James J Jeffries versus Jack Dempsey prime for prime

Totally agree. I have Fitz, Jeff, Johnson 1 & 2 and Dempsey Part 1. Just about finished the last book. Could be looking to purchase more.

 

Same as me.

 

You initially denied Fitz challenged Jeffries from inside the ring after koing Sharkey.I proved he did that is not making so much of anything it is correcting your inaccurate statement.You don't think Fitz koing the two top challengers for Jeffries title inside two weeks entitled him to a title shot because he had lost toJeffries a year earlier after having been out of the ring for 2 years ? But you think it perfectly justifiable for Jeffries to defend against Ruhlin whom Fitz had beaten to a pulp a year earlier,justifiable because Jeff and Gus had drawn in a fight 4 years earlier? After being smashed by Fitz Ruhlin struggled to draw with Maher over 6 rds that is the extent of his ring activity after the Fitz defeat,and that makes him the standout challenger?The press thought Fitz was and I agree.

 

JT is a fine poster and," deserving of all praise".

 

I didn't say Fitz didn't issue a challenge. I said he issued a challenge for an immediate fight to a man who was injured and not in training. When Jeff was healed and up to training, it was Fitz who demurred about agreeing to a fight with Jeff while Jeff was willing. Adam lays this out.

Ruhlin got his shot because he was next in line after Fitz. When Fitz wouldn't sign for a fight, Jeff defended against Ruhlin.

I have pointed out that not only the press, but Jeff himself said that Fitz was the standout challenger. No one disputes that. But how can Jeff defend his title against a man who will not sign to fight him?

The point that Adam is making is the two year delay was due to Fitz rather than Jeff. As Adam has done a world of research on Fitz's and Jeff's careers, I accept his take unless someone can give me better evidence.

My own take is that Jeff had badly beaten Fitz the year before and this might have had something to do with why Fitz wanted to wait and milk his top contender status with exhibition tours before going against Jeff again. And as to Fitz being better in 1900 or 1901 than 1902, I can't say he wouldn't have been, but his earlier bad loss to Jeff makes me doubtful that he was ever going to be up to beating Jeff. He was getting older while Jeff was getting better.

 

No he didnt, he issued a challenge for a fight to take place 6 months later.Or are you saying Jeffries arm was still injured 6 months after the 26th of August 1900 which would be Feb 26th 1901. NB Jeffries boxed an exhibition3 days after Fitz ko'd Sharkey and another 3 days after that! Would he do that with an injured arm?
Jeffries began training for Ruhlin on Jan 6th 1901 he could just as easily have trained to meet Fitz in February could he not?

 

No. The facts you are claiming are not the facts as Adam lays them out. Fitz issued a challenge in August for a fight before September 1. The boxing law in New York was due to expire then and boxing would become illegal in that state.

That fall, in November, Jeff's manager and Jeff issued challenges to Fitz, but Fitz claimed to have retired and would not sign for a fight.

So Ruhlin as the next guy in line got the shot.

These are the facts as laid out by Adam and I accept that he has done the research and knows the facts.

 

My facts are taken from Adam's book! Including the statement from Fitz that he would be ready to challenge Jeffries 6 months after his win over Sharkey on Aug24th 1900.

 

My observation is he is getting better as he goes along. Not a surprise, I guess. Also the subjects of Johnson and Dempsey are more intriguing and the amount of research material must be more.

Did he do a second or revised Sullivan book?

 

Yes, he revised his Sullivan book.

 

Whatever. But when Jeff offered him a fight that fall, Fitz should have signed for it. What was this "I am retired" talk.

No sense going on, because your take isn't how I read Adam, and I have posted quotes from his book on Jeff.

The discussion here is about Jeff. He did everything he could. The delay for the rematch was due to Fitz.

So let's just agree to disagree. No sense going around in circles.

 

Fine with me.

 

Agreed, particularly about there being more to tell re Johnson and Dempsey.

Adam posted here not long ago - he is in the throes of writing Dempsey Part 2 and due to the huge amount of material he has, one of the difficulties will be deciding what to leave out due to obvious restriction in book size.

As to your question re the Sullivan book, I didn’t know so just as well Liston73 answered your question.

Cheers. I wouldn’t have been able to answer Seamus’s question.