James J Jeffries versus Jack Dempsey prime for prime

There's a pretty clear consensus in the papers that Jeffries deserved it. Sharkey's team was pretty vocal in complaining about the decision.

 

No ! Fitz was the best challenger in the world in1900 and he proved it by stopping both Sharkey and Ruhlin two menJeffries had failed to stop! Jeffries then selected Ruhlin as an opponent and did not fight Fitz for a further 2 years! I'd say if you havent fought for 2 years you are a bit of an unkown quantity! I think both Johnson and Martin deserved title shots ahead of Fitz at that time.

 

A consensus but not a unanimous one.

 

No, not a huge size advantage but comparing their respective weights vs Jeffries and Willard, that's still a 15 lb weight pull.

Fair point re Fitz being a counter puncher but as I recall, in their rematch, Fitz aggressively took the fight to Jeffries in the early rounds, initiating the punching - I'd have to read the reports though to properly refresh. Dempsey wasn't a counter puncher per se but he was adept at weaving in and under shots to land his own.

Fitz was a P4P wonder as puncher for sure. But so too was Dempsey IMO. I just think Jack's extra size makes all the difference. Not a rhetorical question, but could you imagine Fitz doing to Willard what Dempsey did? I personally can't.

I know Fitz toppled his share of big guys and so did Dempsey. I suppose we could compare their larger opposition, opponent for opponent to more finely calibrate their respective power. Big Jess was singularly huge though, 6'6 1/4", 245 lbs with well proven durability in tow.

However, I understand that Willard was 37 yo himself and 3 years inactive when he fought Dempsey.

 

Why don't you read up on this, then perhaps you wont make statements like a 27 years old reigning champ Jeffries wasnt badly outclassed against Fitz for 8 rds and didnt take a beating as you have said before,and Jeffries injured his arm during their 2nd fight.I make mistakes but I try not to repeat them when they are pointed out to me.You,on the other hand repeat the same fallacies over and over though you have been corrected on them before..Ive given Jeffries his just dues on this thread I said he could win and that his durability always must be factored in.If you spot any inaccuracies in my posts feel free to point them out as I have yours.

Get a life ?I'm two weeks back from a 2 weeks holiday in the Dominican Republic,now trying to book another holiday for September and going to Sorrento in November. You should have such a life! lol

 

Well, Fitz didn't face someone as big as Willard but the way he destroyed Ruhlin was probably as impressive, if not more.

It's fair to think Dempsey was better than Fitz, it's just not clear to me.

 

Sure thing, I can't wait for being old man being so emotionally attached to people that don't live for almost 100 years!

 

It says Fitz hit harder than Jeffries that's for sure!

 

I'm not emotionally attached to any fighter living or dead.My emotional attachments are confined to my5 kids , my now 8 grandchildren, and of course the rest of my relatives and friends.
Being an old man isn't so bad ,especially if you have the where- withal to indulge yourself and your family in your twilight years. I hope your senior years are as happy and fulfilled as mine have so far been. You don't like my posts ? That's fine 127 made ,with 88 likes, somebody seems to.
Nothing personal Pal we don't have to agree its only a boxing forum

 

I'm not confident that Dempsey could get Jeff out of there especially as early as the 6th rd Much may depend on the third man.

 

Against Gardner he suffered from blisters on his feet.I don't think he was really competitive with Lang.

 

I don't know if I'd say it was just as impressive, but that's cool.

 

I think ,given the circumstances of both fights and the respective condition of Willard and Ruhlin and with Fitz's inactivity taken into account it probably is.
Ruhlin could not leave MSG that night and he had a doctor in attendance in case his condition worsened, then spending time recuperating at his managers house,he was pretty badly beaten.

 

Actually, Fitz wasn't inactive, that came after he cleaned Sharkey's clock for the 2nd time.

At any rate, it was a terrific result for an older Fitz in relative terms no doubt - I don't know if the BoxRec weight for Fitz is correct - but they have Ruhlin at 195 vs Fitz 158. Bouts for Fitz either side list him as 177. A few years prior, Ruhlin had been one punched KO'd by Sharkey for a 1st round KO loss. Also, I see it was extraordinarily hot when they fought which might've factored...

I understand Willard's own less than ideal condition vs Dempsey which I did reference but again, I think Jess upheld greater durability than Ruhlin and was so much bigger again than Gus. 70sFan actually said Fitz's win over Ruhlin was more "impressive" - that's possible in relative terms but it's perhaps a different argument as to absolute power displayed.

My orig. question posed to 70sFan was, more or less, could he envisage Fitz's punches destroying 1919 Willard as Dempsey did. Personally, I can't calculate for that but it's just an opinion.

 

Which is the case for any fight that's not a complete shut out.

Blistered feet, injured hands, and he was ill. He was a mess.

You can hit harder, but not be as good a finisher. I think Fitz was a much better finisher. I don't think there was all that much between Fitz and Jeffries in terms of how hard they hit