My great great uncle was also a boxer. He was the Heavy Weight Champion of the world. His name was James Jackson Jeffries (Jim Jeffries). He was a racist d@#k but he was one hell of a fighter. And it;s true that he could jump 6' straight up in the air!
I've always though it interesting that Jeffries had over thirty pounds on Sharkey and couldn't
put him away in toe to toe slugging in their two fights for a total of 45 rounds. Yet 160lb Bob Fitzsimmons easily Ko'd Sharkey twice (although the first fight was unjustly called a foul). A very average Gus Ruhlin would Ko Sharkey twice ending his career. Could Jeffries' power be overrated?
@andrewr62 - Sharkey was never the same after coney isle. Ruhlins wins and one of Fitz's was after coney isle, Sharkey swore he was cheated in the first Fitz fight. I dont think Jeff had Liston like power but more like Frazier. The long scheduled rounds and big ring also were better for boxers over sluggers. I just think Sharkey was a tough s.o.b. until the Jeffries fights finally ruined him.
@1899sharkey He was tough for sure. He dominated Choynski in their fights and Ko'd Ruhlin in their first meeting in one. Another impressive win was against Kid McCoy. There is a recent report of an early KO loss to a black fighter by the name of George Washington as reported recently on Boxrec.com. I have yet to find the newspaper account of this.
@1899sharkey -- I believe Jeffries had Liston-like and Foreman-like power. He was still "green" versus Sharkey in fight #1 and had an injured arm against Sharkey in the second fight. Besides, he fought with patience and boxed very well too - not simply slugging with all of his might. He said he never hit a man as hard as he could for fear of killing him.
@jhs1958 - You could very well be right. Jim thought it was better to pace hiself for the long distance. He certainly had the size and powerful build of a heavy hitter.
@andrewr62 -- I wonder about Joe Louis' power myself. He beat Tommy Farr in 15 rounds (Farr was stopped by Eddei Steele in seven); Joe beat Ad Wiater in ten rounds (Wiater was stopped by Leo Lomski in three); Joe beat Patsy Perroni in ten rounds(Perroni was stopped by Bob Olin in three)
@jhs1958 I am a believer in the phrase styles make fights. From the films I've seen Louis punched with awesome velocity and force. The damage done to Max Schmeling in their second fight clearly demonstrated what he was capable of under the right circumstances.
Jeff pounds Tom with that right uppercut under the heart the whole fight. Jeffries would of wore down and stopped Larry Holmes. Witherspoon and Weaver gave Larry fits, Jeff was way better than either of them.
Tom Sharkey was an early-day version of Rocky Marciano. Jeffries would beat Rocky like he did Sharkey. In fact, Sharkey likely would beat Marciano. I like THE ROCK but this is how I see it.
@DolbyXD My great great uncle was also a boxer. He was the Heavy Weight Champion of the world. His name was James Jackson Jeffries (Jim Jeffries). He was a racist d@#k but he was one hell of a fighter. And it;s true that he could jump 6' straight up in the air!
The film that's being displayed on the video looks awesome. The film that was being filmed by the bootlegger that is. The double isn't so great but you can see how great the original copy of the film looked.
I have to add that despite being involved in a huge racial flap I do not think Jeffries was a hardcore racist. He caved in more for money than anything else. I say Rocky but it could easily have been Jeffries since he was bigger and faster. The fight footage on Jeff is poor,but a good eye can determine that this man was exceptional if not only for his time but also for his size.
I don't know how my comment posted twice,but I will say that I can see why many would think that Jefferies could beat Rocky. Rocky did fight some tough characters and faced opposition that was bigger,faster and heavier. Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe were no slouches,yet Jefferies was a true heavyweight by comparison and he outweighed his opponents by a lot. I mean he was ahead of his time in size and strength. I respectfully say that it's still Rocky in 13 rds.
Jefferies was the King of his time,but from what I have seen of his skills Rocky Marciano would have beaten him. Still,despite being ahead of his time he will always be stained for coming out of retirement to satisfy racist opinion that Jack Johnson was not the true champ because he was black.
@ALKAZAR342 - I like Rocky alot but he never fought anyone close to Jeffries' capability. Jeffries would beat him. Yes, Jeffries finally yielded to the social pressure of his time - like the people of do also. I know people who were once very slanted in their views who preach the opposite today - on many issues. They have yielded too.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@jhs1958 Not much good footage of Jeffries, certainly not enough to make anyone believe that he was good enough to beat Marciano. He seems to posture and wait on his opponent too much in the footage available, and that was the style of his day. However if you wait on a guy like marciano, you'll get over-run by him. The Rock would've moved in and clobbered him! Capabilities? Per Boxrec: Jeffries had a total of 23 bouts. He scored 16 ko's out of 19 wins. He drew twice and lost one. R U serious?
@ALKAZAR342 AL, I don't know where you live or how old you are but the truth is that in the early 1900's it was rare for any native-born white American NOT to be racist.
We are all creatures of our times.
However, some immigrants were a little more liberal. My grandfather came over from Sweden in 1882 and became a big boxing fan. Believe it or not, he liked to say that he loved Jack Johnson because, as "Paw" would say, "Jack loved freedom more than anybody I ever saw."
@ALKAZAR342 Having the same last name might have had something to do with it also. But he even went so far as to name my dad after Jack-"Arthur John Johnson." Since I am a "junior," I can say that Jack is my namesake also.
So not all the whites living here hated Jack or despised his lifestyle. Some, at least, found him pretty special.
@jhs1958 Its fine footage considering the age, I'm a huge admirer of jeffries and he doesn't near get the recognition he deserves!! I wish during his prime he had gone against the public and fought the great black fighters of his time, why? Because I'm full sure he would have hammered them! The fact he made it to the 15th round against the sharp active johnson, having to lose 80 lbs and coming out of six years in retirement without a single tune up fight, is testament to how great he really was.
Jeff beat a great boxer in Corbett, a great hitter in Fitzsimmons, and a great slugger in Sharkey. Nobody since has had better endurance, 15 rounds would be a walk in the park for jeff.
@cizer77 You hear that guy say this was shot from inside a cigar box? and the hats and heads that would sometimes get in the way? That would make this THE FIRST BOOTLEG MOVIE!!!
If my IQ wasn't 150 or so, then you could call me that. Also, what is so funny (u did a lol) about breaking ribs..
And FYI, all of that kind of talk such as "I offered to fight all 3 anywhere anytime all at once.. blah blah" is just total bullshit and if you don't know that then you are a naive little baby.
Like I said before. It's not Johnsons fault that Jeffries was a lazy fat fuck and had to train hard to come back.
Also, How stupid. Why should Johnson fight him in a cellar and not get paid and not get the title. You are an idiot. Who would? Only a stupid hero in love with himself would get tricked into that fight.
@ArchitectOfEvil The white community was on Jeffries constantly to come back and fight Johnson. Jeff turned them down several times before finally giving in. Preachers were even saying that in their Sunday sermons that big Jeff had to come back to "save the white race" so there was a lot of pressure for him to do so. Jeff shoulda just stayed retired...6 years out of the ring and not doing any ringwork is hard to come back in 6 months and lose 70 pounds to beat a prime Jack Johnson.
@MultiGreat1 Johnson was always flashing that golden smile, in exhibitions, fights, you name it. Anytime he locked up with an opponent he started smiling.
You said that Johnson wanted to humilate Jeffries and that is why you see Johnson always smiling. Johnson smiled from start to finish on every film I have seen. He liked showing off the "grill" haha
Oh I have no doubt that Johnson did that, Corbett was spewing racial insults to him so I can't blame Johnson. I would have went over there and jacked Corbett if I was Papa Jack.
do u even know wat happened in that fight u jackass they were constantly harassing him cuz he was black he was one of the few who didnt put up with ppls shit and went on with his life. Thats asking for insults ?? Are u racist fool?
all the great fighters were too old when Johnson was beating everyone...you dont actually believe that Johnson could have even come close to beating a younger Jeffries, Corbett , or Fitzsimmons....Please they would have hurt him bad...and John L. may have actually killed him...
@bobbya16 ---Ring Magazine and Nat Flesicher used to rank Johnson #1, ahead of Jeffries, etc. A younger Jeffries prob would have made it close, but the older experts liked Jack
@loyaldude10 -- No, you're wrong. Most of the older experts rate Jeffries as the greatest heavyweight. Even Jack Johnson rated Jeffries as the best. Fleischer was impressed because he saw Johnson beat Jeffries. He did not take into consideration that Jeffries was older and rusty.
@ArchitectOfEvil You are right that Johnson was a better boxer, Jeffries was 3 years older AND was retired for 6 years. Johnson also had 40 fights while Jeff was retired so,"Only 3 bloody years" is not quite accurate. It would have been if Jeffries was active the entire time like Johnson.
Just so you know, Jeffries is only 3 years older than Johnson, so that's no excuse. He was out of his prime sure, but that's not Jack Johnsons fault. Johnson kept in shape and could whip ass untill his 60's
@jhs1958 .....my name is not bubba, im white not a nigger....and rocky would have killed any fighter....dont respond ..you are too ignorant to speak to
@bobbya16 You're wasting your time trying to argue with this moron. There are VERY few pieces of video footage of Jefferies fighting. So this old fart has no real footage to base his opinion off. All he has are opinions of others that saw him over a 100 years ago. The footage that IS out there of Jefferies isn't that impressive when compared to heavyweights like Ali, Louis, Dempsey, and Johnson. His opinion is nothing more than a recap of other old geezer's opinions.
I am a grt nephew of the "2nd best fighter of his time" - T Sharkey -sorry I know little about boxing.I want2 find out about his life - fight records show what he did but if anyone knows more detail on his life (particularly his tour with JJ - I think also owned a bar Cisco bay the silver dollar??? we think) I'd appreciate any direction. BTW JJ must have thought something of him to go "on the road with him"? ps I live in the uk and Iron Man's brother moved to Liverpool not far from where I live.
Sharkey was tough but not an all time great in my book. First 20 fights were against 2nd and 3rd raters and the big names that he did face got the best of him the first time around including Choynski, Peter Maher and Fitzsimmons before his two losses to Jeffries. Not much on skill but big in heart. Was eliminated as a serious contender later in
career with Ko losses to Gus Ruhlin and Fitzsimmons.
