Dempsey vs james j jeffries

What I try to do, is bring as many lines of evidence to bear as possible, whether they are favorable to Jeffries or not.

You would be hard put to find anything negative written about Jeffries, after the second Corbett fight, and before his ill fated comeback.

Some people criticized his stance on the color line, but I have never found anything negative written about his ability during this period.

 

Ok well this is going nowhere

 

Just for consideration, where would Jeffries rank as a Dempsey opponent? Obviously better than Flynn and Fulton. Better than Willard almost all would contend. And better than any defense he actually won... Brennan, Firpo, Gibbons, Carpentier...

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

Noted however we are not talking about the morals of the society in a social studies way we are talking about how it affected the greatness of fighters that only fought half or less of the competitive fighters available.....I would also point out he instead of fighting quality heavyweights he fought retreads that were on the downhill slide....the real confusion here is Jeffries fought the biggest names of his reign those with name recognition but not necessarily the better fighters in any era the era where it was far more acceptable and expected for any man to fight any man in spite of size and strength variations.......since that era recognition of what is sporting has evolved unfortunately pro Jeff crowd hang their hats on writers who were biased and obviously partial to the era and style of that time period.....Jeff was a true modern sized heavyweight fighting in an era where a middleweight was able to move up and wreck the heavyweights of the era to the point of near death for Ruhlin....this has not happened since even in subsequent eras where ATG middleweights challenged heavyweights their has not been even with weaker heavyweights a replication of this feat.....It is IMO proof that the eras heavyweights were relatively weak and had not been thoroughly tested and washed out in competition against competent punchers post John L Sullivan....in an era where fights were rudimentary and skills in comparison chins would be tested against 200lb men apparently KO power was void in the time frame....this is not Jeffries fault for being a big man in a smaller man era and it isn't Fitz fault for the weaker competition but it is what it is....

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/126210-why-did-the-boxing-world-ever-listen-to-nat-fleischer

 

I agree.

Its getting us nowhere, because your position is almost an article of faith.

You seem to have arrived at it, before knowing much about the era, apart from what you can find on Boxrec, and you ignore any evidence that contradicts it!

In that sense it is almost like arguing with a religious zealot!

 

1--On the article posted. I agree with it to an extent, although I remember a boxing show that ran on the local Minneapolis station after the Gillette Friday Night fights in the 1950's. They frequently asked their panel of "experts" who they though were the best heavies. I was just a little one, and didn't know much of anything about boxing history, but their panel, which included Jack Gibbons (Tommy & Jack's brother) all picked either Johnson or Jeff at #1 or #2. I had to look them up at the World Book at school, but I did know who Sullivan, Dempsey, and Louis were. Point is Nat was not unique by any means. Marciano was still active at the time, so other than Louis I wouldn't get excited about disputing such an opinion.

2--Issues about Jeff's time--one, a close look at the actual records undercuts the "superiority" of black fighters while Jeff was champ. Bob Armstrong and Hank Griffin lost to Jeffries. Jack Johnson & Frank Childs were KO'd by Joe Choynski. Griffin had one win & two draws with Johnson in a series which lasted into the summer of 1902 when Jeff was fighting his rematch with Fitz. Martin had a good run, but was KO'd by Armstrong. That brings it down to McVea & Johnson. McVea was a teenager with a big win over Martin more than balanced out with three losses to Johnson & one to Martin. That leaves Johnson after the second Corbett fight as the one man Jeff really should have defended against.

It also should be pointed out that Choynski was beaten by Tom Sharkey, Kid McCoy, and Gus Ruhlin, and also bested by Corbett and Fitz. This "who beat who" stuff points to Fitz, Corbett, Sharkey, and Ruhlin as actually being the best contenders out there.

Then what about the quality of the era. Well, I think boxing has improved over the decades and heavyweights have gotten much bigger, but Jeff in this thread is not being compared to late 20th or 21st century fighters but to Dempsey. So, what about Dempsey's foes? and the "who beat who" test? Miske, Brennan, Gibbons, Levinsky, Gunboat Smith, and Tunney lost to middleweight Harry Greb. Levinsky, Carpentier, and Gibbons lost to Tunney. Fulton, Firpo, Gunboat Smith, and Willie Meehan lost to Harry Wills. Dempsey lost to Tunney and never fought Wills or Greb.

So Dempsey, unlike Jeffries, does not have a good case for even being clearly the best out there in his own era, an era in which several fighters of the Jeff era were still active.

So for me the bottom line is certainly Jeff's era doesn't compare to recent decades, but were the twenties all that much better? And at least Jeff proved himself the best out there in his 1898 to 1903 run. Dempsey fails this test.

 

On the argument that big men clearly punch harder,

all kinds of guys were bigger than Dempsey and/or Marciano prior to 1960. How many do you think clearly punched harder than those two? Or Langford?

Oddly, there have been plenty of posts on this forum over the years maintaining that Fitz punched harder than Jeffries,

but that totally undercuts this size argument.

 

This thread is a train wreck. Every time Jeff gets mentioned, there has to be some Jack Johnson worshipper there to ruin the thread. Let's clear this up; Jack Johnson is the worst heavyweight champion in history, bar none. Bermane Stiverne is a better fighter than Johnson was. Johnson had no talent; the only people who say he was a "DeFEnSiVE geNiuS" are those who have never watched him fight or those who haven't got a clue. Johnson was incredibly feather fisted and had a very weak chin.

Right, back to the thread. Jeffries would stop Dempsey late after taking considerable punishment.

 

Worse than Tommy Burns?

 

Burns had more about him than Johnson did.

Their fight means next to nothing; when they fought, Burns was ill.

 

Interesting styles clash. Dempsey overwhelmed his opponents with sheer agression and pressure, but Jeffries was much bigger, more powerful and better grappler. On the other hand, Dempsey was fast and accurate puncher, which should bother Jeffries not-so-perfect defense. Then again - Jeffries had granite chin and much better stamina.

If I had to bet, I'd pick Jeffries to grind him down after 10 rough rounds. I could see Dempsey beating him, but it's a bit less likely scenario in my opinion.

 

Popcorn jokes aside:

This...would make an interesting thread.

 

Eddie Futch named Johnson as one of the joint three top heavies of all time,the other two being Ali and Louis.
But what would he know? Fleischer named him as number 1.Fleischer saw not only Johnson, but Jeffries.
Both Futch and Fleischer obviously did not have a clue!

I pick Dempsey to outpoint Jeffries who never faced a banger as quick and shifty on his feet ,nor one anywhere near his best .Sharkey gave Jeffries life and death ,Sharkey was not as quick , or as elusive as Dempsey neither was he as accurate or as hard a puncher. I can't see Jack stopping Jeffries,but I do think he would land significantly more punches most everyone landed pretty freely on Jeff but the best banger of them Fitz had bad hands, was coming out of retirement and was an old man.

 

That is untrue ,Burns gave public workouts up until 2 days before the fight and ,both before after the bout stated he was in the best condition of his life.