A critical analysis of Jeffries vs Ruhlin

Fair take I think.

I did find the comparison to Fullmer to be out of joint. Fullmer carried his guard high and tended to bounce all over the ring. He hardly plodded forward like Jeff does in this film. I think LaMotta is closer with the left-left-left attack, but LaMotta used the jab a lot, which Jeff doesn't in this film, and LaMotta was a master of slipping and rolling. Film of Jeff is so limited that perhaps we are not getting a full picture, but he doesn't show any subtle defensive skills in the available footage.

 

It has been maintained that the "nuances" of Jeff's defense are lost in the primitive films of his era. But if the films don't show these nuances how can we know there were any nuances to begin with?

I think McVey's point about the terrible facial damage Jeff often suffered is strong evidence that his defense was never very good.

 

"it is IMO actually Fitz who was the best of the best certainly not Jeff"

Well, Fitz rates a mile higher p4p. But the fact is these two men fought twice and Jeff won both by KO. Unless you're falling back on a younger Fitz would have won take, an argument I find arbitrary, there is no case for considering Fitz the better HEAVYWEIGHT.

 

I never said he was a better heavyweight but he was much greater overall....A 220lb man taking a sustained beating from a 170lb man just tells me that he liked pain or could not hurt Fitz enough to knock him out until he got tired of beating on Jeff....there is no way these fights should have gone this long with a 220lb puncher a younger Fitz may have won but lets make Fitz a 30 yr old 6' 200lb man instead of an old middleweight and then IMO he knocks Jeff out cold....and that is my contention Jeff could have never beaten a near equal with bigger power to go with the size.

 

Then do you also agree that Johnson, Dempsey and Louis world never beat a guy Jeffries size, as they were in fact stopped by men less than 200 pounds?

Your logic here is not sound. Punchers actually have problems with quicker smaller types than bigger slower types.

 

The guy must have been made of iron to take the shots he did.

 

This post makes no sense.

 

There is a case for considering him the greater fighter is there not? Today Jeffries would have been stopped on a tko against Fitz in their second fight.

 

Fitz was plagued with hand injuries throughout his career,he received special permission to wear his own gloves against Ruhlin,far from having them doctored ,as he has been accused of ,he was always trying to get more padding allowed in them! The news papers that reported the second Jeffries fight stated that if he had been the same age and size as Jeffries he would have won.Its likely Jeffries would always be too durable and strong for Fitz to cope with, but he wasa man nearly 40 and 3 lbs inside the current lightheavyweight limit,so his victory must be tempered by that.
Of course it wasn't Jeffries fault his most famous opponents were much older and lighter and,in the case of Fitz and Corbett ,coming out of retirement. but it is nevertheless a fact.
Fitz hadn't fought in 2 years when he defended his title against Jeffries,apart from cutting Jeffries left eyebrow open he didn't make much of a show.After the fight he said," I was well beaten tonight ,by a man too big and strong for me."

Jeffries surviving the thrashing Fitz gave him for 8 rds in their second fight is a tribute to him, to his toughness and courage ,but definitely not his defence!

 

I'll give you three guesses.

 

Fitz "was greater overall"

Who's disputing that? He was a unique triple champion. No one has ever been champion over such a wide weight span as Fitz for such a long time, I think. But criticizing Jeff for being 220 back in his day is no criticism or point at all. Size is just a fact of life in boxing. This argument is sort of like saying if Sugar Ray Robinson were a heavyweight he would have beaten them all. Possibly, but Ray wasn't a heavyweight and the Fitz of history was 170 lbs., not 200 lbs., and at some point both ran into men too big and strong for them to defeat despite superior skill.

The real point about Jeff's wins over Fitz is who else was beating Fitz? I think Fitz went from 1890 to 1905 losing clearly only to Jeffries. That can as easily be spun as very impressive wins rather than unimpressive wins.

None of this means Jeff would have done well in a later era against skilled bigger men.

"is my contention Jeff could have never beaten a near equal with bigger power to go with his size."

The same argument could be made for anyone. Could Dempsey have beaten a big man who could box when he struggled with Gibbons? What about Louis having so much trouble with Conn? How would he have done against a bigger man? Fitz at 172 was not that different from the 174 lb. Conn nor the 175 lb. Gibbons in size and had a better career than either.

 

*shrug*
Don't introduce terms to a discussion if you don't want to see their logical implications explored. I've seen countless appeals to "evolution" on these boards, and although I know you guys are speaking mostly metaphorically, it's an extremely poor metaphor.

 

but they were not fighting under today's rules and Jeff was better under the rules they fought under. Conn would have outpointed Louis if the fight were 12 rounds. But in their real world it was 15 rounds.

Fitz was definitely the more impressive p4p fighter. But the results when they fought rules him out as the better heavyweight for me.

 

This comment is simply without content, and barely worthy of being dismissed. But dismiss it I will, with a curt wave of the hand. How about you get over myself?