New Book - In the Ring With James J. Jeffries

[apollack]

The book is done and is off to the presses. Should be available within a week or so.

In the Ring With James J. Jeffries is Adam Pollack's 4th book in his heavyweight champion series. It describes in meticulous detail James Jeffries' bouts from the 1890s up to 1905 (including round by round accounts as well as pre- and post-fight analysis), his opponents, and his training regimen. It discusses the time's heavyweight scene, including contenders, pre-fight hype and negotiations, political and legal obstacles, and the color line. Chapters also include descriptions and analysis of Corbett-Sharkey II, Fitzsimmons-Ruhlin, Fitz-Sharkey II, and Corbett-McCoy, as well as controversies surrounding several bouts. The book is based on next-day local newspaper accounts, comparing and contrasting their descriptions and analysis in order to provide an authentic view of how heavyweight boxing was perceived at the time. The use of local primary sources gives readers a rare opportunity to relive Jeffries' career as if they were reading about it at the time he was fighting. The book also includes Jeffries' career record, over 100 photos, 924 footnotes, and an index. 688 pages, hardcover, $42.95. To order, contact [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Table of Contents

Preface: The Undeniable Talent 5
1. Foundation of Strength: Establishing a Local Reputation 6
2. Hank Griffin and the Professional Hiatus 12
3. It Wasn’t Long 21
4. Sparring with the Champion 27
5. Driving the Van Downtown 49
6. How the Baker Got His Goose Cooked 55
7. The Closer 60
8. The Master Veteran 70
9. No Show 90
10. The Legend 99
11. Mexican Pete 111
12. The Shark 120
13. The Cost of High Expectations 142
14. A Strange Ending 160
15. Road to the Crown 185
16. The Championship 215
17. Exhibition Tour 250
18. A Snag in Preparation 262
19. Reaching Deep Into the Inferno 281
20. The Impact of Film 324
21. A Thriving Sport Under Attack 335
22. The Road to Corbett 344
23. Trial of Will 363
24. The Bevy of Battles as the Horton Era Ends – 399
Ruhlin, Sharkey, and Fitzsimmons
25. Hell Hath No Fury… 433
26. Boxing’s Old Nemesis 450
27. Getting Sharp Again – Griffin and Kennedy 462
28. The Road to Ruhlin 475
29. Ruling Ruhlin 486
30. On the Horizon 501
31. Championship Training 513
32. The War, the Bandages, and the Speaking Knockdown 524
33. Media Creation or Legitimate Performance? 557
34. Building the Intrigue 578
35. Leaving No Doubt 597
36. Justifying Challenges 619
37. Setting the Record Straight 634
38. Leaving the Game 655
Appendix: James J. Jeffries’ Record 667
Acknowledgments 680
Index 681

[janitor]

The question on everybodys mind right now is "how will this book shift the readers perceptions of Jeffries"?

[he grant]

Terrific. Excited Adam.

[he grant]

Wow. Bold move to leave out Reno. Big difference from previous when one champ succeeded the next ... will there be a Burns then a Johnson ?

[guilalah]

Excited!:p

Am reading Moyle's Langford book:thumbsup, that should hold me till your book's avaiable for order.

[McGrain]

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh and that well done chap i thought you bottled it

[Mendoza]

Good luck. I hope you uncovered some new stuff and set the record straight.

[fists of fury]

This is going to be a great read. Thanks for your efforts, Adam.

[apollack]

Thank you all. Yes, like all my other books, this one will be full of details, and answer all of the many questions and debates that take place so often on this site. I'm very happy with it.

[mattdonnellon]

Good news Adam, I'll be getting a copy.

[he grant]

Where do we get it ?

[guilalah]

What I'm most curious about: 1) was Jeffries-Finnegan advertised as a title fight?; 2) Jeffries-Fitzsimmons II -- am curious about this bout as it seems to be the one Jeffries detractors bring up most often, expressing doubts about Jeffries defensive abilities.

[Mendoza]

What I'm most curious about: 1) was Jeffries-Finnegan advertised as a title fight?; 2) Jeffries-Fitzsimmons II -- am curious about this bout as it seems to be the one Jeffries detractors bring up most often, expressing doubts about Jeffries defensive abilities.

Jeffries seemed to be out of it, and lacking focus according to the press leading up to this fight. In the first fight, Fitz had trouble landing. Best guess is Jeffries under estimated Fitz in the 2nd match. Fitz likely cheated by loading his gloves, and landed at will until Jeffries ended it.

I'd like to see photos of the ending here to determine if Fitz created the cuts history says he did. Has anyone seen a photo of Jeffries just after the 2nd Fitzsimmons fight?

[apollack]

Each bout is given the full royal treatment. You will have your many questions addressed, at least to the extent that they were discussed at the time.

[guilalah]

Sent a check Thursday.

I'll also be interested in hearing who observers thought had the better of Jeffries-Corbett I, to the point of the KO.

I have the suspicion that it was a lot closer than Corbett later liked to tell it.

[janitor]

Each bout is given the full royal treatment. You will have your many questions addressed, at least to the extent that they were discussed at the time.

You book on Sullivan dramaticaly changed opinions among many people on this site and probably shifted the consensus in his favour. Adam Pollack is the founder of Sullivans new internet army.

Without wanting to demand to much detail do you see the Jeffries book shifting perceptions of him?

I have made predictions to other posters about what I think the overall effect of the book will be.

[mcvey]

Sent a check Thursday.

I'll also be interested in hearing who observers thought had the better of Jeffries-Corbett I, to the point of the KO.

I have the suspicion that it was a lot closer than Corbett later liked to tell it.
I have heard nothing negative about Mr Pollack .Hopefully the "proof will be in the pudding".

[janitor]

Sent a check Thursday.

I'll also be interested in hearing who observers thought had the better of Jeffries-Corbett I, to the point of the KO.

I have the suspicion that it was a lot closer than Corbett later liked to tell it.

I suspect that when the dust settles it will apear that Corbett was probably ahead on the cards, but by a narrow margin that could perhaps be argued the other way.

[apollack]

I don't want to give anything away. What I will tell you is that the Corbett I fight was held at Coney Island's Seaside Athletic Club in Brooklyn, New York, and I offer the insights and opinions of the local next-day newspaper reporters who attended the fight, including the New York Journal, New York World, New York Sun, New York Times, New York Tribune, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, National Police Gazette, New York Clipper, New York Herald, as well as the opinions of Bob Fitzsimmons, Kid McCoy, John L. Sullivan, Tom Sharkey, James Jeffries, Jim Corbett, the referee, and Bill Brady, etc. It is all there laid out for you to review and consider, same way you might review multiple opinions on a fight that just took place today.

[Mendoza]

For those who like old time boxing the Brooklyn Daily Eagle gets my endorsement as on of the best free archives out there.

[apollack]

Book is now available either by contacting me at [Only registered and activated users can see links] or by going to amazon.com

[Zakman]

For those who have never read any of Adam's books, they are excellent. Extremely well-researched. If you're into boxing history, well worthy purchasing.

[Mega Lamps]

This looks most interesting; I'll be certain to check it out.
Thank you as well for writing it of course and adding more to the sport.

[he grant]

Just ordered it from Amazon the other day ... very much looking forward to it ! Adam has managed to carve his own distinctive niche in sports publishing and I am very happy about it. Terrific bodies of work so far and I'm sure Jeffries will be as good or better ... now if there is any way to convince him to do one on Johnson and the surrounding era of Black Dynamite I'd be thrilled. His work is so definative, distinctive and unique previous works on Johnson are irrelevant. Maybe throw in Hart and Burns if it makes sense as I cannot imagine them each getting their own work but who knows ... fiull me in Adam, what's next ?

[amhlilhaus]

he's working on marvin hart as well.

[klompton]

I would be interested in Hart and Burns.

[Mendoza]

he's working on marvin hart as well.

I have never seen a book with Hart being the primary focus.

When Hart won the decision over Johnson in a lack luster fight, Jeffries said he would fight Hart if the public wanted to see it.

[mcvey]

I have never seen a book with Hart being the primary focus.

When Hart won the decision over Johnson in a lack luster fight, Jeffries said he would fight Hart if the public wanted to see it.

But the public didn't,which is just as well for Hart imo.Jeffries would have stopped him, imo.

[he grant]

K, I agree w you but let's get real, this is not 100% work dedicated to make zero money. I'd ba amazed if such a book could stand alone.

[prime]

Consider me a purchaser. Thanks for the effort.

[apollack]

Yes, I am working on Marvin Hart. It will be a bit shorter/more condensed than previous works, but interesting neverthelesss. I think his stock might go up. He was like the Arturo Gatti of his day. His bouts were exciting wars. The guy had a big punch, all out attack, fantastic condition, and ability to take a beating and keep on punching hard round after round. The Johnson performance wasn't some isolated fluke. Anyway, I just published Jeffries, my most massive volume, so enjoy that first. Anyone who has read my work knows how thorough I am. Thank you all for your kind words. Means a lot to me.

[guilalah]

My copy arrived yesterday. I skimmed through various points of special interest, then read the first couple chapters. The book is 'loaded', to put it mildly. Some arguements may be settled; conversely, some things which are controversial now ... well, they were controversial back then, too! So some arguements won't be settled; but, we'll have more evidence (easily available) to argue with, and little excuse for not knowing the deposit of facts.
The biggest thing I came away with (from my cherry-picking skim-through) was what a great fight observers thought that Jeffries-Fitzsimmons II was. Nowadays, Jef-Fitz II is often construed as being damning to both fighters, i.e. Fitzsimmons would be too small, Jeffries too easily hit, to cope with their sucessors; but observers of the time largely felt they had witnessed a clash of Titans

[McGrain]

Just ordered my copy today. Can't wait. Corbett is my favourite, but this is the one i've been most excited about ever since you got started.

[guilalah]

Am through the chapter on Jeffries sparring w/Corbett for the Fitzsimmons defence. Can't help noticing there are nearly as many references to his speed as there are to his size, strength and hitting powers -- I suspect this book is going to put the stake through the heart of all the 21st C. bosh about Jeffries being slow.
Great work.

[amhlilhaus]

Yes, I am working on Marvin Hart. It will be a bit shorter/more condensed than previous works, but interesting neverthelesss. I think his stock might go up. He was like the Arturo Gatti of his day. His bouts were exciting wars. The guy had a big punch, all out attack, fantastic condition, and ability to take a beating and keep on punching hard round after round. The Johnson performance wasn't some isolated fluke. Anyway, I just published Jeffries, my most massive volume, so enjoy that first. Anyone who has read my work knows how thorough I am. Thank you all for your kind words. Means a lot to me.

we love your books, and the way you do them.

[klompton]

Got my copy today! I obviously havent finished it yet but thats not for a lack of trying
:) Its Adams best work yet! Fascinating and in depth. I skipped ahead to the read on the 25 rd Jeffries Sharkey bout. Adam breaks it down perfectly. Just a terrific book. I highly recommend it.

[he grant]

Wow what a terrific job. Got it today and cannot put it down. Adam, A plus !

Everyone should praise it on Amazon ...

[Mendoza]

Am through the chapter on Jeffries sparring w/Corbett for the Fitzsimmons defence. Can't help noticing there are nearly as many references to his speed as there are to his size, strength and hitting powers -- I suspect this book is going to put the stake through the heart of all the 21st C. bosh about Jeffries being slow.
Great work.

Jeffries speed and defense were well above average. I never understood how those who said he was a great athlete in once sentence could also described him as slow. Blame the 1910 comeback film I guess.

I'm likely going to purchase the book. I was hoping for newly discovered fights, new pictures, and interviews from the fighters post 1910.

[guilalah]

Am through the chapter on the first Ruhlin fight.

The matter of Jeffries speed is becoming more qualified. Against his earliest opponents, of similar skill level, Jeffries good natural speed was evident. It isn't evident against more advanced opponents who's foot-technic was better developed than Jeffries own; remember, though, Jeffries is still very early in his career; as Jeffries grew more skilled his natural good speed again became evident.

Sometimes, too, when you're learning to do something, until it becomes second nature, you don't operate as well as when you were doing everything by the seat of your pants.
On the other hand, Jeffries seemed to do a fair amount of training, sparring and some exhibiting in the years prior to turning pro at 21; but maybe the level of competition was such that he could get by on talent?

[Dempsey1238]

I pick this up when I get paid,

I did loved the Sullivan book.


Still hoping for a Hen Pearce book lol.

[janitor]

Am through the chapter on Jeffries sparring w/Corbett for the Fitzsimmons defence. Can't help noticing there are nearly as many references to his speed as there are to his size, strength and hitting powers -- I suspect this book is going to put the stake through the heart of all the 21st C. bosh about Jeffries being slow.
Great work.

I could see it changing a few long held assumptions.

The chapters about Jeffries last two fights might be instructive.

[Mendoza]

I could see it changing a few long held assumptions.

The chapters about Jeffries last two fights might be instructive.

I always felt Jeffries quit just as he was peaking. He destroyed Munroe the way a dominant champ should destroy a fringe contender type, and beat Corbett badly at his own game before knocking him out. Its a pity neither are on film.

I have not ordered the book, but one point of interest to me is the knockdown of Corbett in the 2nd fight. I have read that Jeffries dropped Corbett with a body shot in round two and the count could have been a long one.

[Zakman]

Well, I'm about 100 pages in and, as usual, this is just an outstanding piece of work, very well researched and detailed as usual. I'm learning all sorts of things about Jeffries career that I was not familiar with. These books really give you a sense of what boxing was like at this time, what the context of the various bouts were, and how the participants were perceived at the time. They are an invaluable resource for fans and boxing historians alike.

[guilalah]

Am through the Goddard fight (apollack also covers, in that chapter, a Choyinski-Sharkey encounter).
It's note worthy that, in Jeffries two youthful 20-round draws (against Ruhlin and Choyinski) fighting in the clinches was bared : in the Ruhlin fight by mutual consent; in the Choyinski fight by police insistence. That had to make Jeffries task harder and -- considering that he was fighting talented and more experienced boxers -- the draw results are nothing to blush at.

[guilalah]

These 'no hitting in the clinches' bouts make me wonder how well Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier ect. would have done under similar circumstances. The peak versions of those fighters might have gotten victories where Jeffries got draws (Ruhlin, Choyinski); but, could they have fought under that disadvantage -- so early in their careers -- and matched Jeffries results? Maybe, maybe not.

[McGrain]

I always felt Jeffries quit just as he was peaking. He destroyed Munroe the way a dominant champ should destroy a fringe contender type, and beat Corbett badly at his own game before knocking him out. Its a pity neither are on film.

I absolutely agree with you. In fact I tossed up this article about exactly that a few months ago:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Which is now entirely worthless :lol:

Quick! Anyone who hasn't read the book, read it!!

[guilalah]

I read ahead a bit more on Jeffries-Fitzsimmons I. Initially there was going to be no punching in the clinches but eventually they settled that a fighter could try to fight free if only one man was holding. (p. 221)

[guilalah]

I'm into the preperation for Jeffries challenge of Fitzsimmons.

Assesments of Jeffries foot-speed and technique seem continually back-and-forth.

I think I now have a more nuanced view of Corbett-Sharkey II. It was a competitive fight. Corbett probably landed more, while Sharkey's punches had more effect. The general feeling was that Sharkey was probably going to wear Corbett down before the 20 rounds were over; but some thought Corbett had seen Sharkey's worst and was turning the fight his way. They were fighting on Sharkey's terms, in the clinches, when it ended, but Corbett was holding his own. They had agreed not to fight in clinches, but Sharkey had mostly disregarded this agreement. Nobody seem to claim or notice any ankle injury on Corbett's part (which Jim later claimed).
Sharkey was a tough style for Jim, but it might be going a little strong to say he had Corbett's number.

