Next in the series after Bob Fitzsimmons In three categories Best win: In terms of quality of opponent, and manner of victory Most important win: In terms of historical significance Most spectacular performance: More for when we get to ones with footage, but not really the quality of the win, just a great display of the champion's ability. My picks Best win: Bob Fitzsimmons (1899 June 9th), I don't think there's too much debate since he won it pretty emphatically, and Fitz beat a lot of Jeffries's better opponents himself. Most important win: Bob FItzsimmons (1899 June 9th), won the title, I don't think there's much more Most spectacular performance: Jack Munroe, not the best opponent, but Jeffries was unusally aggressive, and fired up to punish Munroe, leading to an unusally devastating beating and KO.
Jeffries prime performance was Fitz 1. He was never in better shape. Sharkey 2 was pretty terrific as he had a bit of an injured hand and was fighting essentially a Marciano type clone who was at his own peak in blazing heat. He tore apart Ruhlin and Monroe and was pretty much peaking at the time he retired. A real shame he did not take on Johnson then. What a bad career decision. The Jeffries of Reno was on par with the Ali who fought Holmes and yet that is his largest footprint. I cannot help but always come back to the fact that if Jack Johnson at 28 had his hands full with an under rated , tough an well conditioned but limited Marvin Hart that a much bigger, stronger, harder hitting, iron chinned, better Jeffries would have given him hell . A horrific series of decisions led to a humiliating career defining loss in one of the three largest ring historical battles of the 20th Century. If he fought and defeated Johnson , a very distinct possibility, there is no doubt he'd be on everyone's all time top ten list even today opposed to an unknown commodity borderline buffoon.
Best: Corbett 2, This was an extremely domineering fight for Jeffries, outboxing the usually ring savvy Corbett in horrifying fashion. I've even heard that this was when the towel throw in was invented, with Tommy Ryan throwing in a large leaf, though I've heard something similar with sponges (I would've put Fitz 1 here but Fitz was both older than Corbett and, as I've heard, was outweighed by as much as 60lbs) Most important: Fitzsimmons 1, won the title from this, dominant performance, not much debate Most spectacular: Fitzsimmons 2, good come from behind victory and it showed how Jeffries always came in condition
Was Hart that much smaller than Jeffries? I thought he was near 200lbs for Johnson? No doubting though ,that Jeffries was a cut above Hart. Ruhlin quit on his stool between rounds, he was hardly torn apart,[that would happen against Fitz]. Munroe was nothing. If Jeffries had given Fizsimmons a rematch in1900,[ after Fitz had ko'd both Ruhlin and Sharkey in the space of two weeks,] and IF he had beaten him decisively THEN, his stock would have risen significantly in my estimation. Instead they met 2 years later when Fitz was near 40 year's old.
Best win: In terms of quality of opponent, and manner of victory. Fitz Most important win: In terms of historical significance. Sharkey II, as there is film on it. Most spectacular performance: More for when we get to ones with footage, but not really the quality of the win, just a great display of the champion's ability. - Corbett II
Best win, Fitzsimmons 1 Fitzsimmons was the best heavyweight in the world at the time, and Jeffries dominated him. Honorable mention for the second Sharkey fight, where he effectively held off the top contender with one arm. Most important win, Fitzsimmons 1 Hard to argue against the fight where the champion wins the title as his most historically important fight. Now if you would permit me to select a loss for this category, then I might nominate the Johnson fight. Best performance, Corbett 2 Corbett might not have been the best opponent available, but this seems to be the fight where he put everything together. The fight where his "newfound cleverness asserted itself."
The problem with Jeffries title winning fight with Fitzsimmons is Fitz was 36 years old and had not fought for 2 years. For the rematch Fitz was 39 and again had been retired for 2 years. So we have a fighter 12 years younger and hugely outweighing his opponent,an opponent who had been inactive for 2 years in both cases.How meritorious are these wins? A better print of the 2nd Ruhlin fight might be instructive,accounts suggest that Ruhlin,after sampling a couple of rib benders early suffered a crisis of confidence and confined himself to occasional flurries as he hurriedly back pedalled round the ring, away from an unusually pre-active Jeffries.His corner duly pulled him out between rounds and there was vehement criticism of his effort from the press.Again there is a problem with this victory,simply because Fitzsimmons had so comprehensively wrecked Ruhlin a year earlier that he was thought to be in danger of dying! Given this tremendous victory, and the fact that a mere week later Fitz beat the **** out of Tom Sharkey for an early ko,thereby disposing of the 2 leading contenders in the space of 2 weeks,and inside atotal of 8 rds, the glaringly obvious question is ,why wasn't it Fitz in the opposite corner against Jeffries instead of Ruhlin in 1901?
Can someone please tell this bigoted moron Fitz was 36 years old when he lost to Jeffries, not 37. It's bad enough we have to see his personal photo with his forearm over another man's stomach, and hand headed towards his... Also if he's praising Fitzsimmons post-Jeffires one ( He got that one right ) it proves how good he was in his mid to late '30s. Fitz was not an easy person to negotiate with, but he got his rematch. Many champions never re-matched their best opponent, and some like Jack Johnson avoided the 3-4 as champion. Jeffries rematched his best opponents frequently. Yet someone has a problem with that.
ffs Mendoza. Anyway, Jeffires, according to him and those around him, was in the best shape of his career for Monroe. I'm sure some people said this for every fight, but it was emphatic.
I don’t buy that. There is a good article in the San Fran papers about his training leading up to the fight. Jeffries could have been in better shape for Monroe.
Perhaps. Referee Graney, who also refereed Fitzsimmons II: "Jeffries is bigger, faster, and better thane ever. He improves with each fight. Nature has been kind to the champion. He is too strong and hits too hard for any man….Munroe should not take the defeat to heart as he was beaten by the champion of champions." So the man in the ring was clear that Jeffries had never been better. Monroe also saw him as improved, unsurprisingly: "I have absolutely no complaint to make. The world is yet to produce a man who can beat Jeffries and for years to come he will remain champion. He is a better man than when I met him [previously]." Jeffries himself confirmed the thinking of Monroe and Graney: "I am stronger, faster and heavier than at any time in my ring career, and I cannot see the championship passing from me." Bill Delaney: "Jeff hit harder tonight than at any other time." It's not definitive, but it's the referee, the fighter himself, the fighter's opponent and the fighter's trainer all agreeing that at least some aspects of Jeffries in the ring were never better.
Hart was a 5' 11" , 190 bruiser. Jeffries bone dried out was 212 and mostly fought at 220 .. he was far more than a cut above skill and accomplishment wise. Ruhlin was terribly beaten if you read the descriptions of the bout and to say he quit is revisionism. Jeffries destroyed him. Monroe may have been nothing but he went the distance with Johnson so we can make of that what we choose. I don't agree with your points on Fitz at all . Jeffries destroyed him both times as no one else every did. More importantly he took his best shots without ever being seriously staggered or hurt. I don't glorify any of these guys, just cal it as it happened.
Whatever you think of the quality of the win, we clearly disagree there, I think it's hard to argue it wasn't Jeffries' best. Sharkey is probably the only one I can think you could make a case for.
Why do you think that Fitzsimmons did so much better in his second encounter with Jeffries, despite the fact that he was older, and Jeffries was better?
What do you think? Did Fitz just learn from his mistakes, and fight a better plan? IIRC Tommy Ryan critisized Fitz for keeping his head down too much, and not aiming his punches enough. I can't remember which one that was.
