Corbett was a bad athlete? Van Buskirk an Olympian was a bad athlete? Comparing Jeffries to a poor man’s Chuvalo? More like he’d be Richey Rich if he was around today. Instead of smearing an old timers accomplishments might I suggest take your ax to the lounge? I hear they have a much better sharpener there.
We have a leak of bad information in the thread. Fitz was 36 when he first met Jeffries. Same age as Jackson. To the board don’t rely exclusively on box rec and when you do, be sure to quote them right. Fitz for certain had more fights but this isn’t the thread to list them as did Jim Corbett. A lot more than listed as box rec. Might I suggest wiki? It edited daily by historians and has many fights you might not have seen before.
The crux of the question was simple - WHY any interaction at all. I answered that question exactly, accurately and briefly. Instead, the other party had to waffle on again re content (and falsely so) - a MOOT point at any rate. Another case of either extremely poor comprehension (never admitted to) or plain, wilful ignorance. His off point posts are only excessively long to accomodate heavily deluded fabrications and extrications that require that much more writing than actually being factually on point. Some simply call it BS for short. In the process of claiming not to assume anything in bad faith - Entaowed assumes and floats plenty - with lots of “pathologising” and “stigmatising” ( terms he SO self sensitively and hypocritically employs) of numerous posters. I’ve not read any other poster express themselves so often in such self contradicting, sanctimonious and self aggrandising terms - it is seriously not normal. There was/is no inadvertent retraction of the apology. Yet another foolish, false and preposterous narrative. And this from a poster who just recently undertook to desist and cease now - only to post another rant on content (and falsely so) in that very SAME post AND in his follow up post. He is clearly in no position to morally judge anyone - and the extent that he tries to do same, in all self contradiction, is irrefutably ridiculous. The convenient claim of not precisely recollecting what was asked of us is laughable but also embarrassingly revealing on his part - his having remembered enough to fly under the radar and not address me directly. In his posts “to” me, he also didn’t mention/threaten “reporting” me (as he does often with other posters in attempting to cry wolf) because he also knew he was instructed not to escalate/report. Very dishonest. His own isolated reference to having the last word is laughable also - made by Entaowed in the very throes of his own, oft repeated, attempt to have those last words re content - a completely disingenuous poster who is well known for obsessively having the first, last and most words (by far) in between in the face of numerous posters he has disagreed with. I’ve made no reference to or given any indication of being triggered…obviously because I am not. Entaowed only raised the question because he in fact is (triggered), has been for a long time and needed to project himself. Lots of luggage there. Ignoring the acutely false denials and extrications re his unequivocally being CUT OFF - (stalky posters will always try to “irrationally” self rationalise their obsession ) - he was CUT OFF by me and then also CUT OFF under official directive and I’ve also succinctly told him to interact with OTHERs in multiple, recent posts. He has simply and compulsively DEFIED all this. Due to his unhealthy and disturbing attachment to my opinions/posts and repeated initialising of comments/refs regarding/to me, he has not purely and simply asked for the same disengagement himself nor complied with my repeated instructions to interact with OTHERs and not myself - something that is easy to execute when one is actually genuine in their motives but he clearly is not so.
Lol, that was the less often cited “difficulty” factor involved in Jim’s sprints - though split into 100 yard segments, it ultimately accumulated to a distance of many miles that Jim carried and ran with that deer. Jim shadowed boxed with dumbbells so it figured that he ran with the deer. He may well danced with the wolves also.
Alright I have no argument whatsoever with this description! I did not know the exact status of each of these challengers. Why do yo think he did not face at least more active & successful challengers? They were around right? None of it speaks to Jeffries athleticism, & I think that it was excellent. Which allowed him to beat folks who were smaller, sometimes rusty-even if they maybe were sometimes more talented!
Moderators, note after your asking us to answer, & one reply each, the continuing (& completely unsupported with This content is protected , false & embarrassingly personalized complaints of a solitary poster. Thus I with intellectual rigor correct his ongoing, & novel, public slander. It makes no sense to say "why any interactions at all"...When only he asked the other guy to stop writing, I was able to handle everything-yet HE will not stop posting to or about me. When he continually seeks the last word-even when there This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
The best two opponents Jeffries defended against who were not older men significantly smaller making comebacks were; Ruhlin &Sharkey Gus Ruhlin was a good but inconsistant fighter. He beat A Tom Sharkey who was demonstrably sliding. A washed up Peter Maher Joe Goddard twice Joe Choynski over 6 rds. He lost to Sharkey,a fresher version, by a one punch ko in the opening round. Lost to the greatly outweighed Kid McCoy. And was half killed by Fitzsimmons before Gus challenged Jeffries. Ruhlin got the title shot not Fitz who had to wait a further 2 years for his opportunity. A Fitz who was 2 years younger and fresh off 2 kos of Sharkey and Ruhlin,instead of the 39 years old 2 years retired version would almost certainly have accquitted himself even better than the older version who beat Jeffries face to pulp for 7 rounds only to be ko'd in the 8th round when his hands went on him.Fitz was 12 years Jeffries senior. Another challenger who merited a title shot was Denver Ed Martin ,who was mostly relegated to being a sparring partner for both Fitz and Ruhlin,the press often speculated how he would have done against Ruhlin in a real fight. Ruhlin had drawn with Jeffries when both were novices. Ruhlin having had 8 fights and losing 2,and Jeffries 5 contests winning them all,they went to a 20rds draw,but Jeffries nearly had him out at one point ,the bell saving Ruhlin,. Ruhlin appears to have had a panic attack in his title shot chance with Jeffries,a rib crunching left early on seems to have drained all the ambition out of him.Ruhlin's manager threw the towel in between the 5th and 6th rounds. Tom Sharkey gave Jeffries 45 rds of life and death.Jeffries won their first contest fairly convincingly ,but it was a war all the way. Their return for the title was a titanic struggle of endurance,the five feet eight and a half Sharkey boring in continually, and the much bigger Jeffries countering him savagely as he did so.Both men heads were badly blistered by the low hanging Krieg lights above the ring. An interesting fact is that one of Sharkey's gloves came off in the lst round,the referee halted the action and Jeffries dropped his hands while the glove was put back on,but the ever impulsive ,fired up Sharkey reached around the referee and took a swing at Jeffries with his ungloved fist.the only time a heavyweight title fight featured bit gloved and bareknuckle action. The last round was not filmed and was later re-enacted. Jeffries athleticism? Much as I enjoy Seamus' content,I'm prepared to believe Jeffries was quite exceptional for his time ,the times mentioned might need more of a leap of faith on my part.
