BoxRec

HomicideHenry wrote:Jeffries was a mountain of a man for his time, though he wasn't the biggest. He did, however, have an amazing amount of speed, power, agility, stamina and toughness that wasn't matched comparably for several years after his career was over. Rumor had it he retired from boxing because he was tired of fighting men smaller than himself; I'm not so sure if this was the case or not, but it does seem that the "bigger" names of the era were from smaller weight classes, considering Jeffries done dismantled the majority of the ex-champs before him as well as the more well known contenders of his day.

Its much like today, in a sense, where some of the more intriguing fights in recent years have been against natural heavies and former middleweights [Ruiz/Jones and Ruiz/Toney for example]; now we have David Haye targeting Vlad Klitschko. It seems the heavyweight division cant seem to get a spark of interest unless men of various weight classes are jumping on the band wagon. And if anyone else notices, its happening in alot of weight classes these days [De La Hoya- Paquia, Pavlik-Hopkins, Calzaghe-Hopkins, Mayweather-De La Hoya, Mayweather-Hatton, etc].

Who was left, really, for him? Outside of McVey, Jeanette, and Langford, there really wasn't anyone out there to have posed too much of a threat to him. Despite negotiations for matches against guys like Kid McCoy there wasnt nothing left for him, that is until public interest sprouted up in one Jack Johnson, and we all know the story.

He retired because he was tired of boxing, period. He had also just gotten married, and was sick of life on the road with his new wife. (Jeffries, like all champions of the day, supplemented his income through vaudeville and stage appearances. When he retired, Jeffries was on tour playing Davey Crockett.)

Jeffries never particular enjoyed fighting. But he was a skilled athlete, loved the competition, and the only two professional sports at which one could make real money at the turn-of-the-century were baseball and prizefighting. But he never really liked fighting.

Jeffries first started talking about retirement following the first Corbett fight in 1900. He might have retired in 1902 if he had not been successful in arranging a title defense against Fitzsimmons.

But isn't that the thrust of the debate, are 245 pound guys top-level athletes or are they intrinsically flawed?

DavidPayne wrote:But isn't that the thrust of the debate, are 245 pound guys top-level athletes or are they intrinsically flawed?

It sure is, and the answer is yes to both, it all really depends on the fighter. Big HW's like Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Ike Ibeabuchi etc. have shown certain flaws but have also shown the ability to utilize their size and naturally great strength and power to their advantage when in top condition.

I find this formula massively problematic. Those fighters were of their time and shaped by that world. Your formula gives them the benefit of modern nutrition -- whatever that is exactly -- without any accompanying disadvantages. So we're to assume they were just purely gods among men and their environment, competition, management, politics, had no factor? So where exactly would this theoretical world be. I don't know much but what I do know is John L. Sullivan was never 6'2"! and thats a hypothetical far beyond me. I have enough issue trying to transport anyone outside their era as it is.

What are the accompanying disadvantages, Ben?

One might be economic factors. A lot of heavyweight fighters today are part time fighters, whereas someone like McVea or Fitzsimmons fought oftener. Dempsey spent a lot of his youth in hobo camps. Jeffries was a boilermaker in the era when rivets were pounded in by hand. Johnson hewn his skills in battle royals. The point is if you start with the premise that today produces an inferior quality fighter, then you have to attribute some of that to environment. Otherwise, what makes Gentleman Jim with a 16-4 record more legitimate than Michael Spinks? Problems arise!

ben geoghegan wrote:I find this formula massively problematic. Those fighters were of their time and shaped by that world. Your formula gives them the benefit of modern nutrition -- whatever that is exactly -- without any accompanying disadvantages. So we're to assume they were just purely gods among men and their environment, competition, management, politics, had no factor? So where exactly would this theoretical world be. I don't know much but what I do know is John L. Sullivan was never 6'2"! and thats a hypothetical far beyond me. I have enough issue trying to transport anyone outside their era as it is.

I'm not sure I quite see your point. Obviously Jawn Ell was never 6'2, but if he was as tall not compared to the average man was he was then, he would be. It's an exercise in relativity.

Perhaps I missed your point, though.

I'm no relativist I guess. Sullivan was around 5'10. That's good enough for me. I suppose you can go back to Jack Broughton and extrapolate to today making him 7'0 350, also. Great, have fun with whatever purpose that serves

ben geoghegan wrote:I'm no relativist I guess. Sullivan was around 5'10. That's good enough for me. I suppose you can go back to Jack Broughton and extrapolate to today making him 7'0 350, also. Great, have fun with whatever purpose that serves

The point is, Ben, that often when we have debates about the great old fighters and how they would fare in the modern world the argument falls on the idea that the old timers would literally have been too small. My idea through the article was to work out just how big these man would be if they had been as much taller than the average man today as they were back then, and if they had the benefit of modern strength conditioning. Did you read my original article?

This is still the most read post by a guest on the blog site. Still gets reads today. It clearly was thought provoking.

