Prime Jeffries v prime Fitz?

[mcvey]

Jim Jeffries beat Fitz twice by ko.

Do you think Fitz was prime during these fights?


If not,would Jeff repeat the feat if Fitz was at his best?

Jeffries shipped a lot of punishment against Fitz but, NEVER went down, and he was facing a genuine one punch banger.

Jeffries did have substantial weight and age advantages though.

Fitz had also been inactive for 2 years preceding both fights.

It's not Jeffries fault he was so much bigger than Fitz," them's the breaks ",but,what if Fitz were younger, and had kept busy?

Fitz was 37 and 39 years old,respectively for both fights .

Could a younger, more active version of the blacksmith have held the California Grizzly Bear off ?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

No that's not Fitz with Jeffries ,it's his pet bear.

[Mendoza]

Fitz was not past his prime after he lost to Jeffries. Indeed he killed a man, then badly Kid Sharkey and Ruhlin. Fitz had enough left to win the light heavyweight crown a few years later, then draw with O'Brien who seemed to be even or a shade better with a prime Jack Johnson in 6 round match.

[janitor]

Well what exactly is Fitz's prime?

He seems to have been 36 not 37 in the first Jeffries fight based on his birth certificate. Apparently he was vain enough to take a single year off his age.

Intuativley I have to think that there could have been a better version of Fitzsimmons than the version that fought Jeffries, but I believe that his two career best performences came between the two Jeffries fights.

If the Ruhlin fight and the second Sharkey fight were not Fitz's two best showings then what were?

[PowerPuncher]

Another McVey-Mendoza dogfight, this should be fun. McVeys going to rip this: Fitz was not past his prime after he lost to Jeffries. .

[janitor]

Another McVey-Mendoza dogfight, this should be fun. McVeys going to rip this:

Lets take cover.

[mcvey]

Fitz was not past his prime after he lost to Jeffries. Indeed he killed a man, then badly Kid Sharkey and Ruhlin. Fitz had enough left to win the light heavyweight crown a few years later, then draw with O'Brien who seemed to be even or a shade better with a prime Jack Johnson in 6 round match.

That is one opinion, and all of them are welcome.
I fail to see what Jack Johnson has to do with evaluating Fitz's prime however.

Killing a man in the ring does not indicate you are in your prime ,especially when his record is 1-4-0,and the only fight he ever won out of his 6 was on a dsq ,from a guy who had kod him in 1 rd ,indeed he was kod in all his other fights.

[mcvey]

Well what exactly is Fitz's prime?

He seems to have been 36 not 37 in the first Jeffries fight based on his birth certificate. Apparently he was vain enough to take a single year off his age.

Intuativley I have to think that there could have been a better version of Fitzsimmons than the version that fought Jeffries, but I believe that his two career best performences came between the two Jeffries fights.

If the Ruhlin fight and the second Sharkey fight were not Fitz's two best showings then what were?

I haven't given an opinion ,I'm more interested in other posters thoughts on it.

[janitor]

Killing a man in the ring does not indicate you are in your prime ,especially when his record is 1-4-0,and the only fight he ever won out of his 6 was on a dsq ,from a guy who had kod him in 1 rd ,indeed he was kod in all his other fights.

Con Coughlin was a much bigger player in the division that the surviving fragment of his record indicates.

He was regarded by some as a future prospect and was fairly heavily hyped in the press.

[Unforgiven]

There's a good chance Jeffries would beat a prime Fitzsimmons, because of the styles.
I mean, they didn't stop fights in those days, and both men were as tough as they come. Fitz's style was to KO his foes at every opportunity, Jeffries liked to wear the down with his brute strength.

Jeffries wore Fitz down in 11 rounds in their first match, and 8 in the second. So, even against a prime Fitz I'd estimate Jeff had a good chance to do the same sometime inside the 20-round distance. But the question remains, would Jeffries survive the Fitz onslaught to be in a position to do so ?
Apparently Fitz gave Jeffries quite a beating while he lasted. If he was younger maybe he'd have the extra sharpness and energy to get Jeff out of there. It's an intriguing match-up.

[mcvey]

There's a good chance Jeffries would beat a prime Fitzsimmons, because of the styles.
I mean, they didn't stop fights in those days, and both men were as tough as they come. Fitz's style was to KO his foes at every opportunity, Jeffries liked to wear the down with his brute strength.