[guilalah]

I'm into the post-fight analysis of Jeffries succesful title challenge against Fitzsimmons.

This is one fight where Jim scored the KO with a right. Could have used either hand, Fitz out on his feet with arms hanging. Jeffries seems mostly to have used the right for body work, the left was used on the whole target. This being the case, naturally the left is going to account for more 'terminations'; but we shouldn't assume Jeff's right was much less forceful than his left; mostly just used differently.

Jeffries was pretty cautious and in no hurry. Often the crowd exorted him to finish Fitz, but Jeffries waited till Bob was gone gone. Interestingly, the analysis in the papers, rather than chiding him, laud Jeffries patience and coolness, saying he fought like a veteran. The fact that Jeffries took his time, didn't take chances and broke down his man methodically was viewed, at the time, as a positive. I think that's the main thing I've gotten from the books coverage of this fight.

This is one fight where Jeffries speed, cleverness and generalship was praised. His corner seems to have done an excellent job preparing him.

Fitzsimmons did well rounds 4-7 and held his own in the eighth and nineth.

Still have 65% of a book to go! :happy

[mcvey]

I'm into the post-fight analysis of Jeffries succesful title challenge against Fitzsimmons.

This is one fight where Jim scored the KO with a right. Could have used either hand, Fitz out on his feet with arms hanging. Jeffries seems mostly to have used the right for body work, the left was used on the whole target. This being the case, naturally the left is going to account for more 'terminations'; but we shouldn't assume Jeff's right was much less forceful than his left; mostly just used differently.

Jeffries was pretty cautious and in no hurry. Often the crowd exorted him to finish Fitz, but Jeffries waited till Bob was gone gone. Interestingly, the analysis in the papers, rather than chiding him, laud Jeffries patience and coolness, saying he fought like a veteran. The fact that Jeffries took his time, didn't take chances and broke down his man methodically was viewed, at the time, as a positive. I think that's the main thing I've gotten from the books coverage of this fight.

This is one fight where Jeffries speed, cleverness and generalship was praised. His corner seems to have done an excellent job preparing him.

Fitzsimmons did well rounds 4-7 and held his own in the eighth and nineth.

Still have 65% of a book to go! :happy
Did Appollack make any reference to Bob Davis's remarks concerning this fight ?
Davis was in Fitz's corner, and stated several times after the fight,and through the years,that,Fitz smashed his hands during the fight,realized he had nothing left to fight with ,and came out to ring centre,extended his hands and spoke to Jeffries," saying hit me Jeff ",Jeffries did so and Fitz went down.Just wondered if Appollack had a point of view on this?
It is a matter of record that Fitz spoke to Jeffries immediately prior to the knockout.

[apollack]

McVey, you are alluding to the second fight, not the first. And yes, I do discuss all that in the chapter on the second fight. It isn't exactly as Davis and other fanciful writers would have you believe, but there was some controversy. It isn't black and white whether Fitz spoke or exactly what he said if he did. Even Bob and Jeff's quotes have to be taken with a grain of salt due to the time's yellow journalism, meaning writers sometimes just made these quotes up, then dispatches repeated them. Anyway, there is a lot to it, so I'll allow those who read the chapter to give their assessments and interpretations.

[mcvey]

McVey, you are alluding to the second fight, not the first. And yes, I do discuss all that in the chapter on the second fight. It isn't exactly as Davis and other fanciful writers would have you believe, but there was some controversy. It isn't black and white whether Fitz spoke or exactly what he said if he did. Even Bob and Jeff's quotes have to be taken with a grain of salt due to the time's yellow journalism, meaning writers sometimes just made these quotes up, then dispatches repeated them. Anyway, there is a lot to it, so I'll allow those who read the chapter to give their assessments and interpretations.

I know it was the second fight I never stated otherwise .I will buy your book ,and hope it finally clears some of these stories up.
Davis was himself a journalist and working for the press at the time of the fight, as no doubt you know.

[guilalah]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

One comment on Jeffries-Fitzsimmons I said that Jeffries use of his left resembled a cat's swat. That would be long range use, with a half-extended left. Inside, I'd imagine he bent the arm more.




----


guilalah
we shouldn't assume Jeff's right was much less forceful than his left; mostly just used differently.




Finished the chapter on Jeffries-Fitzsimmons. Well, if the quotes are accurate, Jeffries says he hits harder with the left; but he also says body blows won the fight, particularly with his right.

[mcvey]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

One comment on Jeffries-Fitzsimmons I said that Jeffries use of his left resembled a cat's swat. That would be long range use, with a half-extended left. Inside, I'd imagine he bent the arm more.




----




Finished the chapter on Jeffries-Fitzsimmons. Well, if the quotes are accurate, Jeffries says he hits harder with the left; but he also says body blows won the fight, particularly with his right.

If you weigh 206lbs and your opponent weighs 167lbs and is 36,and in the rematch you weight is 219lbs and your opponent's 172lbs,and he is a month short of his 39th birthday ,I should think body blows would be very effective.
Lets say you are in your prime the heavyweight champion, 25 years old. ,you are facing a man coming out of retirement ,38 ,allmost 39 years old ,who has not fought in 2 years ,that man is a super middle weight ,and you have 47lbs weight advantage over him.How great is your victory , if he last 8rds and beats your face to a pulp?

[guilalah]

McVey #54
Lets say you are in your prime the heavyweight champion, 25 years old. ,you are facing a man coming out of retirement ,38 ,allmost 39 years old ,who has not fought in 2 years ,that man is a super middle weight ,and you have 47lbs weight advantage over him.How great is your victory , if he last 8rds and beats your face to a pulp?



Well, when the old little guy can KO every other man currently on the face of the Earth -- yeah, I'd say that's a pretty good victory.

[guilalah]

Am now starting the chapter on Jeffries preparations to defend against Sharkey.

Was rather suprised, to say the least, to learn that -- just after winning the title -- Jeffries said he'd defend against all qualified challengers regardless of race. Wish Jim would have stuck with that resolution.

Jeffries certainly never bought into the idea of his 'invulnerability'. He's refreshingly candid that he fights cautiously because he doesn't want to run into a blow. I suspect his basic thought was that he'd eventually wear anyone down as long as he wasn't a party to bringing about his own knock-out.

Interesting that, right after Jeffries won the title, Sullivan was still the standard for comparison -- despite some outstanding intervening heavyweights.

[janitor]

Interesting that, right after Jeffries won the title, Sullivan was still the standard for comparison -- despite some outstanding intervening heavyweights.

It is not really surprizing given that Sullivan had regularly defeded his title while his sucessors had not.

[Mendoza]

Am now starting the chapter on Jeffries preparations to defend against Sharkey.

Was rather suprised, to say the least, to learn that -- just after winning the title -- Jeffries said he'd defend against all qualified challengers regardless of race. Wish Jim would have stuck with that resolution.

Jeffries certainly never bought into the idea of his 'invulnerability'. He's refreshingly candid that he fights cautiously because he doesn't want to run into a blow. I suspect his basic thought was that he'd eventually wear anyone down as long as he wasn't a party to bringing about his own knock-out.

Interesting that, right after Jeffries won the title, Sullivan was still the standard for comparison -- despite some outstanding intervening heavyweights.

I wonder is Adam mentions the injury Jeffries sustained in camp with the medicine ball, which delayed the Sharkey match.

[mcvey]

Well, when the old little guy can KO every other man currently on the face of the Earth -- yeah, I'd say that's a pretty good victory.

I am a big Fitz fan ,but your statement that a retired Fitz who has not fought in two years ,39 years old , could come out of retirement and scaling 172lbs, ko every heavyweight now active,is rather sweeping ,to say the least.

[Mendoza]

I am a big Fitz fan ,but your statement that a retired Fitz who has not fought in two years ,39 years old , could come out of retirement and scaling 172lbs, ko every heavyweight now active,is rather sweeping ,to say the least.

Fitz was a freak. His come back trial was a furious one, with 5 Ko's in a row, two of which were blow outs over Sharkey and Ruhlin.

After Fitz lost to Jeffreis in the 2nd match, he won five fights in a row again, including the light heavyweight crown vs, Gardner.

Clearly Fitzsimmons was in good form prior to meeting Jeffries, and post meeting Jeffries.

[mcvey]

Fitz was a freak. His come back trial was a furious one, with 5 Ko's in a row, two of which were blow outs over Sharkey and Ruhlin.

After Fitz lost to Jeffreis in the 2nd match, he won five fights in a row again, including the light heavyweight crown vs, Gardner.

Clearly Fitzsimmons was in good form prior to meeting Jeffries, and post meeting Jeffries.

Clearly he COULD NOT have been in" good form prior to meeting Jeffries ".
Because he had no form, having not engaged in a contest for 2 years

The five fights you refer to that Fitz had after losing to Jeffries were over three nobodies , then the immortal Welterweight Joe Grim whose record at that time was 3-4-0
Fitz had one decent win over the light heavyweight champ George Gardner ,then his sun began to set for good.

[guilalah]

McVey #59
Quote:
Originally Posted by guilalah [Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Well, when the old little guy can KO every other man currently on the face of the Earth -- yeah, I'd say that's a pretty good victory.

I am a big Fitz fan ,but your statement that a retired Fitz who has not fought in two years ,39 years old , could come out of retirement and scaling 172lbs, ko every heavyweight now active,is rather sweeping ,to say the least.


I wrote perhaps a bit unclearly, apologies. What I meant to convey was that, in facing Fitzsimmons, Jeffries was facing someone who would be a credible, even probable, threat to KO all of their contemporaries -- 'current' in their day, not ours. Apologies, again, for any inclarity.

[Mendoza]

Mendoza says: Fitz was a freak. His come back trial was a furious one, with 5 Ko's in a row, two of which were blow outs over Sharkey and Ruhlin.

After Fitz lost to Jeffreis in the 2nd match, he won five fights in a row again, including the light heavyweight crown vs, Gardner.

Clearly Fitzsimmons was in good form prior to meeting Jeffries, and post meeting Jeffries.

Clearly he COULD NOT have been in" good form prior to meeting Jeffries ".
Because he had no form, having not engaged in a contest for 2 years

The five fights you refer to that Fitz had after losing to Jeffries were over three nobodies , then the immortal Welterweight Joe Grim whose record at that time was 3-4-0
Fitz had one decent win over the light heavyweight champ George Gardner ,then his sun began to set for good.

I am talking about Fitz's activity leading up to the 2nd match.

Wow, so you think Fitz's comeback, which includes Ko's over Sharkey and Ruhlin, plus the win over Gardner was not impressive?

[mcvey]

I am talking about Fitz's activity leading up to the 2nd match.

Wow, so you think Fitz's comeback, which includes Ko's over Sharkey nd Ruhlin, plus the win over Gardner was not impressive?

Should I put this in capitals ,I mean are you retarded?
I have said TWICE Fitz was coming out of a TWO YEARS RETIREMENT.
What part of that do you not understand?
Prior to the SECOND Jeffries fight ,Fitz had four contests.
One in 1899 on 28th of Oct this was his first outing after losing his title to Jeffries, Fitz kod Geoff Thorne in under a minute.,Thorne's record was 2-1-0.
Fitz fought four times in the next year [ 1900].
Fitz beat Jim Daly on 27th March ,Daly was 7-6-0, ,over nobodies.
Next was the Human Freight Car , the bloated Ed Dunkhorst on the 30th of April, Dunkhorst was 13-7-5 .Fitz wins.

Fitz ups the quality of his opponents ,taking on Gus Ruhlin,on 10th of August ,[still 1900], he stops him.
Fourteen days later he meets Sharkey and stops him.[still1900]

On 25th of July 1902 that is TWO YEARS LATER, he challenges Jeffries,and is stopped in the eight round.
SO PRIOR TO THE JEFFRIES SECOND FIGHT ,FITZ WAS INACTIVE FOR TWO YEARS .AND WAS ONE MONTH SHORT OF HIS 39 TH BIRTHDAY.
NOW HAVE YOU GOT IT?

[guilalah]

Yes, I think we understand that Fitz hadn't fought in two years.

Basically, he fought his way back to being outstanding challenger, then tried to sit on his status.

A two-year hiatus takes off some of his claim to a title shot. 'How much?' could be argued. It certainly shouldn't wipe his slate clean. Probably he should have been downgraded from 'outstanding contender' to 'notable contender'; after another year, just 'contender'; after that, you could start to forget about him.

---------

I will give, I don't think 1902 Fitzsimmons would KO every man in the world today; and I very doubt he'd be heavyweight champion. I do think that a Fitzsimmons, coming along today, could possibly prevail for the heavyweight championship against the right sort of champion.
I don't think Fitzsimmons, as he was in his prime, would have prevailed against the dozen or so most dominant champions from Dempsey onwards; but I think he'd have been a very dangerous opponent for them if they'd come along in Fitz's time.
I think that coming along in Fitzsimmons day and beating him twice is no small accomplishment; ditto twice beating Corbett and Sharkey.

When I pit fifteen heavyweights against each other in my mind -- Sullivan, Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Marciano, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis (and you could certainly add others) -- if it's a case of time-machining them together, I think Sullivan, Jeffries and Johnson probably would have loosing records; if I ask how they'd do coming along at the same time, I suspect Sullivan, Jeffries and Johnson would atleast hold their own. The second scenario, admittedly, is the more speculative. Basically, I consider a HTH 'black-and-white' if I think one guy would win whether it's a 'time-machine' or a 'come along at the same time', and whether it's fighting in the conditions of his time or the conditions of the other guys time; otherwise (and is often the case), I consider a HTH to be kinda 'grey'.

[guilalah]

In Fleischer's last Dempsey biography, he quotes Battling Nelson's opinion Dempsey would have made Fitzsimmons look like a prisoner with two prison-balls chained to his ankles. Considering how unprepared he was for Jeffries crouch in their first fight, I think this is plausible; ditto for Fitzsimmons (just as he was in 1899) fighting Marciano, Frazier, Tyson, ect.

[mcvey]

Yes, I think we understand that Fitz hadn't fought in two years.

Basically, he fought his way back to being outstanding challenger, then tried to sit on his status.

A two-year hiatus takes off some of his claim to a title shot. 'How much?' could be argued. It certainly shouldn't wipe his slate clean. Probably he should have been downgraded from 'outstanding contender' to 'notable contender'; after another year, just 'contender'; after that, you could start to forget about him.

---------

I will give, I don't think 1902 Fitzsimmons would KO every man in the world today; and I very doubt he'd be heavyweight champion. I do think that a Fitzsimmons, coming along today, could possibly prevail for the heavyweight championship against the right sort of champion.
I don't think Fitzsimmons, as he was in his prime, would have prevailed against the dozen or so most dominant champions from Dempsey onwards; but I think he'd have been a very dangerous opponent for them if they'd come along in Fitz's time.
I think that coming along in Fitzsimmons day and beating him twice is no small accomplishment; ditto twice beating Corbett and Sharkey.

When I pit fifteen heavyweights against each other in my mind -- Sullivan, Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Marciano, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis (and you could certainly add others) -- if it's a case of time-machining them together, I think Sullivan, Jeffries and Johnson probably would have loosing records; if I ask how they'd do coming along at the same time, I suspect Sullivan, Jeffries and Johnson would atleast hold their own. The second scenario, admittedly, is the more speculative. Basically, I consider a HTH 'black-and-white' if I think one guy would win whether it's a 'time-machine' or a 'come along at the same time', and whether it's fighting in the conditions of his time or the conditions of the other guys time; otherwise (and is often the case), I consider a HTH to be kinda 'grey'.

My post was not directed at you ,I would have been more courteous.
It was an attempt to explain to Mendoza that if you have not fought for 2 years your form is really non -existant .

[Mendoza]

My post was not directed at you ,I would have been more courteous.
It was an attempt to explain to Mendoza that if you have not fought for 2 years your form is really non -existant .

