This content is protected Location: National A.C., San Francisco, California, USA Referee: [url]Hiram Cook[/url] James J. Jeffries, aspirant for championship honors, whose chief claim to distinction in the pugilistic world is based on his having been Jim Corbett's chief boxing partner while the ex-champion was undergoing his preparation at Carson, knocked out Theodore Van Buskirk, a California heavyweight, last night in two rounds. The contest was brought off by the National Athletic Club, and between 5,000 and 6,000 people were present. Jeffries has adopted Corbett's style of fighting as nearly as any man who has ever appeared here. He allowed Van Buskirk to do the forcing, showing much cleverness in ducking and hitting in the breakaway. He was especially effective with his right hand in the breakaways, scoring heavily on his opponent's face and jaw, cutting a deep gash over Van's eye in the first round. The blow which put Van Buskirk out in the second round was a right hand cross squarely on the jaw. Van turned completely around and fell like a log on his face, and was counted out before he could get on his feet. (The Galveston Daily News)
Louis lost the fight vs Walcott. The evidence: The film ( which doesn't not show 45 minutes of action ) shows Walcott to be the better by a good margin . Louis had the body language of the loser when the decision was announced, Walcott corner went nuts. The crowd loudly booed the decision ( they knew ) Joe Louis. 2/3 of all ringside writers said Walcott won it, and no doubt they were here to cover Joe Louis. Now that I think about its ironic, as 2 of the first 3 lineal title matches between African American's had controversial decisions with hisses from the crowd. Johnson vs. Johnson and Louis vs. Walcott. No heavyweight can stop all opponents. Like I said he was green in the first fight and injured in the 2nd for Sharkey, who was out on his feet and would have been stopped with a 1950's type of ref. Sharkey had a top chin, tested by the likes of Jeffries, McCoy, Goddard, Maher and Choynski, to name a few. His prime was over after the 1899 fight with Jeffries. Jeffries stopped Ruhlin faster than Fitz did, and pretty much ruined Sharkey, though a KO2 for Fitz over Sharkey was very impressive. What was the activity of Fitz in 1898 and 1901? That I'd like to see. Yeah, post the exhibitions and activity here if you have it. He was active with listed fights from 1885-1907, minus these two years. Louis lost the fight vs Walcott. The evidence: The film ( which doesn't not show 45 minutes of action ) shows Walcott to be the better by a good margin . Louis had the body language of the loser when the decision was announced, Walcott corner went nuts. The crowd loudly booed the decision ( they knew ) Joe Louis. 2/3 of all ringside writers said Walcott won it, and no doubt they were here to cover Joe Louis. Now that I think about its ironic, as 2 of the first 3 lineal title matches between African American's had controversial decisions with hisses from the crowd. Johnson vs. Johnson and Louis vs. Walcott. No heavyweight can stop all opponents. Like I said he was green in the first fight and injured in the 2nd for Sharkey, who was out on his feet and would have been stopped with a 1950's type of ref. Sharkey had a top chin, tested by the likes of Jeffries, McCoy, Goddard, Maher and Choynski, to name a few. His prime was over after the 1899 fight with Jeffries. Jeffries stopped Ruhlin faster than Fitz did, and pretty much ruined Sharkey, though a KO2 for Fitz over Sharkey was very impressive. What was the activity of Fitz in 1898 and 1901? That I'd like to see. Yeah, post the exhibitions and activity here if you have it. He was active with listed fights from 1885-1907, minus these two years. Dempsey's promoters wanted shorter fights for him. Hi not being able to stop Miske ( healthy ) in two fights or Meehan at all doesn't mean he could not punch. I think you're holding an unfair standard that Jeffries could not stop Sharkey. He floored him in each fight, once while he was green, the other time with a bad left shoulder, limiting his best punch which was the hook.
For those big on Jeff, had his 1st bout with Corbett been a 12 or 15 rounder we wouldn't be having this discussion, Jim totally owned him.
