Who rates higher all time Jeffries or Dempsey?

But he didn't get his rematch with Jeffries till two years later !

 

But he lost to Sharkey by DSQ! Therefore he wasn't "unbeaten " was he? He stated he went 9 years unbeaten I pointed out that for many of those years he was not fighting. For 4 of them he was retired!
Another year and 3 months he did not fight. You don't get credit for staying unbeaten if you don't fight anyone,or at least you don't in my world!

 

I think you misinterpret my words and the circumstances you describe here. First and foremost my point about Greb potentially looking amateurish was in regards to the idea that Greb would be a revelation on film. He was said to look amateurish at times during his career (other times he was said to be the classiest fighter observers had seen. The point being that in spite of any perceived limitations of his style he more than made up for it with numerous intangibles such as speed, stamina, durability, etc. and that regardless of how he looks his results cant be argued with.

In regards to Gibbons I take great issue with your characterization of their series. Gibbons did indeed beat Greb twice convincingly. The first time was 1915 in Gibbons hometown long before Dempsey was even a contender. The second time was less than a year after Dempsey won the title and there is some question as to what kind of shape Greb was in, there was also the weight dispute whereby Greb made weight, twice, but Gibbons didnt. Regardless Greb lost, demanded a rematch, trained diligently and proceeded to clearly defeat Gibbons two months later.

Gibbons lamented the distance in their first three fights stating that over 15 rounds he could knock out Greb, putting an exclamation point on their series. By 1922 Dempsey was avoiding Harry Wills, had already had his cash cow gimme with Carpentier, and needed a white opponent to defend against. Gibbons was on a tear, having won something like 21 of his last 22 fights by KO and people were lobbying for him to get a title shot, not the least of which were Jack Kearns and Dempsey himself. The lone stumbling block was that Gibbons recent record had been built up on retreads (which even his own, more illustrious brother admitted) and the troubling loss to middleweight Greb. As a result Gibbons needed a high profile win against a highly respected contender to catapult him to a title shot. Beating Greb fit that bill and would also erase the pesky loss. The distance of 15 rounds would prove conclusively who was the better fighter. Tex Rickard promoted the event as an eliminator and there was a great deal of interest. Indeed it drew a star studded crowd and the gate was one of the largest indoor gates of all time to that point. Gibbons was installed as a healthy favorite and unknown to most Greb had, since their previous fight, been rendered blind in one eye and had lost a half step. Regardless Gibbons found Greb a much different prospect than the previous lead footed stiffs he had been bowling over to get peoples attention. Every round Greb came out and fought a different style, changing his pace, and as he himself described fought like a changeup pitcher to never give Gibbons a chance to adapt. Most reports had Greb winning in dominant fashion. It was the biggest win of Grebs career. Not Tunney, not Wilson, this. Dempsey had been ringside and was forced to admit in a moment of candor that Greb was big enough for a title shot, would be a difficult opponent, and was the fastest fighter he had seen despite his frustration at Gibbons losing. Dempsey left shortly thereafter for a trip to Europe and upon his return had completely changed his tune. Now Greb was too small despite the fact that Dempsey had actively pursued a fight with the winner of Carpentier (who he had already easily beaten and who was ducking Greb) and Ted Kid Leeis (who eas much smaller than Greb).

Instead Dempsey chose to avoid all offers to fight Greb (and there were several) in order to face the guy Greb beat easily. Afterwards most people who had seen both fights said Greb beat Gibbons more conclusively than Dempsey did. And while Dempsey clearly beat Gibbons Gibbons emerged as the hero of this fight for his performance against the champion. He toured the country off of this noteriety and newsreels were shown of him discussing his gutsy performance. When Greb beat him he was completely written off. Even his own brother criticised him. So Im not sure how you take that situation and conflate it into justification for Dempsey avoiding Greb or evidence that a Dempsey Greb fight would have been a mismatch. Indeed experts who had seen both extensively and in the ring together at leadt thought it was an intriguing match and often gave voice to the opinion that Greb would defeat Dempsey.

 

A bit off topic, but this made smile, anyone got the full version?

 

"I haven't lost a fight in over 30 years!"

And you have been world champion in one division or another over all that time?

Come on, this is pretty weak.

Fitz was a world champion between 1891 to 1905 in one division or another for 10 years out of those 14. That 14 year time span is longer than Sharkey's entire career. Fitz had 54 fights between his loss to Hall in 1890 and his loss to O'Brien in 1905, about the same number Sharkey had in total.

Also, the gap argument could be used for almost anyone. Dempsey is an extreme example with layoffs of 14 months, 24 months, and 36 months during his title reign. This means he took off more than six of the seven years he was champion, but personally I think this gap argument is misleading. It boils down to the fighter is taking some time off between fights, not unusual over the decades.

 

Tunney's take on Fitz is interesting as he was a guy who studied boxing movies, so it is not unreasonable that he may have studied the Corbett-Fitz film when it was in much better condition than it is today, and his judgment does carry weight.

 

"He stated he went 9 years unbeaten"

I have tried to be clear about the Sharkey fight. Fitz lost on what many considered an outright crooked decision by referee Wyatt Earp. Whatever one thinks of that, the accounts make clear that Fitz dominated the fight and it ended with Sharkey out cold on the canvas. So I try to use the words "legit loss" to draw a distinction between this fight and the KO defeats to Jeff.

