Who rates higher all time Jeffries or Dempsey?

Dempsey was the greatest 15 round heavyweight ever......Jeffries best ever fight to the finish
Dempsey at number one....Jeffries number five....my best guess

 

I think Jeffries could be decisioned in 15 by a few fighters but 25 rounds was his game...Dempsey at his best gets defeated in 15 by no fighter yet ,perhaps

 

Sharkey being inconsistent is the key he was moody(bi polar?) but the general opinion on Sharkey when he was in the mood he was as good and talented as any but when he was not in the mood to fight he sucked to put it simply. But untalented or powerless is not how I would describe him he was very very good so it would depend on which Jack showed up to the fight in the Dempsey fight he was looking very good until the mistake in the 7th.

 

Not an old Fitzsimmons who was coming off two-year layoffs both times he fought Jeffries. Nope.

 

Not the Sharkey who Dempsey fought. Sharkey was fighting his absolute best for two years leading up to that night. And he fought great during the fight.

Fitz didn't even fight in the two years leading up to BOTH of his fights with Jeffries.

 

We disagree.

The two losses to Jeff were the only two legit losses Fitz suffered over an almost 16 year period. That is really remarkable, and I just can't see tossing Jeff's two wins out. Other than the goofy DQ to Sharkey, Fitz hadn't lost for nine years when he defended his title against Jeff. He would not lose to anyone else but Jeffries for another six years.

In contrast, Sharkey was in and out all the time and lost to fringe contenders and the like several times.

 

Oh please. Fitz was a very good fighter but he beat a ton of no-names and lost to a number of them, too (Mick Dooley three times?), and he basically was 500 with all the names he fought. Split with Jack O'Brien. Split with Jim Hall. Lost two to Jeffries. Lost to Bill Lang. Lost to Jack Johnson. Had to get off the floor against Corbett (and no rematch).

And he was coming off two-year layoffs both times he fought Jeffries.

Sharkey was on a roll and he was in his prime when he faced Dempsey. And he was coming off wins over Hall of Famers like Godfrey and Wills, and excellent boxers like Mike McTigue and Jimmy Maloney.

When comparing these two, people seem to want to talk about Fitz when he was in his prime (only Jeffries didn't fight him then) and they want to talk about Sharkey when he wasn't in his prime (but he was at his best when he fought Dempsey).

Dempsey beat a much better fighter in the 25-year-old, active, prime Jack Sharkey than Jeffries did in the old, inactive Fitz. There's no question.

 

"Sharkey was on a roll and he was in his prime"

Like the 27 year old Bobo Olson when he got KO'd by the 34 year old Sugar Ray Robinson.

Or the 26 year old Harold Johnson when he was KO'd by the 37 year old Archie Moore.

To cut to the chase, being prime doesn't cut it if you are simply not in the same league as the other fighter. And I don't think Sharkey, who was lucky to get an undeserved decision to become heavyweight champion, is in the same class with the triple-champion Fitz, the only man to be middle, light-heavy, and heavyweight champion.

Also, dragging in losses to O'Brien at 42, Johnson at 44, and Lang at 46 is odd when Sharkey was finished at 34, and losing to all kinds of guys not only at that age, but throughout his career. I think other than Jeff, Fitz lost only to Hall, and to Sharkey on a foul, and reversed both by KO, from the mid-1880's to 1905, a truly tremendous run.

Wills is a big win, but Wills was 37, and also, after over a decade of chasing the champions, he had seen Tunney get the title shot Wills deserved and then immediately draw the color line, so Wills' quest was over w/o ever getting a chance. I wonder how focused he could have been. Godfrey though is a top and worthy win.

 

Dooley was a heavyweight, and Fitz was 22, he didn't hit his prime for years. He was in his 40's when he split with Jack O'Brien. Hall was one of the best middleweights in the world, and a couple years later was a top 10 heavyweight according to Matt Donnellon, and that was Fitz's last loss for years. He fought Bill Lang and Jack Johnson when he was well into his 40's, and Fitz went into the Johnson fight injured.

Also in what world are ATGs Philidelphia Jack O'Brien and Jack Johnson "no-names"? If you don't know who they are, you shouldn't even be posting on this topic.

 

I love this, I really do!
" Fitz hadn't lost for nearly nine years".
Ill agree Fitz was robbed against Sharkey in their first fight ,so scrub that one.
Between Feb 21st 1896, when he fought Peter Maher and March 17th1897 When be fought Corbett ,Fitz did not fight.
Time elapsed 1 year 1 month.
Between March 17th 1897 and June 9th 1899 [Jeffries] .Fitz did not fight.
Time elapsed 2 years 3 months.
From between Aug24th 1902[Sharkey]and July 25th [Jeffries,] Fitz did not fight.
Time elapsed1 year 11 months.
Total time without engaging in a fight 5 years 3 months!
Five years 3 months subtracted from nine years leaves a remainder of 3 years and 9 months!
Point being, if you don't fight you cannot be beaten can you!

FYI E. M .I haven't lost a fight in over 30 years! lol

 

Between Maher and Corbett, he did fight though, he fought Sharkey.

Also he was unbeaten from his fight with Hall in 1890 (excluding Sharkey) until 1899, so that's over 9 years, the gap to substract would only be before Jeffries, so that's still be 7 years unbeaten. Excluding Jeffries, that 1890 until 1904, that's 14.5 years, taking out the gaps, that's still over a decade unbeaten, apart from Jeffries.

 

But you said Fitz was prime against Jeffries. Does that only apply when you're defending Jeffries?

Sharkey was knocked out just 4 times in his career. Against Rojas (inexperienced), Dempsey, Carnera, and Joe Louis. Dempsey and Louis were better punchers than Jeffries. Fitz was knocked out by worse.

What about his wins over Loughran, Schmeling, Jack Renault, George Godfrey, Harry Wills, and Young Stribling? He drew with Heeney. That wasn't a loss or a win. It was a draw. He also beat Risko at one point.

What the hell do you mean Carnera could barely crack an egg? He had a 70% ko ratio and 71 wins out of 88 coming by knockout. He could obviously punch.

Okay? What's your point? You're replying to a post about his chin, that's it.

What does that have to do with Fitz chin? Sounds like your more interested in stroking Fitz than being intellectually honest.

You sure about that? He took Dempsey's punches pretty well until, as YOU claim, he was hit in the balls. Barely a quarter of his losses were by knockout. Fitz was stopped in over half of his losses, most of the time he took the full 10 count. Don't forget he went down against Corbett, a notorious slapper.