Who would you rate higher : Tim Witherspoon or Jim Jeffries ?

[Titan1]

I'm going with Witherspoon, but it's not hard to say Jeffries, either, undefeated until com ing out of retirement for Johnson.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by janitor

It dosn't matter what you suspect.

What we can prove is that Jeffries dominated an era, while Witherspood was just a contender.

There realy isn't anything to argue about.

Lots of fighters were 'just a contender'. Some of them you would rank over champions. On the whim of the judges Witherspoon could have been champion too, not at all unreasonably. He was denied a rematch at Holmes and then went on to beat the fighter Holmes refused to fight.
If this happened to a fighter back in 1900 I'm sure you'd be the first to glorify it.

[McGrain]

I have Jeffries at #12 and Witherspoon at #14 so it's close¬!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!"!212!!1!!121!!!!!!"

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Lots of fighters were 'just a contender'. Some of them you would rank over champions. On the whim of the judges Witherspoon could have been champion too, not at all unreasonably. He was denied a rematch at Holmes and then went on to beat the fighter Holmes refused to fight.
If this happened to a fighter back in 1900 I'm sure you'd be the first to glorify it.

Lets say that Withgerspoon had got the nod over Holmes. He would just have lost the title very quickly, and been remembered as the Marvin Hart of that era.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I have Jeffries at #12 and Witherspoon at #14 so it's close¬!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!"!212!!1!!121!!!!!!"

You have Witherspoon at 14???????????????????????

I just don't get it!

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by Seamus

An open ended question with no criteria on which to rate.

Surely, for greatness and historical importance, it is Jeffries. That requires no supposition or imagination.

Head to head is another question and one rife with complications such as which rule set, would Jeffries get to train under a modern trainer, which gloves, how many rounds... etc.

I'm not asking about a Jeffries versus Witherspoon fight, just who you'd rank higher - as the better, more proven, more impressive fighter.
In strict boxing terms.

I would say that "Greatness" almost always requires imagination. It's all fairytales.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by janitor

Lets say that Withgerspoon had got the nod over Holmes. He would just have lost the title very quickly, and been remembered as the Marvin Hart of that era.

Marvin Hart never dethroned a Holmes-like champion.

Let's say Witherspoon gets the nod, and then goes on to beat Tillis, Page, and then lose to Thomas (that's at least two fighters who Holmes wouldn't touch at that time).
Or maybe he beats Holmes in a rematch.

He aint losing to Tommy Burns.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I have Jeffries at #12 and Witherspoon at #14 so it's close¬!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!"!212!!1!!121!!!!!!"

I'm quite sure they would both fall outside of my top 20.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by janitor

You have Witherspoon at 14???????????????????????!

no

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

I'm not asking about a Jeffries versus Witherspoon fight, just who you'd rank higher - as the better, more proven, more impressive fighter.
In strict boxing terms.

I would say that "Greatness" almost always requires imagination. It's all fairytales.

It's only a fairy tale if you remove the concept of greatness from that of the championship, which seems like mental gymnastics to me. And even if you figure in the color line in some deconstruction, I would like to know who the contemporaries thought might offer Jeffries a legitimate challenge during his "real" career.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by Seamus

It's only a fairy tale if you remove the concept of greatness from that of the championship, which seems like mental gymnastics to me. And even if you figure in the color line in some deconstruction, I would like to know who the contemporaries thought might offer Jeffries a legitimate challenge during his "real" career.

Lots of fighters had the championship. Not all were portrayed as great. Some who did not hold the championship are considered great.
(and some postors here have no problem dissolving Witherspoon's "championship" into nothing, incidentally.)
"Greatness" is a romantic notion, and an abstract concept. If it has any substance we should be able to reduce it down to natural terms.
Or else admit that it is the product of hyperbole and fairytales.

I'd rather just ask who was better, more impressive, more proven fighter.
If they were both around today beating up the guys they did, who would be more highly regarded ?

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Lots of fighters had the championship. Not all were portrayed as great. Some who did not hold the championship are considered great.
(and some postors here have no problem dissolving Witherspoon's "championship" into nothing, incidentally.)
"Greatness" is a romantic notion, and an abstract concept. If it has any substance we should be able to reduce it down to natural terms.
Or else admit that it is the product of hyperbole and fairytales.

I'd rather just ask who was better, more impressive, more proven fighter.
If they were both around today beating up the guys they did, who would be more highly regarded ?

Jeffries was portrayed as great, practically unbeatable. He erased the division in his own era. Greatness is not an abstract concept when it is attached to a championship regime. We can see he beat all the top contenders, mostly in emphatic fashion. We can point to these results as concrete experiential reality.

What is abstract is imagining the outcome of two elite level fighters who have never fought. It requires a great amount of supposition which is the fertile soil for bias.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by Seamus

Jeffries was portrayed as great, practically unbeatable. He erased the division in his own era. Greatness is not an abstract concept when it is attached to a championship regime. We can see he beat all the top contenders, mostly in emphatic fashion. We can point to these results as concrete experiential reality.

I agree.
But there's no harm in delving deeper and asking questions like - how was Jim Corbett, who hadn't won a fight in 6 years considered a top contender ?
I think we could positively come to some conclusions about the era AND about Jeffries' body of work and ability if we honestly try to answer those types of questions.

What is abstract is imagining the outcome of two elite level fighters who have never fought. It requires a great amount of supposition which is the fertile soil for bias.

I agree.
I'm not asking for that. I'm asking simply who was better.

[Unforgiven]

Also, Witherspoon beat Tubbs.
So you know he was great.

[Bummy Davis]

I was not impressed with Witherspoon, he was an underachiever and most of his big wins were close decisions, many felt he beat Holmes and that was his 16th fight but he never did really step out and impress. Jeffries was dominant in his era but not sure how far off the 2 decades were.

I do rate Jeffries much higher I am not sure if Tim makes my top 50