??? Sharkey lost 2 fights in his first 30+ fights against Jefferies and he fought very good fighters. Where in his first 20 fights did he lose to the men you mentioned ??? Your wrong and are manipulating facts and making things up. After Sharkey took a beating in probbaly the toughest fight ever , he was never the same and almost no one would be.
Name a fighter who fought better competition than Sharkey for his first 20 or 30 ... if you are not biased and manipulate the facts , it would be very few fighters. Sharkey never lost to Chonski but KO'd him once , decision him once and had one draw and he beat Corbett pretty bad before the 2nd Jefferies fight. He KO'd Ruhlin in one round before his last fight with Jefferies and never lost to Maher ???
Sharkey's record shows he beat Choynski in their first meeting. Choynski per agreement had to KO Sharkey to win. Sharkey went the distance but according to Tracy Callis was beating all over the ring. Fitzsimmons KO'd Sharkey but ref Wyatt Earp who had bet on Sharkey said Fitz fouled Sharkey which resulted in a near riot. Corbett in his autobiography details how he took Sharkey apart but you should take that with a grain of salt.
I agree that he was eliminated as a contender as his last 7 fights were 1-5-1 as he got beat bad by Ruhlin (2x) and Frzitmons but again he took a serious 25 round pounding and never recovered. Similiar to Ali and Frazier in the Thrilla in Manilla but alot tougher based on broken bones and 10 extra rounds in alot of heat. I agree he padded his recorded in his first 20 to 30 fights but he also fought top 5 contenders and beat them very well.
I respect your opinion but if you look at Sharkey's career logically , he is an all-time great but happned to fight with the best fighter ever. If Jefferies had not been around and he did not have those two wars , I am convinced he would have fought longer and more competitvely and been champion. No fighter would have been champion from 1900 to 1905 with Jefferies there.
Sharkey was the 2nd best fighter in the world for 2 years and would have been longer except he gave a great fight with Jefferies when anyone else would have been KO'd. Many noxing observers and Jefferies himself had said how tough the fight in Coney Island was and I really doubt any other fighetr would last against Jefferies for 25 rounds that day except Jefferies.
Ray Robinson lost to Maxim based on the heat within 14 rounds and the heat was not as bad with the cmaera etc. in Coney Island in 1899 as this fight and was so much tougher. I believe Sharkey like Langford , McVey , Jennette and Peter Jackson are over looked as they were not champions but are in the top 20 of all time and would beat most champions and certainly the ones today and in the last 25 years.
Heat exhaustion is such a situational thing though. To say Robinson wasn't the better fighter because he sucumbed to the heat and other's didn't is way off and not justified. I was in the army, went to the middle east for times, never fell out from heat exhaustion, and I garuntee I faced hotter weather under tougher conditions than these boxers. But not going to say I'm a better soldier because I didn't fall out and others did. You can have heat exhaustion in cool temperatures. Situational.
.. to indicate that he was in Dempsey's league. Corbett was obviously a great champ in his day and put up terrific battles against Jeffries and Jackson, but was was too light to withstand the battering he would take from power punchers who could match his speed, e.g. Dempsey, Louis. And great as Jeff was, his style would make him an anachronism in the postJohnson era. So once again we must agree to disagree.
People of that time period - Sharkey's and Dempsey's - thought a Dempsey-Sharkey would be a toss-up. Why did they see it that way? They actually saw the men fight? We haven't - we saw them only on film. They thought Jeffries was better than either one too.
Hi dempsey00 I agree that its tough to evaluate boxers from the 1890's to early 1900's as we have little fight film and I do respect your opinion. The one thing I will say about Sharkey was the fight in Coney Island was apparently the toughest fight seen by many boxing experts up until they died off in the next 50 years or so. I know Jefferies said Sharley was as tough as any fighetr ever and the toughest he ever faced.
The Thrilla in manila showed the Alie and Frazier were real tough fighters and although I rank dempsey above (slightly) over Ali and over Frazier , Dempsey never fought any match as tough as that. Based on 25 rounds and alot of broken bones etc. and based on what many experts said back than , Sharkey went all out and was never the same fighter after that fight. The reason why was he fought Jefferies and took everything he had and never recovered.
Sharkey did agree as much that the Jefferies fight he was never the same. Although over a duration of a career Dempsey was better , Sharkey fought Jefferies , Corbett and Fritzomons who were better than any of Dempsey's fighters. I agree your right that its tough to fully evaluate and I know jhs and myself are a minority in knowing Jefferies is the best fighter ever , but its always good to throw constructive opinions back and forth.
I know Jefferies is the only fighter in history to thoroughly beat and knock out any type of fighter from tough brawlers , to great boxers and from unorthodox and awkard fighters. Dempsey was an all-time great and had alot of class and was a credit to the sport no doubt more so than most fighters but Jefferies is the only fighter in my opinion who left no doubt he was the best
Dorsi and JHS: Actually, I've stated here and on other sites that I don't believe that any one champion could have beaten all the rest of them, and that includes Dempsey.I always try to substantiate my claims, though, and that's why I have trouble evaluating fighters like Corbett, obviously a great champion, and Sharkey. I just don't have enough to go on and I don't think you do either. Granted,Sharkey was a tough guy. Dempsey ate tough guys for breakfast. I see nothing in Sharkey's record ...
Sharkey ate tough guys for breakfast too. But, in Jeffries and some others of that "tougher" day, Tom ran into trouble. Dempsey would have had trouble with Sharkey's opposition too. JD could not handle Jeffries !
And you are definitely off the mark in claiming that Jack Johnson would have beaten Dempsey. I think that combination punchers like Dempsey and Louis would be too much for Johnson, who was a great defensive fighter but overrated as a puncher, in my view. I'll compose a detailed appraisal of Johnson's strengths and weaknesses in a day or two, but I'll post it on the 'Jack Johnson' site so other Johnson supporters can throw in their two cents.
Hi jhs1958 , I am curious to see where you would rank Corbett as I highly doubt Dempsey would not beat him in 15 rounds and Johnson would have a very tough time as well. How do you see a fight with Dempsey (vua 1918-1919) against Sharkey (vua 1898 to 1899) in a 20 round fight ??? I see Sharkey winning via KO in Round 18. I know Dempsey was a better overall fighter over a 8 year career but for there top 2 or 3 years I would rank Sharkey higher.
Hi Dorsi68. Corbett is in the All-Time Top Ten somewhere. Dempsey-Sharkey = a real war. Like you say, it depends upon what part of each man's career is matched up. Dempsey overall is better - moved so quickly. But, Sharkey was NO pushover. Close call.
I would agree about your assessment on Sharkey - Dempsey as it depends where in there career but in there absolte peak I would give the nod to Sharkey. I would give Dempsey , Marciano and Foreman a punchers chance to beat Corbett I suppose but I would rank Corbett above them as they all had trouble with good and awkward boxers. I would rank Corbett as the best pure boxer in the heavyweight division .. better than Johnson or Walcott who I would rank as great boxers
Look forward to your comments and what site is it ??? I can not see Dempsey ever beating Louis. Louis's destruction of Schleming was much better than even Dempsey's beating of Willard. I know Schleming beat a young Louis , but Dempsey lost 4x before champion by medicore fights and was KO'd in Round 1 (probabaly a fix but not good character). Louis hit harder than Dempsey in my opinion and would be knocked out most likley in the later rounds after losing the majority of rounds.
One thing about Louis was when he hit the canvass , he got mean and would pound his oppoent out as seen all the time (except Marciano). Louis would counter with Dempsey quite well and I do not think Dempsey's chin was that much better (although it was better). Dempsey had trouble with awkaward fighters and very good boxers and that is why he would lose to Louis and Johnson.
I do not know how I am off the mark about Johnson beating Dempsey. If Dempsey fought Tunney in his prime it would be a tough fight anbd at best a late round TKO and Johnson is much stronger and faster than Tunney. In my opionion , I know Demnpsey would get frustrated with Johnson and akthough i agree Johnson's power was okay , he would easily outbox and decision Dempsey.
I will be intersted in you saying why Dempsey would beat Johnson on his own youtube page as I know alot of people will debate that who are JJ fans. I know Dempsey was great but he would ahve a tough time with awkaward good boxers and great boxers. My favorite boxer is Sam Langford and I rank him #9 or so of all time. I know you and Lorcan love Dempsey so that may make it harder to acknowledge he is not the best fighter.
Dorsi: Definitely concur with you and Lorcan that Joe Louis is boxing's greatest champion, with the longest reign as champ and 25 defenses. However, I agree with Lorcan that Dempsey is a bad matchup for Louis, who had great difficulty with opponents who fought out of a crouch. Dempsey was nearly as fast as Louis and had a much better chin. Though Louis did have the great jab in his favor, he could be hit with the right, as Schmeling and others proved. I have to go with Dempsey here.
Which is why I agree with you, Dorsi (on this matter, anyway)--- I learn from the opinions of others and don't care if others disagree with me as long as they support their positions.
...but recently I encountered this quote posted by Killpolitics: "I had a bad weakness I kept hid throughout my career. I didn't like to be crowded, and Marciano always crowded his opponents. That's why I say I could never have beaten him."
-Joe Louis (Recorded in the May 1990 issue of Boxing Illustrated)
"It hurt even to bump into him."
-Joe Louis
Is this accurate or was Louis just being gracious, as the great ones often are? You tell me.
Joe Louis was very modest and Marciano said the best fighters were Louis and Dempsey. I think if marciano foiught Dempsey it would go to a decision or (very unliekly) late TKO for Dempsey but Dempsey better be ready as Marciano had great stanima and his power was as good as Dempsey's. I know Louis would decision Marciano. I know Marciano would beat Foreman as he was tough and was an inside fighter and pound for pound was even stronger than Foreman.
I know Dempsey should never have fought Tunney as he was no longer the same fighter and could not even fight beyound 10 rounds as Dempsey was a horse in his prime and very well conditioned. I have high respect for Louis as he fought everyone thoroughly. I know jefferies beat all the top 2 contenders but when jefferies was champion he set the mark for defenses and Louis perfected it as no one comes close to Louis reign (not even Ali or Holmes although they are somewhat close in my opinion).
