James J Jeffries vs Anthony Joshua

Agree most of what you say her bud, though I would say Walcott was a "great" HW, I just wouldn't call him an ATG. Walcott skills would translate well in any era at HW, except the modern one. That is a great HW to me, but I think I got how you feel. The rest of your post is spot on.

 

Was he past his prime? My definition of a past his prime fighter is when he starts to lose fights he would have won in his prime. Fair enough?

Take note post the second Jeffries match, Fitz beat Hall of Fame light Jack Gardner and Jack O'Brien. If he was shot, he would not have done this! Yet the wins are on his resume. Clearly, he had something left 2-3 years after his second loss to Jeffries and happened to kill a man from boxing in another fight.

Post the first Jeffries match, Fitz beat Sharkey and Ruhlin in style. He was as good as ever.

The logical conclusion is Fitz was in his prime for the first match with Jeffries, with the second maybe being slightly past his prime.

Furthermore, it is likely Fitz tampered with his gloves in the 2nd Jeffries fight. The first fight between the two was not very close. Jeffries won relatively easily.

Fighters like Hopkins, Walcott, and Moore had some of their best efforts past age 36, didn't they? Yep, and so did Fitz.[/QUOTE]
Not the old loaded gloves again!!! Both men came into the ring without gloves on. Fitz had wraps on Jeffries did not.Jeffries walked over and carefully examined Fitz's wraps before he gloved up, it's a matter of public record and I've posted the fight reports loads of times. .Stop this sh*t once and for all!!! The contemporary fight reporters state that, had they been near the same age, Fitz was 12 years older, and near the same size Fitz would have been the winner.He is described as hitting Jeffries when and where he wanted to.

 

Was he past his prime? My definition of a past his prime fighter is when he starts to lose fights he would have won in his prime. Fair enough?

Take note post the second Jeffries match, Fitz beat Hall of Fame light Jack Gardner and Jack O'Brien. If he was shot, he would not have done this! Yet the wins are on his resume. Clearly, he had something left 2-3 years after his second loss to Jeffries and happened to kill a man from boxing in another fight.

Post the first Jeffries match, Fitz beat Sharkey and Ruhlin in style. He was as good as ever.

The logical conclusion is Fitz was in his prime for the first match with Jeffries, with the second maybe being slightly past his prime.

Furthermore, it is likely Fitz tampered with his gloves in the 2nd Jeffries fight. The first fight between the two was not very close. Jeffries won relatively easily.

Fighters like Hopkins, Walcott, and Moore had some of their best efforts past age 36, didn't they? Yep, and so did Fitz.[/QUOTE]
Not the old loaded gloves again!!! Both men came into the ring without gloves on. Fitz had wraps on Jeffries did not.Jeffries walked over and carefully examined Fitz's wraps before he gloved up, it's a matter of public record and I've posted the fight reports loads of times. .Stop this sh*t once and for all!!! The contemporary fight reports state that had they been near the same age Fitz was 12 years older! and near the same size Fitz would have been the winner.He is described as hitting Jeffries when and where he wanted to. Fitz beat both Sharkey and Ruhlin in the space of two weeks in 1900 but he still had to wait another 2 years before he got his title shot!
Maybe if Jeffries had defended against him after he beat the two outstanding contenders instead of making him wait another 2 years, he might have regained the crown? Instead of which Jeffries fought Griffin,Kennedy,and defended against Ruhlin whom Fitz had wrecked.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I don't agree with that. By that definition then Ali wasn't past his prime until the Leon Spinks fight. My definition is when he starts to lose fights or has unnecessary problems that he wouldn't have had in his prime.

I wouldn't say so. He was in a layoff for 2 years prior to the second Jeffries fight. The first Jeffries match he was dead drunk the night before. The second fight was the one that mattered because he gave Jeffries one of his toughest fights.

I read that he threatened to load his gloves and it was found he used electrical tape instead of gauze.

They may have had their best fights past 36 but they weren't all prime.[/QUOTE]
No. Jeffries carefully examined Fitz's wraps in the ring before Fitz gloved up ,he found nothing wrong with them .Fitz used to ask permission to wear extra layers of gauze because his hands had been broken so many times. Mty source is Jim Jeffries by Adam Pollack and The Fighting Blacksmith by Gilbert Odd.