Andrew was a good writer.

Carbo wrote:

fatman wrote:nice article

the size difference applies in all sports, like in football Pele or George Best wouldnt be fit enough to play top level now, read some stat that the World Cup final players from 1970 ran an average 4km per match and in the last World Cup they ran 11km. In athletics all of the records have been smashed, Carl Lewis's Gold 100m Medal run wouldn't make the frame now. And in boxing it's worst of all, truth is that Klitschko would stand Ali on his head, he is 50lbs bigger, just as quick and twice as powerful... increasing their sizes puts a nice angle on this, good work

Carbo wrote: Fatman, thanks for the praise, but I must pull you up on one point: there is no way on earth that Klitschko would beat Ali. Ever. Under any circumstances. At any weight. Period. I could, at a stretch, see Lewis or even a peak Bowe (maaaaayyyybeee) doing it because they're so much heavier, but that's quality heavy against quality lighter

Waldimir Klitschko was TOP quality man... Wlad is an ATG Heavyweight who would indeed beat Ali easily with his greater size, height, reach, strength, punching power, better defense (Wlad fought to age 41 and was never beaten to trash like Ali) better stamina, greater range, and sharper weapons.. Wladimir smashed out slick Eddie Chambers with one swift left hook for his only KO loss... Wlad took out Ray Austin with a series of left hooks delivered in a second... He smashed out undefeated Calvin Brock with one right hand.. He flattened never before stopped Tony Thompson with one right hand. That's quality. What big powerful puncher did Bowe ever face??? None. He ducked Lewis who would have killed him.

Wladimir was bigger, taller, stronger, more skilled, and much more accomplished than Bowe.. Bowe was getting trounced by the inept and very hittable Andrew Golota in 2 fights -- but you say somehow Bowe might beat Ali because of his size -- but not the bigger, stronger, and more skilled Wladimir? Little Herbie Hide out-boxed and punched holes in Bowe for 3 rounds.. Vitali Klitschko took Hide out with one shot in 2 rounds.

Wladimir had one of the greatest trainers in the History of Boxing... Steward had many years of practical boxing experience.. Dundee never fought a round in his life and was more a cheerleader than a technical coach.. That's why Ali had poor technical skills, and was floored by 185-pound Cooper, and took hard shots from little Light Heavyweight Doug Jones. The short, smallish, hittable, 205-pound Frazier hooked the Hell out of Ali for 15 rounds -- and decked him like a ton of bricks -- and unknown Ken Norton shattered Ali's jaw with a left hook and beat him in a massive upset.

What did the 6'3" X 217-pound Foreman do for Joe Frazier?? Joe was out-sized -- and Foreman destroyed Joe in 2 rounds with 6 knockdowns.

Ali at 38 couldn't land a punch on Larry Holmes... But Wlad at 41 got plenty of good shots on brilliant undefeated Heavyweight Champion Anthony Joshua.. He contested one of the greatest Heavyweight Championship Fights of all time, while Ali wouldn't have a prayer with Joshua at any age.

Carbo wrote:

ben geoghegan wrote:I'm no relativist I guess. Sullivan was around 5'10. That's good enough for me. I suppose you can go back to Jack Broughton and extrapolate to today making him 7'0 350, also. Great, have fun with whatever purpose that serves

The point is, Ben, that often when we have debates about the great old fighters and how they would fare in the modern world the argument falls on the idea that the old timers would literally have been too small. My idea through the article was to work out just how big these man would be if they had been as much taller than the average man today as they were back then, and if they had the benefit of modern strength conditioning. Did you read my original article?

There were some very strong men back in the day, including Cyr and Sandow... Weight training existed at the turn of the 19th Century.. There were also men 7 feet tall and taller at the turn of the 19th Century, but not the thousands we have in the world today.. We have 10 times as many people today so some extremely tall men are going to be very good athletes.. About one of every 73 basketball players who are 7 feet tall are good enough, fast enough, and athletic enough to make the NBA.. But you have many more than in the 1950's when the ratio was about the same, because the population is larger and Basketball has become a globally competitive sport since the 50's.. There's a Hell of lot more players.

Professional Boxing didn't exist for a huge slice of the world before 1990.. Today we have bigger, stronger, better athletes coming from EVERYWHERE and America no longer dominates.. Jet travel makes it far easier to make international fights.. For some nationalistic haters that's sour grapes -- and they say the competition isn't there because we're no longer winning Olympic Gold Medals at the pace we did in the past -- or dominating the professional ranks.. Remember, America has about 5 or 6% of the World's population.. At some point as prosperity hits various countries around the world they start enjoying professional sports, developing athletes, and start competing with the West.

I did a quick check... "The U.S. has a population of 319.4 million while the global population is about 7.2 billion, according to the Census Bureau. That works out to a 4.4 percent share of the world's population.Dec 15, 2014" ... Clearly we're not going to have all Heavyweight Champions for all time as we once did.