Who rates higher all time Jeffries or Dempsey?

How many of these guys did Dempsey outweigh by 52 lbs? I'll wait...

 

Look.

Jeffries and Dempsey were both great fighters. Fantastic you could say. They both rose considerably above their contemporary fighters. But at the end of the day you can't deny the thinness of Jeffries and more importantly the failure of making up for the lack of quantity with quality. I completely acknowledge that Dempsey's resume isn't full of wins over all time great heavyweights past prime or not, but on the same coin it HAS to be admitted that Jeffries best win is not better than Dempsey's best win. Especially giving the fact that the two best fighters Jeffries faced, Corbett and Fitz, were not only well past prime but also proved much more skillful than the champion and were beating him at the time of their respective fight's endings. This was all against a very PRIME Jeffries. Jeffries was a fighter of attrition at the highest level, which is not to say he couldn't end a fight early.

You also have to acknowledge the conditions within which Dempsey was bred. He started his career weighing as little as 140 lbs. He fought at the drop of a dime in some of the roughest parts of the country at that time. Sure, he could have let himself be fed to the wolves at certain times but that wouldn't have done more than put unnecessary losses on his record that we both know wouldn't tell the true story. And yes, Dempsey didn't fight his biggest and rightful challenger for the title but there are people to blame on many sides. Dempsey and Wills had least to do with it. Greb would have been good to see but we know that he would just get detracted for it. You can't really duck a middleweight anyway. You have to respect the weight class. In reality the best Greb would have done was run the entire fight and land a couple light punches here and there. Gibbons beat Greb twice and gave him the "licking of his life" and Dempsey outfought Gibbons for 15 rounds. I try to be realistic when discussing Greb because some like to get carried away and describe him as this impenetrable whirl wind. Steve Compton himself said Greb would looked amateurish.

 

Greatness and H2H are two separate categories. I have no doubt that past heavyweight champions such as Ali and Holmes would prove too small to compete with the skilled big men of today. Jack Sharkey might theoretically have been better H2H than guys Jeffries fought but in accomplishments doesn't come close to someone like Fitzsimmons. Fitzsimmons was the divisions number one guy for several years and the clear number two up until 1902. Sharkey's accomplishments don't come close.

 

Sugar Ray Leonard came off a long layoff to beat Hagler. There are quite a few examples of guys who laid off a couple of years and came back strong. The other problem with putting down Jeff's wins over Fitz is that Jeff was the only guy to cleanly beat Fitz over an almost 16 year period.

Fitz lost to Jim Hall on 2/11/1890. He "lost" via a bizarre DQ against Sharkey in 1896 when Sharkey was out cold on the canvas. His next loss other than to Jeff was to Philadelphia Jack O'Brien on 12/20/1905, almost 16 years after the Hall fight. I can't see counting the Jeffries fights against Fitz in this case as this in effect is holding Jeff victories against Jeff. Fitz's record is remarkable. Past prime or not, I rate Fitz as better than any version of Sharkey, who was very erratic and lost to all kiinds of second-tier guys.

I think Fitz was a truly great fighter, and Jack Sharkey was not.

 

"name ONE SINGLE GUY Jeffries beat who was better than a prime Jack Sharkey"

Bob Fitzsimmons.

 

Leonard wasn't 39 years old when he came back to face Jeffries was he?Thirty nine in 1899 was ancient for a fighter
Neither was he fighting him at level weights Fitz's listed weight for the fight is 172lbs Jeff's 219lbs .Leonard had engaged in behind closed doors sparring sessions with ranking contenders and Hagler himself was a bit past his prime.Jeffries was bang in the middle of his and 12 years younger than Fitzsimmons who was also handicapped by bad hands.This means to me there is only a superficial resemblance to the two events. I have the fight report of the second Jeff v Fitz fight ,the reports stated if the men had been near the same size and age Fitz would have won,as it was he hit Jeffries at will "when and where he wanted to," until his hands went on him. That's a bit different to flurrying and moving to eke out a hotly disputed split decision as SRL did don't you think?

 

The obvious response to this is, was Fitz prime at 37 and 39 years old coming off extended layoffs?

 

So what? Both fighters looked like dog ****. Gibbons beat up Greb twice before in more convincing fashion than Greb ever beat Gibbons. Greb never proved himself truly better than Gibbons, he won a fight when his opponent was having a truly off night.

You blatantly misrepresent what happened. You haven't once admitted that Gibbons convincingly beat up Greb twice before and that he didn't beat a good version of Gibbons in the title eliminator.

That's not a write up of the fight, that's a poorly constructed paragraph that looks to be written by someone who didn't even pass freshman english class.

