Either Jeannette would outwork Weaver behind his body attack and heavy counters to take a decision or knock him out late or would Weaver use his jabs, body punches, left hooks and right hands from long range to take a decision. What do you guys think and who do you got?
Re: Joe Jeannette vs. Mike Weaver
Posted: 31 Jan 2023, 20:53
by HomicideHenry
Joe Jeannette is one of those guys in history who had the misfortune of being in an era of heavyweights where there was too great of competition to overcome to be the top man himself. It also didn't help that he was in that time frame where black heavyweights were held back from bigger and better opportunities.
I mean go down the list of all the guys he fought and defeated... Kid Norfolk, Sam McVea, Sandy Ferguson, Sam Langford, Georges Carpentier, Jack Twin Sullivan, and even Jack Johnson. He even held Harry Wills to a draw.
No offense to Mike Weaver but to my mind he never quite stood out in the 1980s. He was so heavily muscle bound and relied on punching power that it's not hard to see how the likes of Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis, Razor Ruddock, Pinklon Thomas, Bonecrusher Smith, and others were able to come out on top of him.
1980-1983 was his absolute peak beating John Tate, Gerrie Coetzee, James Tillis, and having great fights with Michael Dokes. He had potential because of his toughness and punching power and ability to rise to the occasion when being down on the cards, but he was so terribly inconsistent with his performances like so many heavyweights of the 1980s that I think it's a given that Joe Jeannette would have came out on top.
Re: Joe Jeannette vs. Mike Weaver
Posted: 31 Jan 2023, 21:18
by DrDuke
Is there at least some footage to evaluate Jeannette?
Re: Joe Jeannette vs. Mike Weaver
Posted: 31 Jan 2023, 21:21
by HomicideHenry
DrDuke wrote: ↑31 Jan 2023, 21:18
Is there at least some footage to evaluate Jeannette?
The only footage that comes to my mind is when he was an old man doing an exhibition match with Jack Johnson. Personally I don't understand this argument of needing footage to evaluate fighters when their records are so detailed and there is plenty of footage of Jack Johnson and some others that they did fight and defeat or held draws with.
DrDuke wrote: ↑31 Jan 2023, 21:18
Is there at least some footage to evaluate Jeannette?
The only footage that comes to my mind is when he was an old man doing an exhibition match with Jack Johnson. Personally I don't understand this argument of needing footage to evaluate fighters when their records are so detailed and there is plenty of footage of Jack Johnson and some others that they did fight and defeat or held draws with.
There're tons of bad decisions even now and there always was like that, so what judgement can your expect from those multiple newspaper decisions anda number of draws?
Yeah, we saw some footage of Johnson and it can argue against him as much as for him.
DrDuke wrote: ↑31 Jan 2023, 21:18
Is there at least some footage to evaluate Jeannette?
The only footage that comes to my mind is when he was an old man doing an exhibition match with Jack Johnson. Personally I don't understand this argument of needing footage to evaluate fighters when their records are so detailed and there is plenty of footage of Jack Johnson and some others that they did fight and defeat or held draws with.
There're tons of bad decisions even now and there always was like that, so what judgement can your expect from those multiple newspaper decisions anda number of draws?
Yeah, we saw some footage of Johnson and it can argue against him as much as for him.
Considering there would be multiple reporters doing reports on various fights you can generally determine who was winning and who wasn't and who was robbed and who wasn't. So I don't think that kind of argument really washes today considering this website has spent many years collecting every conceivable news source of the time to attach to the fighters records.
I guess I should turn the argument around on you and ask what is it about Joe Jeannette in your mind that disqualifies him from being one of the top three or five heavyweights of his time?
I don't think you could really argue that Mike Weaver was really a top three or five heavyweight with the exception of 1980-1983, when Joe Jeanette was clearly a top heavyweight for a lot longer than that. Or are you to argue that the 1980s heavyweights were superior to the 1910s?
The only footage that comes to my mind is when he was an old man doing an exhibition match with Jack Johnson. Personally I don't understand this argument of needing footage to evaluate fighters when their records are so detailed and there is plenty of footage of Jack Johnson and some others that they did fight and defeat or held draws with.
There're tons of bad decisions even now and there always was like that, so what judgement can your expect from those multiple newspaper decisions anda number of draws?
Yeah, we saw some footage of Johnson and it can argue against him as much as for him.
Considering there would be multiple reporters doing reports on various fights you can generally determine who was winning and who wasn't and who was robbed and who wasn't. So I don't think that kind of argument really washes today considering this website has spent many years collecting every conceivable news source of the time to attach to the fighters records.