Jeffries wore Fitz down in 11 rounds in their first match, and 8 in the second. So, even against a prime Fitz I'd estimate Jeff had a good chance to do the same sometime inside the 20-round distance. But the question remains, would Jeffries survive the Fitz onslaught to be in a position to do so ?
Apparently Fitz gave Jeffries quite a beating while he lasted. If he was younger maybe he'd have the extra sharpness and energy to get Jeff out of there. It's an intriguing match-up.

As hard as he hit, I don't see Fitz koing Jeff,and, as you say referees were much more comfortable with fighters sustaining copious amounts of punishment ,they were blood thirsty times.

Posters ,so far, seem to think Fitz was still in his prime ,or thereabouts,and his later results would seem to endorse this.

What if Fitz had been more active before the Jeffries fights?

Fitz was a heavy drinker ,and, underrated the burly Jeffries in their first encounter, if he had known the essence,of the man he was defending against would he have trained more assiduously ,and engaged in a tune up?
If he had ,would it have made any difference to the result?

I'm inclined to think Jeffries would allways beat Fitz.
His physical advantages ,along with his indestructible chin, negate the Cornishman's power ,and punch picking, and, Fitz himself was not particularly elusive defensively.

[janitor]

Apparently Fitz gave Jeffries quite a beating while he lasted. If he was younger maybe he'd have the extra sharpness and energy to get Jeff out of there. It's an intriguing match-up.

While Jeffries took a shelacking in the second Fitzsimmons fight, he seems to have come out of the first encounter largley unscathed, and controled the fight prety handily.

I would further suggest that Fitzsimmons was genuinely puzzled by Jeffries style and deffence in their first encounter.

[PowerPuncher]

There's a good chance Jeffries would beat a prime Fitzsimmons, because of the styles.
I mean, they didn't stop fights in those days, and both men were as tough as they come. Fitz's style was to KO his foes at every opportunity, Jeffries liked to wear the down with his brute strength.

Jeffries wore Fitz down in 11 rounds in their first match, and 8 in the second. So, even against a prime Fitz I'd estimate Jeff had a good chance to do the same sometime inside the 20-round distance. But the question remains, would Jeffries survive the Fitz onslaught to be in a position to do so ?
Apparently Fitz gave Jeffries quite a beating while he lasted. If he was younger maybe he'd have the extra sharpness and energy to get Jeff out of there. It's an intriguing match-up.

This and the fact Fitz would sustain his initial pace for longer giving Jeffries a more sustained beating

[janitor]

This and the fact Fitz would sustain his initial pace for longer giving Jeffries a more sustained beating

It depends on Fitz to some extent.

No two Fitzsimmons fights were quite the same.

I see two verry different strategies in the two Jeffries fights.

It could be argued that Fitz did a much better job in the rematch although he was taken out more quickly.

[Boilermaker]

I am sorry Mendoze, but please do not confuse the fact that Fitz against Jeffries 1 and 2 was still an awesome fighter with the fact that he was prime.

At best, Fitz , in relatin to his prime was on par with the Ali/Frazier in their 2nd or 3rd fight. ie still one of the best fighters in the world, arguably still able to beat any or most heavyweights that ever lived, but he was not prime!

There is actually a very good argument that Fitz was past prime when he actually won the heavyweight championship of the world! Fitz is no different to anyone else. His actual fighting goal was to prove that he was the best fighter in the world and no one else could beat him. this was achieved when he beat Jim Corbett. After that his performance dropped, his activity dropped and like Dempsey, Johnson, Liston, and the vast majority of other champions he was never the same afterwards.

It is not possible to become the same after this. I think we all can agree that Fitz Jeffries I was an upset caused a lot by Fitz underestimating Jeffries (not that he necessarilly would have won anyway). Once Fitz lost, he lost his aura of invincibility, and mentally that is a massive thing. It can wreck a fighter. Look what happened to Jeff Fenech when he lost the aura against Azumah. No fighter who had the wrecking machine aura has ever come back to their best after losing that Aura, not one (well except for Joe Louis ). Not Dempsey, Tyson, Liston, Foreman, Baer etc. And it probably even holds in the lighter weights as well.

