Dempsey doesn't belong in HW top 5's. Perhaps not HW top 10's.

I think too much attention is paid to the "size" of some of the fighters Jeffries beat.

Would anyone fault Dempsey if he knocked Greb out cold, just because he was smaller?

Fitz and others proved they weren't at disadvantages because of size.

 

Not faulting Jeffries for that would be a double standard. Tyson, Lewis, Ali et al had to deal with 210+lbs skilled and talented fighters. Imagine how impressive they would've looked if they had an odd 20-30 pounds on their best opponents? If their best opponents was a 38 year old supermiddelweight who messed up their faces badly, and a 37 year old cruiser who hadn't won a fight in 5 years?

 

I don't rate him above Johnson!

 

Jeffries wasn't the size of Lennox for starters, nor did he use his size like Lennox, like leaning his 240-250 pounds on the back of other fighters necks.

Anyway, Jeffries weighed in just 1 pound over 200 over the course of his career, and at no point during his career would I call him a superheavy.

 

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]It’s kind of hard to compare, because they never fought each other, and not much common opposition, but I’d rate Miske and Gibbons around the same place as Jeanette and McVea.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Why? Because he beat Langford, McVea, Jeanette, Jeff Clarke and Bill Tate over and over again? Most of his wins over Langford came when Langford was old, as well. Throw in a few other good wins over guys like Fulton, Firpo, Norfolk and Weinert. Yeah, it’s an excellent resume, but not mind blowing. Certainly not as good as Louis’ or Ali’s. Better than Dempsey’s, but not by a whole lot.

As far as what I’ve read, Miske got worse as time went on. I don’t know how to be sure, but even his pre-Dempsey resume isn’t too bad. Draws against Brennan, Levinsky and Gibbons and a, supposedly, close loss to Norfolk. Plus a KO over second-rater Jack Moran.

I don’t think Fleischer was Dempsey’s biggest fan. I’m pretty sure he rates guys like Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Johnson and Jeffries over Dempsey. Besides, Fleischer supported black fighters back in the day when very few did, I don't think he'd be looking to just excuse a black fighter not getting a desereved title shot.

I guess, if you’re not willing to look at the circumstances around some of the decisions made throughout Dempsey’s career there’s nothing that can be done about that.

Yeah, massive holes. Already been established.

There was really no reason to fight Langford. Sure, he “ducked” Langford back in 1916 or so, but by 1920-21 Langford was heavily on the slide and losing regularly. Plus he’d face the same problems getting a mixed-race title bout against Langford, only worse, because I don't think people were calling for a Dempsey-Langford fight like they were Dempsey-Wills.

I wouldn’t hold it against either of them.

Sure did

He "ducked" Wills because fighting him at that time would have beein commiting suicide for nothing. I think making a Langford fight over a Wills fight would draw huge criticism today, and at the time, seeing as Wills was consitently beating Langford.

Seems that way.

 

A good big man beats a big old man. Do you see any other top15 HWs having problems with a 37yo Fitz?

Its not just being small, Fitz was small and old. And Greb was better in the first place.

 

I think Dempsey is judged a little harshly . Lets look at a few things... (1) what heavyweight champ prior to Dempsey set a better example than Dempsey did? .... , (2) What Black fighters did Dempsey avoid that could have beaten him (Wills...mabey.. .... ( 3)Did Jack Johnson fight the BEST Black fighters of his era or give any real black fighters a title shot? NO..... (4) Dempsey had some very impressive victory's, he became a major star after he won the title and was not active but his Fame was unprecedented and there was no example before him. Dempsey was the greatest fighter for his time and before him, there was never a fighter with his Speed,Power,Killer instint, aggressive and explosive style before him and mabey only a young Tyson came close in recent decades for pure excitment....Sorry I will keep him high in my rankings...it is amatter of opinion and Demsey would have been a tough opponent for any of the ATG's and I think a fight with Ali would be a great one, Jack had a great hook and a great right hand, he had speed and still fought the best of his time...Wills would have been a great fight but I dont think it is a sure thing that he could have beaten Jack but the fight did not come off because the Money and demand was not on the fight. One of the reason's was the state of mind of most whites at the time but we can't blame Jack for that. Fighters were some of the 1st people to respect all races because they respected the guys in the gym for there skills as a man. Dempsey should Not be judged for this.

 

Jeffries listed weights for his career were 206 at the lowest and 227 at the highest. He won the championship at 206, but was 215 or above for all his championship fights.

 

1. In terms of what?
2. Wills, big threat and Godfrey, not sure how much Johnson, Langford, and co had left
3. YEs Johnson did fight all the best black fighters, every one of them, he just stopped after he became champ

 

That Jeffries wasn't a superheavy wasn't my point, although he pretty much was a superheavyweight for his era, as he had 30+ lbs on his best opponents.
And if it was the difference between 250 and 220 pounds, okay. But it was often a case of 210lbs vs 180lbs or even less. That is a huge difference and should definitely be taken into account.

 

WHY....? was it because he could not make Money fighting them...or he liked being alone up there...Did he fear them? Point is he did not give any a title shot

 

Johnson gets a bit of pass by nature of the face:

1. There was little money in black on black fights, he got as much or more money for fighting lesser white fighters
2. The HUGE money fight was Jeffries, he waited and got it
He was hounded by the law for the majority of his reign

 

That article did not prove Dempsey took a dive.


It comes up with evidence, all several years after the so-called fix. The actual fight reports make no mention at all of a booing crowd or suspicion of a fix.

He quotes people who attended the fight, telling the story several years after. Completely unreliable: they saw one quick fight from one angle without slow motion replays or anything, and they're supposed to recall exactly what happened years later? I can hardly remember correctly exactly how a finish went in a relatively big fight, and that's with several slow motion replays. Or well, everytime i think i do, and then i re-watch and it turns out it was quite a bit different. Memory is untrustable when several years have gone over a single event. Papers in the field of psychology have shown this time and time again.


It doesn't really make sense, either. A young, spectacular, nearly undefeated prospect is supposed to take a dive to a washed up 37 year old lightheavyweight? And who says the rematch wasn't a fix too?

 

Tis diferences of opinions that make for horse races as Mark Twain said.