I guess I should turn the argument around on you and ask what is it about Joe Jeannette in your mind that disqualifies him from being one of the top three or five heavyweights of his time?
I don't think you could really argue that Mike Weaver was really a top three or five heavyweight with the exception of 1980-1983, when Joe Jeanette was clearly a top heavyweight for a lot longer than that. Or are you to argue that the 1980s heavyweights were superior to the 1910s?
Sometimes all three judges put a horrible verdicts, so a number of reports can have the same sh1t of a value.
The 80s HWs were clearly superior. No one, who can be seen on films of early 1900s are the same good as Larry Holmes or Mike Tyson, or Michael Spinks, or Tim Witherspoon, or Pinklon Thomas, or Bonecrusher Smith.
Weaver in particular could be on the bottom of the 80s' top, but overall boxing became much, much, much more advanced by that period.
There're tons of bad decisions even now and there always was like that, so what judgement can your expect from those multiple newspaper decisions anda number of draws?
Yeah, we saw some footage of Johnson and it can argue against him as much as for him.
Considering there would be multiple reporters doing reports on various fights you can generally determine who was winning and who wasn't and who was robbed and who wasn't. So I don't think that kind of argument really washes today considering this website has spent many years collecting every conceivable news source of the time to attach to the fighters records.
I guess I should turn the argument around on you and ask what is it about Joe Jeannette in your mind that disqualifies him from being one of the top three or five heavyweights of his time?
I don't think you could really argue that Mike Weaver was really a top three or five heavyweight with the exception of 1980-1983, when Joe Jeanette was clearly a top heavyweight for a lot longer than that. Or are you to argue that the 1980s heavyweights were superior to the 1910s?
Sometimes all three judges put a horrible verdicts, so a number of reports can have the same sh1t of a value.
The 80s HWs were clearly superior. No one, who can be seen on films of early 1900s are the same good as Larry Holmes or Mike Tyson, or Michael Spinks, or Tim Witherspoon, or Pinklon Thomas, or Bonecrusher Smith.
Weaver in particular could be on the bottom of the 80s' top, but overall boxing became much, much, much more advanced by that period.
If that is your belief then why do you bother to comment one iota on these past fighters because according to your mind everybody whoever competed passed a certain point in your mind could defeat everybody else prior to that point?
Considering there would be multiple reporters doing reports on various fights you can generally determine who was winning and who wasn't and who was robbed and who wasn't. So I don't think that kind of argument really washes today considering this website has spent many years collecting every conceivable news source of the time to attach to the fighters records.
I guess I should turn the argument around on you and ask what is it about Joe Jeannette in your mind that disqualifies him from being one of the top three or five heavyweights of his time?
I don't think you could really argue that Mike Weaver was really a top three or five heavyweight with the exception of 1980-1983, when Joe Jeanette was clearly a top heavyweight for a lot longer than that. Or are you to argue that the 1980s heavyweights were superior to the 1910s?
Sometimes all three judges put a horrible verdicts, so a number of reports can have the same sh1t of a value.
The 80s HWs were clearly superior. No one, who can be seen on films of early 1900s are the same good as Larry Holmes or Mike Tyson, or Michael Spinks, or Tim Witherspoon, or Pinklon Thomas, or Bonecrusher Smith.
Weaver in particular could be on the bottom of the 80s' top, but overall boxing became much, much, much more advanced by that period.
If that is your belief then why do you bother to comment one iota on these past fighters because according to your mind everybody whoever competed passed a certain point in your mind could defeat everybody else prior to that point?
Because there always be a funny response from someone willing to defend the old crude fellas.
Sometimes all three judges put a horrible verdicts, so a number of reports can have the same sh1t of a value.
The 80s HWs were clearly superior. No one, who can be seen on films of early 1900s are the same good as Larry Holmes or Mike Tyson, or Michael Spinks, or Tim Witherspoon, or Pinklon Thomas, or Bonecrusher Smith.
Weaver in particular could be on the bottom of the 80s' top, but overall boxing became much, much, much more advanced by that period.
If that is your belief then why do you bother to comment one iota on these past fighters because according to your mind everybody whoever competed passed a certain point in your mind could defeat everybody else prior to that point?
Because there always be a funny response from someone willing to defend the old crude fellas.
Well you'll certainly never convince me that Tommy Morrison could have ever become the heavyweight champion of the world in 1900, 1910, 1920, etc.
Re: Joe Jeannette vs. Mike Weaver
Posted: 31 Jan 2023, 22:36
by oogiebe
I cannot fathom rating a fighter I've never seen fight.