Jack Sharkey the only guy to fight both said Dempsey would beat Louis and so did Schleming , but I highly doubt it and Louis would probably KO Dempsey in the late rounds based on his power and boxing skills. Louis was probbaly the greatest champion period based on being humble and fighting with class
I know Dempsey and Marciano were classy fighters as was Frazier but Louis exemplied class and its unfortunate he was taken advantage of. I would have to say other than Jefferies Louis was the best fighter period but Louis was the greatest champion and should the greatest class if all was equal and was very humble and did not rank himself high compared to his peers.
Gents,I've read and thought about your views. I agree Louis was the greatest heavweight champion,insofar as he had the most laudable reign.Was he the best? Yes.Tied w/ Dempsey.I think Dempsey's faster start and better chin would make him the winner in a match. Similarly, though their chins were equal, I believe Dempsey would beat Rocky for the exact same reasons.Speed and (equal) chins. Dempsey was simply a better boxer, bigger and faster than the Rock.Dempsey's type of speed kills.
Hi Lorcan , although I respect your opinion , there is no way Dempsey would beat Jefferies , Louis , Johnson and Corbett and to an extent Tom Sherkey of 1898 to 1899 and the Foreman of 72-74. We know Dempsey had a tough time with good boxers (Tunney although he wa spast his prime) and awkward fighters (Fat Boy although they fought 4 rounders). Louis would counter Dempsey and had better boxing skills and was better discplined fighter.
Jefferies was alot stronger , hit just (or lamost) as hard , had better enduarnce and could take a better punch. In terms of Johnson and Corbett , Dempsey would have a better chance KOing Corbett but I doubt it in a 15 round fight and Johnson would outbox Dempsey and they were close in strength. I know you disagree with Sharkey buit for two years , he gave Jefferies excellent fights , pounded Corbett and many other fighters. Foreman just had the style to beat Dempsey
From Dempsey's side he had the style to beat Foreman.Dempsey loved fighting big guys,b/c, for him they were just big targets.Evidence:watch him spar Big Bill Tate on YTube.Tate can't land a solid blow,while Jack lands regularly.I think the combo of Dempsey's speed,power,chin,and bob/weave defense puts him over Jeff,Foreman,Corbett,and of course,Sharkey.I respect your opinions,as well.But, no one beats the Dempsey who KO'd Willard.
Do not forget at best Firpo was a decent fighter who almost KO'd Dempsey 9albeit was lucky with the puch and Dempsey was passed his prime due to minimal commitment to boxing and more commitment to his socilete wife). Willard was a good fighter past his prime and had not fought in a while. Foreman is a great fighter , alot stronger than any big fighter Dempsey ever faced (except Willard) and hit harder than Dempsey.
Tate was a journeyman fighter like Flynn except not as good. Tate lost alot of fights and was KO'd early by other fighters as well so you can not use Tate , Willard and Firpo as measuring sticks for Foreman. I believe Marciano would KO Foreman and Dempsey would beat marciano but Dempsey would come at Foreman and he would lose that way. If he boxed Foreman for 6 rounds than he would probbaly win later on.
Regarding Dempsey v. Marciano,Louis etc., let me preface my opinion by saying that occasionally I'll see something that makes me rethink my position. I was always of the opinion that Dempsey and prime Louis would cut up Marciano because Rocky was susceptible to cuts. Dempsey in particular is a bad matchup because Rocky wasn't a particularly fast starter. I think Dempsey would TKO him in 5,6 maybe, Louis in later rounds. BUT...
Another option to consider: was that fight even on the level? These guys fought each other so many times, is it possible that they got together and said 'Let's go through the motions tonight but put on a show and give 'em something to talk about.'? This is pure speculation on my part and I have no evidence whatsoever that either man ever threw a fight, but 27 knockdowns? And Jeannette couldn't put him away? Conversely, if you're going to tank a fight, why go 49 rounds? A conundrum, for sure.
I agree with your statements and its always good to disgree in a constructive manner. I do not think there is any film on Jeanette's prime and a few poor clips on McVey. I do think there were set-ups back than as no one would really fight McVea and to a certain extent Jeannette. I know McVea was booed and there were a few fights were it was obvious he was not there. I may agree on the 49 round fight but does it really matter since they fought so often.
I haven't dusted off my volumes of Fleischer's Black Dynamite in years, but I seem to recall that he rated McVea a notch below Langford and Jeannette. Furthermore, I've always been a little suspicious of that 49 round fight in Paris. McVea hit the deck 27 times, Jeannette floored 11 times and I just have to wonder: how good a chin did either of these guys have? What kind of finisher was each man? Not in the category of Dempsey or Louis, I'd guess.
Dorsi: You know boxing history well; where we differ is in the analyses. I asked about McVea because I can't really judge a fighter that I haven't seen. Boxing isn't like baseball, where statistics reliably quantify production. Yes, Sullivan must have been a great fighter because he was champ for 10 years or so. But the sport was in its infancy and there's no film of him so any evaluation I attempted would be sheer conjecture. I prefer to render opinions that I can back up.
I look at both there records and see the competition and who the fought an how they did. MvVea fought better fighters and beat Willis twice and seemed to give Langford harder fights ??? I know Langford was better than McVea and Jeannette but those two were close. In terms of Sullivan , he was very good byt again you have no film and must base how good they were on conpetition and how people back than saw them an I kno people are always biased with there generation.
In my opinion , I think we should give McVea and Jeannete more credit as no one really want to fight thyem as they had nothing to gain. I think its safe to say that Johshon and Langford were the two best fighters and McVey and Jeannette were 3 or 4. I know Dempsey wuld beat McVey and Jeannette and Langford but I really doubt Johnson. IOts always good to debate and see one's perspective.
Although few experts today would rank Jefferies , McVey or Jeannete in the top 10 or 20 , in 50 years where are they going to rank Dempsey or Marciano ??? Most experts now rank Marciano better than Dempsey but 50 years ago Dempsey was above Marciano. I know Lorcan and yourself know alot and I learn alot and like your views and opinions although they differ from mind but that is okay.
Dorsi -- was poking around on You Tube the other day and came across clip of Sam McVey-Jim Johnson scrap. You posted a comment stating that you rate McVey in your all time top twenty and rate him ahead of Tyson; had to read it twice to be sure I wasn't seeing things. Just curious how you came up with this assessment.
I have alot of respect for McVey and he would have an excellent chance beating Foreman for example as he was very strong and big for his time. Unlike Tyson , McVey would always fight the top fighters that were willing to fight him and he fought Langford so many times. He beat Willis in there first two fights I believe and his prime I would say was around 1908 to 1912. I know Tyson was a great fighter during his prime years of 1987 to 1990 but he had tough times with Tucker and Smith
In my opinion , I would rank McVey the 3rd best fighter from 1908 to 1915 behind Johnson and Langford in the heavyweight division. Had his prime been 196 to 1921 , I would see Dempsey beating McVey via 9th or 10th round TKO (as McVey would fight Dempsey toe to toe) and Willis barely beating him as he was that good. Later on McVey had some questionable fights with Wikkis but he was a very tough and strong fighter.
I truly believe Tyson was overrtaed and I remember Eddie Futch (maybe the greatest trainer ever) saying the same thing that Tyosn is a bully and does not have it mentally. I know McVey does not get any credit and is forgotten as he was never champion as it was the sign of the times back than. But he fought excellent fighters and would literally fight anyone.
People sometimes compare Tyson to Dempsey which is a joke. Its true both KO'd alot of fighters in Round 1 or before round 4 , but if Tyson could not put someone away or they fought back , he was mentally weak unlike Dempsey. McVey could fight tough either way and I see McVey KOing or TKOing Tyson in around the 8th round as they would both be fighting hard but McVey is mentally tougher.
My post was taken off (I do not know why) on Dempsey - Foreman. Although I rank Dempsey higher I think Dempsey was made for Foreman. Dempsey has a good chance to beat Foreman within 6 rounds or if it lasts longer than Dempsey would win in my opinion. Foreman had a very strong jaw (as strong as anyone but lacked endurance in the 1970's) and Dempsey would fight Foreman toe to toe with little boxing in my opinion.
Dempsey had an animal instinct to fight hard and not back down. If Dempsey fought Foreman the way he did Firpo or Willard I think Dempsey loses in round 3 but if he is patient and boxes the first 6 rounds , he wins but I do not think Dempsey would do that in the first fight had they fought ???
dempsey00 , you seem to know alot about boxing , how do you view Dempsey versus Louis or Marciano or Ali as I think those fights would be very tough and great to see ??? I peronally see Dempsey losing to Louis via 14th round TKO , TKOing Marciano in the 13th or 14th round of a brutal fight and decisioning Ali in a very close fight.
Not sure why you rate Ruhlin so high. To be honest, I really don't know too much about him because so little film exists. So whether or not he was better than most of Dempsey's victims, I can't say, though I believe most historians would certainly rate Jack Sharkey above Ruhlin. Dorsi and Lorcan, please check out my take on Dempsey v. Foreman on Dempsey 'To Victory' site and let me know what you think.
So you concede that a 'second rater', Gunboat Smith, beat Langford in the latter's prime? Have not heard any allegations of Langford throwing a fight before, and anything's possible, but I doubt he threw Smith fight, based on the fact that Langford was so out of shape at 200 lbs. and had performed very poorly in previous fight v. Jeannette. Of course, in good shape Langford was far superior to Smith, Flynn, etc. as he proved in rematches.
I made as comment as requested with Foreman - Dempsey. I would pick Dempsey over Marciano and Fritzmons , but I think Friztmons and Marciano's style were better suited for Foreman as they would beat Foreman in my opinion but I doubt Dempsey would. Foreman did rank Marciano as the 2nd best fighter behind Louis and I think Futch did as well. Fritz was a freak of nature and if he could last 6 rounds with Foreman , he would stop him.
I too doubt Langford would throw a fight but i heard he was depressed for not getting a title shot anywhjere although he was the 2nd best fighter in the world from 1907 to about 1913 or 1914. Maybe making little money and frustration made him out of shape as i know he lost to Fat Boy as well albeit past his prime and blind in one eye. Smith was a 2nd rater and had he fought Rulin , he would be KO'd within 5 rounds. Flynn was more game and would have been TKO'd late by Ruhlin.
It was tough for Ruhlin as the heavyweight division was very strong when in his prime. I am very confident Ruhlin would KO Jack Sharkey and beat him comfortably. I know Dempsey would KO Ruhlin had they fought as well. If Dempsey fought Tunney while in his prime , I would say Dempsey by comfortable decision or late TKO.
