Who rates higher all time Jeffries or Dempsey?

"We can see you."

Through a computer?

Frankly, I just give my opinions. Obviously folks will agree or disagree as they will on any given issue. Not being a politician, I don't need to run with the herd.

 

Sorry, forgot you're bourgeois. It means you aren't fooling anybody.

Giving your opinions is perfectly fine and what the forum is about but only telling half the story and ignoring the fact that Fitzsimmons record is made up of mostly lower class (instead of bum) fighters is just intellectually dishonest and to be real it's just unnecessary. I think we could all have much more fruitful dialogues if we started recognizing things for what they were instead of playing the game of implying a fighter was busy against game opponents until someone says something.

 

It will be interesting to see if Dago Wop responds to this

 

1890 Starlight, Billy M'Carty
1891 Jack Dempsey, Harris Martin
1892 Peter Maher
1893 Jim Hall
1894 Joe Choynski, Dan Creedon
1895
1896 Peter Maher, Tom Sharkey (questionable DQ)
1897 James J Corbett
1898
1899 James J Jeffries (loss)
1900 Jim Daly, Ed Dunkhorst, Gus Ruhlin, Tom Sharkey
1901
1902 James J Jeffries (loss)
1903 George Gardner
1904 Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
1905 Philadelphia Jack O'Brien (loss)

So other than 3 years, every year he fought someone we know was decent, and underlined are the world class opposition, which is a lot of them

 

For me the intruiging question is, given what a hiding he put on Jeffries in1902,how would he have done had Jeffries given him a rematch at the end of 1900 when he was red hot and active?
Two years of inactivity between the ages of 37 and 39 must take their toll and we are talking about the beginning of the 1900's here.
Fitz v Sharkey 2 below.

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/...900&y=12&x=19&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1
Small front page snippet of Ruhlin's condition after the Fitz fight,below.

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/...hlin&y=3&x=11&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1

Post fight report of Jeffries vRuhlin2 below.

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/...lin&y=10&x=14&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1

 

What were the reports that had Greb winning in dominant fashion?
Do you have any first hand reports of the offers that were made to Dempsey to fight Greb? Also, Dempsey's responses to them would be great.

Considering Dempsey was better than anyone that Greb fought that's why I say it would be a mismatch. A 160 lb fighter who's heavyweight wins are against fighters Dempsey already beat the hell out of. Take Brennan for example. Dempsey had him down 6 total times and hit him with such force that Brennan spun around and cracked his ankle. Fights like that end most guys' careers yet Greb is to be hailed as the rightful heir to the throne for wins over this guy a year later. It's not really impressive to beat Dempsey's leftovers 4x in a row during a period of 7 months. Probably made so many fights with Brennan because he knew he could beat him. That's not really taking risks. If you ask me there's a clear reason that Greb didn't fight the likes of Luis Firpo: Greb wasn't a legit heavyweight and he knew it. Unless there's evidence to the contrary.

Your description of the framing of the Carpentier fight is entirely off base. Dempsey's management had originally been interested in a fight with Joe Beckett who was the Euro Champion. Carpentier upset Beckett with a first round knockout which put him in position for a title shot.

My main beef with historians is the lack of source citation. You say that most reports had Greb dominating but yet we go on boxrec for example and read some of the newspaper reports of the fight and it doesn't say that at all. In fact it says they both looked so bad that Dempsey would have beat them both.

 

Boxing history will never see that again.

 

I cite 20 first hand reports in my book and quote from them liberally. You are welcome to go seek those out.

Again, I cite all of them in my book. From 1918 thru the middle of 1925 offers were made regularly for a Dempsey Greb match. In every single instance Greb agreed and Dempsey did not. You are welcome to go and cross check my sources but you will find they were from first hand, verifiable sources and accurately quoted/reported.