I think you misread what I was saying, you dolt. My point was Fitz earned the 2nd shot, and beat two top ( Sharkey and Ruhlin ) guys prior to the 2nd Jeffries fight, and 1 top guy post the 2nd Jeffries fight. The way you write it, Fitz was old and shot. Old perhaps. Shot not a chance!

Also, are you sure Fitz was in-active for those two years? Fighters went on tour in those days.

PS: I bothered to download the spell checker in this forum. It ironic that a poster like yourself who harps on mis-spelled words often makes the same mistake. You might want to put an " e " instead of an " a " in existent.

[mcvey]

I think you misread what I was saying, you dolt. My point was Fitz earned the 2nd shot, and beat two top ( Sharkey and Ruhlin ) guys prior to the 2nd Jeffries fight, and 1 top guy post the 2nd Jeffries fight. The way you write it, Fitz was old and shot. Old perhaps. Shot not a chance!

Also, are you sure Fitz was in-active for those two years? Fighters went on tour in those days.

PS: I bothered to download the spell checker in this forum. It ironic that a poster like yourself who harps on mis-spelled words often makes the same mistake. You might want to put an " e " instead of an " a " in existent.
" I bothered to down load the spell checker on this forum".
And, fuck me don't you need it.:lol:
Now piss off ,you imbecile.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by Mendoza [Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
I think you misread what I was saying, you dolt. My point was Fitz earned the 2nd shot, and beat two top ( Sharkey and Ruhlin ) guys prior to the 2nd Jeffries fight, and 1 top guy post the 2nd Jeffries fight. The way you write it, Fitz was old and shot. Old perhaps. Shot not a chance!

Also, are you sure Fitz was in-active for those two years? Fighters went on tour in those days.

PS: I bothered to download the spell checker in this forum. It ironic that a poster like yourself who harps on mis-spelled words often makes the same mistake. You might want to put an " e " instead of an " a " in existent.


" I bothered to down load the spell checker on this forum".
And, fuck me don't you need it.:lol:
Now piss off ,you imbecile.

Hey dolt, we all know you like to point out spelling errors. Don't dish it out unless you can take it : ) And we both know you cannot take it. :D

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Mendoza [Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
I think you misread what I was saying, you dolt. My point was Fitz earned the 2nd shot, and beat two top ( Sharkey and Ruhlin ) guys prior to the 2nd Jeffries fight, and 1 top guy post the 2nd Jeffries fight. The way you write it, Fitz was old and shot. Old perhaps. Shot not a chance!

Also, are you sure Fitz was in-active for those two years? Fighters went on tour in those days.

PS: I bothered to download the spell checker in this forum. It ironic that a poster like yourself who harps on mis-spelled words often makes the same mistake. You might want to put an " e " instead of an " a " in existent.




Hey dolt, we all know you like to point out spelling errors. Don't dish it out unless you can take it : ) And we both know you cannot take it. :D

Keep using dolt, I find it quaint, do you use words like blaggard and cad?:lol: How about poltroon? :rofl

You find one error , and pounce on it?
Well I can't blame you , you have had precious little success in arguing with me.

I found five errors in two paragraphs in your recent post, you are borderline illiterate,which is no crime ,but is rather ironical , when you are so comically up your own arse, in your self esteem and pomposity.

Another error underlined for you .
ps Do you think it possible you could type a sentence without an error in it?

[Mendoza]

Keep using dolt, I find it quaint, do you use words like blaggard and cad?:lol: How about poltroon? :rofl

You find one error , and pounce on it?
Well I can't blame you , you have had precious little success in arguing with me.

I found five errors in two paragraphs in your recent post, you are borderline illiterate,which is no crime ,but is rather ironical , when you are so comically up your own arse, in your self esteem and pomposity.

Another error underlined for you .
ps Do you think it possible you could type a sentence without an error in it?


You learned how to put a line between your sentences. It must be your birthday today.

[mcvey]

You learned how to put a line between your sentences. It must be your birthday today.
No, its the 21st of this month . I hope you are getting me something nice.
Apollack's new book would be appropriate.

I have bought your Xmas present , Odhams Concise English Dictionary.

What does it feel like, playing Frazier to my Ali in our verbal spars?
Must be pretty frustrating, getting owned daily. :good

[bodhi]

You two should get a room or something :lol:

[mcvey]

You two should get a room or something :lol:
I WOULD LIKE 5 MINUTES WITH HIM UP AN ALLEY.:bbb

[North Star]

When a fighter like Jeffries retires at his peak, if we do not count the Johnson catastrophe, it leads to a lot of what if's, but the plus side is that Jeffries lived a long and healthy life.

[mcvey]

When a fighter like Jeffries retires at his peak, if we do not count the Johnson catastrophe, it leads to a lot of what if's, but the plus side is that Jeffries lived a long and healthy life.

I don't think ,even a prime Jeffries beats Johnson ,but he would have given him a hell of a fight .The winner would automatically have had his standing enhanced, imo.
Jeffries was a somewhat taciturn , surly man ,but he was a good friend to the people he liked and respected,like Sharkey and Fitz.Jack Dempsey allways spoke highly of him as, "that grand old guy".

[guilalah]

Got through the chapter on the Sharkey defense. Ryan and Delany didn't get along to well (if I may 144-ly understate).

Both came out of the fight with bum left arms, though I'm inclined to think Jeffries hurt his a lot earlier in the contest.

Mildly controversial decision, but no more than mild; would probably be more controversial today but, hey, they both knew a strong finish would count for a lot; if they knew otherwise, Jeffries might have fought a bit different.

Kinda scary to think of Jeffries, coming in a bit light, going 25 rounds under the arc lights, and taking champagne .... sounds like a perfect storm for a real tragedy.

[Mendoza]

I WOULD LIKE 5 MINUTES WITH HIM UP AN ALLEY.:bbb

You would not last 30 seconds...

[Mendoza]

I don't think ,even a prime Jeffries beats Johnson ,but he would have given him a hell of a fight .The winner would automatically have had his standing enhanced, imo.
Jeffries was a somewhat taciturn , surly man ,but he was a good friend to the people he liked and respected,like Sharkey and Fitz.Jack Dempsey allways spoke highly of him as, "that grand old guy".

If you compare and contrast many of the same fighters they fought, Jeffries did better vs Griffin, Munroe, Choynski, and Everett.

Johnson himself called Jeffries the greatest, along with Dempsey, Corbett, Langford, Sharkey, Burns, et al.

Judging by Johnson mediocre results when Jeffries was champ, he's not going to win.

The record shows that when Johnson was matched vs. Men close to his size than could hit a bit and were neither old or green, he lost. See the Choynski, Griffin, Hart, or Klondike matches....and recycle your bag your excuses.

As champ, Johnson was in fact out boxed a bit by middle weight O'brien, should have lost via TKO vs. Battling Johnson if the fight was scheduled for 20 rounds as the Cyber Boxing Zone reports, was floored by middle weight Ketchel, and had a close points win over a Moran. I have all the news reads, and have seen more film on him than you have.

[North Star]

I think a prime Johnson-Jeffries match could go either way. I find it difficult to rule out a possible victory for Jack or Jeff.

I wonder if the past his prime Jeffries could have done anything different to improve his performance against Johnson when they actually did fight. Probably not. I believe Jeff did not have any significant tune up fights when he came out of retirement before he met Johnson and if Jeff had won a tune up fight it would not mean much unless it had been against someone of Johnson's caliber.

Many thought Jeffries could defeat Johnson at the time but I can recall an interesting example of some of the doubt that was apparently out there. It was a newspaper photo of Jeffries in training and I think the caption said "Jeffries Tortures His Middle Aged Body Into Shape".

[mcvey]

If you compare and contrast many of the same fighters they fought, Jeffries did better vs Griffin, Munroe, Choynski, and Everett.

Johnson himself called Jeffries the greatest, along with Dempsey, Corbett, Langford, Sharkey, Burns, et al.

Judging by Johnson mediocre results when Jeffries was champ, he's not going to win.

The record shows that when Johnson was matched vs. Men close to his size than could hit a bit and were neither old or green, he lost. See the Choynski, Griffin, Hart, or Klondike matches....and recycle your bag your excuses.

As champ, Johnson was in fact out boxed a bit by middle weight O'brien, should have lost via TKO vs. Battling Johnson if the fight was scheduled for 20 rounds as the Cyber Boxing Zone reports, was floored by middle weight Ketchel, and had a close points win over a Moran. I have all the news reads, and have seen more film on him than you have.

You have not seen more film of Johnson than I have .
As to the rest of your tired spiel , I can't be bothered to respond ,its the , "same shit ,different day".You are The Classic's equivalent of " Ground Hog Day", get a life.

[guilalah]

Read the chapter on the Jeffries-Sharkey film. There were two films, Edison's and Biographs. Sounds like Biograph was cutting edge for its day. A shame it wasn't well preserved. Apparently the fight looked more even yet on film than in person. Jeffries cut it prettty close. On the other hand, it showed he could use his right with some versatility when he had to. Interesting that Sharkey was said to be the better infighter. Again, it's hard to judge Jeffries on this fight, given that he might have (I think probably did) reinjured his left in the 2nd round. I'll be curious, in upcoming fights, how viewers evaluated Jeffries inside work.
It's interesting to see Sharkey elevating his game, strength-conditioning-wise, to contend with Jeffries. I suspect it will be the same with Corbett.
Earlier in the book, Jeffries states he's stronger heavier but faster lighter. The little bit of browse-ahead I've done suggests that he was slower in the crouch, faster upright. So he probably could have been stronger, and just as fast, heavy and upright. So the rationale for the crouch was probably Jeffries was harder to hit. It will be interesting to see if his opponents adapt to Jeffries crouch; if they do, and if the crouch looses its distinctive advantages, will Jeffries do more upright fighting? We'll see -- I'm just wondering if the crouch will be a bit like a new fangled NFL defense that stumps the whole league one year, but eventually the offenses adapt, so that the defense in question becomes just one option among many. Again, we'll see.

[mattdonnellon]

To whom it concerns The Jack Johnson v's Jim Johnson fight was scheduled for only ten rounds.

[McGrain]

I would pick Jeffries to beat Johnson in 04. How an imagined active Jeffries would have been in 06-07 by which time Johnson would have been genuinely ready for him is unkowable. Assuming he hadn't lost a step or an edge I genuinely believe that it would have been a nip and tuck fight. With a gun to my head I would pick Johnson.

[IntentionalButt]

I would pick Jeffries to beat Johnson in 04. How an imagined active Jeffries would have been in 06-07 by which time Johnson would have been genuinely ready for him is unkowable. Assuming he hadn't lost a step or an edge I genuinely believe that it would have been a nip and tuck fight. With a gun to my head I would pick Johnson.

How about a knife to the throat? :think

[McGrain]

How about a knife to the throat? :think

If I had a knife to my throat I would disarm the assailant and take him down to Chinatown. You need a gun to get knifedge predictions out of me. The irony!

[klompton]

To whom it concerns The Jack Johnson v's Jim Johnson fight was scheduled for only ten rounds.


Do we have any french sources that support this?

[mattdonnellon]

Yes. From memory, L'aero and several others, Equipe and more for the days leading up to the fight. I'll check them out.

[Mendoza]

You have not seen more film of Johnson than I have

Oh yes I have. We have already been the fact that you have not seen the full 20 rounds of Johnson vs. Moran, and you missed quite a bit on the Willard fight too.

There is a good chance you never saw Johnson spar with Kid Cutler either. But I have.

[mattdonnellon]

The front page of L'Aero 9th December , 1913 clearly states that the Jim Johnson fight was for ten rounds.
Hopefully the end of this old chestnut!

[klompton]

Do you have a scan or a place I can see it?

[klompton]

Oh yes I have. We have already been the fact that you have not seen the full 20 rounds of Johnson vs. Moran, and you missed quite a bit on the Willard fight too.

There is a good chance you never saw Johnson spar with Kid Cutler either. But I have.


Thats a damn lie. I know for a fact that the full 20 rounds of Johnson-Moran DONT exist and neither does the complete version of Johnson-Willard. Nice try...

[mcvey]

oh yes i have. We have already been the fact that you have not seen the full 20 rounds of johnson vs. Moran, and you missed quite a bit on the willard fight too.

There is a good chance you never saw johnson spar with kid cutler either. But i have.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Mendoza]

Thats a damn lie. I know for a fact that the full 20 rounds of Johnson-Moran DONT exist and neither does the complete version of Johnson-Willard. Nice try...


I was baiting Mcvey. He's a fool. This is why I said we have already been the fact that you have not seen the full 20 rounds of Johnson vs. Moran. I wanted to see him come back with junk, which is his MO.

I have seen almost all of the highlights of the rounds of Johnson vs. Moran, and its a close fight. There is a lot on Johnson vs. Willard. Most only see the early rounds and the ending, but in round 25 Willard really hurts Johnson with a body shot. Of Course Johnson can be seen vs. Kid Cutler in the legendary champions, landing his uppercut on cue vs a vs sloppy Cutler.

[mcvey]

I was baiting Mcvey. He's a fool. This is why I said we have already been the fact that you have not seen the full 20 rounds of Johnson vs. Moran. I wanted to see him come back with junk, which is his MO.

I have seen almost all of the highlights of the rounds of Johnson vs. Moran, and its a close fight. There is a lot on Johnson vs. Willard. Most only see the early rounds and the ending, but in round 25 Willard really hurts Johnson with a body shot. Of Course Johnson can be seen vs. Kid Cutler in the legendary champions, landing his uppercut on cue vs a vs sloppy Cutler.

You were baiting me ,you coudn't bait a fish hook.:lol:

You have been caught out lying.

More grammatical errors , underlined ,no improvement there then.

Johnson was 35 years old when he defended against Moran,and 37 when he fought Willard,"Willard really hurts Johnson ",and it was only the 25th round.:patsch

[Mendoza]

You were baiting me ,you coudn't bait a fish hook.:lol:

You have been caught out lying.

More grammatical errors , underlined ,no improvement there then.

Johnson was 35 years old when he defended against Moran,and 37 when he fought Willard,"Willard really hurts Johnson ",and it was only the 25th round.:patsch

Hey dolt, you misspelled couldn't :lol::lol::lol:. I prove you wrong plenty, and as I explained we both know I have seen a lot more than you have. I laugh in your face. Now shut your pie hole or I'll crush your man love on Johnson by posting some of his fight reports.

[Mendoza]

The front page of L'Aero 9th December , 1913 clearly states that the Jim Johnson fight was for ten rounds.
Hopefully the end of this old chestnut!

Matt,

Mike of the CBZ says it was 20 rounds. Here's an article on the fight. By the looks of it, we should have had a new champion. There is no mention of the scheduled rounds.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[mcvey]

Matt,

Mike of the CBZ says it was 20 rounds. Here's an article on the fight. By the looks of it, we should have had a new champion. There is no mention of the scheduled rounds.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
CBZ had this to say about Johnson.
"possibly the best heavyweight who ever fought"
"a master of defence"
"allmost flawless in all other aspects of the art of pugilism" .
Should we accept this ,as you accept the Johnson fight was 20rds?
What do you say, Mendacity?
Got any more lies for us?

[guilalah]

apollack leans to viewing Jeffries-Finnegan as a non-title fight. I've always thought Jeffries gets uncalled for guff, now days, for having a tune-up fight. He'd already met the outstanding challenger (Sharkey) and had contracted to fight Corbett. It's not like he was fighting Finnegan to duck anyone. Jeffries just wanted some work and a little spending money, and got steamed when Finnegan punked him about his gloves. Well, that's how I see it.

[guilalah]

mattdonnellon thanks for the newspaper citation regarding Johnson-Johnson.

[mcvey]

The front page of L'Aero 9th December , 1913 clearly states that the Jim Johnson fight was for ten rounds.
Hopefully the end of this old chestnut!
I wouldn't count on it .not with the Johnson hater on this forum .

