New Book - In the Ring With James J. Jeffries

Clearly he COULD NOT have been in" good form prior to meeting Jeffries ".
Because he had no form, having not engaged in a contest for 2 years

The five fights you refer to that Fitz had after losing to Jeffries were over three nobodies , then the immortal Welterweight Joe Grim whose record at that time was 3-4-0
Fitz had one decent win over the light heavyweight champ George Gardner ,then his sun began to set for good.

 

I wrote perhaps a bit unclearly, apologies. What I meant to convey was that, in facing Fitzsimmons, Jeffries was facing someone who would be a credible, even probable, threat to KO all of their contemporaries -- 'current' in their day, not ours. Apologies, again, for any inclarity.

 

I am talking about Fitz's activity leading up to the 2nd match.

Wow, so you think Fitz's comeback, which includes Ko's over Sharkey and Ruhlin, plus the win over Gardner was not impressive?

 

Should I put this in capitals ,I mean are you ******ed?
I have said TWICE Fitz was coming out of a TWO YEARS RETIREMENT.
What part of that do you not understand?
Prior to the SECOND Jeffries fight ,Fitz had four contests.
One in 1899 on 28th of Oct this was his first outing after losing his title to Jeffries, Fitz kod Geoff Thorne in under a minute.,Thorne's record was 2-1-0.
Fitz fought four times in the next year [ 1900].
Fitz beat Jim Daly on 27th March ,Daly was 7-6-0, ,over nobodies.
Next was the Human Freight Car , the bloated Ed Dunkhorst on the 30th of April, Dunkhorst was 13-7-5 .Fitz wins.

Fitz ups the quality of his opponents ,taking on Gus Ruhlin,on 10th of August ,[still 1900], he stops him.
Fourteen days later he meets Sharkey and stops him.[still1900]

On 25th of July 1902 that is TWO YEARS LATER, he challenges Jeffries,and is stopped in the eight round.
SO PRIOR TO THE JEFFRIES SECOND FIGHT ,FITZ WAS INACTIVE FOR TWO YEARS .AND WAS ONE MONTH SHORT OF HIS 39 TH BIRTHDAY.
NOW HAVE YOU GOT IT?

 

Yes, I think we understand that Fitz hadn't fought in two years.

Basically, he fought his way back to being outstanding challenger, then tried to sit on his status.

A two-year hiatus takes off some of his claim to a title shot. 'How much?' could be argued. It certainly shouldn't wipe his slate clean. Probably he should have been downgraded from 'outstanding contender' to 'notable contender'; after another year, just 'contender'; after that, you could start to forget about him.

---------

I will give, I don't think 1902 Fitzsimmons would KO every man in the world today; and I very doubt he'd be heavyweight champion. I do think that a Fitzsimmons, coming along today, could possibly prevail for the heavyweight championship against the right sort of champion.
I don't think Fitzsimmons, as he was in his prime, would have prevailed against the dozen or so most dominant champions from Dempsey onwards; but I think he'd have been a very dangerous opponent for them if they'd come along in Fitz's time.
I think that coming along in Fitzsimmons day and beating him twice is no small accomplishment; ditto twice beating Corbett and Sharkey.

When I pit fifteen heavyweights against each other in my mind -- Sullivan, Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Marciano, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis (and you could certainly add others) -- if it's a case of time-machining them together, I think Sullivan, Jeffries and Johnson probably would have loosing records; if I ask how they'd do coming along at the same time, I suspect Sullivan, Jeffries and Johnson would atleast hold their own. The second scenario, admittedly, is the more speculative. Basically, I consider a HTH 'black-and-white' if I think one guy would win whether it's a 'time-machine' or a 'come along at the same time', and whether it's fighting in the conditions of his time or the conditions of the other guys time; otherwise (and is often the case), I consider a HTH to be kinda 'grey'.

 

In Fleischer's last Dempsey biography, he quotes Battling Nelson's opinion Dempsey would have made Fitzsimmons look like a prisoner with two prison-balls chained to his ankles. Considering how unprepared he was for Jeffries crouch in their first fight, I think this is plausible; ditto for Fitzsimmons (just as he was in 1899) fighting Marciano, Frazier, Tyson, ect.

 

My post was not directed at you ,I would have been more courteous.
It was an attempt to explain to Mendoza that if you have not fought for 2 years your form is really non -existant .

 

I think you misread what I was saying, you dolt. My point was Fitz earned the 2nd shot, and beat two top ( Sharkey and Ruhlin ) guys prior to the 2nd Jeffries fight, and 1 top guy post the 2nd Jeffries fight. The way you write it, Fitz was old and shot. Old perhaps. Shot not a chance!

Also, are you sure Fitz was in-active for those two years? Fighters went on tour in those days.

PS: I bothered to download the spell checker in this forum. It ironic that a poster like yourself who harps on mis-spelled words often makes the same mistake. You might want to put an " e " instead of an " a " in existent.

 

" I bothered to down load the spell checker on this forum".
And, **** me don't you need it.
Now **** off ,you imbecile.

 

Originally Posted by Mendoza

This content is protected

I think you misread what I was saying, you dolt. My point was Fitz earned the 2nd shot, and beat two top ( Sharkey and Ruhlin ) guys prior to the 2nd Jeffries fight, and 1 top guy post the 2nd Jeffries fight. The way you write it, Fitz was old and shot. Old perhaps. Shot not a chance!

Also, are you sure Fitz was in-active for those two years? Fighters went on tour in those days.

PS: I bothered to download the spell checker in this forum. It ironic that a poster like yourself who harps on mis-spelled words often makes the same mistake. You might want to put an " e " instead of an " a " in existent.

Hey dolt, we all know you like to point out spelling errors. Don't dish it out unless you can take it : ) And we both know you cannot take it.

 

Keep using dolt, I find it quaint, do you use words like blaggard and cad? How about poltroon? :rofl

You find one error , and pounce on it?
Well I can't blame you , you have had precious little success in arguing with me.

I found five errors in two paragraphs in your recent post, you are borderline illiterate,which is no crime ,but is rather ironical , when you are so comically up your own arse, in your self esteem and pomposity.

Another error underlined for you .
ps Do you think it possible you could type a sentence without an error in it?

 

You learned how to put a line between your sentences. It must be your birthday today.

 

No, its the 21st of this month . I hope you are getting me something nice.
Apollack's new book would be appropriate.

I have bought your Xmas present , Odhams Concise English Dictionary.

What does it feel like, playing Frazier to my Ali in our verbal spars?
Must be pretty frustrating, getting owned daily. :good

 

You two should get a room or something

 

I WOULD LIKE 5 MINUTES WITH HIM UP AN ALLEY.:bbb