James Jeffries approximate age 66 years old talks about his career as a cameo in a movie. The most interesting thing here is he says his first fight was 1893, but if you look at Box Rec it's October 1895. [url]https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jeffries+talks+about+boxign+in+the+movies+1941&view=detail&mid=D2546226181560E83DBED2546226181560E83DBE&FORM=VIRE[/url]
Extensive research by Pollack turned up no concrete info just speculation. An older man just made a mistake. He muffs all his lines in his filmed interview,maybe he was losing it, he took some heavy punishment in his short career.
It appears that there isn't any contemporary news coverage about Jim Jeffries fighting as early as 1893 or having a bout with Hank Griffin at the beginning of his career. - Chuck Johnston
Most likely talking about amateur. Back in those days the line between amateur and professional was thin. It's not like today where we have an international sanctioning body as well as all of these rules and regulations. In Lamotta's autobiography he talks about fighting in a fight club as an amateur and it was practically professional except the money was given under the table or in the form of a watch. I'm sure that in Jeffries' day things were similar.
I think people remember their first match. He says 1893. He also says he did not keep track of all of his matches. Most modern boxers in their 60 hardly remember their opponents name unless it was a significant match. To properly research it, you need to buy defunct newspapers on the West Coast, which Pollack did not do. He also quickly passed by Jeffries Euro Tour without little research and mentioned this to me via the planning stages. I'm not saying he didn't do fine work or research, he just did not write his book trying to uncover being matches that are not recorded today. The Peter Maher book by Matt did wonders for finding un-recorded fights.
Pollack spent a year researching Jeffries in libraries and reading microfilm and old news cuttings, paying subscriptions to get access to them, why are you saying he didnt ? I know for a fact he did! I'm in contact with him! He has his exhibitions etc no one, and I mean no one, does more research .If Adam couldn't unearth more fights I don't think they are there to be found. You haven't even read Pollack's biography of Jeffries ,WTF are you doing criticizing a book and assuming his motives and methods concerning a book you haven't read! It's insane! Pollack mentions that Jeffries had a couple of fist fights on the beach as a youngster, perhaps he was referring to them. ps I remember you saying Jeffries ko'd Ed Dunkhorst in the UK ! You were totally unaware that Jack ,Jeffries brother assumed that name when he accompanied him to England.Dunkhorst didn't make the trip!
Let's try something new. You might learn better with sugar. Please read and learn. 1 ) 1896-05-22 San Francisco Call wrote that "Jeffries has fought and whipped twenty men during his short career as a prize-fighter, and is now looking for big game. " Note the date. So who were these 20 opponents? Why would a major paper like the San Fransisco call offer a bogus report? In fact, they gave some names we know of as to who the 20 defeated opponents were. 2 ) Adam asked me about what I had on Jeffries Euro tour! , No he did not research all the defunct newspapers of California, or New Mexico looking for Jeffries early battles. Adam has not been around for a while, but you can ask him. 3 ) Why not ask him or look at the references in the book to see the sources, then do some of your own homework for a change and learn there are many defunct our other sources he did not research.
I know you didn't have any thing to add to what he already knew because, as I said I am in contact with him and we corresponded on it. You didn't even know that Dunkhorst didn't travel over on the UK tour!Or that Jack Jeffries boxed his brother using his name! I know who Jeffries boxed with in the UK and where he did so. I know he boxed in London,Liverpool,Scotland ,Wales, and Ireland. I also know Jeffries gave exhibitions in Paris! If you were any sort of a half decent human being I would gladly share the information with you , but you aren't and I won't! It was Adam who confirmed for me that the Fitzsimmons v Ruhlin fight was not filmed ,you know the one you bet on and welched on! Klompton also confirmed it,and so did Gilbert Odd in his book "The Fighting Blacksmith".Now run along loser.
Then you showed the forum who you are. It worked out for me even if that was not my intention. How could a major newspaper be wrong about Jeffries having 20 fights by 1896? Adam himself says he;s not sure if Jeffries meet Dunkhorst, but I have read he has. The only it has to be on the web for me to believe it is what you hide behind. The rest of what you say in Europe is easily known, yes Jeffries KO'd some glass jaw types locals from the UK and France. You are a moron, Jeffries vs Ruhlin was filmed! I waste my time attempting to educate you. It's for the other posters really.
No. Dunkhorst did not go to the UK with Jeffries. Jeffries brother Jack took his name when he sparred in exhibitions with Jeff. Pollack knows this it's in his book there is no possibility of doubt about it! You haven't a clue who Jeffries gave exhibitions with in the UK or France, or what occurred in those bouts ,but I know! If you persist in your lies I will ask you certain questions that will expose you once more as the congenital LIAR that you are! We both know that the Fitzsimmons vRuhlin fight was NOT filmed and that you lied through your teeth to avoid honouring your bet. It is of no matter, you have only damaged yourself. Posters may wonder why I despise you? It isn't that you bailed out of a fight that you instigated. It isn't that you welched on the bet when you said the Fitzsimmons v Ruhlin fight was filmed. We know it wasn't, and we have Steve Compton,Adam Pollack,and Gilbert Odd's word for it!" It isn't that you persist in saying that you have seen the Langford v Hague fight when we know that no film of it survived the last 50 years! I asked you a question about the beginning of this fight that anyone who had seen it would be able to answer,you could not! It isn't that you champion white heavyweights ,and disparage Ali,Frazier,Louis, at every opportunity. It's a combination of everything. It is because you are a thorough going ,racist, bet welshing ,cowardly,lying, piece of excr*ment. You extended the olive branch to me about a year ago. Let me say I would sooner cut my throat than be reconciled with a piece of sewage like yourself. I hope this makes my feelings crystal clear? If you died over this week -end ,I'd take a drink to celebrate!
Newspapers would just print what fighters' manager told them, they were doing no research of their own. Wrong dates, names, locations and results on such records were common thing.
He doesn't think for himself and remains very a cancerous old man. Facts cut him like a knife. At times I pity him. Other times I laugh at him. Like I said before I have less time for his innate stupidly, and he's proven wrong pretty much every time I choose to read his drivel. My main reason for doing so is to correct his BS from being viewed as news from other readers. This content is protected Oh really? LOL Also I think Ali is #1 overall, and we agree on many points on Frazier, such as his lack of facing punchers. Just another double standard used by McVey...he says one thing, then changes it when its "convenient".
Yes, but in a case where many names are given, don't you think a manager would not do that unless they are true? Mixing up a date or result can happen, but falsifying a record with several names on it would be rare. I do not have it but I heard that in the Jeffries vs Fitzsimons 1 program, it mentions Jeffries had 20 fights, yet only 11 or 12 are listed at box rec leading up to the title match? So 8 or 9 fights are missing if the program is accurate.