[mcvey]

apollack leans to viewing Jeffries-Finnegan as a non-title fight. I've always thought Jeffries gets uncalled for guff, now days, for having a tune-up fight. He'd already met the outstanding challenger (Sharkey) and had contracted to fight Corbett. It's not like he was fighting Finnegan to duck anyone. Jeffries just wanted some work and a little spending money, and got steamed when Finnegan punked him about his gloves. Well, that's how I see it.
Jeffries had fought Sharkey ,and would fight Corbett after Finnegan ,,he was entitled to an easy one , but this was a foregone walkover.
Has anyone had worse credentials when challenging for the heavyweight title?

[mcvey]

Matt,

Mike of the CBZ says it was 20 rounds. Here's an article on the fight. By the looks of it, we should have had a new champion. There is no mention of the scheduled rounds.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The paper clearly states it was "a ten round affair".
If the fight was shortened as you have allways maintained ,why was no mention made of it?

[klompton]

The front page of L'Aero 9th December , 1913 clearly states that the Jim Johnson fight was for ten rounds.
Hopefully the end of this old chestnut!


Do you mean L'Auto?

[mattdonnellon]

No L'Aero. PM me ans I'll send you a copy. There are numerious mentions of the fight for over a week prior to the event and for several days afterwards(in French, obviously) and also the Jeannette-Langford fight of the same time. The latter contest was billed as a World Championship fight and has some credence to be considered as such.

[Mendoza]

CBZ had this to say about Johnson.
"possibly the best heavyweight who ever fought"
"a master of defence"
"allmost flawless in all other aspects of the art of pugilism" .
Should we accept this ,as you accept the Johnson fight was 20rds?
What do you say, Mendacity?
Got any more lies for us?

Mcvey,

I think its time to check your cankerous responses at the door. This is a boxing forum here. If you can't accept a fight report, I suggest you re-arrange your lawn furniture. I was talking to Matt, not you.

Also if your going to quote another website, why not do it correctly. Here's what the CBZ had to say on this fight! Note they say 20 rounds. Johnson should lose on points if it was 10 rounds or via TKO when he quit inside the distance.

Dec 19 "Battling" Jim Johnson ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) Paris, Fr D 10 -Heavyweight Championship of the World This bout was scheduled for 20 rounds but terminated after 10 rounds due to arm injury to the Champion. [Only registered and activated users can see links]


PS: For a guy who rips people for misspelled words, you really should look in the mirror.

[mcvey]

Mcvey,

I think its time to check your cankerous responses at the door. This is a boxing forum here. If you can't accept a fight report, I suggest you re-arrange your lawn furniture. I was talking to Matt, not you.

Also if your going to quote another website, why not do it correctly. Here's what the CBZ had to say on this fight! Note they say 20 rounds. Johnson should lose on points if it was 10 rounds or via TKO when he quit inside the distance.

Dec 19 "Battling" Jim Johnson ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) Paris, Fr D 10 -Heavyweight Championship of the World This bout was scheduled for 20 rounds but terminated after 10 rounds due to arm injury to the Champion. [Only registered and activated users can see links]


PS: For a guy who rips people for misspelled words, you really should look in the mirror.

Ok Chimp .
First, if you are talking privately to a poster,send a pm ,otherwise it is in the public domain.
You cherry pick what you think will help your point of view and ignore the rest.
For example CBZ states that Frank Moran was a hard right hand puncher ,which I told you ,and you refuted.

As to my spelling ? allmost is correct, if you can manage it, you will notice that I spelt defence differently than it is typed on CBZ too.
Why ? Because I am English ! And that is how it is spelt in England, not surprisingly, because it is the ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
You speak a bastardized version of Shakespeare's language,and spell it accordingly,[ as in color, when it is colour]
.So get your facts right.

I asked you for a comment on CBZ's appraisal of Johnson's ability and you ignored it.Too unpalatable?

Any comment on Donnellon's newspaper report, stating the fight was scheduled for 10 rds?

[Mendoza]

Ok Chimp .
First, if you are talking prvately to a poster,send a pm ,otherwise it is in the public domain.
You cherry pick what you think will help your point of view and ignore the rest.
For example CBZ states that Frank Moran was a hard right hand puncher ,which I told you ,and you refuted.

As to my spelling ? allmost is correct, if you can manage it, you will notice that I spelt defence differently than it is typed on CBZ too.
Why ? Because I am English ! And that is how it is spelt in England, not surprisingly, because it is the ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
You speak a bastardized version of Shakespeare's language,and spell it accordingly,[ as in color, when it is colour]
.So get your facts right.

I asked you for a comment on CBZ's appraisal of Johnson's ability and you ignored it.Too unpalatable?

Any comment on Donnellon's newspaper report, stating the fight was scheduled for 10 rds?

Ok Mr. Dolt. I'm still laughing at your mis-spelled words. An English professor you are not. I don't care if I speak in your version of the Queens English, but I do find it ironic how wrong you can be when you attempt to criticize other people's English. I think I made that clear in the past few days. Also you need to learn how to put spaces between your sentences.

As for the fight, there are conflicting opinions on whether it was scheduled 10 or 20 rounds. I posted the news report, did you read it? My opinion on the fight is this. Battling Jim was robbed of a decision if it was 10 rounds for sure, and should have been the winner via TKO if it was 20 rounds! Face it, Jack Johnson got whipped by a tough journeyman type of fighter. He's so over rated it is not funny.

As for the CBZ's appraisal on Johnson, they really don't go into much detail of his fights, rather its a overview and opinion of the writer who created the web page. Also, if your using the CBZ as your benchmark, they say it was a 20 round fight. :lol::lol::lol: Embrace that fact. Don't pick and chose items from the CBZ and disregard others to suit your agenda.

My question to you is this, who do you think deserved to win that match? Battling Jim Johnson or Jack Johnson? You reply will either expose you as a ball washing excuse ridden fan, or show me for once you can be honest on this particular prospect. I look forward to reading your reply.

[mcvey]

Ok Mr. Dolt. I'm still laughing at your mis-spelled words. An English professor you are not. I don't care if I speak in your version of the Queens English, but I do find it ironic how wrong you can be when you attempt to criticize other people's English. I think I made that clear in the past few days. Also you need to learn how to put spaces between your sentences.

As for the fight, there are conflicting opinions on whether it was scheduled 10 or 20 rounds. I posted the news report, did you read it? My opinion on the fight is this. Battling Jim was robbed of a decision if it was 10 rounds for sure, and should have been the winner via TKO if it was 20 rounds! Face it, Jack Johnson got whipped by a tough journeyman type of fighter. He's so over rated it is not funny.

As for the CBZ's appraisal on Johnson, they really don't go into much detail of his fights, rather its a overview and opinion of the writer who created the web page. Also, if your using the CBZ as your benchmark, they say it was a 20 round fight. :lol::lol::lol: Embrace that fact. Don't pick and chose items from the CBZ and disregard others to suit your agenda.

My question to you is this, who do you think deserved to win that match? Battling Jim Johnson or Jack Johnson? You reply will either expose you as a ball washing excuse ridden fan, or show me for once you can be honest on this particular prospect. I look forward to reading your reply.

I take no more notice of CBZ than I do of you ,I just find it amusing that you ignore things you don't like.

I cannot, for the life of me see how you can have so much hate for a man who has been dead for 63 years.

Its an obsession with you ,I have pms from posters taking the piss out of you, saying how you cannot objectively discuss ,either Johnson ,Jeffries or the Klitschko's

I am more than willing to give Jeffries kudos , but the slightest negative criticism finds you rushing to his defence ,it's like a mania .

I have read quite a few reports on the Johnson /Johnson fight,some thought Jack was fading at the finish , some thought he fought even more defensively than usual, because of his injury.After all a broken bone in your arm is a solid reason for a sub par performance I think .
Your hero, Vitali certainly thought it was a good enough reason to quit in a fight he was winning and he did not have any broken bones.

I think it would kill you to accept CBZ' opinion of Johnson's capabilities, you can't even bring yourself to repeat them.

If Jack Johnson is so overated ,how come so many premier boxing writers disagree with you ?

Tracy Callis for one,Nat Fleischer for another, Gilbert Odd and Denzil Batchelor ,two more.
Add Randy Roberts, Terry Leigh Lye, Hugh Mcilvanney, Charley Rose ,Herb Goldman.

"In all round ability, he was tops " Nat Fleischer.

Boxers quotes.
"In all round defence he was the greatest,and I tell you this honestly ,because I hated him".
Tom Sharkey.

"He is the Emperor of Fistiana",Jim Corbett.

" No, I couldnt have licked him in a thousand years " Jim Jeffries.

" I sparred with him once, I couldn't lay a glove on him ,he was simply marvellous ".Ted Kid Lewis.

He has the best defence I have ever seen for a heavyweight " Jimmy Wilde.

All these are wrong and you are right ?






Who deserved the win ?

I haven't got a clue I haven't seen the fight ,and neither have you, so we are even ,the difference is, I don't try and make it a victory for Jack.

If it was scheduled for 20 rds Jim Johnson should have been crowned champion ,and I have said this before, but, NO ONE, HAS GIVEN IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT THIS IS THE CASE.

In fact the evidence points towards a 10rd fight having been scheduled ,with the new evidence that Donnellon has unearthed .

Box rec has it as a scheduled 10 rounder

To be quite frank with you ,I dont give a shit either way.

My earlier post, might quite well have been similar to your usual scribblings ,I typed it at about 5 am,I was up early ,because I was going on a shoot.
I have no problem with you typing in "Americanese", if I might call it that ,why would I have?

I thought it would have been obvious that, being English ,I would spell words the English, [original] way .
Maybe you were so excited thinking you had an error to point out you did not stop to think ?
Bless you:lol:

I read a lot of American fiction ,but have never come across anyone using the term dolt,tell me is it still in common usage?

Or, only in your neck of the backwoods, [ duelling banjo land]?

Why do you suppose I would type something to gain your good opinion?

You cannot seriously think I give a flying fuck about your opinion ,surely?
I take anything negative you say as a compliment ,why havent you used poltroon or knave to describe me yet?
Ask yourself this ,if you discovered that James Jackson Jeffries had a homosexual relationship with Tom Sharkey, and, that he had paid Fitz and Corbett to go into the tank,would your world be destroyed?
If the answer is yes ,you need to think about devloping another interest.:good

[guilalah]

McVey #103

Quote:
Originally Posted by guilalah [Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
apollack leans to viewing Jeffries-Finnegan as a non-title fight. I've always thought Jeffries gets uncalled for guff, now days, for having a tune-up fight. He'd already met the outstanding challenger (Sharkey) and had contracted to fight Corbett. It's not like he was fighting Finnegan to duck anyone. Jeffries just wanted some work and a little spending money, and got steamed when Finnegan punked him about his gloves. Well, that's how I see it.

Jeffries had fought Sharkey ,and would fight Corbett after Finnegan ,,he was entitled to an easy one , but this was a foregone walkover.
Has anyone had worse credentials when challenging for the heavyweight title?


Well, that's the question, 'Was it for the heavyweight title'? Pollack, if I'm understanding him correctly, is inclined to view it as a non-title tune-up, though I don't think he'd say this is something we definitively know one way or the other. (Apollack, would you like to chime in?) Do we have anything from the time that states that the title was on the line against Finnegan?

[apollack]

Depends on how you want to look at it. Generally, a true title fight at that time was a 20 or 25 round bout. Finnegan was only scheduled for 10. I don't think anyone would have considered Finn champ if he had won a 10-round bout. Finn was attempting to do well and gain a reputation.

However, what's in a name? What you call it is irrelevant. Exhibition, non-title bout, title bout - it's all the same when you have two guys in there throwing punches and trying to win. IF Finn had KO'd Jeff, I guarantee everyone would be calling him the world champion, same as if someone had KO'd Sullivan in those 4-rounders which had to be 4 rounds for legal reasons.

The real title fight was the scheduled Corbett bout. Jeff occasionally liked to have these types of bouts as preparation for the upcoming real fight. Plus, he saw it as easy money. So technically, Finn was not considered a true "title" bout because back then, a fight had to be scheduled for a lengthy distance to truly be considered for the world championship. Still, what does it matter whether it was scheduled for 10 or 25 rounds - no difference - Finn went out in 1.

[apollack]

BTW, Finnegan's record was not all that bad. Any fighter who can last 20 rounds knows something about boxing. He fought Jack Bonner to a 20-round draw, Jimmy Ryan to a 20-round draw, and scored a KO18 over the big-sized Jack McCormick. The reason why the fight was considered "easy" for Jeff was the fact that two months earlier, Gus Ruhlin had stopped Finnegan in 4 rounds. Still, Finn took the Jeffries bout seriously, running from 12 to 20 miles a day, in addition to hitting the bags 10-15 rounds.

Anyway, it's all there in the book.

[mcvey]

BTW, Finnegan's record was not all that bad. Any fighter who can last 20 rounds knows something about boxing. He fought Jack Bonner to a 20-round draw, Jimmy Ryan to a 20-round draw, and scored a KO18 over the big-sized Jack McCormick. The reason why the fight was considered "easy" for Jeff was the fact that two months earlier, Gus Ruhlin had stopped Finnegan in 4 rounds. Still, Finn took the Jeffries bout seriously, running from 12 to 20 miles a day, in addition to hitting the bags 10-15 rounds.

Anyway, it's all there in the book.

From what I have read Jeffries was not in top shape for this ,and who could blame him?
But we should not be too harsh on him, he took on Corbett soon after this , though I wonder why three years had to elapse before he did so,given the sterling effort Corbett put up in their first fight.
ps The book is a Xmas box ,or so I am told.

[apollack]

Actually, the first Corbett fight was after Finnegan. Jeff beat Fitz in June 99, Sharkey in Nov. 99, Finn in April 1900, and Corbett in May 1900.

The second Corbett fight was in 1903, but the reasons why are explained in the book.

[mcvey]

Actually, the first Corbett fight was after Finnegan. Jeff beat Fitz in June 99, Sharkey in Nov. 99, Finn in April 1900, and Corbett in May 1900.

The second Corbett fight was in 1903, but the reasons why are explained in the book.

Of course you are right , my error .
I will be interested in the underlying reasons why Jeffries did not rematch Corbett until three years had passed.
I have allways assumed it was down to Corbett's inactivity.

[Mendoza]

McVey says: Who deserved the win ?

I haven't got a clue I haven't seen the fight ,and neither have you, so we are even ,the difference is, I don't try and make it a victory for Jack.

If it was scheduled for 20 rds Jim Johnson should have been crowned champion ,and I have said this before, but, NO ONE, HAS GIVEN IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT THIS IS THE CASE.

In fact the evidence points towards a 10rd fight having been scheduled ,with the new evidence that Donnellon has unearthed .

Well, the CBZ says 20 rounds, and Unforgivable Blackness ( I think ) also says 20 rounds. You still ducking my question! If it was 10 rounds, based on the news read I posted, who do you think should have won?

Battling Jim, or Jack Johnson.? Its a simple question really. Can you give an answer to that without spin control? It might also interest you to know that the French wanted to strip Johnson of his championship for this effort.

Here is the link to the fight for you to read:

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[Boilermaker]

BTW, Finnegan's record was not all that bad. Any fighter who can last 20 rounds knows something about boxing. He fought Jack Bonner to a 20-round draw, Jimmy Ryan to a 20-round draw, and scored a KO18 over the big-sized Jack McCormick. The reason why the fight was considered "easy" for Jeff was the fact that two months earlier, Gus Ruhlin had stopped Finnegan in 4 rounds. Still, Finn took the Jeffries bout seriously, running from 12 to 20 miles a day, in addition to hitting the bags 10-15 rounds.

Anyway, it's all there in the book.

