Who takes Jeff over 25 rounds?

A common opinion I hear of Jim Jeffries is that he would probably lose to other great heavyweights over 12-15 rounds but the odds would tilt back in his favour and he would be hard to best over 25 or more. Theres no doubting his strength, stamina and will to win but is the above an accurate assessment of him?

Would he even survive 12-15 rounds with the elite HWs allowing him to take advantage of his superior strength and stamina? Would his strength even be superior considering he wouldn't be that big a HW and wouldn't enjoy the size advantages he did back in his day. How would he deal with eating the jab of a Liston or Holmes for 15 rounds or the punching power of a Foreman or Louis or the sheer size of a Lennox or Vitali? These are things he never had to deal with and I wouldn't have the confidence that some do that he could deal with for 15 rounds before allowing his strengths to take over for the next half of a fight.

Theres no doubt he was strong and durable and proved that he had the stamina and spirit to win in the marathon fights he used to contest. But just because the fighters that came after him never had to, doesnt mean they couldn't show the same qualities if they fought in such fights. Do you think Jeff would more than likely overwhelm his fellow HW greats the longer a fight was scheduled for or is this just a myth? Which boxers in your top 15 HWs could take Jeff over 25 rounds and who do you think would struggle the most?

Cheers.

Is so difficult to assess with Jeffries paperpbag, one thing that should always be bore in mind with Jeff is he won the title in something like his 13th fight so was very much a work in progress, the round by round reports of his fight suggest he was improving with every fight with many suggesting he was outboxing no less a fighter than Corbett second time round.

Another thing to remember is fights at the time were often scored different to now on the perception of who had inflicted the most damage or who would have won had the fight gone the distance. Given this and assuming the fights were scored on this basis is not impossible to see Jeff getting the nod over 25 rounds against some modern guys as he had an ability to soak up almost superhuman amounts of punishment, recover alomost immediately and carried both his stamina and power late on.

Have always fancied Louis to do him given his movements were economical and he wasted very little and would probably have to back Ali to do likewise but over 25 I give Jeff a great chance against anyone else because given his assets I have long argued he was almost the perfect fighter for his time.

Would also add Paperbag, to the best of my knowledge Jeff was around 6ft 2 and around 220 pounds so whilst in comparison to todays suspersize heavies he is a little on the small side he is by far from a dwarf along side those guys and in many an era would still stack up physically pretty well

Don't get me wrong I'm not completely doubting that he would have the upper hand in such fights. More questioning whether he actually makes it that far to allow his strengths to come into play. He'd be facing bigger punchers, better boxers and also some really durable guys compared to who he fought. Corbett, Fitzsimmons and Sharkey are good wins but they aren't truely great HWs.

Take Tyson for example (I'm by no means a fan and have Jeff miles ahead of him) but I see him struggling with the speed, power and ferocity he'd have to deal with in the opening 3-4 rounds. I'm not sure the fact that Jeff could go 25 rounds would be relevant if he doesn't make it out of the opening rounds..

rowley wrote:Would also add Paperbag, to the best of my knowledge Jeff was around 6ft 2 and around 220 pounds so whilst in comparison to todays suspersize heavies he is a little on the small side he is by far from a dwarf along side those guys and in many an era would still stack up physically pretty well

Thats one of my points though. He was quite a bit bigger than most of the men he fought whereas he'd be only average size wise and on a par at best with the other top HWs.

It is a valid question paperbag but on the reverse you have to ask over 25 rounds can a Tyson or similar fighter afford to come out so fast against a guy who prior to Johnson was never stopped and when hurt had truly terrific powers of recovery? Maybe he can and he does get Jeff out of there but at the back of his mind surely he would have to consider what if that doesn't work and you're in with a guy who is still there after five rounds and gets stronger as the fight goes.

May well work and may be the best tactic but is definitely one that carries a massive amount of risk because being in the ring knackered with 20 rounds left against Jim is not a good place to find yourself.

I'm not convinced that the size issue is a significant factor. Statistics say that the average American male grows one inch every fifty years and that, above five feet, approximately eight pounds per inch in height can be added for an athletic frame. By that reckoning Jeffries, who was born in 1875, would be a huge man today and, conversely, the modern heavies would be significantly smaller had they been born into Jeffries' time.

Great fighters are great fighters and are extraordinary by definition. Jeffries' greatness lay in a number of areas :

He was immensely strong and durable, with unrivalled stamina.

