Who rates higher all time Jeffries or Dempsey?

If you want to use guys at 190 or below, Jeffries resume towers over Dempsey. Dempsey who was stopped, lost on points or drew with lesser fighters in comparison. Fact. Let me know if you need more information. While back I did a champion's review on who the ranked fighters were, and showed who they faced. Dempsey mostly avoided his best competition as champion, except for Tunney who really made him look bad. Jeffries by contrast fought several #1's or #2 in the given years.

 

And I think Tyson Fury will be better a year from now - if he fights five times over the next year - than he was last week when he came off a three-year break.

And if he takes another two years off after that, and then comes back again, he won't be as good as he was when he was active five times in a year.

Jeffries sure gets a pass when it comes to his opponents' inactivity.

 

I am telling you categorically that if Fitz had worn electrical tape it would have been obvious!
If you have read any thing lets have it! Produce it to back up your claims! Show us some proof!

Willard wasn't in the ring at the end he was groping his way along a fence ,looking for the exit when a journalist found him and guided him to the exit.
By the way the referee Ollie Pecord counted Willard out! The problem was the round had ended before he had done so! The end of the round signified by abn imporvised whistle because the bell was inaudible.
The reason Dempsey left the ring so quickly was that Kearns who knew perfectly well that the round had not gone 3 minutes ushered him out of the ring on account of his having bet$10,000 at ten to one that Dempsey would ko Willard in the first round.
I repeat the referee counted Willard OUT!
That's your three points addressed and corrected!
Why do you persist in these unfounded fairy tales?

 

It's an interesting argument and like regarding Jeffries it depends on if you think he was at best a Chuvalo fighting in 1900 or more of a Morrison with stamina and a terrific chin ... I just don't know but Jimmy DeForrest, a man I have come to respect tremendously ( until his top historian completely flaked on me / ;p , shout out to S Man ) thought Jeffries was terribly overrated, slow and cumbersome ...

 

Jeffries, who was rushed along quite quickly, took on the experienced ring genius in Joe Choynski. Granted, Choynski was giving up almost fifty pounds in weight, but Choyinski used his quicker feet and wiser mind to his advantage as he stayed away from Jeffries's power and was able to score on his own. Although Jeff claims he dropped Choynski with a left hook to the neck, he also claims that Joe scored once with a right that knocked his lower lip between his front two teeth, an injury which required a lip incision to relieve Jeff of the pain. Jeffries states that was the hardest punch he's ever taken. Some disagreed with the decision, believing that Jeffries did enough forcing to earn the nod, but Joe was so impressive in the science he displayed in the ring that the referee gave him part of the honors in ruling the affair a draw.

^^^Who felt Choysnki won? Keep in mind Joe was the one famous in San Fran at that point in time. Jeffries says he had Choysnki down three times. What does being game have to do with a decision? One guy did all of the leading, had the knockdowns, and the other ran for the 2nd half of the fight. If Jeffries had a few more fights under his belt, he likely wins here.

 

Jeffries had had 6 fights, Ruhlin 9 so no significant experience advantage.

 

You keep talking about percentages and when guys were in their primes (even though Jeffries didn't fight them in their primes).

Sharkey was in his prime when he fought Dempsey. He was 25 years old. He won 14 straight fights over two years. He knocked off the top contender.

You asked me who beat better fighters ... but you can't name ONE SINGLE GUY Jeffries beat who was better than a prime Jack Sharkey who Dempsey beat.

Looks like you asked the wrong question.

Jeffries beat no one as good as a prime Jack Sharkey. No one. Just old or inactive names (or both).

Jeffries didn't draw the crowds, make the money, beat the same quality of opposition, and wasn't nearly as remembered or hailed as the best fighter of any century (or half-century) ... like Dempsey was.

Thread over.

 

Yet another example of why a lack of film helps Jeffries. If we watched a guy half his size box his ears off for 20 rounds, which sounds like it happened, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

Jeffries floored Choynski twice and the SanFrancisco Call gave the decision to Choynski the draw verdict was NOT booed as you stated most thought it a just decision! I have the round by round report of the fight! Stop with the BS please it fools no one!

 

Tough to argue against if were being serious .. I say this loving Dempey and feeling he was tremendously talented but a career under achiever ..

 

Fitz flattened Sharkey and Ruhlin in1900 ,problem was he didnt get his title chance until 1902 when he had been retired for 2 years and was 39 years old! Fitzsimmons stated he didn't have the power in his last years because his hands were so bad.

 

Stopping Wills,which I think he would have done ,would have significantly enhanced his legacy. Beating Greb would always have left him with the caveat,"well he was only a middleweight."

 

There's more to the story than that. Jeffries had already been serving as sparring partner for the champion Jim Corbett and he had scrapped with rising prospect Gus Ruhlin along with Hank Griffin. Plus he had a 52 lb handicap. I think that is more than enough to make up for the experience difference.

It's like 154 lb Miguel Cotto vs Lawrence Okolie. Okolie would clobber him.