Jeffries is often undersold on this board. And Fitz as a heavyweight always is. Prime for prime I need to do some thinking. But, Fitz definitely was not prime.

[Mendoza]

That is one opinion, and all of them are welcome.
I fail to see what Jack Johnson has to do with evaluating Fitz's prime however.

Killing a man in the ring does not indicate you are in your prime ,especially when his record is 1-4-0,and the only fight he ever won out of his 6 was on a dsq ,from a guy who had kod him in 1 rd ,indeed he was kod in all his other fights.

Do you even know what past his prime means? A fighter is past his prime when he looses matches he would have likely won in his prime.

After he was Ko'd by Jeffries in 1899 ( Fitz went 57 recorded fights from 1894-1904, only being stopped by Jeffries ) Fitz came back to score two first round Ko's, and a 2nd round KO over 260 pound Dunkhorst. After that Fitz earned the title re-match by Koing Gus Ruhlin in 6, and Tom Sharkey in 2. Clearly Fitz was still skilled and producing great results leading up to the re-match with Jeffries in 1902. Fitz lost to Jeffries in 1902, despite having a good effort.

Was Fitz shot in 1902 after he lost to Jeffreis again? Hardly. Again he came back and scored a 1st, 2nd, and 1st round Ko, floored a guy 20 times in a six round match, then took the light heavyweight title from a very good Gardner in 1903! Fitz floored Gardner 3 or 4 times depending on the score. In his next fight in 1904, he knocked down and drew with a prime version of Jack O'Brien.

In closing, Fitz was not past his prime in 1902, and was still producing great results in 1903 and 1904.

[mcvey]

Do you even know what past his prime means? A fighter is past his prime when he looses matches he would have likely [HAVE MISSING ] won in his prime.

After he was Ko'd by Jeffries in 1899 ( Fitz went 57 recorded fights from 1894-1904, only being stopped by Jeffries ) Fitz came back to score two first round Ko's, and a 2nd round KO over 260 pound Dunkhorst. After that Fitz earned the title re-match by Koing Gus Ruhlin in 6, and Tom Sharkey in 2. Clearly Fitz was still skilled and producing great results leading up to the re-match with Jeffries in 1902. Fitz lost to Jeffries in 1902, despite having a good effort.

Was Fitz shot in 1902 after he lost to Jeffreis again? Hardly. Again he came back and scored a 1st, 2nd, and 1st round Ko, floored a guy 20 times in a six round match, then took the light heavyweight title from a very good Gardner in 1903! Fitz floored Gardner 3 or 4 times depending on the score. In his next fight in 1904, he knocked down and drew with a prime version of Jack O'Brien.

In closing, Fitz was not past his prime in 1902, and was still producing great results in 1903 and 1904.

Thank you for the vitriolic verbiage.
Do I know what past his prime means?
Well I am going to take a wild guess and say it means a fighter has reached ,and passed his summit ,and is now on the downside of his career.
That would not necessarily mean he automatically starts losing, but it could mean that he would make hard work of fights that ,in his prime he would deal with easier.

Is that a reasonable assumption ?

Note lose is the spelling, not loose.

I haven't said Fitz was past his prime , I asked for the comments of other posters ,and now you have given your opinion twice.
I agreed with posters who said that Fitz's results ,would seem to indicate he was still a live opponent for anyone.

I asked if his inactivity might have been a factor ,and if a more active schedule might have produced a different result.
If you stopped frothing at the mouth for a moment ,you might have actually noticed that I said I thought Jeffries would pretty much always beat Fitz .
Tip for you ,slow down, and you might not make so many mistakes.

Rainman.:hi:

[Unforgiven]

At 36 and 39 years old and coming off periods of no big fight activity, I'd be surprised if Fitzsimmons was in his true fighting prime for either of the Jeffries' fights.

We can look and see some of his best results occured between the two Jeffries fights, but that doesn't mean he was definitely prime.

I mean, Muhammad Ali looked good in the Norton rematch, followed by W12 Frazier and then the KO of Foreman, three great results in a row - but no one says Ali was in his prime in 1973 - '74.

Also, it could be argued that Fitzsimmons losing to Jeffries indicates he was not in his prime. I wouldn't offer that argument as a entirely sound and logical one, but it's just as sound and logical as the one that says "he's winning these other fights so he must be prime".