He was very athletic and quick on his feet.

He hit like a mule, particularly with the left hand.

He was a quick learner.

Anybody going in with Jeffries would be aware that this is a man very difficult to hurt. Not a problem for the clever boxers or swift movers over twelve rounds, but over twenty five and under a blazing Sun it becomes a serious issue. To beat Jeffries over this distance a fighter would need to either match him for stamina or fight in a very energy conserving style, a la Joe Louis or Jack Johnson. He would also need to be able to deal with Jeffries' massive strength on the inside. Again, Johnson could - and did - and I dare say that there are half a dozen or so others ( Willard (!) for example, ) who could do it. Either a very good chin or excellent defensive skills would also be necessary.

It's a very tough job, and I can't think of too many I could tip to beat Jeff - or even be competitive - over the long haul. Louis and Johnson, certainly, and maybe a few oddballs like Willard and Max Baer, ( believe it or not, ) who had the physique, the chin and the wallop to at least keep Jeffries' respect and who fought at a pretty pedestrian pace.

Only Johnson and Louis to start as favourites, I would have thought.

It is always a struggle to truly compare as the rules were so different. Lots of grappling up close and wrestling around made physical strength a must in those days, sometimes at the expense of pure technique. Jeffries, however, did show great improvement in his technique and this, allied to his supreme fitness and conditioning make him a fearsome prospect if we are viewing him in the context of his time.

To beat him over 25 rounds and under his rules would take someone with excellent technique, durability and enough power to at least get his respect. I think Louis, Holmes and Ali would have enough of these aspects to beat him more times than they lost. A Lennox Lewis who brought his A game would have the technique and power to hurt Jim badly, but I would say the playing field levels out dramatically if Jeffries is still around after 10 rounds. Guys like Dempsey and Liston obviously have the power to hurt him but again, over 25 rounds the boundaries become a little more blurred the further the fight goes. Marciano and Jeffries would be an absolute brute of a fight with two iron wills clashing in the centre of the ring. Over 15 round then Rocky might nick a decision, but over 25, then I would fancy Jim to bust him up and stop him late or outpoint him over the full distance.

Herbie Hide or Frank Bruno would, however, despatch Jim within 6 minutes.

What are your thoughts on Ali against him over 25, Windy?

I'd make Jeffries favourite, Fists.

Ali is my pick as best heavy of the lot ( or rather, greatest heavy of the lot - I believe that Louis was a much better technician, ) but I'm not sure twenty five would be his territory. I'm not convinced he gets away with his defensive liberties when he starts to slow down - which he surely would have to - in a twenty five round marathon. At some point, Ali v Jeffries goes to the trenches and, although Ali would be plenty brave enough, tough enough and smart enough to still pose Jeffries huge problems, I really do believe that the momentum would swing to Jeffries at this point. Additionally, Ali had a career long weakness to a left hook and Jeffries had one of the best in heavyweight history.

It's a tough one. Ali was Ali, and could always pull a conjuring trick, so maybe I'd make them even money, but my gut feeling is that Jeffries would start favourite.

History will show that my man was dispatched by Jeffries with aplomb but Peter Jackson was suffering from Tuberculosis at the time they met and, to a man, historians admit he should never have taken the fight. However, on his day I feel Jackson may have had enough to make life difficult for most of the elite fighters of the day.

His footwork was superb and when combined with the speed and accuracy of his combination punching, I think he keeps most fighters at bay. He was 6'2" and 14 stone so whilst not the biggest HW there's ever been, as has been mentioned, he wasn't a small man by the standards of the day. He also famously went 62 rounds with Corbett and whilst the latter half of the fight was a mauling drudgefest, the first 25 rounds showed two fighters at their best (and yes, I'll still mention that fact that Jackson was suffering with an ankle injury having been thrown from a horse and cart the week before)

I think one thing people miss when assessing Jeffries strengths is that his record shows he could get the job done early if necessary. Just because he could keep a low pace and last 25 rounds that doesn't mean he couldn't be explosive. He took out Peter Jackson in 3 did he not? and boasts at least one first round KO.

It's because of this I just can't see Louis lasting 25 with him. Louis was economical, but if a bigger stronger heavy forced him to work at a higher rate I don't see him lasting to the 20 round mark, especially given his chin which was less than top rate. Personally I see Jeffries style being absolute hell against Louis. The only heavies I'd give a chance over 25 would be Tyson, Dempsey and Foreman (on the chance they catch him cold and take him out. I would't make them favourites) and Ali based on how he could soak up punishment, had a high workrate, could cut up opponents and the heart of a pride of lions.

