BoxRec

mjaco wrote: ↑08 May 2020, 21:02

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 May 2020, 18:00 A lot to chew on.
Without a doubt, some people are biased toward fighters from way back while others are biased toward modern fighters. Some people think the sport began the day they got interested in boxing and dismiss everyone before them without thinking much about it. Others (though not nearly as many) worship the fighters from way back.

As for Jeffries, he is without a doubt a great fighter. How great, you can spin it how you want to.
Dempsey was great as well. Would have been nice if he would have made more title defenses. 3 years without a title defense was ridiculous. Wills was the big one that would have been nice to see him fight. To be fair, most of the contenders were white. However, he should have fighting somebody.

Godfrey was a contender near the end of Dempsey's title reign, but he never stood out. Langford, Wills, Jeannette were past it by the time Dempsey was the champion.

Both Jeffries and Dempsey fought a lot of good competition before they ever won a title. They are borderline Top 10 of all time. I have Dempsey just in and Jeffries just out.

Agreed, for what they did within their eras I'd have Dempsey and Jeffries top 10 all time (I assume you mean heavyweights, not pound for pound) and I'd have Johnson in there as well. No debate from me that all were great for their eras.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 May 2020, 22:11 If you are great, you are great. Jeffries and Dempsey would have been the best in some eras, and one of the best in every era. There are only about a dozen or so guys that they would not have a 50-50 shot.

mjaco wrote: ↑08 May 2020, 14:59

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑07 May 2020, 19:54


- Thus far you've discussed the mythology of legend, not factual content.

Henry Hascup is all encompassing and was up for HOF inclusion in 2019, but boxing being boxing chose the Compufraud creators.

Boxrec is your friend starting with the JJOHNSON link where the ages and novice records of McVea, Langford and Jeannette are spelled out when he faced them. The first contender types Johnson faced either KOed him or won decisions.

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/001187

Eventually Johnson won and defended the colored title, but when the press clamored for his title shot, he lost to Hart and Jeanette, so Jeff retired with no credible contenders left and Hart assumed the title.

Re Dempsey: Click those links and you can see Jeannette/retired, and Langford/dropping fights to Wills by 1920.

Godfrey/Dempsey spar partner busy getting KOed by Langford while Big Bill Tate/Dempsey spar mate was also nicking Langford for decisions. Only Wills left standing as I mentioned.

Oh, extra credit for comparing the first half of JJ Jeffries' opponents with JJOHNSON results. Jeff dominated the guys who were KOing and winning against JJOHNSON.

And checkout December 1913 when Langford dominated Jeannette in Paris for the world title after the French strip JJOHNSON for lack of credible opponents and performance.

Just the facts, ma'am.

Your "facts" are a little misleading.

1. What I wrote was "regardless of when he fought them" on Johnson fighting and defeating other good black fighters. I never said he beat any of them in their prime. But as I pointed out, the simple truth is in his career he fought both good black and white fighters. Dempsey, with, as far as I know, only two exceptions against little known black fighters years before he became champion, fought only white boxers.

2. Jeanette fought twice in 1919 after Dempsey beat Willard and actually had his final bout three years after Dempsey won the title, though I'd agree he was almost certainly past it by then. Of course Dempsey could have fought him at any time prior to his winning the championship, but did not. Excluding his losses to Wills, whom almost every heavyweight of that time (possibly even Dempsey) would have lost to, Langford, in the two years after Dempsey won the title, was 30-2-7 counting newspaper decisions according to Boxrec, so certainly still a more than capable fighter. Also I explicitly mentioned Godfrey as a credible contender toward the latter part of Dempsey's reign, not at the beginning when he was a novice fighter, though admittedly he probably didn't hit his peak until after Dempsey lost the title. The fact Godfrey served as a sparring partner is also not that relevant as Larry Holmes was a one time sparring partner of Ali. And you conveniently ignored all mention of Kid Norfolk who was certainly an elite fighter during Dempsey's reign and had fought successfully against heavyweights.