Re: Joe Jeannette vs. Mike Weaver
Posted: 31 Jan 2023, 22:38
by HomicideHenry
oogiebe wrote: ↑31 Jan 2023, 22:36
I cannot fathom rating a fighter I've never seen fight.
If you can't adequately rate somebody on the basis of their record and reports on the fights then you have no business being a boxing fan. You may as well say 99.99% of all boxers from all times must be completely disregarded because the names mean nothing to you because you're too lazy to do the homework.
oogiebe wrote: ↑31 Jan 2023, 22:36
I cannot fathom rating a fighter I've never seen fight.
If you can't adequately rate somebody on the basis of their record and reports on the fights then you have no business being a boxing fan. You may as well say 99.99% of all boxers from all times must be completely disregarded because the names mean nothing to you because you're too lazy to do the homework.
What homework????
You are looking at a record and reading biased news articles. No one has said that the old timers were not great. But we have no video evidence to make an informed decision on how they would fair in a hypothetical match up.
NO ONE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED PREDICTION. and those that think they can are fvcking insane and ignorant.
oogiebe wrote: ↑31 Jan 2023, 22:36
I cannot fathom rating a fighter I've never seen fight.
If you can't adequately rate somebody on the basis of their record and reports on the fights then you have no business being a boxing fan. You may as well say 99.99% of all boxers from all times must be completely disregarded because the names mean nothing to you because you're too lazy to do the homework.
What homework????
You are looking at a record and reading biased news articles. No one has said that the old timers were not great. But we have no video evidence to make an informed decision on how they would fair in a hypothetical match up.
NO ONE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED PREDICTION. and those that think they can are fvcking insane and ignorant.
That kind of logic is like saying since you did not live in the time of Abraham Lincoln you could not adequately know that Abraham Lincoln was a great president. How lazy are you people these days?
You do realize that there was multiple reporters reporting on these fights back in those days right? Or are you to assume that they were all biased? You have a very shallow and narrow view.
Imagine if you will there was no film whatsoever of the 1970s. Nothing to go on whatsoever when it concerned Muhammad Ali or George Foreman or Joe Frazier or Ken Norton. You're going to tell me that you could not tell on the basis of reports and on the basis of their records you could not determine that they were special or the best there ever was? Horseshit.
If you can't adequately rate somebody on the basis of their record and reports on the fights then you have no business being a boxing fan. You may as well say 99.99% of all boxers from all times must be completely disregarded because the names mean nothing to you because you're too lazy to do the homework.
What homework????
You are looking at a record and reading biased news articles. No one has said that the old timers were not great. But we have no video evidence to make an informed decision on how they would fair in a hypothetical match up.
NO ONE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED PREDICTION. and those that think they can are fvcking insane and ignorant.
That kind of logic is like saying since you did not live in the time of Abraham Lincoln you could not adequately know that Abraham Lincoln was a great president. How lazy are you people these days?
You do realize that there was multiple reporters reporting on these fights back in those days right? Or are you to assume that they were all biased? You have a very shallow and narrow view.
Imagine if you will there was no film whatsoever of the 1970s. Nothing to go on whatsoever when it concerned Muhammad Ali or George Foreman or Joe Frazier or Ken Norton. You're going to tell me that you could not tell on the basis of reports and on the basis of their records you could not determine that they were special or the best there ever was? Horseshit.
I do not need to see Abraham Lincoln to know his policies.
I would need to see Video of Abraham Lincoln to know his strengths as an boxer.
Your moronic comparison about Lincoln shows your lack of knowledge of the sport.
Have a good night
If that is your belief then why do you bother to comment one iota on these past fighters because according to your mind everybody whoever competed passed a certain point in your mind could defeat everybody else prior to that point?
Because there always be a funny response from someone willing to defend the old crude fellas.
Well you'll certainly never convince me that Tommy Morrison could have ever become the heavyweight champion of the world in 1900, 1910, 1920, etc.
How on earth can you pick the likes of Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns, Jess Willard, Jack Sharkey and Primo Carnera over the likes of Morrison?
oogiebe wrote: ↑31 Jan 2023, 22:36
I cannot fathom rating a fighter I've never seen fight.
If you can't adequately rate somebody on the basis of their record and reports on the fights then you have no business being a boxing fan. You may as well say 99.99% of all boxers from all times must be completely disregarded because the names mean nothing to you because you're too lazy to do the homework.
That's idiotic. I look at records just like every other hard core fan. I look at names that also have none or limited film. Reading is great, but seeing it with one's own eyes is truth.
oogiebe wrote: ↑31 Jan 2023, 22:36
I cannot fathom rating a fighter I've never seen fight.
