Jim Jeffries, underated ?

I value your opinions but its really easy to say what Dempsey's resume lacks without mentioning 10 heavyweights who are, in fact, greater or carried his level of mystic.

Don't bother posting your personal top-10, now. But anyone can nitpick a certain fighter without any perception on how he ranks historically. Because with everything that you've argued against -- one can assume you rank Dempsey incredibly low or simply just below where I rank him. But whatever it is, you're entitled to it.

 

Because Tyson fans never mention the "Baddest Man on the Planet" moniker, right?

 

Not sure what a "level of mystic" is.

My top-10 is different all the time. Dempsey has not been in it for years, tho.

Back on topic, contemporaries of Jeffries seemed very impressed with him, calling him the greatest fistic machine ever created and similar hyperbole. But you have to look backwards from his arrival to see the reference these observers had. He must have seen liked an entirely new entity for the division. Large (huge for the day), superbly strong, fast, athletic and durable. With such scant amateur experience he was a work in progress throughout his career. Reports of him before his first retirement speak of him as having no par in sport.

It really would have been interesting had he defended against Hart, Root, Burns or Johnson, some of the newer breed.

 

"greatest fistic machine ever created" "hyperbole"

It might not have been in 1900 to 1905. Jeff could well have been the best heavy anyone had yet seen.

But many have come since. Some were even more dominant in sweeping opposition--Marciano. Some lasted much longer--Louis. And some did both.

Jeff's record does not look quite that outstanding today, but if evaluating purely on record in one's own era, I think a good case can still be made for slipping him into the top ten.

 

Johnson's great victims were either very green (Jeanette, McVey) blown up welterweights (153 lb. Langford) or beyond used up (Jeffries, Fitzsimmons). He also has the KO loss to Choynski, a draw against a rather ordinary fighter when he had a chance to earn a title shot (Hart), a title fight wherein he was held to a draw by a used-up powder-puff punching lightheavy (O'Brien) and a controversial title defense draw against a journeyman (Johnson). That's a lot of questionable performances. And spare me the excuses for each subpar effort. The sheer volume of apologies his career requires to "really understand" it makes me adverse to putting him in my top-5. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Still, he was a great, great fighter and I usually have him right on the cusp of top-10 heavies.

 

Totally agree.

So much has changed with the sport in general, and moreso the division.

 

So, the above is not deeper than..

Jeffries (5 years inactive)
Langford (156 lbs)
McVea (19 & 20 years old in his 7th, 9th and 11th fights)
Jeannette (in his 4th, 13th and 14th and 18th-21st fights depending on source)
Burns (168 pounds of birthing hips and Canuck fury)
Ketchell (staged fight with a 170 lb opium addict who still KD'd him)
Fitz (44 year old, absolutely shot)
Ferguson (quality B-level heavyweight)
Flynn (sawed-off 177-190 lb racist)
Tony Ross (abomination of a challenger, perhaps the worst ever to fight for a title)

Add to these losses to Klondike, Choynski, Hart and championship draws with O'Brien and Jim Johnson, plus a KO defeat to Willard (at an age Lewis was still champ).

I would say his greatest victory, on a purely boxing level, might over the maturing Jeanette or his two humiliations of Flynn.

I'll take Lewis' resume.