James Jeffries vs Deontay Wilder

They're not my words, they're the words of ringside reporters.
He broke Jeffries nose smashed his eyes nearly closed and cut him above and below both of them,I'd say he found more than one flaw wouldn't you?

 

Almost that films run fast. Most of the old films from that time run slow.

 

It's impossible for Mcvey to use a positive quote from Pollack's book on Jeffries. Jeffries had a slip and duck defense which improved as his career went on.

I've never seen on photo by the way of what he's talking about.

 

A overview of Jeffries for those who aren't familiar with him. Video included on the bottom left hand corner of the article.

[url]http://coxscorner.tripod.com/jeffries.html[/url]

 

I don't rate eras i have zero footage of.

 

Arreola is a better win for Wilder than stiverne, who was a champion who had previously beaten Arreola? That doesn't even make logical sense.

 

Monte Cox ,Jim Jeffries love child is now being trotted out,lol
I'm now being accused by a fool of ignoring positive quotes for Jeffries in Pollack's book ,accused by a poster who hasn't actually read it.

I've said several times on this thread that for my money this is a close fight,a toss up if you will.I give the advantage to Wilder by a 60/40 margin,but Jeffries could very well win this.
As to the damages Jeffries sustained against Fitz second time around,it's well documented by Gilbert Odd,Pollack,Hype Igoe and the contemporary papers of the day.No I haven't got a photo to show of Jeffries face after the fight.Possibly that's because the fight wasn't filmed!

Fitz broke Jeffries nose in the 1st rd,and it bled freely the whole fight.
Fitz cut Jeffries under his right eye with a left hook in the 3rd rd,Jeffries eye began to close as the round ended.

"Jeffries face was bathed in blood,his nose swollen and his right eye puffed and cut".The Examiner.
Jeffries had landed some big body shots but of course the damage they had done was not visible.

Jeffries slightly cut Fitz on his right cheek under the eye.
Jeffries left eyebrow was split open from a righthand;At the end of the round Jeffries was bleeding form the nose right cheek , left eyebrow and mouth. Fitz was comparatively unmarked but feeling the effects from the body punishment.
Coming out for the 6th Fitz's eye had begun to swell.
Fitz was jabbing Jeffries at will, and the big man's face was smothered in blood.

Jeffries big hooks to the body had done their damage ,after all he was so much bigger and younger.After the Jeffries began to take charge ,though he looked like a gargoyle he was still strong and the fresher man.Fitz had hit him with everything and he was still there and still coming forward.
Fitz's suspect hands were smashed and the body punches had hurt him terribly.
We know what happened in the 8th

Anyone got photos of Wiillard's face after the Dempsey fight?
McVey's after the 3rd Johnson fight?
McVey's and Jeannette's after their marathon bout in Paris
Anyone got ANY post fight photos of losing fighters faces from the era? There is no limit to the stupidity of some people.

 

So how do you account for the difference between the two fights?

Did Jeffries forget how to box?

Did Fitzsimmons suddenly learn how to box?

Did Jeffries forget how to defend himself?

It strikes me as being down to tactics, in both cases!

 

Fitz did not underestimate Jeffries the second time,he knew how big and strong he was. Maybe Jeffries caught an over confident complacent and underprepared chamipion first time around? Or Do you think Fitzsimmons was fundamentally better at 39 than he had been at37?Or was Jeffries past prime at 27?
Fitz thought he could outpunch Jeffries in a shoot out as he had everyone else who tried it with him,but he hadnt reckoned on Jeffries durability and toughness.Thats my take.

 

I might be remembering wrong, but weren't Fitz's tactics in that fight to keep dodging by the smallest margin, then countering?

I think George Siler did a good write up of the fight.

 

Fitz utilised his jab and his feet more,he landed with his left just about any time he threw it and he evaded a lot of Jeffries punches with his footwork.
So we have a 39 years old challenger coming out of 2 years retirement and out boxing a 27 years old champion in his prime.What does this say about Jeffries?

 

The obvious thing is that he fought a much more mobile fight.

 

The only possible explanation, is that there must have been technical and tactical factors, that enabled Fitzsimmons to fight a more competitive fight.

He presumably knew that he needed a very different strategy, and studied his opponent extensively.

 

Yes he did ,and at 39 following a 2 years retirement he succeeded brilliantly, until Jeffries youth, strength and superior size wore him down.
So what can we infer from this? That perhaps Jeffries wasn't quite the swift moving hard to hit paragon that he is trumpeted as being on here ?