James J Jefferies vs Riddick Bowe

So after reading that much about Fitzsimmons you came to conclusion that he was a bad boxer who was easy to outbox?
I don't know if they would, I know that Dempsey was special in his prime. Gardner wasn't great fighter but he could fight, there is some footage with him available and he beat decent opponents.

I hope that you don't use Boxrec as your source of the number of fights for 1880s and 1890s fighters...

 

Can you point out any post of mine in which I said Fitz was a bad boxer?
Can you point out any in which I said he was easy to outbox?
Whenever possible I use critically acclaimed biographies of fighters,such as Adam Pollack's.
How many gloved contests did Dempsey actually have?

 

You said that Bowe was better boxer than him, Bowe wasn't that hard to outbox.
Nobody knows exact number, there were likely more fights than what we can read on Boxrec.

 

Saying Bowe was a better boxer than Fitz isn't saying Fitz was a bad boxer.How many decisioned Bowe? When you come up with additional fights for Dempsey or anyone else we can include them until then we must go on what we know,I believe that to be fair.

 

I'll answer this before I put you on ignore with that other fool Mendozy.Jeffries examined Fitz's hands in the ring before he gloved up.In the 1960's an experiment was conducted by Sports Illustrated they coated Cleveland Williams hand wraps with plaster of paris and allowed them to dry ,then he punched the heavy bag,the plaster disintegrated. Fitz had hand problems for years he often asked for special dispensation to allow him to wear more gauze wrappings,he did this against Ruhlin for example.I posted the article about the plaster of paris but you obviously ignored it, now good bye and good riddance!IGNORE.

"Jeffries had reason to be confident. The much bigger man, he outweighed Fitzsimmons by more than forty pounds. Despite this, Fitzsimmons took the fight to the champion in the early rounds and inflicted a vicious battering. As early as the second, Jeffries was bleeding from the challenger’s sharp punches, which soon broke Jeffries's nose and opened deep cuts around both eyes. But Jeffries was nothing if not tough, and he waited patiently for his opportunity to strike back.

It came in the eighth round. After several blistering exchanges, Fitzsimmons inexplicably paused, lowered his guard, and spoke to Jeffries, taunting him. The champion’s response was a hard right to the belly followed by a thunderous left hook that put Fitzsimmons on the floor and ended the fight. When the challenger later approached the champion to congratulate him, Jeffries regarded Fitzsimmons through swollen, bleeding eyes and said, “You’re the most dangerous man alive.” Anyone looking at the combatants’ faces would have been astonished to learn the unmarked fighter was the loser, while the man sporting a visage marred by lumps and bloody gashes had proven victorious. "

 

Good riddance. And I'm calling out your BS again, as you won't put people on ignore for long. Well see if I'm right again.

Look-- When the match ended Jeffries asked Fitzimmons for a look at his gloves. Fitz quickly threw them into the crowd. That's a fact! Why would Fitz do this if his gloves were clean? Fitz used electrical tape to wrap his fists, which is something he did not do in the first fight.

 

Fitzsimmons was just a great fighter, I doubt he cheated. He came overconfident against Jeffries the first time and that's why he lost so easily. Next time he was prepared and in as good shape as ever.

 

You know this how? Because reporters 130 years ago said so?

 

Yes.

 

Then the obviously question is: seen through the eyes of an 1880s reporter, what did it take for a boxer to look "special"?

 

He was ahead of his time, which is enough for me. You don'r give additional points for looking good through eyes of people born 150 years after you, especially because modern techniques wouldn't be nearly as effective back then.

Most of boxing greats from the earpy 1900s look good on film, so why should I assume that someone as good as Dempsey would look terrible just 10 years before?

 

The boxers closest to Dempsey that we have footage of are Fitz and Corbett. Both are regarded as ATGs and standouts of their time. If they represent the best of the best back then - then I hate to think how Dempsey looked!

 

Corbett wasn't an all-time great, he won the title from old and alkoholic Sullivan and didn't have any other significant win. We have very little from Fitz and what we have don't look bad at all.

Most of early 1900s greats look very good on film we have. Stop looking only at heavyweight division, this time was rich of talent.

 

Ok, so maybe Corbett wasn't an ATG - but at least he was seen as someone who was very clever for his time. Which is just my point: for his time. With what we know today, he looks pretty bad. I wouldn't expect Dempsey to look any better.

 

Corbett was fast and awkward fighter who had very unique style and used his physical atributes to beat opponents. A lot of this talk how smart fighter Corbett was came from him. Besides, in very few clear clips you can see that Corbett wasn't clueless. He could fight in clinches well, he was fast and tough to find, he didn't like to engage and he was well conditioned. Not an easy opponent to fight against.

I'm almost sure that Dempsey would look better from technical point than Corbett.