By the sounds of things, Finnegan was no worse an opponent as the majority of guys who get shots today. Certainly no worse than say the Kirk Johnson that once fought for the title, or Ray Austin. A far cry from the worst fighter ever to fight for a title, which many suggest, and i was starting to believe

[apollack]

I wonder is Adam mentions the injury Jeffries sustained in camp with the medicine ball, which delayed the Sharkey match.


Yes, that is thoroughly addressed in the chapter A Snag In Preparation.

[guilalah]

Thank you, apollack, for your response to my Jeffries-Finnegan question.

[mcvey]

Well, the CBZ says 20 rounds, and Unforgivable Blackness ( I think ) also says 20 rounds. You still ducking my question! If it was 10 rounds, based on the news read I posted, who do you think should have won?

Battling Jim, or Jack Johnson.? Its a simple question really. Can you give an answer to that without spin control? It might also interest you to know that the French wanted to strip Johnson of his championship for this effort.

Here is the link to the fight for you to read:

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

I read this link ages ago, its nothing new.It seems to suggest that Johnson was groggy at the finish,but I have read reports that apart from being a dull affair, Johnson was not in danger.
To state that because Johnson was in trouble late does not mean he had not done enough to win or salvage a draw.
Now that we know it was a scheduled 10 rounder, any views on whether battling Jim could have stopped Jack ,given more rounds, are hypothetical.
I gave you an honest answer as to who should have won ,I've read the reports you have and others too,I have no clear picture as to who deserved the win IF ANYONE.
If ,you cannot accept that tough shit .you would obviously put the most negative spin on Jack's performance and aver that Jim Johnson was robbed,
I have to tell you, no one else seems to care too much either way !

[mattdonnellon]

Terrible translation of a round-by-round account of the fight;

Round first. — To The signal of the time-keeper Jack walks on Jim, the low hands, comes very near and
squints to the body. Jim comes in clinch. To the released, the black black hides himself, but does not avoid
a direct dazzling left to the the ace. Jim hangs.

Round second. — Jim does an attack and shady to the flank. The. blow causes to burst out laughing the yellow black. that to
the released, touches of an uppercut of the right.. Then Jack cuts down of a blow dii straight -a direct one that destines
him Jim and the touch on the flank of a hook of the right. Jim launched itself on his opponent, month finds a guard closed
and does not touch that in the gloves. Advantage to the world champion.

Round third. — On one pretend Jack, Jim comes in clinch and hangs on. The yellow black sees his opponent and shoots him a hook to the flank.
Jim returns and touches of a hook of the right to the head. The fight animates itself. Jim. touches again to the head, but takes a hook to the
stomach.

Round fourth. — Jim stretches his left. The yellow black pretend the left and crochets same has the head. Jinn retorts pure a
half one- right swing, that touches has, the sheet metal. Jack crcclïèlû of the left, but his blow concerns the inique of -his
opposing one. This is at this point in time that it broke himself the forearm. It has not besides anything publishes and
laughed, to the. opposite, démesu- rément.

Round fifth. — Jack' pretended the left and touches of a light direct one, that it doubles shortly after.
Then it touches two times of the right to the flank. Jim hangs on and holds. The yellow black brutally pushs
back it, and crochets it right. Big advantage to Jack Johnson.

Round sixth. — Jack tanks and squints of one - right uppecut to the stomach. Jim comes in clinch, silly
releases itself immediately and hits anii body. The yellow black pretend the right and then left, and touches
next of a dtreoL of the right to the body.

Round seventh. — Feigned Jack and Jim comes immediately in body to body cl hangs on on 'released o. The
yellow black returns on a direct one gaucho and touches right to the côros. Jim s'ac itself <croche- and fight
s.

Round eighth. — Jack touches entry of one of the, right to the cslomac. Jim looks for the body to body. To the released, the black black tou-
drops to the face,. secured covers itself ensu.ilo of its gods hands open and avoids thus two cro- right chets that shoots for him in riposlc Jack".
11 riposlo of the right, then attacks of the. gaucho cl succeeds one -douljlé.

Round ninth. — Jack attacks furious of the right. Jim touches on the released of a hook of the left. The men come in body has. body.
Released, Jack carries a right uppercut, that slipped. on the face of his opponent. Jim riposlc and shady three times of the right to the
mâ- drop.

Round tenth. — The two pugilistes s'obser itself- wind, then Jim throws itself. on Jack cl, squints of a r.roohol. right. Jim comes back to
the load and shady of a new one, crochel. to the stomach" The two men hang on and slip to earth. Jim, raised, loads Jack and the lôncho two
times of the right. The gong resounds.

The judges, MM. Frnnlz Frichel and Oudin ,proclaimed the match to no one.

[Mendoza]

I read this link ages ago, its nothing new.It seems to suggest that Johnson was groggy at the finish,but I have read reports that apart from being a dull affair, Johnson was not in danger.
To state that because Johnson was in trouble late does not mean he had not done enough to win or salvage a draw.
Now that we know it was a scheduled 10 rounder, any views on whether battling Jim could have stopped Jack ,given more rounds, are hypothetical.
I gave you an honest answer as to who should have won ,I've read the reports you have and others too,I have no clear picture as to who deserved the win IF ANYONE.
If ,you cannot accept that tough shit .you would obviously put the most negative spin on Jack's performance and aver that Jim Johnson was robbed,
I have to tell you, no one else seems to care too much either way !

Oh, its quite clear in that report I posted who the winner was. I can accept the fact that the great Jack Johnson who some claim was un hittable was in fact shown up by a journeyman, and lucky to escape with his title intact.

You say you have read other reports? Care to post any of them here? I highly doubt it. My fight report is below.

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

Also, there is a difference of opinion on the rounds. Just because a report is in French doesn't mean its right. As I pointed out, the CBZ said 20 rounds, and Unforgivable Blackness also said 20 rounds..I think. The book also states that one judge gave the fight to Battling Jim, and the other two said draw. But since Jack was the champ, and likely had some say on who the judges were, this should not surprise anyone. Also, there was no re-match here. The fight should be a stain on a champions legacy. And it was.

[mcvey]

Oh, its quite clear in that report I posted who the winner was. I can accept the fact that the great Jack Johnson who some claim was un hittable was in fact shown up by a journeyman, and lucky to escape with his title intact.

You say you have read other reports? Care to post any of them here? I highly doubt it. My fight report is below.

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

Also, there is a difference of opinion on the rounds. Just because a report is in French doesn't mean its right. As I pointed out, the CBZ said 20 rounds, and Unforgivable Blackness also said 20 rounds..I think. The book also states that one judge gave the fight to Battling Jim, and the other two said draw. But since Jack was the champ, and likely had some say on who the judges were, this should not surprise anyone. Also, there was no re-match here. The fight should be a stain on a champions legacy. And it was.
You can put what spin on it you like,I don't beleive any else on here really cares.
Johnson's continuing stature as a great fighter gnaws at you like a rat at a piece of cheese.

You need help. :-((

[Mendoza]

You can put what spin on it you like,I don't beleive any else on here really cares.
Johnson's continuing stature as a great fighter gnaws at you like a rat at a piece of cheese.

You need help. :-((

The news reads and facts are just that. I suggest you accept them or see a shrink. :-(( I do agree that Johnson was a great fighter in his time. No questions there. I also believe his results in many fights were suspect at best, and he is does not always impress on film, and in news reads.

[guilalah]

Finished the chapter on preperation for Jeffries-Corbett I. Many impressed with Corbett's condition. Agreement to no fighting in the clinches, 24-ft ring.

[Mendoza]

Finished the chapter on preperation for Jeffries-Corbett I. Many impressed with Corbett's condition. Agreement to no fighting in the clinches, 24-ft ring.

The big ring benefited a boxer mover like Corbett. Did the book mention that one of the Jeffries vs. Corbett fights was filmed, but the results were a poor picture.

[mattdonnellon]

Also, there is a difference of opinion on the rounds. Just because a report is in French doesn't mean its right. As I pointed out, the CBZ said 20 rounds, and also said 20 rounds..I think. The book also states that one judge gave the fight to Battling Jim, and the other two said draw. But since Jack was the champ, and likely had some say on who the judges were, this should not surprise anyone. Also, there was no re-match here. The fight should be a stain on a champions legacy. And it was.
Every single pre-fight mention in the French press -and we are talking at least ten different papers and reports- list the fight as scheduled for ten rounds. No way was it scheduled for 20. CBZ does not give a primary source. Simply an error-it happens the best.
As to the fight reports, I have multiple reports but my French is poor. I will post them here if somebody can translate them well. It appears that it was a slow fight with Jack in command which is at odds with the NY Times report. However we wouldn't look to the French papers for a report on Johnson-Jeffries, would we?
"Unforgivable Blackness" states that the fight was ten rounds, suggests that Jack had the better of a bad fight despite hurting his arm in the third. It also states-incorrectly-that the referee awarded the draw, with no mention of the judges. All the ringside reports suggest Jack had the upperhand. Are you thinking of some other book?

[janitor]

Jim Johnson managed to spoil his way to a draw against Sam McVea when the latter was coming into his prime.

An old and fat Jack Johnson managed to hold him off for ten rounds with a broken arm.

[Boilermaker]

i have to say, if the most hated champion in the world had just lost a fight by TKO which was overruled, or if a fight had to be shortened, Isnt it almost certain taht the press of the time (not years after) would have seized the opportunity to either demand he was stripped, demand he rematch his conqueror, support his conqueror as an alternate world champion, and generally make a massive deal over this incident? It just doesnt make any sense whatsover to me.

[mattdonnellon]

i have to say, if the most hated champion in the world had just lost a fight by TKO which was overruled, or if a fight had to be shortened, Isnt it almost certain taht the press of the time (not years after) would have seized the opportunity to either demand he was stripped, demand he rematch his conqueror, support his conqueror as an alternate world champion, and generally make a massive deal over this incident? It just doesnt make any sense whatsover to me.

bang on!

[Boilermaker]

Jim Johnson managed to spoil his way to a draw against Sam McVea when the latter was coming into his prime.

An old and fat Jack Johnson managed to hold him off for ten rounds with a broken arm.

He went the distance several times with Joe Jeanette before the Johnson fight, and had some stoppage wins. He was actually bigger than Jeanette, McVey and Langford at 6 3 and 220 plus pounds. He was not the low level journeyman that most people suggest. In fact, he was the best coloured fighter around that had not already been beaten by Jack Johnson!

The year after he fought Johnson, he continued going the distance with NC against Jeanette, McVey and Langford. Actually for all we know, he could have won some o fthose under modern scoring though i am sure others will know enough to say he didnt. In 1915, he added Harry Wills to the list of great fighters he went the distance with (going 20 rounds). In fact, Jim Johnson actually has a winning record against Harry Wills, having one once and fought two no contests. The ironic thing about the third fight with Wills that Johnson won, is that Harry Wills actually broke his arm against Johnson! So, you can also add that when Harry Wills suffered the same injury as Jack Johnson, against Jim Johnson, things were so hopeless that he had to throw in the towell. It starts to make what Jack Johnson did look even more impressive. Given that this makes two fighters (world class) who broke their arms against Johnson you have to start to wonder whether he had some type of pet trick to hurt the arms of opponents. (such as grappling the arms or striking with the elbows or something similar). Anyway, i think that Jim Johnson is very underated on this board today.

[mcvey]

He went the distance several times with Joe Jeanette before the Johnson fight, and had some stoppage wins. He was actually bigger than Jeanette, McVey and Langford at 6 3 and 220 plus pounds. He was not the low level journeyman that most people suggest. In fact, he was the best coloured fighter around that had not already been beaten by Jack Johnson!

The year after he fought Johnson, he continued going the distance with NC against Jeanette, McVey and Langford. Actually for all we know, he could have won some o fthose under modern scoring though i am sure others will know enough to say he didnt. In 1915, he added Harry Wills to the list of great fighters he went the distance with (going 20 rounds). In fact, Jim Johnson actually has a winning record against Harry Wills, having one once and fought two no contests. The ironic thing about the third fight with Wills that Johnson won, is that Harry Wills actually broke his arm against Johnson! So, you can also add that when Harry Wills suffered the same injury as Jack Johnson, against Jim Johnson, things were so hopeless that he had to throw in the towell. It starts to make what Jack Johnson did look even more impressive. Given that this makes two fighters (world class) who broke their arms against Johnson you have to start to wonder whether he had some type of pet trick to hurt the arms of opponents. (such as grappling the arms or striking with the elbows or something similar). Anyway, i think that Jim Johnson is very underated on this board today.

I do not think that Jim Johnson had any proclivity towards injuring an opponents arm,,but it is just possible he was a bit better than he is credited with being.
Jack Johnson,in his book" In The Ring And Out", was fullsome in his praise of him.
The facts are that Johnson broke his tibia,he said it occured in the third round, whatever, he struggled through the fight,others in the same predicament did not.

[Mendoza]

i have to say, if the most hated champion in the world had just lost a fight by TKO which was overruled, or if a fight had to be shortened, Isnt it almost certain taht the press of the time (not years after) would have seized the opportunity to either demand he was stripped, demand he rematch his conqueror, support his conqueror as an alternate world champion, and generally make a massive deal over this incident? It just doesnt make any sense whatsover to me.

Well the French wanted to strip Johnson of his title for this fight.

[Mendoza]

Every single pre-fight mention in the French press -and we are talking at least ten different papers and reports- list the fight as scheduled for ten rounds. No way was it scheduled for 20. CBZ does not give a primary source. Simply an error-it happens the best.
As to the fight reports, I have multiple reports but my French is poor. I will post them here if somebody can translate them well. It appears that it was a slow fight with Jack in command which is at odds with the NY Times report. However we wouldn't look to the French papers for a report on Johnson-Jeffries, would we?
"Unforgivable Blackness" states that the fight was ten rounds, suggests that Jack had the better of a bad fight despite hurting his arm in the third. It also states-incorrectly-that the referee awarded the draw, with no mention of the judges. All the ringside reports suggest Jack had the upperhand. Are you thinking of some other book?

Matt,

Perhaps we should contact Mike DeLisa of the CBZ. Mike has 1,000+ hours of research, and could very well produce the report which says the match was scheduled for 20 rounds.

The French report translation is murky. The New Times of course reads much better, and clearly indicates Battling Jim was getting the better of the action.

Regarding the three judges, I have read two of them said draw, and one said Battling Jim deserved to win. Is this your understanding of the scoring as well?

[guilalah]

Mendoza #127

Quote:
Originally Posted by guilalah [Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Finished the chapter on preperation for Jeffries-Corbett I. Many impressed with Corbett's condition. Agreement to no fighting in the clinches, 24-ft ring.

The big ring benefited a boxer mover like Corbett. Did the book mention that one of the Jeffries vs. Corbett fights was filmed, but the results were a poor picture.


I'm about 5 rounds into Jeffries-Corbett I. The chapter on the fight notes that Corbett seemed unhappy about the absence of film cameras. I take that to mean that Jeffries, who didn't like heat, had held out for the film not being filmed. Corbett, I presume, would have probably prefered filming, both to discomfit Jeffries by the heat of the lighting, as well as for the revenue.

I haven't read enough of the Jeffries-Corbett II fight to say whether that one was filmed.

[mattdonnellon]

Matt,

Perhaps we should contact Mike DeLisa of the CBZ. Mike has 1,000+ hours of research, and could very well produce the report which says the match was scheduled for 20 rounds.

The French report translation is murky. The New Times of course reads much better, and clearly indicates Battling Jim was getting the better of the action.

Regarding the three judges, I have read two of them said draw, and one said Battling Jim deserved to win. Is this your understanding of the scoring as well?
I think the CBz record is courtesy of Tracy Callis who is a top researcher. I suspect he was working of the NY Times report which I am begining to believe was a hatchet job on Jack Johnson. I'll try and get a better translation of the fight-that would help!
Also I have no current info on the scoring except that the two named judges gave it as a "null" fight.

