Explain Fitzsimmons vs Jeffries 2 to me

I doubt there was any inspection, as that was rather unusual, still in the early 20. century.

Perhaps hit Fritzsimmions hard because he used these substances all over his career, in many fights. His punching-technique didn't appear that accurate or fast to develop a lot of punches. It rather seems very slow and crude (primitive), like Langford too.

Jeffries was known as sportsman (gentleman) and had no resaon to complain about it other than he thought it really happened, as he knocked that guy out. Usually are the winners generous and give much credit to their victims after the fights (as Mosley to Margarito).

 

Links, sources, any evidence at all?

I am only reading a completely unsupported, non fact based, prejudiced opinion.

Jeffries was a gentleman - thus he wouldn’t make a false claim -as you frame it - so you MUST believe the Reno doping claim based only on Jeff’s word - simple answer YES/NO?

So, 1) you will reject SUPPLIED contemporary newspaper evidence at your OWN whim but 2 ) not produce any supporting contemporary evidence yourself to support your argument - including, not accomodating the specific request for the quoting of Jeffries’s actual words from his OWN Bio - WOW!

 

I said maybe only because the beating & damage Willard sustained was greatly exagerated.
I do not think injuries have "little" to do with taken punishment-but your point is well taken (pardon the pun) that at times they may be very different.

Your comment raises two interesting questions:
1) Would others be able to take the punishment Willard sustained & win?
2) Would others be effected to the same degree, ship the same damage & knockdowns, as Willard?

I think that some ATG fighters + some just world class would be able to do either or both things!
Dempsey fought great, but against a long inactive 37 year old (not a highly trained & conditioned modern fighter) big man who had gone visibly soft.

Those with top skills would be able to avoid just being "Dempsey Rolled" like that & offer no offense to speak of.
Others could absorb the punishment & much more & may come back to win.
We should have a thread about it!

 

Any evidences outside of your completely arbitrary opinion?

And lol at Langford's punching being slow and crude. Ridiculous statement.

 

It doesn't matter if you doubt it or think it unusual. It's in the next day reports. A far better source than the boxrec wiki.

 

On the Best British Boxer thread I also linked a contemporary newspaper article describing the FIRST FIGHT which clearly indicated that Jeff was NOT unmarked.

You know I did - so you either read it and ignored the description or ignored the article altogether - up to you, your choice but I will tout the fact that I linked it and it was in direct answer to your previously claiming that Jeff was unmarked.

So, as you claim was written in Jeff’s BIO (I’ve never read his BIO so I can’t say), Jeff’s unmarked claim contradicts a third party, day after I think, newspapers report that described Jeff having incurred a bad cut at the least in the first fight. I recall bruising described also.

So, according to your claim as to what was written in the BIO, it sounds as if the truth of the first fight was twisted in order to better “support” and “float” the unsupported claim of loaded gloves.

I gotta wonder what fight (unless it was impossibly short) Jeffries ever did come out from unmarked - it certainly wasn’t the first fight with Fitz. I can only repeat that Jeffries claimed he was doped for Reno - and I have read his allegedly quoted words to that effect - I’d have to chase it up if I were to link it -

All opponents otherwise didn’t claim Fitz loaded the gloves - they actually lauded Fitz for his uncommon punching power. If there was any such claim by Jeffries of Fitz loading it was a stand ALONE - therein lies the anomaly.

Fitz was 2 years inactive going into the first fight - and 2 years inactive for the rematch but only after a tear of notable and crushing wins. Fitz trained extra hard for the rematch, by then more familiar with Jeff and better strategised.

 

A lot of his contemporaries also praised Fitzsimmons punching technique.

 

One thing about this fight is that hand wrappings of any sort weren't yet a standard part of a fighter's gear. They hadn't been used in the first Fitzsimmons-Jeffries match in 1899 and Jeffries was reluctant to agree to them in the rematch. This would have allowed Fitzsimmons to punch full force with less fear of hand injuries, and that in turn may have led Jeffries to suspect him of using something other than the agreed soft bandages.

 

On the fight, are there any acitons photos? Any photos of the infamous cut? Any photo's of Fitz's gloves?

 

Excellent post as always Solomon. Due to his bad hands, It was Fitz who asked for the allowance of wraps for the fight - that’s correct isn’t it?

None as far as I know. You’d think they would have at least taken a square off photo at the least - perhaps there were some photos that have since been lost to time.

The only photo I know of is that of Jeff shaking hands with Fitz before their first fight, 1899.

 

IiRC Jeffries stated he only used them in the first Ruhlin fight, and concluded that they didn't help.

 

Yes, there was some back and forth about the question. Jeffries originally agreed to wrappings, then told the press that they wouldn't be allowed, which caused Fitzsimmons to threaten to pull out of the fight.

 

There were plans in place for the fight to be filmed, but Fitzsimmons ultimately vetoed the idea due to an unusual arrangement where the fighters would pay several thousand dollars up front to have the films made and then hope to get their money back from their share of the proceeds.

 

Hmmm. Sounds a bit odd. I don't fight unless I get my electical tape wrappings? Electical tape is not in the contract, I think.

 

Well, the contract called for soft surgical bandages. If it could be shown that Fitzsimmons used anything else then it would mean he was cheating.