Again, crying wolf and shooting up false distress signals - all in the throes of trying to secure the last word he claims others fervently and obsessively pursue. Falling in perfectly as previously profiled. He has also tried to report “under the radar.” - securing a second breach. If anyone is interested (and I’m sure they’re NOT) read in particular my last 3 posts prior to this - factually on point. Then read his follow ups. The man is vey much prone to self contradiction, grossly false narratives, misstatement of facts and immediately turned around, hollow mirror claims - he’s been told a number of times to interact with OTHERs - not just by me but officially. He has initiated breach of that simple directive numerous times. He does not exercise intellectual rigour (note - as ONLY he repeatedly advertises of himself). He didn’t address my points at all - I see he submitted not one but two very strange consecutive posts - since the initial enquiry, that makes it square, 4 a piece AND without me posting two, obsessive and consecutive posts. Hopefully the simple logic of this will not evade the self elevated, more intellectually rigorous among us. I have numerous other members (as CLEARLY evidenced), far more interesting and compelling to dialogue with. Now, fly, be free and, as one has been instructed many times prior and to the present, interact with and reference OTHERs, not myself. So very simple.
Put enough whiskeys in me and you wouldn't believe how fast I used to be. Actually, I came to be at peace with my actual recorded fully-auto times many years ago. I would never rely on some hand timed, hand measured track, non-official event times for the sprints. It's just useless, embarrassing crap some old guy spouts when he wished he had been a better athlete.
Y’all might think this is loco. However:- Some years back I was timed over 100 metres and was clocked at an irrefutable 9.5 seconds. Just ask the man who operated the stop watch (actually, he didn’t need one, the man is a self contained, human atomic clock) , my official time keeper, Octavio Meyran. He referred to me as Speedy Gonzales thereafter. “Arriba, arriba…andale, andale!”
Moderators, Note that Pugguy not only perpetuates his complaints obsessively-by after we each gavce the replies you asked us for publicly-but now he has escalated to addressing the overall community here. He cannot even address let alone dispute most everything I wrote to you folks-just insults it & as per usual evades specifics. Instead everything comes down to projecting pathologies upon me, assuming dishonesty & lack of intellectual rigor against all evidence... And I struggle mightily to see how he may be just in fantasy land, not lying & slandering me, via some claims. Like we were BOTH told to not interact here-which he seems bound & determined to ignore. Once-& not to "interact with others". However often he is corrected-& it is so easy to see I have many posts including recently to & with others-he keeps perpetuating the disturbed insinuation that I am not-while always writing after I do lol! And the only "many times" is him trying to stop only my free speech-but continuing personal attacks & at best delusions about me. To be charitable he may somehow believe I tried to report him "under the radar". If anyone else suspected this, they could challenge me, but nobody knows what he is even talking about. Hopefully not just a malicious lie, but a false belief. I have no idea what he means: since we were both warned long ago I did not report him, nor for when he was exceedingly malicious with another poster-he got removed by himself, & was angry when I yet again wrote I hope he is back soon, one of numerous olive branches & acts of goodwill maligned. Oh you can easily VERIFIY that he is detached from reality about me needing the last word & always getting it-he had the final, sunstance-free, brittle & repetitious post on the Moore thread. It makes no SENSE to both attack very sincere detailed posts because they are too long, pretend HE is being harassed... Yet unlike how I have consistently shown he avoids admitting or even addressing points like mine above, specifics... He Almost never can give any examples of things I supposedly skip! So he both is just copying my words absent any evidence...And he seems to still be This content is protected for me to address...Nothing nameable? It is This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
Hold on there-if you are implying Jeffries, that is not a fair analyses. The times are unverifiable, & you can wonder if they may be accurate, within the standard range of error. But he was not a sprinter, nor were there any FAT times then-it was all hand timed. He may have been a great athlete-he was certainly very good-"wished he ha been a better one" implies he knows he was not-& there is no reason to believe this. People can exaggerate as you noted & when intoxicated it is a thin line between lying & telling tall tales... But it is neither wrong, nor embarrassing, nor shows he was not very fast... To merely report hand times. Now if he was clearly off, if there was contradictory claims, OK. But we simply do not know. Even IF he was going all out each of 10 short break sprints, we could say he would need to have lost steam. But we do not KNOW this. Let's neither assume he must have been FAT as fast as he thought... Nor defame his honesty & even suggest he knew he was not very athletic-assuming negative points not in evidence.