Why Does Dempsey Get Bashed For Not Fighting Wills, but not Jeffries for Johnson?

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by Cojimar 1945

Jeffries did not show the longevity of Lewis and Ali but I think one could argue that he ranks as highly as Marciano. He was quite dominant against top competition for a while.

Marciano knocked out every rated opponent he faced in either the initial bout or a rematch.
Jeffries was not that dominant. Discounting Johnson, Jeff's top ten opponents were Fitz, Corbett, Jackson, Sharkey, Armstrong, Goddard, Griffin, Choynski, Ruhlin, and Munroe. He fought draws with Choynski (never avenged) and Ruhlin, and went the distance twice with Sharkey and with Armstrong. He knocked out Ruhlin in a rematch. His record against these ten men is 12-0-2 with 9 knockouts.
Against his top ten opponents, Louis, Walcott, Charles, Moore, Layne, LaStarza, Matthews, Savold, Cockell, and Muscato, Marciano was 13-0-0 with 11 knockouts, knocking all ten men out.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by janitor

Dempsey clearly made far more effort to defend his title against Wills than Jeffries did against Johnson. Perhaps more efort than he needed to.

The irony is that Jack Johnson would only have loped off the tail of Jeffries career had he beaten him. By the same token Peter Jackson only stood to trim off the tip of Sullivans career.

It would therfore have made little diference to their legacies if they had lost and would have greatly enhanced them had they won. Dempsey for contrast would have met Wills bang in the middle of his career.

I don't think a loss to Jackson around 1890 or later would have meant much to Sullivan's standing. Sullivan had been champion 8 years and was 32.

Jeffries' standing, on the other hand, would have plunged it he had fought and lost to Johnson in 1904 or 1905. There was no evidence he was going back and such a defeat would have clearly dropped him behind Johnson and probably out of top ten consideration. A victory, in contrast, assuming Johnson's career otherwise played out the way it did and Jeff never came back, would put Jeffries in contention for the top spot.

A victory over Wills would have solidified Dempsey as a top five heavyweight which some now doubt. A loss would have knocked him out of any consideration as a top ten ATG as he would clearly have not been the best of his own time. Dempsey had the most to lose. Wills the most to gain.

[C. M. Clay II]

Originally Posted by tobkhan

Why?`Because you say so? Sorry, bring arguments and not statements.
Beeing black has influenced his career, only an idiot would argue that, but i don´t think it mattered to the most other fighters which colour their opponents were. The powers who ran the buisness at the time didn´t want a black champ and so never get the chance to win it - beside that a fight against any white fighter would have generated more money.
So, yes Johnson didn´t get a shot because he was black but they could do it because Johnson did nothing, he got beaten by man who Jeffries beat, what would make it impossible to avoid him.

Johnson didn't get a shot because of Jeffries drawing the color line, period. Johnson was clearly the best challenger, and he would have brought the most money. Many people were clamoring for a possible Jeffries-Johnson fight around 1905, because they were tired of seeing Jeffries knocking out Joe Schmo in like two rounds. They wanted to see a real fight so desperately that they were willing to even let the challenger be a colored man, since he far and away was the best challenger.

Originally Posted by tobkhan

So, you´re thinking that when people needed dozens of fights to get a chance for a titlefight, Jeffries managed to get one in his 12th pro fight? Come on, be objective.

That wasn't my point. You said that Jeffries had more fights that aren't recorded. The fact is that evidence of unrecorded fights in literary accounts simply do not exist for jeffries as they do for many other fighters at that time.

Originally Posted by tobkhan

Yeah they count in their form that exhibitions take something out of a fighter as well. But we all know you just see want you want to see.

Exhibitions are shorter in length than real fights, and the opponents are more or less hand-picked to show off the skills of the showcasing fighter, hence the word "exhibition". Title fight are longer, more intense and are fought against worthy opponents, therefore there is a big difference. Jeffries had 19 fights, period.

Originally Posted by tobkhan

Well, people are saying Tyson was past his prime after 1988 and there was no lay off involved.

I'm not one of those people.

Originally Posted by tobkhan

If he wouldn´t had the comeback he, he would have the same arguments Marciano has for a top3 rating. Beeing undefeated. Also guys like Corbett, Fitzsimmons and Sharkey aren´t that bad either.

And IMO, Marciano doesn't have much of a case for a top 3 placing anyway. Also Corbett, Fitzsimmons, and Sharkey were not better than Jack Johnson.

Originally Posted by tobkhan

I just named millions
At the time the publicum was white and they wanted to see fighting a white guy against a white guy. Very few would accept a black fighter in the ring for the hw championship. So it´s just natural that a fight between 2 white guys would generate more money, totally unimportant who the other guy in the ring is.

