David Tua vs Jim Jeffries

The sources are in the book.
Here's a novel idea, why don't you actually buy it, then you'll know as much as me about the subject! I see you ducked my question I knew you would.lol

"None so blind as those that will not see."

 

So if somebody didn't read the book, he can't have any reasonable knowledge about the subject?

Yeah, surely. Or maybe I'm not going to argue with someone who has a clear bias against certain fighter.

 

Listen, everyone is entitled to their opinion .. after that, it's a matter of how much time you want to invest in going round and round with last word freaks .. the facts on this argument are on the table. The rest is silly gibberish.

 

Unlike Bit Vesti , you've never produced a single iota of evidence to make me believe you have a reasonable knowledge of the subject[or any other for that matter].
You just pop up everytime Jeffries name is typed, its as though someone has whispered down a mole hole worms! Come and get them!
Your reaction is identical to Gazelle Punch's whenever Marciano's name appears.that's why I get you two confused so often! lol

ps I've well over a hundred books on boxing some good.some average,some downright terrible.
All of Adam Pollack's are first class ,well written , open handed , and diligently researched.
Highly recomended!

 

I posted the report of Jeffries vs Fitzsimmons II last time you asked me to do so. You didn't reply to my post. Why should I bother then?

I only react to your posts about Jeffries because they are so biased. I can understand people who don't know what they're talking about, but you have the knowledge and use it to make Jeffries look less impressive.

It's funny to laugh at me or Gazzelle Punch, given your history of discussions with Mendoza about Jack Johnson

 

I'm happy to publicly retract anything I have posted on either Jeffries or Marciano that you, or GP can prove is untrue. I can't really do any more than that.
I'm not laughing at either you or GP, I'm laughing at the fact that you are so interchangeable I get confused remembering which one of you I am debating with.
GP =Marciano
70's Fan =Jeffries
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty!
NB Stating corroborated facts is not evidence of bias ,denying them most certainly is.
BTW I didn't even make a pick here!

 

On Gus Ruhlin Vs Fitzsimmons, I should have added this clarification regarding my interpretation in my original post on the subject

It was certainly a very bad knock out, and he was possibly overtrained going into the fight. He was alsi certainly in a bad state that night, but the reports are contradictory, There's no way he was at death's door, but also waking up relatively early to a hearty breakfast and walking about town.

I think the best explanation is that the reports I posted are accurate, but there were all the usual mix of panic and sensationalism. His manager commented about how bad q state he was in being exaggerated too, though that's obviously a very biased source. The reports I posted were from multiple different papers and line up pretty well, plus there's also the published interview which states he gave it to the reporter verbally, and which he also comment on their being exaggerated stories of his condition.

 

There was talk he had overtrained he himself said so.
Given that I believe Pollack's sources I cannot accept that Ruhlin was out and about in the morning.
Gilbert Odd's book on Fitz corroborates Pollack's research BTW
I'd like to say however I never at any time considered you that posted anything that was not in sincere good faith .We can agree to differ I hope.

 

That's funny, because I'm not even a Jeffries fan. I can be accused of being a Max Schmeling stan, or even being biased towards Joe Louis but Jeffries? I don't know, I just don't like when you pick the "facts" to suit the idea that Jeffries was a crude mindless brawler who got away with his lack of skills because of size and chin. That's all, I'm not a fan of Jeffires outside of that.

 

I've never called Jeffries a crude mindless brawler.I have however posted contemporary reports that state he won fights because of his durability ,youth, and size rather than any great amount of skills.
So,if am biased ,then the reporters of the day that I quoted must surely be also.

 

His three biggest wins were over small men, opponents he had between thirty and forty pounds on .. he died not knock any of them out early and at different points struggled with all three .. two of them were deep into their thirties and he wore them down in bouts of attrition .. the third went a 25 round distance with him and lost a debatable decision .. all bouts were close at the time of conclusion .. No one here is saying he was mindless but he was crude considering he only had about 13 fights when he won the title .. in addition, he did win based on size and strength ... it is what it is ..

 

The phrase "Jeffries fan", is something of a paradox in itself.

A lot of the people who get categorized as "Jeffries fans", have misgivings about him as a person, though they may see him as being a product of his times.

A lot of lineal champions drew the color bar, but he seems to the the only one who actually believed in it!

He was not very fan friendly, and not very enthusiastic about boxing.

Do you think that the people arguing his corner, actually like him, or find him a major inspiration?

The word revisionist get's thrown around a lot on this forum.

Well nobody who was contemporary with Jeffries, saw him as being a latter day George Chuvalo!

Nearly everybody agreed that he was the good, and continued to agree it for a long time after!

 

Corbett was 33 for their first fight
Sharkey was 25 for their second and more relevant fight
Gus Ruhlin was 29

The grand Old Man of The Ring was deep into his 30s for both fights, I don't think that's accurate for his other important wins.

As for the Sharkey decision being disputed, well Sharkey and his team disputed it, otherwise I think there's a pretty clear consensus in favour of the decision.

As for his weight advantage, 188Ib heavyweights, like Corbett and Sharkey, were successful in plenty of later eras, and Ruhlin was bigger still though the weights are all just guessed anyway.

It seems odd thar people want to penalise Jeffries for being big, by focusing on his size advantage, instead of the weight of his opponents, in a context of arguing bigger is better. By that logic Bob Fitzsimmons is a much better heavyweight than Wlad.

 

I “liked”specifically re the recommendations of Adams books. I’ve read Johnson and am very close to finishing Jeffries. Then I have Fitz to go and that book is already in my hot little hands waiting to be read.

Of course Adam’s books don’t contain ALL there is to know (no one book can) but as a one stop resource, it contains the most and best substantiated info by far as compared to any one book, or even collection of books, otherwise.

The beauty of his books is that the info is presented objectively, leaving you to decide or interpret as you see fit.

So, it is more than possible for two different readers to draw their own somewhat different conclusions, just as two witnesses might in the face of the same live fight - such is the provision of multi fight reports.

The only thing Adam does is provide an innocent guide to possible either/or perspectives - totally objective, rational, even handed and without bias.

Based on the source info, ALL the possible positives of Jeffries are highlighted and entertained just as some less than ideal reviews are provided in due balance.

If you’re a fan of Big Jeff in particular, IMO, it’s a must book. Believe me, you’re not going to be reading a book that doesn’t celebrate Jeffries the boxer and his career, it certainly does but it simply does so in the most fair and even handed fashion.

 

Excellent synopsis!