Fitzsimmons gave up 39lb to Jeffries. Langford only gave up 29lb to Johnson

And just as obvious that Johnson did too.

 

I think it was a decent win that's all. Johnson's last win over McVey was much more impressive imo. I also think a prime Johnson beats a prime Langford 7days a week and twice on Sundays.

 

I haven't noticed that.

 

Q,

Yes it can.

According to fighters moving up in class or draining weight, one pound is like 15 pounds. I'm not completely buying that,but there is some truth to it.

Fitzsimmons was about 6 feet tall with broad shoulders and was likely near his peak at 1899. By the way Fitzsimmons true weight for the fight is not certain. Jeffries said if Fitz says he's 167, put me down for 144. An indication that he felt Fitz was heavier.

Sam Langfrod was 20, and had yet to grow into his heavyweight body, and had not beaten any notable heavyweights by 1906.

In contrast, Fitzsimmons owned KO wins over Choysnki, Maher, and Corbett by 1899.

Its not only who you beat, but when you beat them that matters.. Johnson beat a not ready for prime time Sam Langford.

Allow me to illustrate:

In 1905 Langford was KO'd by a novice in Joe Jeannette ( who had about 6 fights ) , and lost on points to Larry Temple

In 1906, Langford lost to Johnson on points, and then in his next fight was stopped by Young Peter Jackson ( who was pretty light ). Two fighters did better than Johnson vs the same man in the span of a year.

Clearly this was no where close to a prime heavyweight Sam Langford, who fought from 1909-1917. That man was a destroyer, and nearly impossible to stop.

The heavier your are the less the disparity in weight matters.

156 isn't going to beat 200+, but 167 from a historical perspective has and can. Billy Conn would have upset Joe Louis if the match was 12 rounds, and he about as heavy as Fitzsimmons. Fitzsimmons himself KO'd Ruhlin and gave up 37 pounds. Then He smoked Dunkhorst in 2 giving up an estimated 90 pounds ( 170 lbs KO's 260 lbs) , which could be an all time boxing record.

*** It is my opinion that a very skilled smaller fighter from 165-175 pounds can defeat a 200 pound man if the height, and reach are close enough, and the smaller man has a speed and mobility edge, but the advantage goes away around 210 pounds unless the smaller guy has an all time punch ***

 

Factually not correct. Fitzsimmons was 36 when he first meet Jeffries.

But it hardly mattered Fitz was one of those fighters who was at his best in his mid to late 30's and proved it by beating several contenders from 1899-1904.

Fitz last big win was a TKO over O'Brien 1904, and he was 41 years old for that one. Prior to that he defeated Gardner, Sharkey, and Ruhlin.

From March 1890 to December 1905, Fitz beat everyone except for Jim Jeffries. We are talking 15 nearly 16 years here, and he did it by giving up a lot in weight, and sometimes age. A truly amazing fighter, this type of feat will never happen again.

 

"Its not only who you beat, but when you beat them that matters"

Fitzsimmons was a month off 37 years old ,past prime and had been out of the ring in retirement for 2 years when he decided to defend his title once more.

Fitz was weighed on a steel yard scale the morning of the fight in front of several witnesses including reporter Bob Davis he scaled 167lbs.
Corbett was 33 also coming out of a year and a half's retirement and had not won a fight for 6 years. Those are Jeffries signature wins.

 

Who do you think the best heavyweights in the world were, when Jeffries fought these men, and why?

 

As they were both coming out of retirement it is hard to gauge their capabilities I certainly do not think Corbett figures in the top echelon at that time he hadn't won a fight for 6 years! Sharkey deserved a shot over Corbett because he had beaten him in Corbett's previous fight. Corbett was 36 and had won one fight in the previous 9 and half years when he got a second title shot at Jeffries a ko over Kid McCoy that is believed to have been a fake. Fitzsimonns was 39 years old and had been retired for 2years when he got a chance to regain his title, indeed it was the only reason he came back as he had given up ever getting Jeffries back in the ring.In 1903 when Jeffries defended against a Corbett who had not fought in3 years Jack Johnson beat :
Denver Ed Martin
Sam McVey x2
Joe Butler
Sandy Ferguson x2
The previous year he had beaten:
Frank Childs
Fred Russell
George Gardner
Joe Kennedy
So I think he was more deserving of a title shot that Corbett on both occasions.

Sam McVey by 1903 had beaten Martin and Russell and because of his size was seriously being spoken of as a threat to Jeffries, the only man to have beaten his was Johnson

 

Yes but you have still not answered the question.

Before Johnson became a credible challenger, who do you see as being the best available challengers for Jeffries?

You might have good reason to doubt Corbett's inclusion, but I think Fitz was pretty much a standout.

 

I have answered the question. In 1903 I think both Johnson and McVey were better opponents than Corbett.Fitz had been retired for 2 years when he got a chance to regain his title, how was he a standout?
If Jeffries had given him a rematch after he kod both Sharkey and Ruhlin inside two weeks ,instead of waiting two years then you would have a case. You do know I suppose that after he ko'd Sharkey for the second time Fitz leaned over the ropes to where Jeffries was sitting and said, " You'll give me a fight now Jim won't you? Get up and shake hands on it" Jeffries remained seated.Fitz repeated his plea "Get up Jim and shake".The crowd got behind Fitz and Jeffries had no escape he slowly got up and they shook hands.Jeffries kept his word but he waited two years to do it.

