This is my thread son, so who's stalking who? And the reason you won't/can't answer the question is because it exposes YOUR double standards and hypocrisy. On top of that you have now been caught in ANOTHER lie, further damaging what little credibility you have. :yep
Lets not forget that Most who saw both, didnt rate anyone in the same class as Sullivan, Fitz, Jackson and Corbett, and to a lesser extent Jeffries. I am pretty sure that included Dempsey!
It was nearly always referred to the good old days with Fitz, Corbett and Sullivan. This was considered the Golden age and most of the first hand reports i remember refer it as such, and lament the drop in standards since these times. Jeffries sort of seems to be held in the awe on the one hand but not as universal, by most of those older writers. The consensus i seemed to get is that most of those older writers thought that standards as a whole around the golden 3 were higher and Jeffries was lucky to come along when he did, notwithstanding the fact that he was the exception who could have competed at the old levels. It is particularly interesting how many seem to like the time of Sullivan and those standards, as most of us who study the era come to the conclusion that it was a poor era where John L was a man among boys. Of course, that is just my take, and some may have a different but i think that is the largest consesus i have read from time. Johnson probably also suffered from the same problem as Jeffries as he was seen to be the king of a small castle also. there were of course some writers, as always who seemed to think that mankind had evolved and the old timers couldnt compete. In reality, imo, you need to assume that all eras are very similar in quality, otherwise inter era fights do not make sense. It is also the main reason, i think, why i often find myself sticking up for the older fighters.
I don't agree with you at all. I think that Jeffries was held in the highest regard of the four. No fighter has been universally acknowledged since the heyday of Sullivan, but I actually believe that Jeffries was the closes thing to it. He was often referred to as the "champions of champions" and yeah this was in an historical context. But overall I think you raise a very interesting point...these guys would have been held in higher regard by many than Dempsey, golden age etc.
Maybe. But an interesting thing about Dempsey is that many of the veteran reporters, managers, ex-fighters etc. WERE rating him among those greats, as early as 1919 and 1920. There were a few dissenters, but many more were quick to put him in the same class as Fitzsimmons, and even Sullivan. In other words, the high rating of Dempsey didn't just start with some nostalgic trend 20 years aftter he was champion.
Jeffries was the first heavyweight champion to retire undefeated, [Corbett did momentarily but came back],as such he was perceived as a super man, not popular ,[ his demeanour was less than attractive to the public] ,but highly respected.
took 2-3yrs to build a million-dollar gate and this whole topic is based on your HATE for fighters pre-2002...