Dempsey vs james j jeffries

A fair evaluation.

Just on the "elk" story. I have read it was a deer, and white-tailed or mule deer are far smaller than elk. A weight of 200 lbs. or less is possible and perhaps likely. But, most likely Jeff would have gutted the deer and bled it at site. With the entrails removed, the weight would drop significantly. So could a big, strong man in excellent shape carry a perhaps 150 lb. deer on his shoulders for nine miles. I think so. It shows he was strong and in shape. Doesn't prove he is a superman. Also, how often did he stop to rest?

My own take on this match is that Jeff survives the early Dempsey onslaught and goes on to wear Dempsey down, scoring a late KO. Jeff gets a lot of facial damage, but his body punches drain Dempsey pretty quickly. Much is made of Jeff being bigger than his foes, but he would be a lot bigger than Dempsey also.

 

You just don't get it.

You can't just look at a fighters record, and deduce from it what people thought at the time, and why they thought it.

You have to go back to the original source material.

There was no well oiled publicity machine, devoted to building Jeffries up while he was champion.

He was an unpopular champion, who was initially greeted with skepticism, who accrued his aura of invincibility gradually.

He was a lot more of a Wladamir Klitschko figure of the era, than a Mike Tyson figure of the era.

When he was coming up through the ranks, many people said that he was too big to become champion.

During his early title reign, he was often compared unfavorably to John L Sullivan, because he needed rounds to put fighters away.

By the end of his title reign, he was regarded as being pretty much unbeatable.

The argument went something like:

"We have thrown the best boxers, and the best punchers at him, and they have all failed. He always had physical advantages over his opponents, but now his boxing has improved, to the point that he is as clever as pretty much anybody. Where the hell do we go in finding a suitable opponent now?"

 

Johnson placed Fitzsimmons above Jeffries,and after the Reno fight he said Johnson was the greatest heavyweight he had seen. Johnson died on the 10th of June 1946 a month before this came out.Artistic licence?

 

Rickard claimed he had a contract with Dempsey at the time of the Dempsey-Wills signing.

Time Magazine 10-19-1925

"Jack Dempsey signed a contract to meet Harry Wills in a 10 round, no decision contest in Michigan City, Indiana, in September 1926. Promoter Floyd Fitzgibbons posted $200,000 as a forfeit. Dempsey got $100,000. Wills $50,000."

Tex Rickard--"I have what I consider an ironclad contract for him to box Wills for me."

Time Magazine 7-27-1925

"Jack Dempsey reached an agreement to fight whomever Tex Rickard should select--one bout this year, one next. His first opponent will be Gene Tunney, George Godfrey, or Jack Renault. Then, if not defeated, he will face Harry Wills."

If the Time Magazine report in July, 1925, is of a signed agreement, then Dempsey was under contract to Rickard. Rickard certainly implies as much in October.

*I don't know why you don't consider George Godfrey a credible challenger to Dempsey, or for that matter Kid Norfolk, who had beaten Miske. Yes, Norfolk was a light-heavy, but so were Gibbons and Carpentier. I don't see a great deal of difference between Jeff and Dempsey on this score.

I note that Rickard apparently considered Godfrey a credible contender as he was one of the three men mentioned as possible opponents for Dempsey prior to Dempsey meeting Wills.

 

I carried a Muntjac back to my car last Friday ,they are no bigger than a good sized dog, I knew all about it,of course I'm 69 years old ,but I highly doubt Jeffries could run very far through rough woodlands with any deer upon his shoulders .I have no doubt he was a very strong man especially for his times,but even when he was fresh Johnson easily controlled him in the clinches.

 

How serious Rickard ever was about promoting a Wills fight is a moot point, but he did not have Dempsey tied up to an exclusive contract at any time in their relationship,which is what I understood you to mean.

 

I quoted what Johnson is credited with writing. Don't forget that the monthly date of The Ring ran well ahead of its publication date. I find it a real stretch to imply that Fleischer would have altered Johnson's writing after his death. Why? What was in it for Nat to downgrade Fitz or puff up Jeffries?

I suppose the first question is when did Johnson say that he rated Fitz higher? It must have occurred to Johnson that Fitz and Jeff had fought twice and that Jeff won both fights by knockout.

 

All I can say is that Rickard is quoted by Time Magazine (an excellent source) as saying he had Dempsey under contractual obligation at the time Dempsey was negotiating with another promoter for a Wills fight.

 

I'm just remarking on the fact that Johnson was dead when it came out and therefore could not contradict any of its contents.
He said it in his autobiography, I'm sure you can find out when it was published should you wish to.
Johnson had a healthy respect for Jeffries, but rated Fitz higher,he didnt think much of Sullivan btw.

 

Biographies on Dempsey, including his own mention him being in talks with several promoters when he was champion if Rickard had him tied up what would be the point of that and wouldn't the other promoters have known about it? Dempsey had already defended his title 2 year s earlier against Gibbons, without any input from Rickard.

 

The issue isn't whether Dempsey ever fought for other promoters than Rickard. It is was Dempsey under contract to Rickard at the time he negotiated with another promoter to fight Wills? If so, the whole signing was a charade designed to deflect the growing criticism of Dempsey for avoiding Wills by a public display of his willingness to sign for a fight. Kevin Smith posted once that he thought it nothing but a publicity signing. I do also.

 

I read Johnson's autobiography decades ago. I don't remember his ratings, but I'll take your word for it. It was written many years before this article. No problem for me. He just changed his mind. Many of our opinions evolve. It is clear that neither Jeff nor Fitz were anywhere near prime when Johnson fought them, so I guess he was drawing conclusions from their careers.

I really don't buy into Fleischer changing what Johnson wrote. Makes no sense to me and I don't see any motive for such an unethical act.

Just a point. This article is signed by Johnson himself as the author. It is not an "as told to" article. And it has Johnson's okay but somewhat old-fashioned writing style.

 

That's your prerogative,I have no idea if you are right or wrong in your assumption,and I very much doubt a definitive answer regarding Dempsey's bonafide intentions visa vis a Wills match will ever be satisfactorily confirmed one way or the other.

 

You this whole discussion has been about just race??? Race absolutely skew both fighters but if you think that is the only reason it was brought up then you have missed the entire argument.....it just so happens the really good fighters with power and size were black in Jeff's era....the entire argument is Jeff was not as tough as claimed and that all the dangerous heavyweights were black..in which he was never truly hit hard by a top tier true heavyweight so how does he get to be indestructible? When he finally fought a top black fighter it was the relatively lighter hitting Johnson and he was getting beaten up.....the same Johnson could not dent Willard even though he tried.....Dempsey annihilated Willard which makes Willard the only common opponent to compare Johnson and Dempsey's power differential......now it is reported that Johnson was not really trying to KO Jeff but still could not avoid hurting him......would it be reasonable to think that Dempsey hit much harder than Johnson...

Now perhaps posters can lay their sensitivities aside so they can focus on the topic......no one said Willard was greater than Jeff from what I can see.....but his chin was better IMO Jeffries could never have beaten Dempsey July 4th 1919....Dempsey would hurt a relatively easy to hit Jeffries much worse than Fitz or Johnson did

 

It certainly appears to be in Johnson's somewhat flowery, archaic style but,
even if it is a verbatim account what does it actually mean?

Muhammad Ali several times said different fighters were his hardest opponents/ the greatest [outside of himself].
Fighters are usually gracious to their contemporaries once they have retired.
Dempsey was a fan of Jeffries that we know, he said as much in his autobiography.

Johnson called Corbett the Father of Modern Boxing,yet he also said Corbett was his inferior because he did not have his power or durability.