Of course, Sam got in shape and KOd Smith in 3 in the rematch several months later. But my point is that you sort of dumped on Dempsey's opponents while constantly extolling the virtues of Jeffries'. Smith didn't beat Sam when he was old and blind. Also, we all agree that Jeffries was tremendous and cleaned up all opposition, but he was held to a draw by second rater Gus Ruhlin in what I believe was only Ruhlin's second fight. And yes, Sharkey was tough, but was knocked cold in 15 by Ruhlin.
Ruhlin was a better fighter than any fighter Dempsey foughter other than Tunney. Smith and Flynn were 2nd rated fighters who were game but that is about it. Sharkey was on his down side after his brutal beating with Jefferies in there second fight as no one took such punishment for so many rounds as Sharkey and he was never the same after his loss.
Dorsi --- you are correct, Dempsey fought a few 4 rounders, but I believe that was the limit on prizefights in California at the time. Not to belabor the point about the competition of Dempsey & Jeffries, but Gunboat Smith beat Langford in 1913, arguably at Sam' best. He caught Langford out of shape at 200 lbs. and won a decisive decision in Sam's hometown, Boston. In Langford's previous fight with Jeannette in New York, he was also fat and lethargic and the two were booed out of the ring.
You have a valid point as Sam's prime was around 1909 to 1912 or 13 or so. But one must remember that Sam fought alot and made very little and was frustatred that he could never get a title shot. I think we can both agree had Sam been at his best against Flynn or Smith , its no contest. Also , who knows if Sam threw the fight as Demnpsey did (probably) with Flynn to generate more money for himself ??? I doubt it but he was clearly frustrated due to not getting a title shot.
A final comment about Dempsey's competition --- if memory serves, didn't Gunboat Smith and Jim Flynn both decision Langford (though Langford KOd both in subsequent matches)? My memory is a little hazy on this. You also alluded to Willie Meehan, who decisioned Dempsey in a couple of 4 round fights. How many fights can we think of that would've ended differently had they been only 4 rounds? And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Meehan also beat Langford?
You know alot about boxing and yes to all accounts , but Langford was blind in one eye and way past his prime. The "loss" to Flynn is normally looked upon as a "draw or no decision" and back than , its hard to say but Langford normally beat Flynn easiliy. I agree with a 4 round fight , but my poiunt was to illistarte Dempsey had many 4 rounders and although he had more official fights than Jefferies , Jefferies always fought good fightres except one or two times.
The point being that all we can do is try to evaluate the end product, scrutinize the films and weigh the skills and assess the intangibles of each champ and compare them. Evaluating a fighter's competition is subjective at best, and I'm not always sure how relevant it is. I happen to think that Sonny Liston was a pretty accomplished fighter even though he never defeated another great fighter. He beat all the available competition, though.
Some good points raised here, Dorsi, but tell me --- what champion didn't beat a lot of nobodies? That's how a developing fighter refines his skills. And traditionally, the heavyweight division is not that deep. You've heard of the "Bum of the Month Club"? How many of Larry Holmses's 20 title defenses were against quality opposition? Most of Marciano's later victories came against opponents who were well past their primes --- but that's not his fault.
Furthermore, Dempsey withstood more punishment from heavier hitters such as Smith and Firpo. The fact that Jack annihilated Flynn in less than a round in the rematch lends credence to the assertion that the first fight was fixed. This may not say much for Dempsey's character, but remember, he came up in a rough and tumble world where survival trumped ethics. To sum up, Lorcan got it right -- Corbett and Sharkey would crumple under Dempsey's lethal assault.
Also, regarding Dempsey's first fight with Flynn, I believe it is generally accepted by most boxing historians that the financially strapped Dempsey threw that fight. Roger Kahn certainly made a persuasive case for it. During their divorce proceedings, Maxine Cates, Dempsey's first wife, testified that Jack threw the fight for $300. It strains credulity to think that Flynn, not noted as an especially hard hitter, could KO the iron jawed Dempsey in just one round.
I believe that the Flynn fight was fixed myself but Dempsey did beat alot of nobodies and lost twice to a 3rd ranked fighter in Fat Boy. Dempsey did beat alot of great fighters as well but he also beat alot of no bodies as most fighters do. Fulton was a good fighter but he beat an aging and one eye blinded Langford.
Dorsi --- your list is thought provoking, but I have to disagree with some of your ratings. In particular, Sharkey and Corbett over Dempsey, Ali, Marciano, Foreman & Tunney. I'd venture to say that very few experts would concur. Also, your characterization of Dempsey's opponents as 'nobodies' is demonstrably untrue --- Gunboat Smith, Fred Fulton (who twice beat an aging Langford), Carl Morris, Bill Brennan and Jim Flynn were some of the top heavyweights of that era.
I do agree that Dempsey was an excellent fighter and one of the very best , but there are alot of great fighters and they are all very close especially in the top 10. I agree that Brennan was a very good fighter , but Fulton was good , Smith / Morris were okay and Flynn was a journeyman who gave it his all.
Batwood --- Excellent point, definite similarities in Dempsey and lightweight champ Duran. A significant difference, in my view, would be Dempsey's ability to take opponents out quickly. So to complete the analogy, how about Duran's swarming, vicious attack + Thomas Hearn's KO power = mini Dempsey? Sound about right? Lorcan --- who would you round out your top ten with? I'd think Marciano and early Tyson would be obvious choices. I'm wavering on Holyfield since steroid allegations came up.
For what its worth , here is my top 10 heavweights ever based on there prime 3 years: (1) Jefferies (2) Louis (3) Johnson (4) Corbett (5) Tom Sharkey (6) Dempsey (7) Ali (8) Marciano (9) Langford (10) Frtizmons (11) Foreman (12) Sullivan (13) Tunney (14) Willis
My great great uncle was also a boxer. He was the Heavy Weight Champion of the world. His name was James Jackson Jeffries (Jim Jeffries). He was a racist d@#k but he was one hell of a fighter. And it;s true that he could jump 6' straight up in the air!
harleyrydernow 1 week ago
I've always though it interesting that Jeffries had over thirty pounds on Sharkey and couldn't
put him away in toe to toe slugging in their two fights for a total of 45 rounds. Yet 160lb Bob Fitzsimmons easily Ko'd Sharkey twice (although the first fight was unjustly called a foul). A very average Gus Ruhlin would Ko Sharkey twice ending his career. Could Jeffries' power be overrated?
andrewr62 4 weeks ago
@andrewr62 - Sharkey was never the same after coney isle. Ruhlins wins and one of Fitz's was after coney isle, Sharkey swore he was cheated in the first Fitz fight. I dont think Jeff had Liston like power but more like Frazier. The long scheduled rounds and big ring also were better for boxers over sluggers. I just think Sharkey was a tough s.o.b. until the Jeffries fights finally ruined him.
1899sharkey 3 weeks ago
@1899sharkey He was tough for sure. He dominated Choynski in their fights and Ko'd Ruhlin in their first meeting in one. Another impressive win was against Kid McCoy. There is a recent report of an early KO loss to a black fighter by the name of George Washington as reported recently on Boxrec.com. I have yet to find the newspaper account of this.
andrewr62 3 weeks ago
@1899sharkey -- I believe Jeffries had Liston-like and Foreman-like power. He was still "green" versus Sharkey in fight #1 and had an injured arm against Sharkey in the second fight. Besides, he fought with patience and boxed very well too - not simply slugging with all of his might. He said he never hit a man as hard as he could for fear of killing him.
jhs1958 2 weeks ago
@jhs1958 - You could very well be right. Jim thought it was better to pace hiself for the long distance. He certainly had the size and powerful build of a heavy hitter.
1899sharkey 2 weeks ago
@andrewr62 -- I wonder about Joe Louis' power myself. He beat Tommy Farr in 15 rounds (Farr was stopped by Eddei Steele in seven); Joe beat Ad Wiater in ten rounds (Wiater was stopped by Leo Lomski in three); Joe beat Patsy Perroni in ten rounds(Perroni was stopped by Bob Olin in three)
jhs1958 2 weeks ago
@jhs1958 I am a believer in the phrase styles make fights. From the films I've seen Louis punched with awesome velocity and force. The damage done to Max Schmeling in their second fight clearly demonstrated what he was capable of under the right circumstances.
andrewr62 2 weeks ago
These guys were banging! All the old time experts rated this the greatest heavyweight battle ever.
1899sharkey 1 month ago
Lets face it these 2 wouldnt live today their style was too awkward,
MJJRM 3 months ago
@MJJRM - Too awkward huh? lol
1899sharkey 3 months ago
sharkey sounds like a tough s.o.b
the kind of guy you want on your side in a bar fight
toby099 4 months ago
Just think of the pace these two would have set if their fights were "only" scheduled for fifteen.
1899sharkey 7 months ago
Jeff pounds Tom with that right uppercut under the heart the whole fight. Jeffries would of wore down and stopped Larry Holmes. Witherspoon and Weaver gave Larry fits, Jeff was way better than either of them.
1899sharkey 8 months ago
Tom Sharkey was an early-day version of Rocky Marciano. Jeffries would beat Rocky like he did Sharkey. In fact, Sharkey likely would beat Marciano. I like THE ROCK but this is how I see it.
jhs1958 9 months ago 2
Comment removed
1899sharkey 1 year ago
my grandmother was telling me about how my great great great uncle was a boxing pro and his name was Thomas Sharkey, so googled him and here he is...
Thomas Sharkey was my great great great uncle, Fact lol
DolbyXD 1 year ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@DolbyXD My great great uncle was also a boxer. He was the Heavy Weight Champion of the world. His name was James Jackson Jeffries (Jim Jeffries). He was a racist d@#k but he was one hell of a fighter. And it;s true that he could jump 6' straight up in the air!
harleyrydernow 1 week ago
The film that's being displayed on the video looks awesome. The film that was being filmed by the bootlegger that is. The double isn't so great but you can see how great the original copy of the film looked.
eslubin 1 year ago
@eslubin - I believe there were three companies filming the fight. These clips are put together from different sources.
jhs1958 1 year ago
I have to add that despite being involved in a huge racial flap I do not think Jeffries was a hardcore racist. He caved in more for money than anything else. I say Rocky but it could easily have been Jeffries since he was bigger and faster. The fight footage on Jeff is poor,but a good eye can determine that this man was exceptional if not only for his time but also for his size.