You did not name one. I didn't ask you for all of them, just one. You provided no one, so therefore I assume that you have no one in mind. If the white guys keep getting blown away in one or two rounds, and the black guy seems like a better challenge, then maybe they would want to see that, don't you think? It's better than wasting your money on seeing a mismatch. A possible Johnson fight would have generated big money because Johnson was a much better opponent than Jeffries other opposition, and because of the color thing, it would provide more drama. Police Gazette, the "Ring Magazine" of it's day voiced it's disapproval of Jeffries avoiding Johnson for easier white opponents

"If Jeffries can beat Johnson then he will have nothing more to prove, but why won't he give the Negro a chance?"

Sounds like more than just money, does it?

Originally Posted by tobkhan

Clay, you much to biased and ignorant. Talking to you is like talking to a wall. That´s my last post in this thread. You aren´t worth my time.

Yeah, since you lost the argument.

[C. M. Clay II]

Originally Posted by tobkhan

I lost as many arguments as Marciano lost fights. You´re just an ignorant and arrogant that´s why you aren´t worth my time.

You have not rebutted my argument, so therefore I assume you have lost.

[Cojimar 1945]

Only one of Jeffries challengers lasted the distance. The rest were all stopped.

[C. M. Clay II]

Originally Posted by Cojimar 1945

Only one of Jeffries challengers lasted the distance. The rest were all stopped.

And?

[Marciano Frazier]

Originally Posted by Cojimar 1945

Moore was deserving of a title shot against Marciano but there were other top contenders for Marciano to defend against. He still had guys to fight when he retired.

A. How did that come up? Who are you responding to?
B. There has never been a champion who beat every ranked opponent around before he retired. There is still someone who anyone could fight when they retire. This statement could be applied to literally anyone.
C. There was no high-ranking heavyweight who would have made a big-money fight or presented any serious challenge to Marciano at the time he retired. None of the top contenders remaining had ever been considered to present a serious threat to Marciano, and none were particularly deserving at that time, either- Jackson had just lost to Jimmy Slade, Valdes and Baker had just fought one of the dullest, most boring fights in memory and caused the press to almost universally declare that they had both eliminated themselves from serious consideration for a title fight(the match was originally supposed to be a title eliminator), and Patterson hadn't won any seriously noteworthy fights at heavyweight yet.

I don't think Tyson was Lewis's most deserving challenger by 2002. Although some boxing magazines still ranked Tyson fairly high he did not have recent wins that seemed to justify such a high ranking and Lewis might have been better to fight Wladimir Klitschko or Chris Byrd in 2002.

No, Tyson wasn't the most deserving at all.

[Cojimar 1945]

Jeffries was being criticized for retiring when apparently in his prime and when there were still guys out there for him to fight and I was just pointing out that other guys have done the same.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by Cojimar 1945

Jeffries was being criticized for retiring when apparently in his prime and when there were still guys out there for him to fight and I was just pointing out that other guys have done the same.

I understand your point, but I don't agree with it. Marciano was pushing 33 when he retired, viewed as pretty old for a fighter back then and in fact old for a swarmer off historical precedent. Jeffries won his last fight at 29 and retired at 30. Also, there was really no outstanding contender out there. Patterson was still actually fighting at lightheavy. Most still considered Moore the outstanding challenger.

I myself wouldn't exactly criticize Jeffries for retiring when he did. I do think it is valid to raise the issue of not fighting Johnson who was the best contender between 1903 and 1905. The razor-thin, and perhaps outright unfair, Hart loss provided Jeffries with an excuse, which he took.

Nat Fleischer, certainly a writer who was fair to Jeffries, rating him #2 as late as the 1970's, accused Jeff of retiring when he did because the rising contenders, not only Johnson but also Jeannette and McVea, were black and Jeff did not want to defend against them.

[Dempsey1238]

Originally Posted by C. M. Clay II

Johnson didn't get a shot because of Jeffries drawing the color line, period. Johnson was clearly the best challenger, and he would have brought the most money. Many people were clamoring for a possible Jeffries-Johnson fight around 1905, because they were tired of seeing Jeffries knocking out Joe Schmo in like two rounds. They wanted to see a real fight so desperately that they were willing to even let the challenger be a colored man, since he far and away was the best challenger.



That wasn't my point. You said that Jeffries had more fights that aren't recorded. The fact is that evidence of unrecorded fights in literary accounts simply do not exist for jeffries as they do for many other fighters at that time.



Exhibitions are shorter in length than real fights, and the opponents are more or less hand-picked to show off the skills of the showcasing fighter, hence the word "exhibition". Title fight are longer, more intense and are fought against worthy opponents, therefore there is a big difference. Jeffries had 19 fights, period.



I'm not one of those people.



And IMO, Marciano doesn't have much of a case for a top 3 placing anyway. Also Corbett, Fitzsimmons, and Sharkey were not better than Jack Johnson.



