Umm... No because your premise was all of these guys sucked because of the era they were in... Basically saying that boxers from that time period could not compete one iota with people today... Yet you're backing away the moment I bring up Jack Johnson who was the #1 contender when Jim Jefferies was champion... The same Jack Johnson who fought Bob Fitzsimmons one year after Fitzsimmons lost the light heavyweight championship... The same Jack Johnson who was a contender in 1903, when Jim Corbett had his final fight against Jim Jefferies for the title... So if the argument is that these guys sucked and weren't any good and can't compete with guys today then why hold so much reverence for Jack Johnson?
Controversial wrote: ↑18 Oct 2022, 17:45
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
Ezzard wrote: ↑19 Oct 2022, 12:12
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.
Firstly, it's an enjoyable past time. Why not do it?
Agree, doesn't mean fighters of today would do well back in their era.
My guess is though that 98% of the time it works out for athletic talent.
Ezzard wrote: ↑19 Oct 2022, 12:12
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.
Firstly, it's an enjoyable past time. Why not do it?
Agree, doesn't mean fighters of today would do well back in their era.
My guess is though that 98% of the time it works out for athletic talent.
I think someone skilled from the modern era wouldn’t have too many issues fighting guys who boxed like Fitzsimmons than the reverse scenario.
Ezzard wrote: ↑19 Oct 2022, 12:12
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.
I mean if you were born 100 something years earlier or later. Yes in all likelihood you will wind up living a completely different life than the one you lived.
The World tends to change quite a bit over the course of 100 years. and that change has probably never been more extreme than from 100 years ago to now.
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.
Firstly, it's an enjoyable past time. Why not do it?
Agree, doesn't mean fighters of today would do well back in their era.
My guess is though that 98% of the time it works out for athletic talent.
I think someone skilled from the modern era wouldn’t have too many issues fighting guys who boxed like Fitzsimmons than the reverse scenario.
Why? Look at Floyd Mayweather. How we he cope with those small gloves and without the injections in his hands? Not being able to employ his own referee? His career would suffer,
Re: James Jeffries, was he that good?
Posted: 20 Oct 2022, 21:27
by oogiebe
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑20 Oct 2022, 00:09
Umm... No because your premise was all of these guys sucked because of the era they were in... Basically saying that boxers from that time period could not compete one iota with people today... Yet you're backing away the moment I bring up Jack Johnson who was the #1 contender when Jim Jefferies was champion... The same Jack Johnson who fought Bob Fitzsimmons one year after Fitzsimmons lost the light heavyweight championship... The same Jack Johnson who was a contender in 1903, when Jim Corbett had his final fight against Jim Jefferies for the title... So if the argument is that these guys sucked and weren't any good and can't compete with guys today then why hold so much reverence for Jack Johnson?
Wrong again Home, muh man. Never said any old timers sucked ever. Never had high praise of JJ either.
