Comparing Jeffries and Dempsey in accomplishment [Archive]

ChrisPontius

07-28-2009, 03:17 PM

Here is a comparison on several areas - accomplishment wise.

Title reign

Jeffries reigned for 6 years until he retired; never beaten as a champion.
Dempsey reigned for 7 years until he got beat.

Neither of them fought very frequently, but overall i think Jeffries' title defenses were a bit better than Dempsey's, and he didn't take that 3 year break. More on opposition later.

Edge: Jeffries

Number of fights

Dempsey easily wins this category. In fact, Jeffries probably scores lowest here of all ATG-candidates.

Edge: Dempsey.

Level of opposition

This is very subjective matter which pretty much comes down to quality vs quantity.

Dempsey's best: (in no specific order)
Miske 3x
Brennan 2x
Willard
Firpo
J. Sharkey
Fulton
Carpentier
Morris 2x
Gibbons

This is certainly a good list of wins. As for Jeffries':

T. Sharkey 2x
Fitzsimmons 2x
Corbett 2x
Griffin
Jackson
Ruhlin 2x

Outside of Ruhlin, all of Jeffries' opponent are elite boxers. However, several of them were aging or past their best. Although Corbett reportedly boxed a beautiful fight, he hadn't won in five years. Fitzsimmons was at or very close to his best during their first fight, but fact remains he was 36 years of age. Some boxers age really well however, and quality wins being scored is always a better indicator of good form than age, so i think the point of him being "old" is moot.

Jackson without question was far past his best, but it should be noted that Jeffries himself only had a handful of fights of experience, plus it was a quick knockout.

As for Dempsey's opponents, Willard was 37 years old and had only fought once in a 4-year time span. During their third bout, Miske was terminally ill and a huge 7-1 underdog, despite drawing and basically going even in another 10 rounder with Dempsey few years earlier. Most of his other opponents were at or near their best however.

Ultimately this comes down to what you like better. I'd give this category to Dempsey, by a close margin.

Edge: Dempsey

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Work pre-title

Another category that's hard to call. Dempsey has an impressive number of wins before winning the title, but also a few losses, including a first round knockout. Jeffries had far fewer bouts, but the fact that he faced world class opposition so early in his career and never losing is very impressive. It is also worth pointing out that Jeffries drew with a very hard hitter in Choynski, who was near his peak, over 20 rounds, while having had only 5 matches himself! A young, but still more experienced than Jeffries, Jack Johnson got blasted in only 3 rounds several years later.

Some people say that what Dempsey did pre-title compares to what Tyson

or Louis did before they won it, but i can't imagine either of them going into the (old and inactive) Willard fight as a 6-5 underdog.

To me, the fact that Jeffries didn't lose despite having so little experience, facing world class opposition is worth more than the wins Dempsey recorded. Sudenberg knocked him down eight times and Flynn stopped him in 1 round. Both wins are avenged several times, but at the same age, Jeffries was going the distance with Choynski.

Edge: Jeffries (close)

The size argument

Some will point out that Jeffries has a significant size advantage over all of his fallen opponents. This is true. However, this is heavyweight boxing, the unlimited weight class. While it's admireable what Holyfield accomplished against his bigger compatriots, it doesn't make him a better heavyweight. The same goes here.

Of course, it goes a bit further here, since Fitzsimmons was a supermiddleweight. He did have heavyweight credentials however (particularly with his knockout of Corbett), and this is more important. Most of his opponents weighed around 180-190lbs. Dempsey does have wins over bigger fighters, most notably Willard, Firpo and Fulton. However, back then, men over 200lbs could rarely box well or had other shortcomings. Fulton has a very weak jaw and many KO losses. Firpo makes the average amateur boxer look like Muhammad Ali. Willard was slow and low on skill as well as old and inactive.

In addition to that, many of Dempsey's victims were lightheavyweights: Carpentier, Levinsky, Gibbons, Flynn and Tunney.

Edge: Dempsey (close)

Opponents not fought

Some say that Jeffries avoided Johnson during the later years of his reign. This could be true, although the fact that Johnson lost to Marvin Hart and that he fought Johnson after 5 years of inactivity say otherwise. Jim never shared the ring with the likes of Martin or Childs, but both of them recorded a good amount of losses during 1901-1905, so i'm not sure just how deserving of a shot they were.

Now, Harry Wills was at the top of the heavyweight food chain for a full 7 years, Dempsey aside. And almost exactly overlapping with Dempsey's reign. There was a lot of public demand for this fight, but it never materialized. No champion in any weight class has ever had a no.1 contender established for that long a period during his title reign and not fought him.

Harry Greb is another boxer who beat many of Dempsey's opponents, but never got to fight him.

While Jeffries' opposition near the end of his reign may have been soft, he can't be accused of the amount of avoiding that Demspey did.

Edge: Jeffries

Decisiveness of defeats

Jeffries lost in pretty one-sided fashion to Jack Johnson, another all time great at his peak. Given that Jeffries was 35 years of age, inactive for five years, i think this is forgiveable. He still went a hard 15 rounds.

Dempsey lost in one round to Flynn, though he reversed that twice, and lost to Tunney twice, in very one-sided fashion. He had been inactive for three years, but was as sharp as he could be for the rematch and recorded his career-best win months earlier, even in a controversial way, but still lost every round to "The Fighting Marine", except when he scored the knockdown.

Another thing to note is that his bouts with Gene only went 10 rounds. How a world title fight could be sanctioned for only 10 rounds is beyond me, but the if it went 12 or 15, they may well have been stoppage wins. Dempsey was busted up so bad that he had to be lead out of the ring.

Jeffries always held his own, even with barely any boxing experience.

Edge: Jeffries

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Historical impact

Some might argue this doesn't belong since it has a lot to do with popularity, style, charisma and good looks. But just for fun and out of personal interest, i'd like to add this.

I think Dempsey takes this one, however, almost everyone that lived though the somewhat "recent" years after Jeffries hung 'em up, is pushing the daisies now. I'm wondering if anyone can give accounts of what they've heard from their (grand)fathers or relatives who were around during the 20's. While Dempsey seems to be more popular (perhaps also because of his acting career), Jeffries was highly regarded and ended high on many ATG lists.

Edge: Dempsey

Total: 4-4 for both. If anyone wants to add a category, feel free to do so.

McGrain

07-28-2009, 03:20 PM

I really like your break down Chris, I agree with most of this.

There are mutterings in some corners that there are yet to be discovered Jeffries fights out there and that the Pollack book may bring news. Anyone know how that book is coming, or what the chances are of a new fight?

PetethePrince

07-28-2009, 03:44 PM

Great writeup.

janitor

07-28-2009, 04:11 PM

It is a prety good break down all told.

I will throw a few ideas into the pot:

1. During Dempseys title reign and basicaly up to about 1940, the consensus was that Jeffries opposition was much better than that of Dempsey even allowing for the fact that many of them were past their best.

If you asked a boxing scribe in say 1935 to list the top 10 heavyweights of all time their list would have included Corbett, Fitzsimmons and Tunney.

2. Jack Johnson rightly or wrongly was much more highly regarded than Harry Wills was in the period when he was trying to get a shot at Jeffries title.

Part of this was down to Wills having an unexciting style while Johnson captured the public imagination with his charm and flamoyant ways.

Jeffries was certainly under a lot more pressure to grant atitle fight to Johnson than Dempsey was to grant a title fight to Wills.

3. Contemporary opinions about how Jeffries and Dempsey would have fared give a mixed picture.

Some old school scribes including Dempsey himself said that Jeffries was the greatest ever and would have beaten Dempsey plus X fighter in the same night.

I have also read opinion from forward looking writers who say Jeffries fight saying that Dempsey and later Louis took combination punching to a level never seen in Jeffries era and that they wouyld have gone through Jeffries opposition easily.

My2Sense

07-28-2009, 04:25 PM

If anyone wants to add a category, feel free to do so.

How about H2H? :D

McGrain

07-28-2009, 04:26 PM

I would go for Dempsey head to head.

ChrisPontius

07-28-2009, 05:14 PM

How about H2H? :D

Apart from this not being accomplishment-related, i think this would be a very hard issue to assess.

Most of the reason being that Jeffries fought in a near-bareknuckle boxing style with a large focus on wrestling, whereas Dempsey and his opponents had more of a "modern" style, developed for 15 round gloved fights.

At any rate, let's hear it though. Against the field as well as against each other.

It is a prety good break down all told.

I will throw a few ideas into the pot:

1. During Dempseys title reign and basicaly up to about 1940, the consensus was that Jeffries opposition was much better than that of Dempsey even allowing for the fact that many of them were past their best.

If you asked a boxing scribe in say 1935 to list the top 10 heavyweights of all time their list would have included Corbett, Fitzsimmons and Tunney.

Yes, this is an interesting subject. I considered making a thread on during roughly what year Dempsey overtook Jeffries in most all-time rankings, but i turned it into this one. Particularly on the opposition part they may have a point.

2. Jack Johnson rightly or wrongly was much more highly regarded than Harry Wills was in the period when he was trying to get a shot at Jeffries title.

Part of this was down to Wills having an unexciting style while Johnson captured the public imagination with his charm and flamoyant ways.

Jeffries was certainly under a lot more pressure to grant atitle fight to Johnson than Dempsey was to grant a title fight to Wills.

What's your evidence for this? Obviously it's hard to assess, but i've seen articles where Dempsey was being critized for being inactive and not taking on several men, where Wills is most notably mentioned.