ALKAZAR342 1 year ago
I don't know how my comment posted twice,but I will say that I can see why many would think that Jefferies could beat Rocky. Rocky did fight some tough characters and faced opposition that was bigger,faster and heavier. Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe were no slouches,yet Jefferies was a true heavyweight by comparison and he outweighed his opponents by a lot. I mean he was ahead of his time in size and strength. I respectfully say that it's still Rocky in 13 rds.
ALKAZAR342 1 year ago
Jefferies was the King of his time,but from what I have seen of his skills Rocky Marciano would have beaten him. Still,despite being ahead of his time he will always be stained for coming out of retirement to satisfy racist opinion that Jack Johnson was not the true champ because he was black.
ALKAZAR342 1 year ago
@ALKAZAR342 - I like Rocky alot but he never fought anyone close to Jeffries' capability. Jeffries would beat him. Yes, Jeffries finally yielded to the social pressure of his time - like the people of do also. I know people who were once very slanted in their views who preach the opposite today - on many issues. They have yielded too.
jhs1958 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@jhs1958 Not much good footage of Jeffries, certainly not enough to make anyone believe that he was good enough to beat Marciano. He seems to posture and wait on his opponent too much in the footage available, and that was the style of his day. However if you wait on a guy like marciano, you'll get over-run by him. The Rock would've moved in and clobbered him! Capabilities? Per Boxrec: Jeffries had a total of 23 bouts. He scored 16 ko's out of 19 wins. He drew twice and lost one. R U serious?
wire4paladin 1 year ago
@ALKAZAR342 - I mean people of today.
jhs1958 1 year ago
@ALKAZAR342 He did it for the money
eslubin 1 year ago
@ALKAZAR342 AL, I don't know where you live or how old you are but the truth is that in the early 1900's it was rare for any native-born white American NOT to be racist.
We are all creatures of our times.
However, some immigrants were a little more liberal. My grandfather came over from Sweden in 1882 and became a big boxing fan. Believe it or not, he liked to say that he loved Jack Johnson because, as "Paw" would say, "Jack loved freedom more than anybody I ever saw."
battenwood 1 year ago
@ALKAZAR342 Having the same last name might have had something to do with it also. But he even went so far as to name my dad after Jack-"Arthur John Johnson." Since I am a "junior," I can say that Jack is my namesake also.
So not all the whites living here hated Jack or despised his lifestyle. Some, at least, found him pretty special.
battenwood 1 year ago
May I ask if this actual footage of the fight? Or is it an re enactment?
dcat918 1 year ago
@dcat918 - The Jeffries-Sharkey footage is the actual film of the fight.
jhs1958 1 year ago
@jhs1958 Its fine footage considering the age, I'm a huge admirer of jeffries and he doesn't near get the recognition he deserves!! I wish during his prime he had gone against the public and fought the great black fighters of his time, why? Because I'm full sure he would have hammered them! The fact he made it to the 15th round against the sharp active johnson, having to lose 80 lbs and coming out of six years in retirement without a single tune up fight, is testament to how great he really was.
XavierMarciano 9 months ago
Sharkey and Marciano would have been unbelievable! Yes, Tom was that good!
1899sharkey 1 year ago
@1899sharkey -- Yes, it would have been a war. Don't know if Rocky could beat Tom or not. No doubt, plenty of heavy punches would have been tossed.
jhs1958 1 year ago
Used to say "by the time they were finished with Mrs Sharkey's boy Tom. They knew they had been in a fight"
gravee68 1 year ago
My name's Chris Sharkey, son of Edward Sharkey. Tom Sharkey was my great great grandfather! So proud!
Grooshabator 1 year ago
@Grooshabator Hi
I wonder if you are Chris who lived in Cornwall and has a brother called Nick. My dad was Edward Sharkey and lived in Bodmin.
I am Angela
angela1956100 7 months ago
My name's Chris Sharkey...Tom Sharkey was my great great gandfather!
Grooshabator 1 year ago
Greatest heavyweight Title fight in history!
1899sharkey 1 year ago
@1899sharkey -- Absolutely !!!
jhs1958 1 year ago
Jeff beat a great boxer in Corbett, a great hitter in Fitzsimmons, and a great slugger in Sharkey. Nobody since has had better endurance, 15 rounds would be a walk in the park for jeff.
1899sharkey 1 year ago
we can't see shit
cizer77 2 years ago
@cizer77 You hear that guy say this was shot from inside a cigar box? and the hats and heads that would sometimes get in the way? That would make this THE FIRST BOOTLEG MOVIE!!!
909kong 1 year ago
They say there's not enough film on jeffries to judge him, but to the trained eye you can see he was one hell of a fighter.
TheRichmich 2 years ago 4
ArchitectOfEvil -- an IQ of150 or so -- then, act like it. Your language sounds like someone with a 50 IQ and that's more likely the case.
jhs1958 2 years ago
sheesh bad to the bone??
tehnatureboy 2 years ago
If my IQ wasn't 150 or so, then you could call me that. Also, what is so funny (u did a lol) about breaking ribs..
And FYI, all of that kind of talk such as "I offered to fight all 3 anywhere anytime all at once.. blah blah" is just total bullshit and if you don't know that then you are a naive little baby.
ArchitectOfEvil 2 years ago
Like I said before. It's not Johnsons fault that Jeffries was a lazy fat fuck and had to train hard to come back.
Also, How stupid. Why should Johnson fight him in a cellar and not get paid and not get the title. You are an idiot. Who would? Only a stupid hero in love with himself would get tricked into that fight.
Jeffries would have denied it if he lost too.
Wake up fool.
ArchitectOfEvil 2 years ago
@ArchitectOfEvil The white community was on Jeffries constantly to come back and fight Johnson. Jeff turned them down several times before finally giving in. Preachers were even saying that in their Sunday sermons that big Jeff had to come back to "save the white race" so there was a lot of pressure for him to do so. Jeff shoulda just stayed retired...6 years out of the ring and not doing any ringwork is hard to come back in 6 months and lose 70 pounds to beat a prime Jack Johnson.
hazmat1000 2 years ago
Any man who steps in the ring gets my respect!
romienomie 2 years ago
he didnt want to knock out jefferies he wanted to humiliate him thats why u kept seeing johnsonm laughin and smiling at the jefferies corner
MultiGreat1 2 years ago
@MultiGreat1 Johnson was always flashing that golden smile, in exhibitions, fights, you name it. Anytime he locked up with an opponent he started smiling.
hazmat1000 2 years ago
@hazmat1000 what did even say lol i cant find my comment
MultiGreat1 2 years ago
You said that Johnson wanted to humilate Jeffries and that is why you see Johnson always smiling. Johnson smiled from start to finish on every film I have seen. He liked showing off the "grill" haha
hazmat1000 2 years ago
@hazmat1000 oh yh but johnson smiled at the jeffries corner thats why james l. corbett was pissed off even research that. i am telling the truth
MultiGreat1 2 years ago
Oh I have no doubt that Johnson did that, Corbett was spewing racial insults to him so I can't blame Johnson. I would have went over there and jacked Corbett if I was Papa Jack.
hazmat1000 2 years ago
hazmat1000 -- Johnson's behavior asked for insults - just like he dished out. So, what's the problem. You reap what you sow.
jhs1958 2 years ago
JJ's attitude no doubt caused him more problems than other fighters.
hazmat1000 2 years ago
do u even know wat happened in that fight u jackass they were constantly harassing him cuz he was black he was one of the few who didnt put up with ppls shit and went on with his life. Thats asking for insults ?? Are u racist fool?
papasmirf31 2 years ago
all the great fighters were too old when Johnson was beating everyone...you dont actually believe that Johnson could have even come close to beating a younger Jeffries, Corbett , or Fitzsimmons....Please they would have hurt him bad...and John L. may have actually killed him...
bobbya16 2 years ago
@bobbya16 ---Ring Magazine and Nat Flesicher used to rank Johnson #1, ahead of Jeffries, etc. A younger Jeffries prob would have made it close, but the older experts liked Jack
loyaldude10 1 year ago
@loyaldude10 -- No, you're wrong. Most of the older experts rate Jeffries as the greatest heavyweight. Even Jack Johnson rated Jeffries as the best. Fleischer was impressed because he saw Johnson beat Jeffries. He did not take into consideration that Jeffries was older and rusty.
jhs1958 1 year ago
@jhs1958 --hard to imagine Johnson admitting someone was better than him.
loyaldude10 1 year ago
@loyaldude10 -- I agree with you but he did.
jhs1958 1 year ago
hazmat1000 - That "golden smile" was apparent in the Willard bout - or was that a squint to keep the sun out of his eyes as he lay on the canvas?
jhs1958 2 years ago
JJ got rocked in that fight no doubt.
hazmat1000 2 years ago
Don't be ridiculous.
He often fought like that. He would start to take it near round 15.
Why should he risk getting knocked out himself by trying to beat Jeffries in one round. You are foolish.
Of course, Jeffries was an Iron Man. You can't just knock him down in one round fool. But he couldn't do nothing to Johnson the entire fight.
ArchitectOfEvil 2 years ago
And....
So what if he's older.
Only by 3 bloody years!
3 years older, is that a difference. Stop being a bloody joker. That means nothing, and they were only 35.
It's not Johnson's fault that Jeffries super strength was converted into old age. He looked about 55 and he was 35.
Jeffries was the best so long as he was the strongest guy in the world. He wasn't a fantastic boxer like Johnson.
ArchitectOfEvil 2 years ago
@ArchitectOfEvil You are right that Johnson was a better boxer, Jeffries was 3 years older AND was retired for 6 years. Johnson also had 40 fights while Jeff was retired so,"Only 3 bloody years" is not quite accurate. It would have been if Jeffries was active the entire time like Johnson.
hazmat1000 2 years ago
Yea, and Jack Johnson beat Jeffries.
After the bout Jeffries acknowledged, however, that not even in his prime could he have defeated Johnson.
No-one is unbeatable mate. Not even the unbeatable.
ArchitectOfEvil 2 years ago
Just so you know, Jeffries is only 3 years older than Johnson, so that's no excuse. He was out of his prime sure, but that's not Jack Johnsons fault. Johnson kept in shape and could whip ass untill his 60's
ArchitectOfEvil 2 years ago
Jack Johnson amazingly DID keep fighting, right up until the time he died. But one man he never did challenge while champion was Joe Jeannette.
