Comparing Jeffries and Dempsey in accomplishment

Reasons Jeffries has dropped in these historical ratings:

1. Lack of film--only good film is of the Johnson fight

2. In his comeback, he got himself identified as the Great White Hope. I think this has caused a reaction against him. It is interesting to consider where he would be rated if he never came back. Jeffries is identified, somewhat rightly, somewhat unfairly, with racism.

3. He stopped fighting serious opposition at 28 and did not win a fight after 29.

 

1. Holyfield's rating--Ring Magazine gave their reasoning as below:

"WHY HE'S RATED WHERE HE'S RATED--Only man besides Muhammad Ali to thrice win heavyweight title . . . Proved doubters wrong time and again, especially overcoming age and supposed heart ailment to win career-defining first fight with Tyson . . . Tremendous desire and great chin allowed him to win repeatedly as an underdog . . . Excellent combination puncher . . . Has had trouble with heavyweights far bigger than him . . . The Ring Magazine fighter of the year 1987, '96, '97."

Ring Magazine has Holyfield at #5 on their current ratings, ahead of Foreman, Holmes, and Lewis. They are rating him higher than almost anyone.

I am less impressed than they seem to be about winning a title several times. To do that, you first have to lose. I am more impressed with the men who don't lose their titles. Looking at this evaluation, what strikes me is no mention of losing 2 of 3 to Bowe, except obliquely with the "far bigger" comment. No doubt, though, that victories over Tyson, Bowe, Holmes, Foreman, Douglas, and Moorer make Holyfield's resume one of the very best. Others might be underrating him more than The Ring is overrating him.

2. My ratings--I am agonizing over where to put Jeffries. In the ESB poll, I rated him fifth. I have now dropped him to ninth. He has a thin but high quality resume and dominated his era like only a very few ever have. He is hurt by not fighting a better opponent in 1904 and quitting so early. I still think on balance he deserves a top ten rating.

 

Why do you always bring this up but fail to mention that was one of the knockout losses was Martin's PROFFESIONAL DEBUT, surely someone's pro debut cannot be held against them.

Martin and Armstrong fought Twice when it mattered- They both went 1-1. In the most IMPORTANT match of the series for the COLORED heavyweight championship and "The right to challenge the winner of Fitz-Jeffries for the linear title"....Martin easily outboxed armstrong for a near shutout 15 round decision.

Denver Ed also recored a win over Sam Mcvea, and a top knockout victory over Dangerous Hank Griffin.

Too me, Martin was the better fighter than armstrong.....and during a brief period when Martin was colored heavyweight champion in late 1902...San Fransisco Examiner claimed Martin is gauranteed a title shot at the winner of fitz-jeff rematch...yet somehow Jeff never took Martin on.

 

Hi, SQ

I just disagree that Martin was all THAT good. You make a fair point that Martin was green in the first Armstrong fight. Boxrec has it his debut. Cyberboxingzone has him having fights back to 1897. Either way, he was green and this defeat didn't mean anything.

And Martin had a good run between 1899 and 1902, but not all THAT good. He beat an aging Frank Chillds for the Colored championship, but Childs was stopped about this time by Johnson and also lost to Choynski. He ko'd Griffin in 7, but Griffin was also ko'd about this time by the very ordinary Fred Russell and twice went to 20 round draws with Joe Kennedy, whom Jeffries blew out in a 1901 fight in two. He beat the probably somewhat past his best Armstrong over 15 on July 25, 1902.

Okay. At this point Martin was a top contender, perhaps the top contender. He might have deserved a shot at Jeffries, but such a shot would not have come prior to 1903. Jeffries was more active than most champions of the pre-Louis era, but still it was one defense a year. How do you know Martin wasn't going to get a shot in 1903 if he kept winning?

But he didn't. In December, he fights Armstrong again and in a 6 round no decision fight is knocked down either five or six times, depending on the source. That certainly took the bloom off the rose concerning a Jeffries fight. In February he loses to Jack Johnson and is eliminated as a top contender. Later in the year the past his best Armstrong and teenager Sam McVea knock him out in 3 and 1 rounds respectively. He does bounce back to beat McVea in 1904, but that's about it as Johnson and then McVea twice knock him out and he fades totally from the scene.

Bottom line--Martin beat McVea as a teenager in 1904, but McVea ko'd him three other times. A nearing the end of the line Armstrong ko'd him in 1903. Johnson dominated him. Martin didn't get a shot because he blew his chance with a series of crushing defeats. He was never the same after the six knockdown performance against Armstrong in 1902.

Martin reminds me a bit of Michael Grant. I just don't think there is any there there with him. He was not all THAT good.

 

This is a good thread. Chris makes good points as to why Jeffries has declined in the picture in ratings. Old Fogey covered it too.

I think I'll add that the numbers of fights he had give people a tendency to maybe question him in terms of longevity and consistency.

 

Everyone is comparing the Tunney performances to the Corbett peformances. But that is only half the comparison. What about comparing the Tunney performances to the Johnson fight. Jeffries far more gone than Dempsey every was. And Johnson was quite a bit better than Tunney ever was (in nearly everyone's view). Yet, Jeffries did at worst as good as Dempsey did in the first Tunney fight, and at best, quite a bit better than Tunney did in both fights. Dempsey won only a single round out of 20 against Tunney.

Comparing achievements, i dont really see that Dempsey has much of a chance. There is no doubt that Jeffries dominated his sport, until he retired. He never lost a fight and he did fight and beat the best fighters in the world save for maybe one or two arguments just before he retired. Even his harshest critics agree on that .

Dempsey on the other hand, had incredible popularity and crowd pleasing power, but he did lose on the way up. Even forgiving this, he did not establish the same level of superiority as Dempsey, in that he never actually fought and beat his top contender in Harry Wills, or many of the other guys who were top names during or before his title reign (eg Lanford, Godfrey etc). Not that i am saying that this was a poor reign, because it wasnt, but it wasnt at the same level as Jeffries was.

The biggest achievement for Dempsey was the Million dollar gate and his popularity gleaned by his style rather than his accomplishments. I dont think this really gives an advantage in such a rating though i guess that money is the name of the game so maybe it does.

Although not relevant to a topic discussing achievements, how bizarre is it to see people trying to pull the size argument against jeffries. In case anyone hasnt realised, Jeffries is bigger than Dempse in every single way!

I think that Jeffries has a big advantage