 

Was he past his prime? My definition of a past his prime fighter is when he starts to lose fights he would have won in his prime. Fair enough?

Take note post the second Jeffries match, Fitz beat Hall of Fame light Jack Gardner and Jack O'Brien. If he was shot, he would not have done this! Yet the wins are on his resume. Clearly, he had something left 2-3 years after his second loss to Jeffries and happened to kill a man from boxing in another fight.

Post the first Jeffries match, Fitz beat Sharkey and Ruhlin in style. He was as good as ever.

The logical conclusion is Fitz was in his prime for the first match with Jeffries, with the second maybe being slightly past his prime.

Furthermore, it is likely Fitz tampered with his gloves in the 2nd Jeffries fight. The first fight between the two was not very close. Jeffries won relatively easily.

Fighters like Hopkins, Walcott, and Moore had some of their best efforts past age 36, didn't they? Yep, and so did Fitz.


[/QUOTE]
Not the old loaded gloves again!!! Both men came into the ring without gloves on. Fitz had wraps on Jeffries did not.Jeffries walked over and carefully examined Fitz's wraps before he gloved up, it's a matter of public record and I've posted the fight reports loads of times. .Stop this sh*t once and for all!!! The contemporary fight reporters state that, had they been near the same age, Fitz was 12 years older, and near the same size Fitz would have been the winner.He is described as hitting Jeffries when and where he wanted to.[/QUOTE]


Jeffries manager, whom he had a falling out with said fight him, you can lick him with whatever gloves he uses.

Interestingly enough Fitzsimmons himself never denied the glove tampering, and it is written his handlers admitted it. When the fight ended Jeffries approached Fitzsimmons wanting a look at the gloves because he didn't mark him up in the first fight, and like a guilty man, Fitz tossed the gloves deep into the crowd.

Hmmm.....

 

Since you seem to be a sharp and reasonable poster, I shall explain a few details you might like. Ketchel was a middle, not a heavyweight. Historian Klompton says he was 155 pounds for Johnson. Hagler and Mozon did not fight above 160. Sharked and Corbett were in the 180's and they trained down for stamina.

1 ) Jeffries beat Sharkey in his 10th pro fight. Sharkey was described by historians as the Rocky Marciano of his times. A very rugged and powerful man, capable of bending coins in his hands. In the re-match for the title, Jeffries went into the fight with a nagging injury. After flooring Sharkey in round two, Jeffries threw out his left shoulder, and it limited his best weapon, the hook for 23 rounds. Films show Jeffries using his right hand for the most part.

So Jeffries beat Sharkey when he was both green, and a second time when he was injured. Under modern times, the fight is a TKO as Sharkey as badly beaten. Sharkey is listed as an all time puncher by Ring magazine, and in another article listed Sharked for having one of the best chins.

2 ) Who else aside from Jeffries stopped Fitzsimmons from March 1890 to July 1904 besides Jeffries? Answer no one! Fitz fought many punchers...Sharkey, Maher, and Choynski to name a few. Though not 200+ pounds, they wore very light 4-6 ounce gloves, so their hitting power was far more than the 16 ounces gloves heavies use today.

Back then taking a punch was difficult. There was no gum shield to help absorb the blow, no paste to stop cute, no Enswell for swelling...heck they didn't even use bottles of water in-between rounds in hot outdoor fights.

At any rate, Jeffries Kod Fitz in 11 round pretty easily in the first time around. It wasn't his style to jump on people for the most part. It is written he was a patient boxer, not forcing the KO or ending in almost all cases.

Jeffries average title weight was a shade over 220 pounds, it around today, I can see 230-235 in shape. Joshua to me is a bit too muscle bound and would be better off in the 240's. Hsi stamina is suspect to me, and he's punch resistance and the ability to recover questionable. He can thank his lucky stars Wlad Klitschko was over 40 and let him off the hook.

I do not think Joshua takes Jeffries out in ten rounds, and I see a suspect chin and stamina from him in the later rounds.

Jeffries is stronger than Joshua in my opnion, and has the right pressure style out of a coruch, combined with quick feet and good ability to cut off the ring ( shown on flims ) to take him out.

