Who rates higher all time Jeffries or Dempsey?

My hobby here is correcting you. I'll never pass you on the hate and ignorance part.

Just get the #'s right for a change, and watch a bit more film before commenting. You'll be much better off.

 

I agree that boxing improved some over the decades. You are drawing big conclusions off limited film, though, and I'm not convinced of your conclusion. Corbett was bigger and looks faster and more mobile on the ancient film of the Fitz fight than Gibbons does against Dempsey. Fitz was a far more dangerous puncher than either Sharkey or Gibbons.

Tom Heeney doesn't look like much on film. To give him his due, he had a sturdy build, but is a come forward plodder. He holds his hands a bit higher than they did in the 1890's, but not high enough to block jabs. He seems only to throw one punch at a time. Tunney never had a problem tying him up. Off the record, he was not much of a puncher. I see nothing from him to indicate he wouldn't be just another opponent who would be KO'd by Fitz and Tom Sharkey, and easily outboxed by Corbett. But he fought a draw with your "prime Sharkey" and beat Risko, who in turn beat Sharkey.

 

"He has more speed than he showed."

Perhaps Gibbons was slowing down. He was past thirty.

Just on Greb and Gibbons. The first fight was when Gibbons was 24 and Greb 21. Gibbons was at that point the much more mature fighter. The two 1920 fights came with Gibbons 29 and Greb 26. By 1922 Gibbons was now 31 while Greb was a mature and finished fighter but still in his physical prime at 28.

But the problem this raises is that if Gibbons' best years were behind him, why would anyone expect him to roll back the clock a year later against Dempsey.

 

I'm going by Gilbert Odd's book .If you can unearth any secret bouts I'd be only too happy to entertain them! Im not criticizing Jeffries I'm posting what the ringside reporters opinion was after the fight.They stated he could hit Jeffries when and where he liked and I've posted those reports several times!That if both had been around the same size and age Fitz would have won.If you wish to dismiss a size discrepancy of47lbs and a 12 years age difference ,plus 2 years of inactivity that is your prerogative. You wont get any argument from me , nor credibility for that matter!

 

Does anyone doubt Fitz was way better P4P though?

 

You should be grateful.

There were people close to him, pushing him to duck Gibbons as well!

That would have been a hat trick of the best contenders!

 

I agree....I'm old enough to have both men in the field. Mantle was in great shape in 57....he hadn't yet destroyed his body with alcohol and non training.

 

Your hobby is lying.

 

I don't see the correlation between Boxing and Baseball.