[mcvey]

Matt,

Perhaps we should contact Mike DeLisa of the CBZ. Mike has 1,000+ hours of research, and could very well produce the report which says the match was scheduled for 20 rounds.

The French report translation is murky. The New Times of course reads much better, and clearly indicates Battling Jim was getting the better of the action.

Regarding the three judges, I have read two of them said draw, and one said Battling Jim deserved to win. Is this your understanding of the scoring as well?
Lets face it.
If,on his death bed ,Jim Johnson ,made a sworn , signed statement ,that he was lucky to secure a draw with an injured , 35 year old , Jack Johnson over 10 scheduled rounds ,you would find something wrong with it.

[apollack]

I think Jeff was badly handicapped by that left arm injury in the second Sharkey bout, not only in terms of his ability to throw lefts hard and often during the fight, but in the amount of sparring that he could do. That is a big deal for a left-handed fighter. I think he was physically in great shape because he did a lot of running and calisthenics, etc. but his sparring had to be limited by an injury of that nature. Plus, reinjuring it during the fight handicapped him. Then add the very intense heat, over 100 degrees, and you have a big guy who is struggling a bit with a smaller more efficient fighter size-wise. Sharkey was a very well conditioned, very strong, relentless bull who could take it and come back for more. He also knew how to grapple and wrestle. He'd be ideal for today's mma fights.

People harp on size differences but I think if a fighter is around 190 he's plenty strong to hurt and deck you. Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, rarely over 200, more like in the high 180s and 190s. Henry Cooper, who decked Clay, was around 190, Doug Jones, who gave Clay hell, around 190. People forget that Ali at his best was 200-210. Same with Holmes and Frazier. SHavers and Weaver had massive power, and they were 200-210 pounds. Sure size is an advantage, but that can be offset and be a disadvantage in a long fight where greater size leaves you less efficient. That's why they trained down so much. But Jeff still had great condition even at the higher weight. But I don't think he had some huge advantage over these guys when he's 210-215 and they are 190. Not with small gloves in a long bout where you have to pace yourself, and the smaller fighter can be fast, busy, move well, and hit very hard with 5-ounce gloves.

The truth is that Jeff's opponents were often bigger than represented. Even Jeff was often bigger than represented. They almost never officially stepped on a scale the day before or the day of the fight because they didn't have to. If it was a heavyweight bout, it didn't matter what you weighed. Fitz was a notorious fibber who liked to claim he was a middleweight so he had that built-in excuse if he lost, or could claim even more credit if he won. On his exhibition tour with Jeff he was weighing 200 pounds, and in photos, wears it very well. Those photos are included.

If you notice, the less rounds boxing has had, the larger the fighters have gotten. If you have to fight to the finish or do 25 rounds, you aren't going to make it at 250. How many big marathoners have you seen? So these huge guys today would have to train down. That's why back in the day you didn't see these guys much over 200. But guys like Sullivan could easily walk around at 230+. They were smart enough to know that you can't haul that weight around for hours on end.

Even the 15-round bout was difficult on big men. Hence you didn't see massive guys, almost never more than 220, and really the best conditioned guys were closer to 200 or less.

When championship bouts went down to 12 rounds, you saw the proliferation of bigger fighters because they didn't have to last as long. Conversely, if the guys of yesteryear were fighting 12 rounders, they would bulk up even more. Jeffries, who walked around at about 250, would not lose as much weight if he was fighting today and he'd keep a much faster pace, knowing he'd only have to go 12, rather than having to hold back and not gas himself, given that round 12 wasn't even fully half-way through the fight. Difficult to compare and contrast fighters of different eras because of the different rules sets and circumstances.

[mcvey]

I think Jeff was badly handicapped by that left arm injury in the second Sharkey bout, not only in terms of his ability to throw lefts hard and often during the fight, but in the amount of sparring that he could do. That is a big deal for a left-handed fighter. I think he was physically in great shape because he did a lot of running and calisthenics, etc. but his sparring had to be limited by an injury of that nature. Plus, reinjuring it during the fight handicapped him. Then add the very intense heat, over 100 degrees, and you have a big guy who is struggling a bit with a smaller more efficient fighter size-wise. Sharkey was a very well conditioned, very strong, relentless bull who could take it and come back for more. He also knew how to grapple and wrestle. He'd be ideal for today's mma fights.

People harp on size differences but I think if a fighter is around 190 he's plenty strong to hurt and deck you. Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, rarely over 200, more like in the high 180s and 190s. Henry Cooper, who decked Clay, was around 190, Doug Jones, who gave Clay hell, around 190. People forget that Ali at his best was 200-210. Same with Holmes and Frazier. SHavers and Weaver had massive power, and they were 200-210 pounds. Sure size is an advantage, but that can be offset and be a disadvantage in a long fight where greater size leaves you less efficient. That's why they trained down so much. But Jeff still had great condition even at the higher weight. But I don't think he had some huge advantage over these guys when he's 210-215 and they are 190. Not with small gloves in a long bout where you have to pace yourself, and the smaller fighter can be fast, busy, move well, and hit very hard with 5-ounce gloves.

The truth is that Jeff's opponents were often bigger than represented. Even Jeff was often bigger than represented. They almost never officially stepped on a scale the day before or the day of the fight because they didn't have to. If it was a heavyweight bout, it didn't matter what you weighed. Fitz was a notorious fibber who liked to claim he was a middleweight so he had that built-in excuse if he lost, or could claim even more credit if he won. On his exhibition tour with Jeff he was weighing 200 pounds, and in photos, wears it very well. Those photos are included.

If you notice, the less rounds boxing has had, the larger the fighters have gotten. If you have to fight to the finish or do 25 rounds, you aren't going to make it at 250. How many big marathoners have you seen? So these huge guys today would have to train down. That's why back in the day you didn't see these guys much over 200. But guys like Sullivan could easily walk around at 230+. They were smart enough to know that you can't haul that weight around for hours on end.

Even the 15-round bout was difficult on big men. Hence you didn't see massive guys, almost never more than 220, and really the best conditioned guys were closer to 200 or less.

When championship bouts went down to 12 rounds, you saw the proliferation of bigger fighters because they didn't have to last as long. Conversely, if the guys of yesteryear were fighting 12 rounders, they would bulk up even more. Jeffries, who walked around at about 250, would not lose as much weight if he was fighting today and he'd keep a much faster pace, knowing he'd only have to go 12, rather than having to hold back and not gas himself, given that round 12 wasn't even fully half-way through the fight. Difficult to compare and contrast fighters of different eras because of the different rules sets and circumstances.

I don't think we can fault Jeffries for fighting smaller men, he happened to be the first of what we would call the modern heavyweights in size, the stature of his challengers was not of his choosing.
But the fact remains Fitz was only 167 lbs when he defended against Jeffries ,and Sharkey was only 5 ' 8''.
It seems that it is okay for some to criticize Johnson for meeting smaller men ,but not Jeffries.
Do you think 24 year old Jeffries was handicapped more with his injured arm ,than 35 year old Johnson was with his broken one?

[apollack]

Actually, Sullivan was a bigger dude as well. There were other big heavyweights in these eras, but they usually got KO'd or beaten by the smaller heavys. Jeffords, Dunkhorst, McAuliffe, all big men for the era. But they weren't necessarily better.

I don't believe Fitz re his weight, plain and simple, and Fit literally refused to step on the scales before neutral reporters and observers to prove his claimed weight. Therefore, most reports were based on estimates, rumor and hearsay. Regardless, Fitz could hit hard enough to knock out any man, regardless of size. No one at the time disagreed with this. And he was the odds favorite going in against Jeffries, and the gamblers and reporters had seen the sizes of both, as well as their performances. Fitz was considered a true freak of nature, a special individual.

I have not chimed in on the Johnson broken arm and rounds debate because it isn't relevant to this thread. It belongs in another thread. I have never criticized Johnson for meeting smaller men. In fact, most criticize Johnson for NOT meeting a smaller man - Sam Langford, in a rematch, when Langford was in his prime. But again, that discussion and debate is for a Johnson thread, not Jeffries.

[Mendoza]

I think Jeff was badly handicapped by that left arm injury in the second Sharkey bout, not only in terms of his ability to throw lefts hard and often during the fight, but in the amount of sparring that he could do. That is a big deal for a left-handed fighter. I think he was physically in great shape because he did a lot of running and calisthenics, etc. but his sparring had to be limited by an injury of that nature. Plus, reinjuring it during the fight handicapped him. Then add the very intense heat, over 100 degrees, and you have a big guy who is struggling a bit with a smaller more efficient fighter size-wise. Sharkey was a very well conditioned, very strong, relentless bull who could take it and come back for more. He also knew how to grapple and wrestle. He'd be ideal for today's mma fights.

People harp on size differences but I think if a fighter is around 190 he's plenty strong to hurt and deck you. Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, rarely over 200, more like in the high 180s and 190s. Henry Cooper, who decked Clay, was around 190, Doug Jones, who gave Clay hell, around 190. People forget that Ali at his best was 200-210. Same with Holmes and Frazier. SHavers and Weaver had massive power, and they were 200-210 pounds. Sure size is an advantage, but that can be offset and be a disadvantage in a long fight where greater size leaves you less efficient. That's why they trained down so much. But Jeff still had great condition even at the higher weight. But I don't think he had some huge advantage over these guys when he's 210-215 and they are 190. Not with small gloves in a long bout where you have to pace yourself, and the smaller fighter can be fast, busy, move well, and hit very hard with 5-ounce gloves.

The truth is that Jeff's opponents were often bigger than represented. Even Jeff was often bigger than represented. They almost never officially stepped on a scale the day before or the day of the fight because they didn't have to. If it was a heavyweight bout, it didn't matter what you weighed. Fitz was a notorious fibber who liked to claim he was a middleweight so he had that built-in excuse if he lost, or could claim even more credit if he won. On his exhibition tour with Jeff he was weighing 200 pounds, and in photos, wears it very well. Those photos are included.

If you notice, the less rounds boxing has had, the larger the fighters have gotten. If you have to fight to the finish or do 25 rounds, you aren't going to make it at 250. How many big marathoners have you seen? So these huge guys today would have to train down. That's why back in the day you didn't see these guys much over 200. But guys like Sullivan could easily walk around at 230+. They were smart enough to know that you can't haul that weight around for hours on end.

Even the 15-round bout was difficult on big men. Hence you didn't see massive guys, almost never more than 220, and really the best conditioned guys were closer to 200 or less.

When championship bouts went down to 12 rounds, you saw the proliferation of bigger fighters because they didn't have to last as long. Conversely, if the guys of yesteryear were fighting 12 rounders, they would bulk up even more. Jeffries, who walked around at about 250, would not lose as much weight if he was fighting today and he'd keep a much faster pace, knowing he'd only have to go 12, rather than having to hold back and not gas himself, given that round 12 wasn't even fully half-way through the fight. Difficult to compare and contrast fighters of different eras because of the different rules sets and circumstances.


There is a lot of truth in this post. During the Fitzsimmons match, when they told Jeffries Fitz was 167, Jeffries simply laughed and said it he's 167, then put me down for 144.

I get the feeling many old timers fudged their weight a bit south of where they were. Perhaps this was to let the fight fans know they were in shape.

[mcvey]

Actually, Sullivan was a bigger dude as well. There were other big heavyweights in these eras, but they usually got KO'd or beaten by the smaller heavys. Jeffords, Dunkhorst, McAuliffe, all big men for the era. But they weren't necessarily better.

I don't believe Fitz re his weight, plain and simple, and Fit literally refused to step on the scales before neutral reporters and observers to prove his claimed weight. Therefore, most reports were based on estimates, rumor and hearsay. Regardless, Fitz could hit hard enough to knock out any man, regardless of size. No one at the time disagreed with this. And he was the odds favorite going in against Jeffries, and the gamblers and reporters had seen the sizes of both, as well as their performances. Fitz was considered a true freak of nature, a special individual.

I have not chimed in on the Johnson broken arm and rounds debate because it isn't relevant to this thread. It belongs in another thread. I have never criticized Johnson for meeting smaller men. In fact, most criticize Johnson for NOT meeting a smaller man - Sam Langford, in a rematch, when Langford was in his prime. But again, that discussion and debate is for a Johnson thread, not Jeffries.

I don't know that I would call Sullivan a big heavyweight ,he was 5 '10 1/2'',and his best weight was probably under 200lbs.
It was heavyweight champions I was referring to really ,I should have made that clear.

As to Fitz ,Bob Davis stated that Fitz was weighed ,on a steelyard, the morning of his fight with Corbett ,and that he was present ,Davis said Fitz scaled 156 1/2lbs, he even stated what Fitz had for breakfast,,[half a chicken,two slices of toast and a compote of stewed fruit],cooked by his wife, washed down with a cup of coffee.Fitz ,according to Davis said "I'm still a middleweight ,now lets see wot appens".
If Davis is accurate,and he was with Fitz throughout his training for the Corbett fight ,and was in the corner during it,he weighed 156 1/2lbs ,so he must have gained 44lbs to come in at the 200lbs you say he later, carried.
That seems a lot to me , especially in the days when steroids were unknown.

[apollack]

Davis was helping Fitz out, plain and simple. He was fibbing. Lots of reporters did it. And lots of reporters addressed and commented on these b.s. weight claims even then. Corbett and Jeffries both thought and knew Fitz was lying. Most revealing was the fact that Fitz refused to get on the scales before the fight in front of his opponent or the neutral reporters, not one who had paid him to be in his camp or was happy to tell a fib in return for gaining an exclusive which got his paper readership. Yes, newspapers often paid these fighters to be there. It is addressed in my books, and there is primary source evidence for it.

Re Sullivan: Sure he was 190-200 in his youth for fights to the finish, where they intentionally trained down. But for fights of 4 rounds or less, he didn't concern himself with weight as much. Even though he often claimed 208 to 212, reporters would often say they thought he looked 15 to 20 pounds bigger. Many thought he was around 230. Even for a fight to the finish against Corbett (and we are talking a guy who is purportedly in shape to go for an infinite amount of time, not just 4 or 12 rounds), he was still weighing around 212 (according to some) and 218 (according to others).

[janitor]

Davis was helping Fitz out, plain and simple. He was fibbing. Lots of reporters did it. And lots of reporters addressed and commented on these b.s. weight claims even then. Corbett and Jeffries both thought and knew Fitz was lying. Most revealing was the fact that Fitz refused to get on the scales before the fight in front of his opponent or the neutral reporters, not one who had paid him to be in his camp or was happy to tell a fib in return for gaining an exclusive which got his paper readership. Yes, newspapers often paid these fighters to be there. It is addressed in my books, and there is primary source evidence for it.

Re Sullivan: Sure he was 190-200 in his youth for fights to the finish, where they intentionally trained down. But for fights of 4 rounds or less, he didn't concern himself with weight as much. Even though he often claimed 208 to 212, reporters would often say they thought he looked 15 to 20 pounds bigger. Many thought he was around 230. Even for a fight to the finish against Corbett (and we are talking a guy who is purportedly in shape to go for an infinite amount of time, not just 4 or 12 rounds), he was still weighing around 212 (according to some) and 218 (according to others).

I agree that there is too much discrepancy between the weights reported for fighters of this period to accept all the reports.

I have seen Sullivan listed as everything from 175lbs to 230lbs in shape. Obviously something is wrong somwhere. Reading between the lines I think that Sillivan came in under 195lbs for finish fights in his younger days but was over 200 for Queensbury bouts. He might have been closer in size to Mike Tyson than to Rocky Marciano.

The circumstances under which Fitzsimmons made weight for the Nonpareil Jack Dempsey fight are higly suspicios and it is telling that his first act as middlewight champion was to raise the limit to 160lbs. When Fitzsimmons fought Gus Ruhlin his weight was listed at 155lbs but one paper suggested that he was probably 170lbs.