Wow, just wow. What a complete misrepresentation of the actual historical events. Lets take your first point, using Brennan as an example. Dempsey did in fact beat Brennan in Milwaukee before Greb got to him. Beat him convincingly. BUT here is the rub: After that fight Greb defeated Brennan in one sided fashion four times in 1919, the year Dempsey won the title. In their fourth fight Greb almost stopped Brennan. Yet, its ok for Dempsey to defend the championship, not even a gimme non title fight, but an actual title defense against Brennan AFTER those four losses to Greb AND after Dempsey had already beaten Brennan conclusively and somehow Brennan was a better opponent than Greb? And thats not even to mention that most reports had Dempsey behind on the cards against Brennan in a fight in which he had been rocked in the second round and rocked again in the eleventh by a punch which ringsiders said nearly knocked Dempsey's ear off and sent blood cascading down his shoulder requiring surgery afterwards... So you tell me, what exactly is either justifiable about Dempsey fighting Brennan before Greb in 1920 or excusable about how difficult he found a man that Greb never had trouble with at all??

Again, lets examine this: From 1918 to until the end of his reign some of Dempsey's better wins or title fights were:

Battling Levinsky, who Greb had already defeated numerous times. When Dempsey fought Levinsky in 1918 he did so three months after Greb had beaten Levinsky in a match that was publicized as the winner to face Dempsey... Dempsey chose Levinsky who by that point had been working in the shipyards for the war effort and hadnt been able to train in two months...

As Champion he faced:

Billy Miske, who Greb had already defeated. twice and drawn with once. Greb had fought Miske long before Dempsey ever got to him.

Bill Brennan, who Greb had defeated four times in the year previous to Dempsey defending.

Georges Carpentier, who wouldnt even spar with Greb, much less fight him.

Tommy Gibbons, who Greb had defeated in a title eliminator the year before.

Luis Firpo, who Greb challenged and Firpo literally refused. I have a direct quote from Firpo to a promoter who tried to stage Firpo-Greb in Newark, NJ whereby Firpo said he wanted a much easier opponent. Thats cited in my book as well. Greb pursued a match with Firpo and even had flyers printed up calling him out (those are in my book as well).

Gene Tunney, who Greb had defeated three times over the years (getting robbed in one of those).

So who exactly was fighting whose sloppy seconds? Certainly not Greb. To characterize Greb’s opposition as Dempsey retreads is a complete distortion of reality. And frankly its an indefensible argument to suggest Greb was cherry picking his opposition even as you defend Dempsey. Because if Greb is raking the easy route then what does it say about a guy who defended against so many guys that Greb either beat or who blatantly ducked him?? Nevermind the flip side of that argument: If Greb wasnt doing enough to justify a title shot then exactly how do Miske, Brennan, Gibbons, Carpentier, Tunney, and Firpo (who flat out said he wasnt ready for Dempsey and would prefer to wait) justify challenging Dempsey? Because, as stated above Greb either beat those men, beat better opposition than those men, was avoided by them or a combination of all three. See, by tearing down Greb you do greater damage to Dempsey. Even Gene Tunney, Dempseys best challenger (who not coincidentally dominated him in two fights) got his title shot largely off of the backs of three men: Carpentier who years earlier had lost to Dempsey, avoided Greb, and was coming off a one sided beating at the hands of Gibbons, Gibbons, who years earlier had lost his elimination bout to Greb and then lost to Dempsey, and Greb. Most people consider that victory over Greb in their final fight as the point in which you can say Tunney finally asserted himself as a top contender at heavyweight or at least knocked Greb out of contention. If that was such a huge win for Tunney in 1925 and served as a stepping stone to Dempsey then clearly the argument that Greb wasnt a viable contender for the past six years holds no water.

No, its you who are incorrect. I was discussing the fact that in 1922 Dempsey was actively pursuing a fight with the winner of Carpentier-Lewis, two guys right within Grebs size range, while he was pretending that the reason he didnt want a Greb fight was size. Thats a verifiable fact. Carpentier fought Beckett in 1919 for the VACANT European title, two years before the 1921 Dempsey-Carpentier. That had absolutely zero bearing on what was transpiring in 1922 around a potential Greb-Dempsey fight. He didnt fight Beckett again until 1923 by which time he had already lost his championship to Siki and was trying to rebuild his tattered reputation over the scandal of that fight. So no, your context is way off. There was absolutely no sense, justification, or excuse for Dempsey actively lobbying for a fight against either Carpentier or TK Lewis over Greb beyond the fact that both were easier fights and most knew it.