MikeyMcCrashCap 2 years ago
99 minutes of hell!!
boltonsk8 2 years ago
very true homie
oscardelahoya92 2 years ago
the rock wud ov goneall the way with jd 49 0
TheMexicanAssasian 2 years ago
Sorry, but the Rock would have been 49-1 if he had fought Jeffries.
jhs1958 2 years ago
haha defff
oscardelahoya92 2 years ago
Yep, Jeffries was faster, bigger and stronger with at least as good, if not better stamina than Rocky.
hazmat1000 2 years ago
@hazmat1000 no one had better stamina than the rock, but jeff is a close second
bobbya16 1 year ago
@bobbya16 -- Hey Bubba, you'v got that backwards. I like Rocky alot but I doubt he would last past seven rounds with Jeffries.
jhs1958 1 year ago
@jhs1958 .....my name is not bubba, im white not a nigger....and rocky would have killed any fighter....dont respond ..you are too ignorant to speak to
bobbya16 1 year ago
@bobbya16 -- no, no you is a BUBBA - no doubt about it !!! I like Rocky (but not you) but he would get battered by Jeffries and several others.
jhs1958 1 year ago
@bobbya16 You're wasting your time trying to argue with this moron. There are VERY few pieces of video footage of Jefferies fighting. So this old fart has no real footage to base his opinion off. All he has are opinions of others that saw him over a 100 years ago. The footage that IS out there of Jefferies isn't that impressive when compared to heavyweights like Ali, Louis, Dempsey, and Johnson. His opinion is nothing more than a recap of other old geezer's opinions.
bandit7498 1 year ago
Comment removed
PoutinePete 2 years ago
Sounds to me like YOU'RE the QUEEN !!!
jhs1958 2 years ago
I am a grt nephew of the "2nd best fighter of his time" - T Sharkey -sorry I know little about boxing.I want2 find out about his life - fight records show what he did but if anyone knows more detail on his life (particularly his tour with JJ - I think also owned a bar Cisco bay the silver dollar??? we think) I'd appreciate any direction. BTW JJ must have thought something of him to go "on the road with him"? ps I live in the uk and Iron Man's brother moved to Liverpool not far from where I live.
michaeljohnporter 3 years ago
ive read the blow by blow account of this fight apparently it was under lights aswell. this was a superman fight they dont make em like that no more.
skimmer1844 3 years ago
Sharkey was tough but not an all time great in my book. First 20 fights were against 2nd and 3rd raters and the big names that he did face got the best of him the first time around including Choynski, Peter Maher and Fitzsimmons before his two losses to Jeffries. Not much on skill but big in heart. Was eliminated as a serious contender later in
career with Ko losses to Gus Ruhlin and Fitzsimmons.
andrewr62 3 years ago
We disagree.
jhs1958 3 years ago
??? Sharkey lost 2 fights in his first 30+ fights against Jefferies and he fought very good fighters. Where in his first 20 fights did he lose to the men you mentioned ??? Your wrong and are manipulating facts and making things up. After Sharkey took a beating in probbaly the toughest fight ever , he was never the same and almost no one would be.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Name a fighter who fought better competition than Sharkey for his first 20 or 30 ... if you are not biased and manipulate the facts , it would be very few fighters. Sharkey never lost to Chonski but KO'd him once , decision him once and had one draw and he beat Corbett pretty bad before the 2nd Jefferies fight. He KO'd Ruhlin in one round before his last fight with Jefferies and never lost to Maher ???
dorsi68 3 years ago
Sharkey's record shows he beat Choynski in their first meeting. Choynski per agreement had to KO Sharkey to win. Sharkey went the distance but according to Tracy Callis was beating all over the ring. Fitzsimmons KO'd Sharkey but ref Wyatt Earp who had bet on Sharkey said Fitz fouled Sharkey which resulted in a near riot. Corbett in his autobiography details how he took Sharkey apart but you should take that with a grain of salt.
andrewr62 3 years ago
I agree that he was eliminated as a contender as his last 7 fights were 1-5-1 as he got beat bad by Ruhlin (2x) and Frzitmons but again he took a serious 25 round pounding and never recovered. Similiar to Ali and Frazier in the Thrilla in Manilla but alot tougher based on broken bones and 10 extra rounds in alot of heat. I agree he padded his recorded in his first 20 to 30 fights but he also fought top 5 contenders and beat them very well.
dorsi68 3 years ago
I respect your opinion but if you look at Sharkey's career logically , he is an all-time great but happned to fight with the best fighter ever. If Jefferies had not been around and he did not have those two wars , I am convinced he would have fought longer and more competitvely and been champion. No fighter would have been champion from 1900 to 1905 with Jefferies there.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Sharkey was the 2nd best fighter in the world for 2 years and would have been longer except he gave a great fight with Jefferies when anyone else would have been KO'd. Many noxing observers and Jefferies himself had said how tough the fight in Coney Island was and I really doubt any other fighetr would last against Jefferies for 25 rounds that day except Jefferies.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Ray Robinson lost to Maxim based on the heat within 14 rounds and the heat was not as bad with the cmaera etc. in Coney Island in 1899 as this fight and was so much tougher. I believe Sharkey like Langford , McVey , Jennette and Peter Jackson are over looked as they were not champions but are in the top 20 of all time and would beat most champions and certainly the ones today and in the last 25 years.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Heat exhaustion is such a situational thing though. To say Robinson wasn't the better fighter because he sucumbed to the heat and other's didn't is way off and not justified. I was in the army, went to the middle east for times, never fell out from heat exhaustion, and I garuntee I faced hotter weather under tougher conditions than these boxers. But not going to say I'm a better soldier because I didn't fall out and others did. You can have heat exhaustion in cool temperatures. Situational.
guitarbandit7498 3 years ago
.. to indicate that he was in Dempsey's league. Corbett was obviously a great champ in his day and put up terrific battles against Jeffries and Jackson, but was was too light to withstand the battering he would take from power punchers who could match his speed, e.g. Dempsey, Louis. And great as Jeff was, his style would make him an anachronism in the postJohnson era. So once again we must agree to disagree.
dempsey00 3 years ago
People of that time period - Sharkey's and Dempsey's - thought a Dempsey-Sharkey would be a toss-up. Why did they see it that way? They actually saw the men fight? We haven't - we saw them only on film. They thought Jeffries was better than either one too.
jhs1958 3 years ago
Hi dempsey00 I agree that its tough to evaluate boxers from the 1890's to early 1900's as we have little fight film and I do respect your opinion. The one thing I will say about Sharkey was the fight in Coney Island was apparently the toughest fight seen by many boxing experts up until they died off in the next 50 years or so. I know Jefferies said Sharley was as tough as any fighetr ever and the toughest he ever faced.
dorsi68 3 years ago
The Thrilla in manila showed the Alie and Frazier were real tough fighters and although I rank dempsey above (slightly) over Ali and over Frazier , Dempsey never fought any match as tough as that. Based on 25 rounds and alot of broken bones etc. and based on what many experts said back than , Sharkey went all out and was never the same fighter after that fight. The reason why was he fought Jefferies and took everything he had and never recovered.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Sharkey did agree as much that the Jefferies fight he was never the same. Although over a duration of a career Dempsey was better , Sharkey fought Jefferies , Corbett and Fritzomons who were better than any of Dempsey's fighters. I agree your right that its tough to fully evaluate and I know jhs and myself are a minority in knowing Jefferies is the best fighter ever , but its always good to throw constructive opinions back and forth.
dorsi68 3 years ago
I know Jefferies is the only fighter in history to thoroughly beat and knock out any type of fighter from tough brawlers , to great boxers and from unorthodox and awkard fighters. Dempsey was an all-time great and had alot of class and was a credit to the sport no doubt more so than most fighters but Jefferies is the only fighter in my opinion who left no doubt he was the best
dorsi68 3 years ago
Dorsi and JHS: Actually, I've stated here and on other sites that I don't believe that any one champion could have beaten all the rest of them, and that includes Dempsey.I always try to substantiate my claims, though, and that's why I have trouble evaluating fighters like Corbett, obviously a great champion, and Sharkey. I just don't have enough to go on and I don't think you do either. Granted,Sharkey was a tough guy. Dempsey ate tough guys for breakfast. I see nothing in Sharkey's record ...
dempsey00 3 years ago
Sharkey ate tough guys for breakfast too. But, in Jeffries and some others of that "tougher" day, Tom ran into trouble. Dempsey would have had trouble with Sharkey's opposition too. JD could not handle Jeffries !
jhs1958 3 years ago
And you are definitely off the mark in claiming that Jack Johnson would have beaten Dempsey. I think that combination punchers like Dempsey and Louis would be too much for Johnson, who was a great defensive fighter but overrated as a puncher, in my view. I'll compose a detailed appraisal of Johnson's strengths and weaknesses in a day or two, but I'll post it on the 'Jack Johnson' site so other Johnson supporters can throw in their two cents.
dempsey00 3 years ago
I'll stick my nose in here. Jeffries #1, Johnson #2, Dempsey #3. Louis ???
jhs1958 3 years ago
Hi jhs1958 , I am curious to see where you would rank Corbett as I highly doubt Dempsey would not beat him in 15 rounds and Johnson would have a very tough time as well. How do you see a fight with Dempsey (vua 1918-1919) against Sharkey (vua 1898 to 1899) in a 20 round fight ??? I see Sharkey winning via KO in Round 18. I know Dempsey was a better overall fighter over a 8 year career but for there top 2 or 3 years I would rank Sharkey higher.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Hi Dorsi68. Corbett is in the All-Time Top Ten somewhere. Dempsey-Sharkey = a real war. Like you say, it depends upon what part of each man's career is matched up. Dempsey overall is better - moved so quickly. But, Sharkey was NO pushover. Close call.
jhs1958 3 years ago
I would agree about your assessment on Sharkey - Dempsey as it depends where in there career but in there absolte peak I would give the nod to Sharkey. I would give Dempsey , Marciano and Foreman a punchers chance to beat Corbett I suppose but I would rank Corbett above them as they all had trouble with good and awkward boxers. I would rank Corbett as the best pure boxer in the heavyweight division .. better than Johnson or Walcott who I would rank as great boxers
dorsi68 3 years ago
Look forward to your comments and what site is it ??? I can not see Dempsey ever beating Louis. Louis's destruction of Schleming was much better than even Dempsey's beating of Willard. I know Schleming beat a young Louis , but Dempsey lost 4x before champion by medicore fights and was KO'd in Round 1 (probabaly a fix but not good character). Louis hit harder than Dempsey in my opinion and would be knocked out most likley in the later rounds after losing the majority of rounds.