Looking at pictures of Fitzsimmons next to Jeffries you would think that he was bigger than claimed. In fact a lot of these boxrec mismatches don't look like such mismatches when you look at pictures of the fighters together. Your inevitable book on Jack Johnson might prove informative.

[guilalah]

Just started the chapter after Jeffries-Corbett I. I like Jeffries comeback to Corbett's calling the KO an accident; i.e. he was confident he could bring about the same 'accident' if they fought again.

It seems everyone was unanimous that Corbett was in excellent condition, and performed better than he had in some time.

Mr. Pollack does a good job of bringing together opinions of how a decision would have gone, had the fight gone the limit. He says a slight majority opined for Corbett, but not to the point that it could be called a concensus. Indeed, there are cited opinions that a draw, or even a Jeffries victory, would have been just. Of course, this is assuming nothing dramatic would happen in the concluding rounds (as did happen). With Corbett's legs tiring and Corbett having to make more of a standing fight, of course the chances of his catching a big one were on the assent.

Tommy Ryan is now gone.

It's hard to generalize about whether Jeffries had a good defense or not. He got it in the face plenty, but he was very hard to hit in a 'vital spot'. In 20-25 round fights, he felt he'd win wars of attrition, so he was mostly concerned with not running into anything huge. Jeff's basic philosophy seemed to be that if he wasn't KO'd he'd waer his opponent out.
I think you have to look at the circumstances Jeffries performed in in assessing his defense. Today he and his trainers might have to adopt a different attitude.

[guilalah]

Didn't know, till I read apollacks book, that Jeffries left arm was still hurting at the time of the first Corbett fight. He had the arm in a cast for quite some time after that fight.

Jeffries made an interesting observation about Jim Corbett's punching, that Corbett hit hard enough with the right to hurt him but that to do so he'd be no faster than the next guy. We do see that, with guys like McCoy or Mitchell, who were fair hitters but not Sullivan/Fitzsimmons/Jeffries level punchers, Jim would hit punishingly enough.
Jefferies observation makes me think Corbett would have likely lost a rematch with Fitzsimmons. I'm not saying it's a sure think; but I think if Corbett doesn't sit on his punches he's not going to get Fitz out, and Fitz is going to eventually stop him again; and if Corbett does punch hard enough to stop Fitzsimmons, Jim's going to be hit more often and harder. My two cents.

------

Gus Ruhlin's KO15 of Tom Sharkey was an extended beatdown that was capped with a six-knockdown round. That might have taken as much out of Tom as did Tom's previous challenge of Jeffries.

Tom Sharkey said Bob Fitzsimmons punches didn't look hard coming in. Prof. Mike Donovan says the same in apollacks Fitzsimmons book. Maybe Fitzsimmons was analogous to the great pitcher Walter Johnson, who threw fast despite his deceptively easy motion? And maybe, just as Johnson's easy motion made it hard for batters to gear up for his speed, maybe Bob had a similar advantage? Just speculating.

Fitz got amonia in his eyes, between rouds, during his fight with Ruhlin ('The Akron Giant'). He seems to have stayed cool, and his sight cleared up before anyone but his corner realized what had happened.

Ruby Robert's (Fitz's) demolition of Ruhlin was extreme. Ruhlin was very lucky he didn't die. A short left jerk lifted Ruhlin off the canvas, he came down with his head sunk on his chest (the Fitz-Sharkey II KO was the same), his head hit hard and very akwardly, he was out cold and took some time to revive. Blood was coming out his ears, and he passed out on his stool again as Bob spoke to him. In his dressing room he couldn't endure a physician touching his body, and he went unconscious again for an hour. His right arm was black and blue and his chest covered with bruises. Two guys had to steady him to get back to his room, he couldn't speak coherently, and he lapsed in and out of consciousness, with unsteady breathing, for some hours before he stabilized.
Trainer Billy Madden said he stopped Ruhlin's defense against Jeffries before it turned into a Fitzsimmons-like beating.
All the newspapers Pollack cited support that Madden stopped Ruhlin's challenge of Jeffries. I once read somewhere that Gus grabbed the sponge from his corner and threw it in himself when they wouldn't stop the fight. This story seems to be total hoo-hah in the very teeth of the facts.


Corbett-McCoy strikes me as having been on the level, and a good win for Jim.


p. 455 (the author, Pollack): "Despite the fact that football statistically has more injuries and deaths per participant, we have colleges and television wholeheartedly promoting it, while at the same time shunning boxing. Federal and state legislators and athletic commmissions hinder and regulate boxing to death, while leaving football alone."

Tommy Ryan (no longer training Jeffries) predicts Fitzsimmons will fight Jeff differently if they ever rematch.

With Joe Kennedy Jeffries begins to change to a quicker, more upright style, with the crouch an option as occaision warrants.

In the Ruhlin fight, reporters note that Jeffries body blows are more telling than is immediately apparent to the casual observer. This might be something to remember in reference to the upcoming Fitzsimmons fight. Blows to the face are a lot more visible, and blood makes them look perhaps worse than they are. This might incline a viewer to think Jeffries simply got a shellacking from Bob, then off'ed him when Bob had punched himself to exhaustion; but I suspect we'll find that there was a more or less mutual beat-down. We'll see.

It's noted that Jeffries has aquired a knack of hitting his opponents as they move in to clinch.

[guilalah]

Well, over lunch read right up to the start of Jeffries-Fitzsimmons II. Very excited -- this was definitely the megafight of it's day.

Post-Ruhlin, Jeffries stock as a boxer rose, while his stock as an attraction (except against Fitz) fell. Jeffries showing against Ruhlin made people realize what it meant for his left to be in good shape again, and they had a hard time getting excited over the thought of him rematching with either Sharkey or Corbett, this time with healthy limbs.

Sharkey-Maher fight a no contest; they'd been told before the fight they'd be arrested if they fought in earnest. Their rep's take an unfair hit.

The color line is being drawn for HW championship fights, not necessarily for non-title. The reporter says Jeffries was asked, but Delaney chimed in. I've glanced ahead a bit, in one place Jack Johnson states that he thought Delaney, more than Jeffries, was against mixed championship fights. Still, Jeffries went along with the program, even though he originally said he wouldn't draw the line. Too bad.

Ed Martin gets noticed as a potential some-day contender. He outboxes Frank Childs in a short fight, though it's apparent that Childs hits harder and takes it better than Martin.

Despite 'retiring' Fitzsimmons kept in good shape; then he put six months into training (for Fitz-Jeff II), seemed quick and spry as ever and rather bigger. Jeffries also seems well trained.

The winner of Jeffries-Fitzsimmons II is to meet Corbett. Delaney expects Jeffries will retire after rematching with Corbett.

Jeffries agrees to wraps, and Fitz can have a little 'sticking plaster'. Jeffries inspects Bob's wraps prior to donning gloves and voices no objections.

Referee Graney announces (for Jeffries-Fitzsimmons II) there will be no hugging or hittting in clinches.

[guilalah]

Jeffries-Fitzsimmons II was generally percieved as being a really great fight while it lasted. Both guys were considered to have performed very well. Of course Jeffries bloody facial damage was more visible but, by round five, people realized Jim's body work was getting to Fitzsimmons. Jeffries didn't seemed to be criticized much for his facial damage. I think this was because people felt that, fighting the way he did -- taking surface damage to go deep on Fitzsimmons guts and wind -- it was inevitable he was going to win. (What if Jeffries had been more defensive? Maybe then Fitzsimmons could have lasted; maybe, then, Fitz might have won on points. What would you want to do, if you were Jeff: win the damn fight, or try to keep boxing fans a hundred years into the future from b**ching about how you got your face cut up :patsch).

Munroe kd/wobbling/endangering Jeffries in an exh.: pretty clearly hog-wash.

[guilalah]

It might be asked, though, how would Jeffries policy of taking blows to non-vital areas have worked against later champions? Could Jeffries have disdained Liston's jab? Could he have taken shotsof a Marciano or a Foreman to the face and upper jaw? Could he have taken the punches a Dempsey or a Louis or a Tyson would have strung together?

For sure, though, a fighter prepares for the guys of his own time. Whether that preparation would have prepared Jeffries to time-machine into another day is one question; how he might have developed, coming along in another day, is a different question.

----

Fitz fought Jeffries different the second time. The first time he came in throwing one or two punches, and ran into counters; in the second fight he mixed punching and movement and defended himself more.

[mcvey]

Jeffries-Fitzsimmons II was generally percieved as being a really great fight while it lasted. Both guys were considered to have performed very well. Of course Jeffries bloody facial damage was more visible but, by round five, people realized Jim's body work was getting to Fitzsimmons. Jeffries didn't seemed to be criticized much for his facial damage. I think this was because people felt that, fighting the way he did -- taking surface damage to go deep on Fitzsimmons guts and wind -- it was inevitable he was going to win. (What if Jeffries had been more defensive? Maybe then Fitzsimmons could have lasted; maybe, then, Fitz might have won on points. What would you want to do, if you were Jeff: win the damn fight, or try to keep boxing fans a hundred years into the future from b**ching about how you got your face cut up :patsch).

Munroe kd/wobbling/endangering Jeffries in an exh. pretty clearly hog-wach.

What if Fitz hadnt been 39 years old and inactive for 2 years ?

[mcvey]

Your points have to be taken on board ,but Louis was only under 200lbs for 4 of his title defences,and stated that drying out to make the weight adversely affected him for the first Conn fight ." I felt like shit".

[guilalah]

Might have been better yet. But I don't think many people who saw Jeffries-Fitz II would have picked 1900 Fitz against 1902 Jeffries. Any ways, they thought the Fitz who did rematch Jeffries made a heck of a fight; Joe Gans said Fitz would ahve beaten anyone else.

[Mendoza]

It might be asked, though, how would Jeffries policy of taking blows to non-vital areas have worked against later champions? Could Jeffries have disdained Liston's jab? Could he have taken shotsof a Marciano or a Foreman to the face and upper jaw? Could he have taken the punches a Dempsey or a Louis or a Tyson would have strung together?

For sure, though, a fighter prepares for the guys of his own time. Whether that preparation would have prepared Jeffries to time-machine into another day is one question; how he might have developed, coming along in another day, is a different question.
----

Fitz fought Jeffries different the second time. The first time he came in throwing one or two punches, and ran into counters; in the second fight he mixed punching and movement and defended himself more.

Nat Fleisher felt Fitzsimmons was the best knock out puncher he ever saw. Better than Louis or Dempsey. Indeed Fitz killed three men in the ring from boxing related injures.

In the second Fitzsimmons vs Jeffries match, Fitz landed his best and then some, possibly with loaded gloves. This leads me to believe Jeffries who had the head of a cinder block, and perhaps the strongest legs of any champion could have taken Liston or Foreman's best. Maybe not for ever, but surive a chin checker or two for sure.

I wonder if the book talked about Jeffries defense. In news reads, he makes even Corbett and Jack Johnson ( While Jeffires had stamina early int he 1910 fight ) miss.

[guilalah]

So far, the citations about Jeffries defense are mostly to the effect that he's very difficult to hit in a vital spot, nor is he inclined to run into a big punch. Jeffries did make Fitz miss a lot in their first fight, and was able to block a lot of Sharkeys punches when he defended against the Sailor. Jeffries got hit in the face a lot by Corbett (I) and Fitzsimmons (II) but didn't really give a damn. I've read right up to the start of the rematch with Corbett, it will be interesting to see the comments about Jeffries defense in this fight.

Trainer Delany threw away the scales during Jeffries training for Corbett II, feeling Jeffries had always given too much thought to his poundage. Corbett said he (Corbett) was coming in heavier and stronger, intending to move less and punch harder. (Corbett had come under some criticism for pulling back from his own punches against Fitzsimmons and in Jeffries I).

[apollack]

While acting as a Jeffries sparring partner, Bob Armstrong said, “Jeff is big and strong, besides being fast… I don’t know of a fighter who has improved more than Jeffries has since he has been in the business. He has the best defense of any heavyweight I know, and, barring accidents, I don’t see how he can lose.”

Gus Ruhlin said after his rematch with Jeffries, “I got in all right in the second round, but after that every time I tried for him my blows glanced off. They wouldn’t land square no matter how hard I tried. Jeff was in great condition and is a great fighter.”

Feeling that his defensive skills were underrated, Jeffries said,

"Some people remarked I was easy to reach because Ruhlin got to me several times. All I have to say is his blows did not hurt me. I am very watchful – or I think I am – and when a man starts a punch for my face or body I always gauge the force of it before doing anything. If I make up my mind it is not a damaging punch I allow it to land for the sake of getting in a counter. If it is a heavy blow I will get out of the way of it quick enough."

Jeffries also said, “I don’t mean to say that I can’t be hit… I believe, though, that my system of defense prevents me from receiving the full force of a blow.”

Ruhlin had backed Jeff on this point, noting that his blows were glancing and that he could not land solidly on Jeffries. The champion’s argument was further supported by the fact that he had never been decked in a fight.

[guilalah]

Am through the chapter on Corbett II. Jeffries speed and boxing considered to be an improvement even over Fitz II, and still hitting very powerfully. Corbett deemed not as fast as formerly -- to what extent by design or necessity (or necessitated design) could be argued -- but considered well conditioned. Corbett was receiving oxygen between rounds from a hose connected to a large tank underneath the ring. Jeffries largely eschewed the crouch. Jeffries didn't receive very much facial damage in this one.
General concensus was that Corbett performed well, but Jeffries had become too much for anyone -- too powerful, too durable, and startling improvement in speed (despite not training down as much) and boxing skill.

[mcvey]

Am through the chapter on Corbett II. Jeffries speed and boxing considered to be an improvement even over Fitz II, and still hitting very powerfully. Corbett deemed not as fast as formerly -- to what extent by design or necessity (or necessitated design) could be argued -- but considered well conditioned. Corbett was receiving oxygen between rounds from a hose connected to a large tank underneath the ring. Jeffries largely eschewed the crouch. Jeffries didn't receive very much facial damage in this one.
General concensus was that Corbett performed well, but Jeffries had become too much for anyone -- too powerful, too durable, and startling improvement in speed (despite not training down as much) and boxing skill.

There is a report that Corbett had eye problems going into the second Jeffries fight,I wonder if anyone has any information on this?

[guilalah]

Building up to Monroe -- Delaney is reported as saying that if a black were to win the hvywt championship, all the whites would have to move out of San Francisco.

Quite ironic that Delaney was Johnson's cheif second at Reno.

[Mendoza]

Building up to Monroe -- Delaney is reported as saying that if a black were to win the hvywt championship, all the whites would have to move out of San Francisco.

Quite ironic that Delaney was Johnson's cheif second at Reno.

Delaney was a mean SOB and former bare knuckle guy. Delaney and Ryan were the two key trainers for Jeffreis. Each man had a falling out. Ryan was in Corbett's corner for the 2nd fight, and Delaney who knew Jeffries as well as anyone helped Jack Johnson in the 1910 match.

I wonder if the book chronicles the fall out between Jeffries his trainers?

[guilalah]

Pollack's book discusses some of the tensions between Ryan and Delaney. Delaney especially felt that Ryan was having Jeffries too light and doing too much road work.
Manager Brady made Ryan leave Jeffries corner during the Corbett fight. Ryan was out as Jeffries trainer after that. Brady thought that Jeffries was over reliant on countering and needed to be more agressive.
After Ryan left, Jeffries became a more stand-up boxer and was able to box faster than in the crouch.
It seems to me that Jeffries probably was right to go to a different approach; that's not to say Jeffries didn't learn a lot under Ryan.

Delaney was announcing his retirement at about the same time as Jeffries; I don't know to what extent Delaney went through on this intent (until Reno).

