fighters of that day, they looked awful in terms of boxing ability, they would just throw windmill type punches or walk in face first. If anyone fought like that today against the top fighters they wouldn't last too long.

I have respect for every era but it has to be remembered it was good for the time but not necessarily good in other eras. Watch the footage, if this was filmed today and someone said either one of these men was going to rule the division they would be laughed at.

Looks better than most of the fights you see now.

[Ambling Alp II]

I find a lot of the examples of the great old timers knocking out guys twice their size is on par with tough man competitions or booth fighting. You’d have the decent fighters and they would fight the local hard men and giants and knock them out. The reason being most of the opponents couldn’t fight or weren’t in fighting shape. That wouldn’t be any different today so all these comparisons that they had some sort of magical strength or freakish power that doesn't exist anymore is pure fantasy.

Not saying that fighters way back had freakish power or anything like that.

Again, not saying that every fighter from Jeffries time was great. Some sucked. Some were great. Most were somewhere in the in between. Overall, the fighters of his time were probably a bite better than the guys from the 1880s early 1890s. The sport improved a bit in the next several 15 years or so and then leveled off. That is how it usually works. Same in baseball, basketball etc. Obviously the sport is going to get better in the early years as new strategies and techniques are developed. Then after awhile, the level of improvement slows down and eventually stops.

[Controversial]

Yes of course it’s still two men fighting however I do think the overall ability of fighters has improved since the fighters of that era. If you watch some of the grainy footage of the great fighters of that day, they looked awful in terms of boxing ability, they would just throw windmill type punches or walk in face first. If anyone fought like that today against the top fighters they wouldn't last too long.

I have respect for every era but it has to be remembered it was good for the time but not necessarily good in other eras. Watch the footage, if this was filmed today and someone said either one of these men was going to rule the division they would be laughed at.

Looks better than most of the fights you see now.

Oh come on, I boxed better than that on my first day in the gym lol.

[Ambling Alp II]

That's just it, they aren't watching a high % of the games. They physically can't be; there are way too many games. There are about 60 college football games each Saturday. Most of the time people just look at the scores, add that to what they already knew about the teams and make their 25 from that.

College Basketball is even more of that. There are well over 300 teams. The Selection Committee for the NCAA tournament has not seen most of these teams play. They can't. They mostly go by things like win/loss record, quality of competition, how close the games were etc. Do they get it right all of the time? Of course not. Most of the time? Of course.
Do you factor in everything that you do see? Of course. You just use all of the information that you have.

No reason why we can't do that with boxing, and people do. You just have to think. Sometimes the guy from the earlier era was better; sometimes not. The sport didn't magically get better the day that you became a fan.

Highlights? Seriously? You make anyone look good or bad by highlights.

The Roman Empire and Ukraine line is just stupid,.

Once again you are ignorant of certain facts. Actual action (running plays) in an entire football game is merely 15-20 minutes. The highlight films that are watched aren't the youtube fanboi highlights. It's these.

The last line says it all. Now you get it. (maybe)

Yes a game takes a lot less when you take out all the time in between plays and commercials.
Still, do you seriously believe that the media who does the AP poll watches every single each week ? (Even if they whittle it down to 15-20 minutes). The early games aren't over until the middle of the afternoon.
The game is on Saturday and the polls comes out on a Monday.

How about the Coaches poll? The coach is busy with his own game. How many games do they actually watch the rest of Saturday ? On Sunday they watch their next opponent.

The voters watch a small fraction of the games. They have an idea in their minds how good the teams are going into each week (mostly by win/loss record, strength of schedule, scores of the games) and adjust it each week going by the scores of Saturday's games.

The Roman Army and the Ukraine Army? Yes I'm pretty sure the Ukranians is superior. because of the weapons we now have. A guy with sword is not going to well against a guy with a machine gun.
This doesn't relate to to boxing. At all.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes of course it’s still two men fighting however I do think the overall ability of fighters has improved since the fighters of that era. If you watch some of the grainy footage of the great fighters of that day, they looked awful in terms of boxing ability, they would just throw windmill type punches or walk in face first. If anyone fought like that today against the top fighters they wouldn't last too long.

I have respect for every era but it has to be remembered it was good for the time but not necessarily good in other eras. Watch the footage, if this was filmed today and someone said either one of these men was going to rule the division they would be laughed at.

Looks better than most of the fights you see now.

Oh come on, I boxed better than that on my first day in the gym lol.