You have a point on Johnson's flamboyant ways, but then again, Wills held the stronger hand record-wise - during the relevant period when Dempsey/Jeffries reigned, anyway.

3. Contemporary opinions about how Jeffries and Dempsey would have fared give a mixed picture.

Some old school scribes including Dempsey himself said that Jeffries was the greatest ever and would have beaten Dempsey plus X fighter in the same night.

I have also read opinion from forward looking writers who say Jeffries fight saying that Dempsey and later Louis took combination punching to a level never seen in Jeffries era and that they wouyld have gone through Jeffries opposition easily.

I would tend to agree with the latter, which is why Jeffries is hard to rank. It could also be that Jeffries had a bit like the aura that Lennox Lewis now has, in that he was the first superheavyweight (for the time) with skills and ability to back it up. Johnson was close in size of course.

janitor

07-28-2009, 05:36 PM

[quote=ChrisPontius;4587908]
Yes, this is an interesting subject. I considered making a thread on during roughly what year Dempsey overtook Jeffries in most all-time rankings, but i turned it into this one. Particularly on the opposition part they may have a point.

Jeffries was perceived rightly or wrongly to have dominated a golden era a bit like the 70s is regarded today.

In the run up to the Johnson fight the split in opinion was interesting and perhaps reflected this site.

The pro Jeffries crowd said:

"Jeffries has beaten legends like Fitzsimmons and Corbett while Johnson has only beaten second raters".

The pro Johnson crowd said:

"Johnson has beaten live contenders like Martin and McVea while Jeffries has fought old men".

What's your evidence for this? Obviously it's hard to assess, but i've seen articles where Dempsey was being critized for being inactive and not taking on several men, where Wills is most notably mentioned.

I have read a lot of opinions from both periods.

There was suport for Wills but it was usualy from purists like yourself who placed high value on the principle. Wills did not set the media on fire and many dismissed him (unfairly) because of his style. Some said that he was little more than a glorified journeyman.

Johnson was prety much a legend before he fought for the title. If he had fallen under a tram before the Burns fight he would have been at least on a par with Peter Jackson. If Jeffries had come out of retirment to fight Jack Johnson (in a non title bout) on the same day that Marvin Hart fought Jack Root for the vacant title then the Jeffries Johnson fight would have generated more interest.

You have a point on Johnson's flamboyant ways, but then again, Wills held the stronger hand record-wise - during the relevant period when Dempsey/Jeffries reigned, anyway.

I disagree.

Johnson was not only beating the best but beating them multiple times.

I would tend to agree with the latter, which is why Jeffries is hard to rank. It could also be that Jeffries had a bit like the aura that Lennox Lewis now has, in that he was the first superheavyweight (for the time) with skills and ability to back it up. Johnson was close in size of course.

Verry good observation.

The same size and evolution arguments that are used for Lewis were used to justify Jeffries beating his predecessors when Jeffries retired.

Ironicaly it would be seven decades before there was another all time great as big as Jeffries.

ChrisPontius

07-28-2009, 05:52 PM

Jeffries was perceived rightly or wrongly to have dominated a golden era a bit like the 70s is regarded today.

In the run up to the Johnson fight the split in opinion was interesting and perhaps reflected this site.

The pro Jeffries crowd said:

"Jeffries has beaten legends like Fitzsimmons and Corbett while Johnson has only beaten second raters".

The pro Johnson crowd said:

"Johnson has beaten live contenders like Martin and McVea while Jeffries has fought old men".

Both have a point, but i think the most important notion is that Jeffries HAD BEEN beating the likes of Fitzsimmons, whereas Johnson IS beating live contenders.

I have read a lot of opinions from both periods.

There was suport for Wills but it was usualy from purists like yourself who placed high value on the principle. Wills did not set the media on fire and many dismissed him (unfairly) because of his style. Some said that he was little more than a glorified journeyman.

Johnson was prety much a legend before he fought for the title. If he had fallen under a tram before the Burns fight he would have been at least on a par with Peter Jackson. If Jeffries had come out of retirment to fight Jack Johnson (in a non title bout) on the same day that Marvin Hart fought Jack Root for the vacant title then the Jeffries Johnson fight would have generated more interest.

The Burns fight was 3 years after Jeffries retired, though. 3 active years of peak performances. Remember that i'm only talking about when Jeffries was actually active... and while Johnson certainly was worthy of a title shot between 1903-1905, he did not have the numbers to back it up that Wills had between 1919 and 1926.

I disagree.

Johnson was not only beating the best but beating them multiple times.

So was Wills though, and he didn't lose to Hart at an essential point. Regardless of that was a rightful decision or not...

Verry good observation.

The same size and evolution arguments that are used for Lewis were used to justify Jeffries beating his predecessors when Jeffries retired.

Ironicaly it would be seven decades before there was another all time great as big as Jeffries.

Thanks.

I'm actually surprised that that last statement is true, but Johnson was somewhat close to Jeffries in size, as was Louis at 6'2 207 lbs, during his peak.

OLD FOGEY

07-28-2009, 11:54 PM

Great thread, Chris.

Here Hype Igoe from 1931 on Tex Rickard's evaluation of Jeffries:

"Jim Jeffries was Rickard's idol. He loved Jack Dempsey, but he thought more of Jeffries as a fighter than any battler who ever graced the roped arena. We argued that point one day, and Tex most emphatically informed me that Jeffries would have knocked out Dempsey."

On competition, in 1950 Nat Fleischer wrote that "Jeffries fought more top men than any of his successors or predecessors. Among them were such great fighters as Joe Choynski, Gus Ruhlin, Joe Goddard, Peter Jackson, Bob Armstrong, Bob Fitzsimmons, and Jim Corbett."

I remember from the fifties that there were plenty of older experts who picked either Johnson or Jeffries over Dempsey as the best heavyweight.

My own take on competition--Dempsey has the edge in quantity, but Jeff met and beat most of the best of his time, something that is hard to claim for Dempsey. Fitz, Corbett, Jackson, Goddard, and Sharkey are the best of the 1890's and Johnson the best of the 1900 to 1910 era. Jeff fought them all, and beat all but Johnson.

Put another way, Jeffries beat all the top men of the 1890 to 1903 period-Corbett, Jackson, Fitzsimmons, Goddard, Sharkey--Dempsey did not beat Langford, Wills, Greb, or Tunney.

ChrisPontius

07-29-2009, 04:41 AM

Thanks.

A bit more information. Here are a few lists of how historians/notable boxing experts rank heavyweights throughout the years. Unfortunately, i have few lists from before the 50's.

Back in 1950, the AP asked sports experts in the United States to select the Greatest Athletes in each sport. Here's how they rated the Fighters.

Greatest Fighter - 1st Place Votes:
1. Jack Dempsey (Heavyweight) 251
2. Joe Louis (Heavyweight) 104
3. Henry Armstrong (126-147 Lbs.) 16
4. Gene Tunney (Heavyweight) 6
5. Benny Leonard (Lightweight) 5
6. Jack Johnson (Heavyweight) 4
7. Jim Jeffries (Heavyweight) 2

Greatest Male Athlete
1. Jim Thorpe
2. Babe Ruth
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Ty Cobb
5. Bob Jones
6. Joe Louis
7. Red Grange
8. Jesse Owens
9. Lou Gehrig
10. Bronko Nagurski
11. Jackie Robinson
12. Bob Mathias
13. Walter Johnson
14. Glenn Davis
15. Bill Tilden
16. Glenn Cunningham
17. Glenn Morris
18. Cornelius Warmerdam

All the rating that came out before 1960, had Dempsey as the #1 Heavyweight of all-times. After that they had Louis, now most have Ali.

Nat Fleischer, Founder of Ring Magazine, 1971.

1.
Jack Johnson
2.
Jim Jeffries
3.
Bob Fitzsimmons
4.
Jack Dempsey
5.
Jim Corbett
6.
Joe Louis
7.
Sam Langford
8.
Gene Tunney
9.
Max Schemling
10.
Rocky Marciano

Charley Rose, 1968

1.
Sam Langford
2.
Jack Johnson
3.
Jack Dempsey
4.
Joe Louis
5.
Jim Jeffries
6.
Gene Tunney
7.
Sam McVey
8.
Rocky Marciano
9.
Jim Corbett
10.
Max Baer

World Boxing 1974 Readers Poll

1.
Joe Louis
2.
Jack Dempsey
3.
Rocky Marciano
4.
Jack Johnson
5.
Muhammad Ali
6.
Joe Frazier
7.
Gene Tunney
8.
Jim Jeffries
9.
Sonny Liston
10.
Ezzard Charles

Nat Loubet, 1975

1.
Joe Louis
2.
Jack Dempsey
3.
Jim Jeffries
4.
Jack Johnson
5.
Rocky Marciano
6.
Gene Tunney
7.
Bob Fitzsimmons
8.
James J. Corbett
9.
Muhammad Ali
10.
Joe Frazier

John Durant -Author of "The Heavyweight Champions" (1976)

1.
Joe Louis
2.
Jack Johnson
3.
Jack Dempsey
4.
Muhammad Ali
5.
Gene Tunney
6.
Joe Frazier
7.
Jim Jeffries
8.
James J. Corbett
9.
Rocky Marciano
10.
Max Schemling

Bill Brennan 1978 (Former President of the WBA)

1.
Muhammad Ali
2.
Joe Louis
3.
Jack Dempsey
4.
Jack Johnson
5.
Gene Tunney
6.
Jim Jeffries
7.
Max Schemeling
8.
Rocky Marciano
9.
James J. Corebett
10.
Bob Fitzsimmons

Big Book of Boxing Reader Poll, 1978

1.
Joe Louis
2.
Muhammad Ali
3.
Rocky Marciano
4.
Jack Dempsey
5.
Jack Johnson
6.
Gene Tunney
7.
Joe Frazier
8.
Jim Jeffries
9.
Ezzard Charles
10.
Sonny Liston

Bert Sugar, 1991

1.
Jack Dempsey
2.
Joe Louis
3.
Muhammad Ali
4.
Jack Johnson
5.
Gene Tunney
6.
Rocky Marciano
7.
Joe Frazier
8.
Larry Holmes
9.
Sonny Liston
10.
Mike Tyson

Arthur Harris, 1992 (Nov 1992 Boxing Scene)

1.
Muhammad Ali
2.
Joe Louis
3.
Jack Dempsey
4.
Jack Johnson
5.
Gene Tunney
6.
Rocky Marciano
7.
Larry Holmes
8.
Jersey Joe Walcott
9.
Joe Frazier
10.
Sonny Liston

Nigel Collins, 1997

1.
Muhammad Ali
2.
Joe Louis
3.
Evander Holyfield
4.
Larry Holmes
5.
George Foreman
6.
Jack Johnson
7.
Rocky Marciano
8.
Joe Frazier
9.
Jack Dempsey
10.