But if I overlooked this caveat in any post, I stand corrected.

 

I think part of the problem is you aren't paying attention to the action.

After beating Sharkey in August 1900, Fitz did not fight an official verified match until 1902! It looks like Fitz took all of 1901 off, which is a reason why Jeffries fought three other guys in 1901.

For all we know Fitz could have taken a break from the action...it looks like he did. But its crystal clear he had plenty left in 1902.

 

From Feb 1890 to July 1904 ( FOURTEEN YEARS ) no one defeated Fitzsimmons except for Jeffries, Sharkey DQ loss aside. That is quite a run. Very impressive.

If Jeffries played baseball instead, Fitz would be the lineal champion from 1897-1904 with who knows how many title defenses.

 

Sharkey entire career was only 12 years...fitz went through 20 year period 1885-1905 where he was only knocked out 3 times. Much more impressive



How many of those “knockouts” carnera had were fixed fights? His career smells too much to be taken seriously as a big puncher. We have a lot of film on carnera, he clearly was not a big puncher judging by the technique in which he threw the punches, he had no idea how to get his body weight behind the punch...he was built like a bodybuilder, too stiff to be able to let loose punches

Sharkey lost or drew with men in his prime that Fitz would have mopped the floor with...Gorman, Heeney, Risko, and Weinert.

I don’t see why you make a big deal about fitz chin here considering sharkey was not a puncher, and had a very low KO percentage, so the odds of sharkey winning this fight by knockout are astronomically low

Again sharkey couldn’t punch hard, fitz is not getting knocked out here

“Taking Dempsey’s punches pretty well until”

What punches? Dempsey didn’t land a single punch to Sharkeys head until round 3 when he landed a good right. In rounds 4-6 Dempsey didn’t land anything to sharkeys Head. But for you to use Dempsey fight as reasons sharkey could take a good punch is puzzling considering the first good punch Dempsey landed to sharkeys jaw didn’t happen until round 7, which came after a low blow. Sharkey Dempsey fight didn’t prove sharkeys chin at all

I’ve heard several posters including you argue this fight proved sharkey couldn’t take it to the body as dempsey was wearing him down to the body. Well fitzsimmons had one of the most lethal body attacks in boxing history

 

You said Fitz was unbeaten for 9 years I showed that for 5 years and 3 months he did not fight anyone so your number is meaningless.You can't lose if you dont fight! Fitz wasn't taking some time off, he retired for 2 years, TWICE!

 

Except the time span is from Feb 1890 to December, 1905, which is close to SIXTEEN YEARS, during which Fitz was the champion of three different divisions for ten of those fourteen years.

One of the most remarkable records in boxing history.

 

No its you who isn't paying attention. After Fitz ko'd Sharkey he walked over to the ropes where Jeffries was sitting ringside and shouted."You'll give me a fight now wont you Jim?" "Get up and shake hands on it."Jeffries remained seated until the roar from the crowd was such that he couldn't ignore it any longer.
"Get up,Jim and shake".Jeffries slowly got up and shook Fitz's gloved hand. Point being Fitz wanted the fight he had just kod both the leading contenders in the space of two weeks he was hot.
In his dressing room he told the press. " I've got the promise of a championship fight and I've got the money for tonight s work".
"I mean to become champion of the world again,the only man in the way is Jim Jeffries .He whipped me once but I don't think he will do it again.When we met I had not fought in a coupe of years,and naturally was not in the best of condition. But I am in great form now and really think if we meet again that I would come out on top.
In fact I held Jeffries too cheaply,but I learned lesson and will not be caught napping next time.
If they give me enough money I guess I will be ready to fight Jeffries sometime inside of the next six months."

Fitz wanted the fight! He got it ----two years later !
Meanwhile Jeffries defended against the man Fitz had half killed, Gus Ruhlin.lol
Given how Fitz, in1902 ,after 2 years of inactivity hit Jeffries," when and where he wanted", broke his noe and cut him above and below both eyes,you have to wonder how he would have done had Jeffries fought him 5 or 6 months after Fitz had kod Sharkey?

 

And during that 20 year stretch Fitz was taking numerous breaks and extended absences from the ring. The guys he fought a lot of the time were pretty crappy too. 12 years into his career and he's still fighting guys making their pro debut.

Matter of fact during his career he fought 30 fighters who were making their pro debut.

The onus is on you to prove his knockouts weren't legitimate. You have to go through and provide evidence for every specific fight you are calling a fluke.

Prime Fitz drew with almost 10 guys that he should have supposedly mopped the floor with. Have you ever actually looked at his record?

I honestly think you have no idea what you're talking about at this point. Not now nor at any time in this thread were we talking about a match up between Fitz and Sharkey.

Why are you talking about a Sharkey-Fitz match up? Sharkey was a better puncher than Corbett btw.

You're delusional. Dempsey lands an uppercut to the head of Sharkey within the first 10 seconds of the fight.

That's an outright lie. I've never once argued or proposed that Sharkey couldn't take it to the body.

 

Do you have any evidence of that? Boxrec doesn't count as a reliable source regarding this matter