Fitzsimmons always had a weird style. You wouldn't have lasted the first round with these guys.

[Controversial]

Looks better than most of the fights you see now.

Oh come on, I boxed better than that on my first day in the gym lol.

Fitzsimmons always had a weird style. You wouldn't have lasted the first round with these guys.

And they wouldn't last a round today fighting like that

[Ezzard]

But they wouldn't fight like that today.

[Controversial]

But they wouldn't fight like that today.

Which is why these type of comparisons are silly, it's comparing chalk and cheese. They were the best around for their era, that doesn't mean they would have the same success in every other era and just adapt to another style.

[margaret thatcher]

Yes of course it’s still two men fighting however I do think the overall ability of fighters has improved since the fighters of that era. If you watch some of the grainy footage of the great fighters of that day, they looked awful in terms of boxing ability, they would just throw windmill type punches or walk in face first. If anyone fought like that today against the top fighters they wouldn't last too long.

I have respect for every era but it has to be remembered it was good for the time but not necessarily good in other eras. Watch the footage, if this was filmed today and someone said either one of these men was going to rule the division they would be laughed at.

Looks better than most of the fights you see now.

i looks like a comedy routine. though i know you probably like those cheeks

[HomicideHenry]

I maintain that a lot of the matches back then look the way they do because the gloves were so much smaller, therefore the boxing quality is more in line with MMA striking than present day boxing where the gloves are much larger. They threw shots at different angles, etc and particularly focused on the body more than anything else because of the glove size.

[gilgamesh]

Oh come on, I boxed better than that on my first day in the gym lol.

Fitzsimmons always had a weird style. You wouldn't have lasted the first round with these guys.

And they wouldn't last a round today fighting like that

You can only compete in your own time. Fitzsimmons having the drive to accomplish what he accomplished then, means he'd probably be able to learn modern techniques and do at least reasonably well if he were from a different era.

No idea why some of you guys feel the need to insult some of the Legends of our sport based on some grainy, sped up footage.

If you set Modern boxing at weird speed, and had the video moving as if it were a Benny Hill sketch it'd probably come off as a little goofy looking to.

[Controversial]

Fitzsimmons always had a weird style. You wouldn't have lasted the first round with these guys.

And they wouldn't last a round today fighting like that

You can only compete in your own time. Fitzsimmons having the drive to accomplish what he accomplished then, means he'd probably be able to learn modern techniques and do at least reasonably well if he were from a different era.

No idea why some of you guys feel the need to insult some of the Legends of our sport based on some grainy, sped up footage.

If you set Modern boxing at weird speed, and had the video moving as if it were a Benny Hill sketch it'd probably come off as a little goofy looking to.

I said earlier you can't compare eras, you can only base fighters on what they did at that time. They were the best of their time and should be respected for that. Whether there is music or not, slowed down or sped up anyone can see the styles in that era were very different and quite basic, they all tended to fight hands down with no jab. The rules were different and training too. Could they hypothetically learn and be great with a more modern style, yes of course but equally they might be no more than journeymen today. It's not intended to be an insult, it is what it is.

[Ambling Alp II]

There are areas to touch on here.

Yes you can compare eras. There is always an overlap of fighters. They don't all retire and a new batch comes in. You can compare a fighter to another just a few years before him. Then just keep going. If you compare A to B, and B to C, then you can compare A to C. If you can compare the 1990s to the 1980s and the to the 1970s, you can compare the 1990s to the 19701s and so on. It's not quantum physics.

As mentioned this footage that is is over 120 years old. It's grainy, speed is goofed up.
It's silly to mock these guys entire career (and further the entire era)

Yes, there were jabs thrown. You nalso see them parrying punches, which is almost a lost art.

As far as having their hands low, if you have the reflexes and know what you are doing, that is what you should do. Most fighters can't do this. Tunney, Ali, Roy Jones, Holmes etc. all could and did.
You also have to look at what fighters can do. Look at Corbett could move around the ring. Fitz wasn't pretty but he knew what he was doing and had a lot of power.

The eye test or how someone looks on film can be deceiving. There are guys who look flashy and aren't that good. Some guys don't seem to have that much but get results.
Just off of the top of my head, I thought of Trevor Berbick. Just watching him on film (most of the time) no one would say he was as good as Pinklon Thomas, John Tate, or Greg Page. Yet, he beat all three.

