Dempsey vs james j jeffries

Yes I have read all the sensational story writing.....and when Jeff becomes human in the eyes of his supporters such as you then the arguments will be less bashing and more balanced from the outset.....I think you are lost in the Jeff hysteria of the era and like many posters just accept it.....I do get it perhaps better than many on this board having been a fighter as well.....what I question is the sacredness of calling Jeff out as the oversized bully of his era who never fought another capable fighter near his size

 

Rich,

Many of the times people who saw these fighters felt Corbett or Fitzsimmons was better than Dempsey. I think Jack Johnson himself rated Fitzsimmons over Dempsey. Nat Fleischer also rate Fitzsimmons over Dempsey.

Pretty much all the top heavies from the 1890's to 1920's said Jeffries was the best. Corbett, Sharkey, Langford, Dempsey, and Burns said so, and if you could get his autobio, Johnson did too when he called him the greatest. Were they all wrong? Doubtful. I really don't see a way to argue with his many historical sources, and my guess is you were unaware of who the fighters all picked #1. But know you know.

I'm not sure if you are a hater type here, or just someone who hasn't read or see enough, I hope the later is correct.

Jeffries had zero losses to lesser fighters or any fighter save his late comeback attempt, heavy and out of the ring for six years.

It an easy fact Johnson and Dempsey lost to lesser men ( several times), were stopped by lesser punchers lesser punchers than Jeffries, and had easier title defenses.

If Jeffries did anything wrong, it's quitting the game too early as he probably would have a fight or two more on better film quality. He left the game as he was approaching his peak.

 

This will show you more, how he clinched, boxed, moved and reflexes. Jeffries footspeed, defensive work and counters show a completely different fighter than the 1899 injured ( Shoulder in round 2 ) version who sent Sharkey to the Hospital.

[url]https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jeffries+trianign+clips+1901&view=detail&mid=1A5A46C9348133834E5E1A5A46C9348133834E5E&FORM=VIRE[/url]

 

I think that you approached the question with a preconception that Jeffries was an over sized bully, who was promoted by the press due to the color of his skin, and perhaps a degree of righteous indignation due to the fact that he drew the color line.

Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to look beyond this preconception.

 

This is essentially true.

Jeffries quit at his absolute peak, when he potentially had his best fights ahead of him.

I can understand why he did it at the time, but it was a mistake in hindsight.

 

Even if everything you said here is true, it doesn't mean the conclusion they finally came to was a logical and sound one.

 

I am not saying that it was, but you would be doing yourself a disservice as a historian, if you did not accept that they believed what they believed!

 

Johnsons named Fitzsimmons as the best heavyweight before himself. I think I would be inclined to agree.

 

[url]↑[/url]
Rich,

Many of the times people who saw these fighters felt Corbett or Fitzsimmons was better than Dempsey. I think Jack Johnson himself rated Fitzsimmons over Dempsey. Nat Fleischer also rate Fitzsimmons over Dempsey.

This content is protected

Pretty much all the top heavies from the 1890's to 1920's said Jeffries was the best. Corbett, Sharkey, Langford, Dempsey, and Burns said so, and if you could get his autobio, Johnson did too when he called him the greatest. Were they all wrong? Doubtful. I really don't see a way to argue with his many historical sources, and my guess is you were unaware of who the fighters all picked #1. But know you know.

This content is protected

I'm not sure if you are a hater type here, or just someone who hasn't read or see enough, I hope the later is correct.

This content is protected

Jeffries had zero losses to lesser fighters or any fighter save his late comeback attempt, heavy and out of the ring for six years.

This content is protected

It an easy fact Johnson and Dempsey lost to lesser men ( several times), were stopped by lesser punchers lesser punchers than Jeffries, and had easier title defenses.

This content is protected

If Jeffries did anything wrong, it's quitting the game too early as he probably would have a fight or two more on better film quality. He left the game as he was approaching his peak.