[mcvey]

At 36 and 39 years old and coming off periods of no big fight activity, I'd be surprised if Fitzsimmons was in his true fighting prime for either of the Jeffries' fights.

We can look and see some of his best results occured between the two Jeffries fights, but that doesn't mean he was definitely prime.

I mean, Muhammad Ali looked good in the Norton rematch, followed by W12 Frazier and then the KO of Foreman, three great results in a row - but no one says Ali was in his prime in 1973 - '74.

Also, it could be argued that Fitzsimmons losing to Jeffries indicates he was not in his prime. I wouldn't offer that argument as a entirely sound and logical one, but it's just as sound and logical as the one that says "he's winning these other fights so he must be prime".
Valid points ,and you could use other examples ,such as Joe Louis and Archie Moore to illustrate your point .

[janitor]

At 36 and 39 years old and coming off periods of no big fight activity, I'd be surprised if Fitzsimmons was in his true fighting prime for either of the Jeffries' fights.

We can look and see some of his best results occured between the two Jeffries fights, but that doesn't mean he was definitely prime.

I mean, Muhammad Ali looked good in the Norton rematch, followed by W12 Frazier and then the KO of Foreman, three great results in a row - but no one says Ali was in his prime in 1973 - '74.

Also, it could be argued that Fitzsimmons losing to Jeffries indicates he was not in his prime. I wouldn't offer that argument as a entirely sound and logical one, but it's just as sound and logical as the one that says "he's winning these other fights so he must be prime".

So that leaves the questions, when was Fitzsimmons prime, and was it even at a period when he was fighting at heavyweight?

[McGrain]

So that leaves the questions, when was Fitzsimmons prime, and was it even at a period when he was fighting at heavyweight?


I was talking about this today in a different thread, Fitz may have been technically prime at some other point in time, but I see him at his most invincible when his opponent had to weigh in under 152. Who beats him at that kind of weight? Nobody?

Names offered up were Griffith, Ryan, Walker, Walcott. Great names all, but how can you really favour any of them?

[mcvey]

So that leaves the questions, when was Fitzsimmons prime, and was it even at a period when he was fighting at heavyweight?
The concensus would seem to be that he was still prime at heavy.
I havent read a convincing argument to the contrary,though ,after winning the big one he eased off the training and imbibed freely,he had 2 nothing fights that comprised 6 rds of action then 2 years elapsed before he took on Jeffries . After losing to Jeff he had 12 rds of ring action in nearly 4 years ,and ,from the 2 rd ko of Sharkey, till he fought Jeffries again was 2 years of stagnation.Hardly conducive to keeping your edge,especially if you are a hard drinker ,which Fitz was.

[Boilermaker]

So that leaves the questions, when was Fitzsimmons prime, and was it even at a period when he was fighting at heavyweight?

I cant see how Fitz' prime can go any past the Corbett loss. I think it is very possible and even likely that he was as good or better before this, when he was defending his middleweight title at will.

[mcvey]

I cant see how Fitz' prime can go any past the Corbett loss. I think it is very possible and even likely that he was as good or better before this, when he was defending his middleweight title at will.
A compelling case, as has been said can any 16O pounder be picked to beat him with any confidence?

[Brian123]

Jeffries and Fitzsimmons were two of the freaks in boxing at this time (and hell of all-time). Being the naturally bigger man with shocking power Jeffries wins by a hair in the late rounds. Jeffries style is really the difference maker not talent.


-"You're the most dangerous man alive." -James Jeffries to Bob Fitzsimmons.

[mcvey]

Jeffries and Fitzsimmons were two of the freaks in boxing at this time (and hell of all-time). Being the naturally bigger man with shocking power Jeffries wins by a hair in the late rounds. Jeffries style is really the difference maker not talent.


-"You're the most dangerous man alive." -James Jeffries to Bob Fitzsimmons.

If Jeffries power was so shocking, how come he took so long to get rid of opponents he greatly outweighed?
How come Sharkey went the distance with him twice, whereas Fitz demolished him twice with one punch?

[guilalah]

While I wouldn't want to go as far as 'shocking', I do believe Jeffries was a hard hitter. He concentrated on breaking down the body. As for the second Sharkey fight, Jeff's left wasn't all there. I'd agree, though, he probably didn't put punches together of Dempsey or Louis, nor was as quick to jump on a KO opportunity. But he would bust guys up at a gradual pace.

