The simple truth is, more times than not, if you've already fought somebody 3 or 4 or 5 times and WON EVERY SINGLE TIME.. There won't be a demand to see them fight again. To say nothing of the fact that the victor of all those matches losses interest in wanting to fight them again. If I kicked the crap out of a guy 3 times that he's challenged me, the drive, the will, the intensity isn't there. Those are the plain hard facts that you can't get around. The fact is, most times in the long history of this sport, it's rare people fight more than 2 times, let alone 4 or 5 times. When it does happen, it's because there has at least been a split or they've been competitive. These fights weren't, Johnson dominated them, and yet you think he should've been eager to fight them again? I strongly disagree with such a premise. Think about what you just tried to say, Fitz was PRIME at the age of 36. That is totally and completely false, and you know it Mendoza. No fighter is prime at the age of 36. It's physically IMPOSSIBLE. We all know how the human body works, and you're NOT in your physical prime or close to it at 36. Mentally, sure, that is possible, but never physically. So that is thrown out the window there, he wasn't prime, and neither was Corbett. He was very much inactive at the time he fought Jeffries the first time, not prime. Further, it's a false comparison to say he's prime based on how he did after a particular fight. Hopkins was still winning titles and fights into his late 30's and 40's. That doesn't mean he was prime, nobody think he was in his prime, but he was still winning. Same thing here, Fitz was unquestionably NOT in his prime. The only fight you listed where somebody was close to prime was Sharkey, and that wasn't his best performance. Johnson crushes Sharkey with ease. Jeffries struggled mightily with Sharkey. The simple fact is, you can't have Jeffries no. 5 on your list based on beating old past their prime greats, while not counting the Jeffries win for Johnson. That is using a blatant double standard and being disingenuous. Johnson utterly destroyed Jeffries with ease. Jeffries struggled with Fitz and Corbett, that is the key difference here.
I actually had him at number 10 but realized I had forgotten Johnson. More curious, to me at least, is my suddenly not including Foreman.
Jack Dempsey is a complex case. He has taken a hit in recent years, over his failure to fight Harry Wills. Despite this, his resume has three separate components, which could put him in this argument. 1. A dominant run up to the title fight. Guys like Sonny Liston make these lists, based on not much more than this. 2. Holding the title over a significant number of years, while consistently defending against key contenders. Whatever the flaws of his title reign, not that many have bettered it on paper. 3. Beating the heir to his throne. Precious few have done that. I think that if you tweaked these three elements a bit, you would be looking at a top five man. There is still a lot to work with!
When you break it down, a lot of those guys on that run who were "names" were on losing streaks. And he also lost to Meehan and got KO'd in that timeframe. It was a significant number of years because he sat on his ass for 3 years. Some contenders were much less than key... Brennan, Carpentier, Gibbons even. This is more a hocus pocus thing, an apostolic succession type of mystical hogwash. He beat an old, inactive and even at his best universally derided champ.
Dempsey >> WK. We all saw what Dempsey did to wrestler Cowboy Lutrell .. WK / Lutell - both wrestle boxers.
Yes but he also beat most of the key contenders. Every champion missed somebody on their ride to the title! That is what many all-time great's resume's basically turn on. Beating a number of key contenders, over a number of years. If you are consistently defending against top ten opposition, that is basically what it takes! I was talking about Sharkey!
I reckon the top two near unshakable: ALI, LOUIS Then I'd have the rest of the top 16, which I have no real qualms about people mixing up as they see fit: HARRY WILLS, SAM LANGFORD, JACK DEMPSEY, ROCKY MARCIANO, EVANDER HOLYFIELD, MIKE TYSON, GEORGE FOREMAN, LARRY HOLMES, JIM JEFFRIES, WLADIMIR KLITSCHKO, JOE FRAZIER, LENNOX LEWIS, JACK JOHNSON, SONNY LISTON Then you have the "next best", I can see that some cross pollination between this lot and the above would be ok if consistent/conservatively applied: EZZARD CHARLES, FLOYD PATTERSON, JAMES CORBETT, JOE WALCOTT, (and at a push) MAX SCHMELING, GENE TUNNEY, KEN NORTON, PETER JACKSON Then: RIDDICK BOWE, VITALI KLITSCHKO, BOB FITZSIMMONS, MAX BAER, JOE JEANETTE, SAM MCVEY. Then: JACK SHARKEY, ELMER RAY, JIMMY YOUNG, TIM WITHERSPOON, TOMMY BURNS, JIMMY ELLIS, ERNIE TERRELL, ARCHIE MOORE, TOM SHARKEY, JIMMY BIVINS. etc. Not that interested in head to head, for the record. If you're doing a head to head record you can essentially put them in any order you like without fear of being labelled "wrong".
Fleischer stated that Johnson rose head and shoulders above Langford, Jeanette and McVey. I tend to concur with his words. I believe if you watch available footage it is quite evident Johnson was an unbelievably skilled fighter with abilities that greatly exceeded his contemporaries.
First ten Ali Louis Lewis / Foreman Marciano / Holmes Tyson / Frazier / Liston Wlad Next ten Johnson Dempsey Holyfield Patterson Charles Walcott Norton Vitali Bowe Wills Next ten Corbett Schmeling Baer Jeffries Tunney Ingo J. Terrell Fitzimmons Archie Moore Jimmy Young.
The underlined is an outright and deliberate lie. Before becoming champion Johnson signed to fight Langford for $4000 in London,once champion he demanded the same price to defend his title as Burns had asked to fight him ,ie $30,000. At no time in his career was Johnson offered $30,000 to defend against Langford.If you wish to dispute my claim provide evidence to the contrary because I can back up my statement and have done so many times on this forum. Johnson accepted 2 offers to fight Jeannette in NY,both were vetoed by the NYC and the promoters,the McMahon brothers then withdrew their offers. Johnson accepted $45,000 to defend against Langford and McVey in Australia in a 2 fight deal for Hugh McIntosh,when Johnson jumped bail in the US McIntosh withdrew his offer.Johnson agreed to fight Langford for $30,000 in the US with a $10,000 bond as a token of good will,Joe Woodman ,Langford's manager could not come up with the $$$. In 1909, prior to the Johnson v Ketchel fight Woodman said their primary objective was a fight with Ketchel but that they would accept a fight with Johnson provided it was limited to 12 rds because he did not think 160lbs Sam could beat Johnson over a longer route .All this is easily verifiable in either Pollack's book of Johnson, or Moyle's book on Langford, but of course you don't want to hear the facts because that would not fit into your little hate agenda. You neglected to mention that in that 14 year period Fitzsimmons was retired for 4 years! Two separate retirements both lasting 2 years and his first fight coming out of retirement in each case was against Jeffries!LOL Now please confine yourself to ranking the heavyweights as asked by the OP and do not turn this into another hate Jack Johnson thread.