Sonny Liston

Herbert Goldman, 1997

1.
Muhammad Ali
2.
Joe Louis
3.
Sonny Liston
4.
Mike Tyson
5.
Larry Holmes
6.
Jack Johnson
7.
Jack Dempsey
8.
George Foreman
9.
Rocky Marciano
10.
Joe Frazier

Steve Farhood, 1997

1.
Muhammad Ali
2.
Joe Louis
3.
Jack Johnson
4.
Larry Holmes
5.
Rocky Marciano
6.
Jack Dempsey
7.
Jim Jeffries
8.
Evander Holyfield
9.
Mike Tyson
10.
George Foreman

BBC Sports, 2004

1.
Muhammad Ali
2.
Joe Louis
3.
Jack Johnson
4.
Larry Holmes
5.
Jack Dempsey
6.
Rocky Marciano
7.
Lennox Lewis
8.
Mike Tyson
9.
George Foreman
10.
Evander Holyfield

IBRO Member Poll, 2005

1.
Joe Louis
2.
Muhammad Ali
3.
Jack Johnson
4.
Jack Dempsey
5.
Rocky Marciano
6.
Larry Holmes
7.
James Jeffries
8.
George Foreman
9.
Sonny Liston
10.
Joe Frazier

Gilbert Odd, in 1985

1 Ali
2 Louis
3 Johnson
4 Patterson ( ! )
5 Dempsey
6 Jeffries
7 Burns ( ! )
8 Tunney
9 Corbett
10 Schmeling
11 Holmes
12 Sharkey
13 Braddock
14 Charles
15 Marciano ( !! )
16 Frazier
17 Fitz
18 Sullivan
19 Walcott
20 Baer
21 Johansson
22 Carnera
23 Liston ( !!! )
24 Willard
25 Hart

The thing to note here is that Jeffries' ranking has dropped almost linear as the years passed by. Of course something like this is expected to happen with the likes of Louis, Marciano, Ali, Frazier, Holmes, etc coming along, but the interesting thing is that Dempsey and Johnson don't drop half as fast in the ratings as Jeffries does. What's even more baffling to me, is that Tunney seems to rate just as well if not better from the late 60's on.

I think the fact that he doesn't have a filmed, breath taking performance like Dempsey-Willard hurts his standing, rightful or not. Plus, the fight where Johnson looks best is where he gives Jeffries a pretty bad beating. He DID beat most of the best heavyweights of his time and it seems he's becoming a bit forgotten.

Jack Dempsey

07-29-2009, 04:59 AM

Bert Sugars 1991 list is an eye opener

Boilermaker

07-29-2009, 05:28 AM

Who in the Blue Hell is Jim Thorpe?

Surely any Worlds greatest Athlete poll would have to include Sir Donald Bradman. His record was streets ahead of Babe Ruth.

OLD FOGEY

07-29-2009, 10:32 AM

Who in the Blue Hell is Jim Thorpe?

Surely any Worlds greatest Athlete poll would have to include Sir Donald Bradman. His record was streets ahead of Babe Ruth.

That poll was for the greatest American athlete done by American sportswriters. World wasn't mentioned.

Jim Thorpe--was a Native American athlete who had tremendous success in several sports. Thorpe won the decathlon and pentathlon in the 1912 Olympics. The medals were later taken away from him as he was accused of accepting money for playing semi-pro baseball. He was also an outstanding All-American in Gridiron football, a major league baseball player, etc.

Perhaps Thorpe is not world known because he was stripped of his Olympic medals and therefore does not appear in official Olympic records.

OLD FOGEY

07-29-2009, 11:00 AM

cHRIS--some other very important polls.

Boxing writers of America-done by HBO-about 1980

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Jack Johnson

AP poll-expert panel for best of century 2000

1----Muhammad Ali
2----Joe Louis
3----Rocky Marciano
4----Jack Dempsey
5----Jack Johnson
6----Larry Holmes
7----Sonny Liston
8----Joe Frazier
9----Sam Langford
10---Jersey Joe Walcott

Ring Magazine 1998 Rating

1----Muhammad Ali
2----Joe Louis
3----Evander Holyfield
4----George Foreman
5----Larry Holmes
6----Rocky Marciano
7----Sonny Liston
8----Joe Frazier
9----Jack Johnson
10---Jack Dempsey

Ring Magazine Current Ratings

1-----Muhammad Ali
2-----Joe Louis
3-----Rocky Marciano
4-----Jack Dempsey
5-----Evander Holyfield
6-----George Foreman
7-----Larry Holmes
8-----Gene Tunney
9-----Joe Frazier
10----Lennox Lewis

ESPN poll of 2000-taken from heavyweight boxers who finished highest in ratings of best North American athletes of 20th century

1-----Muhammad Ali
2-----Joe Louis
3-----Rocky Marciano
4-----Jack Dempsey
5-----Jack Johnson

Ebony black sportswriters poll of 1978

1-----Muhammad Ali
2-----Joe Louis
3-----Jack Johnson
4-----Jack Dempsey
5-----Rocky Marciano
6-----Joe Frazier
7-----Floyd Patterson
8-----Jersey Joe Walcott

Murray Woroner Computer results--1967

1-----Rocky Marciano
2-----Jack Dempsey
3-----Joe Louis
4-----Jim Jeffries
5-----Muhammad Ali

ESB poll of 80 "experts" 2009 (Rumsfeld poll)

1----Muhammad Ali
2----Joe Louis
3----Rocky Marciano
4----Larry Holmes
5----Lennox Lewis
6----Jack Johnson
7----George Foreman
7----Jack Dempsey
9----Mike Tyson
10---Joe Frazier

Old Fogey personal opinion 2009--slightly different from my vote in ESB poll as I have done some serious thinking about this in last few weeks:

1-----Muhammad Ali
2-----Joe Louis
3-----Rocky Marciano
4-----Lennox Lewis
5-----Larry Holmes
6-----Jack Johnson
7-----George Foreman
8-----Joe Frazier
9-----Jim Jeffries
10----Evander Holyfield

mcvey

07-29-2009, 11:24 AM

OLD FOGEY

07-29-2009, 11:35 AM

Reasons Jeffries has dropped in these historical ratings:

1. Lack of film--only good film is of the Johnson fight

2. In his comeback, he got himself identified as the Great White Hope. I think this has caused a reaction against him. It is interesting to consider where he would be rated if he never came back. Jeffries is identified, somewhat rightly, somewhat unfairly, with racism.

3. He stopped fighting serious opposition at 28 and did not win a fight after 29.

OLD FOGEY

07-29-2009, 11:39 AM

[quote=janitor;4588094]

Dempsey's ko over Carpentier is denigrated ,because he was Lht Heavy ,but how many men over 190lbs did Jeffries beat?
And remember Jeffries was in receipt of up to 47 lbs weight advantage in some of his major fights ,whereas Dempsey often conceded sizable weight.

How would fighting men like Ed Dunkhorst or Jan Plaacke have changed your opinion of Jeffries? In fairness, didn't every great champion have more trouble on the whole with men who weighed less than 200 lbs. The big fellows usually were not all that good.

mcvey

07-29-2009, 11:51 AM

[quote=mcvey;4593078]

How would fighting men like Ed Dunkhorst or Jan Plaacke have changed your opinion of Jeffries? In fairness, didn't every great champion have more trouble on the whole with men who weighed less than 200 lbs. The big fellows usually were not all that good.
The difference between Dempsey fighting 180lbs or so men is that he only came in at around 190 himself ,whereas Jeffries had considerable weight advantages over everyone he fought .with the exception of the 200lbs Ruhlin.
If Jeffries had fought Martin,maybe Godfrey then took on Johnson ,I think win or lose he would make the top ten .Wins over Munroe ,and Finnegan cheapen his real accomplishments imo.I take your point that Jeffries did not have big men of quality to fight ,not his fault ,but its rather like Marciano and the men he fought, no real big boys ,in their prime ,again the difference is he was only around 188 lbs himself .
Whatever way you slice it Jeffries had size advantages over everybody he met,and in most cases ,age ones too .I put him outside the top ten ,but definitely in the top 20, and top 15 would not be too high imo.

ChrisPontius

07-29-2009, 12:23 PM

OLD FOGEY

07-29-2009, 02:08 PM

Nice lists, Old Fogey.