If you can't adequately rate somebody on the basis of their record and reports on the fights then you have no business being a boxing fan. You may as well say 99.99% of all boxers from all times must be completely disregarded because the names mean nothing to you because you're too lazy to do the homework.
That's idiotic. I look at records just like every other hard core fan. I look at names that also have none or limited film. Reading is great, but seeing it with one's own eyes is truth.
People often say seeing is believing but if our 21st century world has shown us anything it's that regardless of seeing people don't accept the truth. Knowing something is the truth from logic and seeing the truth are two different things, and all the fight films in the world are not going to convince somebody that somebody is good or bad if people don't want to accept it.
Well you'll certainly never convince me that Tommy Morrison could have ever become the heavyweight champion of the world in 1900, 1910, 1920, etc.
How on earth can you pick the likes of Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns, Jess Willard, Jack Sharkey and Primo Carnera over the likes of Morrison?
For starters steroids didn't exist back then so that certainly wouldn't have benefited Tommy Morrison.
You have never seen modern boxers in conditions of the ancient times, you have never seen ancient timers in the modern conditions (and often even in theirs), so what's to argue about on these subjects?
How on earth can you pick the likes of Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns, Jess Willard, Jack Sharkey and Primo Carnera over the likes of Morrison?
For starters steroids didn't exist back then so that certainly wouldn't have benefited Tommy Morrison.
You have never seen modern boxers in conditions of the ancient times, you have never seen ancient timers in the modern conditions (and often even in theirs), so what's to argue about on these subjects?
What I know is it was a hell of a lot tougher back then to get anywhere then it was in the 1980s and 1990s let alone today where anybody can become a superstar in boxing (ie, Jake Paul).
If Tommy Morrison started his career in 1900, I very much doubt he would have been anywhere near as heavy as he was when he competed in the 1980s and 1990s. He would have been likely 190-195 pounds tops.
More than likely he would have had to have had a full-time job as a cowboy or a miner or a lumberjack, etc just to be able to make a living in between bouts. And he sure couldn't just stick to Oklahoma to build a reputation he would have had to have left and more than likely he would have encountered top tier middleweights and light heavyweights who frequently fought heavyweights just like Jack Johnson and others did, and he would have gotten his boxing lessons from those humbling experiences from quicker and faster elusive opponents.
And because of the color of his skin you could guarantee that he would have been matched softly in comparison to black heavyweights of the time, and like many white hopes of that time he would have eventually fought some black man who was the goods and got knocked out just like he did against Ray Mercer.
He might have rebuilt his career after that embarrassment and be thrown into White Hope tournaments and might have had success against the likes of Fred Fulton and others, but the continuous grind of boxing back then and how difficult life was in general back then would have made it difficult for Tommy Morrison or really anyone from our lifetimes making that transition.
Now if we had a time machine and took Tommy Morrison from the George Foreman fight and put him up against men from that time period he would have more of a chance because he would be so much bigger and he would have the benefit of steroids and being at his absolute best--- but even then I'm not so sure just how well he would have done considering a lot of these guys that you dismiss were all time great heavyweights in their own rate and Tommy Morrison never was an all-time great.
What those men were back then was consistent in their performances. Tommy Morrison was never consistent he would have a big win and then he would lose unexpectedly. He didn't quite have the desire or the discipline one would hope and could you imagine him starting his career in 1900 with him having those movie star looks in basically that Wild West atmosphere?
He may very well have ended up like Stanley Ketchel getting shot to death because he was messing with somebody's wife. I think what would have happened to him would have been worse than it was in the 1980s and 1990s because everybody was looking for a white hope so bad that they would have gave Tommy Morrison an even faster rise to the top than he got when he was competing and ultimately he would have lost to a tough bastard like Jess Willard who could have soaked up his punches and knocked him out just like he did Jack Johnson.
Hate on Jack Sharkey, Primo Carnera, Tommy Burns, and others all you like but those men fought so often and against such a high caliber of opposition that they were arguably more sharp and fight ready than fighters of the last 30 years. The constant training and fighting made them hard like diamonds, which makes me believe that they could easily overcome a lot of so-called disadvantages that they would have in fighting more modern fighters.
Anyways I've wasted too much saliva on this. But I will keep it in my memory bank that certain people there's no point having debates with because they automatically have that bias that anyone prior to 1940 basically would lose to everybody who followed that time.