3. I don't know where you're getting the discussion of Jeffries opponents vs Johnson's opponents from. I never mentioned Jeffries at all in my previous post. And all I said about him in my initial post was that the talent pool he fought in was notably weaker than later eras because boxing was almost entirely confined to the English speaking world in his era. That was also true of the era Johnson fought in.

My primary point was never that Jack Johnson was a better heavyweight than Jack Dempsey (though in my opinion he does rate higher). But rather that if you're going to rate people historically, you need to consider the entire picture and the context of the times they fought in. Too many boxing fans grew up reading the old scribes like Nat Fleischer and taking their word that Jim Jeffries and Jack Dempsey were unconquerable gods. Thus their greatness becomes emotionally carved in stone for some and questioning how good they were becomes heresy.

Dempsey was a historically great fighter and a sports icon. He certainly doesn't need me or you to defend his career. He may have been willing to fight all those fighters I named but was prevented from doing so by the circumstances of the times. But the fact he never, at any point, met many of his potentially toughest opponents should lower our estimation of his historical ranking a little bit in any fair and logical analysis of his career.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑09 May 2020, 19:41

mjaco wrote: ↑08 May 2020, 14:59


Your "facts" are a little misleading.

1. What I wrote was "regardless of when he fought them" on Johnson fighting and defeating other good black fighters. I never said he beat any of them in their prime. But as I pointed out, the simple truth is in his career he fought both good black and white fighters. Dempsey, with, as far as I know, only two exceptions against little known black fighters years before he became champion, fought only white boxers.

2. Jeanette fought twice in 1919 after Dempsey beat Willard and actually had his final bout three years after Dempsey won the title, though I'd agree he was almost certainly past it by then. Of course Dempsey could have fought him at any time prior to his winning the championship, but did not. Excluding his losses to Wills, whom almost every heavyweight of that time (possibly even Dempsey) would have lost to, Langford, in the two years after Dempsey won the title, was 30-2-7 counting newspaper decisions according to Boxrec, so certainly still a more than capable fighter. Also I explicitly mentioned Godfrey as a credible contender toward the latter part of Dempsey's reign, not at the beginning when he was a novice fighter, though admittedly he probably didn't hit his peak until after Dempsey lost the title. The fact Godfrey served as a sparring partner is also not that relevant as Larry Holmes was a one time sparring partner of Ali. And you conveniently ignored all mention of Kid Norfolk who was certainly an elite fighter during Dempsey's reign and had fought successfully against heavyweights.

3. I don't know where you're getting the discussion of Jeffries opponents vs Johnson's opponents from. I never mentioned Jeffries at all in my previous post. And all I said about him in my initial post was that the talent pool he fought in was notably weaker than later eras because boxing was almost entirely confined to the English speaking world in his era. That was also true of the era Johnson fought in.

My primary point was never that Jack Johnson was a better heavyweight than Jack Dempsey (though in my opinion he does rate higher). But rather that if you're going to rate people historically, you need to consider the entire picture and the context of the times they fought in. Too many boxing fans grew up reading the old scribes like Nat Fleischer and taking their word that Jim Jeffries and Jack Dempsey were unconquerable gods. Thus their greatness becomes emotionally carved in stone for some and questioning how good they were becomes heresy.

Dempsey was a historically great fighter and a sports icon. He certainly doesn't need me or you to defend his career. He may have been willing to fight all those fighters I named but was prevented from doing so by the circumstances of the times. But the fact he never, at any point, met many of his potentially toughest opponents should lower our estimation of his historical ranking a little bit in any fair and logical analysis of his career.

- Big topic with you a bit of a splatter painting and me responding to your 3rd post.

