The two Jack's title runs ( Johnson and Dempsey ). Top 10 opponents beaten.

I think there's a pretty strong counter, that he beat them when they clearly weren't in their prime.

 

I think the trouble was there just wasn't the incentives to defend, especially against good opposition. There was a lot of value in just being champion. These were poor, but then look at Willard, Fitz and Corbett not really defending at all.

Considering the reigns around them, you really see how extraordinary Jeffries reign was.

 

Just comparing the pure lineal rankings i did a while back, with Matt's excellent rankings. I think they are surprisingly similar. Interestingly, with the exception of Norfolk and Gibbons, each of Matts top 10 have a spot in the top 20 lineal rankings.

1920

Champion Dempsey
2 Wills
3 Fulton
4 Greb
5 Gibbons
6 Carpentier
7 Miske
8 Norfolk
9 Tunney
10 Weinert
1920
1 Jack Dempsey; W Miske, Brennan
2 Johnson; W Wilson, Roberts & Others
3 Harry Wills - W Thompson, Langford, Fulton ND McVey
4 Fred Fulton ; W Gunboat, Thompson & others L Wills
5 Charlie Weinert Roper, Madden & Others
6 Harry Greb W Gunboat & Others ND Roper and others
7 Bob Roper W Samson & Others L Weinert, Greb,
8 Moran W Goddard, Beckett & others ND Fulton
9 Carpentier w Levinskey & others
10 Noel McCormick W Gunboat, Roper, Meehan, Flynn, Levinskey D Framer &

 

Joe Gans was a lightweight. Before the first match Fitz had knocked out world class heavyweights, Peter Maher (x2), Choynski, Corbett, plus top middleweights, Jim Hall, Dan Creedon and Billy McCarthy, then Dempsey too though he was small, plus outclassed Harris Martin in a short ND fight, and before the 2nd he also Knocked Out Ed Dunkhorst, Gus Ruhlin and Tom Sharkey.

 

Was he in his? He was 20lbs heavier when he beat Jeffries,for which fight he said he was in the best shape of his life.

 

Probably not.

But I don't think them fighting when neither are in their is a great benchmark. I don't think Choynski was in his prime when he beat Jack Johnson, it can come down to who is closer to their prime.

 

Seems really picky in the face of all the matchmaking challenges of the time.

 

That's reasonable. Off the results they respectively managed who do you think comes out on top prime for prime and whom do you think would be the runner up?

 

Who says Langford was the best contender to Johnson for 5 years ,which expert claims this?

 

Which 5 years?

 

Who says he beat Jeannette.

 

Dempsey Vs Johnson? I'd rate Johnson higher, and give him the edge H2H, though I think Dempsey's furocity could give him a better chance. I don't hold my opinion on this in very high regard TBH I find them both quite hard to rate, and still have much more to learn about them.

Like I said, I think it's much more about the incentives and situation around them, so I don't really hold it against them, but they can't get credit for stuff they didn't do either. Especially at the time, loads of boxers had early losses way below what level they'd peak at.