Re: Joe Jeannette vs. Mike Weaver
Posted: 01 Feb 2023, 09:38
by DrDuke
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑01 Feb 2023, 09:24Hate on Jack Sharkey, Primo Carnera, Tommy Burns, and others all you like but those men fought so often and against such a high caliber of opposition that they were arguably more sharp and fight ready than fighters of the last 30 years. The constant training and fighting made them hard like diamonds, which makes me believe that they could easily overcome a lot of so-called disadvantages that they would have in fighting more modern fighters.
Anyways I've wasted too much saliva on this. But I will keep it in my memory bank that certain people there's no point having debates with because they automatically have that bias that anyone prior to 1940 basically would lose to everybody who followed that time.
Lol, another time when disagreement with one's opinion makes the one accusing the guy he talk with in hate.
Furthermore, there's a severe misinterpretation of my words about the automatic pick of every post-1940 fighter.
You nicely decided to drop a modern fighter in ancient times. Now drop the ancient timer how you saw him in the modern era.
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑01 Feb 2023, 09:24Hate on Jack Sharkey, Primo Carnera, Tommy Burns, and others all you like but those men fought so often and against such a high caliber of opposition that they were arguably more sharp and fight ready than fighters of the last 30 years. The constant training and fighting made them hard like diamonds, which makes me believe that they could easily overcome a lot of so-called disadvantages that they would have in fighting more modern fighters.
Anyways I've wasted too much saliva on this. But I will keep it in my memory bank that certain people there's no point having debates with because they automatically have that bias that anyone prior to 1940 basically would lose to everybody who followed that time.
Lol, another time when disagreement with one's opinion makes the one accusing the guy he talk with in hate.
Furthermore, there's a severe misinterpretation of my words about the automatic pick of every post-1940 fighter.
You nicely decided to drop a modern fighter in ancient times. Now drop the ancient timer how you saw him in the modern era.
I've already said it that it would be far easier for the older fighters to transition in today then it would be for the newer fighters to transition into older times. The hurdle for them to climb is a hell of a lot less then it would be for modern fighters to try to compete in their time period.
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑01 Feb 2023, 09:24Hate on Jack Sharkey, Primo Carnera, Tommy Burns, and others all you like but those men fought so often and against such a high caliber of opposition that they were arguably more sharp and fight ready than fighters of the last 30 years. The constant training and fighting made them hard like diamonds, which makes me believe that they could easily overcome a lot of so-called disadvantages that they would have in fighting more modern fighters.
Anyways I've wasted too much saliva on this. But I will keep it in my memory bank that certain people there's no point having debates with because they automatically have that bias that anyone prior to 1940 basically would lose to everybody who followed that time.
Lol, another time when disagreement with one's opinion makes the one accusing the guy he talk with in hate.
Furthermore, there's a severe misinterpretation of my words about the automatic pick of every post-1940 fighter.
You nicely decided to drop a modern fighter in ancient times. Now drop the ancient timer how you saw him in the modern era.
I've already said it that it would be far easier for the older fighters to transition in today then it would be for the newer fighters to transition into older times. The hurdle for them to climb is a hell of a lot less then it would be for modern fighters to try to compete in their time period.
So, the tough motherf8cker Tommy Burns would have an easy walk in the 90s? Probably his incredible title defence streak would be even longer.
Lol, another time when disagreement with one's opinion makes the one accusing the guy he talk with in hate.
Furthermore, there's a severe misinterpretation of my words about the automatic pick of every post-1940 fighter.
You nicely decided to drop a modern fighter in ancient times. Now drop the ancient timer how you saw him in the modern era.
I've already said it that it would be far easier for the older fighters to transition in today then it would be for the newer fighters to transition into older times. The hurdle for them to climb is a hell of a lot less then it would be for modern fighters to try to compete in their time period.
So, the tough motherf8cker Tommy Burns would have an easy walk in the 90s? Probably his incredible title defence streak would be even longer.
He would probably have been a light heavyweight or a cruiserweight in modern times. There was a lot of men in those weight groups in the 1980s and 1990s who won alphabet titles who weren't really all that great like Marvin Camel, so I find it quite probable that a man like Tommy Burns could have picked up alphabet titles or even become the undisputed or unified champion at least for a brief time.
Mind you Burns competed against the top middle weights of his time and he beat the top light heavyweight in the world as well as him defending the heavyweight title again various champions from different countries to pretend he was some nothingburger is ridiculous.
This was a man who had great footwork darting in and out of range and threw punches in bunches. He knew how to get inside and fight effectively against physically superior opponents. For a man of his size he had tremendous hitting power. Of the available fight films I would say of the early heavyweight champions he impresses me quite a bit.
You have a very shallow and narrow view. 
