Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-22-2012, 12:31 PM   #61
Colonel Sanders
NSB defector
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,710
vCash: 500
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Contreras View Post
James J. Corbett put the sweet science in boxing, there's no denying that. But he revolutionized boxing, itself. Not just one division.

The sport wouldn't be what it is today without Gentleman Jim, but Tunney still shifted the heavyweight division.

EDIT: I hope no one thinks I'm attempting to, in anyway, discredit Corbett. If the revolutionary credit must, solely, go to Corbett -- I'll sleep just fine.
what is the difference between the 2 of them to you, precisely ? as far as their impact on the HW division ?
Colonel Sanders is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-22-2012, 12:44 PM   #62
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,435
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Contreras View Post
For Tyson's wins over Bruno, Smith, Berbick, Tucker, washed up legends, etc,.

Dempsey has Brennan (2x), Porky Dan Flynn (2x), Williard, Miske (2x), Gibbons, Sharkey, Georges Carpentier, Gunboat Smith (2x), and the would've been knockout of Gene Tunney, as I mentioned earlier -- AFTER a 3 year layoff.

Add to the fact, for the most part, Dempsey was not only outweighed -- but greatly outweighed.

Dempsey beat the best his generation had to offer. Tyson was an absolute beast, he really was. But not on Dempsey's historically great level.
Are you serious? When Brennan got his shot against Dempsey, he had been beaten repeatedly and thoroughly by both Greb and Miske, along with numerous other ham and eggers. Porky Dan Flynn? Do you really want see opinions on a Flynn v Berbick or Bruno fight? When Dempsey KO'd Flynn, Flynn had lost 8 of his previous 9 fights and was 1-16 over his previous 17. What does a Porky Dan doing in a discussion of champioship heavies? And are you trying to say Bruno at 27 (or even as champ at 34) was over the hill but 37 year old Jess Willard who had fought once in 4 years was primed and feasome? Miske was sick as a dog for the second fight. He had no business being in a prize ring. And Tunney probably won 18 or the 20 rounds he fought Dempsey. Jack doesn't get much credit for this.

Oh, and as far as washed-up legends, let's look at the age of some of Tyson's championship level opponents:

Berbick: 32
Bruno: 27
Tucker: 29
Tubbs: 30
Williams: 29
Spinks: 32
Thomas: 29
Biggs: 27

These are spring chickens compared to the best fighters of some eras.
Seamus is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 12:57 PM   #63
Aaron Contreras
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
Are you serious? When Brennan got his shot against Dempsey, he had been beaten repeatedly and thoroughly by both Greb and Miske, along with numerous other ham and eggers. Porky Dan Flynn? Do you really want see opinions on a Flynn v Berbick or Bruno fight? When Dempsey KO'd Flynn, Flynn had lost 8 of his previous 9 fights and was 1-16 over his previous 17. What does a Porky Dan doing in a discussion of champioship heavies? And are you trying to say Bruno at 27 (or even as champ at 34) was over the hill but 37 year old Jess Willard who had fought once in 4 years was primed and feasome? Miske was sick as a dog for the second fight. He had no business being in a prize ring. And Tunney probably won 18 or the 20 rounds he fought Dempsey. Jack doesn't get much credit for this.

Oh, and as far as washed-up legends, let's look at the age of some of Tyson's championship level opponents:

Berbick: 32
Bruno: 27
Tucker: 29
Tubbs: 30
Williams: 29
Spinks: 32
Thomas: 29
Biggs: 27

These are spring chickens compared to the best fighters of some eras.
Dan 'Porky' Flynn was one of the toughest SOB's to ever put on a pair of boxing gloves. Records aren't everything.

Williard, no matter the inactivity, was still the heavyweight champion -- and we all know how incredibly undersized Dempsey was.

Dempsey fought, for the most part, the best men his generation could offer. He ducked Langford and that crew and I penalize Dempsey for that. But for his opponents and their time -- they were world-class competition.
Aaron Contreras is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 01:05 PM   #64
Aaron Contreras
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Sanders View Post
what is the difference between the 2 of them to you, precisely ? as far as their impact on the HW division ?
In Corbett's time there were only two weight-classes -- above 160, and below.

When people saw what Corbett did to John L. Sullivan, they didn't say "Whoah, heavyweights can move like that?!"

Instead, they saw how ALL boxers can maneuver and gameplan inside the ring. But that style was more-so adopted by the lower weight-classes, for whatever reason(s) -- Joe Gans, Jimmy Barry, Benny Leonard, amongst others.

Heavyweights didn't adopt this philosophy until after Gene Tunney.
Aaron Contreras is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 01:19 PM   #65
Aaron Contreras
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
Are you serious? When Brennan got his shot against Dempsey, he had been beaten repeatedly and thoroughly by both Greb and Miske, along with numerous other ham and eggers. Porky Dan Flynn? Do you really want see opinions on a Flynn v Berbick or Bruno fight? When Dempsey KO'd Flynn, Flynn had lost 8 of his previous 9 fights and was 1-16 over his previous 17. What does a Porky Dan doing in a discussion of champioship heavies? And are you trying to say Bruno at 27 (or even as champ at 34) was over the hill but 37 year old Jess Willard who had fought once in 4 years was primed and feasome? Miske was sick as a dog for the second fight. He had no business being in a prize ring. And Tunney probably won 18 or the 20 rounds he fought Dempsey. Jack doesn't get much credit for this.

Oh, and as far as washed-up legends, let's look at the age of some of Tyson's championship level opponents:

Berbick: 32
Bruno: 27
Tucker: 29
Tubbs: 30
Williams: 29
Spinks: 32
Thomas: 29
Biggs: 27

These are spring chickens compared to the best fighters of some eras.
Best heavyweights (not named Dempsey) of 1910-1920 (not in order):

- Wills
- Langford
- Fulton
- Gunboat Smith
- Williard
- Gibbons
- Brennan
- Meehan
- McVea
- Jeanette
- Miske

Dempsey got his hands (and won) on all of these men, save for the african-americans, of course.