Obviously if film is available of a fighter, we should watch it. You can learn some things. The more the better. However, there are some things that you usually don't get a grasp on by watching film (especially just snippets)
In the case of Jeffries, toughness, pressure, chin. The things that made him hard to beat.

[Ambling Alp II]

Fitzsimmons always had a weird style. You wouldn't have lasted the first round with these guys.

And they wouldn't last a round today fighting like that

You can only compete in your own time. Fitzsimmons having the drive to accomplish what he accomplished then, means he'd probably be able to learn modern techniques and do at least reasonably well if he were from a different era.

No idea why some of you guys feel the need to insult some of the Legends of our sport based on some grainy, sped up footage.

If you set Modern boxing at weird speed, and had the video moving as if it were a Benny Hill sketch it'd probably come off as a little goofy looking to.

Have always wondered the same thing. Why do people who have no interest in boxing history love coming and mocking fighters from way back?

[oogiebe]

But they wouldn't fight like that today.

Which is why these type of comparisons are silly, it's comparing chalk and cheese. They were the best around for their era, that doesn't mean they would have the same success in every other era and just adapt to another style.

100%! All we have is they did and how they did it. FFS some if not many wouldn't even be boxers today I'd bet.

[oogiebe]

I maintain that a lot of the matches back then look the way they do because the gloves were so much smaller, therefore the boxing quality is more in line with MMA striking than present day boxing where the gloves are much larger. They threw shots at different angles, etc and particularly focused on the body more than anything else because of the glove size.

Yup, that is also the reason they had those goofy stances in bareknuckle days. Protecting the body first.

[Cojimar 1946]

Yes, McVey even tat that stage was better than a couple of they guys that Jeffries defended the title against. However, that doesn't mean that he ducked McVey. You could do that with anyone. Look at the best two hws of all time. Joe Louis fought some tomato cans but never never defended the title against Elmer Ray or Jimmy Bivins Turkey Thompson o Ali defended the title against Brian London but not Eddie Machen. However, nobody was calling for McVey-Jeffries title fight.

Would have been nice for Jeffries to have fought Johnson before retiring the first time. However, it's not like Johnson had been the #1 contender for 5 years.

Can't believe that you even brought up the Jeffries-Johnson in 1910. Jeffries had not fought in 6 years. Fight means absolutely nothing.

Jeffries defended the title against Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Sharkey, Ruhlin. That's pretty good.
Jeffries was obviously not the greatest hw of all time. But he was a better than average champion.

It's perfectly reasonable to surmise though that Jeffries as he actually existed would not enjoy the same success at heavyweight in other eras. For one thing, virtually all the top heavyweights he beat in his era were no bigger than todays middleweights and light heavies. He's virtually untested against quality opponents the size of even the lightest top guys today like Wilder and Usyk who weigh around 220 much less men like Lewis, Fury, etc. Even guys you might think of as small heavyweights would dwarf the guys Jeffries faced.
Moreover there seem to be clear advances in things like combination punching, footwork, defensive skills from that era to later eras.

I don't think this is modernistic bias either, Joe Louis fought along time ago and many would concede he was more skilled than later guys like Bowe, Ruddock, Wilder

[Controversial]

And they wouldn't last a round today fighting like that

You can only compete in your own time. Fitzsimmons having the drive to accomplish what he accomplished then, means he'd probably be able to learn modern techniques and do at least reasonably well if he were from a different era.

No idea why some of you guys feel the need to insult some of the Legends of our sport based on some grainy, sped up footage.

If you set Modern boxing at weird speed, and had the video moving as if it were a Benny Hill sketch it'd probably come off as a little goofy looking to.

Have always wondered the same thing. Why do people who have no interest in boxing history love coming and mocking fighters from way back?

It’s not mocking because that’s how it was in those days, fighters became more skilled as time progressed. But to look at videos of old fighters from 120+ years ago and try and argue they could hold their own today is just fantasy land stuff. Remember these aren’t HWs as we know them either, they would be MW or LHW today and there has been plenty of very skilled fighters at these weights. It’s no different to watching the best footballers (soccer) of that era, they were good for the time but not compared to the guys playing today.
.

[HomicideHenry]

I maintain that a lot of the matches back then look the way they do because the gloves were so much smaller, therefore the boxing quality is more in line with MMA striking than present day boxing where the gloves are much larger. They threw shots at different angles, etc and particularly focused on the body more than anything else because of the glove size.

Yup, that is also the reason they had those goofy stances in bareknuckle days. Protecting the body first.