This is comical. Lets start with your assertion about a lack of source citation. My book cites more sources than any other boxing book ever written. Dont believe me? Go compare and when you find one that has more sources and citations feel free to post it here. Second of all, you continually quote from boxrec of all places. The laziest of lazy mans research tools and no less do you quote from it but, when it cites two sources for the Greb-Gibbons fight, a first hand source, and the notoriously unreliable wire reports, you go with the non-first hand source to back up your argument because the one source they cite that was actually ringside said Greb controlled the fight throughout. Yeaaaahh, I think I'll stick with my interpretation. You'll have to forgive me if I dont waste my time citing sources on an online boxing forum for some guy whose name I dont even know and whose opinion I wont change and dont care to. A guy who has already shown a great propensity for not knowing what hes talking about. I spent 12+ years researching Greb's life. I wrote the most authoritative FACT BASED account on the mans life that has ever been written and likely ever will be written. I used and cited more sources than any other boxing biography ever written, Im confident of that. Ive done my homework and put in my time. I dont need to prove myself to some nobody on the internet who cant even get the basic facts of his argument correct. And frankly, if you really want the sources and arent just hoping that Im too busy to post them, then go buy my book. If you already have it then you know you are being facetious.

 

Down goes Dago Wop! Down goes Dago Wop! Down goes Dago Wop!

 

"bourgeois"

A Bolshevik! This is great. I thought you guys had gone extinct. There used to be a lot of them around when I was a youngster. They were always into this rather fatuous term as an insult.

"you aren't fooling anybody"

I am not trying to. I strive to be as direct as possible.

"Fitzsimmons record is made up of mostly lower class (instead of bum) fighters"

You mean champions? The man was a triple champion. Other than Jeff, he beat the best of his time in three divisions. If your argument is that you judge his era vastly inferior, without good film of almost anybody, make that argument for what it is worth.

But speaking of lower class fighters, what about the 26 opponents of Tommy Gibbons that you have referred to and made so much of several times. Basically a bunch of tomato cans and setups. Hugh Walker gets three shots at Gibbons. He starts at 14-16-11 and ends at 14-22-12. Jack Heinen was 0-7. Jack Clifford 2-17-1. Fred Allen 2-3. This is opposition for a challenger for a world title? The few name fighters like Willie Meehan were way over the hill. You can call someone like Peter Maher lower class, but his record was 104-4-3 with 79 KO's going into the Fitz fight of 1896 and he actually was a world title claimant. Okay, Fitz fought some guys with no records or unimpressive records in an era when records are incomplete, but he also beat the best. Gibbons only really top opponent during this run was fighting at the middleweight limit and Gibbons lost to him.

Nor is any of this just hindsight. The New York Times dissed Gibbons as a challenger in their preview of the Dempsey fight in 1923.

"intellectually dishonest"

Look in the mirror. Here is direct quote from you earlier on this thread--

"and during that 20 year stretch Fitz was taking numerous breaks and extended absences from the ring."

Well, from 1885 to 1903 Fitz had at least two fights in every year except 1898 and 1901 when he went on stage tours which brought him more money than a boxing match could. It is fair to point out that these layoffs were leading up to the Jeff fights. Make of that what you will, but don't expect everyone to agree that this negates Jeff's victories. Fitz was a veteran fighter who knew how to get himself ready for a fight and it is hard to buy that he didn't for Jeff. Especially in 1902, when he wasn't champion, nothing was stopping him from having warm-up fights if he felt he needed them.

But what is most noticable is that it is Dempsey who took more extended layoffs. Fitz fought in 19 of the 21 years from 1885 to 1905. In the 14 years from 1914 to 1927, Dempsey was inactive for 3 years. Like Fitz, he found he could make good money w/o risking a real fight, and did it for more extended periods than Fitz did.