JBW he did indeed take Jackson out in three but before Dave blows a gasket should add it was pretty much a shell of Jackson who had fell into alcoholism and illness by that point.

You do make a valid point though that very much the perception is that if the modern guys go in all guns blazing they take him out early but whilst Jeff tended to start slow he was not asleep early doors and given he was not short of power himself it does not do to be foolhardy early doors against Jeff because he has the power to take guys out.

Simply can't see Tyson going the full 25. The man lacked the nous to unlock awkward fighters and also seemed to run out of ideas if he couldn't get the job done early. Tucker and Smith being the two best examples

How many fights did Tyson win after ten rounds let alone suggesting he could go twenty or more and still get the job done?

rowley wrote:JBW he did indeed take Jackson out in three but before Dave blows a gasket should add it was pretty much a shell of Jackson who had fell into alcoholism and illness by that point.

You do make a valid point though that very much the perception is that if the modern guys go in all guns blazing they take him out early but whilst Jeff tended to start slow he was not asleep early doors and given he was not short of power himself it does not do to be foolhardy early doors against Jeff because he has the power to take guys out.

Agree 100%

To go all guns blazing, gambling on a quick kayo, could be suicidal against a man so tough and resilient as Jeffries. If it doesn't come off - and there is very good reason to suppose it won't - there are still twenty odd rounds to go.

It's horses for courses.

Controversial, I know, but I'd give Tyson a pretty good chance of jumping on Jack Johnson and sparking him early. Johnson was as strong as an ox and a brilliant technician, but he loved to pick punches off in mid air or make a man miss by a whisker. That's fine and dandy when a man is throwing a couple of punches at a time. Tyson threw them in genuine combos and very quickly. He also threw them from angles, and I could see him catching Johnson out and, given that Jack had been pole axed by Choynski, I have to believe that Tyson could also flick his light switch out.

I'd give Tyson next to zero chance of doing that against Jeffries, even though I believe that Johnson would have had the smarts to beat Jeffries more often than not over the long haul.

Different era. Any modern boxer would smoke him within 2 rounds.

Scottrf wrote:Different era. Any modern boxer would smoke him within 2 rounds.

My response to that would be "Audley Harrison" closely followed by, "Scott stop being silly"

DAVE667 wrote:Simply can't see Tyson going the full 25. The man lacked the nous to unlock awkward fighters and also seemed to run out of ideas if he couldn't get the job done early. Tucker and Smith being the two best examples

How many fights did Tyson win after ten rounds let alone suggesting he could go twenty or more and still get the job done?

I'd make Tyson a massive under dog but few were as quick out of the blocks and as dangerous for the first few rounds as Tyson. Although if Jeffries had a boxing brain in his head he'd no he didn't have to wait for too many rounds before the fight began to swing in his direction, and given the way he adapted to long fights and always found a way through he probably had a fiarly big boxing brain.

Other thing to remember is Jeffries was fighting in an era where holding and grappling was far more tolerated than it is now, so if a guy like Tyson was capable of putting him over is not impossible a physically strong guy capable of holding and muddling through can see out the danger.

i think aside from wlad, haye and adamek i dont think any of todays heavys could go 25 rounds

A lot of you are going down the line of over the 25 Jeffries is nigh on impossible to beat which is fair enough. My main point is in a fight scheduled for 25, that Jeffries won't make it out of the 15th and hence his strengths are made redundant.

Yes he could get things done early but not against the calibre of people he'd be facing here. True he was durable but he was never hit by someone with the precision and power of Louis or brute strength of Foreman. He never had to fight at the pace that a Frazier or Tyson would set. He wasn't the greatest tecnician ever and by all accounts took a few hidings before coming on strong in the latter stages of a fight. Can he do this when hes fighting at a faster pace than hes used to, being countered at ease and hit harder than he ever was?

Windy, was thinking of things you've said when writing this article and how confident you are of Jeffries over the long haul. I won't claim to know half what you know but I just always think there are too many question marks and the calibre of fighters I'm matching him with here are too good for me to be as confident in him. True if it goes over the 15 hes gonna be favourite but as durable as he was I see him having to deal with more quality here and being stopped by a lot of great HWs.

Scottrf wrote:Different era. Any modern boxer would smoke him within 2 rounds.