A few questions:

1. Any idea why Holyfield ranks #3 in the 1998 Ring Ranking? Usually, a boxer's legacy "grows" several years after retirement, but he was still active. The only thing i can think of is his recent form, in that he pulled off amazing upsets against Tyson and avenged the Moorer loss by knockout.

2. In the recent weeks of thinking about this subject, what changing did you apply to your top10 list?

Altogether, i think Jeffries might be slightly under-rated during the last half of the 20th century up to now. In a few lists, Charles and Walcott ranked higher than him. As much as i like those two, based on accomplishments i think Jeffries should be ahead.

1. Holyfield's rating--Ring Magazine gave their reasoning as below:

"WHY HE'S RATED WHERE HE'S RATED--Only man besides Muhammad Ali to thrice win heavyweight title . . . Proved doubters wrong time and again, especially overcoming age and supposed heart ailment to win career-defining first fight with Tyson . . . Tremendous desire and great chin allowed him to win repeatedly as an underdog . . . Excellent combination puncher . . . Has had trouble with heavyweights far bigger than him . . . The Ring Magazine fighter of the year 1987, '96, '97."

Ring Magazine has Holyfield at #5 on their current ratings, ahead of Foreman, Holmes, and Lewis. They are rating him higher than almost anyone.

I am less impressed than they seem to be about winning a title several times. To do that, you first have to lose. I am more impressed with the men who don't lose their titles. Looking at this evaluation, what strikes me is no mention of losing 2 of 3 to Bowe, except obliquely with the "far bigger" comment. No doubt, though, that victories over Tyson, Bowe, Holmes, Foreman, Douglas, and Moorer make Holyfield's resume one of the very best. Others might be underrating him more than The Ring is overrating him.

2. My ratings--I am agonizing over where to put Jeffries. In the ESB poll, I rated him fifth. I have now dropped him to ninth. He has a thin but high quality resume and dominated his era like only a very few ever have. He is hurt by not fighting a better opponent in 1904 and quitting so early. I still think on balance he deserves a top ten rating.

OLD FOGEY

07-29-2009, 02:39 PM

[quote=OLD FOGEY;4593214]
The difference between Dempsey fighting 180lbs or so men is that he only came in at around 190 himself ,whereas Jeffries had considerable weight advantages over everyone he fought .with the exception of the 200lbs Ruhlin.
If Jeffries had fought Martin,maybe Godfrey then took on Johnson ,I think win or lose he would make the top ten .Wins over Munroe ,and Finnegan cheapen his real accomplishments imo.I take your point that Jeffries did not have big men of quality to fight ,not his fault ,but its rather like Marciano and the men he fought, no real big boys ,in their prime ,again the difference is he was only around 188 lbs himself .
Whatever way you slice it Jeffries had size advantages over everybody he met,and in most cases ,age ones too .I put him outside the top ten ,but definitely in the top 20, and top 15 would not be too high imo.

1. "The difference between Dempsey fighting 180lbs or so men is that he only came in at around 190 himself, whereas Jeffries had considerable weight advantages over everyone he fought, with the exception of the 200lbs Ruhlin."

I don't think this is at all relevant to heavyweight boxing. This is not p4p. You are criticizing Jeffries merely for being big. Take Tunney and Corbett. I have seen pictures of them sparring. They are about as well-matched as two fighters could be in size, Corbett a bit taller. They weighed about the same (188 to 192) when they fought Jeffries and Dempsey respectively, but Jeffries had thirty pounds on Corbett and Dempsey was about the same weight as Tunney. None of that matters. It does matter that Tunney was at his peak and Corbett past his, and it also matters that Tunney beat Dempsey twice and Jeffries ko'd Corbett twice.

2. Munroe and Finnegan--Munroe is a fair criticism, but Finnegan was an exhibition which politicians insisted be considered a championship fight, as they did with Jimmy Darcy for Dempsey. Neither Finnegan nor Darcy are at all relevant in discussing Jeffries' or Dempsey's legacies.

3. Jeffries fighting Martin--It always helps to have more fights against good fighters, but Martin was ko'd twice by Bob Armstrong, whom Jeffries did fight. I don't think Martin was THAT good. Johnson is a fairer criticism, but Jeffries did not avoid him for anything like as long as Dempsey avoided Wills.

4. I don't agree with this business of quality big men. Dempsey beat the big men easier on the whole than the littler ones. Tunney was not a big man and he beat Dempsey twice. Flynn was not a big man and he knocked Dempsey out. Miske held Dempsey to a draw. Gibbons went the distance with him. None of these men were any bigger than most of Jeff's opponents. Put another way, I think Dempsey might have had a tougher time with Fitz, Choynski, or Sharkey than Jeffries would have had with Willard, Firpo, or Morris.

SuzieQ49

07-29-2009, 03:03 PM

3. Jeffries fighting Martin--It always helps to have more fights against good fighters, but Martin was ko'd twice by Bob Armstrong, whom Jeffries did fight.

Why do you always bring this up but fail to mention that was one of the knockout losses was Martin's PROFFESIONAL DEBUT, surely someone's pro debut cannot be held against them.

Martin and Armstrong fought Twice when it mattered- They both went 1-1. In the most IMPORTANT match of the series for the COLORED heavyweight championship and "The right to challenge the winner of Fitz-Jeffries for the linear title"....Martin easily outboxed armstrong for a near shutout 15 round decision.

Denver Ed also recored a win over Sam Mcvea, and a top knockout victory over Dangerous Hank Griffin.

Too me, Martin was the better fighter than armstrong.....and during a brief period when Martin was colored heavyweight champion in late 1902...San Fransisco Examiner claimed Martin is gauranteed a title shot at the winner of fitz-jeff rematch...yet somehow Jeff never took Martin on.

mcvey

07-29-2009, 03:25 PM

[quote=mcvey;4593300]

1. "The difference between Dempsey fighting 180lbs or so men is that he only came in at around 190 himself, whereas Jeffries had considerable weight advantages over everyone he fought, with the exception of the 200lbs Ruhlin."

I don't think this is at all relevant to heavyweight boxing. This is not p4p. You are criticizing Jeffries merely for being big. Take Tunney and Corbett. I have seen pictures of them sparring. They are about as well-matched as two fighters could be in size, Corbett a bit taller. They weighed about the same (188 to 192) when they fought Jeffries and Dempsey respectively, but Jeffries had thirty pounds on Corbett and Dempsey was about the same weight as Tunney. None of that matters. It does matter that Tunney was at his peak and Corbett past his, and it also matters that Tunney beat Dempsey twice and Jeffries ko'd Corbett twice.

2. Munroe and Finnegan--Munroe is a fair criticism, but Finnegan was an exhibition which politicians insisted be considered a championship fight, as they did with Jimmy Darcy for Dempsey. Neither Finnegan nor Darcy are at all relevant in discussing Jeffries' or Dempsey's legacies.

3. Jeffries fighting Martin--It always helps to have more fights against good fighters, but Martin was ko'd twice by Bob Armstrong, whom Jeffries did fight. I don't think Martin was THAT good. Johnson is a fairer criticism, but Jeffries did not avoid him for anything like as long as Dempsey avoided Wills.

4. I don't agree with this business of quality big men. Dempsey beat the big men easier on the whole than the littler ones. Tunney was not a big man and he beat Dempsey twice. Flynn was not a big man and he knocked Dempsey out. Miske held Dempsey to a draw. Gibbons went the distance with him. None of these men were any bigger than most of Jeff's opponents. Put another way, I think Dempsey might have had a tougher time with Fitz, Choynski, or Sharkey than Jeffries would have had with Willard, Firpo, or Morris.

I think it is relevant when you are assessing Jeffries against Dempsey, which is what the thread is about.
Jeffries wins were over men much smaller and most very much older as in a bit past it.
Dempsey's wins ,for the most part were over men his own size or bigger and around his own age.
You mentioned the Flynn loss ,there is considerable debate about that .
You mentioned Dempsey lost twice to Tunney who was near his age and allmost indentical in size, you did not mention that in the first fight Dempsey had been inactive for 3 years , or that he came close to stopping Tunney in the return .
How about Jeffries beating up an ancient Fitz ,or a retired Corbett ,who hadnt won a fight in years?
The scalps on Jeffries belt are bigger names than those on Dempsey's but I think they had grey hair when he fought them,except for Fitz of course!
Do you think a 40 year old Fitz would break Dempsey's nose and cut him over and under both eyes ?
Bob Davis ,who was in Fitz's corner said that Fitz went out in the last round and said" hit me Jeff", because he had nothing left to fight with ,both his hands were smashed.Newspapers will confirm that Fitz stood in front of Jeffries and said something to him ,while he had his arms down by his sides .
Jeffries MO was to wear his man down ,taking considerable punishment without flinching himself.Could he have done that against men his own age and size?
I like Jeffries ,I think he was the best heavyweight before Johnson ,but his legacy is built on wear down stoppages of men , smaller and older by up to 15years
.I think this must be considered when assessing his wins against Dempsey's.

OLD FOGEY

07-30-2009, 10:25 AM

Why do you always bring this up but fail to mention that was one of the knockout losses was Martin's PROFFESIONAL DEBUT, surely someone's pro debut cannot be held against them.

Martin and Armstrong fought Twice when it mattered- They both went 1-1. In the most IMPORTANT match of the series for the COLORED heavyweight championship and "The right to challenge the winner of Fitz-Jeffries for the linear title"....Martin easily outboxed armstrong for a near shutout 15 round decision.

