BoxRec

To continue on from Il Duce's post I would like to put this out to Poll to all you extremely knowledgeable, unbiased members.

Who wins?

Ali wins easily. The advancement in Boxing Skill from Jeffries' time to Ali's time was so drastic that it would look like Ali was fighting a guy who had never laced up a pair of gloves.

Also...why'd you make this poll twice evrenb?

gilgamesh wrote:Ali wins easily. The advancement in Boxing Skill from Jeffries' time to Ali's time was so drastic that it would look like Ali was fighting a guy who had never laced up a pair of gloves.

Also...why'd you make this poll twice evrenb?

Did I??

gilgamesh wrote:Ali wins easily. The advancement in Boxing Skill from Jeffries' time to Ali's time was so drastic that it would look like Ali was fighting a guy who had never laced up a pair of gloves.

Also...why'd you make this poll twice evrenb?

Did you vote?

evrenb wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Ali wins easily. The advancement in Boxing Skill from Jeffries' time to Ali's time was so drastic that it would look like Ali was fighting a guy who had never laced up a pair of gloves.

Also...why'd you make this poll twice evrenb?

Did you vote?

Yep in both of them. I figure my post in this thread makes it fairly obvious which way I went with my vote.

gilgamesh wrote:Ali wins easily. The advancement in Boxing Skill from Jeffries' time to Ali's time was so drastic that it would look like Ali was fighting a guy who had never laced up a pair of gloves.

Exactly. In any sport with measurable performances, such as track and field, the times/distances etc had increased by about 15% from 1900 to 1970. Not to diminish from Jeffries achievements in his time but if you were to take him directly from 1902 and put him against the Ali of the 70's (as the resident BOTP nutjob would like), Jeffries would be facing someone fitter, faster and overall markedly better than anyone he ever faced.

grevan wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Exactly. In any sport with measurable performances, such as track and field, the times/distances etc had increased by about 15% from 1900 to 1970.

It isn't as cut and dried as that, not even in something that you can clearly measure like track and field. It isn't a level playing field, in many/most cases the equipment isn't even the same. In Jim Thorpe's era in the pole vault they were using bamboo pole and jumping into a sand pit. It wasn't until they started using aluminum and later fiberglass poles and increasing the size and thickness of the landing pads that the heights started to really go up.

The same is true in the high jump. The modern method of approaching the bar and going over back first wasn't pioneered until they increasing the size and thickness of the landing pads and stopped jumping into sand pits.

In Jesse Owens era they were running on tracks that would be considered to be unsuitable for a high school track meet today and they didn't even use starting blocks, not to mention steroids.

I'm not suggesting that if you took Jeffries out of 1902 with a time machine and plopped him down in 1966 that he would beat Ali (see my post in the 1974 Ali vs. 1902 Jeffries thread), but there's more to it than most people realize. A more fair, balanced way to look at is if both athletes were competing under the same rules/conditions (both guys using bamboo poles vs. aluminum poles, same time/type of training, same drugs/drug free etc.) In many cases the conditions/rules have changed so drastically it's almost like a totally different sport. Taking a modern athlete, using modern equipment, on steroids, training/competing more often and comparing his statistics to a guy training less often, using archaic equipment, drug free is hardly a level playing field or an accurate comparison. You have to look at what the athlete was able to accomplish under the conditions of the day relative to the competition/current world record of the time.

Il Duce, Your guy aint pollin' well in the suburbs. We gotta start payin for some of the city folk to be bussed to the polls if we're gonna pull this one off in the final reel.

Fortunately fights are not democratic and a consensus means little...in most things.

BUT...

I just can not envision Ali having much trouble with Jeffries. Contrary to classical
romantics ALOT has happened since the two fought and the sport had a solid
renaissance during the 20s and 30s which drilled out the fundamentals and form
which were some what being pioneered in the periods before this.

Jeffries was tough and solid and to me his most impressive feat was getting back
in shape like he did to rematch Johnson. That would have been HARD work.

I see Ali stopping the boiler maker but not after he proves the old timers mettle is iron hard and
filled with stubborn pride.

Goldust wrote:

grevan wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Exactly. In any sport with measurable performances, such as track and field, the times/distances etc had increased by about 15% from 1900 to 1970.

It isn't as cut and dried as that, not even in something that you can clearly measure like track and field. It isn't a level playing field, in many/most cases the equipment isn't even the same. In Jim Thorpe's era in the pole vault they were using bamboo pole and jumping into a sand pit. It wasn't until they started using aluminum and later fiberglass poles and increasing the size and thickness of the landing pads that the heights started to really go up.

The same is true in the high jump. The modern method of approaching the bar and going over back first wasn't pioneered until they increasing the size and thickness of the landing pads and stopped jumping into sand pits.

In Jesse Owens era they were running on tracks that would be considered to be unsuitable for a high school track meet today and they didn't even use starting blocks, not to mention steroids.

I'm not suggesting that if you took Jeffries out of 1902 with a time machine and plopped him down in 1966 that he would beat Ali (see my post in the 1974 Ali vs. 1902 Jeffries thread), but there's more to it than most people realize. A more fair, balanced way to look at is if both athletes were competing under the same rules/conditions (both guys using bamboo poles vs. aluminum poles, same time/type of training, same drugs/drug free etc.) In many cases the conditions/rules have changed so drastically it's almost like a totally different sport. Taking a modern athlete, using modern equipment, on steroids, training/competing more often and comparing his statistics to a guy training less often, using archaic equipment, drug free is hardly a level playing field or an accurate comparison. You have to look at what the athlete was able to accomplish under the conditions of the day relative to the competition/current world record of the time.

Thanks goodness someone actually understands how it should be. We're on the same side Goldust.

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to appreciate.

I guess they just don't want to.

I think that even with the supposedly modern training advancements, in general the fighter's from Jeffries' era were about as good as the more modern fighters. You have to take it on a case by case basis. In this case, Ali would have beaten Jeffries. In many other cases, Jeffries would have beaten a more modern fighter.

ali. and with ease.

I think Jaffa would look good for around 14 seconds then I go for a KO

So the sport has not evolved or changed over time?

Hell I have been a pro in my combat sport over a decade and
I have seen first hand an evolution in so many areas.

Robinson wrote:So the sport has not evolved or changed over time?

Hell I have been a pro in my combat sport over a decade and
I have seen first hand an evolution in so many areas.

Sports usually evolve quite a bit for a couple of decades or so. New strategies and techniques are discovered and improved. However, after a while, the rate of improvement slows and eventually stops. Boxing was around for a while before Jeffries came a long.

Robinson wrote:So the sport has not evolved or changed over time?

Hell I have been a pro in my combat sport over a decade and
I have seen first hand an evolution in so many areas.

totally agree. what changes do you see happened
in boxing and when?