Pretty sure you're being sarcastic here but if you read any stuff I've wrote in the past you'lll see I really rate the old timers and not one of these that think that modern is automatically better.

paperbag_puncher wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Different era. Any modern boxer would smoke him within 2 rounds.

Pretty sure you're being sarcastic here but if you read any stuff I've wrote in the past you'lll see I really rate the old timers and not one of these that think that modern is automatically better.

It was nothing to do with your posts, don't worry.

Paperbag, think we perhaps have to give Jeff some benefit of the doubt, prior to Johnson he was never stopped and in Sharkey and Fitz he did face some guys who packed a wallop. Given Fitz rarely weighed over what would make him a light heavy at best nowadays am not about to argue he hits as hard as a Liston or Tyson but nor was he a powder puff puncher.

Personally am willing to think Jeff can get through some rocky moments and whilst he could potentially be stopped there would be plenty an occasion where he would find a way to muddle through.

paperbag_puncher wrote:A lot of you are going down the line of over the 25 Jeffries is nigh on impossible to beat which is fair enough. My main point is in a fight scheduled for 25, that Jeffries won't make it out of the 15th and hence his strengths are made redundant.

Yes he could get things done early but not against the calibre of people he'd be facing here. True he was durable but he was never hit by someone with the precision and power of Louis or brute strength of Foreman. He never had to fight at the pace that a Frazier or Tyson would set. He wasn't the greatest tecnician ever and by all accounts took a few hidings before coming on strong in the latter stages of a fight. Can he do this when hes fighting at a faster pace than hes used to, being countered at ease and hit harder than he ever was?

I think we have clues as to Jeffries' abilities to deal with the best of the modern, paperbag, assuming that they are meeting him on his territory.

Jeffries' stamina and athleticism are absolutely beyond question. We know he could outsprint Corbett and we have measured times for his 100yd. dash and also measured high jump statistics. We also have eye witness accounts concerning his athletic prowess and, though infuriatingly little film survives, we have enough to see for ourselves that this was no slow, lumbering oaf. Blow by blow accounts of his battles with Tom Sharkey - dubbed by later historians as ' the Marciano of his day ' - confirm that Jeffries could match any heavy for stamina, even at high output.

We also know that his style evolved over time. In the early days he fought out of a crouch, left arm extended, very much like a bigger and stronger version of Max Schmeling. This was a style expressly taught him by master boxer Tommy Ryan, with the purpose of maximising his huge physical attributes. In these days, Jeffries was little more than a physical specimen. Fitzsimmons persuaded him to shun the crouch and learn correct technique and, by the time of the second Corbett fight, newspapers were describing his boxing as ' scientific.' Nobody, I should imagine, would claim that Jeffries suddenly became Larry Holmes, but neither was he the punchbag which some claim.

We must also remember that this is a two way street. Modern day luminaries have to adapt to the conditions of the day ; environmental, the matter of smaller gloves, lack of protectors, etc., no turnbuckles, referees being far more tolerant of rough stuff, wrestling and goodness knows what else.

Then we have the bloodline. Things didn't stop when Jeffries finally retired. People who saw him, fought him, sparred with him, trained him, etc., lived on to see new generations. Jack Dempsey lived until 1983 ( if my memory isn't playing tricks, ) and named Jeffries best heavy of all time. Tunney, who lived until the late seventies, was positively scathing about Jeffries' style - Tunney rarely had anything good to say about anybody except Dempsey - but even he admitted that Jeffries was almost impossible to hurt and " might very well take Joe Louis."

Many other fight insiders picked Jeffries as best heavy of the lot. I believe that even Johnson did, and he lived to see Joe Louis, ( though Johnson, admittedly, was envious of Louis, ) and, to this day, IBRO member and elector to the Hall of Fame, Tracy Callis, rates Jeffries best heavy of all time, despite his choosing Dempsey as his favourite.

Bottom line is that this is a question of opinion. There is no right or wrong, ( no provable right or wrong, anyway, ) and I can see the other side of the argument. Notwithstanding, I remain very much on the side of the argument which says that Jeffries, on his own turf, would have beaten all but a very select few.

Lol if its 25 round it dont matter if you get knocked out before that why does it have to go the distance? There are lots of heavyweights that would beat him Ali, Lewis, Tyson and Marciano would knock him out.

I was just thinking this thread needs someone with a wider attention span to pop in and talk some sense.

Which of Jeffries bouts would you call his "prime" Waingro?

