Who rates higher all time Jeffries or Dempsey?

I'm convinced Johnson was ko'd fair and square.
He tried his best to put the giant cowboy away and, when he couldn't realised there was no way he could go 45rds.
He was effectively beaten after the 18th round, though still well in front after the 20th.
Given his age and condition, I think he put up a tremendous fight and anyone who says it isn't very hot in Havana in April is talking out of his arse I was there this year having 4 showers a day and changing my T shirt 3 times!
The next morning he went to collect his purse from Curley who asked him how he was feeling ,he replied "pretty blue ,I never dreamed a man could survive if I really went after him,he was too strong ,he beat me fair and square I have no kick coming,and here's something you don't know,"at which point he pulled his lips back and showed two gold teeth were missing,"Jess knocked them loose I knew what a howl would go up if I spat them out so I swallowed them."

 

I think the debate has switched too who was better Jack Sharkey or the Version of Fitz whom fought Jeffries?

I vote fitzsimmons

 

I can only speak for myself ,I am a Dempsey fan, but I don't feel insecure about it in any way. I feel secure enough about it to say I think Dempsey would have taken Joe Louis out inside 3 rounds.

 

I think the 24 years old Sharkey who was ranked number 2 with only Dempsey above him as a contender,who had had two fights that year, both stoppage wins and was 10 & 9 months after two big wins Godfrey and Wills was a better contender than a 39 years old Fitzsimmons who had not fought for 2 years and was handi-capped by bad hands at that stage.
Thirty nine in 1902 was positively ancient!
Sharkey was on a roll of 13 wins with names like Risko,Maloney,Gorman,Godfrey,Wills, McTigue among his victims.We know he had lots left in his tank because he later went on to win the world title.

 

The two sides can't even agree as to what version of Fitz fought Jeffries.

 

"the people wanted Gibbons rather than Greb"

An hysterically over-the-top extrapolation. No one knows what "the people" wanted. The most that could be said is that there was a poll or polls taken long before anyone was doing scientific polling. It could well have been what these were what we would now call a push poll (names were given to choose from). We have no idea if the results were accurately reported.

Even scientific polling was so crude and inaccurate in the early days that Gallup picked Alf Landon to win the 1936 presidential election.

So off this flimsy evidence "the people" are brought in to justify Dempsey not defending against Greb who won the elimination fight over Gibbons. That and Gibbons being a pre-fight favorite.

I don't want to be harsh, but I find this pathetic logic.

 

I think the point is why have an elimination if you are going to give the loser the shot?

It was apparently thought that Gibbons needed this win to become a viable contender. Otherwise, why have it?

As with Wills, when the "wrong" man wins, voices in the press, (some of whom were being paid under the table by Rickard) come forward to say how unimpressive the winner was.

All this seems transparent to me, but understandable. Dempsey was a cash cow for a lot of folks and so it was natural for them to protect him from the most dangerous challengers.

 

"you can't deduct from Dempsey's record"

Who is deducting?

The position of the critics is that Dempsey's record as it stands is not strong enough to validate rating him an atg at heavyweight as he did not defeat the best opposition available at the time.

Augmenting Dempsey's actual achievements by crediting him with being able to blow out Harry Wills (or Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano) early is the real distortion.

The difference between these two is that the critics are basing their critique on historical facts. Dempsey lost to Tunney and never fought Wills and Greb. His supporters rely on fantasy opinions about what no one knows and no one could know.

 

Adam Pollack wrote in his biog of Jeff that Fitz challenged Jeff for a fight within a week as the Horton law was expiring. Jeff was injured and out of training at that time. Later in 1900, after Jeff had recovered, his management put out feelers to Fitz to negotiate a fight, which would have probably happened in 1901. Fitz refused the offer and stated he was retired.

Pollack writes that Fitz was making good money on the stage and he thinks Fitz judged it in his financial interest to keep touring for a year or so to let interest in the re-match with Jeff build.

With the fight with Fitz off the table, Jeff was matched with the next man in line, Gus Ruhlin.

Hard to see any fair criticism of Jeff on this score, as he offered to negotiate for a fight. The most that can be said is that perhaps Fitz would have had a better chance in 1901, but the delay seems to have been his own doing.

I say this being much more of a Fitz fan than a Jeff fan.

 

Yes.

One of my criteria is beating the best out there.

You explain to me how you can be an atg if you don't even beat the three best of your own time? Why isn't this a valid criterion?

 

"Jeffries fighting Johnson is proof he didn't duck black fighters"

He ducked Johnson when he was champion.

Yes, fighting Johnson, and also Jackson, Armstrong, and Griffin, is actually proof that he fought black fighters. Actual historical happenings are proof.

"Jeffries . . . was terrified of fighting Johnson."

The fact is he fought him.

All the fix talk based on tenuous gossip is unconvincing and a diversion from the facts.

"I don't think this dialogue can continue anymore on a reasonable level."

I would say it has never been on a reasonable level. It is reasonable to debate facts and reality. How can anyone debate fantasies and unsupported speculation.

 

I can't disagree with many of the critisisms of him, but I'd still consider him an ATG, if one of the lessers ones.