Denver Ed also recored a win over Sam Mcvea, and a top knockout victory over Dangerous Hank Griffin.

Too me, Martin was the better fighter than armstrong.....and during a brief period when Martin was colored heavyweight champion in late 1902...San Fransisco Examiner claimed Martin is gauranteed a title shot at the winner of fitz-jeff rematch...yet somehow Jeff never took Martin on.

Hi, SQ

I just disagree that Martin was all THAT good. You make a fair point that Martin was green in the first Armstrong fight. Boxrec has it his debut. Cyberboxingzone has him having fights back to 1897. Either way, he was green and this defeat didn't mean anything.

And Martin had a good run between 1899 and 1902, but not all THAT good. He beat an aging Frank Chillds for the Colored championship, but Childs was stopped about this time by Johnson and also lost to Choynski. He ko'd Griffin in 7, but Griffin was also ko'd about this time by the very ordinary Fred Russell and twice went to 20 round draws with Joe Kennedy, whom Jeffries blew out in a 1901 fight in two. He beat the probably somewhat past his best Armstrong over 15 on July 25, 1902.

Okay. At this point Martin was a top contender, perhaps the top contender. He might have deserved a shot at Jeffries, but such a shot would not have come prior to 1903. Jeffries was more active than most champions of the pre-Louis era, but still it was one defense a year. How do you know Martin wasn't going to get a shot in 1903 if he kept winning?

But he didn't. In December, he fights Armstrong again and in a 6 round no decision fight is knocked down either five or six times, depending on the source. That certainly took the bloom off the rose concerning a Jeffries fight. In February he loses to Jack Johnson and is eliminated as a top contender. Later in the year the past his best Armstrong and teenager Sam McVea knock him out in 3 and 1 rounds respectively. He does bounce back to beat McVea in 1904, but that's about it as Johnson and then McVea twice knock him out and he fades totally from the scene.

Bottom line--Martin beat McVea as a teenager in 1904, but McVea ko'd him three other times. A nearing the end of the line Armstrong ko'd him in 1903. Johnson dominated him. Martin didn't get a shot because he blew his chance with a series of crushing defeats. He was never the same after the six knockdown performance against Armstrong in 1902.

Martin reminds me a bit of Michael Grant. I just don't think there is any there there with him. He was not all THAT good.

OLD FOGEY

07-30-2009, 11:20 AM

[quote=OLD FOGEY;4594441]

I think it is relevant when you are assessing Jeffries against Dempsey, which is what the thread is about.
Jeffries wins were over men much smaller and most very much older as in a bit past it.
Dempsey's wins ,for the most part were over men his own size or bigger and around his own age.
You mentioned the Flynn loss ,there is considerable debate about that .
You mentioned Dempsey lost twice to Tunney who was near his age and allmost indentical in size, you did not mention that in the first fight Dempsey had been inactive for 3 years , or that he came close to stopping Tunney in the return .
How about Jeffries beating up an ancient Fitz ,or a retired Corbett ,who hadnt won a fight in years?
The scalps on Jeffries belt are bigger names than those on Dempsey's but I think they had grey hair when he fought them,except for Fitz of course!
Do you think a 40 year old Fitz would break Dempsey's nose and cut him over and under both eyes ?
Bob Davis ,who was in Fitz's corner said that Fitz went out in the last round and said" hit me Jeff", because he had nothing left to fight with ,both his hands were smashed.Newspapers will confirm that Fitz stood in front of Jeffries and said something to him ,while he had his arms down by his sides .
Jeffries MO was to wear his man down ,taking considerable punishment without flinching himself.Could he have done that against men his own age and size?
I like Jeffries ,I think he was the best heavyweight before Johnson ,but his legacy is built on wear down stoppages of men , smaller and older by up to 15years
.I think this must be considered when assessing his wins against Dempsey's.

1. On size--I'll give my opinion. It is relevant that Dempsey fought some bigger men than Jeffries ever fought. That is an issue which can be brought up in evaluating the two of them and that I think is valid. It just doesn't sweep the field with me, as over 200 lb men prior to the sixties and seventies with a very few exceptions were pretty mediocre and usually lost often to the better smaller men. This was true of Dempsey's large opponents.
As for Jeffries being 30 lbs heavier than Dempsey, that doesn't matter at all. Chris laid out the standards at the beginning. This is not p4p. It is heavyweight boxing. I am not going to penalize Jeffries for being big.

2. Old opponents--As you pointed out, some of Jeff's opponents were older, and they were the biggest names--Fitz (36, 39), Corbett (34, 37), Jackson (37), Goddard (37). But Dempsey had his share of older opponents also--Willard (37, actually older and laid off longer than Fitz), Flynn (38, 37, ko's Dempsey when 37), Morris (33, 34), Pelkey (34), Gibbons (32), Gunboat Smith (31), and some of them, Smith, Flynn, and Pelkey were slipping pretty badly by the time they fought Dempsey.

Age is always difficult to properly evaluate as some fighters do very well as they get older. Fitz was certainly one of them. Most of his biggest wins came when past 30, including Creedan, Maher, and Corbett prior to fighting Jeffries, and Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Gardner after fighting Jeffries. He had quality wins up to 40. The other three older men are more problematical. Corbett was not all that old, actually a few months short of 34, but had laid off. Observers judged he looked very good against Jeffries. He had not lost his best asset, his skill and perhaps not his speed. Goddard and Jackson were on the way down. Goddard still had enough left to ko Maher and draw with Armstrong. Most champions, including Dempsey, have these sort of fading names on their resumes, but Jeffries blew both out quickly and that is about all he could do, as Dempsey did with the even older Willard.

3. If we focus on Dempsey's layoff prior to Tunney, and Corbett's prior to Jeffries, we should note that Willard had been off even longer prior to Dempsey, and this is after all, the signature win for Dempsey.

4. Flynn fight--the best evidence I have seen is the ringside report. I judge the fight to have been honest off that.

5. Jeffries did tend to wear his opponents down and he certainly took a lot of facial punishment from his better opponents, but this has to be balanced by the fact that he never fought a really bad fight. He scored a knockdown in every fight he had prior to his retirement. He never lost until old, even when matched with far more experienced fighters early in his career. He was never off his feet until he finally collapsed after taking 15 rounds of punishment from Johnson. In contrast, Dempsey did have some poor performances, going down nine times against the less than mediocre middleweight Johnny Sudenberg, being ko'd in one by Flynn, getting knocked out of the ring by Firpo, losing every round to Tunney. He was more explosive than Jeffries, but also less consistent. I think it fair to say that Dempsey was the better offensive fighter, with more power, and with faster hands and better combinations. Jeffries had a better chin and more stamina.

6. Would Dempsey have been cut up by a 39 year old Fitz--Don't know. Probably not as his explosive power might have gotten Fitz out of there early. On the other hand, I can't imagine Jeffries being down nine times at any point to Sudenberg or being ko'd by Flynn. And on Fitz, Dempsey getting hit that many times by the crude Firpo raises questions about what the far more precise punching Fitz might have done with him.

7. On Corbett and Tunney--My point was that on size Corbett and Tunney were all but identical. Tunney was at his peak and Dempsey past his. Corbett was past his peak and Jeffries at his. But Jeffries beat Corbett and Dempsey lost badly to Tunney.

8. It is a valid point that Dempsey defeated a very good fighter who was younger and would go on to be champion, Jack Sharkey. This is perhaps Dempsey's strongest argument against Jeff in my judgement. Jeff's strongest argument is that he beat all the best men of the 1890 to 1903 era, Corbett, Fitz, Jackson, Goddard, Sharkey, while Dempsey did not beat most of the best of his era, Langford, Wills, Greb, Tunney.

PetethePrince

07-30-2009, 01:46 PM

This is a good thread. Chris makes good points as to why Jeffries has declined in the picture in ratings. Old Fogey covered it too.

I think I'll add that the numbers of fights he had give people a tendency to maybe question him in terms of longevity and consistency.

mcvey

07-30-2009, 02:24 PM

[quote=mcvey;4594825]

1. On size--I'll give my opinion. It is relevant that Dempsey fought some bigger men than Jeffries ever fought. That is an issue which can be brought up in evaluating the two of them and that I think is valid. It just doesn't sweep the field with me, as over 200 lb men prior to the sixties and seventies with a very few exceptions were pretty mediocre and usually lost often to the better smaller men. This was true of Dempsey's large opponents.
As for Jeffries being 30 lbs heavier than Dempsey, that doesn't matter at all. Chris laid out the standards at the beginning. This is not p4p. It is heavyweight boxing. I am not going to penalize Jeffries for being big.

2. Old opponents--As you pointed out, some of Jeff's opponents were older, and they were the biggest names--Fitz (36, 39), Corbett (34, 37), Jackson (37), Goddard (37). But Dempsey had his share of older opponents also--Willard (37, actually older and laid off longer than Fitz), Flynn (38, 37, ko's Dempsey when 37), Morris (33, 34), Pelkey (34), Gibbons (32), Gunboat Smith (31), and some of them, Smith, Flynn, and Pelkey were slipping pretty badly by the time they fought Dempsey.

Age is always difficult to properly evaluate as some fighters do very well as they get older. Fitz was certainly one of them. Most of his biggest wins came when past 30, including Creedan, Maher, and Corbett prior to fighting Jeffries, and Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Gardner after fighting Jeffries. He had quality wins up to 40. The other three older men are more problematical. Corbett was not all that old, actually a few months short of 34, but had laid off. Observers judged he looked very good against Jeffries. He had not lost his best asset, his skill and perhaps not his speed. Goddard and Jackson were on the way down. Goddard still had enough left to ko Maher and draw with Armstrong. Most champions, including Dempsey, have these sort of fading names on their resumes, but Jeffries blew both out quickly and that is about all he could do, as Dempsey did with the even older Willard.