Who else did you want him to fight?
Aaron Contreras is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 01:21 PM   #66
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,464
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

The African Americans of course.

And what makes Greb a worse HW than Meehan, Miske and Gibbons given that he got the better of them? All of them.
McGrain is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 01:29 PM   #67
Aaron Contreras
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
The African Americans of course.

And what makes Greb a worse HW than Meehan, Miske and Gibbons given that he got the better of them? All of them.
Greb, an omission on my end, my apologies. It's a lot of history to remember, I'm sure you can forgive me.

And the discrimination was terrible, I understand completely, I really do. But what can we do now? Dempsey's resume, as is, merits top-5 for me.

It's not like he was the only man not fighting african-americans. It was common practice -- Sullivan didn't either. Can you really take that much away from him too?
Aaron Contreras is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 01:41 PM   #68
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,464
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

I'd say that Dempsey's three most dangerous contenders were Greb, Tunney and Wills. The most formidable fighter he could have met at any point in his career was Langford.

0-2 from a possible five fights makes very, very ugly reading.

This being the case, I don't consider that he was tested at the very highest level until his failure. Top 5 resume? Not for me.
McGrain is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 01:45 PM   #69
edward morbius
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,150
vCash: 500
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

My take is that if rating on HISTORICAL impact only, Jeffries deserves a position in the top ten, but I wouldn't put him in the top five. Had he fought and beaten Jack Johnson in 1904, he would be a strong contender for the top or at least the top three.

But he didn't.

As for head to head, I don't think it is possible to really figure out what Jeff could do against modern heavies. He fought in a totally different era. I doubt if he would be much of a force, but I could be wrong.

But just saying a modern athlete could outperform one from a century ago means nothing to me. It is like saying a modern American football team could dominate the undefeated Miami Dolphins 1972 team or the great Lombardi Packer teams. Undoubtedly. Even probably a LOSING 2012 NFL team.

But so what? Greatness in athletics is in your own time competing against those of your own era.
edward morbius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 01:50 PM   #70
Aaron Contreras
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
I'd say that Dempsey's three most dangerous contenders were Greb, Tunney and Wills. The most formidable fighter he could have met at any point in his career was Langford.

0-2 from a possible five fights makes very, very ugly reading.

This being the case, I don't consider that he was tested at the very highest level until his failure. Top 5 resume? Not for me.
I respect your opinion. But Dempsey should've been awarded a win in one of those fights with Tunney.

But just like EVERY fighter from that segment of history, their careers are hard to evaluate.
Aaron Contreras is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 01:51 PM   #71
edward morbius
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,150
vCash: 500
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
I'd say that Dempsey's three most dangerous contenders were Greb, Tunney and Wills. The most formidable fighter he could have met at any point in his career was Langford.

0-2 from a possible five fights makes very, very ugly reading.

This being the case, I don't consider that he was tested at the very highest level until his failure. Top 5 resume? Not for me.

This is a strong bottom line argument.

To be among the best you have to beat the best out there in your own era.

Dempsey didn't, for one reason or another.
edward morbius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 01:54 PM   #72
edward morbius
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,150
vCash: 500
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Contreras View Post
I respect your opinion. But Dempsey should've been awarded a win in one of those fights with Tunney.

But just like EVERY fighter from that segment of history, their careers are hard to evaluate.

"But Dempsey should've been awarded a win in one of those fights with Tunney."

I have seen this film literally hundreds of times. I think Tunney could have beaten the count.

He was given an extra five or six seconds to recover, but we don't know if that was decisive.
edward morbius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 01:58 PM   #73
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,435
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Contreras View Post
Dan 'Porky' Flynn was one of the toughest SOB's to ever put on a pair of boxing gloves. Records aren't everything.

Williard, no matter the inactivity, was still the heavyweight champion -- and we all know how incredibly undersized Dempsey was.

Dempsey fought, for the most part, the best men his generation could offer. He ducked Langford and that crew and I penalize Dempsey for that. But for his opponents and their time -- they were world-class competition.
All elite heavies are tough SOB's; not all tough SOB's are elite heavies. Flynn was horrible going into the Dempsey fight. Losing 16 of 17 means you are not at or near the level of the fighters you are facing, toughness withstanding. Records aren't everything but they are a lot more than pithy anecdotes to toughness.

Willard, like so many before him and Dempsey to follow, sat his fat farmer's ass on the belt. He fought once in four years. Granted those were war years. However, it doesn't change the fact that he was extremely inactive and at 37, geriatric for that day.

If you want the root of my argument it is that all eras, especially when concerning heavyweights, are not equal. The fact that Dempsey did not even fight the best of what was offered in that depleted era only lowers his stock. He was a great media creation, a great "event", and even a great fighter. But his greatness is exaggerated.
Seamus is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 02:01 PM   #74
Aaron Contreras
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by orriray59 View Post
I don't understand this point of view. Why should Dempsey have been awarded a win? The rules stated he had to attend a neutral corner, he didn't. What else needs to be said? Maybe he could've stopped Tunney, or Gene mightn't have gotten up if the ref immediately started counting.

But he didn't, because Dempsey didn't go to a neutral corner.
When Tunney dropped Dempsey -- the ref began counting before Tunney reached the neutral corner.

But you are right, those are the rules that are agreed to. Like you alluded to, enough said.
Aaron Contreras is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 02:02 PM   #75
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,464
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Jim Jeffries, underated ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Contreras View Post
Dempsey should've been awarded a win in one of those fights with Tunney..
No.
McGrain is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013