Who rates higher all time Jeffries or Dempsey?

The date of publication is given. With just brief research, I found that Johnson gave the interview (he was credited as the writer) on June 3, 1946. It was probably his last interview.

"Johnson spoke all types of rubbish later in life"

He was at least present at the event.

Gunboat Smith is of course a great source for you as his ramblings imply something you want to believe.

 

How did Fulton do with Wills?

 

Fair enough. My conclusion was perhaps harsh. He was a fighter who gave boxing a tremendous lift because of his exciting style, and he did defeat some reasonably good man over his career. But getting down to where the rubber hits the road, how much better were Willard and Sharkey than Schmeling and Carnera. Do you consider Max Baer an atg?

For rating presidents they have a term called near-great. I think that fits Dempsey, and perhaps Baer.

 

Well then the critics are wrong. He is an ATG, unquestionably, and I scratch my head to think why somebody would claim otherwise. This coming from a guy that has had some Dempsey fans foaming at the mouth in the past.

We could speculate that he might beat Wills but I agree that he can't get credit for beating guys that he never fought. I agree that his record would have been much the better for having those names.

I rather suspect that Tunney, Wills and Greb would have given Jeffries all he could handle and probably more than that

 

It is interesting that the October, 1956 Ring issue which contains the first publication of the 1916 confession (There might have been others) does not contain any reference to a repudiation.

Dan Daniel wrote the article, not Fleischer. Johnson is quoted from an interview with Fleischer at the Palace Hotel in Havana in 1915 shortly after the Willard fight:

"The heat, the worries I have had, and inactivity, caused me to lose the title. Willard proved the better man today and he won the championship fairly."

The confession is printed, and Johnson signed and dated it. I can't tell if the date is January 27, 1916, or June 27, 1916. The writing is easy enough to read except for the exact date, but the year 1916 is clear.

Fleischer quotes his conversation with Johnson at the time of his buying the confession:

"Jack, remember me asking you why you didn't engage in more boxing at your camp in view of your long layoff. You then told me that you didn't think it necessary because of the poor calibre of the opposition you were going to face in Big Jess."

Johnson is quoted as "laughingly" replying:

"Yes, I remember Nat. But the truth is that I didn't engage in much boxing because I had no wish to undergo the ordeal of strict training, knowing as I did that the fight would terminate with me on the losing end by way of knockout."

The lead-in article ends with this summation by Fleischer after explaining his payment to Johnson and that he told Johnson he was going to suppress the confession:

"That's how I got possession of the confession and it has never been used by me or any other publication, though reference to it has been made quite frequently. Now, for the first time, I am releasing the entire confession."

All this makes me wonder if there was more than one confession.

I wonder where the "repudiation" info comes from. Why exactly would Johnson repudiate an unpublished confession, and one he thought wouldn't ever be published, and which in fact wasn't until ten years after his death.

 

Thanks for the positive side of this.

But bias is in the eye of the beholder.

I think on this thread I am just unconvinced that Fitz wasn't a top level scalp for Jeffries. I am actually much more of a fan of Fitz than Jeffries. Jeffries beat Fitz because he was much bigger. A fact of life in heavyweight boxing but something I don't really admire. Big men beating up little men is one of the less appealing aspects of boxing for me.

One poster on this thread took to the route of trashing Jeff's opposition, including Fitz, as a way of defending Dempsey. I reacted to that.

 

In term of pure boxing achievement I think Baer maybe had the potential, but was too hot and cold, losing his title to a light heavyweight in his first defence (Braddock wasn't awful, but no Gene Tunney).

The other thing is Dempsey is just much more impressive to watch in general, and such a phenomenon and part of boxing history which I personally think counts in terms of "greatness"

 

Fair enough on most of these points, but

"I rather suspect that Tunney, Wills, and Greb would have given Jeffries all he could handle and probably more than that."

But Dempsey didn't defeat any of these men, so what really is the relevance of how they would have done with Jeffries? Jeffries could only fight the guys around in his own time, and he for the most part did fight the best out there. For all his personal flaws, especially racism. he did a better job of meeting and beating the best available opposition.

 

I have come down fairly heavily in favor of Jeffries here, but I think that some of the criticism of Dempsey is becoming extreme, not to mention revisionist.

People are starting to question things that nobody questioned at the time.

 

Okay.

Dempsey in his marquee years did not lose to a second-rater. That is a solid point for him over Baer.

But how much do you dispute Baer's best wins matching Dempsey's?

Dempsey is unquestionably one of boxing's greatest stars. But being a great star and a great fighter are, I think, somewhat different.

 

"You're really really confused."

No, you are. You completely missed the point of that post. I was equating an aging Robinson with an aging Fitz and noting that Robinson easily handled a "prime" Olson, who was really a rather good fighter. In another post I mentioned the aging Moore defeating the "prime" Harold Johnson. My point is whether Fitz fits your definition of prime or not is irrelevant, as he was simply a better fighter in my judgment than the "prime" Jack Sharkey.

"acknowledge" "2 years"

What has this to do with anything. I said that the record shows Fitz took off 1898. My original post was about the previous NINE years before the first Jeff fight and the following SIX years after that fight during which Fitz's only legit losses were to Jeffries.

 

"we can't even agree that Fitz was over the hill against Jeffries"

We sure can't. Fitz went on to beat top fighters and champions for years after fighting Jeffries.

Discounting the two fights with Jeff, name the fights which prove him "over the hill" prior to 1905.

 

Without giving it some more thought, I'd neither dispute nor agree with it. I don't think there's a ton in it.

Looking at the gap in how they are typically ranked Dempsey is generally just in or out of the top 10, and Max Baer often isn't that far out of the top 10, I'd say the losses, the length of title reign, to an extent the legacy (depending on how the ranking is done), and Dempsey looking better easilly cover it.

I know what you mean about legacy, but while I think there are times to ignore it, I think there are times not to.

 

He certainly seemed dimminished in his fight with Gardner. But I think that was much more to do with illness and injury.

I think his declining health and fighting while injured probably had a lot do with his later losses and decling ability anyway though, which didn't seem to be so much the case before Jeffries. To counter that you could say his hands went against Jeffries