New Book - In the Ring With James J. Jeffries

New book review of this fine book available:


Review of Adam J. Pollack’s In the Ring with James J. Jeffries

by Zachary Q. Daniels - One of the things you discover in reading Adam Pollack’s series on the heavyweight champions is that while much has changed in boxing over the last century, how much things have also remained the same. So it is with his latest installment, In the Ring with James J. Jeffries. Controversial decisions? Jeffries - Sharkey I fits the bill. Debates about early stoppages? Jeffries’ fight with Gus Ruhlin generated arguments about this. Handlers entering the ring and terminating a fight? The fight between former champ Jim Corbett and contender Tom Sharkey offered this. Controversies over “loaded gloves?” Allegations of “being drugged” as an excuse for losing a fight? Bob Fitzsimmons covered both these bases long before Antonio Margarito or Wladimir Klitschko ever thought them up. Contentious fight negotiations? Jim Corbett offered this prior to his second fight with Jeffries, long before fighters like Floyd Mayweather came on the scene.

Pollack’s books, then, while an excellent resource on the distant past, show us that much of what has occurred in the recent past and present in boxing is not at all new or novel.

More here:

www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=22524&more=1
www.eatthemushroom.com/mag/article.asp?id=1316&catID=6

 

Just got this book over the weekend as a present. Already a couple hundred pages in. Kudos to Mr. Pollack for an amazingly well researched book that gives the reader a real feel for the fighters' abilities and the times.

 

I believe all of his books have had positive reviews,I am just a bit dissapointed ,as I understand he does not mention the Johnson fight.

This content is protected

 

I think he only focusses through the championship fights. One would expect the Johnson book is somewhere in the future.

Frankly, Jeffries is not the most exciting champ ever, not my favorite. Contemporary opinions (at least up to the point I am at) were also not terribly favorable. However, this books focusses a lot of Sharkey, Choynski, Corbett and Fitz, so it was a good one to start with.

Next up is the Sullivan book...

 

Jeffries was 27 for the second fight in his prime,Fitz was 39, and had been out of the ring for 2 years ,surely this has some bearing on the fight?

 

The most impressive thing about Jeff is his lack of experience and what a quick study he was. Also, he seemed very composed. Like the Choynski statements Mcvey quoted, I wonder about the value of his style crouching with the left hand extended. You hardly ever hear of him landing a right to the head in his fights, lots of body work, lots of prodding lefts to open up for big lefts. Especially given the size disparity with most of his opponents I don't see the logic of his style.

 

I would say he was easily the most precocious of the heavyweight champions,and was matched accordingly , very ambitiously early in his career,even more ambitiously than Joe Louis.imo.

 

The idea of the crouch was a defensive position, that he used, to protect from receiving body blows. I think it is quite normal today, and definitely the best stance to fight from, IMO.

The outstretched arm though, i am less sure about. I think that the outstretched arm, is designed to keep the fighter at a distance, in that he uses it to either jab a fighter with a shorter (and quicker) but less powerful jab which sets up the second shot, although i should note that the lessened power from the outstreched arm is greatened by more power from the squarer than usual stance. He is also able to initiate the clinch with the left, giving him the advantage (or at least best chance of getting it) of the all important inside position in the clinch. It also would I imagine, allow him to strike better with the right once the clinch is initiated.

Not 100% sure on all of that, but Jeffries did mention the crouch as a defence to liver blows in one of his articles, so i think that part is pretty spot on.

 

We do not know what Fitz was doing in-between those dates. It is likely he was active, or on tour. Maybe Adam Pollack knows.

Fitz came back from the first KO loss to Jeffries by starching Sharkey and Ruhlin. He earned the re-match. While Fitz lost the second fight, its clear he had something left after the 2nd KO defeat. Indeed he had enough left to defeat a pretty good Gardner. I believe Fitz floored Garder three or four times.

I think its clear Fitz was in good shape leading up to the 2nd match with Jeffries, and proved he had something left after his 2nd defeat to Jeffries.

 

It is by no means clear what shape Fitz was in because 1.he had not engaged in a pro fight for 2 years ,and 2,he was a heavy drinker at this stage of his life.

The wins over Sharkey ,and Ruhlin, occurred 2 years earlier.[1900].Sharkey was used up in 1900 ,he had just been kod by Ruhlin..
Wins in 1900 have no relevance to his condition in 1902
We do know he had no professional fights during that two years ,we do know he was two years older, we do know, he was two more years past his best,at the age of 39.
Source for Gardner being dropped by Fitz 3,or 4 times?
N.B. Gardner had been severely thrashed by a green Jack Johnson a year earlier being dropped in the 8th and 14 th rds.
After losing to Jeffries , Fitz never beat a heavyweight even remotely resembling a class fighter.Four of them have no traceable form at all,the other Con Coughlin was 1-4-0.

This content is protected

 

I pretty sure Fitz dropped Gardner 3 or 4 times. Gardner thrashed by Johnson? I think Fitz dropped him twice as much as Johnson did. You ought to buy Adam's book on Jeffries. It might change your thinking. On second thought, save you money because it won't as you have built up too much negativity.

 

Pretty sure as in," I have first hand sources "? Or, " I just think so"?
I give Jeffries credit where it is due ,what I don't do is lick his hairy arse.

A short report of the Fitz Gardner fight NO mention of any knockdowns.
Bob Fitzsimmons W 20 over George Gardner – November 24, 1903 – age 40 (5 months, 29 days)

The former heavyweight and middleweight champion added light-heavyweight honors with his victory over Gardner. While historically significant, the bout provided few sparks with the 26 year old Gardner unwilling to exchange, and Fitzsimmons – who claimed to have broken both his knuckles early in the bout - fighting cautiously the whole way. The lack of action prompted referee Eddie Graney, the sole arbiter in the contest to call it the worst bout he’d ever seen.

THis is from Wikipedia and DOES mention 2 knockdowns scored by Fitzsimmons.

George Gardner defended his title later that year at age 26 on November 25, 1903 at San Francisco, California, against the 41 - year old Bob Fitzsimmons, who had killed two men in the ring and was the former Middleweight and Heavyweight Champion. After a questionable 20 - round decision on points, Fitzsimmons knocked the young champion down twice and gained a slight decision. After losing the title, George Gardner challenged Fitzsimmons to a rematch, but was denied a second chance at the title.

 

Damn, is that Fitz? I'd never have recognised him. Looks like he's got a good layer of slap on.

 

He looks more like Kevin Spacey in SEVEN.