Just on these layoffs, I don't credit the guy who laid off nor do I negate the victory of the man who beat him. I don't buy into into Tunney deserving less credit for beating Dempsey because Dempsey had laid off. Life if unforgiving. If you don't cut the mustard an excuse like not being active doesn't matter. A loss is a loss.

"I think we would all have a more fruitful dialogue if we started recognizing things for what they were"

Well, good advice, but giving your opinion that Fitz laid off a lot when he didn't while dismissing the opposition of a triple champion as lower-class fighters, might not impress others to the same extent that your opinions impress yourself.

How about just debating and forget about stepping out of the debate for these veiled ad hominems.

 

I'd have bought the book years ago if it didn't cost $50 (some sell for nearly $200) Mr.GreedyCapitalist.

That's a criminal understatement of the events that transpired compared to your description of Greb's fights with him. Dempsey didn't just beat Brennan convincingly, he flat out executed him.

And you don't think that Dempsey's live slaughter of Brennan had anything to do wit his performances against Greb? Prior to the Dempsey bout, Brennan fought multiple times per month for the last year at least. After he got destroyed by Dempsey he took 4 months off and won only ONE fight for the next year and a half. He drew with two fighters that he previously beat (one twice the other once). The only fighter he beat during that stretch was Joe Bonds who he had previously knocked out even earlier.

Brennan was an average title defense opponent. There were a couple that would have been better, Greb and Wills. Brennan had worked his way back into position near the top level of the division following his losses to Greb. If you have most reports saying that Brennan was up on the cards then you're doing boxing fans a great disservice by letting boxrec post incorrect information. In fact, you disagree with all of the newspaper reports linked on boxrec that I've referenced so far. Why not shed some light and post them on there?

Greb fought a green Miske in 1915 then wouldn't go near him until 1918 AFTER Dempsey had drawn with him. Dempsey fought Brennan first. Dempsey wasn't matched up with Carpentier because Carpentier was top contender, Kearns matched them up to draw a ton of money. Funny, Bill Paxton had nothing to say about a Firpo-Greb match up in his version of the biography.

Overall, I've read reviews of your book and while you go into great detail you consistently give in to your own bias in favor of Greb and let it interfere with your work.

I never argued that Greb wasn't a viable contender. You're confused.

Dempsey had already beat Carpentier prior to the Lewis fight. It obviously wasn't a serious consideration because there is no mention of it really anywhere. Dempsey said that he'd fight Greb if there was a call for it. They did a poll and Wills was found to be the number one that fans wanted to see followed by Gibbons and Brennan. Why wasn't your man Greb right up there? This was in 1922 after Greb had already beaten Gibbons.

That proves my point regarding that. Thank you.

 

Incorrect.

You aren't succeeding.

30 of his opponents were making their debuts. 30. Goddamn. Opponents. lmfao

Gibbons opponents had over 5x as many fights as Fitz did plus a 70% win ratio.

Still better than Fitz.

That's because he did. He took two 2 year lay offs and a year long layoff from 1885-1903.

Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, and Jersey Joe Walcott knew how to get in shape for fights yet your the same dude that calls them washed up or past prime.

Nobody is doubting Fitz ability to get in shape. It's just a natural fact that a fighter in his 30s that has had a long ring career can't afford to take off 2 years and expect to be the same fighter from before the lay off.

Do you even know what we're talking about anymore? We're comparing Dempsey and Jeffries opposition. Last time I checked, Dempsey didn't fight himself. His lay off are his own fault.

Nobody's asking you to buy anything. It's a fact that Dempsey was past prime when he fought Tunney just like Fitz was past prime when he fought Jeffries. Tunney and Jeff get credit for beating past prime atgs. Simple as that.

Dude what the hell are you talking about Fitz was laid off for 2 years prior to Jeffries god damn man get a grip.

His entire resume has less than 1300 fights between them and 30 of those opponents were debuts.

 

Mr Dago Wop

How many of Dempsey title opponents actually deserved title shots over Greb and Wills?

Let’s hear your answer

 

You're easily misled. Weak minded.

 

None I'd say. Gibbons deserved it as much as Greb, so did Tunney. Wills deserved it more than the entire crop put together.

What's your point?