Jim Jeffries, underated ?

[LittleRed]

Tyson was going to fight Holyfield after a tune up which is different than ducking someone. And then he signed to fight him, but he sort of got thrown in jail. And Foreman wasn't a legit contender until.after Tyson lost to Douglas; in fact a lot of people felt his name got him his got against Evander rather than his record.

[Aaron Contreras]

Originally Posted by LittleRed

Tyson was going to fight Holyfield after a tune up which is different than ducking someone. And then he signed to fight him, but he sort of got thrown in jail. And Foreman wasn't a legit contender until.after Tyson lost to Douglas; in fact a lot of people felt his name got him his got against Evander rather than his record.

This is WAY off topic.

Taking away one embarrassment doesn't erase all the others.

[Colonel Sanders]

Originally Posted by LittleRed

Tyson was going to fight Holyfield after a tune up which is different than ducking someone. And then he signed to fight him, but he sort of got thrown in jail. And Foreman wasn't a legit contender until.after Tyson lost to Douglas; in fact a lot of people felt his name got him his got against Evander rather than his record.

but the fight was already overdue

Evander was worthy of a shot after he beat Dokes

so yes, they ducked Holy for a while, and they did the same with Lewis

[LittleRed]

Originally Posted by Aaron Contreras

This is WAY off topic.

Taking away one embarrassment doesn't erase all the others.

Except its extremely relevant because Tyson and Lewis (and Holmes and Frazier and Foreman) are the guys standing in tee way of Jeffries and the top 10. Tyson may have been an 'embarrassment' but those screw ups don't negate his many , many victories.

Originally Posted by Colonel Sanders

but the fight was already overdue

Evander was worthy of a shot after he beat Dokes

so yes, they ducked Holy for a while, and they did the same with Lewis

Holyfield didn't even move to heavyweight until 1988 and wasn't really the number one guy until a year later. So Tyson made him wait all of a year for his shot.

[Aaron Contreras]

Originally Posted by LittleRed

Except its extremely relevant because Tyson and Lewis (and Holmes and Frazier and Foreman) are the guys standing in tee way of Jeffries and the top 10. Tyson may have been an 'embarrassment' but those screw ups don't negate his many , many victories.

For Tyson's wins over Bruno, Smith, Berbick, Tucker, washed up legends, etc,.

Dempsey has Brennan (2x), Porky Dan Flynn (2x), Williard, Miske (2x), Gibbons, Sharkey, Georges Carpentier, Gunboat Smith (2x), and the would've been knockout of Gene Tunney, as I mentioned earlier -- AFTER a 3 year layoff.

Add to the fact, for the most part, Dempsey was not only outweighed -- but greatly outweighed.

Dempsey beat the best his generation had to offer. Tyson was an absolute beast, he really was. But not on Dempsey's historically great level.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by Colonel Sanders

top 10-15

Tyson cleaned out the division and ruled it for 3 or 4 years, a far better run against better opponents than Dempsey's run to the title. But then we routinely see Dempsey in the top 10 or 5, certainly from cartoon commentators like the late Sugar.

[Shake]

Contreras, could you post your top ten and list your personal criteria?

Does the fact that Dempsey was often outweighed elevate him in your heavyweight rankings?

[Aaron Contreras]

Originally Posted by Shake

Contreras, could you post your top ten and list your personal criteria?

Does the fact that Dempsey was often outweighed elevate him in your heavyweight rankings?

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammed Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Sam Langford
6. Gene Tunney
7. Rocky Marciano
8. George Foreman
9. Joe Frazier
10. Larry Holmes

Criteria: Includes, but not limited to -- generational impact, dominance, accomplishments, actual skill-set, competition, and I, personally, prefer longevity. No boxer or generation is the same, so you must take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt. There is no outright best criteria to go by.

Dempsey's small stature does raise his stock in my eyes. Just how Greb and Walker rank highly in my pound-for-pound rankings.

[louis3749]

I've got Jim in the Top 15 Heavyweights at #11, but i have put him as high as #9 before, based mainly on his physical attributes, great conditioning, and heart. Because of his lack of fights, i cant see him any higher than that.

[Pachilles]

Originally Posted by Aaron Contreras

Lennox Lewis is top-freaking-5 in some of those rankings. As well as Tyson being in most of them.

get over it ya wrinkly cunt

[MadcapMaxie]

Originally Posted by Aaron Contreras

By credible people, I'm assuming, he's referring to historians and writers. Bert Sugar, Teddy Atlas, amongst others, have Johnson ranked 3rd.

No offense to the ESB'ers you quoted -- but I'd acknowledge Sugar and Atlas as credible, before them as well.

Yes well no offense but alot of those poster's like OLD FOGEY have proven themselves more knowledgable and credible than the likes of Bert Sugar who ranks Gene Tunney the 5th greatest heavyweight of all time.

[McGrain]

Sometimes I think he is a little bit, but he's a part of that clutch that can be in or out without my caring either way. SO probably not for me.

[MadcapMaxie]

Originally Posted by Aaron Contreras

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammed Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Sam Langford
6. Gene Tunney
7. Rocky Marciano
8. George Foreman
9. Joe Frazier
10. Larry Holmes

Criteria: Includes, but not limited to -- generational impact, dominance, accomplishments, actual skill-set, competition, and I, personally, prefer longevity. No boxer or generation is the same, so you must take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt. There is no outright best criteria to go by.

Dempsey's small stature does raise his stock in my eyes. Just how Greb and Walker rank highly in my pound-for-pound rankings.

Oh my, bar his impact and early dominance what did Dempsey do to deserve to rated above the others when he is clearly lacking in the other criteria you posted? I don't count inactive longetivity as longetivity.

In terms of accomplishments he managed to duck the two greatest fighters of the era and instead of fighting them fought their leftovers (if you are going to mention his rise to heavyweight champ as being his dominance then Arnold Cream has just as much reason to be in top 10), in terms of his skillset he was outboxed 19 rounds to 1 against the only true other GREAT fighter he fought, his competition in a H2H sense and a general sense is perhaps one of the weakest ever, only Jeffries springs to mind as having worse. As for the longetivity like I said I wouldn't count inactive longetivity as longetivity.

Gene Tunney has niether a generational impact, dominance, accomplishments, competition and longetivity over Marciano or the 3 ranked below him and has no reason to be ranked above. In fact you'd be hard press to have credible criteria to rank him in the top 10 let alone just outside the top 5.

[McGrain]

My attitude to the HW rankings is, generally, that it doesn't matter that much once you get passed #2. But even for me, Tunney top 6 is bizarre.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by McGrain

My attitude to the HW rankings is, generally, that it doesn't matter that much once you get passed #2. But even for me, Tunney top 6 is bizarre.

It's comforting to know that the question of whether Jeffries is underated or not has been so thoroughly addressed in this thread.