1. You stated JJOHNSON beat a number of elite black fighters, implying prime. He did not-fact.

2. Blah, Blah.

3. You mentioned Jeffries in your first post limiting him to English speakers and then drawing the color line on Dempsey. I doubt you ever contemplated the world demographics prior to the 1960s, but in America the only two sports of note were 1-baseball, 2-Boxing, and baseball teams difficult to make.

As mentioned, black or white, jeff better results than JJ against common opponents prior to the title.

And are you seriously white shaming Dempsey for being a western fighter in a low population of Blacks who were concentrated in the East? Did you know at the time part of Dempsey fearsome reputation was the belief he was half Indian? And as Kid Blackie hitting up the mining camps barefisted, he doubtless fought many as otherwise blacks then were in the US Army. I could go on, but...

Nat Fleischer was the first journalist to compile an all time great list, 6 in the beginning, and lo and behold JJOHNSON was always #1.

Moreover, google Nat and the push to make Ali great where he was buried in letters demanding Ali be in the top ten in spite of his list for retired heavies only. And this after Frazier tore Ali a new on! And they weren't calling for Joe to be ranked!

Pretty much informs your unknowing opinions it would appear, but as Jesus reminds, "Let those without sin cast the first stones"

Amen.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑11 May 2020, 08:28 A lot more people are only interested in the fighters from when they were 10 years old to the current day. They blow off fighters before their own time without even thinking hard about it.

mjaco wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 02:02

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑09 May 2020, 19:41



- Big topic with you a bit of a splatter painting and me responding to your 3rd post.

1. You stated JJOHNSON beat a number of elite black fighters, implying prime. He did not-fact.

2. Blah, Blah.

3. You mentioned Jeffries in your first post limiting him to English speakers and then drawing the color line on Dempsey. I doubt you ever contemplated the world demographics prior to the 1960s, but in America the only two sports of note were 1-baseball, 2-Boxing, and baseball teams difficult to make.

As mentioned, black or white, jeff better results than JJ against common opponents prior to the title.

And are you seriously white shaming Dempsey for being a western fighter in a low population of Blacks who were concentrated in the East? Did you know at the time part of Dempsey fearsome reputation was the belief he was half Indian? And as Kid Blackie hitting up the mining camps barefisted, he doubtless fought many as otherwise blacks then were in the US Army. I could go on, but...

Nat Fleischer was the first journalist to compile an all time great list, 6 in the beginning, and lo and behold JJOHNSON was always #1.

Moreover, google Nat and the push to make Ali great where he was buried in letters demanding Ali be in the top ten in spite of his list for retired heavies only. And this after Frazier tore Ali a new on! And they weren't calling for Joe to be ranked!

Pretty much informs your unknowing opinions it would appear, but as Jesus reminds, "Let those without sin cast the first stones"

Amen.

As I said, old guys tend to like old guys, regardless of any facts or logic to the contrary. And some people never learn to think beyond what their father told them when they were ten years old. No help for your at this point. Go with God.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑11 May 2020, 19:43

mjaco wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 02:02

As I said, old guys tend to like old guys, regardless of any facts or logic to the contrary. And some people never learn to think beyond what their father told them when they were ten years old. No help for your at this point. Go with God.

- Your promising start fizzling.

All old guys started as noobs in their day, and all noobs age into old guys if they last and what the hay? Guy be guy, gal be gal, gay be gay, and water wet, sky blue, and who be you?

I watched baseball, boxing and the news with the ol'man from my inception, and he never once commented on any of it. My last top ten spanned 3 centuries, and regrettably I won't be around for the 4th, nor will you, BooHooHoo

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 May 2020, 08:32 Was it about Jake LaMotta and Oliver McCall?

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑09 May 2020, 07:22 I don't have Dempsey or Jeffries in my top 10 but they are clearly in that 3rd tier that makes them perfectly reasonable choices there.

Obvious tier 1: Ali, Louis
Tier 2: Holmes, holyfield, foreman, Frazier, Lewis
Tier 3: Johnson, Marciano, Liston, Dempsey, Jeffries, Tyson,