Who rates higher all time Jeffries or Dempsey?

Fitzsimmons used electrical tape, which can make a fist like a rock. The issue was NOT the WRAPS. Re-read that. It was the gloves that were in question. When Jeffries asked to see them after the fight because Fitz didn't mark him up in the first fight, Fitz quickly tossed them into the crowd. Why?

In a similar fashion Dempsey could have put something in his gloves, not the wraps. Jess Willard said he found a metal bolt in the ring and kept it for the rest of his life. Dempsey who bet on a 1st round KO ran out of the ring before the fight ended? Why would he do this?

We might never know, but suspicions and facts of how they both reacted after the match make you wonder.

 

No I am not. Dempsey idolized Jeffries and saw his filmed fights,

Now can you answer all of my questions?

Which man did Jeffries lose to under 200 pounds? Same question to Dempsey.

How often was Jeffries floored while active? Same question to Dempsey.

Why do most historians, scratch that that almost living during their activity all think Jeffries beat better fighters?

Who do you think beat better fighters? ( An opinion you can answer )

Who beat better African American fighters?

What did Dempsey himself say about a potential match up?

 

I'm not going to respond to questions you already know the answer to. How many fighters above 240 lbs did Jeffries fight? That's right, not a damn one.

Jeffries drew with a fighter he outweighed by 52 lbs. Could you imagine if Dempsey drew with a fighter that was 140 to his 192? It would be an outrage. During Jeffries TITLE REIGN ALONE he outweighed his opponents on average by 32 lbs. That would be the equivalent of Dempsey fighting middleweights.

The main problem with Jeffries' legacy isn't the size/quality of his opposition inherently but how much he struggled with men he outweighed by so much as 50 lbs. It can't be dismissed what a 39 year old light heavyweight did to him. This wasn't just some success like Moore had with Marciano, this is a guy that put on such clinic that Jeffries himself told him "You’re the most dangerous man alive" (I know how much you love boxers' words)

 

Jeffries carefully examined Fitz's hands in the ring,he found nothing wrong .FYI you can feel electrical tape on hands. Fitz had bad hands that had been broken several times he usually asked for permission to wear extra gauze.
Willard found no bolt in the ring and he was certainly in no condition to go looking for one .
Don't you think he would have produced it later if he had done?

The entire fight can be viewed and the ending ,with Willard out of it sitting slumped on his stool

 

Dempsey thought the fight was finished, they failed to hear the bell, and counted Willard out.

 

They had a marching band in the ring before the fight took place and it ruined the canvas.A new one was put down and it was stretched over the ring bell thats why no one heard it.

 

Great so in other words all my points stand and you completely agree with them. Quite a contrast don't you think?

There were no fat boy heavyweight over 240 pounds for Jeffries to to fight. A good 240 pound man wasn;t around for decades. If you are so hung up on size and weight, Jeffries has about 30 pounds on Dempsey, so using your logic...

PS: The draw you are referring to is disputed. Jeffries floored Choysnki ( he says more than once, and Choynski ran for the 2nd half of the fight. ) The verdict was meet with hisses from the crowed. Choynski at the time was the known fighter in his prime, Jeffries green.

 

You are MISSING the point as usual. Fitz negotiated in wraps and the electrical tape. Well--I'm not sure about the electrical tape in the contract, but it can turn a fist into a rock.

I'm saying the gloves were the issue. Jeffries felt something wasn't right about them and when he asked to see them Fitz tossed them into a crowd. WHY?

I have read Fitz's handlers admit something was up with the gloves and Fitzsimmons himself never denied there wasn't on the article from Antiquities of the Prize Ring. Years back I posted it here.


Willard was badly beaten. I never said he stepped on the bolt, only that he found one, likely when the ring cleared out of people. According to the web there at photos of metallic a cigar shaped object where Willard is down in one of the rounds.

Its easy to see when the fight is waived off, the ref never did so. Dempsey ran out of the ring, which was odd. Why not celebrate winning the championship? I've never seen a fighter run away after winning or after he thought he won...ever. If he was hiding something, it would make some sense as to why he did it.

 

Jack Sharkey alone - in his prime - was better than anyone Jeffries beat.

The Jack Sharkey who Dempsey knocked off beats everyone Jeffries beat when he fought them.

A prime Jack Sharkey may have even beaten the Jack Johnson who Jeffries fought.

 

If being down on points and scoring a knockout isn't a clean victory, then essentially none of Jeffries' name wins were clean victories.

By the sound of it, Jeffries was getting his clock cleaned in most of them before coming back to win.

That's what I mean by saying it likely benefits him there's so little film of him boxing. If there was, he'd likely be viewed even less so than he is now.

I wouldn't be surprised if many of his fights looked like the Johnson fight until he finally put a couple punches together against much smaller men to win. If that's the case, having filmed proof wouldn't win Jeffries any more accolades.

 

Funny few see it that way! ( Jack Sharkey better than anyone Jeffries beat ) 99% of historians of the time disagree, so you have a very minority type of opinion. I have over 50 lists from historians, Sharkey's name does not appear before Fitzsimons or Corbett on ANY of them. If you wish I can show it to you.

When its 50-1 with a fan being a fan who things they are separated by " miles " , I think the other 50 are correct.

Jack Sharkey was inconstant, did not take a good punch, and lost many times.

I take it the rest of my points were spot on enough regarding Dempsey's title opponents situation.

Sharkey pasted Dempsey, and if not for the fouls likely wins. In a modern setting its a NC, or DQ...at the very least a re-match.

 

You keep talking about 99 percent of "historians" when talking about Jeffries ... but you give no examples. Nat Fleischer wasn't 99 percent of the boxing writers.

The Associated Press in 1950 voted Jack Dempsey the best heavyweight of the first 50 years.

Not Jeffries.

If you know of any heavyweights Jeffries beat who were better than a prime, active Jack Sharkey who Dempsey knocked out, feel free to name them. But it wasn't anyone named in this thread.

It wasn't old Fitz coming off two-year layoffs TWICE. It wasn't Corbett who hadn't won a fight in six years and was coming off two and three year layoffs when he met Jeffries.

Hell, you're arguing Jeffries beat better guys than Dempsey, and Jeffries didn't even beat better guys than Sharkey.

Like I said, Jeffries isn't even in the same frame.

 

Jeffries wasn't down on points after 12 rounds to Fitzsimons. He finished him rather easily in 11 in the first fight, and the second time in 8. He was only down on points to Corbett in his prime.

If you're down on point to Corbett in a large 25 x 25 ring, okay, but down on points to Brennan? Big difference wouldn't you say?

You're wrong, film of KO win enhanced any fighters standing and Jeffries had plenty of 10 count varieties. If you look at Jeffries training and sparring in 1901, the lone clear film of him boxing, you'll see he's not ever close to the guy who fought Johnson in 1910. The difference is significant. Like Ali vs Liston or Ali vs Holmes. If you read reports, you see Jeffries had lively feet, like a light weight, and fast hands. An athlete, strong as a bull and with a punch. I can produce all of the above.

Dempsey chin by your estimate is likely over rated. Flynn Ko'd him in one round and like I said before he was down in many fights, over 10 times for sure. In other fights, small men rocked him. He really did not take any hard punches from Willard or Fulton ( NOT ONE ), so its the above average to average type of punchers that show his durability wasn't first rate.

 

A chance to learn. How many historians would you like to see ( give me a number ) that think Corbett and Fitzsimons were better than Jack Sharkey. I'm 100% sure your wrong here. I have the names and lists. Just give me a number and I'll list all the names for you, but I ask once you read them you say okay, you're probably correct. Fair enough?