Sorry about all the Jeffries' threads, but I'm starting to feel I've overlooked him a bit and want your opinions on the man. It seems to me that there's a really solid case to rank him above Dempsey. Your opinions?
Jeffries, I think. I don't rate Dempsey's title run, or his pre-title run that highly. It also really,really bothers me...nah, no sense opening that can of worms again Anyway, it's pretty close. But I do think Jeffries gets a raw deal on the board. I also have him above Johnson.
Jeffries was one of the most impressive hw champs IMO. Dempsey was one of the most spectacular but with him there was more style while Jeffries was more substance.
:yep Not if you don't have a good supply of coffe and power bars at hand. Jeffries over Johnson? Can't say I agree, but I'll happily leave that one two messieurs Janitor and McVey. Also would be surprised if I don't see Mendoza's fin zig-sacking through the water soon.
I like Jeffries as having a higher rating. He won the title with very fights, spent a larger percentage of his career fighting the best, and asside from a single loss that came after a 6 year retirement against a future all time great, he basically left the game undefeated.
I'm a believer in boxings progression and believe Dempsey progressed the sport at HW level at that time. Without seeing much of Prime Jeffries its hard to know but I get the impression his skills weren't elite and he relied overly on outmuscling smaller men. His fans point to his wins against pre-historic versions of Corbett and Fitz, who knows maybe both would give Dempsey problems but I'm not convinced. Both got hammered past their prime by skilled boxer types.
PP, your position on boxing's evolution is well known, all i'll say on that is that I don't think comparing fighters directly in terms of style and ability is sensible - it's much more reasonable to rank them relative to their peers. Ability is fine as a barometer, but it shouldn't be the be all and end all. Further to this point though, I don't understand why you think that a fighter who is given to muscling his opposition should always be ranked below a fighter who is more skilled. Muscling guys is fine if you win. As to his advantage in size, you rank Lewis extremely high, yes? He's also the biggest great HW.
Well thats not entirely true, many consider Ali the 'greatest' because he supposedly fought the best opposition, likewise Hopkins isn't the greatest MW of all time because we don't rate his era. I think Dempsey's era was better than Jeffries and a tougher era. I think Jeffries was fighting in the sports infancy and in my view showed a prime Corbett would likely have beaten him, if Prime Dempsey fought a 40yo Johnson and got schooled for 15rounds before him knocking the man out, it would rate against him, as I hold it against Jeffries PS Lewis was strong but he had P4P skill and stayed at the top for 11-12 years, Jeffries was at the top for a much shorter time period
I don't think comparing Johnson to Corbett is the worst thing i've ever heard, although I do think that Johnson was very very obviously the more shopworn of the two. But again, the styles make this comparison a bit silly, don't they? Of course a speedster-destoyer type is going to get somebody vulnerable out of their more quickly than an attrition, pressure type. It doesn't matter. Dempsey's era might have been tougher, but the best Dempsey actually beat versus the best Jeffries actually beat? Close. Close. I wouldn't like to make some of those picks. Furthermore, Jeffries beat the best of his era, bar Johnson, who, in my opinion, didn't make his case until the end of 03, beginning of '04. Dempsey persistantly failed to match the best HW outside of himself for his entire reign, and possibly the second best, to boot.
Dempsey, if only because I think he brought more to boxing than Jeff did. Their comp is overall not very impressive for their respective reigns, but Dempsey's is arguably a cut worse. Would have been interesting to see what had happened if he had been much more active during his reign. For what it's worth, I would favor a prime Jeffries to beat any heavyweight in a fight to the finish.
Its a mute example given they didn't fight, or did they All the same Corbetts last win prior to fighting Jeffries was 6years before. People are happy to excuse Jeffries loss to Johnson after a similar period without a win, but still give credit to Jeffries win here. That's a double standard As for Johnson not making the case for a Jeffries fight, I think he did and thats why Jeffries retired, because he didn't want the indignity of losing to Johnson. I also think the Hart loss was likely an out an out robbery When we come to comparing opposition its difficult. Dempsey beat big friendly giants (who killed men). Jeffries beat past it skilled smaller men who were great. Dempsey beat some elite small men himself such as Carpentier/Gibbons (who imo is underrated - he beat the crap out of Greb for 1 thing) Anyway I have a feeling Dempsey sparks Jeffries not that thats the be all and end all
Jeffries was a rare combination of a really big strong man who had a lot of fitness and stamina. despite his size he outlasted all the top fighters of his day. fighters trained like long distance runners back then and boiled right down, Jeffries was a monster because he was still 220 training that way. I get the impression that better fighters succumbed to Jim’s sheer strength and size advantage where as Dempsey proved he could fight so well he could also give away physical advantages. Dempsey fought so many more times he was bound to have more seasoning and ring smarts. Pound for pound Dempsey hit harder. Rocky marciano once said george chuvalo would be a world champion if there was still 50 round fights to the finish but nobody would back him against Dempsey. I rate Dempsey higher at #4 and Jeffries at #12 but both are outstanding champions.