dorsi68 3 years ago
One thing about Louis was when he hit the canvass , he got mean and would pound his oppoent out as seen all the time (except Marciano). Louis would counter with Dempsey quite well and I do not think Dempsey's chin was that much better (although it was better). Dempsey had trouble with awkaward fighters and very good boxers and that is why he would lose to Louis and Johnson.
dorsi68 3 years ago
I do not know how I am off the mark about Johnson beating Dempsey. If Dempsey fought Tunney in his prime it would be a tough fight anbd at best a late round TKO and Johnson is much stronger and faster than Tunney. In my opionion , I know Demnpsey would get frustrated with Johnson and akthough i agree Johnson's power was okay , he would easily outbox and decision Dempsey.
dorsi68 3 years ago
I will be intersted in you saying why Dempsey would beat Johnson on his own youtube page as I know alot of people will debate that who are JJ fans. I know Dempsey was great but he would ahve a tough time with awkaward good boxers and great boxers. My favorite boxer is Sam Langford and I rank him #9 or so of all time. I know you and Lorcan love Dempsey so that may make it harder to acknowledge he is not the best fighter.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Dorsi: Definitely concur with you and Lorcan that Joe Louis is boxing's greatest champion, with the longest reign as champ and 25 defenses. However, I agree with Lorcan that Dempsey is a bad matchup for Louis, who had great difficulty with opponents who fought out of a crouch. Dempsey was nearly as fast as Louis and had a much better chin. Though Louis did have the great jab in his favor, he could be hit with the right, as Schmeling and others proved. I have to go with Dempsey here.
dempsey00 3 years ago
Which is why I agree with you, Dorsi (on this matter, anyway)--- I learn from the opinions of others and don't care if others disagree with me as long as they support their positions.
dempsey00 3 years ago
...but recently I encountered this quote posted by Killpolitics: "I had a bad weakness I kept hid throughout my career. I didn't like to be crowded, and Marciano always crowded his opponents. That's why I say I could never have beaten him."
-Joe Louis (Recorded in the May 1990 issue of Boxing Illustrated)
"It hurt even to bump into him."
-Joe Louis
Is this accurate or was Louis just being gracious, as the great ones often are? You tell me.
dempsey00 3 years ago
Joe Louis was very modest and Marciano said the best fighters were Louis and Dempsey. I think if marciano foiught Dempsey it would go to a decision or (very unliekly) late TKO for Dempsey but Dempsey better be ready as Marciano had great stanima and his power was as good as Dempsey's. I know Louis would decision Marciano. I know Marciano would beat Foreman as he was tough and was an inside fighter and pound for pound was even stronger than Foreman.
dorsi68 3 years ago
I know Dempsey should never have fought Tunney as he was no longer the same fighter and could not even fight beyound 10 rounds as Dempsey was a horse in his prime and very well conditioned. I have high respect for Louis as he fought everyone thoroughly. I know jefferies beat all the top 2 contenders but when jefferies was champion he set the mark for defenses and Louis perfected it as no one comes close to Louis reign (not even Ali or Holmes although they are somewhat close in my opinion).
dorsi68 3 years ago
Jack Sharkey the only guy to fight both said Dempsey would beat Louis and so did Schleming , but I highly doubt it and Louis would probably KO Dempsey in the late rounds based on his power and boxing skills. Louis was probbaly the greatest champion period based on being humble and fighting with class
dorsi68 3 years ago
I know Dempsey and Marciano were classy fighters as was Frazier but Louis exemplied class and its unfortunate he was taken advantage of. I would have to say other than Jefferies Louis was the best fighter period but Louis was the greatest champion and should the greatest class if all was equal and was very humble and did not rank himself high compared to his peers.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Gents,I've read and thought about your views. I agree Louis was the greatest heavweight champion,insofar as he had the most laudable reign.Was he the best? Yes.Tied w/ Dempsey.I think Dempsey's faster start and better chin would make him the winner in a match. Similarly, though their chins were equal, I believe Dempsey would beat Rocky for the exact same reasons.Speed and (equal) chins. Dempsey was simply a better boxer, bigger and faster than the Rock.Dempsey's type of speed kills.
LorcanFilms 3 years ago
Hi Lorcan , although I respect your opinion , there is no way Dempsey would beat Jefferies , Louis , Johnson and Corbett and to an extent Tom Sherkey of 1898 to 1899 and the Foreman of 72-74. We know Dempsey had a tough time with good boxers (Tunney although he wa spast his prime) and awkward fighters (Fat Boy although they fought 4 rounders). Louis would counter Dempsey and had better boxing skills and was better discplined fighter.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Jefferies was alot stronger , hit just (or lamost) as hard , had better enduarnce and could take a better punch. In terms of Johnson and Corbett , Dempsey would have a better chance KOing Corbett but I doubt it in a 15 round fight and Johnson would outbox Dempsey and they were close in strength. I know you disagree with Sharkey buit for two years , he gave Jefferies excellent fights , pounded Corbett and many other fighters. Foreman just had the style to beat Dempsey
dorsi68 3 years ago
From Dempsey's side he had the style to beat Foreman.Dempsey loved fighting big guys,b/c, for him they were just big targets.Evidence:watch him spar Big Bill Tate on YTube.Tate can't land a solid blow,while Jack lands regularly.I think the combo of Dempsey's speed,power,chin,and bob/weave defense puts him over Jeff,Foreman,Corbett,and of course,Sharkey.I respect your opinions,as well.But, no one beats the Dempsey who KO'd Willard.
LorcanFilms 3 years ago
Do not forget at best Firpo was a decent fighter who almost KO'd Dempsey 9albeit was lucky with the puch and Dempsey was passed his prime due to minimal commitment to boxing and more commitment to his socilete wife). Willard was a good fighter past his prime and had not fought in a while. Foreman is a great fighter , alot stronger than any big fighter Dempsey ever faced (except Willard) and hit harder than Dempsey.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Tate was a journeyman fighter like Flynn except not as good. Tate lost alot of fights and was KO'd early by other fighters as well so you can not use Tate , Willard and Firpo as measuring sticks for Foreman. I believe Marciano would KO Foreman and Dempsey would beat marciano but Dempsey would come at Foreman and he would lose that way. If he boxed Foreman for 6 rounds than he would probbaly win later on.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Regarding Dempsey v. Marciano,Louis etc., let me preface my opinion by saying that occasionally I'll see something that makes me rethink my position. I was always of the opinion that Dempsey and prime Louis would cut up Marciano because Rocky was susceptible to cuts. Dempsey in particular is a bad matchup because Rocky wasn't a particularly fast starter. I think Dempsey would TKO him in 5,6 maybe, Louis in later rounds. BUT...
dempsey00 3 years ago
Another option to consider: was that fight even on the level? These guys fought each other so many times, is it possible that they got together and said 'Let's go through the motions tonight but put on a show and give 'em something to talk about.'? This is pure speculation on my part and I have no evidence whatsoever that either man ever threw a fight, but 27 knockdowns? And Jeannette couldn't put him away? Conversely, if you're going to tank a fight, why go 49 rounds? A conundrum, for sure.
dempsey00 3 years ago
I agree with your statements and its always good to disgree in a constructive manner. I do not think there is any film on Jeanette's prime and a few poor clips on McVey. I do think there were set-ups back than as no one would really fight McVea and to a certain extent Jeannette. I know McVea was booed and there were a few fights were it was obvious he was not there. I may agree on the 49 round fight but does it really matter since they fought so often.
dorsi40 3 years ago
I haven't dusted off my volumes of Fleischer's Black Dynamite in years, but I seem to recall that he rated McVea a notch below Langford and Jeannette. Furthermore, I've always been a little suspicious of that 49 round fight in Paris. McVea hit the deck 27 times, Jeannette floored 11 times and I just have to wonder: how good a chin did either of these guys have? What kind of finisher was each man? Not in the category of Dempsey or Louis, I'd guess.
dempsey00 3 years ago
Dorsi: You know boxing history well; where we differ is in the analyses. I asked about McVea because I can't really judge a fighter that I haven't seen. Boxing isn't like baseball, where statistics reliably quantify production. Yes, Sullivan must have been a great fighter because he was champ for 10 years or so. But the sport was in its infancy and there's no film of him so any evaluation I attempted would be sheer conjecture. I prefer to render opinions that I can back up.
dempsey00 3 years ago
I look at both there records and see the competition and who the fought an how they did. MvVea fought better fighters and beat Willis twice and seemed to give Langford harder fights ??? I know Langford was better than McVea and Jeannette but those two were close. In terms of Sullivan , he was very good byt again you have no film and must base how good they were on conpetition and how people back than saw them an I kno people are always biased with there generation.
dorsi40 3 years ago
In my opinion , I think we should give McVea and Jeannete more credit as no one really want to fight thyem as they had nothing to gain. I think its safe to say that Johshon and Langford were the two best fighters and McVey and Jeannette were 3 or 4. I know Dempsey wuld beat McVey and Jeannette and Langford but I really doubt Johnson. IOts always good to debate and see one's perspective.
dorsi40 3 years ago
Although few experts today would rank Jefferies , McVey or Jeannete in the top 10 or 20 , in 50 years where are they going to rank Dempsey or Marciano ??? Most experts now rank Marciano better than Dempsey but 50 years ago Dempsey was above Marciano. I know Lorcan and yourself know alot and I learn alot and like your views and opinions although they differ from mind but that is okay.
dorsi40 3 years ago
Dorsi -- was poking around on You Tube the other day and came across clip of Sam McVey-Jim Johnson scrap. You posted a comment stating that you rate McVey in your all time top twenty and rate him ahead of Tyson; had to read it twice to be sure I wasn't seeing things. Just curious how you came up with this assessment.
