Right, that begs the question. How much credit should fighters get for beating fighters that prove their greatness, or should fighters only get credit for beating fighters when they're great according to their record (Not merely a record, though, obviously) and all indications of them being within their prime. What Johnson did pre-title seems better than say Dempsey because of the names. I'm sure Dempsey probably beat just as many, perhaps even more highly rated contenders. Obviously that's not an equivalence, but Johnson beat better fighters. And we'll give him more credit even if they weren't as highly rated, and I think that makes the most sense.
Perhaps not in your opinion, but in mine it does. A man can only beat the best men of his era, johnson did that emphatically and that is the point of praise here. It doesn't impact upon condition, it impacts upon significance. The loneliness of an opinion is not a concern of mine.
Dempsey had 3 years off to party, he was not as good or quick as he was in 1923 and prior. Tunney was also great. Dempsey had combination of speed and power in either hand to get to Ali, and i have always felt he would win, still do. Dempsey hit harder than Frazier, and that includes left hook, was faster on feet than anyone Ali faced.
Dempsey was a come forward brawler/swarmer who kept his hands low and charged face first. Jungle Jess Willard who was VERY slow, 38 and hadn't fought in years was landing clean shots on Dempsey, Ali is much faster, much more skilled, much better timing, much more accurate and threw in combinations, usually from all angles. He also had the chin and stomach to take anything Dempsey could dish out and in any case had extremely quick reflexes and very fast feet so he could move away and/or dodge majority of Dempsey's shots. Ali UD.
I'd definitely make the Ali circa 1964-74 favourite over Dempsey. Stylistic advantages,as has been written. He'd have an answer for all the problems Dempsey would pose. Ali UD 15.
Not an easy fight to pick, Dempsey had speed, power and an excellent left hook, Dempsey could have trouble with good movers and Ali with left-hookers.....depends on the era and the effect that the era has over each man.....
With Jeffries it's hard to separate myth from fiction. I'm aware of the 'Johnson wearing the wraps arrangement' story but how many of these stories are sour grapes excuses after a loss and how many are the reality? A story being re-told and written about doesn't make it so. Questionable training methods and dedication also don't mean a fighter has seriously deteriated. What we do know is Jeffries turned up in shape. Many counter this with 'Well Ali showed up in shape against Holmes', which is disingenuous as we know Ali was suffering from Parkinson's at this stage. Jeffries will not have had the same stamina and may not have been as quick. Although he would be a smarter fight than his first couple of years as champion. Overall worse none the less, but probably still every bit top 3 in the world. Who knows if a 1910 Jeffries would beat Langford? Now you say Jeffries didn't look good against Johnson. But you've probably only seen the later stages of the fight. Maybe Johnson neutralised his opponent with defence and broke Jeffries down over the course of the fight? According to Mendoza, a sketchy source granted, Jeffries looked to be imposing in the early rounds. Langford at 155 is the question mark, still even at this weight isn't he as good as an opponent as Ketchell? Or Old Fitz was for Jeffries? Or Gibbons for Dempsey? Or Conn for Louis? Also no one would dominate Langford like this before or after until he was a bit past best when facing Wills to my knowledge I'm interesting in why you think Jeanette improved more than McVey? McVey was a teenager around that time, while Jeanette in his early 20s and growing into a solid 185lbs. Skills wise who knows although both seem to be competing very well with the best at that age
Luff, you know my answer - the names will be around the same as yours. The stuff you've done on the forum recently is interesting, the detailed but flexible lists, the nailing down of premiership, the breaking down of premierships into eras. I enjoy it. Here, you appear to be being deliberately obtuse. I don't think you are though, I think you are just remaining loyal to your system. But you have to be aware of the foibles in your system if you want it to be taken seriously/expect it to yield accurate results. Here, you are asking me for names. But i've been consistent over the last half dozen or so posts in stressing that names don't matter. They don't. They don't matter at all. Langford and Jeffries belong on a list of top ten fighters from that era. But Langford has an intrinsic value as a scalp at the time that Johnson beat him just as he has an intrinsic value as a scalp at his very best, when he was amongst the best of the decade. Now you seem far to relaxed about handing Johnson credit for beating a version that he never met. The same seems to be the case with Jeffries, McVey and Jeanette. Now, it seems to be the case that your system does not allow for appraisal of the individuals that met Johnson. This would make it a flawed system if it were the case in my opinion. Johnson's best wins were possibly Martin and Burns. Jeffries, Langford, McVey and Jeanette might all rank higher for the era you are interested in here. This needs to be addressed.
I wouldn't get hung up on that. I only mentioned it as an aside. It underlines, really, my perplexity at Jeffries refusal to train with the gloves in the run up to the fight. SIx years out of the ring does. Not sparring when you come back is not going to help. Jeffries looked atrocious against Johnson. It may be the case that Jeffries was near his best and Johnson was just THAT much better, but I believe that conclusion is a huge reach. Given that Jeffries had a reputation equal to or greater than Johnson's and that he hadn't fought in years and that he hardly sparred in the run up to the fight makes the opposite conlcusion the far more likely. Yeah, Johnson did all he could against Langford. As to how he stacks up to other MW challengers, it's hard to be sure. I think it's a good win for Johnson actually, my point here is Langford got significantly - significantly - better. And that I don't think Johnson beat one of the ten best HW's of that period when he beat Langford that day. Just because of their respective types. Jeanette seemed to grow more slowly, whereas McVey's Tysonesque physic was, like Mike's, near the finished article in his late teens. McVey also relied more upon his power which is a natural attribute, than his skill and craft, which is learned. But like I say, it's just a hunch.
He was taking on all comers at 1 stage as coloured champion, his coloured championship run is impressive, not just beating Jeanette, McVey and Langford but also Childs, Denver Ed Martin, Sandy Ferguson (who was supposedly robbed against Hart). HE was also chasing and mocking Jeffries the whole time and seemingly also robbed against Hard. Then as champion like Jeffries he took on older inactive version of the champion, Johnson has Jeffries while Jeffries has Fitz/Corbett. He took on the best MW/LHW fighter in Ketchell dominating him and dominated the rest of the white competition, while unfortunately not giving the best black fighters their shot, despite previously beating them. Prime or not though he beat everyone and when he was hungry he took on all comers McGrain I'd put it to you as champion of the underdog avoided fighters, that if Jeffries had not vacated and Johnson had never got his title shot and he had a long reign as coloured champion while being , that you'd be one of his biggest supporters and rate him higher
All of this is true - but it doesn't contradict my comment to Luf in the least. I have no problem with established rankings. My top 2 and top 4 at heavy and middle are very conservative. What I would say to you (and remember, you did ask) is that I would rank Johnson higher than the majority. That is, I think and hope that I would recognise his worth as a great heavyweight without his having lifted the title when a lot of people would ignore his claim to greatness without the title. So I would have him higher than his average ranking, but still lower than I have him now and still not higher than he deserves. That sounds arrogant, but you did bring it up. I did actually used to rank Johnson very very highly. He's trickled down my list over the years though, like Dempsey.