This content is protected

 

Jeffries is here sparring with his brother Jack,there is no footage of Jeffries in an actual fight, boxing in anything like this manner.There is footage of Johnson moving his hands nonstop whilst holding dumbells and skipping lightly to and fro as he does so.This is totally unrepresentative of how Johnson actually fought ,just as the clip you always show of Jeffries is completely untypical of how he fought.
The footage you show is Jeffries training for the Ruhlin fight ,we have the actual Ruhlin fight to watch on You Tube in no second of it do we see Jeffries moving or throwing punches as he does in that clip.In actual fights he did one of two things he either waited for his opponent to come in as he did against Sharkey, countering them when they did so. Or he advanced in a measured manner his chin tucked into his left shoulder, his left hand low and half extended.
I repeat there is no footage of Jeffries in any fight moving in the slightest way that could be said to emulate what we see in your clip nor do the descriptions of him in his fights replicate what we see in that clip.

 

Langford said Johnson was the best heavyweight until he saw Dempsey whom he called the greatest.
Johnson named Fitzsimmons as the best next to himself. Dempsey never named Jeffries as the best.

That's three lies you have been pulled up on countless times and are still repeating. Johnson was stopped by Choynski whom, Corbett,Fitzsimmons,Sharkey, Johnson,and Jeffries himself named as the hardest hitter they fought ,and Willard who was a prodigious right hand puncher.
There is no evidence that Jeffries was a better puncher than either and the fact that middleweights and super middles went extended rounds with him suggests he was not!
Joe Jeannette named Langford as the best he faced ,Sam McVey named Johnson.GunBoat Smith named Langford.

Corbett ,Sharkey and Burns all hated Johnson's guts, to expect any of them to be objective on Johnson's abilities would be akin to expecting you to be ! Never the less Corbett stated in print that Johnson was the greatest boxer he ever saw,he called him," The Emperor Of Fistiana" and he said this in an interview with Nat Fleischer!
Sharkey said this " Jack Johnson was the greatest defensive fighter I ever saw, he was unhittable,and I tell you this honestly because I hated the man".
After his thrashing by Johnson Burns said,"how badly had I understimated him".

 

This is strictly true, but if he had these skills, why didn't he use them?

If he had no intention of using them in a fight, then why did he practice them?

Is the truth perhaps somewhere between what we see on the limited fight footage, and what we see on the sparring film?

 

Here is something for you Mendoza this is fairly well known how afraid the white establishment of the time was of Johnson beating Jeffries.....how did Johnson not have any disadvantages going in this fight??? you really think that their was no pressure from whites for Johnson to lose.....or attempts to thwart him?? if not then white America too bought into the hype of Jeffries indestructibility and as a result Jeffries was humiliated..



After Johnson’s equally decisive defeat of Jim Jeffries, in 1910, Jeffries was unexpectedly generous in conceding to a reporter, “I could never have whipped Johnson at my best. I couldn’t have reached him in a thousand years.” More often, white reactions to Johnson’s victories were bitter, vicious, hysterical. After Jeffries’s defeat, as word of Jack Johnson’s victory spread, riots began to break out across the United States. “No event yielded such widespread racial violence until the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., fifty-eight years later.” In all, as many as twenty-six people were killed and hundreds more hurt in the rioting, most of them black.

 

How boxers appear in training is often unrepresentative of how they perform in an actual fight. As both the Jeffries and Johnson footage demonstrates! Johnson did not do Ali shuffles and windmill his arms he stood flat footed his trail foot at a right angle to his lead foot.Jeffries either waited for you to attack and then threw short clubbing hooks into your ribs and face or, stalked you in a measured manner, looking to land something significant to slow you down for the big stuff later.
Jeffries is hugging and clinching with his brother whom everybody and his Granny knows was a poor third rater.He is under no pressure and can afford to do whatever he wishes ,safe in the knowledge that their is zero possibility he is going to be punished for any lapses in defence or technique .

I'm not trying to be personal or nasty here J, but from what you said I have to think you have done very little boxing.
You have read extensively about these guys, as I have ,have you ever read a description of Jeffries acting in the manner he demonstrates on that clip?

 

In my mind's eye I just can't see this any other way but playing out very poorly for Jeffries. Dempsey was a souped-up, more technical and scientific, more athletic version of Sharkey, a fighter who gave Jim plenty of trouble. I give Jim 5 rounds likely, 7 at the best before the damage is too much even for the unsympathetic rabble of the early 20th century.