Here's a description of the fight:
""Tommy Gibbons lost the decision after a 15 round bout last night with Harry Greb, that was expected to develop the next opponent for Jack Dempsey. His arms flying around like the spokes on a speedster, Greb tore into the St. Paul boxer from the opening gong and set such a pace that Gibbons couldn't keep up with him and could never set himself for one of the punches that were expected to drop the jumping jack in front of him or take some of the steam out of what seemed to be a perpetual motion machine. As a fight it was a disappointment. It was furiously fast and hotly contested, but the impression stood out all over that either one would be easy for Dempsey. Neither Greb nor Gibbons was punished. Both bled a little around the mouth. Beyond puffed lips neither was marked at the end of the battle. Gibbons looked as if he had left himself in the gym. He has more speed than he showed. Against the flying Pittsburgh boy he looked slow and awkward. He allowed Greb to do the leading and set the pace and he seemed unable to get started."

This was written by the United Press. People who were ACTUALLY THERE. Here are a couple of details that stand out:
1. As a fight it was a disappointment.
2. It was furiously fast and hotly contested, but the impression stood out all over that either one would be easy for Dempsey.
3. Gibbons looked as if he had left himself in the gym. He has more speed than he showed.
4. Neither Greb nor Gibbons was punished.

Just be honest and I won't have to keep doing this.

 

This content is protected

Mr.DagoWop,

Look Jeffries and Dempsey were both great fighters. Fantastic you could say. They both rose considerably above their contemporary fighters.

This content is protected

But at the end of the day you can't deny the thinness of Jeffries and more importantly the failure of making up for the lack of quantity with quality.

This content is protected

I completely acknowledge that Dempsey's resume isn't full of wins over all time great heavyweights past prime or not, but on the same coin it HAS to be admitted that Jeffries best win is not better than Dempsey's best win.

This content is protected

Especially giving the fact that the two best fighters Jeffries faced, Corbett and Fitz, were not only well past prime but also proved much more skillful than the champion

This content is protected

You also have to acknowledge the conditions within which Dempsey was bred. He started his career weighing as little as 140 lbs. He fought at the drop of a dime in some of the roughest parts of the country at that time. Sure, he could have let himself be fed to the wolves at certain times but that wouldn't have done more than put unnecessary losses on his record that we both know wouldn't tell the true story. And yes, Dempsey didn't fight his biggest and rightful challenger for the title but there are people to blame on many sides. Dempsey and Wills had least to do with it. Greb would have been good to see but we know that he would just get detracted for it. You can't really duck a middleweight anyway. You have to respect the weight class. In reality the best Greb would have done was run the entire fight and land a couple light punches here and there. Gibbons beat Greb twice and gave him the "licking of his life" and Dempsey outfought Gibbons for 15 rounds. I try to be realistic when discussing Greb because some like to get carried away and describe him as this impenetrable whirl wind. Steve Compton himself said Greb would looked amateurish.

This content is protected

 

How many times are you going to get this wrong?!

This content is protected

This content is protected

Hate and ignorance on display once again...

 

Corbett and Fitz, at the time Jeffries fought them, were definitely not better than Jack Sharkey or Tommy Gibbons when they fought Dempsey. From the footage I've seen of Corbett and Fitz those two are incredibly one dimensional. The only reason I call them atgs are for the pioneering they did in the sport. It just a fact that the sport became more complex over the next 40 years after they retired. Sharkey and Gibbons could compete successfully in other eras. Corbett and Fitz couldn't.

I don't think John Lester Johnson beat him. I think it was a rightful draw.

Why are you using Dempsey's opinion on the subject? He never once saw Jeffries fight.

 

No one would know more about hate and ignorance than yourself would they?

 

You're certain Fitz didn't engage in behind closed door sparring sessions. He just never stepped into a ring or trained?

About 39, first thing is Jeff had already beaten Fitz when Fitz was 36.

"Ancient for a fighter"

Yes, but these rules, like age or "ancient" or "laying off" are set by average or typical fighters. This isn't the only sport where you go off the rails applying rules established by ordinary performers to exceptionally great performers.

I know you are English, but Americans like Suzie will know what I'm talking about. Baseball player Ted Williams took 3 years off for WWII. He came back after a three year layoff and hit just as well. He took a couple of years off for the Korean War (he was a marine pilot) and came back performing just as well. At 39 years old his batting average was .388. I believe no one but Williams himself hit that high over a fifty year period. Laying off should hurt in hitting a baseball which requires timing and reflexes. Age should matter also. But these factors didn't impact Williams like they did ordinary players.

I think it the same in boxing. You have to be careful extrapolating from ordinary boxers to these one-in-a-million all time greats such as Fitz. The bottom line for Fitz is that his only legit losses were to Jeffries over a sixteen year period. I won't dismiss these victories when evaluating Jeff.

"172 lbs. Jeff's 219" "reports stated that if the two men had been near the same size and age Fitz would have won"

We are evaluating heavyweights. I haven't seen anything on this thread to suggest this is a p4p rating. So Jeff's size is just a fact of life, not something to criticize him for. The far more valid half of this size argument is that Fitz was relatively small. But the erratic performances of most of the big men (Jeff & Wills aside) in the Jeffries and Dempsey eras and both men having more problems with their smaller opponents (Johnson aside) points to size not being a good bottom line for judging quality in those days.

 

If he was so one dimensional and quickly outdated, you wouldn't think he'd show some of the best longevity, would you?

He fought at the top into his early 40's in an era where fighters would be shot before hitting 30.