Waingro wrote:Lol if its 25 round it dont matter if you get knocked out before that why does it have to go the distance? There are lots of heavyweights that would beat him Ali, Lewis, Tyson and Marciano would knock him out.

Yep because Ali is noted as one of the divisions most murderous punchers.

rowley wrote:

Waingro wrote:Lol if its 25 round it dont matter if you get knocked out before that why does it have to go the distance? There are lots of heavyweights that would beat him Ali, Lewis, Tyson and Marciano would knock him out.

Yep because Ali is noted as one of the divisions most murderous punchers.

Ali would have way too much skill for him mate, maybe he would not knock him out with one punch but he would outclass him so badly that he couldnt continue. Maybe he would stop him on cuts or corner stoppage I dont think he has a chance of lasting 25 rounds with Ali to be honest he would do well to last 10.

I have just found some mouth-watering archive interview where Jack Johnson writes about how the best heavy was Jeffries, that he would better anyone (this was written shortly before he died ),including himself.
Says the key to it all is JJ's great balance, and I have said before that the JJ/Corbett/Fitz reign equals any other era, and Johnson believed that the subsequent heavies just did not have the same excellence in this department.

I'm playing devil's advocate in the most part to create some debate. I might have to back down now that its just Waingro and I on the anti Jeffries side... Marcianos one of the few I think would struggle most with Jeffries.

andygf wrote:I have just found some mouth-watering archive interview where Jack Johnson writes about how the best heavy was Jeffries, that he would better anyone (this was written shortly before he died ),including himself.
Says the key to it all is JJ's great balance, and I have said before that the JJ/Corbett/Fitz reign equals any other era, and Johnson believed that the subsequent heavies just did not have the same excellence in this department.

Jeffries said he'd never have been able to beat Johnson. One of them's lying.

Neither had the luxury of facing himself in battle, did he?

Limited heavyweight in the klitscho mode was old Jim....Though past his best Johnson made him look stupid as apparently did the basic Fitz and Corbett..

Lewis ko 8
Liston ko 3
Holmes ko 16
Ali ko 10
Dempsey ko 6
Bowe ko 10
Foreman ko 2

Seems only Tyson Fury is willing to punch himself in the face to see who's toughest, him or Tyson Fury.

All the rest are snivelling yellow bellies

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Limited heavyweight in the klitscho mode was old Jim....Though past his best Johnson made him look stupid as apparently did the basic Fitz and Corbett..

Lewis ko 8
Liston ko 3
Holmes ko 16
Ali ko 10
Dempsey ko 6
Bowe ko 10
Foreman ko 2

So are you saying you don't rate him then?

Im someone who doesnt place much stock in boxers quote to be honest and the fact Johnson didnt even see or hear of up to half of the boxers that would make up a top 15 list doesnt really do much for Jeffries cause in this particular instance.

Im a little suspicious of boxers who seem to be rated for stamina/durability above all else because I think at the very highest all time great level you need more than this and it seems to often that the likes of Jeffries and Marciano rely on being able to take inhuman amounts of punishment before getting to their victim down the stretch. There are of curse cases where this has happened but they are rarer than the norm and something like the Valentine days fight between Robinson and LaMotta always springs to mind when I think of boxers overly dependant on durability, guts, stamina and so on. I just dont think this is feasible against fellow peak all time greats and if someone like Jeffries was getting his ears boxed off by an Ali or Holmes I dont think his condition after 15 rounds would be particulary great with the view of getting a stoppage. In those days pacing was more evident as if the boxers knew a fight was scheduled for 25 rounds as opposed to 6 they would adjust their plan accordingly and fight at a lower tempo to conserve energy.

I rate him for his time paperbag.....But his skill threshold wasn't very big....Fitzsimmons nearly stopped him and Sharkey was robbed apparently...

Great heavy but in limited times..so I'd pick these guys to beat him..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Limited heavyweight in the klitscho mode was old Jim....Though past his best Johnson made him look stupid as apparently did the basic Fitz and Corbett..

Lewis ko 8
Liston ko 3
Holmes ko 16
Ali ko 10
Dempsey ko 6
Bowe ko 10
Foreman ko 2

Stylistically, Jeffries bore zero resemblance to either Klitschko.

Jeffries absolutely dominated the first Fitzsimmons fight, and the second was by no means the beatdown which it has come to be portrayed as. Fitz certainly had his moments, and certainly cut Jeffries up, but it was by no means one way traffic. The kayo, which is available on film, was brutal. There were even stories that Fitz wore loaded gloves for the second fight. Apparently, when asked about it, he didn't deny it.