[mcvey]

While I wouldn't want to go as far as 'shocking', I do believe Jeffries was a hard hitter. He concentrated on breaking down the body. As for the second Sharkey fight, Jeff's left wasn't all there. I'd agree, though, he probably didn't put punches together of Dempsey or Louis, nor was as quick to jump on a KO opportunity. But he would bust guys up at a gradual pace.

He was certainly a hard hitter,I just questioned the words " shocking power."
I beleive Jeffries was more of an attrition puncher, possibly similar to Frazier, a heavy, but not tremendous banger.

[Mendoza]

If Jeffries power was so shocking, how come he took so long to get rid of opponents he greatly outweighed?
How come Sharkey went the distance with him twice, whereas Fitz demolished him twice with one punch?

Do you read the reports?

Wlad Klitschko is without a doubt one of the best punchers ever. How come it took him 12 rounds to stop Chambers? Answer, because he was a patient fighter, which Jeffries also was.

Jeffries did not come out swinging like Marciano or Frazier did for the most part. He took his time.

Why did Sharkey last the distance? Because Jeffries was 1 ) Green in the first Sharkey fight, and 2 ) Injured early in the second Sharkey fight. Still Jeffreis floored and hurt Shareky in both fights. Fitz beat Sharkey earlier, but there was some controversy around the Ko. Fitz second win over Sharkey is impressive, but Sharkey was somewhat ruined after the brutal beating he took in the second Jeffries fight.

In fact Jeffries produced a knockdown in all his fights, save his 1910 comeback fight, and according to Jeffries, almost all his opponents fell face first, which is a clear sign they were out. Jeffries could hit. I have seen him hitting a full heavy bag ( filled with sand ) and he jolts the bag back and forth, and also shows the ability to reverse momentum of an incoming bag with force..which is not easy to do. Hitting the heavy bag, Jeffries looks like Sonny Liston.

[McGrain]

Sharkey was also tougher than hell.

[mcvey]

Sharkey was also tougher than hell.

Not against Fitz :good

[McGrain]

Not against Fitz :good


Well I guess if you want to see it like that Duran wasn't to tough against Leonard or Quarry wasn't so tough against Frazier but they were both tough bastards. Sharkey was teak tough. One tough boy.

[mcvey]

Do you read the reports?

Wlad Klitschko is without a doubt one of the best punchers ever. How come it took him 12 rounds to stop Chambers? Answer, because he was a patient fighter, which Jeffries also was.

Jeffries did not come out swinging like Marciano or Frazier did for the most part. He took his time.

Why did Sharkey last the distance? Because Jeffries was 1 ) Green in the first Sharkey fight, and 2 ) Injured early in the second Sharkey fight. Still Jeffreis floored and hurt Shareky in both fights. Fitz beat Sharkey earlier, but there was some controversy around the Ko. Fitz second win over Sharkey is impressive, but Sharkey was somewhat ruined after the brutal beating he took in the second Jeffries fight.

In fact Jeffries produced a knockdown in all his fights, save his 1910 comeback fight, and according to Jeffries, almost all his opponents fell face first, which is a clear sign they were out. Jeffries could hit. I have seen him hitting a full heavy bag ( filled with sand ) and he jolts the bag back and forth, and also shows the ability to reverse momentum of an incoming bag with force..which is not easy to do. Hitting the heavy bag, Jeffries looks like Sonny Liston.

I questioned the term shocking power which ,I believe the majority of posters would when applied to Jeffries punching ability.His major opponents Corbett,Fitz,Johnson ,ALL said Choynsky ,a super middleweight hit harder than him.
Fitz and Choynsky were one punch ko bangers, on the whole Jeffries was not, he wore men down, and considerably lighter men, do you think 163 lbs Fitz could go 11rds with Wlad?

Was Ruhlin down in their second fight?
Armstrong was not floored by Jefries was he?

The Chambers/ Wlad analogy is a bad one because.
1. Chambers is a full fledged 210lbs heavyweight NOT a 183lbs man as Sharkey was.
2.Chambers fights defensively ,Sharkey was a face first, come forward brawler.
Foreman fell face first against Lyle ,yet got up to ko him.
Bags dont hit back.