dempsey00 3 years ago
I have alot of respect for McVey and he would have an excellent chance beating Foreman for example as he was very strong and big for his time. Unlike Tyson , McVey would always fight the top fighters that were willing to fight him and he fought Langford so many times. He beat Willis in there first two fights I believe and his prime I would say was around 1908 to 1912. I know Tyson was a great fighter during his prime years of 1987 to 1990 but he had tough times with Tucker and Smith
dorsi68 3 years ago
In my opinion , I would rank McVey the 3rd best fighter from 1908 to 1915 behind Johnson and Langford in the heavyweight division. Had his prime been 196 to 1921 , I would see Dempsey beating McVey via 9th or 10th round TKO (as McVey would fight Dempsey toe to toe) and Willis barely beating him as he was that good. Later on McVey had some questionable fights with Wikkis but he was a very tough and strong fighter.
dorsi68 3 years ago
I truly believe Tyson was overrtaed and I remember Eddie Futch (maybe the greatest trainer ever) saying the same thing that Tyosn is a bully and does not have it mentally. I know McVey does not get any credit and is forgotten as he was never champion as it was the sign of the times back than. But he fought excellent fighters and would literally fight anyone.
dorsi68 3 years ago
People sometimes compare Tyson to Dempsey which is a joke. Its true both KO'd alot of fighters in Round 1 or before round 4 , but if Tyson could not put someone away or they fought back , he was mentally weak unlike Dempsey. McVey could fight tough either way and I see McVey KOing or TKOing Tyson in around the 8th round as they would both be fighting hard but McVey is mentally tougher.
dorsi68 3 years ago
My post was taken off (I do not know why) on Dempsey - Foreman. Although I rank Dempsey higher I think Dempsey was made for Foreman. Dempsey has a good chance to beat Foreman within 6 rounds or if it lasts longer than Dempsey would win in my opinion. Foreman had a very strong jaw (as strong as anyone but lacked endurance in the 1970's) and Dempsey would fight Foreman toe to toe with little boxing in my opinion.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Dempsey had an animal instinct to fight hard and not back down. If Dempsey fought Foreman the way he did Firpo or Willard I think Dempsey loses in round 3 but if he is patient and boxes the first 6 rounds , he wins but I do not think Dempsey would do that in the first fight had they fought ???
dorsi68 3 years ago
dempsey00 , you seem to know alot about boxing , how do you view Dempsey versus Louis or Marciano or Ali as I think those fights would be very tough and great to see ??? I peronally see Dempsey losing to Louis via 14th round TKO , TKOing Marciano in the 13th or 14th round of a brutal fight and decisioning Ali in a very close fight.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Not sure why you rate Ruhlin so high. To be honest, I really don't know too much about him because so little film exists. So whether or not he was better than most of Dempsey's victims, I can't say, though I believe most historians would certainly rate Jack Sharkey above Ruhlin. Dorsi and Lorcan, please check out my take on Dempsey v. Foreman on Dempsey 'To Victory' site and let me know what you think.
dempsey00 3 years ago
Gus Ruhlin and Jack Sharkey were much alike - erratic. On a good day each was very tough. On a bad day, each stunk !!!
jhs1958 3 years ago
So you concede that a 'second rater', Gunboat Smith, beat Langford in the latter's prime? Have not heard any allegations of Langford throwing a fight before, and anything's possible, but I doubt he threw Smith fight, based on the fact that Langford was so out of shape at 200 lbs. and had performed very poorly in previous fight v. Jeannette. Of course, in good shape Langford was far superior to Smith, Flynn, etc. as he proved in rematches.
dempsey00 3 years ago
I made as comment as requested with Foreman - Dempsey. I would pick Dempsey over Marciano and Fritzmons , but I think Friztmons and Marciano's style were better suited for Foreman as they would beat Foreman in my opinion but I doubt Dempsey would. Foreman did rank Marciano as the 2nd best fighter behind Louis and I think Futch did as well. Fritz was a freak of nature and if he could last 6 rounds with Foreman , he would stop him.
dorsi68 3 years ago
I too doubt Langford would throw a fight but i heard he was depressed for not getting a title shot anywhjere although he was the 2nd best fighter in the world from 1907 to about 1913 or 1914. Maybe making little money and frustration made him out of shape as i know he lost to Fat Boy as well albeit past his prime and blind in one eye. Smith was a 2nd rater and had he fought Rulin , he would be KO'd within 5 rounds. Flynn was more game and would have been TKO'd late by Ruhlin.
dorsi68 3 years ago
It was tough for Ruhlin as the heavyweight division was very strong when in his prime. I am very confident Ruhlin would KO Jack Sharkey and beat him comfortably. I know Dempsey would KO Ruhlin had they fought as well. If Dempsey fought Tunney while in his prime , I would say Dempsey by comfortable decision or late TKO.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Of course, Sam got in shape and KOd Smith in 3 in the rematch several months later. But my point is that you sort of dumped on Dempsey's opponents while constantly extolling the virtues of Jeffries'. Smith didn't beat Sam when he was old and blind. Also, we all agree that Jeffries was tremendous and cleaned up all opposition, but he was held to a draw by second rater Gus Ruhlin in what I believe was only Ruhlin's second fight. And yes, Sharkey was tough, but was knocked cold in 15 by Ruhlin.
dempsey00 3 years ago
I believe the Jeffries-Ruhlin DRAW was in Jeffries sixth fight.
jhs1958 3 years ago
Ruhlin was a better fighter than any fighter Dempsey foughter other than Tunney. Smith and Flynn were 2nd rated fighters who were game but that is about it. Sharkey was on his down side after his brutal beating with Jefferies in there second fight as no one took such punishment for so many rounds as Sharkey and he was never the same after his loss.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Dorsi --- you are correct, Dempsey fought a few 4 rounders, but I believe that was the limit on prizefights in California at the time. Not to belabor the point about the competition of Dempsey & Jeffries, but Gunboat Smith beat Langford in 1913, arguably at Sam' best. He caught Langford out of shape at 200 lbs. and won a decisive decision in Sam's hometown, Boston. In Langford's previous fight with Jeannette in New York, he was also fat and lethargic and the two were booed out of the ring.
dempsey00 3 years ago
You have a valid point as Sam's prime was around 1909 to 1912 or 13 or so. But one must remember that Sam fought alot and made very little and was frustatred that he could never get a title shot. I think we can both agree had Sam been at his best against Flynn or Smith , its no contest. Also , who knows if Sam threw the fight as Demnpsey did (probably) with Flynn to generate more money for himself ??? I doubt it but he was clearly frustrated due to not getting a title shot.
dorsi68 3 years ago
A final comment about Dempsey's competition --- if memory serves, didn't Gunboat Smith and Jim Flynn both decision Langford (though Langford KOd both in subsequent matches)? My memory is a little hazy on this. You also alluded to Willie Meehan, who decisioned Dempsey in a couple of 4 round fights. How many fights can we think of that would've ended differently had they been only 4 rounds? And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Meehan also beat Langford?
dempsey00 3 years ago
You know alot about boxing and yes to all accounts , but Langford was blind in one eye and way past his prime. The "loss" to Flynn is normally looked upon as a "draw or no decision" and back than , its hard to say but Langford normally beat Flynn easiliy. I agree with a 4 round fight , but my poiunt was to illistarte Dempsey had many 4 rounders and although he had more official fights than Jefferies , Jefferies always fought good fightres except one or two times.
dorsi68 3 years ago
The point being that all we can do is try to evaluate the end product, scrutinize the films and weigh the skills and assess the intangibles of each champ and compare them. Evaluating a fighter's competition is subjective at best, and I'm not always sure how relevant it is. I happen to think that Sonny Liston was a pretty accomplished fighter even though he never defeated another great fighter. He beat all the available competition, though.
dempsey00 3 years ago
Some good points raised here, Dorsi, but tell me --- what champion didn't beat a lot of nobodies? That's how a developing fighter refines his skills. And traditionally, the heavyweight division is not that deep. You've heard of the "Bum of the Month Club"? How many of Larry Holmses's 20 title defenses were against quality opposition? Most of Marciano's later victories came against opponents who were well past their primes --- but that's not his fault.
dempsey00 3 years ago
Furthermore, Dempsey withstood more punishment from heavier hitters such as Smith and Firpo. The fact that Jack annihilated Flynn in less than a round in the rematch lends credence to the assertion that the first fight was fixed. This may not say much for Dempsey's character, but remember, he came up in a rough and tumble world where survival trumped ethics. To sum up, Lorcan got it right -- Corbett and Sharkey would crumple under Dempsey's lethal assault.
dempsey00 3 years ago
Also, regarding Dempsey's first fight with Flynn, I believe it is generally accepted by most boxing historians that the financially strapped Dempsey threw that fight. Roger Kahn certainly made a persuasive case for it. During their divorce proceedings, Maxine Cates, Dempsey's first wife, testified that Jack threw the fight for $300. It strains credulity to think that Flynn, not noted as an especially hard hitter, could KO the iron jawed Dempsey in just one round.
dempsey00 3 years ago
I believe that the Flynn fight was fixed myself but Dempsey did beat alot of nobodies and lost twice to a 3rd ranked fighter in Fat Boy. Dempsey did beat alot of great fighters as well but he also beat alot of no bodies as most fighters do. Fulton was a good fighter but he beat an aging and one eye blinded Langford.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Dorsi --- your list is thought provoking, but I have to disagree with some of your ratings. In particular, Sharkey and Corbett over Dempsey, Ali, Marciano, Foreman & Tunney. I'd venture to say that very few experts would concur. Also, your characterization of Dempsey's opponents as 'nobodies' is demonstrably untrue --- Gunboat Smith, Fred Fulton (who twice beat an aging Langford), Carl Morris, Bill Brennan and Jim Flynn were some of the top heavyweights of that era.
dempsey00 3 years ago
I do agree that Dempsey was an excellent fighter and one of the very best , but there are alot of great fighters and they are all very close especially in the top 10. I agree that Brennan was a very good fighter , but Fulton was good , Smith / Morris were okay and Flynn was a journeyman who gave it his all.
dorsi68 3 years ago
Batwood --- Excellent point, definite similarities in Dempsey and lightweight champ Duran. A significant difference, in my view, would be Dempsey's ability to take opponents out quickly. So to complete the analogy, how about Duran's swarming, vicious attack + Thomas Hearn's KO power = mini Dempsey? Sound about right? Lorcan --- who would you round out your top ten with? I'd think Marciano and early Tyson would be obvious choices. I'm wavering on Holyfield since steroid allegations came up.
dempsey00 3 years ago
dorsi68 3 years ago