Fitzsimmons was far from basic. Joe Gans, still today regarded as a master boxer ( again, available on film and in pretty good quality, ) begged Fitz to show him his tricks and spent hour after hour trying to perfect them.

Jeffries outboxed Corbett second time out.

Sharkey fought Jeffries twice. Only once did Sharkey feel he had been worth the nod. Of all the contemporary accounts I've read the best anybody came up with - one newspaper only - saw it a draw. The rest saw it for Jeffries.

Didnt know that story regarding Fitz and the loaded gloves. Were that the case his reputation would plummet in my eyes and would be a serious black mark against him.

Yes but Corbett schooled Fitz in carson city before the slats....Neither to watch them scuffle looked exactly over-skilled..

Appreciate and respect your affection for the guys like Jeffries but he traded on durability and Corbett, Fitz and Johnson didn't bang like the above mentioned victors in my list.

What film is there of Fitzsimmons? He looks basic against Corbett to me. Single shots, hands down, lots of grappling. Plus he considered himself a Middleweight, and weighed well below 200 against Jeffries.

manos de piedra wrote:Didnt know that story regarding Fitz and the loaded gloves. Were that the case his reputation would plummet in my eyes and would be a serious black mark against him.

Story goes that Jeff felt it when they shook hands, manos, toyed with asking for an inspection, but decided against it. He and Fitz became great friends, going on tour together, and on one occasion Jeffries, who felt that Fitz had sensed that he had ' twigged ' about the gloves at the weigh in, asked Fitz outright if they had been loaded. Fitz would neither confirm nor deny it.

If I can find a link to the story I'll drop it here.

Thing is Scotty you talk with mature, sensible guys who can dissect Jones jr, Mayweather and Hoppo stylistically and then have a mental block when watching the Jeffries, Fitz etc....

Great fighters in their day but can anybody really give him a sniff against a Klitscho??/

Scottrf wrote:What film is there of Fitzsimmons? He looks basic against Corbett to me. Single shots, hands down, lots of grappling. Plus he considered himself a Middleweight, and weighed well below 200 against Jeffries.

We don't have film for some of the most important events in history, but if the sources are good we trust them. If you can tell how good Fitz was from the Corbett fight you have far better eyes than I do. To me, it's almost unwatchable.

There's a mountain of evidence which stands meticulous cross reference which says that Fitz was a master of timing, judging distance, accurate punching and subtle feints. We either trust those sources or we don't. I just happen to be one of those who do.

Johnson didn't bang like the above mentioned victors in my list.

Ask Stanley Ketchel

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Thing is Scotty you talk with mature, sensible guys who can dissect Jones jr, Mayweather and Hoppo stylistically and then have a mental block when watching the Jeffries, Fitz etc....

Great fighters in their day but can anybody really give him a sniff against a Klitscho??/

Large dose of rose-tinted nostalgia in some cases.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Didnt know that story regarding Fitz and the loaded gloves. Were that the case his reputation would plummet in my eyes and would be a serious black mark against him.

Story goes that Jeff felt it when they shook hands, manos, toyed with asking for an inspection, but decided against it. He and Fitz became great friends, going on tour together, and on one occasion Jeffries, who felt that Fitz had sensed that he had ' twigged ' about the gloves at the weigh in, asked Fitz outright if they had been loaded. Fitz would neither confirm nor deny it.

If I can find a link to the story I'll drop it here.

Yeah it sounds interesting. Never came across that before. Hope it isnt true anyway!

Ketvchel was a middleweight

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:What film is there of Fitzsimmons? He looks basic against Corbett to me. Single shots, hands down, lots of grappling. Plus he considered himself a Middleweight, and weighed well below 200 against Jeffries.

We don't have film for some of the most important events in history, but if the sources are good we trust them. If you can tell how good Fitz was from the Corbett fight you have far better eyes than I do. To me, it's almost unwatchable.

There's a mountain of evidence which stands meticulous cross reference which says that Fitz was a master of timing, judging distance, accurate punching and subtle feints. We either trust those sources or we don't. I just happen to be one of those who do.

It's watchable enough to see single shots, grappling and low hands.

Eye witnesses sources can only compare him to what they had seen. They would say Bannister was fast, but compared to modern runners he wasn't. He was fighting at the crossover of gloved boxing.