Who rates higher all time Jeffries or Dempsey?

Life doesn't work like that, kiddo.

 

Fitz ko'd both Sharkey and Ruhlin inside two weeks in1900 .
Q.Who then deserved the title shot more than Fitzsimmons? A.****ING NOBODY
Q. Who got the title shot? A. Ruhlin.
Any racial obstacle to Jeffries defending against Fitzsimmons in the autumn of 1900? Why wait until Fitz was 39 years old and retired for 2 years?
I'll give you a hypothetical similar example of what would have been Dempsey's behaviour.
As you know Dempsey lost his title on Sep23rd 1926.
Lets suppose he didn't fight Tunney until 1927 so he is still champ through 1926.
We have Sharkey beating Wills in October 1926 which he did, the difference being Dempsey is still champ.Now Dempsey defends his title,but instead of picking Sharkey as his challenger, he defends against Wills whom Sharkey has just beaten.
Is that acceptable ?Would that be okay with you? Because that's what Jeffries did!

 

You can't deduct from Dempsey's record for not facing Wills etc. What you COULD say is that if he HAD faced those guys and won this wouldn't even be a discussion.

 

It isn't the core argument. Your premise is that being "prime" is the critical issue. No. It isn't. The critical point is who is the best at the time. For me, the Fitz that Jeffries fought was better than any fighter Dempsey defeated.

Bobo Olson was a good fighter with a strong record, stronger I think than that of Jack Sharkey. He was 27 in 1955 and 28 in 1956. He lost badly to Sugar Ray Robinson by KO both years. Robinson was 34 and 35 at the time. Was Robby in the "prime" you consider crucial. I don't think so and probably most would say he was not, but that doesn't cut it at all. Robinson was the better fighter. That is a fact and the only criterion that matters.

On Fitz, the weakness of the whole anti-Jeff argument is that Fitz wasn't losing to anyone else. (even Robinson was losing around this time to Jones and Fullmer) So the entire basis of devaluing Fitz is based on Jeff beating him, because no one else was, or would for several years.

 

Boxrec as a policy doesn't include bareknuckle fights, but they accidentally still have a few.

There is also a suviorship bias in a lot of the B level fighters in that period. A B level Vs. an A or B level is notable and likely to be in the papers, a B level Vs a C level or a D level much less so. The better the opponent the more likely the fight is to be known, and the more likely they are to have lost, which will skew the win ratios.

The surviving records are incomplete, but a big part is just no one goes through them, anyone can go online and find matches from the 1800's missing from boxrec (I don't blame boxrec BTW, their priority is much more modern fighters).

People just going off of Boxrec would see "Abe Coughle" (actually Cougle) and assume he was just some random lump who'd never boxed. But actually I found an article from a year before where he'd fought a 54 round draw descibe as one of the best fought around Chicago in some time. Clearly he was more than just a lump.

 

"What was your point again."

I thought it pretty clear. Dempsey's title reign was mediocre.

"Jeffries' was worse."

No. His was probably the outstanding title reign pre Joe Louis. Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Fitz were the top rated contenders. Corbett had only lost, other than a DQ to Sharkey, to Fitz, and had KO'd John L. Sullivan back in the old days. He was considered the logical contender by the folks at the time.

Jeff deserves the censure he receives for not defending against Johnson in 1904, but this hardly puts him behind Dempsey who didn't defend against Wills for 7 years.

 

"He fought Johnson"

I am not arguing Jeff was a good man, at least on the racial issue. He made many heavy-handed racist comments. But he did actually get in the ring with Johnson. Dempsey never actually got into the ring with a top black heavyweight.

"Bob Armstrong"

Armstrong was a good man at the time. Matt rates him in the top ten in 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1903. He had KO's over Frank Slavin (2), Denver Ed Martin (2), Joe Butler (2), and Pete Everett. He wasn't a world-beater, but was a worthy contender and gatekeeper type.

"Peter Jackson was nowhere near a top man of the time."

This is very poorly phrased. Jackson was unquestionably one of the top men of the era, even at one time possibly the very best. What I think you mean is that he had laid off for six years prior to facing Jeffries and so was simply a famous name from the past. That is a fair point, but young guys coming up always build their reps by disposing of such faded stars. Hard to see criticizing Jeff for fighting Jackson while giving a pass to Dempsey for never meeting Langford, McVea, or Jeannette, past prime or not.

"You said that John Lester Johnson scared Dempsey away from fighting black fighters right?"

I don't remember that. What I did was quote the Jet magazine article implying as much.

"you can certainly say the same thing about Bob Armstrong"

It would be kind of silly, though. Jeffries fought Jack Johnson after fighting Armstrong.

 

It does for me. Getting in the ring with the best is a strong consideration for an atg claimant. Not getting in the ring with the best out there also weighs in the balance.

 

The way I see it not fighting Wills et al (especially if he could have beaten them) is its own punishment. He ranks as a lesser fighter than a Dempsey who had those scalps. I guess you could call it a duck if you want. I'm not clued up on the minutiae of the case.

 

You keep saying top rated. There were no ratings back then. A fighter was built on his reputation of who he fought and beat. Sharkey was probably one of the most unskilled fighters to ever fight for the title from what I've read on him. Tough as nails but a face forward plodder if there ever was one. Gus Ruhlin was knocked out cold by Fitz and drew with Maher. What exactly did he do to earn a title shot?

Billy Miske, Tommy Gibbons, Luis Firpo, Bill Brennan and maybe even Carpentier would all have beaten the guys Jeffries defended his title against.

Unlike Dempsey, Jeffries refused to entertain the idea of defending against a black man.

 

I don't think this dialogue can continue anymore on a reasonable level. You seem to be under the impression that Jeffries fighting Johnson is proof that he didn't duck black fighters and that more importantly he did it thinking it would be legit. Jeffries knew he had no chance and was terrified of fighting Johnson. He thought the fight was fixed in his favor the entire time until just before the fight took place when Johnson told him it was for real.

 

You're really really confused. You're equating Robinson beating Bobo Olson which mean't he was better with Jeffries fighting a near 40 year old and knocking him out. Remind me against how that makes Jeffries better than Dempsey?

How can Fitz be beaten if he didn't fight for two years prior to Jeffries? He beats Ruhlin and Sharkey. That's it. Then he goes away for 2 years. Sharkey was on the downslide anyway having been knocked out by Ruhlin in his previous fight.

Do you at least acknowledge that it's impossible to be beaten in 2 years if you don't fight?

 

Gunboat Smith.