Who rates higher all time Jeffries or Dempsey?

I rate Fitz more highly than Corbett, but the devil is in the detail here.

Fitz beat Corbett as the champion, and likely the absolute best version, give or take.

There are minor issues with the version's of Fitz that Jeffries beat, i.e. under prepared and inactive.

 

Wills destroyed a top contender (Norfolk) whom twice clearly beat Billy Miske. Norfolk beat a prime Miske, before Miske contracted the Bright’s disease. According to Klompton, he has strong sources which state gibbons had been ducking Norfolk as far back as 1917.

Miske was a dying man in 1922 and a few of his opponents may have been fixes to help the physical deteriorating man.


Why wills deserved number 1 rating in 1921? Because he easily took out the outstanding contender besides himself in 1920 and didn’t lose in 1921.

You talk about his lack of fights with other white fighters, but look in search feature, countless of posters and historians have made posts in the past with evidence wills was ducked by white fighters other than Dempsey. Secondly, Edward did a good job proving the black heavyweights of this era outproduced the white heavyweights

 

without knowing how the questions are asked, there is no way of knowing if any value should be put into any poll. For example if you ask who was the best president among Lincoln, Washington, FDR, and Chester Arthur, you can report the results as Arthur coming in fourth in a poll for the best presidents behind the other three.

No one was into scientific polling back in the 1920's, and even modern scientific polls are often proven wrong on election day.

 

It does seem vaguely ridiculous from my revolving chair in the 21st century, but that is how some people seem to have seen it.

It might be like people thinking that David Tua could give Lennox Lewis a better fight than Chris Byrd could?

 

How much more active had Corbett been before he faced Fitz than Fitz was before facing Jeffries?

 

Hayes (not necessarily the most reliable source) said that Dempsey's management tried to steer him clear of Gibbons, but that he insisted upon the match, and they gave him his way.

Gibbons had won eight fights since his loss to Greb, that is not exactly "coming off a loss to Greb."

Gibbons was the #2 rated heavyweight contender, when Ring Magazine published their first rankings, behind only Wills.

Even after losing to Dempsey.

This is not a man who by any stretch of the English language, could be described as a "second tier contender!"

Look back over recent history.

If we had seen a face off between the Champion/#1 and the #3/4 in the decade after Lewis retired, we would have thrown our hats in the air!

 

Was Dempsey supposed to factor all of this into his opponent selection?

 

Yes, it is hard to see how a result from 7 years earlier is supposed to trump the two most recent results between these two men.

 

No. I'm sure he went for the most money with the least risk.

I was not thinking about Dempsey. I was thinking about how we today should view these polls.

 

At the very least, you should view them as an insight into the complexities of the era!

Look back over events of the last two decades, and the contenders who the public wanted the champion's to fight.

Is it possible that yourself and Mr Suzie Q are oversimplifying the opponent selection?

 

On Gibbons I might not have made myself clear. I said he wasn't a bad contender. I should have said when compared to all the second-tier, or perhaps a better word, lesser, contenders over the years who have gotten shots.

The judgment of Gibbons as "second-rate" came from Kahn describing how Rickard supposedly felt about Gibbons.

All this said, it is impossible for me to see him as at the same level as Greb.

 

"Is it possible that yourself and Mr Suzie Q are oversimplifying the opponent selection?"

Yes, we both seem to naively think that winning eliminations should have gotten the winner the title shot. That clearly does not appear to have been the case back then.

"you should view them as an insight"

They are an insight, but I question of how much value. It also appears that Wills winning polls never did him a lot of good.

 

But with recent champion's, you seem to just accept that the two best contenders, can not meet for decades on end!

No, but it might suggest that the selection under Wills, was not as clear cut as you are assuming!

 

"you seem to just accept that the two best contenders, can not meet for decades on end!"

I have lost a lot of interest in modern boxing for exactly that reason, the leading contenders rarely meeting each other.

If you're focusing on Wlad and Vitali, that is such an unusual situation it really doesn't apply to any other. When have two brothers ever met in the ring? If their mother pleaded with them not to fight each other, should they have ignored her?

If you want to dock Wlad and/or Vitali anyway in an historical rating, that is up to you. I would give them a pass on fighting each other, but consider "tag-team" opponent selections as a negative.

"it might suggest that the selection under Wills, was not as clear cut as you are assuming!"

Actually, there were three years, 1922, 1924, and 1925, in which no one at all got a shot. This does impress me as being a bit draconian in culling the contenders.

 

This is where a split might emerge in your army.

You see, you are criticizing the modern super heavyweights!

I do not criticize Wlad and Vitally for not fighting each other as men, but as champion's, the fact remains that they didn't.

This is not even down to Wlad and Vitally though!

For much of that ten year period, neither was the outstanding contender!