Well, I do highly recommend Pollack's book, if you can save up for it. To say it contains a wealth of information on Jeffries is an understatement.

[guilalah]

Finished the book! :happy

Jeffries chewed gum during the Monroe fight. I take it that was an expression of contempt.

Both Jeffries and Fitzsimmons were great for laughing during fight.

There's been discussion, in other threads, about how much Jeffries weighed before his comeback. Pollack says over 260 lb, which seems a safe assertion.

Johnson-Hart, Johnson's scoring mostly lefts, with some right crosses. Hart was said to have an akward way of stopping Johnson's uppercuts. I'd be interested in learning more about that last tidbit.

Hart did some good work with rights to the heart. This resonates with some other things: Moyle's Langford book, where one of the few bright spots for Sam (vs Johnson) was said to be his blows to Johnson's heart; and the big heart punch Willard landed in the 25th (next to last) round in Havanna. Johnson vs. (prime) Jeffries, Jeff's right to the heart might have been the trickiest thing for Jack to negotiate.

Question for Apollack. p. 640. Jeffries goes hunting, is said to have shot a steer. Is that correct, 'steer', not 'deer'? If so, was the steer in the wild, or did they pay a rancher an shoot the beast? Anyways, the story is that Jeffries loaded the thing into a wagon by himself without undue exertion and, after the butcher chopped it up and weighed it, it was found to weigh 510 lb.
When my dad was young he would, during summers, go with his mom to stay with relatives on a farm. He had an uncle who was known as the strongest guy in the vicinity who would load a 300 lb salt-cake onto a wagon by himself. This animal Jeffries handled probably would have been more akward, as well as heavier.

At the time of Jeffries retirement: a) there seemed to be a farily even split between those who thought Hart could make Jeffries break a sweat, and those who thought Hart couldn't; b) probably more thought that Johnson could make Jeffries exert himself, but I get the sense that Johnson was still viewed as long odds.

[guilalah]

The last two pages of the main text have a quote from JL Sullivan, Los Angeles Times, May 12, 1907, giving the nod to Jeffries if the two of them had met, each as they were at their best.

I think, as Sullivan stated it, under the conditions he stipulated, this is a reasonable assesment.

I think that, to ask who would have prevailed if Jawn had come along in Jeffries day, or Jim in Sullivan's day, would be a different matter. I don't know who I'd pick in that scenario; and , if my life depended upon the outcome, I'd make sure to have my will and last testament in order.

-------


When you look at the fights that advanced Jeffries reputation -- Fitzsimmons I, Ruhlin, Fitzsimmons II, Corbett II -- and those that caused some depreciation of his repute -- Armstrong, Sharkey II, Corbet I -- much of it simply comes down to Jeffries physical condition: ongoing hand problems that became accute in the Armstrong fight; a bum left-arm in his first two defences. And I think once Jeffries left got healed, and people realized what a whole Jeff could do, then they viewed Sharkey II and Corbett I more charitably. (However, it's also true they prefered the faster, more active, straight-up Delaney-Jeffries to the crouching, countering Ryan-Jeffries. (May I also say that this entire paragraph over-simplifies things a bit)).

I said that Fitz II increased Jeffries repute. This, despite the facial damage. That is because observers mostly thought that 1) Fitz would have licked anyone else, 2) there was nothing flukey or chancy about Jeffries winning. They thought it was a great, great fight; but there didn't seem to be any unanswered questions regarding how the two matched up.

-

Sam Austin of Police Gazette opined, regarding Corbett II, that even if Jeffries and Corbett had been of equal pounds, Jeffries likely would have won; his over all fighting quality was greater, even if Corbett was a little more skilled.

[Mendoza]

The last two pages of the main text have a quote from JL Sullivan, Los Angeles Times, May 12, 1907, giving the nod to Jeffries if the two of them had met, each as they were at their best.

I think, as Sullivan stated it, under the conditions he stipulated, this is a reasonable assesment.

I think that, to ask who would have prevailed if Jawn had come along in Jeffries day, or Jim in Sullivan's day, would be a different matter. I don't know who I'd pick in that scenario; and , if my life depended upon the outcome, I'd make sure to have my will and last testament in order.


I'd like to hear the author comment on this.

[apollack]

All I know is the newspaper said it was a steer. They hunted anything and everything back then, with no regulations.

I don't know who would have won between Sullivan and Jeffries. I favor Sullivan early, Jeffries late. Sullivan could easily just come in there with such speed, ferocity and firepower and put something on Jeff he had never seen or encountered before, or Jeff could show that iron chin and enough defense, footwork and that solid jab, weather the early storm, and come on strong as the rounds progressed. It would be a great battle of wondrous titans, as those who had seen both said back then. We'll never know.

[apollack]

"Well, I do highly recommend Pollack's book, if you can save up for it. To say it contains a wealth of information on Jeffries is an understatement."[/quote]


Thanks so much for saying so. You have no idea how many thousands of hours I spent reviewing microfilms, reading the articles, copying, scanning, writing, compiling and editing. It's a labor of love.

[Zakman]

New book review of this fine book available:


Review of Adam J. Pollack’s In the Ring with James J. Jeffries

by Zachary Q. Daniels - One of the things you discover in reading Adam Pollack’s series on the heavyweight champions is that while much has changed in boxing over the last century, how much things have also remained the same. So it is with his latest installment, In the Ring with James J. Jeffries. Controversial decisions? Jeffries - Sharkey I fits the bill. Debates about early stoppages? Jeffries’ fight with Gus Ruhlin generated arguments about this. Handlers entering the ring and terminating a fight? The fight between former champ Jim Corbett and contender Tom Sharkey offered this. Controversies over “loaded gloves?” Allegations of “being drugged” as an excuse for losing a fight? Bob Fitzsimmons covered both these bases long before Antonio Margarito or Wladimir Klitschko ever thought them up. Contentious fight negotiations? Jim Corbett offered this prior to his second fight with Jeffries, long before fighters like Floyd Mayweather came on the scene.

Pollack’s books, then, while an excellent resource on the distant past, show us that much of what has occurred in the recent past and present in boxing is not at all new or novel.

More here:

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[Seamus]

Just got this book over the weekend as a present. Already a couple hundred pages in. Kudos to Mr. Pollack for an amazingly well researched book that gives the reader a real feel for the fighters' abilities and the times.

[mcvey]

Just got this book over the weekend as a present. Already a couple hundred pages in. Kudos to Mr. Pollack for an amazingly well researched book that gives the reader a real feel for the fighters' abilities and the times.
I believe all of his books have had positive reviews,I am just a bit dissapointed ,as I understand he does not mention the Johnson fight.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Seamus]

I believe all of his books have had positive reviews,I am just a bit dissapointed ,as I understand he does not mention the Johnson fight.

I think he only focusses through the championship fights. One would expect the Johnson book is somewhere in the future.

Frankly, Jeffries is not the most exciting champ ever, not my favorite. Contemporary opinions (at least up to the point I am at) were also not terribly favorable. However, this books focusses a lot of Sharkey, Choynski, Corbett and Fitz, so it was a good one to start with.

Next up is the Sullivan book...

[mcvey]

It might be asked, though, how would Jeffries policy of taking blows to non-vital areas have worked against later champions? Could Jeffries have disdained Liston's jab? Could he have taken shotsof a Marciano or a Foreman to the face and upper jaw? Could he have taken the punches a Dempsey or a Louis or a Tyson would have strung together?

For sure, though, a fighter prepares for the guys of his own time. Whether that preparation would have prepared Jeffries to time-machine into another day is one question; how he might have developed, coming along in another day, is a different question.

----

Fitz fought Jeffries different the second time. The first time he came in throwing one or two punches, and ran into counters; in the second fight he mixed punching and movement and defended himself more.
Jeffries was 27 for the second fight in his prime,Fitz was 39, and had been out of the ring for 2 years ,surely this has some bearing on the fight?

[Seamus]

The most impressive thing about Jeff is his lack of experience and what a quick study he was. Also, he seemed very composed. Like the Choynski statements Mcvey quoted, I wonder about the value of his style crouching with the left hand extended. You hardly ever hear of him landing a right to the head in his fights, lots of body work, lots of prodding lefts to open up for big lefts. Especially given the size disparity with most of his opponents I don't see the logic of his style.

[mcvey]

The most impressive thing about Jeff is his lack of experience and what a quick study he was. Also, he seemed very composed. Like the Choynski statements Mcvey quoted, I wonder about the value of his style crouching with the left hand extended. You hardly ever hear of him landing a right to the head in his fights, lots of body work, lots of prodding lefts to open up for big lefts. Especially given the size disparity with most of his opponents I don't see the logic of his style.
I would say he was easily the most precocious of the heavyweight champions,and was matched accordingly , very ambitiously early in his career,even more ambitiously than Joe Louis.imo.

[Boilermaker]

The most impressive thing about Jeff is his lack of experience and what a quick study he was. Also, he seemed very composed. Like the Choynski statements Mcvey quoted, I wonder about the value of his style crouching with the left hand extended. You hardly ever hear of him landing a right to the head in his fights, lots of body work, lots of prodding lefts to open up for big lefts. Especially given the size disparity with most of his opponents I don't see the logic of his style.

The idea of the crouch was a defensive position, that he used, to protect from receiving body blows. I think it is quite normal today, and definitely the best stance to fight from, IMO.

The outstretched arm though, i am less sure about. I think that the outstretched arm, is designed to keep the fighter at a distance, in that he uses it to either jab a fighter with a shorter (and quicker) but less powerful jab which sets up the second shot, although i should note that the lessened power from the outstreched arm is greatened by more power from the squarer than usual stance. He is also able to initiate the clinch with the left, giving him the advantage (or at least best chance of getting it) of the all important inside position in the clinch. It also would I imagine, allow him to strike better with the right once the clinch is initiated.

Not 100% sure on all of that, but Jeffries did mention the crouch as a defence to liver blows in one of his articles, so i think that part is pretty spot on.

[Mendoza]

Jeffries was 27 for the second fight in his prime,Fitz was 39, and had been out of the ring for 2 years ,surely this has some bearing on the fight?

We do not know what Fitz was doing in-between those dates. It is likely he was active, or on tour. Maybe Adam Pollack knows.

Fitz came back from the first KO loss to Jeffries by starching Sharkey and Ruhlin. He earned the re-match. While Fitz lost the second fight, its clear he had something left after the 2nd KO defeat. Indeed he had enough left to defeat a pretty good Gardner. I believe Fitz floored Garder three or four times.

I think its clear Fitz was in good shape leading up to the 2nd match with Jeffries, and proved he had something left after his 2nd defeat to Jeffries.

[mcvey]

We do not know what Fitz was doing in-between those dates. It is likely he was active, or on tour. Maybe Adam Pollack knows.

Fitz came back from the first KO loss to Jeffries by starching Sharkey and Ruhlin. He earned the re-match. While Fitz lost the second fight, its clear he had something left after the 2nd KO defeat. Indeed he had enough left to defeat a pretty good Gardner. I believe Fitz floored Garder three or four times.

I think its clear Fitz was in good shape leading up to the 2nd match with Jeffries, and proved he had something left after his 2nd defeat to Jeffries.


It is by no means clear what shape Fitz was in because 1.he had not engaged in a pro fight for 2 years ,and 2,he was a heavy drinker at this stage of his life.

The wins over Sharkey ,and Ruhlin, occurred 2 years earlier.[1900].Sharkey was used up in 1900 ,he had just been kod by Ruhlin..
Wins in 1900 have no relevance to his condition in 1902
We do know he had no professional fights during that two years ,we do know he was two years older, we do know, he was two more years past his best,at the age of 39.
Source for Gardner being dropped by Fitz 3,or 4 times?
N.B. Gardner had been severely thrashed by a green Jack Johnson a year earlier being dropped in the 8th and 14 th rds.
After losing to Jeffries , Fitz never beat a heavyweight even remotely resembling a class fighter.Four of them have no traceable form at all,the other Con Coughlin was 1-4-0.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Mendoza]

I pretty sure Fitz dropped Gardner 3 or 4 times. Gardner thrashed by Johnson? I think Fitz dropped him twice as much as Johnson did. You ought to buy Adam's book on Jeffries. It might change your thinking. On second thought, save you money because it won't as you have built up too much negativity.

[mcvey]

I pretty sure Fitz dropped Gardner 3 or 4 times. Gardner thrashed by Johnson? I think Fitz dropped him twice as much as Johnson did. You ought to buy Adam's book on Jeffries. It might change your thinking. On second thought, save you money because it won't as you have built up too much negativity.
Pretty sure as in," I have first hand sources "? Or, " I just think so"?
I give Jeffries credit where it is due ,what I don't do is lick his hairy arse.

A short report of the Fitz Gardner fight NO mention of any knockdowns.
Bob Fitzsimmons W 20 over George Gardner – November 24, 1903 – age 40 (5 months, 29 days)

The former heavyweight and middleweight champion added light-heavyweight honors with his victory over Gardner. While historically significant, the bout provided few sparks with the 26 year old Gardner unwilling to exchange, and Fitzsimmons – who claimed to have broken both his knuckles early in the bout - fighting cautiously the whole way. The lack of action prompted referee Eddie Graney, the sole arbiter in the contest to call it the worst bout he’d ever seen.

THis is from Wikipedia and DOES mention 2 knockdowns scored by Fitzsimmons.

George Gardner defended his title later that year at age 26 on November 25, 1903 at San Francisco, California, against the 41 - year old Bob Fitzsimmons, who had killed two men in the ring and was the former Middleweight and Heavyweight Champion. After a questionable 20 - round decision on points, Fitzsimmons knocked the young champion down twice and gained a slight decision. After losing the title, George Gardner challenged Fitzsimmons to a rematch, but was denied a second chance at the title.

[Rasch]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Damn, is that Fitz? I'd never have recognised him. Looks like he's got a good layer of slap on.

[mcvey]

Damn, is that Fitz? I'd never have recognised him. Looks like he's got a good layer of slap on.
He looks more like Kevin Spacey in SEVEN.:lol:

[mcvey]

This link confirms that Gardner was down multiple times.

It also confirms that Gardner stank the place out, and that Fitz was terrible.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[mcvey]

Jeffries was 27 for the second fight in his prime,Fitz was 39, and had been out of the ring for 2 years ,surely this has some bearing on the fight?


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Seamus]

The idea of the crouch was a defensive position, that he used, to protect from receiving body blows. I think it is quite normal today, and definitely the best stance to fight from, IMO.

The outstretched arm though, i am less sure about. I think that the outstretched arm, is designed to keep the fighter at a distance, in that he uses it to either jab a fighter with a shorter (and quicker) but less powerful jab which sets up the second shot, although i should note that the lessened power from the outstreched arm is greatened by more power from the squarer than usual stance. He is also able to initiate the clinch with the left, giving him the advantage (or at least best chance of getting it) of the all important inside position in the clinch. It also would I imagine, allow him to strike better with the right once the clinch is initiated.

Not 100% sure on all of that, but Jeffries did mention the crouch as a defence to liver blows in one of his articles, so i think that part is pretty spot on.

I don't know. I had some pretty good coaches and was always told that if you are taller than your opponent to fight taller. Do not come down to their size. And if you are shorter, which Jeffries rarely was, to fight smaller. Also, the manner in which he leaned away really seemed to the detriment of his right hand. He really had to telegraph it for a head shot.

Funny, also, that in Pollack's good there is much mention of how poor Jeffries' defense was to body blows.

[Surf-Bat]

The outstretched arm though, i am less sure about.


Nor am I as none of the existing film we have on Jeffries shows him employing this tactic. He does go into something of a crouch, but I've yet to see that arm poke out of it like some obscene rhino proboscis.

From what I've seen his left tends to sway pendulously in front of him. Sort of like a less-exaggerated version of Tommy Hearns.