 

Ah, I see you like my quotes...


Fitz was at the peak of his career when he was beaten by Jeffries. As I mentioned before he had signature wins over Choynski, Maher, and Corbett, and apparently would have beaten Sharkey clean if not for a questionable DQ. How many hall of fame men and top contenders did he clean out in this time line before facing Jeffries? I count 4 at heavyweight, and some others below that division.

From Feb 1890- June1899 Fitz was undefeated, and some say the fight he lost to Hall was a fix.

That was the man Jeffries beat to win the title and he knocked him out cold.

Now for a new quote:

"The sign of a shot fighter is one who losses matches he would have won in his prime. He seldom beats top contenders, and almost never two of them before getting a title shot.. "

After the KO loss to Jeffries, Fitz cleaned out top contenders in Ruhlin and Sharkey in short order, had first round KO, and a 2nd round KO over a man who was 260 pounds. He did all of the above in one year’s time, earning a 2nd chance vs. Jeffries. Shot fighters do not do this Mcvey! We have been over this before.

As I Stated Fitz prime ended in December 1904 with his TKO over O’Brien at age 41! By 1905, Fitz was past his prime, and on the slide, but he was a bad@ss from 1899-1902. The results prove that.

If not for Jeffries, I think Fitzsimmons is the champion fro 1897-1904... and I'd bet he'd defeat Burns, Johnson, or Hart during those dates. Maybe Johnson has a shot by 1904, but no earlier than that.

 

I put your quote in to show how ridiculous your stance is, but you're too thick to see it. Fitz had been in a 2 years retirement with no thought of returning to the ring as his wife was constantly pressuring him to quit. NO man who is a month off 37 years old and has not fought in 2 years is prime, even an imbecile like you should be able to grasp that.

Fitz suffered with bad hands and this a was a contributory factor in his not fighting.
You need to do some research on the Cornishman because it is abundantly clear you are talking out of your rectum yet again. I'll take Fitz's own assessment of his capabilites over a Jeffries fanboy's whose only raison d'etre is to build up Jeffries challengers.

You're the cabbage that said Jackson was in good form when he came back to face Jeffries. , despite the fact that he was a raging alcoholic ,37 years old , in the first stages of TB,hadn't fought in 3 years and had just the one fight in 6years.

Do you seriously believe you have any crediblity on this subject?

 

Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
Ah, I see you like my quotes...


Fitz was at the peak of his career when he was beaten by Jeffries. As I mentioned before he had signature wins over Choynski, Maher, and Corbett, and apparently would have beaten Sharkey clean if not for a questionable DQ. How many hall of fame men and top contenders did he clean out in this time line before facing Jeffries? I count 4 at heavyweight, and some others below that division.

From Feb 1890- June1899 Fitz was undefeated, and some say the fight he lost to Hall was a fix.

That was the man Jeffries beat to win the title and he knocked him out cold.

Now for a new quote:

"The sign of a shot fighter is one who losses matches he would have won in his prime. He seldom beats top contenders, and almost never two of them before getting a title shot.. "

After the KO loss to Jeffries, Fitz cleaned out top contenders in Ruhlin and Sharkey in short order, had first round KO, and a 2nd round KO over a man who was 260 pounds. He did all of the above in one year’s time, earning a 2nd chance vs. Jeffries. Shot fighters do not do this Mcvey! We have been over this before.

As I Stated Fitz prime ended in December 1904 with his TKO over O’Brien at age 41! By 1905, Fitz was past his prime, and on the slide, but he was a bad@ss from 1899-1902. The results prove that.

If not for Jeffries, I think Fitzsimmons is the champion fro 1897-1904... and I'd bet he'd defeat Burns, Johnson, or Hart during those dates. Maybe Johnson has a shot by 1904, but no earlier than that.

HAHA, keep up the good work, err hate. And while you are at it, try a spell check too.

“credibility” you say ☺

We get it, you don't like any accomplished white heavyweights. Your silly rules need not apply to others. You are the king of double standards.

Your math is often wrong ( as it was in this thread ), and regurgitating
old quotes or going off tangent ( Jackson ) as your trying to do here won't save you. If

I can show you quotes that said Jackson was in good form. I can show you that Fitz might have tampered his gloves, which is why he hurt his hands vs Jeffries in their re-match. What's in for me?

You won't wager, won’t honor a wager, and won't learn!

Bottom line:

Fitz was in fine form and had a good camp. Fitz was #1 in the world behind Jeffries for a few years, and beat man contenders when you think he was past it. Those are the real facts. In your case they are inconvenient.

 

Two years of that from 1897 -1899 Fitz did not fight.
I have reports of Jackson being a falling down alcoholic tragedy when he was still based in the UK .

Fitz was drunk the night before he defended his title against Jeffries and William Muldoon carried him home.

Fitz was 12 years older than Jeffries and conceding a huge amount of weight he had underestimated Jeffries because of the Armstrong debacle when Jeffries injured his hand and was unable to fulfill his promise to take on O Donnell the same evening. Brady ,acting for Jeffries got a smaller than usual ring to give his man a better chance of cornering Fitz.
The fight took 10 months to arrange as Brady had trouble getting a licence to promote a prize fight in NY State

I said Fitz was 37 years old when he defended against Jeffries ,I was wrong he was a month short of it.

You know jack sh*t about it do you? You pathetic bigot.