Who rates higher all time Jeffries or Dempsey?

How many of Jeffries opponents deserved a shot before Fitz
in1900?
John Finnegan whom Ruhlin had used as a yo yo?
Jim Corbett whom Fitz had knocked out?
Gus Ruhlin whom Fitz had half killed?
Which ones deserved a title shot before Fitz in1900?

 

What are you talking about? I stand by my declaration that Dempsey's title reign was mediocre. I blame his management for that more than I do him though. If race wasn't an issue in America then Dempsey-Wills would have happened simple as that.

Greb would have been fun to watch while it lasted but honestly I doubt that Greb would have lasted much longer than Brennan if he made it his goal to fight Dempsey and not run.

Honestly with Greb and Gibbons we're arguing inches here. They were both top fighters, the people wanted Gibbons rather than Greb.

 

You realize Jeffries refused to fight black men right?

 

You are funny. But sad. So sad.

 

He wouldn't defend his title against them, but he did fight them.

Of his 23 normally listed fights, 5 were against black men, all four of whom where top men of the time--Jack Johnson, Peter Jackson, Bob Armstrong, and Hank Griffin.

To be clear, Jeff deserves the criticism he receives for drawing the color line as champion, but he did in fact face a good cross section of the best black heavyweights of his era.

 

I don't think you can compare not rematching someone as soon as ideal, with not facing them at all

 

"Dempsey's title reign was mediocre."

Yes.

"I blame his management more than I do him though."

Who cares about the blame or excuse games. Dempsey's fault. Kearn's fault. Rickard's fault. Nobody's fault. Everybody's fault. It doesn't matter.

His title reign being "mediocre" is all that really counts.

 

And the fault for Jeff not defending against Fitz in 1901 appears to rest with Fitz as much, and apparently even more, than it rests with Jeff.

Adam Pollack wrote (the quotes are in an earlier post on this thread) that Fitz rebuffed an offer to fight Jeff in 1901.

 

"Incorrect."

That's too bad. I thought you might turn out to be interesting.

"You aren't succeeding."

So. One thing you learn growing old is that pleasing other people doesn't matter.

"Gibbons opponents had over five times as many fights as Fitz did plus a 70% win ratio."

Well, Fitz's opponents from 1890 to 1905 had an 83% win to loss ratio at the time he fought them. I'm not going to bother trying to figure out their end of career records. As for total fights, I'm certain Gibbons' group have more, especially listed, but you are totally oblivious to the lack of records from the 19th century. A few questions arise right away. How many newspapers covered boxing? How many of those newspapers survive? Does boxrec count London Prize Ring fights?

Just looking at the top ten opponents Fitz defeated, their won-lost records when he fought them was 488-38 which comes out to 93%. All were world class. Four were champions with title reigns totaling 20 years. Two other fights were with a championship claimant. Two of these opponents were undefeated. Two had over 100 victories. Several had the reps and the stats of big punchers.

I think your focus on guys with few or no recorded fights is off the rails as we don't have the facts to actually know for certain their records. This is just drawing a conclusion from a lack of evidence. Even if we were to grant your point, it is worthless. How many bad fighters Fitz overpowered doesn't detract from his great performance against his world class opposition.

"He took two year layoffs and a year long layoff from 1885-1903."

Hard to see how having two or more fights over all these years except for 1898 and 1901 means you are laying off all the time. Unless, and this might be your bottom line, your argument is basically like this. Joe Louis was heavyweight champion for about 11 years, 7 months. That comes out to about 4285 days. Louis defended his title 25 times, so he didn't have an official fight for 4260 days. I guess your logic leads to judging Louis laid off for 11 years and 6 months during his title reign.

"Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, and Jersey Joe Walcott knew how to get into shape for fights yet your the same dude who calls them washed up or past prime."

If you are going to quote me, you should at least get into the right ballpark. This is the polar opposite of the position I have taken and reiterated many times on this board. I think "prime" a misleading term. What matters is who wins or loses, not arbitrarily dismissing fighters on the basis of age. On this thread I mentioned Ted Williams hitting .388 at 39, and Archie Moore KO'ing Harold Johnson when 37. On the Moore-Johnson fight, whether Archie was "prime" is pretty much a beside the point abstraction to me. He was better than the 26 year old Johnson, whom I assume most of the folks so concerned with discerning prime would have considered prime.

"Fitz"

"Dempsey"

"Layoffs"

In both cases the fault is certainly their own, and I give them no extra dibs for losing after a layoff, nor do I penalize the guy who beat them after their layoff.

"It's a fact that Dempsey was past prime when he fought Tunney just like Fitz was past prime when he fought Jeffries."

Actually, it is not a fact. It is an opinion. After all, Dempsey was only 31 to Tunney's 29. He couldn't beat Tunney but then Tunney was clearly above anyone he ever did defeat. How can anyone know his loss was from being "past prime" or just being the lesser fighter? And if being 31 is past prime, Fitz was past prime for the bulk of his top years. The situation with Fitz is the same as with Dempsey. He lost to a fighter who was better than anyone he ever defeated.

"Tunney and Jeff get credit for beating . . . atg's."

True. Jeff beat Fitz. Tunney beat Greb.

"His entire resume" "30 debuts"

Simply drawing a conclusion from a lack of evidence. Always poor logic.

 

I'm just going to bring this back to it's core argument.

Was Bob Fitzsimmons prime for Jeffries yes or no?

 

I know. What was your point again?

Jeffries's was worse.

 

He fought Johnson because he was begged to reclaim "white glory" or whatever racist bull**** white people come up with. Jeffries wouldn't go near him when he had the title himself. Every black guy Jeffries fought was early in his career. You said that John Lester Johnson scared Dempsey away from fighting black guys right? Well then you can certainly say the same thing of Bob Armstrong.

Bob Armstrong was a 3rd rate fighter according to contemporaries. He didn't legitimately fight Johnson. He thought it would be a fixed fight apparently. Peter Jackson was nowhere near a top man of the time.

 

Did Dempsey face black fighters? I don't believe he did, Jeffries gets the edge just for facing Jack Johnson.