Jim Jeffries, underated ?

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

"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.

 

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.

 

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.