3. If we focus on Dempsey's layoff prior to Tunney, and Corbett's prior to Jeffries, we should note that Willard had been off even longer prior to Dempsey, and this is after all, the signature win for Dempsey.

4. Flynn fight--the best evidence I have seen is the ringside report. I judge the fight to have been honest off that.

5. Jeffries did tend to wear his opponents down and he certainly took a lot of facial punishment from his better opponents, but this has to be balanced by the fact that he never fought a really bad fight. He scored a knockdown in every fight he had prior to his retirement. He never lost until old, even when matched with far more experienced fighters early in his career. He was never off his feet until he finally collapsed after taking 15 rounds of punishment from Johnson. In contrast, Dempsey did have some poor performances, going down nine times against the less than mediocre middleweight Johnny Sudenberg, being ko'd in one by Flynn, getting knocked out of the ring by Firpo, losing every round to Tunney. He was more explosive than Jeffries, but also less consistent. I think it fair to say that Dempsey was the better offensive fighter, with more power, and with faster hands and better combinations. Jeffries had a better chin and more stamina.

6. Would Dempsey have been cut up by a 39 year old Fitz--Don't know. Probably not as his explosive power might have gotten Fitz out of there early. On the other hand, I can't imagine Jeffries being down nine times at any point to Sudenberg or being ko'd by Flynn. And on Fitz, Dempsey getting hit that many times by the crude Firpo raises questions about what the far more precise punching Fitz might have done with him.

7. On Corbett and Tunney--My point was that on size Corbett and Tunney were all but identical. Tunney was at his peak and Dempsey past his. Corbett was past his peak and Jeffries at his. But Jeffries beat Corbett and Dempsey lost badly Tunney.

8. It is a valid point that Dempsey defeated a very good fighter who was younger and would go on to be champion, Jack Sharkey. This is perhaps Dempsey's strongest argument against Jeff in my judgement. Jeff's strongest argument is that he beat all the best men of the 1890 to 1903 era, Corbett, Fitz, Jackson, Goddard, Sharkey, while Dempsey did not beat most of the best of his era, Langford, Wills, Greb, Tunney.

Your points are well considered and advocated.
I tend to beleive the Flynn fight was on the square too.
Jeffries did indeed appear to have a chin of iron ,but it was never tested against a physically big, hard hitter was it?
I dont want to rethrash this again.Jeffries was an Iron man ,but would he have taken Firpos right hand and remained upright ?
I think he would ,but we dont know,certainly he withstood the blows of power hitters Choynsky and Fitz ,but one was a super middle the other a light heavy .Would he take a left hook from Liston ,or a Foreman?
I have no doubt either of them could floor Dempsey ,maybe they could deck Jeff too?
Dempsey refused a fight with
Langford ,while his manager was John The Barber Reisler ,[Reisler was a notorious flesh pedlar] Jack was a skinny light heavy at the time .Reisler brow beat him into taking a fight with Jim Johnson,Johnson broke several of Dempsey's ribs,Jack simply wasnt ready for Langford at that stage.
When Dempsey was champ , Langford was fat and badly on the slide ,as well as half blind, a match would not have proved anything then.

Jeffries holding Choynsky to a draw is a marvellous acheivment given his own lack of experience,of course he had physical advantages,but Choynsky proved he was still a potent force by later koing Johnson.
Dempsey himself was a very big fan of Jeffries .I think you can make a solid case for either man .

Boilermaker

07-31-2009, 10:11 PM

Everyone is comparing the Tunney performances to the Corbett peformances. But that is only half the comparison. What about comparing the Tunney performances to the Johnson fight. Jeffries far more gone than Dempsey every was. And Johnson was quite a bit better than Tunney ever was (in nearly everyone's view). Yet, Jeffries did at worst as good as Dempsey did in the first Tunney fight, and at best, quite a bit better than Tunney did in both fights. Dempsey won only a single round out of 20 against Tunney.

Comparing achievements, i dont really see that Dempsey has much of a chance. There is no doubt that Jeffries dominated his sport, until he retired. He never lost a fight and he did fight and beat the best fighters in the world save for maybe one or two arguments just before he retired. Even his harshest critics agree on that .

Dempsey on the other hand, had incredible popularity and crowd pleasing power, but he did lose on the way up. Even forgiving this, he did not establish the same level of superiority as Dempsey, in that he never actually fought and beat his top contender in Harry Wills, or many of the other guys who were top names during or before his title reign (eg Lanford, Godfrey etc). Not that i am saying that this was a poor reign, because it wasnt, but it wasnt at the same level as Jeffries was.

The biggest achievement for Dempsey was the Million dollar gate and his popularity gleaned by his style rather than his accomplishments. I dont think this really gives an advantage in such a rating though i guess that money is the name of the game so maybe it does.

Although not relevant to a topic discussing achievements, how bizarre is it to see people trying to pull the size argument against jeffries. In case anyone hasnt realised, Jeffries is bigger than Dempse in every single way!

I think that Jeffries has a big advantage

ChrisPontius

08-01-2009, 10:12 AM

Boilermaker, i know you're a fan of Jeffries, but where do you rank the man, and where do Dempsey and Johnson land on your list?

OLD FOGEY

08-01-2009, 11:03 AM

[quote]

Jeffries was perceived rightly or wrongly to have dominated a golden era a bit like the 70s is regarded today.

In the run up to the Johnson fight the split in opinion was interesting and perhaps reflected this site.

The pro Jeffries crowd said:

"Jeffries has beaten legends like Fitzsimmons and Corbett while Johnson has only beaten second raters".

The pro Johnson crowd said:

"Johnson has beaten live contenders like Martin and McVea while Jeffries has fought old men".

I have read a lot of opinions from both periods.

There was suport for Wills but it was usualy from purists like yourself who placed high value on the principle. Wills did not set the media on fire and many dismissed him (unfairly) because of his style. Some said that he was little more than a glorified journeyman.

Johnson was prety much a legend before he fought for the title. If he had fallen under a tram before the Burns fight he would have been at least on a par with Peter Jackson. If Jeffries had come out of retirment to fight Jack Johnson (in a non title bout) on the same day that Marvin Hart fought Jack Root for the vacant title then the Jeffries Johnson fight would have generated more interest.

I disagree.

Johnson was not only beating the best but beating them multiple times.

Verry good observation.

The same size and evolution arguments that are used for Lewis were used to justify Jeffries beating his predecessors when Jeffries retired.

Ironicaly it would be seven decades before there was another all time great as big as Jeffries.

"Johnson was pretty much a legend before he fought for the title. If he had fallen under a tram before the Burns fight he would have been at least on a par with Peter Jackson."

According to the 1976 Ring Record Book and Boxing Encyclopedia, Johnson was a solid 3 to 2 betting UNDERDOG when he fought Burns, and Burns simply was not that highly regarded. Jeffries, despite having laid off six years and being 35 years old, was a 10 to 7 betting favorite over Johnson in 1910. All this does not sound like Johnson was viewed as that much of a legend in 1908 or 1910. In contrast, Joe Louis was never the betting underdog.

There were a huge number of newspapers back then, over eighty in New York City alone. It is almost impossible to read enough of them to garner a good idea what the GENERAL newspaper opinion was. There were newspapers who viewed Johnson very highly, I am certain, but why would they view him as a legend in 1904 when all he had done was beat a man who was then a teenager, McVea, the erratic Martin who was blown away in 1903 by Armstrong, an aging Childs, etc. He had never even been able to beat Hank Griffin in several fights even as late as 1902 and had been ko'd by Joe Choynski. I have read newspaper accounts which excoriated Johnson for having an ultra-cautious and boring style or even for not having a fighting heart.

Certainly, Johnson was eventually thought of far more highly than Wills. That the Johnson of 1904 or even 1908 would have been considered on a higher plane than the Wills of the twenties is unconvincing to me. Certainly there were many who felt Dempsey could easily handle Wills in the press, but there were plenty of others who felt he would be a capital opponent and certainly much of the boxing public was among them. According to TIME MAGAZINE, Dempsey was booed out of the ring at the opening of the Olympic Auditorium in Los Angeles in 1925 by fans chanting "Wills. Wills. Wills." I don't know if that ever happened to Jeffries or Burns concerning Johnson.

Boilermaker

08-02-2009, 04:22 AM

Boilermaker, i know you're a fan of Jeffries, but where do you rank the man, and where do Dempsey and Johnson land on your list?

I dont really have a list as such, so everything changes whenever i sit down and actually reply with a top 10 listing. I do think that all three of the above men are one of about 12 or so fighters, who i think can be legitimately ranked as number one.

Lists depend on what you use as a ranking criteria (ie solely accomplishments, head to head, etc). When ranking all time great fighters, I try to assume that if they had a good chin in their own era, they have a good chin now, ie eras are roughly even. A big puncher today, was a big puncher in 1900 and vice versa. I also tend to give a lot more value to performances when well past their best, since i believe that when any ATGs meet each other, they will be facing something they probably never did in their prime. For example, Past Prime showed just what an amazing improviser he was and how virtually unbreakable his chin was. This imporoved my opinion of pre exile Ali massively and is one of the main reasons why i think he was the best ever, even though i dont think post exile Ali lays a glove on the pre exile version. The other thing i usually i do is virtually assume all official results are correct. There will always be debates, but the official result is the object. And when it is wrong, the better fighter will nearly always find a way to reverse it. Therefore, i consider the Flynn fight a KO, the Hart fight a loss etc.