You did not name one. I didn't ask you for all of them, just one. You provided no one, so therefore I assume that you have no one in mind. If the white guys keep getting blown away in one or two rounds, and the black guy seems like a better challenge, then maybe they would want to see that, don't you think? It's better than wasting your money on seeing a mismatch. A possible Johnson fight would have generated big money because Johnson was a much better opponent than Jeffries other opposition, and because of the color thing, it would provide more drama. Police Gazette, the "Ring Magazine" of it's day voiced it's disapproval of Jeffries avoiding Johnson for easier white opponents

"If Jeffries can beat Johnson then he will have nothing more to prove, but why won't he give the Negro a chance?"

Sounds like more than just money, does it?



Yeah, since you lost the argument.

Marciano ant even in your top 20 lol.
I think Marciano makes a good arguement to be in the top 5 imo.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by C. M. Clay II

And?

I would like to respond to two points you made that I don't agree with. One is that Jeffries had only 19 (according to boxrec-20) fights and there is no evidence of any more. There is quite a bit of evidence of Jeff having had more fights in the 1891 to 1896 period. The SF Chronicle on May 6, 1898, printed Jeff's record to that date and listed a 2 round knockout in 1895 to Hank Lorraine. The old ring record book listed a knockout of Jim Barber in 2 rounds, no date listed.

Eddie Muller, veteran SF boxing writer, wrote in his obituary for Jeffries in 1953 that Jeff always maintained to him that he had much more experience than people thought and had been boxing since 1891.

The SF Chronicle, on May 22, 1896, ran a long profile of Jeffries, stating that "he is in the legitimate succession to the wreath that so long adorned the brow of John L Sullivan." This is certainly over-the-top for
a fighter who supposedly had not yet had a single fight.

But the 5-22-1896 article stated that Jeffries in fact had already had several fights:
"Jeffries has fought not a few men, and has won every battle he has had, though some antagonists had nothing better than local reputations at most."
Later in the article:
"Jeffries has bested his opponents in short order. Two rounds, three rounds, five rounds is the history of his fights. He put George Griffin out in eleven seconds. Frank Childs, the "Colored Cyclone" of Los Angeles went out in two rounds, and Childs had bested LaBlanche and Billy Smith. It took the young giant the same length of time to put out Joe Cotton."

This article mentions that Jeffries had fought in Arizona and New Mexico as well as the Los Angeles area. Jeffries had worked for the Santa Fe Railroad.

Historians are skeptical of the facts in this article as no dates or locations are given for these fights and the fights with George Griffin,
Frank Childs, and Joe Cotton, were not listed in the record printed in
the Chronicle in 5-6-1898 prior to the first Sharkey fight. My own take is, though, would a writer have made all this up out of whole clothe to pump a fighter who had never been in the ring? That seems strange also. It at least is evidence Jeffries had more fights than is on the official record.

I think it important to point out that while "prizefighting" was often illegal, boxers of the era found a way around the law by fighting "boxing exhibitions". These "exhibitions" were not firmly defined as they would be in later years. Many or most were probably just ordinary professional fights as we would understand the term today.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by C. M. Clay II

And?

My second dispute is that Wills was viewed in a lesser light in the 1920's than Jack Johnson was in the 1903 to 1905 era. I don't know what proof you could really offer to back that up. Many felt Johnson was the outstanding contender whom Jeffries should fight. There were also plenty of comments that Johnson would not beat Jeffries.

There are plenty of quotes available indicating that Wills was viewed as a very serious threat to Dempsey:

Time Magazine 4-28-1923----"It is generally accepted that Harry Wills is the only man in the game who can stand at Dempsey's level. There is vague talk of a fight between the two at the Polo Grounds on Labor Day."

Time Magazine 7-30-1923----In coverage of the Leonard-Tendler match at Yankee Stadium:
"Noteworthy was the arrival of Harry Wills, logical candidate for a chance at Dempsey. He was cheered every step of the way from the entrance in center field to his seat near the ring."

Time Magazine 8-17-1925----"Jack Dempsey was introduced from the ring at the opening of the Olympic Stadium in Los Angeles. Booing thundered from the topmost rim of the amphitheatre, mixed with a chant of "Bring on Wills." Dempsey turned the color of an embarressed orchid and crept back to his seat."

Off my own reading, Wills was clearly viewed as the outstanding challenger to Dempsey from the time of his knockout of Fred Fulton in 1920 to his loss to Jack Sharkey in 1926. As he had victories over esteemed fighters such as Langford and McVea, he probably had more prestige than the young Johnson had in the 1903 to 1905 period. Johnson to this point had beaten no one of Langford's level.

[C. M. Clay II]

Originally Posted by tobkhan

Well, i won´t answer you anymore because it´s like talking to a wall, you aren´t worth my time. But hey when you´re so insecure that you need a self-declared "win" in a discussion on a message board than have fun with it. I´m glad when i can help you with that.

Well, then why don't you provide a counter-argument instead of babling on like this?