Could Chuvalo Do As Well V Jeffries As Sharkey

"You keep trotting out these numbers, but do you honestly think Fitz was a shell?

He was constantly moving on his feet throughout the fight, his reflexes were sharp, and he fought one of his career best fights.

If he was fading, it is hard to see where it was manifested."

I think you make a very solid argument here.

 

Yes Chuvalo was a modern fighter with that rare kind of grit, I think that Chuvalo does even better than Sharkey, he was bigger, stronger and maybe more durable. I have a hard time seeing even Jeffries taking the sledgehammers Foreman was hitting Chuvlo with prior to the stoppage. In fact if that fight had been during that era Chuvalo may have beaten George through attrition.

 

LOL possibly, Foreman did say he was almost punched out loading up on Chuvalo and we know Chuvalo had stamina and toughness in spades

 

I personally think Chuvalo has a good chance of beating any rendition of Jeffries. He's one of, if not THEE most durable heavyweight of all time and has far more experience handling more talented men. He could punch pretty good too.

 

"what case has Janitor proved"

That Fitz still had a lot left.

I, at least, do not dispute that Jeff had a poor defense and there is no strong evidence he ever developed a good one.

"Fitz himself did not consider himself prime or anywhere near it."

"After the fight he stated that if his hands had been healthy Jeffries would not have lasted six rounds."

Fitz must have had a very, very low opinion of Jeffries then, which cuts against the quotes from other times praising Jeffries.

*Just as an aside, if that quote comes from a newspaper, I would consider it with some skepticism. Those newspapers were given to sensationalism. I remember the 1902 SF papers and being surprised that a couple were claiming the fight was fixed and Fitz took a dive--despite the punishment Jeffries sustained.

If the quote comes from a reliable source, I think it might well say more about Fitz's ego than it does about Jeffries.

***Bottom line--I agree with your take on some things, but what it appears to me you are doing with Jeff is the usual any stick will do to beat this dog criticism some use when they just have it in for a fighter. If an opponent does not do well against Jeff, it proves the opponent is clearly no good. If an opponent does do well against Jeff, it proves Jeff is no good.

Jeff doesn't get any credit either way.

****By the way, Mendoza uses the same everything any stick will do to beat this dog criticism approach against Johnson.

 

"Mendoza"

I will try to remember to avoid mentioning him if replying to your thread.

*my basic disagreement with you concerns the Fitz-Jeffries fights. Regardless of how much trouble Jeff had, he is the only one to honestly defeat Fitz over a close to 16 year period from early 1890 to late 1905. No matter how you slice it or spin it, this is rather impressive.

Yes, Jeff was younger and much bigger, but it is not fair to criticize a man for being big in an unlimited division. Age is relative with some men able to fight quite well into old age. Fitz seems one of them.

I think it best to agree to disagree on the worth of Jeff's KO's of Fitz.

 

At 39 years of age and after being off for some two years, I don't know how anyone could think that Fitz was anywhere near his best. "Still Dangerous" maybe. But if this were a discussion about any other fighter, I think most would deem him as finished. Larry Holmes beat Ray Mercer in 1992. I doubt anyone would use that as berometer for Tyson or Holyfield beating a great rendition of Holmes. Bob gave Jeff some problems, and I think that's why some find it hard to accept that he was washed up.

 

Jeff also beat him in 1899.

I just see Fitz as pretty clearly the most dangerous man out there and Jeff was the only guy who really beat him over a hell of a long time period.

I just think it unfair to criticize Jeff for not beating Fitz more easily when no one else was beating Fitz at all.

 

A fair observation.