Dempsey is one fighter i find extremely hard to rate. Many rate him so highly, and sometimes i do, but i do find his resume a little hollow. In reality, he beat Willard, who was an inactive champion (and i dont really care that he was so big, as most of his contemporaries thought) and from there, he beat some good contenders before he was outclassed by Tunney. I generally rate him in the lower half of the top 10, but i can see justification for dropping him even further down and have on occassions done this myself. i think he rates about 10th at the moment.

Johnson is another that i find hard to rank. I am not sure why but i think he looks more impressive and intimidating that any other fighter i have seen. And his longevity is simply amazing. Not just before the Willard fight, but also after it. He is a hell of a lot better than most people realise and i think I rate him about 5th at the moment. I must admit, his early KO loss to Choynki is what really puzzles me the most, and i personally have doubts about its authenticity - moreso than any of JOhnson's other fights, (call it a hunch as i have never seen anything written about it). Still, as i said earlier i have to judge him on this loss as well as his others, and i think that this is a fair bit closer to Johnsons prime than most others think. I rank JOhnson at about 5 currently but have had him higher in the past.

I usually rank Jeffries somewhere between 2 and 5, depending on a number of things but would currently see him at about 3rd.

For the record, and just because i have thought about it a bit, as of right this second, i would spit out the following list.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Jeffries
4. Marciano
5. Johnson
6. Sullivan
7. Foreman
8. Tyson
9. Holmes
10. Lewis
11. Liston
12. Dempsey
13. Frazier
14. Tunney
15. Corbett

ChrisPontius

08-02-2009, 06:03 AM

Boilermaker

08-02-2009, 08:28 AM

Nice read, but one thing surprised me a bit. First you say that you always go with the official result, but then you question the Choynski KO loss. Although i've never seen a primary report on this, anything that i've read about it points in the "legit" direction. Didn't Johnson himself talk about it in his autobiography, on how Choynski taught him a lot of things after his KO loss?

In addition to that, Johnson is quite highly regarded today. Although i don't know when opinion on him swayed to what it is now (i suspect from the 60's-70's), if the Choynski loss was illegitimate, you would've probably heard some sources about it, as you do on Dempsey vs Flynn.

Regardless, i do find Johnson hard to rank. Not so much because of his loss to Choynski, but for the same reason Dempsey is hard to rank. His resume has a lot of quantity in it (more so than Dempsey even), and his longetivity is among the best ever, but lacks quality.

His best win is probably against Jeffries, but he was washed up and had been inactive for 5 years.... after that, a small Burns, an even smaller superwelterweight in Langford (by decision), or a teenage Mcvey/green Jeannette?

I have no evidence of a choynski fix, and have never seen it suggested anything but on the level. I also have heard the story about Johnson learning plenty from Choynski in the jail cell. Still, it just doesnt seem right to me, but this is all hunch and nothing else. I rate Johnson on the assumption that the Choynski fight was on the level. If it were later found to be a fix, then i would rate Johnson even higher.

I dont really think that Johnson's resume lacks quality at all. The best fighters in the world were the likes of Langford and McVey, whom he did not fight but Johnson had already beaten them. I know the size and experience argument raised, but i just dont really buy it too much (even though i would have loved to see him defend against those two guys) In reality, Johnson, like Dempsey and many others, slackened off once he won the title. The difference is, like the greatest champions, he found ways to keep his title for an awful long time. And even after the Willard loss, which was a win under most title fight conditions, Johnson still went an astounding amount of time before he lost again. Even if he had lost to Langford or McVey, given his sitting on the title, would it have meant any more than Tunneys win against Dempsey? Especially since prime Johnson had already wiped the floor with them.

he grant

08-02-2009, 09:35 AM

I am as in love with the Dempsey legend as the next guy, truly am ... also feel he is one of the true ring enigma's ... he may have been so much more but the complete inactivity of his reign stunted his progress as a fighter post 1919 ... there is also no question that he completely avoided not just his top contender , Wills, but possibly the next top contender, Greb ... to me Dempsey remains the largest unknown of the heavyweight "GREATS" and there is actually an argument that a fighter with 23 bouts, Jeffries, has merrit in this argument as he did fight the top guys in his time ...

TheGreatA

08-02-2009, 09:57 AM

Bummy Davis

08-02-2009, 10:35 AM

I used to rate Jeffries very high but have kind of lowered my rating of fighters pre -Dempsey. I think Jeffries was a great fighter ( who unfortunatly is remembered from a fight coming back from a 6-year Hiatus at the age of 36 and losing 100 lbs with no tune up. Its like rating Ali from the Holmes fight. Dempsey had the inactive phase, that hurt him also and the non -fights with Greb and Wills. I am inclined to think Dempsey would have beaten both men but the fights should have taken place. Jeffies was one of the strongest heavys...a George Chuvalo who had cat like speed, I have heard, hard to tell with the old film. Good post made me rethink those era's and the fighters standing.

janitor

08-02-2009, 03:14 PM

[quote=OLD FOGEY;4616131]
"Johnson was pretty much a legend before he fought for the title. If he had fallen under a tram before the Burns fight he would have been at least on a par with Peter Jackson."

According to the 1976 Ring Record Book and Boxing Encyclopedia, Johnson was a solid 3 to 2 betting UNDERDOG when he fought Burns, and Burns simply was not that highly regarded.

I understand that the betting odds caused some surprise in the United States and were atributed to the fact that the Australians did not know how good Johnson was.

Jeffries, despite having laid off six years and being 35 years old, was a 10 to 7 betting favorite over Johnson in 1910.

What comes across about the Jeffries fight is that people had not got their heads around the fact that Jeffries was shot. There was not a long history of ill fated comebacks to draw upon and the hype of the fight ran away with itself.

It is easy to say that it was obvious in hindsight.

There were a huge number of newspapers back then, over eighty in New York City alone. It is almost impossible to read enough of them to garner a good idea what the GENERAL newspaper opinion was. There were newspapers who viewed Johnson very highly, I am certain, but why would they view him as a legend in 1904 when all he had done was beat a man who was then a teenager, McVea, the erratic Martin who was blown away in 1903 by Armstrong, an aging Childs, etc.

Johnson started to be heavily hyped after the Martin fight and the hype reached feaver pitch after the McVea fight. He started to be viewed as a world class fighter after he beat George Gardiner. This is the impresion that I have gained from such contemporary articles as I have read.

"This crude, uncouth, unpopular giant fought Peter Jackson, old and war-weary; Hank Griffin, a third-rater; and Bob Armstrong, who hustled him for ten rounds. This trio was black. Why will he not give Johnson a match? Here is a man who can fight and is ready and willing to do so."

Police Gazette July 1904

"By beating Sam McVey again the other night, Jack Johnson, the dusky hero of a score of fights, has placed himself in a position to legitimately claim a fight with Jim Jeffries. There does not appear to be a ringman in all the wide area where pugilism holds sway with sufficient inches and heft to meet the world's champion other than Johnson."

Police Gazette April 1904

"The color line gag does not go now. It is "pay or play" in the fighting business. Johnson has met all comers in his class; has defeated each and every one. He now stands ready to box for the world's championship. He is a man who would wear that honor with decent grace idf it fell on his shoulders...The public, through the daily newspapers, demands a fight for the championship in behalf of Jack Johnson. Jeffries must heed the call...It is up to Jeffries to say when."

The Los Angeles Times April 1904

"The period between 1905 and 1910 produced four great colored fighters: Jack Johnson, Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette and Sam McVey. There really wasn't a white man who could be classed with this dusky quartet and that was the real reason Jim Jeffries retired."

Nat Fleischer Fifty Years at Ringside

"He lost a decision to Marvin Hart out there, but it was never taken seriously by the fans. They figured that referee Alec Greggians pointed to the wrong man in the excitement...Johnson met and defeated EVERY COLOURED HEAVYWEIGHT of any note boxing at that time. His wins included fights with Langford, Griffin, Jeanette, McVey, Childs, Jim Johnson, Black Bill, Denver Ed Martin, Peter Felix, Joe Butler and others.

Without any doubt Johnson was the greatest colored Heavyweight. He then beat every white contender in his path, including Jack Monroe, Bill Lang, Bob Fitzimmons, Jack Jeffries and all others.

Jim Jeffries, at that time heavyweight champion, refused to meet Johnson and drew the colour line. Jeffries had fought Hank Griffin and old Peter Jackson but balked at Johnson and refused to fight. The latter kept at it and finally Jeff retired in order to duck the dangerous Johnson"

Writer and sports cartoonist Tad Dorgan 'Keeping Pace With Jack Johnson"

He had never even been able to beat Hank Griffin in several fights even as late as 1902 and had been ko'd by Joe Choynski. I have read newspaper accounts which excoriated Johnson for having an ultra-cautious and boring style or even for not having a fighting heart.

As stated above these losses seem to have taken place before Johnson was regarded as a top level player so they were presumably swept aside.

Certainly, Johnson was eventually thought of far more highly than Wills. That the Johnson of 1904 or even 1908 would have been considered on a higher plane than the Wills of the twenties is unconvincing to me. Certainly there were many who felt Dempsey could easily handle Wills in the press, but there were plenty of others who felt he would be a capital opponent and certainly much of the boxing public was among them. According to TIME MAGAZINE, Dempsey was booed out of the ring at the opening of the Olympic Auditorium in Los Angeles in 1925 by fans chanting "Wills. Wills. Wills." I don't know if that ever happened to Jeffries or Burns concerning Johnson.