Despite the stance photographs they did not necessarily fight in that way. I think the stance was done in those early days to showcase ones physique or frame rather than how they actually fought.

[oogiebe]

You can only compete in your own time. Fitzsimmons having the drive to accomplish what he accomplished then, means he'd probably be able to learn modern techniques and do at least reasonably well if he were from a different era.

No idea why some of you guys feel the need to insult some of the Legends of our sport based on some grainy, sped up footage.

If you set Modern boxing at weird speed, and had the video moving as if it were a Benny Hill sketch it'd probably come off as a little goofy looking to.

Have always wondered the same thing. Why do people who have no interest in boxing history love coming and mocking fighters from way back?

It’s not mocking because that’s how it was in those days, fighters became more skilled as time progressed. But to look at videos of old fighters from 120+ years ago and try and argue they could hold their own today is just fantasy land stuff. Remember these aren’t HWs as we know them either, they would be MW or LHW today and there has been plenty of very skilled fighters at these weights. It’s no different to watching the best footballers (soccer) of that era, they were good for the time but not compared to the guys playing today.
.

Save your breath. Alpy has argued this since the invention of BoxRec to no avail.

[oogiebe]

I maintain that a lot of the matches back then look the way they do because the gloves were so much smaller, therefore the boxing quality is more in line with MMA striking than present day boxing where the gloves are much larger. They threw shots at different angles, etc and particularly focused on the body more than anything else because of the glove size.

Yup, that is also the reason they had those goofy stances in bareknuckle days. Protecting the body first.

Despite the stance photographs they did not necessarily fight in that way. I think the stance was done in those early days to showcase ones physique or frame rather than how they actually fought.

Incorrect. I've actually researched it. Because of no gloves, fighters would avoid getting a broken hand and focus for the most part on the body. Remember the amount of rounds they were able to fight. Throws were also legal so distance was important. Thus the stance and fighting style.

[HomicideHenry]

I agree with them focusing on the body. And yes it was slower paced action for the most part which played into fights going longer than they normally would today. But because of the size of the gloves grappling was allowed for so long, they were a bit more wide open than today--- because they were either expecting clinches or they were expecting body blows. A tactic by Jack Johnson was to grab people by the wrists to prevent them from hitting because the gloves had opposable thumbs that were movable back then. But I don't think they fought exactly how they were posed in their photographs. Similar perhaps, but not exact.

[oogiebe]

I agree with them focusing on the body. And yes it was slower paced action for the most part which played into fights going longer than they normally would today. But because of the size of the gloves grappling was allowed for so long, they were a bit more wide open than today--- because they were either expecting clinches or they were expecting body blows. A tactic by Jack Johnson was to grab people by the wrists to prevent them from hitting because the gloves had opposable thumbs that were movable back then. But I don't think they fought exactly how they were posed in their photographs. Similar perhaps, but not exact.

Read again. I said 'bare knuckle days.' Not Jack Johnson's time.

[HomicideHenry]

I agree with them focusing on the body. And yes it was slower paced action for the most part which played into fights going longer than they normally would today. But because of the size of the gloves grappling was allowed for so long, they were a bit more wide open than today--- because they were either expecting clinches or they were expecting body blows. A tactic by Jack Johnson was to grab people by the wrists to prevent them from hitting because the gloves had opposable thumbs that were movable back then. But I don't think they fought exactly how they were posed in their photographs. Similar perhaps, but not exact.

Read again. I said 'bare knuckle days.' Not Jack Johnson's time.

Well you do realize Jack Johnson's time is also the same time frame essentially as Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons and Jim Jefferies, right? We're talking a handful of years disparity at best.

[oogiebe]

I agree with them focusing on the body. And yes it was slower paced action for the most part which played into fights going longer than they normally would today. But because of the size of the gloves grappling was allowed for so long, they were a bit more wide open than today--- because they were either expecting clinches or they were expecting body blows. A tactic by Jack Johnson was to grab people by the wrists to prevent them from hitting because the gloves had opposable thumbs that were movable back then. But I don't think they fought exactly how they were posed in their photographs. Similar perhaps, but not exact.

Read again. I said 'bare knuckle days.' Not Jack Johnson's time.

Well you do realize Jack Johnson's time is also the same time frame essentially as Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons and Jim Jefferies, right? We're talking a handful of years disparity at best.

Anyway, Homi. What I posted is the reality. We've already spent too much time on it.