Dempsey vs james j jeffries

"his genetics never allowed never allowed him to gain weight"

I don't think anyone knows his "genetics" off the spotty weight evidence which has come down to us.

But let's look at Archie Moore for example. The census states he was born in December of 1916, and so some listed weights:
7-14-1936 (listed weight of 145) Moore not yet 20.
5-9-1940 (listed weight of 159) Moore 23
6-26-1945 (listed weight of 162) Moore 28, this weight for Lloyd Marshall
5-19-1952 (listed weight of 183) Moore 35, for Bob Dunlap, Moore now a big light-heavy comfortable at heavy
3-9-1954 (listed weight of 190) Moore 37, for Bob Baker
5-2-1955 (listed weight of 196) Moore 38, for Nino Valdes
5-25-1960 (listed weight of 206) Moore 43, for Willi Besmanoff
Moore obviously grows from a welter into a heavy, by the time he was the light-heavyweight champion rarely fighting below 180 except in championship fights in which his weight trimming was so Herculean that he was often on TV explaining to the general public how he could possibly do it. He clearly was now most comfortable fighting at a much higher weight than 175.

Now as to Fitz, who knows the accuracy but he had a listed weight of 174 for Choynski on 6-18-1894, and of 174 for Sharkey on 12-2-1896, years before he fought Jeffries.

My question would be why would it be impossible for Fitz to show a similar growth as Moore?

 

Judging by Dempsey going down quite a few times from lesser hitters than fitz. If Fitz hit him half as much he’s taking the count.

I can produce a name or two that says fitz hit hard than Dempsey. Can you produce the reverse?

 

It would be reasonable to assume he did not by pictures of him in many fights.....I am sure you guys may be overlooking the reason for governance over weights considering that unethical promoters even today if they can get away with exaggerating weights to sale fights as fair and sporting....Moore and Fitz are two different people

 

You're going to want to be more specific in who you refer to when you say Jack. Are you referring to Johnson or Dempsey?

 

I'm very interested to read who said that. Not doubting what you're saying but still very curious.

 

First thing--the quote from Fleischer was aimed at rickdanahuff basically to elicit his point of view. I was wondering what his response would be to opinions (possibly even consensus opinion) that Jeff faced tough opposition rather than the easy path he assumes.

"you can't just cherry pick bits of his opinion that suit you as you wish."

Sure I can. I am rejecting one opinion, not rejecting his every opinion. For example, if someone gives me his opinions that "Lions can be dangerous animals." and "Hitler was a nice guy." I can easily agree with one and reject the other.

"Martin"

Martin was a prospect who looked like a comer. He was born on 9/10/1881. At the time of his London victory over Armstrong he was still only 20. You seem to believe he should have gotten an immediate shot over Fitz. Was that how boxing fans of the time viewed it? I think any wise management would have wanted a bit more seasoning. Whatever, that fall, shortly after Martin's 21st birthday, he had an unimpressive showing against Armstrong in which both men were on the floor several times. He then lost in 1903 to Johnson, and was KO'd by Armstrong and McVea, falling out of serious contender status.

"McVea"

McVea went on to have a long and impressive career, but he was a teenager at the time we are talking about. McVea was born on 5/17/1884. He won his first six fights, against five "who are they" opponents, and trial horse Fred Russell. He was certainly already a prospect. He was matched (I think unwisely) with Johnson on 2/26/1903 when he was still only 18 and lost a decision. He bounced back from that loss to beat Kid Carter and Martin. I recall reading an article in a San Francisco paper written shortly after the second Jeff-Corbett fight which listed McVea as a possible future challenger to Jeffries, but with the caveat that he needed more seasoning and had to reverse his loss to Johnson. He lost again to Johnson on 10-27-1903, and again on 4-22-1904 by KO, while still short of his 20th birthday. Martin beat him by decision on 8-12-1904. McVea would not fight again until 1906 after Jeff retired. His record was at this point 8-4, having split with Martin and lost three times to Johnson. I find it hard to buy that many would have considered him a logical contender in 1904 and 1905.

"Armstrong"

It is difficult for me to see the point in putting down Armstrong. He KO'd Martin in 1903. If Armstrong wasn't much, that certainly devalues Martin, and also Johnson's and McVea's victories over Martin.

"Willard"

Dempsey had to fight Willard to get the title. No doubt there. But Jeff critics have no problem going on about Fitz's flaws in 1899, when he was the guy Jeff had to get the title from. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

"Dempsey went through the heavyweight division like a tornado."

Except for all the top black heavyweights, and also except for the draw with Miske in 1918, and the unimpressive showing against the ordinary Brennan in 1920, and going the full distance with the aging light-heavy Gibbons in 1923. Okay, I am being unfair, but the bottom line here is it is Jeff in fact who arguably more or less cleaned out the division up to 1902 before he blew it by drawing the color line against the rising Johnson. Dempsey never did.

 

Fitzsimmons must have gone way down and up in weight during his career. The first photo below looks like he hasn't eaten in a year....he's emaciated! He certainly could be 157 in that photo. But in the second photo, taken before the Jeffries fight, he looks a lot heavier, more bulked up. I don't know what his highest weight was, but maybe 185?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/...zuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpg

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Jeffries-vs.-Fitzsimmons.jpg

 

Actually photos do show growth. See FranklinDallas post above.

"Moore and Fitz are two different people."

Thanks for that insight. But both competed from welter up to heavyweight. Moore clearly put on weight. Why do you insist that Fitz couldn't have?

Looking at the lowest and highest recorded weight for fighters with long careers, such as Robinson, Charles, and Moore, putting on 30 or even more pounds is the norm rather than the exception.

 

I would guess 170? I believe Jeffries was a trim 205 for this fight....,either way we are talking about a natural middleweight completely wrecking the heavyweights of the time....that is the entire point of the lack of quality of the heavyweights of the era

 

There is even doubt about Jeffries weight for the fight, because he used to sweat him self down before the weigh in.

Some local newspapers claimed that he weighed 215 lbs going into the first Fitzsimmons fight.

While I cannot say exactly what Fitzsimmons weight was, he certainly wasn't a natural middleweight.

He had relinquished the middleweight title years ago, because he was no longer able to make the weight.

Once you assume that he was a light heavyweight, what he did does not seem quite so far fetched.

 

I think it important to point out that these fighters were dehydrated to begin with. The theory at the time was to get weight as low as possible.

Jeffries is quoted by Adam Pollack in his biography as saying he dehydrated himself for Fitz. Pollack reprints a reporter quoting Jeffries in the days after the fight as saying--

"I can't get enough water. I haven't drunk any water for two weeks, and I could hardly sleep for my thirst. But they said it weakened me, and I was determined I wouldn't drink."

Pollack comments on "how much better Jeff might have been had he not dehydrated himself and bought into the falsehood that drinking water hampered performance."

It seems to be the conventional wisdom of the era and probably Fitz did the same, so re-hydrated weight as a standard must be questioned.

 

You are back to the "natural middleweight" but that 170 might be his weight with dehydration and the lowest weight he could reach even with abstaining from water. It is at least as possible that a modern version of Fitz would weigh 180 or more.

 

For the benefit of those who have not read the biography, Jeffries seems to have seen the error of his ways late in his title reign.

The last time that I am aware of Fitzsimmons making the middleweight limit was in 1894, three years before he won the heavyweight title, and five years before his first encounter with Jeffries.

 

And this has to do with the thread because?

 

So Fitz might have gained whatever poundage.?
Would Jeffries have not done the same?