While Jack Curley was setting up the fight between Marvin Hart and Jack Root for the vacant title he made a substantial offer to Jeffries to come out of retirment and face Jack Johnson. He regarded that as a bigger fight that would atract a bigger public reaction. I think that he valued a non title fight between a retired champion and Jack Johnson as being bigger than the coming fight for the vacant title and was prepared to put up more money for it speaks volumes.

OLD FOGEY

08-03-2009, 10:23 AM

[quote]

I understand that the betting odds caused some surprise in the United States and were atributed to the fact that the Australians did not know how good Johnson was.

What comes across about the Jeffries fight is that people had not got their heads around the fact that Jeffries was shot. There was not a long history of ill fated comebacks to draw upon and the hype of the fight ran away with itself.

It is easy to say that it was obvious in hindsight.

Johnson started to be heavily hyped after the Martin fight and the hype reached feaver pitch after the McVea fight. He started to be viewed as a world class fighter after he beat George Gardiner. This is the impresion that I have gained from such contemporary articles as I have read.

"This crude, uncouth, unpopular giant fought Peter Jackson, old and war-weary; Hank Griffin, a third-rater; and Bob Armstrong, who hustled him for ten rounds. This trio was black. Why will he not give Johnson a match? Here is a man who can fight and is ready and willing to do so."

Police Gazette July 1904

"By beating Sam McVey again the other night, Jack Johnson, the dusky hero of a score of fights, has placed himself in a position to legitimately claim a fight with Jim Jeffries. There does not appear to be a ringman in all the wide area where pugilism holds sway with sufficient inches and heft to meet the world's champion other than Johnson."

Police Gazette April 1904

"The color line gag does not go now. It is "pay or play" in the fighting business. Johnson has met all comers in his class; has defeated each and every one. He now stands ready to box for the world's championship. He is a man who would wear that honor with decent grace idf it fell on his shoulders...The public, through the daily newspapers, demands a fight for the championship in behalf of Jack Johnson. Jeffries must heed the call...It is up to Jeffries to say when."

The Los Angeles Times April 1904

"The period between 1905 and 1910 produced four great colored fighters: Jack Johnson, Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette and Sam McVey. There really wasn't a white man who could be classed with this dusky quartet and that was the real reason Jim Jeffries retired."

Nat Fleischer Fifty Years at Ringside

"He lost a decision to Marvin Hart out there, but it was never taken seriously by the fans. They figured that referee Alec Greggians pointed to the wrong man in the excitement...Johnson met and defeated EVERY COLOURED HEAVYWEIGHT of any note boxing at that time. His wins included fights with Langford, Griffin, Jeanette, McVey, Childs, Jim Johnson, Black Bill, Denver Ed Martin, Peter Felix, Joe Butler and others.

Without any doubt Johnson was the greatest colored Heavyweight. He then beat every white contender in his path, including Jack Monroe, Bill Lang, Bob Fitzimmons, Jack Jeffries and all others.

Jim Jeffries, at that time heavyweight champion, refused to meet Johnson and drew the colour line. Jeffries had fought Hank Griffin and old Peter Jackson but balked at Johnson and refused to fight. The latter kept at it and finally Jeff retired in order to duck the dangerous Johnson"

Writer and sports cartoonist Tad Dorgan 'Keeping Pace With Jack Johnson"

As stated above these losses seem to have taken place before Johnson was regarded as a top level player so they were presumably swept aside.

While Jack Curley was setting up the fight between Marvin Hart and Jack Root for the vacant title he made a substantial offer to Jeffries to come out of retirment and face Jack Johnson. He regarded that as a bigger fight that would atract a bigger public reaction. I think that he valued a non title fight between a retired champion and Jack Johnson as being bigger than the coming fight for the vacant title and was prepared to put up more money for it speaks volumes.

1. The Aussies did not know how good Johnson was---He had beaten Peter Felix and Bill Lang in Australia. They should have known.

2. Surprised at odds in USA--possibly. Burns had been a 10 to 7 underdog to Bill Squires in 1907. It seems most odd if Johnson was that highly thought of that he couldn't match the betting odds of Squires.

3. People couldn't get their heads around Jeffries being shot---This is probably mostly true, but it does seem that Jeffries was clearly more of a legend than Johnson, hence his status as the favorite.

4. Johnson started to be viewed as a world class fighter after the Gardner fight and was hyped after the Martin fight--No one is disputing that he was a world class fighter or that he was the legitimate #1 contender. That does not exactly make him more of a legend than Wills in the 1920's. Wills was a world class fighter and the legitimate #1 contender also.

5. The quotes do not prove he was a legend, only that the POLICE GAZETTE and the LOS ANGELES TIMES thought of him as the #1 contender and may have been more critical than most of Jeffries. By the way, as quoted by Geoffrey Ward in UNFORGIVABLE BLACKNESS, the POLICE GAZETTE "expressed bewilderment as to why Jeffries has taken so much trouble to dodge a meeting with Johnson as 'Johnson has a fine record, but it is not a terrifying one by any means." (Page 83)

6. The performances against Choynski and Griffin (and I might add Billy Stift)--were only two to three years earlier. I doubt if they were completely forgotten. The fact is Johnson had turned in subpar performances and suffered bad losses much more recently than Wills had in the 1920's.

7. Nat Fleischer' opinion---Jeff retired in May of 1905. Langford was still probably a welterweight. Jeff probably hadn't heard of Jeannette. McVea had lost three times to Johnson and also to Martin. Johnson had lost to Hart. Jeff could have fought guys like Hart, Schreck, and later Squires, as well as Johnson. Squires actually called him out in 1907. Jeff stayed retired until a great deal of pressure and a great deal of money forced/lured him out of retirement. I think his main reasons for retiring might just have been that he was weary of training and wanted to spend more time with his new wife. Fleischer was not actually an active reporter until 1910. What did he base his opinion of Jeff's motives on? Had he talked to Jeffries and Jeffries gave this reason? I doubt it. It is just conjecture and not overly convincing conjecture.

8. The same with Dorgan, who obviously is writing well after the fact as he mentions Jim Johnson as a Jack Johnson opponent, so this was written after 1913. Again, when did Jeffries confide his motives to Dorgan. Jeff seems to have been a private guy. It will be interesting what the new biog of Jeff unearths about his motives.

9. No one disputes a fight with Jeffries and Johnson would have had a good gate. How much of this is because they thought that highly of Johnson and how much due to striking a racial nerve is hard to judge.

OLD FOGEY

08-03-2009, 10:31 AM

There is no doubt that Jeffries did not want to fight Johnson. But there might be more to it than simple racism. Jeff had fought several black men. The SF Chronicle in 1903 claimed that an "inside source" told them that Jeff would defend against McVea if he won the upcoming fight against Johnson, but not against Johnson.

Why? My guess it might have had something to do with Johnson's lifestyle. Jeff was the son of a prominent minister. His father disapproved of him boxing. Johnson's "sport" lifestyle which included frequenting gambling dens and cathouses might have been beyond the pale to men as conservative as Jeff's father and perhaps also to Jeffries himself. I would like to see this issue explored by a biographer.

Jeffries never publicly gave that as his reason for not fighting Johnson, though. He just used the color line and he used it openly.

Boilermaker

08-04-2009, 02:37 AM

Since I raised the Choynski conspiracy theory earlier, i think I will raise my Johnson Jeffries conspiracy theory. (again, all hunch and nothing else substantial or suggested from other place). I think that Johnson and Jeffries may have been reasonable friends and may have actually been building towards a fight. I know that this seems strange, but when you think about it, Choynski and Johnson were apparently good friends. As evidenced by the jail story where Choynski taught him everything (in fact if you believe my conspiracy you will know that Johnson actually threw a fight with Johnson). Choynski and Jeffries also were good friends as evidenced by the arrangement for Jeffries to spar Choynski in his illfated comeback.

In 1903, Johnson had won the Coloured championship and was becoming a standout fighter. But his golden run started after the choynski fight (or at least after the hank griffin fight. During this time, he managed to fight and beat Jeffries brother. By 1904, jeffries had run out of opponents. He had fought both Previous champions, twice, he had fought and beat Sharkey twice, he had comprehensively beat the best black fighters like Peter Jackson, Bob Armstrong etc and he had fought and beat the best young white contenders like Gus Ruhlin. He had even used a Lie about a fake knockdown story used by the miner Monroe, to try to garner interest. His only fight left was against the world coloured champion.

The scene was set. The tension was being built with the obligatory colour line quotes and i will never defend. We even had the rumour about offering to take Johnson in a boileroom brawl. A market for this fight was being built and to be honest, it was the last real challenge for Jeffries. I cant see how any other fight would be a close contest.

The problem is that Hart actually beat Johnson. I dont think either of the two expected it, and it was a poor Johnson performance that cost him the fight. I think this lost any built up hype and this finished any hope of a match.

For the record, and while i am on conspiracy theories or hunches without evidence, i think it almost certain that Johnson would have had an energy sapping virus and this effected his performance but that is another story.

Anyway, the final piece of the jigsaw is that when Johnson did get himself back in the picture, he immediately made overtures for a Jeffries fight. And eventually, it was made. Again, showing that these two may have been closer connected than we originally thought. Incidentally when these two met, they met in the desert in Reno Nevada. Interstingly, isnt that the same state as Area 51? Which, incidentally, reminds me of another Conspiracy theory i just thought of ...