 

Not the old loaded gloves again!!! Both men came into the ring without gloves on. Fitz had wraps on Jeffries did not.Jeffries walked over and carefully examined Fitz's wraps before he gloved up, it's a matter of public record and I've posted the fight reports loads of times. .Stop this sh*t once and for all!!! The contemporary fight reporters state that, had they been near the same age, Fitz was 12 years older, and near the same size Fitz would have been the winner.He is described as hitting Jeffries when and where he wanted to.[/QUOTE]


Jeffries manager, whom he had a falling out with said fight him, you can lick him with whatever gloves he uses.

Interestingly enough Fitzsimmons himself never denied the glove tampering, and it is written his handlers admitted it. When the fight ended Jeffries approached Fitzsimmons wanting a look at the gloves because he didn't mark him up in the first fight, and like a guilty man, Fitz tossed the gloves deep into the crowd.

Hmmm.....[/QUOTE]
No his handlers said nothing of the sort and you don't even know who they were! Thankfully I do, and I have detailed reports of both men, both before ,during, and after the fight ,you're just talking from an agenda driven ignorance. Just once in you life do some research!

 

Wrong again! Ketchel was a quarter pound over 170lbs for Johnson.
Sharkey was fighting Jeffries with a broken rib and a broken finger.He was conceding 3 inches in height and27lbs in weight.
In 7 defences Jeffries only weighed 220lbs and upwards twice for Finnegan and Munroe, two no hopers ,and he was described as paunchy for both of them.Here he is against Munroe.

This content is protected

Coruch,opnion,flims,Sharked,cute.More Mendoza speak.
From 1890-1904? for 4 of those years Fitz was retired! Plus his comeback fights after 2 years inactivity in each case were both against Jeffries!

 

Mcvey,

Since I know you are reading this, it's time for an honest reply.

You often criticized Jeffries or Marciano, two men who retired undefeated for fighting smaller men.

Fitzsimmons and Corbett were Hall of fame heavyweights, each with significant wins over vs fighters who weighed 200 or more. You can say the same for Charles or Walcott. In Fitz's case, he KO'd a man at 260.

My question is this. When Jack Johnson is discussed, why don't you bring up the same points? After all he was KO'd early by a man under 180 pounds in all likely hood in Choynski ( Stop with the we don't know the exact weight, we can use the weights known before and after to get an educated guess ), even in a 1909 fight with a much smaller O'Brien who according to some primary sources was the better, and floored by another middleweight in Ketchel.

Jeffries has zero knockdowns vs. smaller men, and never lost to lesser opponents like Hart. Klondike or Griffin.

Can you for once explain why you contiune to write it this way?

It seems like an obvious agenda against two, while a clean pass for another. Why?

I'll keep an open mind when reading your reply.

 

Jeffries had a better chin than Johnson,he had a better chin than most men imo. I don't think Corbett's resume stands up to close scrutiny.What is his best win?
Corbett only fought 2 men over 200lbs and both were fat , one,Sullivan hadn't fought in 4 years!
I criticize Jeffries for fighting challengers who didn't deserve title shots,Finnegan, Munroe,Ruhlin, and Corbett2.
Not for their size the fact that he was so much bigger than his challengers apart from Ruhlin was hardly his fault, but it has to be taken into account when he is measured against those who came after.
I don't criticize Marciano for fighting small challengers, he was a small guy himself. He fought the best that was around, including his number one challengers, he could do no more. I criticize the fan boys who put him up on an unrealistc pedestal, one he would never have claimed for himself .He was a fine champion and an admirable human being.


Johnson, according to Pollack likely weighed around the same as Choynski when they fought, maybe a little more. I don't see the correlation. Choynski ko'd him he badly hurt Jeffries a couple of times too, but couldn't drop him.
I'm not going back over the O Brien fight .Nor Johnson's other defences, he was in a totally different situation to Jeffries and Marciano.After reading extensively about Fitzsimmons I now rank him above Jeffries as Johnson did.

 

This content is protected

 

Excellent breakdown.

 

The only film we have of Jeffries on the offensive shows him following Ruhlin around the ring, he isn't cutting him off or moving laterally across him to keep his target in front of him.He also looks very open to a right hand, but Ruhlin is too petrified to do anything but back pedal, he froze in this fight.