Jeffries stopped Ruhlin on a corner retirement whilst Ruhlin was fully conscious,this was after Fitzsimmons had hammered the life out of Gus and put him into a coma.There really is no comparison over which was the more impressive performance by Fitz or Jeff. Sharkey dislocated his left arm during the second Jeffries fight, and had a broken rib and a broken finger I think that matches Jeffries sore arm.Reports indicate that the fight was even until the last 5 rounds ,from then onJeffries began to pull away as Sharkey flagged somewhat and yes he was weak in the last round. Would he have been stopped by a 50's ref? Would Jeffries have been stopped by a 50's ref in his second Fitz fight?He was certainly in a worse state that Sharkey was against him with deep cuts above and below both eyes a broken nose and blood dripping down from his face onto his chest. Three papers thought Choynski deserved the verdict against Jeffries,the majority thought the decision a fair one. The Johnson v Johnson fight was was blighted by an injury to the champion, there was no protest,or controversy about the decision ,only over what a stinker of a fight it had been ,so I don't see where you are going with that? It seems the Louis v Walcott fights have been extensively discussed here before, so I'm not going there.Its enough to say that Louis won the decision in the first, and ko'd Walcott in the second . Louis always improved on his initial performance if he got an opponent again. Sometimes Jeffries did ,sometimes he didn't. Fitz hammered him in their second fight before his always fragile hands gave out on him, whereas Jeffries had disposed of him without much difficulty in their first bout. Jeffries beat Sharkey pretty clearly in their first encounter ,but quite a few thought the Sailor worth a draw in their second fight. I've asked you which fights of Dempsey's were made a shorter distance by the promoters to accomodate him? I'm asking again. The fact that I made this post surely indicates that I rate Jeffries,Im just trying to be even handed here.
I've read this report ,and several others, including those of the Evening Post,The Examiner,and The Bulletin.ps Jeffries finished the fight with three straight rights and a left uppercut.
Jeffries was competitive early and winning late, with Corbett spending rounds pretty much literally runing away at the end. Had it been a shorter fight, Jeffries may well have pressed harder and stopped him sooner, impossible to say really. The idea of Corbett having won anything close all the rounds before the knockout is just a myth. The again, do we think Wlad would have had anything like his championship reign or be regarded near the top 10 if we had kept 20 and 25 rounds as championship distances? They won under the rules of the day and that's what really matters, not speculation about how they'd cope under different rules.
I read a detailed round by round report in the NY times, which is primary and the location of the fight. Using the rounds they described Jeffries was slightly in the lead in the way fights are scored today. It was discussed in this forum years ago, and eyes were opened. Here's another primary source the Brooklyn Union. Give the round by round report a read, and determine for yourself if this was a close fight. [url]https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19000512&id=P8UhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6665,698133&hl=en[/url] A 15 round fight would be different, they were pacing to go 25. No one has a faster pace at a longer distance. The ring for this fight was huge. 25 x 25, an advantage to Corbett.
Here is the San Francisco Call's take on the fight ,it states Corbett completely outclassed Jeffries.Landing 404 punches to Jeffries 140. [url]https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85066387/1900-05-21/ed-1/seq-7/#date1=1836&index=18&rows=20&words=CORBETT+CORBETT-JEFFRIES+JEFFRIES+v&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1922&proxtext=Jeffries+v+corbett&y=4&x=17&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1[/url]
True, but it seems Corbett was getting increasingly desperate, Jeffries won with a better strategic fight, and I think if anything Corbett was a bit lucky to make it as far as he did. Even if it went the distance while it would be 9 rounds to 16, how many more knock downs might have Jeffries had scored? And in an era where finishing strong could sway decisions, I don't think Corbett was as close to winning as made out. If it was 12 or 15 rounds it would be better for Corbett's style, I've said before I think Corbett was born in the wrong era for his style, but Jeffries would have had pressed at a higher pace. It's just speculation how it would have played out, but you certainly can't just look at the early rounds and say that's how the fight would've looked. To use a recent a much more recent and clear example, Tony Bellew was up after 6 rounds against Usyk (and rightly so IMO), but does anyone think he would have won if the fight was scheduled for 6?
It seems Jeffries adopted the wrong tactics early on ,coached by Tommy Ryan he attempted to," box with the boxer",Seeing he was in danger of losing his title his manager leapt up on the ring apron in the 16thrd and threw Ryan out of the corner instructing Jeffries to make the fight ,to go for the ko,or lose his title,from then on the fight began to swing Jeffries way. As we haven't seen the fight, we can only go by the contemporary reports.
To be clear there's a difference between tactics and strategy, as I use them, a lot of people don't make the distinction, but it's a usefull one. Tactics being the lower level details of how you get it done, while strategy is the high level overall gameplan. I get the impression Corbett is the type with clever moves etc., but lacking in overall strategy. Taking their careers as a whole, I think Jeffries was much better at making adjustments, fighting to gameplans etc. and was much more cool headed.
Corbett really only had one way to fight against a much bigger stronger man with a significantly heavier punch,box a moving fight on the back foot.Jeffries began with the wrong battle plan but on the advice of his manager changed to more aggressive tactics which was the right strategy against Corbett whom he could never hope to outbox, force the fight, make the older man use his legs,target the body, and hope he tires enough to enable you to land with your big shots later in the fight..I don't make a distinction between stategy/tactics, but if you want to that's fine.
I think the same flaws were seen against Peter Jackson and Bob Fitzsimmons. Fighting off the back foot against Jeffries was correct, I think it was more issues with the pace of the fight etc.
